|
On December 02 2011 13:18 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:05 Manifesto7 wrote:On December 02 2011 12:53 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 12:37 Manifesto7 wrote:On December 02 2011 12:30 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 11:07 Manifesto7 wrote:Not a good analogy since in that case the car washer is directly losing something from you not paying (in this case their time). Piracy is different since the owner loses nothing since it is a copy that is lost. Copyright infringement is taking someone else's material and using it for your own gain. Piracy is nothing like that. And there you go, the owner loses a potential sale. They lose money. You are stealing. A potential sale is worth nothing, it's just speculation about a sale. If I "pirate" a game only to find out that I don't like it, am I bad? Games I downloaded and deleted: Fallout 3, Fallout:New Vegas, From Dust, FEAR 3, Duke Nukem Forever, Dragon Age Origins, Dead Island, Borderlands. Most people will say that's reasonable, somewhat fair at least. However, did they lose sales from me? Well sadly yes they did. I would have bought at least some of these games if I hadn't had the opportunity to acquire the game "illegally" to test them. For instance, I was going to buy Fallout 3 because everyone likes it and plenty of my friends were telling me it's awesome. I "stole" it, played 3-4 hours and deleted it. But I think it's a good thing that they lost that sale - it really is. At least it keeps a few people from suckering into games they don't like... and try to get a refund for a PC game, lol, not happening. Now my question is, not necessarily to you Manifesto but I would like to know what you think, how wrong is it of me to do that, provided that if I really do like a game, I will buy it like I did with Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 and such. On the other hand, sometimes I'll play 5-10 hours of a game I don't like so much only to end up quitting after I decide it's not worth my time. That's kind of a long time to play "for free". Am I a thief, a bad person altogether or am I at least somewhat fair in my usage of "illegal" material? I don't know if you are a bad person, but yes, you are a thief. It is not up to you to determine how a company should release their product. While I agree with you that "try before you buy" models are far superior, that is the choice of the company. Some believe that releasing a demo encourages people to buy a full game, while others might think it will hurt sales. You are taking that choice out of their hands via illegal distribution. And as for the whole "Ill buy it if I like it" argument, well, I don't have any numbers but my life experience tells me that that situation is microscopic compared to people who just keep the game. I consider that companies without "try before you buy" models sometimes "steal" our money by hyping games and tricking people into buying said games. Sometimes they shove a lot of money in nice trailers, sometimes the previous games of the same franchise make it a safe hit. But those games can be unfinished or flat out bad. As a PC gamer, we have very little recourse as retailers will not take it back and it's extremely rare for Steam to do refunds. As such, it's really hard to be protected against garbage whereas if you buy anything else, you can bring it back to the store when it breaks in your hands. Congratulations, you just described the goal of advertising in every industry. Make it look as good as possible. That is not stealing your money. Look, you feel like you want greater protection as the consumer, and I can totally understand that. I have been burned by bad games too. But I don't agree with you that the way to go about it is downloading entire games / movies / songs so you can try it out. I don't think you have that right, even if you think it is fair. Well I don't really download entire movies and if I play entire games I paid for them 100% of the time. I plead guilty for music but let's not talk about it, I don't have arguments for that except good ole' argumentum ad populum, so nothing good. 1- Advertising is OK as long as it represents a product fairly, and sometimes it doesn't. There are laws against false representation of a product, but obviously those laws are and have to be defined pretty loosely, which allows for instance EA to make their latest POS Hockey game look amazing - but even if it sucks, the customers are screwed. However, they couldn't sell $60 blank DVDs. So there's a whole area between "shitty game" and "blank DVD" - how do we decide what constitutes false advertising/fraud? In this case, customer protection is not just a little important given how easily it is to shag us. 2- You said you don't think I have "that right", which is objectively true, but that's a law. You think that my actions are morally reprehensible, which I understand... But what my "rights" are is of little concern to me. I could fly my ass off to some country and suddenly it would be my "right". Who the hell cares about what bullshit congress comes up with, it's not a real standard of living!
You must be really pissed when you look into your bag of Carl's Jr, only to discover the six dollar burger doesn't look like it did in the commercials.
|
On December 02 2011 13:19 Zodiac7777 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:12 kurosawa wrote:On December 02 2011 12:59 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 12:55 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Are you posting seriously refmac, or is this some sad attempt at satire?
You not being able to use the intellectual property of others however you please is infringing upon your personal rights? Give me a break. Your personal rights don't include being able to manipulate those of others. I'm sorry you misunderstand things so badly. I'm being completely serious. Intellectual property does not exist. It is a made up thing. Especially with more simple concepts (not so much games), the idea that you can claim ownership to an idea is ridiculous. The idea of internet piracy, when distilled to an intellectual property debate, is the same as a student sharing notes with a friend who's not in his class. Something like this should always be legal. I'm not saying that my personal rights include being able to manipulate the rights of others, I'm saying that others are claiming non-existant rights which infringe on mine. I assume through your student references and your general stance on things in this thread that you are a student. You have never created anything of worth in your life that needs protection for those very people you protect, i.e. thieves. Your intellectual dishonesty astounds me and tells me you have very little experience of the world we ACTUALLY live in and human behaviour in general. It's great to be an armchair philosopher when you don't have to deal with the world head on. Just want to say don't assume something like that, its very easy to create "intellectual property". I am a freshman in college but have made songs and put them on the internet.
I may have been overly harsh. But that sort of stance leads me to think the poster hasnt really dealt with the issues he theorizes on.
|
On December 02 2011 13:03 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 12:59 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 12:55 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Are you posting seriously refmac, or is this some sad attempt at satire?
You not being able to use the intellectual property of others however you please is infringing upon your personal rights? Give me a break. Your personal rights don't include being able to manipulate those of others. I'm sorry you misunderstand things so badly. I'm being completely serious. Intellectual property does not exist. It is a made up thing. Especially with more simple concepts (not so much games), the idea that you can claim ownership to an idea is ridiculous. The idea of internet piracy, when distilled to an intellectual property debate, is the same as a student sharing notes with a friend who's not in his class. Something like this should always be legal. I'm not saying that my personal rights include being able to manipulate the rights of others, I'm saying that others are claiming non-existant rights which infringe on mine. You are an insane person or just horribly misguided. The world as you would like it would completely stifle innovation in nearly every field of...well everything.
Completely unsubstantiated. There was no IP right on the invention of powder. Didn't stop the innovation on guns.
In the case of games, that may happen if the vast majority of potential customers would instead pirate a game. It is clearly not the case, and the majority of potential customers buy the games. Don't make it a moral issue, it is irrelevant.
So the problem is a simple problem of demand curve. Companies have to make better games, have better distribution models or lower prices, otherwise their profit will be lower. Maybe the video game market is just not very profitable and fewer companies can enter it. Maybe less games should be produced. What kills innovation here is not piracy, but greed, look at the blizzard/activision evolution.
Also regarding the IP rights. Rights are man made, they change over time and depending on countries.
In the universal declaration of human rights you can read:
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
Well it seems to be quite laughable now. Workers can put time and effort and training, does not matter if the management decides it's cheaper to send the factory in China.
|
On December 02 2011 13:21 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:18 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 13:05 Manifesto7 wrote:On December 02 2011 12:53 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 12:37 Manifesto7 wrote:On December 02 2011 12:30 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 11:07 Manifesto7 wrote:Not a good analogy since in that case the car washer is directly losing something from you not paying (in this case their time). Piracy is different since the owner loses nothing since it is a copy that is lost. Copyright infringement is taking someone else's material and using it for your own gain. Piracy is nothing like that. And there you go, the owner loses a potential sale. They lose money. You are stealing. A potential sale is worth nothing, it's just speculation about a sale. If I "pirate" a game only to find out that I don't like it, am I bad? Games I downloaded and deleted: Fallout 3, Fallout:New Vegas, From Dust, FEAR 3, Duke Nukem Forever, Dragon Age Origins, Dead Island, Borderlands. Most people will say that's reasonable, somewhat fair at least. However, did they lose sales from me? Well sadly yes they did. I would have bought at least some of these games if I hadn't had the opportunity to acquire the game "illegally" to test them. For instance, I was going to buy Fallout 3 because everyone likes it and plenty of my friends were telling me it's awesome. I "stole" it, played 3-4 hours and deleted it. But I think it's a good thing that they lost that sale - it really is. At least it keeps a few people from suckering into games they don't like... and try to get a refund for a PC game, lol, not happening. Now my question is, not necessarily to you Manifesto but I would like to know what you think, how wrong is it of me to do that, provided that if I really do like a game, I will buy it like I did with Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 and such. On the other hand, sometimes I'll play 5-10 hours of a game I don't like so much only to end up quitting after I decide it's not worth my time. That's kind of a long time to play "for free". Am I a thief, a bad person altogether or am I at least somewhat fair in my usage of "illegal" material? I don't know if you are a bad person, but yes, you are a thief. It is not up to you to determine how a company should release their product. While I agree with you that "try before you buy" models are far superior, that is the choice of the company. Some believe that releasing a demo encourages people to buy a full game, while others might think it will hurt sales. You are taking that choice out of their hands via illegal distribution. And as for the whole "Ill buy it if I like it" argument, well, I don't have any numbers but my life experience tells me that that situation is microscopic compared to people who just keep the game. I consider that companies without "try before you buy" models sometimes "steal" our money by hyping games and tricking people into buying said games. Sometimes they shove a lot of money in nice trailers, sometimes the previous games of the same franchise make it a safe hit. But those games can be unfinished or flat out bad. As a PC gamer, we have very little recourse as retailers will not take it back and it's extremely rare for Steam to do refunds. As such, it's really hard to be protected against garbage whereas if you buy anything else, you can bring it back to the store when it breaks in your hands. Congratulations, you just described the goal of advertising in every industry. Make it look as good as possible. That is not stealing your money. Look, you feel like you want greater protection as the consumer, and I can totally understand that. I have been burned by bad games too. But I don't agree with you that the way to go about it is downloading entire games / movies / songs so you can try it out. I don't think you have that right, even if you think it is fair. Well I don't really download entire movies and if I play entire games I paid for them 100% of the time. I plead guilty for music but let's not talk about it, I don't have arguments for that except good ole' argumentum ad populum, so nothing good. 1- Advertising is OK as long as it represents a product fairly, and sometimes it doesn't. There are laws against false representation of a product, but obviously those laws are and have to be defined pretty loosely, which allows for instance EA to make their latest POS Hockey game look amazing - but even if it sucks, the customers are screwed. However, they couldn't sell $60 blank DVDs. So there's a whole area between "shitty game" and "blank DVD" - how do we decide what constitutes false advertising/fraud? In this case, customer protection is not just a little important given how easily it is to shag us. 2- You said you don't think I have "that right", which is objectively true, but that's a law. You think that my actions are morally reprehensible, which I understand... But what my "rights" are is of little concern to me. I could fly my ass off to some country and suddenly it would be my "right". Who the hell cares about what bullshit congress comes up with, it's not a real standard of living! You must be really pissed when you look into your bag of Carl's Jr, only to discover the six dollar burger doesn't look like it did in the commercials.
Slippery slope-ish. I only ate there once and it was during Blizzcon 2009. It was delicious. That's what mattered, really. If it had been bad, I would have whined at them until they gave me a new one or my cash back. An opportunity I wouldn't have with a PC game.
|
On December 02 2011 13:25 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:21 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On December 02 2011 13:18 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 13:05 Manifesto7 wrote:On December 02 2011 12:53 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 12:37 Manifesto7 wrote:On December 02 2011 12:30 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 11:07 Manifesto7 wrote:Not a good analogy since in that case the car washer is directly losing something from you not paying (in this case their time). Piracy is different since the owner loses nothing since it is a copy that is lost. Copyright infringement is taking someone else's material and using it for your own gain. Piracy is nothing like that. And there you go, the owner loses a potential sale. They lose money. You are stealing. A potential sale is worth nothing, it's just speculation about a sale. If I "pirate" a game only to find out that I don't like it, am I bad? Games I downloaded and deleted: Fallout 3, Fallout:New Vegas, From Dust, FEAR 3, Duke Nukem Forever, Dragon Age Origins, Dead Island, Borderlands. Most people will say that's reasonable, somewhat fair at least. However, did they lose sales from me? Well sadly yes they did. I would have bought at least some of these games if I hadn't had the opportunity to acquire the game "illegally" to test them. For instance, I was going to buy Fallout 3 because everyone likes it and plenty of my friends were telling me it's awesome. I "stole" it, played 3-4 hours and deleted it. But I think it's a good thing that they lost that sale - it really is. At least it keeps a few people from suckering into games they don't like... and try to get a refund for a PC game, lol, not happening. Now my question is, not necessarily to you Manifesto but I would like to know what you think, how wrong is it of me to do that, provided that if I really do like a game, I will buy it like I did with Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 and such. On the other hand, sometimes I'll play 5-10 hours of a game I don't like so much only to end up quitting after I decide it's not worth my time. That's kind of a long time to play "for free". Am I a thief, a bad person altogether or am I at least somewhat fair in my usage of "illegal" material? I don't know if you are a bad person, but yes, you are a thief. It is not up to you to determine how a company should release their product. While I agree with you that "try before you buy" models are far superior, that is the choice of the company. Some believe that releasing a demo encourages people to buy a full game, while others might think it will hurt sales. You are taking that choice out of their hands via illegal distribution. And as for the whole "Ill buy it if I like it" argument, well, I don't have any numbers but my life experience tells me that that situation is microscopic compared to people who just keep the game. I consider that companies without "try before you buy" models sometimes "steal" our money by hyping games and tricking people into buying said games. Sometimes they shove a lot of money in nice trailers, sometimes the previous games of the same franchise make it a safe hit. But those games can be unfinished or flat out bad. As a PC gamer, we have very little recourse as retailers will not take it back and it's extremely rare for Steam to do refunds. As such, it's really hard to be protected against garbage whereas if you buy anything else, you can bring it back to the store when it breaks in your hands. Congratulations, you just described the goal of advertising in every industry. Make it look as good as possible. That is not stealing your money. Look, you feel like you want greater protection as the consumer, and I can totally understand that. I have been burned by bad games too. But I don't agree with you that the way to go about it is downloading entire games / movies / songs so you can try it out. I don't think you have that right, even if you think it is fair. Well I don't really download entire movies and if I play entire games I paid for them 100% of the time. I plead guilty for music but let's not talk about it, I don't have arguments for that except good ole' argumentum ad populum, so nothing good. 1- Advertising is OK as long as it represents a product fairly, and sometimes it doesn't. There are laws against false representation of a product, but obviously those laws are and have to be defined pretty loosely, which allows for instance EA to make their latest POS Hockey game look amazing - but even if it sucks, the customers are screwed. However, they couldn't sell $60 blank DVDs. So there's a whole area between "shitty game" and "blank DVD" - how do we decide what constitutes false advertising/fraud? In this case, customer protection is not just a little important given how easily it is to shag us. 2- You said you don't think I have "that right", which is objectively true, but that's a law. You think that my actions are morally reprehensible, which I understand... But what my "rights" are is of little concern to me. I could fly my ass off to some country and suddenly it would be my "right". Who the hell cares about what bullshit congress comes up with, it's not a real standard of living! You must be really pissed when you look into your bag of Carl's Jr, only to discover the six dollar burger doesn't look like it did in the commercials. Slippery slope-ish. I only ate their once and it was during Blizzcon 2009, it was delicious. That's what mattered, or I would have whined at them until they gave me a new one or my cash back. A luxury I wouldn't have with a PC game.
Fair enough, as long as I got you to admit that you're the type of person that would demand a refund at a fast food chain for not living up to your "standards", then I can live with that.
|
If we look at the pure mechanics of profit and gain with piracy, there isn't a big problem at all. Despite the recession, video game companies are actually making more money then before, even with them upping the prices of games. Piracy levels are higher as well. If anything, you could correlate higher piracy to higher profits (although this probably isn't the case).
Piracy in some cases is not a loss of profit at all. I pirated minecraft because I didn't want to pay 20-30 dollars for it. I would not have bought it anyways. No loss of profit. Potential profit by sharing if the game is good to other people and/or posting reviews. This happened to me, I recommended minecraft to a guy down the hall, who happens to have a lot of money, and he bought the game full price.
Piracy in other cases is i cannot afford it/i don't have the money. There is no loss because they can't buy the game anyways. There is potential like above by sharing the game with others. Also some people decide to buy the game later or buy other games by the company when they have the money.
There are also those who wish to test their computer schematics. I bought spore because the specifications on the back said that it would work on my computer. The game lagged like hell on my brand new computer, even on the lowest graphics settings. I just wasted 50 dollars. Either the company makes no money because of indecision, or they make money but have an unhappy customer who complains to other potential buyers.
There are those who are unsure if they game is good and want to try it out, even if it got good reviews. Final fantasy X-2 got good reviews so I decided to buy it. Worst decision of my life, played for probably 3-4 hours on the day I got it and never played again. The scenario is similar to those who wish to test their schematics.
Then there are those who can buy the game, know they like it, support the company, etc. But pirate it due to sheer laziness or greed. They are known as douchebags and are directly causing profit loss to the company.
I will not go into morals as morals are subjective and a completely different matter.
How can companies cause less pirating? Make good games with clear recommended schematics, free available demos, services to loyal customers, and by find ways to lessen prices. I liked blizzard, knew they patched the game, knew that I would like the game from the beta, so the only thought on my mind when the game came out is where I could buy it. It never even crossed my mind that I could download it illegally. If games/companies are established as good, then they will not have a huge problem with piracy and will never lose a notable amount of money.
|
On December 02 2011 13:24 harlock78 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:03 Runnin wrote:On December 02 2011 12:59 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 12:55 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Are you posting seriously refmac, or is this some sad attempt at satire?
You not being able to use the intellectual property of others however you please is infringing upon your personal rights? Give me a break. Your personal rights don't include being able to manipulate those of others. I'm sorry you misunderstand things so badly. I'm being completely serious. Intellectual property does not exist. It is a made up thing. Especially with more simple concepts (not so much games), the idea that you can claim ownership to an idea is ridiculous. The idea of internet piracy, when distilled to an intellectual property debate, is the same as a student sharing notes with a friend who's not in his class. Something like this should always be legal. I'm not saying that my personal rights include being able to manipulate the rights of others, I'm saying that others are claiming non-existant rights which infringe on mine. You are an insane person or just horribly misguided. The world as you would like it would completely stifle innovation in nearly every field of...well everything. Completely unsubstantiated. There was no IP right on the invention of powder. Didn't stop the innovation on guns. In the case of games, that may happen if the vast majority of potential customers would instead pirate a game. It is clearly not the case, and the majority of potential customers buy the games. Don't make it a moral issue, it is irrelevant. So the problem is a simple problem of demand curve. Companies have to make better games, have better distribution models or lower prices, otherwise their profit will be lower. Maybe the video game market is just not very profitable and fewer companies can enter it. Maybe less games should be produced. What kills innovation here is not piracy, but greed, look at the blizzard/activision evolution. Also regarding the IP rights. Rights are man made, they change over time and depending on countries. In the universal declaration of human rights you can read: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." Well it seems to be quite laughable now. Workers can put time and effort and training, does not matter if the management decides it's cheaper to send the factory in China.
...except the vast majority of potential customers DO pirate the game. Do not underestimate human greed and selfishness. Sure there are responsible people who would download a game, then when they find it good purchase the game. But they are in a minority. PC game sales have plummeted ever since the advent of broadband. Why else do you think in the past 10 years development have shifted from PC to consoles? These days most developers treat console releases as their main project and the PC has been relegated to a port. Only a few like Blizzard and Valve still focus heavily on PC
|
On December 02 2011 13:27 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:25 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 13:21 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On December 02 2011 13:18 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 13:05 Manifesto7 wrote:On December 02 2011 12:53 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 12:37 Manifesto7 wrote:On December 02 2011 12:30 Djzapz wrote:On December 02 2011 11:07 Manifesto7 wrote:Not a good analogy since in that case the car washer is directly losing something from you not paying (in this case their time). Piracy is different since the owner loses nothing since it is a copy that is lost. Copyright infringement is taking someone else's material and using it for your own gain. Piracy is nothing like that. And there you go, the owner loses a potential sale. They lose money. You are stealing. A potential sale is worth nothing, it's just speculation about a sale. If I "pirate" a game only to find out that I don't like it, am I bad? Games I downloaded and deleted: Fallout 3, Fallout:New Vegas, From Dust, FEAR 3, Duke Nukem Forever, Dragon Age Origins, Dead Island, Borderlands. Most people will say that's reasonable, somewhat fair at least. However, did they lose sales from me? Well sadly yes they did. I would have bought at least some of these games if I hadn't had the opportunity to acquire the game "illegally" to test them. For instance, I was going to buy Fallout 3 because everyone likes it and plenty of my friends were telling me it's awesome. I "stole" it, played 3-4 hours and deleted it. But I think it's a good thing that they lost that sale - it really is. At least it keeps a few people from suckering into games they don't like... and try to get a refund for a PC game, lol, not happening. Now my question is, not necessarily to you Manifesto but I would like to know what you think, how wrong is it of me to do that, provided that if I really do like a game, I will buy it like I did with Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 and such. On the other hand, sometimes I'll play 5-10 hours of a game I don't like so much only to end up quitting after I decide it's not worth my time. That's kind of a long time to play "for free". Am I a thief, a bad person altogether or am I at least somewhat fair in my usage of "illegal" material? I don't know if you are a bad person, but yes, you are a thief. It is not up to you to determine how a company should release their product. While I agree with you that "try before you buy" models are far superior, that is the choice of the company. Some believe that releasing a demo encourages people to buy a full game, while others might think it will hurt sales. You are taking that choice out of their hands via illegal distribution. And as for the whole "Ill buy it if I like it" argument, well, I don't have any numbers but my life experience tells me that that situation is microscopic compared to people who just keep the game. I consider that companies without "try before you buy" models sometimes "steal" our money by hyping games and tricking people into buying said games. Sometimes they shove a lot of money in nice trailers, sometimes the previous games of the same franchise make it a safe hit. But those games can be unfinished or flat out bad. As a PC gamer, we have very little recourse as retailers will not take it back and it's extremely rare for Steam to do refunds. As such, it's really hard to be protected against garbage whereas if you buy anything else, you can bring it back to the store when it breaks in your hands. Congratulations, you just described the goal of advertising in every industry. Make it look as good as possible. That is not stealing your money. Look, you feel like you want greater protection as the consumer, and I can totally understand that. I have been burned by bad games too. But I don't agree with you that the way to go about it is downloading entire games / movies / songs so you can try it out. I don't think you have that right, even if you think it is fair. Well I don't really download entire movies and if I play entire games I paid for them 100% of the time. I plead guilty for music but let's not talk about it, I don't have arguments for that except good ole' argumentum ad populum, so nothing good. 1- Advertising is OK as long as it represents a product fairly, and sometimes it doesn't. There are laws against false representation of a product, but obviously those laws are and have to be defined pretty loosely, which allows for instance EA to make their latest POS Hockey game look amazing - but even if it sucks, the customers are screwed. However, they couldn't sell $60 blank DVDs. So there's a whole area between "shitty game" and "blank DVD" - how do we decide what constitutes false advertising/fraud? In this case, customer protection is not just a little important given how easily it is to shag us. 2- You said you don't think I have "that right", which is objectively true, but that's a law. You think that my actions are morally reprehensible, which I understand... But what my "rights" are is of little concern to me. I could fly my ass off to some country and suddenly it would be my "right". Who the hell cares about what bullshit congress comes up with, it's not a real standard of living! You must be really pissed when you look into your bag of Carl's Jr, only to discover the six dollar burger doesn't look like it did in the commercials. Slippery slope-ish. I only ate their once and it was during Blizzcon 2009, it was delicious. That's what mattered, or I would have whined at them until they gave me a new one or my cash back. A luxury I wouldn't have with a PC game. Fair enough, as long as I got you to admit that you're the type of person that would demand a refund at a fast food chain for not living up to your "standards", then I can live with that.
Well I admitted that I would not eat something that tasted bad, and I think everyone should do the same. I do generally put up with mediocre out of laziness, but if you pay good money for a hamburger that tastes like the meat might be rotting, they'll happily give you a new one.
I don't know why you say I'm some "type of person" as if you were disgusted by me. I'm not the kind of person to make a scene. I would respectfully go up to them and tell them it's bad.
|
Many responses, all at once!
You are an insane person or just horribly misguided. The world as you would like it would completely stifle innovation in nearly every field of...well everything.
Ad Hominem attacks? really? As to your other point, the world as I would like it wouldn't stifle innovation at all in anything. I too can throw out unjustified absolute statements! Or I could support them - lots of people do things for reasons other than profit, including many of the worlds greatest scientists and artists. By abolishing IP, you also remove boundaries for ordinary people and workers to innovate for themselves, in order to make their jobs easier, and encourage them to freely distribute their innovations with others.
Out of curiosity, do you realize that without any claims of ownership to IP, every single type of software would cease to exist, because there would be no benefit to making it. There would be no point to developing operating systems, so we would all be forced to use open source OS developed by some random guys with free time. I'm not trying to be overly insulting, but the assumption that ideas do not have owners is ridiculous. Also, I forgot to quote the guy who torrented skyrim (hoping it's you), but apparently they thought the game was too expansive to be detailed in a demo. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/07/14/there-won-39-t-be-a-skyrim-demo.aspx Considering the appeal of their game is the hugeness of their world and the replay value, it seems like a demo wouldn't be that impressive anyway.
Of course not. Even better, I, random no lifer, could take the time to improve an already issued operating system and release it. And there will still be incentives for innovation. If i'm a researcher looking for a new tool to use, I might create one, or if I'm a business, wanting my employees to work more efficiently.
Okay, so you're just delusional.
Your notes example is not only misguided, it's downright wrong. The scholastic equivalent would be you saying that you feel that there's no problem with you copying someone's homework and submitting it as your own.
Again with the Ad Hominem... You people really need to tone it down =). My notes example is exactly correct. I'm not taking credit for the music I'm distributing, nor am I taking credit for my Prof's views on the Spanis Civil War. I'm merely distributing them to a wider audience. What you're describing is academic dishonesty, which I would never endorse, for numerous reasons. I'm not being dishonest here - I'm just sharing. Think of it like the people who upload songs to YouTube, and clearly outline the creator of the song.
I assume through your student references and your general stance on things in this thread that you are a student. You have never created anything of worth in your life that needs protection for those very people you protect, i.e. thieves. Your intellectual dishonesty astounds me and tells me you have very little experience of the world we ACTUALLY live in and human behaviour in general.
A logical conclusion, among the many illogical arguments that fill this thread. It has no impact on the soundness of my logic, however. I'd like to think that I've created much of worth in my life. Several solid logical discourses, critiques of capitalism, communism, and modern politics, along with one or two unpublished scientific papers, recordings in music, etc. And here's the thing - I wouldn't give a single everliving fuck if another person decided to start sharing my ideas. It would be fantastic! The very knowledge that other people care enough about what I think to share with their friends? Phenomenal! Now, you should know that I'm exhibiting ABSOLUTELY NO academic dishonesty in this argument, and I resent the remark greatly. If you wish to claim such as that, at least bring some proof to the table. I have enough experience of the world we live in to know that IP is all bunk, and the growth of 'piracy' should send the same signal to everyone.
Spelling
|
+ Show Spoiler +
"There are no stats available, but let's make a quick calculation. I was checking regularly the number of concurrent downloads on torrent aggregating sites, and for the first 6-8 weeks there was around 20-30k ppl downloading it at the same time. Let's take 20k as the average and let's take 6 weeks. The game is 14GB, so let's assume that on an average not-too-fast connection it will be 6 hours of download. 6 weeks is 56 days, which equals to 1344 hours; and with 6h of average download time to get the game it would give us 224 downloads, then let's multiply it by 20k simultaneous downloaders.
"The result is roughly 4.5 million illegal downloads. This is only an estimation, and I would say that's rather on the optimistic side of things; as of today we have sold over 1M legal copies, so having only 4.5-5 illegal copies for each legal one would be not a bad ratio. The reality is probably way worse."
So the whole piracy rate is just a quick estimation with nothing backing it up and people keep mentioning the number all the time, I wonder if anyone even read the article.
Part of the pirated copies might be lost sales, simply downloaded due too high price, some may be just for collection (seriously some of the guys I've met pirate stuff just for the sake of having it, bunch never even touching it), there's tons and tons of reasons why a software might be pirated, while technically wrong, you can't really stop the whole thing.
The biggest issue the market faces is the convinience of just downloading the thing off somewhere, things like steam sales net a lot due more reasonable prices and ease of us, maximizing profit is not a easy thing to achieve while trying to keep the costs from getting too high.
Lack of benchmarks, unbiased information and so on are also pretty big things, some areas also have way different income so you'd have to try localize the prices, which however has the problem of people ordering from cheaper places/using different vpn and so on.
There's no easy way out, that's the current software market. In the end it's all about weighing the options, marketing and support that will effect the final outcome. Instead of focusing on the estimations of pirated copies, the rates and actual sales are much more important.
|
On December 02 2011 13:24 harlock78 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:03 Runnin wrote:On December 02 2011 12:59 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 12:55 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Are you posting seriously refmac, or is this some sad attempt at satire?
You not being able to use the intellectual property of others however you please is infringing upon your personal rights? Give me a break. Your personal rights don't include being able to manipulate those of others. I'm sorry you misunderstand things so badly. I'm being completely serious. Intellectual property does not exist. It is a made up thing. Especially with more simple concepts (not so much games), the idea that you can claim ownership to an idea is ridiculous. The idea of internet piracy, when distilled to an intellectual property debate, is the same as a student sharing notes with a friend who's not in his class. Something like this should always be legal. I'm not saying that my personal rights include being able to manipulate the rights of others, I'm saying that others are claiming non-existant rights which infringe on mine. You are an insane person or just horribly misguided. The world as you would like it would completely stifle innovation in nearly every field of...well everything. Completely unsubstantiated. There was no IP right on the invention of powder. Didn't stop the innovation on guns. In the case of games, that may happen if the vast majority of potential customers would instead pirate a game. It is clearly not the case, and the majority of potential customers buy the games. Don't make it a moral issue, it is irrelevant. So the problem is a simple problem of demand curve. Companies have to make better games, have better distribution models or lower prices, otherwise their profit will be lower. Maybe the video game market is just not very profitable and fewer companies can enter it. Maybe less games should be produced. What kills innovation here is not piracy, but greed, look at the blizzard/activision evolution. Also regarding the IP rights. Rights are man made, they change over time and depending on countries. In the universal declaration of human rights you can read: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." Well it seems to be quite laughable now. Workers can put time and effort and training, does not matter if the management decides it's cheaper to send the factory in China.
What kills innovation is a lack of competition - and we probably have a situation in the gaming industry where too many of the dominant players churn out too much crap that's the same. So in part I agree with what you are saying.
As for your China reference. Businesses work for profit in general. If it's cheaper elsewhere to get the work done the work will go elsewhere. So the West has to step up competition with emerging economies where it has strengths. No use trying to beat China in the "butts in seats in a factory" competition. The West will lose every time.
In the end, no use whining either. You can't stop the tide of change. Just like the industrial revolution brought sweeping social and technological change; just like the information revolution is changing and challenging the notion of how we work now.
|
A logical conclusion, among the many illogical arguments that fill this thread. It has no impact on the soundness of my logic, however. I'd like to think that I've created much of worth in my life. Several solid logical discourses, critiques of capitalism, communism, and modern politics, along with one or two unpublished scientific papers, recordings in music, etc. And here's the thing - I wouldn't give a single everliving fuck if another person decided to star sharing my ideas. It would be fantastic! The very knowledge that other people care enough about what I think to share with their friends? Phenomenal! Now, you should know that I'm exhibiting ABSOLUTELY NO academic dishonesty in this argument, and I resent the remark greatly. If you wish to claim such as that, at least bring some proof to the table. I have enough experience of the world we live in to know that IP is all bunk, and the growth of 'piracy' should send the same signal to everyone.[/QUOTE]
You have it mixed up. You don't differentiate what is of commercial value vs. what is musings of an aspiring political commentator. You want your thoughts shared because, well, you like the sound of your own voice. Game companies don't want their products shared because, well, it's for profit.
You ideas have huge logical disconnects and don't factor human behaviour into your utopian world. Hence, dishonesty. I know you resent the remark but there it is.
|
On December 02 2011 13:33 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +Okay, so you're just delusional.
Your notes example is not only misguided, it's downright wrong. The scholastic equivalent would be you saying that you feel that there's no problem with you copying someone's homework and submitting it as your own. Again with the Ad Hominem... You people really need to tone it down =). My notes example is exactly correct. I'm not taking credit for the music I'm distributing, nor am I taking credit for my Prof's views on the Spanis Civil War. I'm merely distributing them to a wider audience. What you're describing is academic dishonesty, which I would never endorse, for numerous reasons. I'm not being dishonest here - I'm just sharing. Think of it like the people who upload songs to YouTube, and clearly outline the creator of the song.
Nope, your notes example is incorrect. Your logic directly supports cheating, academic dishonesty, and the general disregard for others. You don't get to decide who things get distributed to. Again, I'm sorry you misunderstand so badly.
|
On December 02 2011 13:48 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:33 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Okay, so you're just delusional.
Your notes example is not only misguided, it's downright wrong. The scholastic equivalent would be you saying that you feel that there's no problem with you copying someone's homework and submitting it as your own. Again with the Ad Hominem... You people really need to tone it down =). My notes example is exactly correct. I'm not taking credit for the music I'm distributing, nor am I taking credit for my Prof's views on the Spanis Civil War. I'm merely distributing them to a wider audience. What you're describing is academic dishonesty, which I would never endorse, for numerous reasons. I'm not being dishonest here - I'm just sharing. Think of it like the people who upload songs to YouTube, and clearly outline the creator of the song. Nope, your notes example is incorrect. Your logic directly supports cheating, academic dishonesty, and the general disregard for others. You don't get to decide who things get distributed to. Again, I'm sorry you misunderstand so badly.
Oh please. Now you're just being stubborn. There is a clear distinction between taking credit for the work of another, and distributing another's work for others to read/consume. Cheating clearly falls into the former category, while piracy falls into the latter, along with the sharing of notes, teaching or tutoring for free, and basically the entirety of modern science.
Edit: And should I mention your complete failure to support your claims with anything other than personal attacks and absolute claims. If you would provide ONE logical argument, ONE example of evidence, even an appeal to some authority, your contribution to this argument might be useful, or even work towards defending your point.
|
On December 02 2011 13:33 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Many responses, all at once! Show nested quote +You are an insane person or just horribly misguided. The world as you would like it would completely stifle innovation in nearly every field of...well everything. Ad Hominem attacks? really? As to your other point, the world as I would like it wouldn't stifle innovation at all in anything. I too can throw out unjustified absolute statements! Or I could support them - lots of people do things for reasons other than profit, including many of the worlds greatest scientists and artists. By abolishing IP, you also remove boundaries for ordinary people and workers to innovate for themselves, in order to make their jobs easier, and encourage them to freely distribute their innovations with others. Show nested quote +Out of curiosity, do you realize that without any claims of ownership to IP, every single type of software would cease to exist, because there would be no benefit to making it. There would be no point to developing operating systems, so we would all be forced to use open source OS developed by some random guys with free time. I'm not trying to be overly insulting, but the assumption that ideas do not have owners is ridiculous. Also, I forgot to quote the guy who torrented skyrim (hoping it's you), but apparently they thought the game was too expansive to be detailed in a demo. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/07/14/there-won-39-t-be-a-skyrim-demo.aspx Considering the appeal of their game is the hugeness of their world and the replay value, it seems like a demo wouldn't be that impressive anyway. Of course not. Even better, I, random no lifer, could take the time to improve an already issued operating system and release it. And there will still be incentives for innovation. If i'm a researcher looking for a new tool to use, I might create one, or if I'm a business, wanting my employees to work more efficiently. Show nested quote +Okay, so you're just delusional.
Your notes example is not only misguided, it's downright wrong. The scholastic equivalent would be you saying that you feel that there's no problem with you copying someone's homework and submitting it as your own. Again with the Ad Hominem... You people really need to tone it down =). My notes example is exactly correct. I'm not taking credit for the music I'm distributing, nor am I taking credit for my Prof's views on the Spanis Civil War. I'm merely distributing them to a wider audience. What you're describing is academic dishonesty, which I would never endorse, for numerous reasons. I'm not being dishonest here - I'm just sharing. Think of it like the people who upload songs to YouTube, and clearly outline the creator of the song. Show nested quote +I assume through your student references and your general stance on things in this thread that you are a student. You have never created anything of worth in your life that needs protection for those very people you protect, i.e. thieves. Your intellectual dishonesty astounds me and tells me you have very little experience of the world we ACTUALLY live in and human behaviour in general. A logical conclusion, among the many illogical arguments that fill this thread. It has no impact on the soundness of my logic, however. I'd like to think that I've created much of worth in my life. Several solid logical discourses, critiques of capitalism, communism, and modern politics, along with one or two unpublished scientific papers, recordings in music, etc. And here's the thing - I wouldn't give a single everliving fuck if another person decided to start sharing my ideas. It would be fantastic! The very knowledge that other people care enough about what I think to share with their friends? Phenomenal! Now, you should know that I'm exhibiting ABSOLUTELY NO academic dishonesty in this argument, and I resent the remark greatly. If you wish to claim such as that, at least bring some proof to the table. I have enough experience of the world we live in to know that IP is all bunk, and the growth of 'piracy' should send the same signal to everyone. Spelling
Oh look, a student who thinks they have all the answers. Quaint.
Look kid. I don't have all the answers. No one does. But you sure as shit don't. If your idea is "remove intellectual property and don't give a shit when people steal ideas and data", then you have no real world experience.
Don't go crying to anyone when you come up with an idea, and it gets stolen. There should be no repercussion, right? Doesn't matter if you do all the legwork with to come up with it and build it.
That's childish logic, from an immature child. If that is really your argument, then you have no idea of anything outside of your sheltered walls.
You say you wouldn't care if someone shared your ideas? Then they're not worth shit in the first place. Once you come up with a good paper with worthwhile ideas, and suddenly people start hocking it as their own with not so much as a nod to you, you'll understand a bit more.
|
On December 02 2011 13:52 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:48 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On December 02 2011 13:33 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Okay, so you're just delusional.
Your notes example is not only misguided, it's downright wrong. The scholastic equivalent would be you saying that you feel that there's no problem with you copying someone's homework and submitting it as your own. Again with the Ad Hominem... You people really need to tone it down =). My notes example is exactly correct. I'm not taking credit for the music I'm distributing, nor am I taking credit for my Prof's views on the Spanis Civil War. I'm merely distributing them to a wider audience. What you're describing is academic dishonesty, which I would never endorse, for numerous reasons. I'm not being dishonest here - I'm just sharing. Think of it like the people who upload songs to YouTube, and clearly outline the creator of the song. Nope, your notes example is incorrect. Your logic directly supports cheating, academic dishonesty, and the general disregard for others. You don't get to decide who things get distributed to. Again, I'm sorry you misunderstand so badly. Oh please. Now you're just being stubborn. There is a clear distinction between taking credit for the work of another, and distributing another's work for others to read/consume. Cheating clearly falls into the former category, while piracy falls into the latter, along with the sharing of notes, teaching or tutoring for free, and basically the entirety of modern science.
So in your world, voluntarily educating others for free is the same as a person taking concepts derived by another and distributing them despite the originator not wanting them to be? Sorry, but no. We've already established that you don't believe in intellectual property, but the fact is you're wrong.
|
mass upload the game with viruses!!!!
so if they download it, they will get a virus that will obtain their IP so the company can sue
|
On December 02 2011 13:56 HereAndNow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:33 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Many responses, all at once! You are an insane person or just horribly misguided. The world as you would like it would completely stifle innovation in nearly every field of...well everything. Ad Hominem attacks? really? As to your other point, the world as I would like it wouldn't stifle innovation at all in anything. I too can throw out unjustified absolute statements! Or I could support them - lots of people do things for reasons other than profit, including many of the worlds greatest scientists and artists. By abolishing IP, you also remove boundaries for ordinary people and workers to innovate for themselves, in order to make their jobs easier, and encourage them to freely distribute their innovations with others. Out of curiosity, do you realize that without any claims of ownership to IP, every single type of software would cease to exist, because there would be no benefit to making it. There would be no point to developing operating systems, so we would all be forced to use open source OS developed by some random guys with free time. I'm not trying to be overly insulting, but the assumption that ideas do not have owners is ridiculous. Also, I forgot to quote the guy who torrented skyrim (hoping it's you), but apparently they thought the game was too expansive to be detailed in a demo. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/07/14/there-won-39-t-be-a-skyrim-demo.aspx Considering the appeal of their game is the hugeness of their world and the replay value, it seems like a demo wouldn't be that impressive anyway. Of course not. Even better, I, random no lifer, could take the time to improve an already issued operating system and release it. And there will still be incentives for innovation. If i'm a researcher looking for a new tool to use, I might create one, or if I'm a business, wanting my employees to work more efficiently. Okay, so you're just delusional.
Your notes example is not only misguided, it's downright wrong. The scholastic equivalent would be you saying that you feel that there's no problem with you copying someone's homework and submitting it as your own. Again with the Ad Hominem... You people really need to tone it down =). My notes example is exactly correct. I'm not taking credit for the music I'm distributing, nor am I taking credit for my Prof's views on the Spanis Civil War. I'm merely distributing them to a wider audience. What you're describing is academic dishonesty, which I would never endorse, for numerous reasons. I'm not being dishonest here - I'm just sharing. Think of it like the people who upload songs to YouTube, and clearly outline the creator of the song. I assume through your student references and your general stance on things in this thread that you are a student. You have never created anything of worth in your life that needs protection for those very people you protect, i.e. thieves. Your intellectual dishonesty astounds me and tells me you have very little experience of the world we ACTUALLY live in and human behaviour in general. A logical conclusion, among the many illogical arguments that fill this thread. It has no impact on the soundness of my logic, however. I'd like to think that I've created much of worth in my life. Several solid logical discourses, critiques of capitalism, communism, and modern politics, along with one or two unpublished scientific papers, recordings in music, etc. And here's the thing - I wouldn't give a single everliving fuck if another person decided to start sharing my ideas. It would be fantastic! The very knowledge that other people care enough about what I think to share with their friends? Phenomenal! Now, you should know that I'm exhibiting ABSOLUTELY NO academic dishonesty in this argument, and I resent the remark greatly. If you wish to claim such as that, at least bring some proof to the table. I have enough experience of the world we live in to know that IP is all bunk, and the growth of 'piracy' should send the same signal to everyone. Spelling Oh look, a student who thinks they have all the answers. Quaint. Look kid. I don't have all the answers. No one does. But you sure as shit don't. If your idea is "remove intellectual property and don't give a shit when people steal ideas and data", then you have no real world experience. Don't go crying to anyone when you come up with an idea, and it gets stolen. There should be no repercussion, right? Doesn't matter if you do all the legwork with to come up with it and build it. That's childish logic, from an immature child. If that is really your argument, then you have no idea of anything outside of your sheltered walls. You say you wouldn't care if someone shared your ideas? Then they're not worth shit in the first place. Once you come up with a good paper with worthwhile ideas, and suddenly people start hocking it as their own with not so much as a nod to you, you'll understand a bit more.
Once again ignoring the personal ridicule. There's a very distinct difference between hawking someone else's ideas as your own, and sharing and developing those same ideas. What you're attacking, with your crusade against piracy, is the latter. The first idea MANDATES the existence of IP. If intellectual property doesn't exist, how can someone else sell it? The second acknowledges the effort put into the thought by the creator, and shares that creation with the wide world. In a way, it's a final glorification of their effort. No one wants their ideas used without credit, but that doesn't mean that they alone can hold proprietary ownership of them.
|
On December 02 2011 13:59 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2011 13:52 refmac_cys.cys wrote:On December 02 2011 13:48 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On December 02 2011 13:33 refmac_cys.cys wrote:Okay, so you're just delusional.
Your notes example is not only misguided, it's downright wrong. The scholastic equivalent would be you saying that you feel that there's no problem with you copying someone's homework and submitting it as your own. Again with the Ad Hominem... You people really need to tone it down =). My notes example is exactly correct. I'm not taking credit for the music I'm distributing, nor am I taking credit for my Prof's views on the Spanis Civil War. I'm merely distributing them to a wider audience. What you're describing is academic dishonesty, which I would never endorse, for numerous reasons. I'm not being dishonest here - I'm just sharing. Think of it like the people who upload songs to YouTube, and clearly outline the creator of the song. Nope, your notes example is incorrect. Your logic directly supports cheating, academic dishonesty, and the general disregard for others. You don't get to decide who things get distributed to. Again, I'm sorry you misunderstand so badly. Oh please. Now you're just being stubborn. There is a clear distinction between taking credit for the work of another, and distributing another's work for others to read/consume. Cheating clearly falls into the former category, while piracy falls into the latter, along with the sharing of notes, teaching or tutoring for free, and basically the entirety of modern science. So in your world, voluntarily educating others for free is the same as a person taking concepts derived by another and distributing them despite the originator not wanting them to be? Sorry, but no. We've already established that you don't believe in intellectual property, but the fact is you're wrong.
If the originator didn't want his ideas distributed, he shouldn't have put them on the market.
Edit: Point being, the originator in this case (most cases) clearly wants his ideas shared. If I may quote Pete Townshend: "a creative person would prefer their music to be stolen and enjoyed than ignored" (BBC NEWS). I think, for the majority of artists out there, whether they be game designers, musicians, what have you, there's an innate desire for their creations to be enjoyed by others, which is the driving force in their decision to create in the first place. To be quite frank, IP, as it exists, serves to strangle most people, and it is only by removing that restriction that they can come to be known.
|
I glanced through and didn't see anyone mention this:
The Witcher's 2 DRM slowed the game down to a crawl. It took like a full minute to load the menus on my computer, and it ran at maybe 30 fps, sometimes lower. People realized pretty quickly without DRM, the game ran much, much better. When they patched out the DRM, the menus loaded nearly instantly, and I was getting 60+ fps. I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial chunk of those who pirated the game were just doing it so they didn't have a subpar experience.
Note: You could get it DRMless if you bought it from their store on Day 1, but I got it via Steam (as did a lot of other people).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
