Well since I already got a warning for "condoning pirating" or whatever, I'll go along and iterate some more: it was not the idea. was just stating the obvious... something that most people here already know but avoid talking about... for more obvious reasons.Venereus said:The OP already established that in order to boycott Bethesda he'll also restrain from playing already bought games (I don't get it either). Following his "reasoning", that great idea you posted is not a solution for him.M920CAIN said:Well you can always pirate it if you don't buy it... did I just say that? *checks comment* yep... I did.
This isn't Bethesda the game developer doing this, it's Zenimax media. As I understand it, the developers couldn't give a shit. However the legal department of Zenimax seem to think Scrolls has breached their copyright agreement.xvbones said:Even though this means I will never play Skyrim, I will no longer support Bethesda in any way.
OK, so you missed it. Diablo 3 had restrictive DRM.Hisshiss said:I find it strange that everyone in this thread is relentlessly mocking this guy over his boycott, but I could barely find a single person willing to even admit they were still buying Diablo 3 during all of its hate threads.
I mean I guess the diablo 3 controversy was over actual elements of the game itself, versus the practice of its developers, but it still seems a little imbalanced.
Selective hatred I guess xD.
Edit: On that note, does anyone else find it weird that nobody has made a boycott thread about gears of war 3 selling those 21 premium weapon skins on day one? Theres like..6 in the actual game, and 3 of those required the beta, and cheevos from gears 1 and 2. So there are really only 3 skins in the game available for unlock without doing extra stuff, and the remaining 21 require a purchase.
it doesn't bother me too much, since they are relatively cheap and I can just buy a few and be done with it, but it seems like the kind of thing people would jump all over considering its similarities to the portal 2 hat fiasco.
Sorry, what creation?Denariax said:I'll 'rent' it via the pirating method; if I don't like it (And I won't, it sounds stupid that they removed most of the creation) then I'll delete it.
As for that lawsuit; it's just silly. It's like the EA, Activision, Capcom strategy now.
This right here.Phlakes said:Bethesda development team =/= Bethesda legal team.
Everything bad, you mean?xvbones said:(Which has been pretty rough, those fuckers put out everything.)
Yeah, but how is not buying a game, when you were really looking forward to it and liked the last few games from them, just to make a point that will have no financial impact on the offending company whatsoever, accomplishing ANYTHING?? Talk about futile and empty gestures.Crono1973 said:Bethesda is also the name of the company who will get money if you buy Skyrim. How is "it's not the dev team, it's the legal team" even a defense. Talk about apologists.grimgor42 said:Look at it this way, Bethesda is the name of the company doing this, while Bethesda Softworks is the name of the company that actually made Skyrim. The game itself (the people who made it etc.) has nothing to do with the overly zealous corporate branch causing these court problems past some copyright definitions. Do you think you're going to see Tod Howard in that court room being a dick? Well you won't. If you want to punish yourself by not buying Skyrim over some moral conviction, fine, but know that it accomplishes absolutely nothing on any scale other than you missing out.
Agreed.imnotparanoid said:You won't buy a game you want because of some laywers being pissy? That's pretty stupid.
Just some quick advise, you probably shouldn't be running around the Escapist with talks of pirating. You won't evade the ban hammer long.Denariax said:I'll 'rent' it via the pirating method
Character creation, primarily. If they're sticking to the 'lore' I keep hearing about and dreading, then all of the races from Oblivion will be cast aside so that you can be some random Dragonborn which is just a human with a spiffy name apparently.Macrobstar said:Sorry, what creation?Denariax said:I'll 'rent' it via the pirating method; if I don't like it (And I won't, it sounds stupid that they removed most of the creation) then I'll delete it.
As for that lawsuit; it's just silly. It's like the EA, Activision, Capcom strategy now.
I didn't miss that, I just don't care. Its nowhere near the deal breaker people have made it out to be. As for the skins, I actually do agree with you on that, but I still expected controversy because, as I said, portal 2 drummed up an unholy level of anger over an almost identical system.Yopaz said:OK, so you missed it. Diablo 3 had restrictive DRM.Hisshiss said:I find it strange that everyone in this thread is relentlessly mocking this guy over his boycott, but I could barely find a single person willing to even admit they were still buying Diablo 3 during all of its hate threads.
I mean I guess the diablo 3 controversy was over actual elements of the game itself, versus the practice of its developers, but it still seems a little imbalanced.
Selective hatred I guess xD.
Edit: On that note, does anyone else find it weird that nobody has made a boycott thread about gears of war 3 selling those 21 premium weapon skins on day one? Theres like..6 in the actual game, and 3 of those required the beta, and cheevos from gears 1 and 2. So there are really only 3 skins in the game available for unlock without doing extra stuff, and the remaining 21 require a purchase.
it doesn't bother me too much, since they are relatively cheap and I can just buy a few and be done with it, but it seems like the kind of thing people would jump all over considering its similarities to the portal 2 hat fiasco.
The developers of Skyrim has done nothing. The publishers are suing a company over reasons that doesn't make sense to someone who hasn't read the copyright and trademark laws in detail.
Gears of War selling skins. That doesn't affect the gameplay at all.
OT: I wont be buying Skyrim simply because I'm not interested.