Sims 3 Leaked Online

[Hey Joe]

Of course they are. It's an SEC listing rule that you have to do what's best for your shareholders in all situations. The fact that the heads of EA are looking after their bottom line rather than the broader gaming community does not mean that the team working on the game has not worked hard.

Any person who creates a product is due what their product is worth. If the joy and fun they give people is worth one dollar, they deserve one dollar. If the joy andfun the give people is worth a Billion dollars they deserve a billion dollars. Not a penny more, not a penny less.

In a capitalist society, any product is worth what people are willing to pay for it. What pirates do is dilute a product's inherent worth. If you create a billion dollar product and put in all the effort that requires, then you deserve a billion dollars.

Now, the creators will never know how much they could have reaped from what they sew.

But that's just the thing: the creators won't reap a billion dollars from creating a billion dollar product. They only get their salary in most cases I would imagine.

The problem is that once you start creating extra-legal moral questions, you can easily start defending piracy. The fallback position of the anti-piracy zealots is always "legal ownership is a 100% iron clad lock around all moral issues": well, you can't loosen that lock for one group and claim it's iron clad for another just because you like one group more than another.

Also don't you see the issue in saying that

"If the joy and fun they give people is worth one dollar, they deserve one dollar. If the joy andfun the give people is worth a Billion dollars they deserve a billion dollars. Not a penny more, not a penny less.

In a capitalist society, any product is worth what people are willing to pay for it."

What if the people are only willing to pay a dollar for a billion dollars worth of joy and fun?

Yes, they get a salary. Not a billion dollars, that's what they signed on the dotted line for but in a capitalist society where worth is dictated through market forces pirates dilute the worth of a product. How do you feel when you've worked hard to create a product and people come along and dilute the end result of said hard work? In a capitalist society, any given product is worth what people are willing to pay for it. How would you feel then if people paid nothing for a game?

Ever hear the phrase 'time = money'? In about 99.999999 per cent of cases the time usually accompanies effort. After all people earn money by working, whether intellectually or manually.

So it becomes 'time + effort = money'

So given that any amount of money one person holds is proportional to the time and effort said person has put in to aquire money, what does it say when people pay nothing for the results of your hard work.

It says "I'm not willing to put any time or effort into the product that you have worked so hard to create". Most people will point out that the creators get paid anyway and that's totally correct but on a philisophical level, to have people saying that your product is not worth any time or effort on their part is a kick in the guts. Speak to anyone who has been affected by piracy and they'll tell you the same.

It's easy to rip off a faceless company, but should it be so easy to dismiss the hard work of the people at that company?

 

[Hey Joe]

Hang on. You're saying that we should steal because the companies get tax breaks? Farming gets tax breaks, should we start stealing corn from farmers? Phramaceutical companies get tax breaks, should we start stealing penecillin from hospitals? The unemployed get money from tax when they goto the welfare office, should we start stealing from them? The WTO doesn't have any say in internal taxation policy and it never will.

Tax breaks make it easier for developers to make good games because they have more money. Are you against better games? Are you against new developers having the capabilities to make new, original IP? If video game companies don't get tax breaks, it becomes harder for new companies to do business and in effect one or two companies would totally monopolise the scene.

Besides, stealing is inherently not a political act. Ask people who pirate videogames and the vast majority will tell you that they pirate to save money. What it does is cheapen the productby telling the people who worked on the game (yes, people worked on this game.It wasn't just secreted out of the EA body coporate) by telling them "Your work and effort is not worth my time or effort".

 

[Hey Joe]

Sorry, you started by quoting me twice. I thought it was directed at me.

What is the Escapist stance on piracy anyhow?

 

[Baby Tea]

Uhh, sorry...but that's text-book greed. Google defines greed thusly: Excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves.

You wanted (Not needed) something you couldn't afford, so you acquired it illegally. You didn't deserve it, because you didn't pay for it. Greed. Lack of money isn't an excuse to get things you would normally have to pay for.

Do they actually care if someone got their game without "deserving" it? They can deny people their creations, but why would they want to? If they can't make any money out of it anyways why deny them their fun? It's just being a prick because you can.

It's not being a prick, it's about being fair. Everyone else has to pay for this product to use it. Why should ANYONE have the right to get it for free because they can't afford it? And this isn't a need-type product. Nobody 'needs' games. So then the answer is simple: Can't afford? Go without. That's it. If someone wants to enjoy a fun product, they pay for it. That's the way the economy works. This isn't some hippy commune where you pay for it if you can, but otherwise get it for free.

 

[SultanP]

Well, the game developers earn more money from me because of piracy. If I download a game, and it turns out to be a masterpiece, I'm gonna buy it, it doesn't even have to be a masterpiece, but merely good, or great, and I'll buy it too. I've bought many games that I would never have bought if I hadn't downloaded them first.

 

[Hedberger]

Uhh, sorry...but that's text-book greed. Google defines greed thusly: Excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves.

You wanted (Not needed) something you couldn't afford, so you acquired it illegally. You didn't deserve it, because you didn't pay for it. Greed. Lack of money isn't an excuse to get things you would normally have to pay for.

Do they actually care if someone got their game without "deserving" it? They can deny people their creations, but why would they want to? If they can't make any money out of it anyways why deny them their fun? It's just being a prick because you can.

It's not being a prick, it's about being fair. Everyone else has to pay for this product to use it. Why should ANYONE have the right to get it for free because they can't afford it? And this isn't a need-type product. Nobody 'needs' games. So then the answer is simple: Can't afford? Go without. That's it. If someone wants to enjoy a fun product, they pay for it. That's the way the economy works. This isn't some hippy commune where you pay for it if you can, but otherwise get it for free.

But if it doesn't cause them any harm whatsoever anyway why deny them it? If i could give people a good time without having to put down extra work or lose something i would. Who wouldn't? I'm a practical sort of person and in my view fair has nothing to do with it. Why should millions of people miss out on a good game just because it's unfair to you? There are people that win the lotteries and never have to work again. Fair? Not in the slightest but do i actually care? No, i couldn't have won that money anyway why should i begrudge someone for having a stroke of luck?

 

[Sigenrecht]

It's not being a prick, it's about being fair. Everyone else has to pay for this product to use it. Why should ANYONE have the right to get it for free because they can't afford it?

Because they CAN get it for free you dumb prick. It has nothing to do with being fair, because life isn't fair, and that isn't just emo shit; ask the dinosaurs. Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T, because they're all DEAD, and tell me if a race of big-ass lizards would have any karma lathered up against their collective scaly hide.

If that answer didn't suffice, here's a better one; if money equates to time, and the only measurable aspect of your life is time, we can assume time is life. By submitting your money unnecessarily, you are giving away your life. Therefore, for paying for a game you could get of equivalent quality for free, you are being a martyr. SO, I can see the only reason one could possibly want to pay for video games is if they want to be married off to seventy black-eyed virgins in the next life. And I like blue eyes, the joke's on you.

 

[Baby Tea]

The focus should be on what the situation is as far as the profits these companies can make. If a pirate doesn't represent a lost sale, well, what's the big deal?

The 'big deal' is that they haven't earned that product.
They are getting it for free, when they should be paying for it. How is this even a debate? Will these people benefit from the patches the developers spend the time and money to make? This has nothing to do with 'lost sale' or not, it's about people getting a product for free when the rest of the world is paying for it.

Don't have the money? Do without it. It's not food, it's a game.
Want to test it out to see if you like it? Get the demo.
No demo? Rent it or try it at a friend's house.
No friend or can't rent? Too bad!

I'm not saying the industry doesn't need some reforms, but piracy isn't the answer or solution or any of the industry's problems. It only gives DRM focused companies more ammunition to keep DRM and other intrusive software around longer, which screws over the rest of us honest, paying customers.

And, finally, software companies have every legal right to try to deny people from using their product if they haven't payed for it. Why? Because they haven't payed for it. It certainly doesn't strike me as if you're actually dealing with 'real world' economics at all. You want a product? You pay for it. That's it.

 

[Baby Tea]

The focus should be on what the situation is as far as the profits these companies can make. If a pirate doesn't represent a lost sale, well, what's the big deal?

Don't have the money? Do without it. It's not food, it's a game.
Want to test it out to see if you like it? Get the demo.
No demo? Rent it or try it at a friend's house.

What do you mean "try it at a friend's house"? That's just as illegal as piracy. How can you say "They are getting it for free, when they should be paying for it. How is this even a debate?" and then tell people to go get if for free from a friend without paying for it?

Now you know why it's a debate.

No I don't.
There is nothing illegal about inviting a friend over to play some games.

What is your stance on people who use TiVo or other DVRs to skip commercials?

Well, considering that you have to have to already have the channel (I.E. Pay for it) to record the show, then I don't care.

It certainly doesn't strike me as if you're actually dealing with 'real world' economics at all. You want a product? You pay for it. That's it.

Um, you *do* realize you're on a for-profit site that doesn't charge you for the "product" of the use the services of the website, and instead monetizes your visits by way of ads, right?

Well if a developer was giving a game away for free, but with some ads in it, that would be their choice. However, they aren't. So that example isn't a parallel. If the Escapist required a paid membership but people were getting around it somehow, I'd oppose that too.

 

[Woe Is You]

I have to say...

I mustn't be the only one who finds it so very interesting that more often than not, pirates get a superior product and they get it earlier than those who buy it in retail.

 

[Nomad]

I have to say...

I mustn't be the only one who finds it so very interesting that more often than not, pirates get a superior product and they get it earlier than those who buy it in retail.

Yeah. The thing the developers don't seem to realize is that copyright protection does nothing to discourage pirates, because pirates get cracked software. Cracked as in no longer has a functioning copyright protection. Doesn't matter if they make it kidnap your grandmother for ransom, the only people that are going to be affected by it are their legit customers. Because the pirates get the cracked version.

That said, I've tried arguing (pro-pirate, yarr) about this subject in like five threads before this one, and it never leads anywhere. And no new arguments ever emerge. So really, I'm just going to say (in case anyone's keeping score) that I favour the high seas. I'll leave the argumentation as to why to the other pirates, because they've all listed the most important reasons anyway. And the ones that were left out will likely be listed in the coming pages.

Edit: Ooh, almost forgot the point of the thread. Sims 3... Yay, I guess. But it was going to be out on the 4th of June anyway (right?), so why get excited about it being accidentally released a couple of weeks in advance? Oh, and is it really the full version or 'just' the beta?

 

[Russ Pitts]

At The Escapist, we're definitely in the ivory tower camp. Because, quite honestly, we're pseudo-intellectual wanks. We're quite OK with this.

Maybe you guys all got the memo that the business plan for The Escapist consists of discrete phases where the Ivory Tower Magazine-on-the-Internet will give way to the Gaming Information Portal which will give way to the Videogame Industry Coverage Resource or something. We, however, have not. So don't blame us when we get confused because the same site that used to be for "pseudo-intellectual wanks" turned into a site for the video game business. While you're right that it would be mystifying for the latter to take any other stance, you must admit that it would be equally mystifying to see an institution that describes itself as 'ivory tower' take this kind of a aggressively partisan approach to the piracy issue.

Quite frankly, seeing a site like The Escapist which made its name being an ivory tower on the internet for pseudo-intellectuals to wank their gray matter over video games take this kind of a stance in the fashion it has is more like National Geographic reporting on how aboriginal people contribute to global warming by not allowing their ancestral forests to be cut down to build green energy producing windmills.

If I had a nickel for every person who had their own individual idea of what The Escapist "is about," I probably wouldn't have to work here anymore

But that's really the strength of the thing, in my opinion. It's a lot of things to a lot of people. I've been here since quite near the beginning, and yet I certainly don't feel it's my place to tell people how they should view the site. I'm not sure why you think it's yours.

In any event, I honestly have no recollection of from where you pulled that quote (or more accurately, from when), but I can guarantee it wasn't in regards to this debate, which I'm happy to stand out of for the time being, kthxbye.

 

[hondommond]

I have indeed enjoyed the game so far...