To anyone who thinks piracy is ok

[Dastardly]

After all is said and done the majority of games are overpriced shite. Bought titan quest on steam recently for £2.50. That's a fair price for what I'm getting. 40 quid for fallout new vegas? Who's going to pay that? That's mental. A fiver. That's a fair price.

And THIS is the problem.

You see, Titan Quest is approximately 300 hours of hack and slash dungeon crawling. That's worth more then four dollars. That's really worth forty dollars, or more. If you seriously think 300+ hours isn't worth five bucks, then you're a miser, plain and simple.

Think of it this way: Imagine you buy Fallout New Vegas and play it for 100 hours (quite possible). How much money do you make per hour of work? Go ahead, knock off all your non-entertainment expenses, including savings. Let's imagine you have 50 cents extra per hour (and I beg you to cut your expenses somehow if that's ALL you have). If you had 50 cents per hour left over to spend on yourself, then Fallout would be worth $50, a little bit less then what it is being sold for according to you.

Seriously, you come off as stingy and desperate. You're better then that.

It's only 300 hours worth of gameplay if you like it enough to play that long.

And my car can only go 200 mph if I find somewhere it's legal and can get enough straight road, yet it's a major selling point of the car. I don't get to make a pledge to "only go 55 mph" and pay less for the car.

You don't get to use the, "I didn't like it enough to play 300 hours" excuse to pay less for the game. You've gotten the entire game, whether you choose to use it or not. If you can't afford it or don't want to afford it, then there is no reason that you should ever have it.

 

[bob1052]

After all is said and done the majority of games are overpriced shite. Bought titan quest on steam recently for £2.50. That's a fair price for what I'm getting. 40 quid for fallout new vegas? Who's going to pay that? That's mental. A fiver. That's a fair price.

And THIS is the problem.

You see, Titan Quest is approximately 300 hours of hack and slash dungeon crawling. That's worth more then four dollars. That's really worth forty dollars, or more. If you seriously think 300+ hours isn't worth five bucks, then you're a miser, plain and simple.

Think of it this way: Imagine you buy Fallout New Vegas and play it for 100 hours (quite possible). How much money do you make per hour of work? Go ahead, knock off all your non-entertainment expenses, including savings. Let's imagine you have 50 cents extra per hour (and I beg you to cut your expenses somehow if that's ALL you have). If you had 50 cents per hour left over to spend on yourself, then Fallout would be worth $50, a little bit less then what it is being sold for according to you.

Seriously, you come off as stingy and desperate. You're better then that.

It's only 300 hours worth of gameplay if you like it enough to play that long.

The amount of time you invest in a game does not change the amount of content in the game.

It has 300 hours worth of gameplay period.

Prices aren't determined by this.

The overall cost of a game is determined by how much work is required to make it. The reason some indie games are cheap is because they only need to recuperate the relatively small costs of production. If a game costs more to make, it will cost more to buy.

 

[bob1052]

What if you steal it from the plant, where no dealer or owner has purchased it?

It is a terrible analogy but if you cannot disprove something as simple as it then your other point is complete rubbish.

I can disprove it all day. With a blindfold on. If you steal a car from the plant, you're still taking money out of the pocket of the dealer. He's lost a potential sale. If you pirate a game, that's not one less game that the developer has available to sell, now is it?

I'll copy/paste what I said before, since you seem intent on ignoring it.

How is that even remotely the same thing? If I steal a car, somebody else no longer has that car to drive/sell. If I pirate a game, nobody else loses their ability to play that game. Nor does the developer/publisher have one less game available to sell.

Stealing = removing something.
Pirating = copying something.

Going back to my original example, the person who pirated the game never had the money to buy it in the first place. So they aren't even removing money from the developer that otherwise would have gone to them.

The resources to pirate games/movies/music will always be there, available to everybody, regardless of whether they're being used for malicious purposes or not.

If the person with no money pirates the game, it means that other people can pirate the game too, resulting in lose of sales. Pirating because you have no money for any reason means you are contributing to the loss of sales caused by pirating.

 

[bob1052]

Yep. Anyone whith a different opinion is simply wrong. Our current laws are the perfect infallible moral rules of the universe.

I'm not sure I need to scour the universe to know that stealing is immoral. But as we're on a solar theme, what planet are you on to think the opposite?

I want to get money for the dance I just did in front of my computer, did I get any? No.

Your analogy is flawed. If you spent time and money creating a dance routine and filming it, I would think you entitled to sell it and make money from it. It's how supply and demand works. Do you think people should not want to profit from things they should produce?

Piracy =/= stealing. I'm not hurting for cash, but if I was, I could definitely see pirating being an acceptable way for me to get my gaming fix. If you were never going to be able to afford a game in the first place, and you pirate it instead, that doesn't translate to a lost sale because you were never going to buy it regardless. So you aren't actually taking anything from the developer in that case.

Please explain to me how that is stealing. Back in the days of floppy discs and the early CD-rom era, me and my friends would copy games from each other all the time. Nobody told us it was wrong, or that we were stealing. Not even the discs themselves had warnings about copying. The only reason that this has become an issue at all is because developers now feel like they have to spend ludicrous amounts of money on development costs, even if the resulting game is trash. So it takes a lot more sales to recoup those costs. And when they don't get that high amount of sales, it's easy to blame piracy.

So if you were hurting for cash, and you wanted a car, would you see stealing that car as an acceptable way? Just because you wouldn't get the game if pirating around, doesn't make pirating acceptable.

Furthermore, even if you are stupid enough to think its ok in that case, the fact that the resources to pirate exists for people to use in that case, means it also exists for people who are just greedy and have some childish sense of entitlement who could, and would, buy the game but because of pirating they decide not to give the developer/publisher their business.

If you are too poor to buy the game then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale. Since pirating doesn't actually take someone elses disc, then it is victimless (since you also would not have bought the game).

You can't compare stealing a car to it.

If you are too poor to buy the car then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale.

Also try to not ignore 90% of posts you try to refute, it just makes you look dumb. Having the resources available means that people who can buy the game, who would have bought the game, who are a lost sale not buy the game.

Read my post. If you're too poor to buy a car, and steal it, then somebody else is still losing a car. If you're too poor to buy a game, and pirate it, nobody else is missing a game.

What if you steal it from the plant, where no dealer or owner has purchased it?

It is a terrible analogy but if you cannot disprove something as simple as it then your other point is complete rubbish.

The plant owns it at that point and you would be stealing from them. You couldn't see this on your own? Did you think a car that hasn't made it to a dealer yet is owned by no one?

The irony in what you thought was a good point is quite funny. Individual plants don't have ownership in that case so your condescending attempt was way off.

 

[bob1052]

Yep. Anyone whith a different opinion is simply wrong. Our current laws are the perfect infallible moral rules of the universe.

I'm not sure I need to scour the universe to know that stealing is immoral. But as we're on a solar theme, what planet are you on to think the opposite?

I want to get money for the dance I just did in front of my computer, did I get any? No.

Your analogy is flawed. If you spent time and money creating a dance routine and filming it, I would think you entitled to sell it and make money from it. It's how supply and demand works. Do you think people should not want to profit from things they should produce?

Piracy =/= stealing. I'm not hurting for cash, but if I was, I could definitely see pirating being an acceptable way for me to get my gaming fix. If you were never going to be able to afford a game in the first place, and you pirate it instead, that doesn't translate to a lost sale because you were never going to buy it regardless. So you aren't actually taking anything from the developer in that case.

Please explain to me how that is stealing. Back in the days of floppy discs and the early CD-rom era, me and my friends would copy games from each other all the time. Nobody told us it was wrong, or that we were stealing. Not even the discs themselves had warnings about copying. The only reason that this has become an issue at all is because developers now feel like they have to spend ludicrous amounts of money on development costs, even if the resulting game is trash. So it takes a lot more sales to recoup those costs. And when they don't get that high amount of sales, it's easy to blame piracy.

So if you were hurting for cash, and you wanted a car, would you see stealing that car as an acceptable way? Just because you wouldn't get the game if pirating around, doesn't make pirating acceptable.

Furthermore, even if you are stupid enough to think its ok in that case, the fact that the resources to pirate exists for people to use in that case, means it also exists for people who are just greedy and have some childish sense of entitlement who could, and would, buy the game but because of pirating they decide not to give the developer/publisher their business.

If you are too poor to buy the game then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale. Since pirating doesn't actually take someone elses disc, then it is victimless (since you also would not have bought the game).

You can't compare stealing a car to it.

If you are too poor to buy the car then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale.

Also try to not ignore 90% of posts you try to refute, it just makes you look dumb. Having the resources available means that people who can buy the game, who would have bought the game, who are a lost sale not buy the game.

LOL, you are telling me not to ignore posts when you have ignored the very post you quoted?

When you steal a car, someone has lost a car. When you copy a game that you weren't going to buy anyway, no money or property is lost.

Yep. Anyone whith a different opinion is simply wrong. Our current laws are the perfect infallible moral rules of the universe.

I'm not sure I need to scour the universe to know that stealing is immoral. But as we're on a solar theme, what planet are you on to think the opposite?

I want to get money for the dance I just did in front of my computer, did I get any? No.

Your analogy is flawed. If you spent time and money creating a dance routine and filming it, I would think you entitled to sell it and make money from it. It's how supply and demand works. Do you think people should not want to profit from things they should produce?

Piracy =/= stealing. I'm not hurting for cash, but if I was, I could definitely see pirating being an acceptable way for me to get my gaming fix. If you were never going to be able to afford a game in the first place, and you pirate it instead, that doesn't translate to a lost sale because you were never going to buy it regardless. So you aren't actually taking anything from the developer in that case.

Please explain to me how that is stealing. Back in the days of floppy discs and the early CD-rom era, me and my friends would copy games from each other all the time. Nobody told us it was wrong, or that we were stealing. Not even the discs themselves had warnings about copying. The only reason that this has become an issue at all is because developers now feel like they have to spend ludicrous amounts of money on development costs, even if the resulting game is trash. So it takes a lot more sales to recoup those costs. And when they don't get that high amount of sales, it's easy to blame piracy.

So if you were hurting for cash, and you wanted a car, would you see stealing that car as an acceptable way? Just because you wouldn't get the game if pirating around, doesn't make pirating acceptable.

Furthermore, even if you are stupid enough to think its ok in that case, the fact that the resources to pirate exists for people to use in that case, means it also exists for people who are just greedy and have some childish sense of entitlement who could, and would, buy the game but because of pirating they decide not to give the developer/publisher their business.

If you are too poor to buy the game then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale. Since pirating doesn't actually take someone elses disc, then it is victimless (since you also would not have bought the game).

You can't compare stealing a car to it.

If you are too poor to buy the car then you won't be buying it, this is not a lost sale.

Also try to not ignore 90% of posts you try to refute, it just makes you look dumb. Having the resources available means that people who can buy the game, who would have bought the game, who are a lost sale not buy the game.

Read my post. If you're too poor to buy a car, and steal it, then somebody else is still losing a car. If you're too poor to buy a game, and pirate it, nobody else is missing a game.

What if you steal it from the plant, where no dealer or owner has purchased it?

It is a terrible analogy but if you cannot disprove something as simple as it then your other point is complete rubbish.

Also god job ignoring it again, idiot.

Ok, insult me again and I will report you.

Good job ignoring it again, idiot. Make another off-topic, worthless post and I will report you.

 

[ethaninja]

The place I work at is directly effected piracy. There are those that abuse it to no end. But sadly most gamers at one point has gotten a bootleg of a game from a friend, off a site, at a LAN. Its hard to justify those that work hard to create the product and those that sell it all getting ripped off. The problem is that with the economy most people are looking at pirated games as the only way to play a title due to money being so tight. I hate piracy but its just part of the world we live in.

Very wise words my good man, I couldn't have said it better myself.

OT: Why do you think most robbers/muggers exist? They weren't born douchebags that had a hard code in them that told them to go up to random strangers/stores and start looting. They do it because life is difficult to get by, and they see it as a means of making it easier.

Granted that is a more extream analogy, but the same thing (sort of) applies.

 

[Popido]

You cant pirate car. That would count as an miracle. And the church would then accuse you for blasphemy.

 

[bob1052]

If the person with no money pirates the game, it means that other people can pirate the game too, resulting in lose of sales. Pirating because you have no money for any reason means you are contributing to the loss of sales caused by pirating.

Yes, I realize that anybody can pirate the game. That's going to be the case regardless. But we're talking about a specific example here, and you're just repeating the same thing over and over. HOW exactly are you causing the developer to lose a sale if you were never going to be able to pay for the game in the first place? The opportunity to sell to this person never existed. Therefore the developer is losing a non-sale. Double negative.

You are just repeating the same thing as well, so I repeat my answer. It doesn't matter if you were a potential sale, by pirating you are supporting all the pirates who would have been the potential sale. They are the bigger problem, but you are hindering the solution.

 

[bob1052]

The irony in what you thought was a good point is quite funny. Individual plants don't have ownership in that case so your condescending attempt was way off.

Actually, they do. The manufacturer owns the cars in the plant. They sell them to dealers, who sell them to us. So there's quite a lot of money that would be lost with that care you stole, not even mentioning the cost of the materials used to make the car itself. Data, again, has no inherent value. It's not made of cost-consuming materials.

I never said the manufacturer didn't own the car.