Piracy

[RockyRan]

It is precisely what some pirates like Dex are doing. They're tasting a product. Making their own stands, and eating their own cups of sausage to see if they want to buy. How is this in any way fallacious or absurd?

 

No what they're doing is illegally acquiring software and applying a "taste test" analogy to justify it morally. The problem which you guys are all again glossing over is this "Game companies generally don't offer this though because they're not selling you enjoyment. They're selling you the opportunity or an attempt at entertainment. That's not good enough for pirates and they take matters into their own hands. I'm fully willing to argue that even if you played a game that you didn't enjoy and you didn't pay for it then you're still doing something immoral"

 

Oh yeah, and BTW: I thought we weren't allowed to use analogies with physical goods or oh, does that not apply to your arguments, only mine?

 

That's an incredibly cynical attitude you're having over what amounts to a simple taste test. "Stealing then justifying" is certainly an argument that can be made, albeit one with heavy amounts of subjectivity injected in it to further a particular point. Trying a product by force before making a purchase isn't an "immoral" act on any plane of reality. It's illegal, sure, but immoral? Forgive me if I don't buy into that notion. You seem to be engrossed with the specific instance where a person downloads a game to try it, doesn't like it, and deletes it. Does your subjective opinion have any moral qualms about the opposite, in which a person downloads a game, likes it, and buys it? Or are you simply focusing on the worst case scenario to make your point?

 

And yes, physical analogies are perfectly valid where appropriate. I'm putting your argument to the test against other situations where it is applicable, and needless to say it does not hold.

[Yantelope]

Does your subjective opinion have any moral qualms about the opposite, in which a person downloads a game, likes it, and buys it?

 

yes.

 

A long time ago I quit this topic because someone just admitted "I know what I'm doing is wrong but I don't care". That's all I really cared to hear.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Yantelope

[MasterDex]

Demoers feel entitled. I don't know why but for some reason you claim that if you don't get enjoyment from your money you've been cheated. This is an entirely bogus concept.

Demoers? What? Is this a new subgroup of gamers? If by demoers, you mean consumers then yeah, you're damn right we feel entitled. We're handing our money over for goods and services. As a consumer, I reserve the right to choose what to buy and what not to buy. Like Dean said, I don't buy games to feed developers and fatten corporations. I buy games to play games; to get enjoyment from games. The whole concept of buying and playing games for enjoyment (aka Fun, aka Entertainment, aka Joy) and feeling you're entitled to decide what's fun to you personally is a bogus concept?! That's real fuzzy logic there, Yantelope. It's also not that I feel cheated if I don't get enjoyment, cheated is a very strong word. I feel I have wasted my money and money certainly isn't growing on trees for me.

 

The basis of your argument is wholly and entirely based on your one omniscient claim of knowing that you would never buy the game if you couldn't demo it.

You don't have to be omniscient to know whether you would or wouldn't buy. We know who we are. We know what we would do. We know how our minds work. Why is that so hard to agree with? Certainly, you know yourself pretty well? I know myself better than I know any other person. In this hypothetical world where omniscience is the only way to know one's self, does every adult (We are all adults in this back and forth, aren't we?) fear that they may one day become a serial killer? That they may one day become a heroin junkie? I'll let you answer those.

 

Did you buy games back in the days of the SNES?

If I had money, yes, but growing up in a less-than-rich family meant I had to rely on my parents to buy me games. Yes. I confess. I was once a child whose parents made purchasing decisions for them.

 

Did you never play a single game until the days of the internet?

You'll have to clarify there. Until the internet was invented? Wasn't alive. Until I had access to the internet? No, I played many a game before I had access to the internet. I take it you're really asking did we ever play a game before demos and internet game piracy was around then yes, of course and I'll go into greater detail now.

 

Do you demo every single game before you buy it? No. You don't. Clearly you have the option of making a ration decision without having to pirate a game. If piracy wasn't available you'd weigh your options and you'd pick games that you think you'd enjoy and that's what most rational people do.

You have been reading what we've been typing here, right? I'd really hate to feel like I've wasted all this time talking to a brick wall.

I'm trying to guarantee enjoyment through an illegal download, yes but very rarely do I do such and only in cases, like I've said, where I find myself unable to make a value judgement. I won't just purchase something and hope I enjoy it unless I have some belief that I will enjoy it.

I believe I've expressed much the same sentiment more than this over the last few pages. What you are doing is assuming that we are pirating every single game that interests us. We are not. As I've said, (again, more than once), sometimes, RARELY, a game will interest me enough for me to say "Oh! What's this?" but not enough for me to slap down my limited funds and I will try it before I buy it. If there's a good demo out? Great! If not, I MIGHT just pirate it. Again, in rare cases, I might pirate a game, to see if I will gain enjoyment from it - the key factor in determining whether I buy a game or not.

 

You think that because you paid $10 for a game and you didn't enjoy it your time was wasted? Your time was worth nothing?

Simply put, yes. My time was wasted if I didn't enjoy the GAME. My money was wasted if I didn't enjoy the GAME.

 

No, the fact is that by pirating a game you're getting entertainment that you didn't pay for.

Yes, I am. Believe it or not, I don't even have to pirate a game to get entertainment I didn't pay for. Shocking, I know!

 

A normal person would buy the games at whatever price they're willing to pay and requesting a refund if they were unsatisfied.

Firstly, I'd like you to define a normal person. Secondly, I'd like you to type in 'PC games' and 'refunds' into google or whatever search engine you prefer and see what you come up with.

 

Game companies generally don't offer this though because they're not selling you enjoyment. They're selling you the opportunity or an attempt at entertainment

What a cop out! Game companies are selling me the opportunity or an attempt at entertainment but they're not selling enjoyment?! Are they not good enough to sell pure joy? Game companies can make all the attempts they want at entertainment and I'll buy many of those great attempts at entertainment. Why? For entertainment (aka Fun, aka...). As a consumer, I reserve the right to determine what I spend my money on. Where games are concerned, the key factor in determining whether I will buy a game is how much I think I will enjoy it. In other words, how much entertainment I believe I can get from it. Should I start feeling bad for all the games I couldn't even be bothered to try let alone buy as well as the few I've pirated because I didn't deem them worth my time or money?

 

That's not good enough for pirates and they take matters into their own hands. I'm fully willing to argue that even if you played a game that you didn't enjoy and you didn't pay for it then you're still doing something immoral. Your sense of entitlement is what's making you think it's not immoral.

You're confusing morality with legality. It's a common mistake but a mistake nonetheless. MORALS ARE NOT THE SAME AS LAWS. This has been said already. You are free to believe that it is morally wrong to pirate a game or break any law whatsoever just as you're free to believe there is a god and heaven waits for you after death. I'm free to believe otherwise. We can share our beliefs in a mature, understanding way. You don't need to force your morals onto us however and I'd be grateful if you'd stop trying.

 

never would have bought it if I hadn't pirated it

You can't possibly know that right there because you did pirate the game.

Yes, I can possibly know that right there because, as I said, due to past experiences with the series, I had absolutely no intention of buying another NFS game. My pirating of NFS Shift however was a chance for EA to gain a sale from me. If I liked what I played then they would have themselves 1 extra sale. I did not enjoy the game, as I had not enjoyed its recent predecessors. Look at that! Piracy has the opportunity to sell a game to someone?! HOW CRAZY IS THAT!!

 

No, you're just clearly not answering my question because you know the answer.

The number of games that you didn't buy because you couldn't pirate them is 0. That's the answer and that's why you're argument is invalid because you're arguing something you can't know.

It's hard to name a game I may not have bought because I couldn't pirate them because I can't recall, as Dean said, a game that I would not have been able to pirate if I had wished to do so. If I had wanted a game that I could not pirate, I may not have felt I needed to pirate the game. Your argument is based entirely around hypotheses and conjecture, The logic here is also contradictory. You go on to quantify the amount of games we didn't buy because we couldn't pirate them, tell us what we know and then say our argument is invalid because we can't know such an answer and you're right. 0 is not the sum. The sum is n. It's a variable figure. There's no way to know how many games I didn't buy because I couldn't pirate them because there are too many variables involved for me to give an example to your hypothetical conditions.

 

and @fuchikoma: I've never heard of someone researching pot smoking and then going through with it but it makes me respect you less and not more. You can find opinions to support whatever position you'd like to take but I suppose you didn't bother listening to the AMA. (I was gonna link to a study here showing that long term effects on the brain are pretty negative but searching for pot studies at work might be a good way to get yourself red flagged).

You really don't want to start down that road. I can bring ALL the studies you like to the table. But I won't. It wouldn't change your narrow-minded views. Also, that you respect fuchikoma less for researching marijuana before trying it makes me respect you less, a great deal less I have to say.

Edited October 6, 2011 by MasterDex

[RockyRan]

Does your subjective opinion have any moral qualms about the opposite, in which a person downloads a game, likes it, and buys it?

yes.

 

A long time ago I quit this topic because someone just admitted "I know what I'm doing is wrong but I don't care". That's all I really cared to hear.

So even if this method of trying out games results in direct profit to the creator of the content where there wouldn't be otherwise, you're still morally against it?

 

That's an incredibly simplistic attitude, I have to say.

[fuchikoma]

So even if this method of trying out games results in direct profit to the creator of the content where there wouldn't be otherwise, you're still morally against it?

 

That's an incredibly simplistic attitude, I have to say.

 

Clearly he made up his mind before he even joined the discussion and simply needed to hear what he was looking for. It explains why he ignored so many arguments that were made in here... Anyway... I'm glad that's over. Maybe we can make some more progress now.

 

Still, I find this pretty hypocritical:

I'm fully willing to argue that even if you played a game that you didn't enjoy and you didn't pay for it then you're still doing something immoral. Your sense of entitlement is what's making you think it's not immoral.

So then, how IS it immoral to pirate a game, try it, and then buy it, instead of simply not buying it?

A long time ago I quit this topic because someone just admitted "I know what I'm doing is wrong but I don't care". That's all I really cared to hear.

[Yantelope]

I don't see how it's hypocritical. It's the attitude of self righteousness from pirates that really bothers me. The actual pirating, while I think it's wrong, doesn't bother me quite so much. Maybe it's because I can understand how a rational person could pirate a game but I can't understand how a rational person would pirate a game and then tell himself that what he's doing is morally right.

 

So even if this method of trying out games results in direct profit to the creator of the content where there wouldn't be otherwise, you're still morally against it?

 

That's an incredibly simplistic attitude, I have to say.

Profit isn't my quantifier of morality. I think it's still wrong to steal bread even if you're starving and somebody has excess. Just because you return an item you stole it doesn't make it okay to steal that item.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Deanb

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I think it's morally right to share art. Also, what about game developers? What if they don't care about people pirating the game? What are the morals on that? Does it matter what the intent of those who created the object is? As in, does it matter if the person who created it considers the act moral or not? Maybe that shop owner is fine with that poor person stealing that bread.

[RockyRan]

Profit isn't my quantifier of morality. I think it's still wrong to steal bread even if you're starving and somebody has excess. Just because you return an item you stole it doesn't make it okay to steal that item.

So then it's essentially a "It's always wrong because it's wrong due to it being wrong" thing? Having such a primitive outlook on "stealing" distills the argument beyond recognition. You're ignoring every single real-world case where piracy actually benefits the creator of the work out of a binary concept of morality.

[fuchikoma]

I don't see how it's hypocritical. It's the attitude of self righteousness from pirates that really bothers me. The actual pirating, while I think it's wrong, doesn't bother me quite so much. Maybe it's because I can understand how a rational person could pirate a game but I can't understand how a rational person would pirate a game and then tell himself that what he's doing is morally right.

Since I didn't mean it as an overt attack, I'll explain. It means that either

• You claim that you're fully willing to argue a subject, but when asked directly to do so, you quit the discussion.
  
• Or since you were talking about pirating then not buying, and I asked about pirating then buying, it would mean you are only willing to address the side of the argument that specifically strengthens your point, and will not consider any other scenarios, even when both are for piracy.
  

What bothers me the most is that you've been going on about how it is immoral to pirate games at all, but have not given a good reason why it should be considered immoral (or I missed it skimming the first 26 pages?) Then right after you offer to get to the point, you quit. I suggested that because harm cannot be shown for the scenarios we're discussing (demo use) that it is not immoral, even if it is not morally good either. As far as I'm concerned, my argument stands unchallenged, and you've simply asserted that you are right.

 

So can you please explain why you believe that any piracy is immoral? I don't see much objection to the talk of no harm. So far I can only guess it is because it is illegal, and you believe breaking the law is inherently immoral?

 

At this point, we are debating your morality like many people debate "games as art" - that is, without defining the very thing we're debating - which is pointless.

[Yantelope]

I'd be happy to explain why I think any piracy is immoral. If somebody creates something in order to sell it and is acting under the protection of the law in order to do so I find it wrong for someone else to take that work against the will of the individual or group of people who created it. Many times it's not solely up to the developer to decide this since they sign a contract with a publisher which they have to abide by as well. If everyone who created and legally has rights to the game decided to give it away then fine but then it's not called piracy is it?

 

I don't believe that the ends justify the means. Even if by stealing bread you avoid starving or even prevent someone else from starving your stealing of that bread was still wrong. You can say that I'm archaic. That's fine.

 

Also, I didn't quit the argument. I had church and a softball game to go to (unrelated to each other). I also ignore all the points which have become circular. I say you can't know what you will do, you say you can, the point is dead so I move on. Not really sure there's much to be gained on that front so I drop it and proceed down other paths that I think might help.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Yantelope

[RockyRan]

For me I have to look at the outcome, not the action, to determine if piracy or any form of "stealing" is "wrong". If the victim of the "theft" (in this case, the developer) actually benefits from this action it is in no way wrong. If the person who pirates a game, likes it, and still doesn't pay for it, it's completely immoral and unjustifiable. A person who pirates a game for demoing purposes and decides it's no good for them does no actual harm to the owner of the work. I'm looking at this from a consumer perspective. I've seen many, MANY cases where people pay full price for a game that had no demo only to be served with a broken, buggy, unoptimized, or just plain bad game with absolutely no way of getting a refund. Despite this transaction being "legal", it's 100% "wrong" in my eyes. Now, I'm certainly not advocating for eye-for-an-eye tactics using full, unrestricted piracy, but at the end of the day I just cannot and will not fault any consumer for simply trying out a product before committing money to it. Even if it's deemed illegal by some law somewhere, the consumer is in no way being morally flawed by making sure he/she's not getting gypped into playing a shit game. Especially when there are barely any demos (especially on PC) and the ones that do exist are incredibly poor indicators of the actual quality of a product.

 

If the market is in such a state that it's driving people to pirate a game just to see if they want to buy it, something went wrong. In fact, consumers willing to pirate a game before buying are actually giving the developers of the game a bigger chance than they deserve, because if a consumer is wondering about the quality of a game and its developers outright refuse to offer their own product to potential buyers, that developer really shouldn't even deserve demo-by-piracy. A developer brazenly taking a "buy this blindly or hit the road" stance should not be met with sympathy but with a middle finger. At that point the consumer who pirates to demo a game is putting in far more effort than the developer themselves to sell the game. If it were me (and this happens a lot), the lack of demo on a game I'm unsure about means an automatic no-sale. People who instead go out of their way to download the game to demo it are outright doing the devs a favor, because if it were up to the devs only there wouldn't even be that second chance in the first place.

[Yantelope]

Many times if a game is broken or buggy then you can find that out by reading a review or checking forums. Rage has made that pretty clear right now. Also, most times that a game is actually broken you'll find developers will either fix it or offer refunds. EA just did that for the PC version of Tiger Woods. At any rate, I don't find it morally wrong unless the game actually doesn't work as advertised. At the end of the day, where we differ is that I still hold that you can't make the statement that you wouldn't have bought the game if you couldn't pirate it and I don't believe that piracy leads to more overall game purchases. It may lead you to change your game purchases but I find it a sketchy proposition at best to think that it actually leads to more game sales.

 

And yeah, if you want to use test drives for an example, if a dealer doesn't want to give you a test drive and you don't want to take a risk then don't buy his car. Why bother helping him out?

 

@Fuchikoma, you said you'll never buy demon souls because you can't pirate it. Well, that's your choice but the way I see it, if it's something that I have interest in playing it I'd probably go ahead and drop the $13 on a used copy and give it a whirl. You might be missing out on a game you'd love to play but I guess that's your option.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Yantelope

[RockyRan]

I was generally talking about the people buying a game on day 1, or buying a PC game they're not sure will run on their system and it turns out it really doesn't. In specific cases like in RAGE, where some people have horrid problems and not at all, I still maintain that the gamer is doing iD a favor if the gamer is willing to pirate the game to see if it works with their system so that they can buy it now rather than wait months until it's fixed for everybody (although pirating a 22 GB demo is pretty insane...). Taking a car by force for a test drive might be...uh...a "little" unorthodox, but at the same time you're still doing them a favor by insisting on having an interest in the car despite the seller not giving a shit.

 

Piracy can and definitely has led to more purchases, however. I think it was Naruto that was a Japan-only anime/manga for the longest time, and the series got a tremendous explosion in popularity after its materials were rampantly pirated through the rest of the world. The company then saw an honest interest in the series, started publishing everywhere, and the rest is history. There's another example of a relatively obscure game that got pirated heavily but became so popular that its sequel(s) sold through the roof. I'd give you specifics but it's late over here and for the life of me I can't remember the exact game.

[fuchikoma]

I'd be happy to explain why I think any piracy is immoral. If somebody creates something in order to sell it and is acting under the protection of the law in order to do so I find it wrong for someone else to take that work against the will of the individual or group of people who created it. Many times it's not solely up to the developer to decide this since they sign a contract with a publisher which they have to abide by as well. If everyone who created and legally has rights to the game decided to give it away then fine but then it's not called piracy is it?

 

Ok - so then the immorality comes into play because the pirates are going against the will of the creators, or if nothing else, subverting the way the product was meant to be distributed? While my own views don't back that position, that does make sense and I respect that. I personally believe that for something to be immoral, it must cause harm, or be done with malicious intent or at least guilt. Still, I can see how it would be seen as wrong to take someone's art and instead of appreciating it as it was intended, to manipulate it for your own gain.

 

If I am understanding you correctly here, I'm wondering how you feel about unauthorized music remixes or mashups? Would it be wrong to take a song

and turn it into something it was never intended as, assuming it doesn't compete with the original commercially?

 

Also, I didn't quit the argument. I had church and a softball game to go to (unrelated to each other). I also ignore all the points which have become circular. I say you can't know what you will do, you say you can, the point is dead so I move on. Not really sure there's much to be gained on that front so I drop it and proceed down other paths that I think might help.

 

I misunderstood then. When you said "A long time ago I quit this topic because someone just admitted "I know what I'm doing is wrong but I don't care". That's all I really cared to hear," I thought you'd basically washed your hands of the thread and decided to drop it.

[Thursday Next]

@Dean Since when did I get to share a universe with Yant?

 

My argument is simple. The publisher creates and owns the content. They say you cannot have it unless you fulfil certain conditions. You refuse to fulfil these conditions and use the content against the content creator's wishes. Doing something to/with the property of another against their wishes is, in my opinion, wrong. It doesn't matter if it causes physical, psychological or financial harm to the owner or the goods or if it has no effect whatsoever. The fact is that you have not acted in accordance with the owners rights and wishes.

 

Some people on this forum have openly admitted that they just don't care that they are infringing the publishers rights, that they know it is technically wrong to do so, but they are not bothered. That's a choice they make, one I disagree with, but I understand it. Why should you care? You don't know the owners, you can't know them, they're not a human, they're a company. So it's just a case of "is it worth putting yourself out by doing the right thing? Or would you rather have the content you want for free?"

 

I wish that everyone felt like Yant and I on this issue, that everyone respected the rights of others to control what they create, and placed those rights above their desire for entertainment, but, that's not the way things are.

[deanb]

@Thursday: You both went with the whole "you don't know you'd pirate/buy the game there n then if the option for piracy wasn't available". So yeah you both got your own parallel universe.

 

And if you want I can not ever pirate/buy a EA Game ever again? That would cause financial harm though surely? Looking on Origin there's not a single demo, unless you count the BF3 beta. So it's clear as the content funders they're exercising their rights to not market the game to me. So I'll exercise my consumer rights in not buying anything.

 

Also I had a scan though my PS3 games (since it's a smaller collection) and pretty much every game I own I've either demo'd (officially), previously borrowed off a mate, bought dirt cheap, or been a fan of the series. Only game not fitting that? Red Dead Redemption. I neither demo'd, play-tested, nor did I play Revolver. And it was new. Was pretty disappointed by it.

 

Funnily talking of EA, my main drive of "try-before-you-buy" can be easily traced back to...Spore. I even bought the CE. I couldn't play the game for the first week due to the DRM and the overall game was a shallow piss take of what had been shown off and promised for years prior. EA are the sole creators of my cynicism in games and my drive to make sure to give a test before handing over any money. Money ain't cheap.

[Thursday Next]

As I said, causing harm is not part of the issue. Much as I hate to have to analogise... If you give blood to a Jenova's witness, that is wrong, even though abiding by their wishes will cause them to be dead while defying them could be the start of a complete recovery. So yes. Don't pirate/buy the games, even though it causes financial harm to a content owner. Content owners (mostly) don't want you to pirate their games so don't do it unless they say you can.

 

In proof reading this, I've just noticed my typo, but I'm leaving it in anyway cos I rather like it.

[deanb]

I'm not really sure saving the life of Sephiroth would be a good idea. Also what is wrong with giving blood to Jehovas witnesses? All I know about them is the one kid I went to primary school with had to sit out of assembly cos of it.

 

And either way: If you're dying, and I'm in a position to save your life, then fuck your religious beliefs.

 

In general: If an option is there and it is available without causing harm or for malicious purposes, then take/do it.

[Thursday Next]

Just a difference of opinion in how we should hold the rights of others then. Nothing in the world is gonna change that.

 

Since you asked... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

[Hot Heart]

As far as I can see it, from the publisher's side, they'd rather you follow the available legal channels. Not sure on a game? Then wait until it goes down in price, see what other people have to say, buy it pre-owned if you have to. Sure, if you did pirate and then buy it straight away, that's more money to them but I don't think that's how publishers like to look at it. In EA's case they're still looking to make money off things like DLC and Project Ten Dollar because those cover the legal options available.

 

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be restrictions on lending games to friends or stifling DRM but, unfortunately, that is the case.

 

In the end, it's entertainment, not a necessity. No one needs it right away. And if publishers fail to get a full-price purchase out of you because of a lack of a demo or whatever, then that's their fault and their problem.

[deanb]

Just a difference of opinion in how we should hold the rights of others then. Nothing in the world is gonna change that.

 

Since you asked... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

 

That just leads to the Jehovahs Witness page n nowt there on giving blood :/

 

@Hot_heart: If Publishers were able to I'm sure they'd get used sales made illegal too. (A few have tried too, not necessarily in the games field though). They're certainly trying their damnedest to make it an unfavourable option.

[Johnny]

As I said, causing harm is not part of the issue.

 

I can honestly not take the idea that piracy is bad wether it causes harm or not seriously at all.

 

Fuck, man. If we could prove that piracy never lead to a lost sale, I would claim piracy to be a wonderful, purely good thing.

Piracy lets the consumer well and truly know how good a game is before he pays for it. Piracy has led me and many I know to purchase great games we wouldn't have known were great if we hadn't pirated them first.

If everyone who pirated a game he could afford and ended up enjoying, ended up buying it, then piracy would be a tool allowing consumers infinite access to all games, movies, tv shows and music while still allowing maximum possible revenue flow to the entertainment industries.

 

If this was true, then you can take whatever the content creators' wishes are and shove it up their asses, because piracy would be an amazing, perfect part of the system and opposing it would be akin to taking a huge dump on the consumers head just because you wish to.

 

Unfortunately, it isn't like that. And that's why it's worth discussing in the first place. So stop pretending it's not about wether it harms devs/publishers or not.

[Yantelope]

Yeah, I'm just going to nod and agree with TN an HH here.

 

Cool, a turret avatar! I'll be there soon.

[Thursday Next]

As I said, causing harm is not part of the issue.

So stop pretending it's not about wether it harms devs/publishers or not.

 

What are you smoking? EDIT. Just realised I misread that. didn't see the "not" my bad.

 

My point is that it's not for you to decide how anyone deals with their own property.

 

I say keep off my lawn, you keep off my lawn. I say don't play with my toys, you don't play with my toys. I believe that I should have exclusive rights over my property and my creations. If I choose to lock them up and never share them, that's for me to decide. It's not for you to say what's in my interests or what you'd rather I do with my property. My being a selfish arsehole does not give you or anyone else the right to take what I'd rather not share.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Thursday Next

[Hot Heart]

Whether publishers would like used sales made illegal is neither here nor there. I'm sure any business would like people always paying full price for their products. And it hasn't happened anyway.

 

And I'd just like to clarify, I'm not against people 'pirating to try' and then purchasing right away if they do intend to play it. I would never hold that against people, and I know you guys are generally pretty good on that front. It's just important to understand both sides.

 

I think the biggest problem, as is the case with Ubisoft and PC sales, is this failure of the publishers to understand the situation. People may be pirating to try games and then purchasing, but all they will look at is how many people have torrented the game and decide DRM is the answer. And the only way around that, it would seem, would be to follow the alternatives such as buying cheap or used.