Jump to content
nuget102

Piracy Discussion

Recommended Posts

 

 

So, basically - A lot of people who claim that they pirated games only as a "demo" with the full intention of buying it later are full of it.

The game is not worth the $8 and is a rip-off of a Japanese game with almost the same name.

How is this a good example?

People pirated it as a demo, does not mean they HAVE TO buy it. Playing a demo does not force you to spend money on a game..

Your logic is flawed.

 

This post is so flawed, that it has surpassed all known forms of logic available to mankind.

 

I'm not sure I even need to go through it point by point to demonstrate this fact (word by word, even).

 

 

@Realmkeeper - I'll give it a try for you ;).

 

@Johan - True a demo is a limited free version of the game to demonstrate the style of game play.

A pirated game is not a demo. It will never be a demo, it's a pirated game. People who download games under the premise that they are downloading it as a 'demo' are incorrect. Because it fails to meet the basic requirements, Demos are Limited Free versions of the game. A pirated game is the full free version of the game.

 

There is a huge difference in the legal world between a demo and pirated games.

 

My suggestion, if a game isn't worth spending money on, then it's not worth playing. Therefore not worth pirating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that pirating and then buying the game afterwards is even more Dev-friendly cause then it's not just you buying the product. you can already play it, it's a donation to the devs basicly rewarding them for how good their game is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, interestingly enough, in the case of Game Developer Tycoon (baring "clever" pirates that have removed a certain event -- you know who you are!), the "pirated" copy is limited, compared to the full-featured game.

Play it sometime -- those pirates take a nice chunk out of your budget. But it's the only "hook" the game has. It's the only  way, it seems, that anyone knows of the game.

Off Topic:
But only play it if you like watching little bubbles fill up abstract things like "3D-graphics" and "level saving."

How much more worthwhile it would have been if it just included little Jeaprody-esque notes on the history of games and software development.
 

 

 

My suggestion, if a game isn't worth spending money on, then it's not worth playing. Therefore not worth pirating.

 

And again, we get to the whole "How do you know until you play it . . . " dilemma and misrepresentation of a product's content through marketing (such as "video demos" rather than "playable demos").
 

 It's a fundamentally dishonest deal even if you honestly think the game is not worth it in the end. To build further on my own analogy, it'd be like the government forcibly took away a piece of unused land belonging to you, built their infrastructure on it, and then only came to you and said "Well, our project didn't give us the benefits we foresaw, so we're not paying you".

But, again, we're not dealing with something physical. There is no "land." There is no "infrastructure." There's just a copy of game content being passed around, one that's ideally free from costing the developers anything, unless they've made the mistake of auto-updating it (a feature that was removed from PZ for this very reason). It's abusive to make use of someones finite resources in such a manner.

But, if you want to argue the initial cost and the expected return for a product for a reason not to pirate, I can get behind that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this where we get into a discussion of what's worth paying for? After trying Game Developer Tycoon (the intentionally bugged "pirate release" -- I wanted to see what they did; it sounded nifty), I came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth my time or money.

Surely there's a better example out there.

 

I didn't bother pirating it, watching some YT-videos(which is something I do even before pirating) I saw that it wasn't my style of game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this where we get into a discussion of what's worth paying for? After trying Game Developer Tycoon (the intentionally bugged "pirate release" -- I wanted to see what they did; it sounded nifty), I came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth my time or money.

Surely there's a better example out there.

 

If you upload a buggy version of your own game to pirate-bay to show it off, you're not going to get lots people buying it, cause they think the paid-version of the game will just be as buggy and shit as the one they're playing now for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 It's a fundamentally dishonest deal even if you honestly think the game is not worth it in the end. To build further on my own analogy, it'd be like the government forcibly took away a piece of unused land belonging to you, built their infrastructure on it, and then only came to you and said "Well, our project didn't give us the benefits we foresaw, so we're not paying you".

But, again, we're not dealing with something physical. There is no "land." There is no "infrastructure." There's just a copy of game content being passed around, one that's ideally free from costing the developers anything, unless they've made the mistake of auto-updating it (a feature that was removed from PZ for this very reason). It's abusive to make use of someones finite resources in such a manner.

But, if you want to argue the initial cost and the expected return for a product for a reason not to pirate, I can get behind that.

 

No, actually. I'm not arguing that and will not use physical costs as a point, as it's too easy to get bogged down in subjective opinions as to what constitutes a fair return for developers.The reason why I have used real - world analogies is that I've found that easier for most people to relate to, as compared to using a closer digital analogy - In which case the default bias for a large proportion of content consumers boils down to "If I can obtain it without consequences, it's okay". 

 

This also stems from a personal belief that online/digital communities are still largely in a growth stage - Adolescence, if you will - And do not fully appreciate the type of power that they wield, and have not yet grown to a stage where they will generally use it responsibly. But that's another whole topic altogether. Suffice to say that real world analogies of abuses of power strike closer to home, because that's where we've already established generally accepted moral frameworks. It's a lot easier than constantly banging your head on the wall of "Yeah - uh", "Nuh - uh" that goes with arguments built around a virtual world where people are still in the process of laying down ground rules.

 

I have built my arguments around principles of fair play and fair trade, as that's a base concept grounded in both the real world and digital media that's easier for most people to agree with. Whether or not a perception of "value" has basis in the physical realm should not be relevant to the principle of fair play. Allow me to justify that statement with another analogy :

 

Let's say you have a pet lamb that you've brought up since childhood. Now it's of age where you have to let it go and sell it to someone else who'll slaughter it for meat. You know, objectively, that a pound of meat goes for around 10 dollars. Your lamb has around 20 pounds of meat, so the "value" of your lamb in physical terms is 200 dollars. However - this is a lamb that you have a certain sense of emotional attachment to. You've reared it for years, come to love it (No, not that way. Get your head out of the gutter), and are only very reluctantly parting with it.

 

This leads to premise number 1:

A "value" of a product/service is not only grounded in its physical being. Emotional attachment, high expectations, and other metaphysical concepts that only exist inside a human being's emotions are also part of the "value" that an owner can attach to his product/service.

 

 

So anyhow, you - the hypothetical owner - decide that you are only going to let it go for 300 dollars.The additional 100 dollar "value" is not grounded anywhere in the physical realm - But it's your lamb, and by God that's what it's worth to you. You're not going to let it go for any less.  Furthermore, you will only let it go to someone who will promise you that  he will not slaughter your lamb unnecessarily painfully. 

 

This leads to premise number 2:

The owner of said product/service, by virtue of owning it, is free to set the terms in which he will conduct his business using his product/service - whether that be price or terms of usage.

 

 

 

Now - Let's discuss the probable reactions to our hypothetical owner. Most people are probably going to dismiss his demands as ridiculous and leave him alone, but there's always a chance that there'll be someone who views it in a different light - The owner cares a lot for his lamb, so that would probably mean that it's only been fed the best feed, it is not going to have any hidden injuries, etc. So said customer decides it's good value for him to get higher quality meat, and decides to buy the lamb at the higher price.

 

This leads to premise number 3:

A product/service not being good value for you doesn't mean it's not good value for everyone else. If you dislike the terms of the deal, or otherwise disagree with the assigned "value", the civilized thing to do is to walk away from it, NOT to force the owner to do business with you under terms that only you think to be fair.

 

 

I would encourage anyone reading to consider the premises of fair play that I have described, and see how piracy fundamentally violates such principles. Once again, it doesn't matter whether or not anything physical actually changed hands, or whether there was a physical cost involved - An idea, a legendary item in a game, a relationship built over an MMO - They're all non - physical entities that technically do not exist in the real world - but someone who has built it up, worked for it, and owns it is going to assign a value to it and cherish it, and it would be immoral for another person to hijack it without consent. No matter how "irrational" it may appear without an equivalent real - world cost.

 

It should be us gamers of all people that understand the strong attachments to such digital constructs and work the hardest to protect fair play in the digital realm, not be the first ones to tear it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no reason discussing/debating pirating.

 

People who were pirating will continue to pirate, unless they change and start buying games legitimately. For some there is a justification to pirate, for some there aren't. Some people think it's bad to pirate, some people think it is acceptable under certain terms.

It's pointless, as it is a giant waste of time really discussing it over.

 

All I can say is - Project Zomboid costs like 8 bucks. My mom gave me more pocket money for "ice cream" at the age of 8. Don't be douches and buy Project Zomboid. Not to mention that you'd have to search for an updated hacked version of it everytime legitimate one comes out. You are making it worse on yourself if you pirate this game.

 

For an ending note, I'll say this - past this comment, people will continue debating pirating and whether if it's bad or not. It won't change much, and I doubt it will change many people's minds about it. /point?

 

aoz200A_460sa.gif

I simply made this thread so people won't go talking about pirating in other topics (and ultimately getting those topics locked) if you think it is pointless, you are free to avoid this topic as if it's a freak mutant zombie from L4D. I really don't care either way. :3 And yes I know it isn't going to change anyone's opinion on piracy, it's not meant to. This topic is so people can freely argue their opinions of piracy. I hope this clears up why I made this topic? ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is this where we get into a discussion of what's worth paying for? After trying Game Developer Tycoon (the intentionally bugged "pirate release" -- I wanted to see what they did; it sounded nifty), I came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth my time or money.

Surely there's a better example out there.

 

I didn't bother pirating it, watching some YT-videos(which is something I do even before pirating) I saw that it wasn't my style of game.

 

I didn't think Game Dev Tycoon would be my type either, I tried it anyway. I thought it was terrible, I didn't get far enough in the pirated version for that message to come across.... I realized pretty quickly it was just the same thing over and over with no real variety. I determined it wasn't worth my $8. I would have been pretty pissed if I had wasted my money on it too... of course if I knew there was a demo (I guess I overlooked it) I would have tried the demo... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 It's a fundamentally dishonest deal even if you honestly think the game is not worth it in the end. To build further on my own analogy, it'd be like the government forcibly took away a piece of unused land belonging to you, built their infrastructure on it, and then only came to you and said "Well, our project didn't give us the benefits we foresaw, so we're not paying you".

But, again, we're not dealing with something physical. There is no "land." There is no "infrastructure." There's just a copy of game content being passed around, one that's ideally free from costing the developers anything, unless they've made the mistake of auto-updating it (a feature that was removed from PZ for this very reason). It's abusive to make use of someones finite resources in such a manner.

But, if you want to argue the initial cost and the expected return for a product for a reason not to pirate, I can get behind that.

 

No, actually. I'm not arguing that and will not use physical costs as a point, as it's too easy to get bogged down in subjective opinions as to what constitutes a fair return for developers.The reason why I have used real - world analogies is that I've found that easier for most people to relate to, as compared to using a closer digital analogy - In which case the default bias for a large proportion of content consumers boils down to "If I can obtain it without consequences, it's okay". 

 

This also stems from a personal belief that online/digital communities are still largely in a growth stage - Adolescence, if you will - And do not fully appreciate the type of power that they wield, and have not yet grown to a stage where they will generally use it responsibly. But that's another whole topic altogether. Suffice to say that real world analogies of abuses of power strike closer to home, because that's where we've already established generally accepted moral frameworks. It's a lot easier than constantly banging your head on the wall of "Yeah - uh", "Nuh - uh" that goes with arguments built around a virtual world where people are still in the process of laying down ground rules.

 

I have built my arguments around principles of fair play and fair trade, as that's a base concept grounded in both the real world and digital media that's easier for most people to agree with. Whether or not a perception of "value" has basis in the physical realm should not be relevant to the principle of fair play. Allow me to justify that statement with another analogy :

 

Let's say you have a pet lamb that you've brought up since childhood. Now it's of age where you have to let it go and sell it to someone else who'll slaughter it for meat. You know, objectively, that a pound of meat goes for around 10 dollars. Your lamb has around 20 pounds of meat, so the "value" of your lamb in physical terms is 200 dollars. However - this is a lamb that you have a certain sense of emotional attachment to. You've reared it for years, come to love it (No, not that way. Get your head out of the gutter), and are only very reluctantly parting with it.

 

This leads to premise number 1:

A "value" of a product/service is not only grounded in its physical being. Emotional attachment, high expectations, and other metaphysical concepts that only exist inside a human being's emotions are also part of the "value" that an owner can attach to his product/service.

 

 

So anyhow, you - the hypothetical owner - decide that you are only going to let it go for 300 dollars.The additional 100 dollar "value" is not grounded anywhere in the physical realm - But it's your lamb, and by God that's what it's worth to you. You're not going to let it go for any less.  Furthermore, you will only let it go to someone who will promise you that  he will not slaughter your lamb unnecessarily painfully. 

 

This leads to premise number 2:

The owner of said product/service, by virtue of owning it, is free to set the terms in which he will conduct his business using his product/service - whether that be price or terms of usage.

 

 

 

Now - Let's discuss the probable reactions to our hypothetical owner. Most people are probably going to dismiss his demands as ridiculous and leave him alone, but there's always a chance that there'll be someone who views it in a different light - The owner cares a lot for his lamb, so that would probably mean that it's only been fed the best feed, it is not going to have any hidden injuries, etc. So said customer decides it's good value for him to get higher quality meat, and decides to buy the lamb at the higher price.

 

This leads to premise number 3:

A product/service not being good value for you doesn't mean it's not good value for everyone else. If you dislike the terms of the deal, or otherwise disagree with the assigned "value", the civilized thing to do is to walk away from it, NOT to force the owner to do business with you under terms that only you think to be fair.

 

 

I would encourage anyone reading to consider the premises of fair play that I have described, and see how piracy fundamentally violates such principles. Once again, it doesn't matter whether or not anything physical actually changed hands, or whether there was a physical cost involved - An idea, a legendary item in a game, a relationship built over an MMO - They're all non - physical entities that technically do not exist in the real world - but someone who has built it up, worked for it, and owns it is going to assign a value to it and cherish it, and it would be immoral for another person to hijack it without consent. No matter how "irrational" it may appear without an equivalent real - world cost.

 

It should be us gamers of all people that understand the strong attachments to such digital constructs and work the hardest to protect fair play in the digital realm, not be the first ones to tear it down.

 

 

Your points are almost flawless, except one thing - All your examples are just wrong. In a case above, again - the customer, no matter how much the lamber costs, can go up to it, pet it, can check it out and see if it has any visible injuries/If it is fed properly by looking at it's body built. With our game industry, it works in a different way. If we were to do the same example but with the way it works in the game industry, people would not be able to see the lamb, talk to the owner of it, or see if it is good enough or actually sick and injured.

 

We would be having to trust posters that the OWNER wrote about his lamb showing all of the good sides, and hiding or concealing those sides that are bad in it, making it look flawless. Either this, or we would have to trust another person who have bought the lamb from the owner before already and claims that it was good, although he is a different person and by "good" he means that it is actually fed properly, but he seem to have overlooked that the lamb is sick and has a couple of injuries.

 

That is, without even saying that ONCE AGAIN in your example, the lamb is limited. If it worked the same way game industry works, you could've copy-pasted the lamb and sold it for as much people as you want. In the game, you DON'T have to re-work another game from scratch when someone buys the first one from you.You copy-paste it, and let another guy buy it. And then you continue. In a case with the lamb - it is just 1, it's there, and when someone buys it, you have to raise a new one.

 

I am not a pirating fan either, but the points that you write make absolute no sense regarding how piracy REALLY hurts the developer. Your examples only work with real life businesses, where all the products are limited and you can't just simply copy it over with a simple Ctrl + C Ctrl + V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your points are almost flawless, except one thing - All your examples are just wrong. In a case above, again - the customer, no matter how much the lamber costs, can go up to it, pet it, can check it out and see if it has any visible injuries/If it is fed properly by looking at it's body built. With our game industry, it works in a different way. If we were to do the same example but with the way it works in the game industry, people would not be able to see the lamb, talk to the owner of it, or see if it is good enough or actually sick and injured.

 

We would be having to trust posters that the OWNER wrote about his lamb showing all of the good sides, and hiding or concealing those sides that are bad in it, making it look flawless. Either this, or we would have to trust another person who have bought the lamb from the owner before already and claims that it was good, although he is a different person and by "good" he means that it is actually fed properly, but he seem to have overlooked that the lamb is sick and has a couple of injuries.

 

That is, without even saying that ONCE AGAIN in your example, the lamb is limited. If it worked the same way game industry works, you could've copy-pasted the lamb and sold it for as much people as you want. In the game, you DON'T have to re-work another game from scratch when someone buys the first one from you.You copy-paste it, and let another guy buy it. And then you continue. In a case with the lamb - it is just 1, it's there, and when someone buys it, you have to raise a new one.

 

I am not a pirating fan either, but the points that you write make absolute no sense regarding how piracy REALLY hurts the developer. Your examples only work with real life businesses, where all the products are limited and you can't just simply copy it over with a simple Ctrl + C Ctrl + V.

 

 

You weren't even bothered to read the points made earlier in the discussion then, I take it?

 

1) "I can't get any objective information on the quality of the game" - Already answered. You do, from a wide variety of outside sources. You just choose not to use them in favor of getting a full pirated copy of the game.

 

2) "This doesn't REALLY hurt the developer" - Already answered. Once again, that is not for you to decide for the developer, the same way you wouldn't like someone else making decisions on how you should think for you. I have already explained in detail why I believe that physical cost to the developer is irrelevant. They believe that your actions have a negative effect on them and do not want to do their business your way (Pirate first, buy *maybe* later), and they are well within their rights to feel that way. You are free not to deal with them if you don't like the terms. That does not give you the right to force a deal on your terms when the other side doesn't want it that way.

 

The "lamb" is not meant to be a direct analogy to be compared pirated games, but rather to illustrate the principles of fair play that are violated every time you decide to present to developers a "deal" that has all its terms skewed in favour of yourself, and yourself only.

 

So, in reply to yet another variation of the "You have flawed logic" theme - Please read the thread if you're really interested in meaningful discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) "I can't get any objective information on the quality of the game" - Already answered. You do, from a wide variety of outside sources. You just choose not to use them in favor of getting a full pirated copy of the game.

Do these "wide varieties" of sources include written articles and video footage? Because those are both piss poor criteria for judging a game. It should be standard practice by now to release demos of games and its that fact that it isn't is what even drives me to piracy. I refuse to let the bad business practices of any company make me gamble my money on a product. 

 

I can't tell you how many times I read an article or watched a video propping up a game then when purchased I was more than disappointed with my product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that now with the internet is easy to see a gameplay or things like that about a video game and if you really want that game you have to pay for it don't you think? And also pirating a game like project zomboid that beside of being indie, cost less than 12 bucks is just low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do these "wide varieties" of sources include written articles and video footage? Because those are both piss poor criteria for judging a game. It should be standard practice by now to release demos of games and its that fact that it isn't is what even drives me to piracy. I refuse to let the bad business practices of any company make me gamble my money on a product. 

 

I can't tell you how many times I read an article or watched a video propping up a game then when purchased I was more than disappointed with my product.

 

 

You have game reviews from websites dedicated to the purpose, gaming blogs, walkthroughs, video commentaries, forum discussions from other people who already have the game. If you believe some of them have reason to give biased reviews (IGN, for instance), then take it with a grain of salt, and also take into account other opinions as well.

 

Some of you appear to be saying that demos are a poor way for judging a game as well, since developers would obviously pick and choose the best features to showcase while hiding the bad points. I happen to agree, but that's exactly why it should be taken into consideration along with everything else, not just by its own merits. Even if there is a lack of a proper demo you are not exactly in the dark, with all the other sources.

 

Speaking personally, I downloaded the PZ demo, read the reviews from several sources, and watched Eckyman's Let's Play videos before buying the game - And I found that it was more than enough for a good picture of the game. 

 

It's like doing research on any topic on the internet - Taken alone, any one source is insufficient to form a decent picture. That's why you have such a variety of media from different sources to choose from. If CNN is being biased, try BBC, Al - Jazeera, other alternative media. Claiming that they all have their own slant, and therefore you are unable to form any sort of educated opinion on an issue at all - let's say, the Snowden case - without actually talking to Mr Snowden in person is an argument that borders on ridiculous. There's good reason this time period is being referred to as the "Information Age".

 

In short, you appear to be arguing that anything short of a full - scale copy of the game is "not good enough" for coming to a relatively educated opinion about the game. Sounds a bit self - serving, no?

 

Also - If you believe that a company is engaging in bad business practices and you'd be gambling your money on their product - Just don't buy it, perhaps? The same way a person would walk away from a used - car dealer that you feel you can't trust. Why is it that in the case of software you are going in with the assumption that you're automatically entitled to said product, even when you've already emphasized that you distrust the company that made it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding piracy, if anyone ever wants to read the letters sent by big corporations like Apple, Sega, EA, Warner Brothers, and even the Swedish Government they can head on over to a very-infamous-pirate-site and see the section "Legal Threats"

 

The very-infamous-pirate-site has also replied to many of their emails and also posted their responses on their site.

 

Cannot link the sites though, you'd have to figure it out yourselves (the site is obviously TPB)

 

I'll post the EA's letter and the response from the torrent site as well. 

 

 

>

> Dear Mr. [-]:
>
> It has been brought to the attention of Electronic Arts Inc. ("EA") that
> the website [REMOVED] with the IP addresses of
> [REMOVED], [REMOVED], [REMOVED] is conducting
> unauthorized activities with respect to EA's copyrighted software, The
> Sims 2. The aforementioned website is offering and distributing
> bittorrent seeds for an unauthorized downloadable version of this EA
> game.
>
> The infringing material may be found at:
>
> [REMOVED]
>
> [REMOVED]
>

 

Their response:

Hello and thank you for contacting us. We have shut down the website in
question.

Oh wait, just kidding. We haven't, since the site in question is fully
legal. Unlike certain other countries, such as the one you're in, we have
sane copyright laws here. But we also have polar bears roaming the
streets and attacking people :sad:.


> This unauthorized activity with respect to the distribution of EA's
> software products constitutes infringement of EA's intellectual property
> rights. EA enforces its intellectual property rights very aggressively
> by using every legal option available.

Please don't sue us right now, our lawyer is passed out in an alley from
too much moonshine, so please atleast wait until he's found and doesn't
have a huge hangover...

>
> As you are listed as the registrant for this website, EA demands that
> you immediately and permanently disable access to the aforementioned
> bittorrent seeds for The Sims 2 and any in the future.

You're free to demand anything you want. So are we. We demand that you
cease and desist sending letters like this, since they're frivolous and
meaningless. Where should I send the bill for the consumed diskspace and
bandwidth?

> Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions concerning
> this matter, please contact us via e-mail at:
>[MEANINGLESS].
>
>
> Regards,
>
> EA Law - IP Enforcement
> Electronic Arts Inc.
> [REMOVED]

Thank you for your entertainment. As with all other threats, we will
publish this one on [REMOVED]


 
 
Not sure if this post will be deleted or not, but seeing that the letter is on a public domain, I hope not.
 
phew, those were alot of removals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P1 _ I don't pirate games because it's illegal and immoral

P2 _ I pirate games because it's easier and cheaper

P1 _ How can you expect the economy to work and people to live on such a basis ?

P2 _ Maybe that's the last thing i'm expecting

P1 _ Come on, u think PZ developpers exploit chinese children and feed your data to the NSA ? On the contrary, their independent work might even contribute to moving the system towards something better... ** her/his iPhone ringing **

P2 _ Look, i'm not saying what i'm doing is good or bad, i'm just saying i'm not gonna waste my life working just to be able to legally play games or watch movies. This is not exactly the world i wanna live for. ** state allowance & Greenpeace contributor cards fall from her/his pocket **

P1 _ Fuck off you useless parasite !

P2 _ Fuck off you brainwashed cannon fodder !

GAME OVER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have game reviews from websites dedicated to the purpose, gaming blogs, walkthroughs, video commentaries, forum discussions from other people who already have the game. If you believe some of them have reason to give biased reviews (IGN, for instance), then take it with a grain of salt, and also take into account other opinions as well.

I'm glad the faith of internet articles and commentary videos is enough for you to drop $60 (or any amount for that matter) on a game but that just doesn't cut it for me. I need to have the game or the demo in my hands to be able and tell if I enjoy the gameplay, not someone else telling me if it is or isnt.

 

 

Some of you appear to be saying that demos are a poor way for judging a game as well, since developers would obviously pick and choose the best features to showcase while hiding the bad points. I happen to agree, but that's exactly why it should be taken into consideration along with everything else, not just by its own merits. Even if there is a lack of a proper demo you are not exactly in the dark, with all the other sources.

The only other person besides yourself who said that was TinnedEpic, so the first part is entirely meaningless. I can honestly say that a demo, no matter how gussied up it is, will be a much better indicator of the gameplay than a written article will tell you.

 

 

 

Speaking personally, I downloaded the PZ demo, read the reviews from several sources, and watched Eckyman's Let's Play videos before buying the game - And I found that it was more than enough for a good picture of the game. 

Same here except I only played the demo. It's weird what happens when you let people play a game to judge if they want to buy it or not.

 

 

 

It's like doing research on any topic on the internet - Taken alone, any one source is insufficient to form a decent picture. That's why you have such a variety of media from different sources to choose from. If CNN is being biased, try BBC, Al - Jazeera, other alternative media. Claiming that they all have their own slant, and therefore you are unable to form any sort of educated opinion on an issue at all - let's say, the Snowden case - without actually talking to Mr Snowden in person is an argument that borders on ridiculous. There's good reason this time period is being referred to as the "Information Age".

Judging factual evidence =/= judging something subjective as a game.

 

 

 

In short, you appear to be arguing that anything short of a full - scale copy of the game is "not good enough" for coming to a relatively educated opinion about the game. Sounds a bit self - serving, no?

A completely wrong and assumptious claim. I think companies need to adapt and get with the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

It's like doing research on any topic on the internet - Taken alone, any one source is insufficient to form a decent picture. That's why you have such a variety of media from different sources to choose from. If CNN is being biased, try BBC, Al - Jazeera, other alternative media. Claiming that they all have their own slant, and therefore you are unable to form any sort of educated opinion on an issue at all - let's say, the Snowden case - without actually talking to Mr Snowden in person is an argument that borders on ridiculous. There's good reason this time period is being referred to as the "Information Age".

Judging factual evidence =/= judging something subjective as a game.

 

 

 

In short, you appear to be arguing that anything short of a full - scale copy of the game is "not good enough" for coming to a relatively educated opinion about the game. Sounds a bit self - serving, no?

A completely wrong and assumptious claim. I think companies need to adapt and get with the program.

 

 

Fair enough on the demo comments. I was just simply pointing out that what's "enough" to come to an educated opinion on the game differs from person to person. You simply cannot claim that one type is unquestionably superior to another, and if the game developers do not provide the type you want - That it's automatically justification for claiming little information on the subject.

 

As for game reviews, videos, etc not being factual evidence - You are able to observe how the game mechanics work in Let's Play videos. Game reviews often discuss the basic workings of the game (For instance, they would be talking about how you have no weapons and are constantly forced to hide in Amnesia, how you'd need light to maintain your sanity, etc). That's factual evidence right there. Just because something is an opinion piece, like a review, does not mean that it will not refer to the mechanics of the game itself. In fact, if it's a good review it would draw its opinions based on the underpinnings of the game and not just whether the reviewer "feels" it's okay.

 

Lastly, about companies needing to adapt - Yes, perhaps. But again the question beckons - You can just walk away from a company that doesn't provide a demo, and not touch their product at all. If other gamers agree with you, said company will be going out of business soon enough thanks to market forces. Whether to adapt or not remains their decision to make, not yours. Why the need to pirate a game that you emphasize came from a company whose practices you don't support in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for game reviews, videos, etc not being factual evidence - You are able to observe how the game mechanics work in Let's Play videos. Game reviews often discuss the basic workings of the game (For instance, they would be talking about how you have no weapons and are constantly force to hide in Amnesia, how you'd need light to maintain your sanity, etc). That's factual evidence right there. Just because something is an opinion piece, like a review, does not mean that it will not refer to the mechanics of the game itself. In fact, if it's a good review it would draw its opinions based on the underpinnings of the game and not just whether the reviewer "feels" it's okay.

Yes reviews tend to have game mechanics posted but it still does nothing for me when I can't see or experience it. "X game has y mechanic and I think its great" is usually the case with that and is still nowhere near enough of an indicator to if I'll like a game or not. Again, I want to PLAY the game or a portion or a barebones or whatever. Put my character in an empty room filled with nothing but the mechanics and dev textures for all I care. I just need to play the game for myself and no amount of "here watch this video" or "look at this article" is going to change that. 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, about companies needing to adapt - Yes, perhaps. But again the question beckons - You can just walk away from a company that doesn't provide a demo, and not touch their product at all. If other gamers agree with you, said company will be going out of business soon enough thanks to market forces. Whether to adapt or not remains their decision to make, not yours. Why the need to pirate a game that you emphasize came from a company whose practices you don't support in the first place?

You're seriously asking me why I'm not completely stopping business with AAA title companies whose fan base would buy the CEOs shit if they packaged it? Lol. I understand the "speak with your wallet" argument and all but that isnt realistic at all, at least in this situation. I'm pretty sure I would have to start a committee filled with thousands upon thousands of people before they would even consider listening to us. But that seems like a gigantic hassle, especially for something so trivial as a fucking games demo.

 

So in the meantime I will still pirate the games I'm interested in that dont have a demo, see if I like and if I do, bought. If not, deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes reviews tend to have game mechanics posted but it still does nothing for me when I can't see or experience it. "X game has y mechanic and I think its great" is usually the case with that and is still nowhere near enough of an indicator to if I'll like a game or not. Again, I want to PLAY the game or a portion or a barebones or whatever. Put my character in an empty room filled with nothing but the mechanics and dev textures for all I care. I just need to play the game for myself and no amount of "here watch this video" or "look at this article" is going to change that. 

 

 

 

Ok, that's fine. It's your opinion of what works for you, and I can respect that. This stance, however, is very different from your initial statement that other sources of information are generally "piss poor" across the board now, isn't it?

 

 

You're seriously asking me why I'm not completely stopping business with AAA title companies whose fan base would buy the CEOs shit if they packaged it? Lol. I understand the "speak with your wallet" argument and all but that isnt realistic at all, at least in this situation. I'm pretty sure I would have to start a committee filled with thousands upon thousands of people before they would even consider listening to us. But that seems like a gigantic hassle, especially for something so trivial as a fucking games demo.

 

 

I happen to agree that a lot of game titles I think are lousy get snapped up despite the generally poor quality of the games themselves - But that's just our opinion, isn't it? If a couple thousand other people are going to throw money at the hundredth Farmville clone I might think it's stupid, but it's still their money and their life to live. It's why recognizing where personal opinion starts and ends is important. No, I'm not suggesting we get a committee together to petition a change in such companies. I'm saying that if you don't support these companies, simply leave them and their products alone. Find and support upcoming indie titles. Get started on your own, if you're so inclined.

 

If a company's only "crime" is producing game titles that you do not like personally, or are otherwise engaged in business practices that you just do not agree with (i.e. you simply don't like it, as opposed to business practices that are outright dishonest) it is morally unjustifiable to force said company into a deal that they do not want, just so you can get your hands on something they rightfully own, on your own terms. Terms that the company does not agree to and most likely actively protests against. Even if you do like the game and hold up your end of the deal, there are going to be countless others who are going to use that as a pretext to never getting around to paying the developer, at all. That's the essence of my argument, made much earlier in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never fails to amaze me how the word 'piracy' on any forum will set off an argument the magnitude of which would make Galactus wince. People believe different things, people will never, evar, agree. So I don't see the point in arguing.

 

It's not like said arguing will stop it, so if you're heavily against pirating it seems logical to just not pirate. You're doing more than arguing against pirates will ever achieve. With today's influx of widely available technology and services it's only going to get worse. All I get to look forward to is even worse DRM... and I really, really find it hard to take people seriously when they say they never pirate. I think most first world people would have deviously obtained a music, film or games from either the webs or a friend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...So there's no point in debating anything, ever, then? If you'd notice, you are also arguing - Arguing against the merits of forum discussion, like the one we just had. And that's fine. Healthy discussion is conducive to both sides' mental development, even if a consensus is not reached. You can believe anything you wish to - But it's a different matter entirely whether you know why you believe what you believe in. If beliefs were never challenged, people would never have the opportunity to examine their thought processes leading up to their beliefs. In other words, all we'd have is blind faith.

 

Naturally, there are always going to be people who refuse to participate in constructive discussion. Just don't let negativity and snarky comparisons to winning retard races dissuade you from putting your ideas out in the open, asking for other ideas, and debating the merits of each. Expanding your horizons is how you grow as a person. In fact, if you constantly find yourself running from debating your beliefs, perhaps you might consider whether it's because deep down you know you aren't able to justify them publicly, at all.

 

As for the topic of piracy itself - Yes, for the most part, people aren't going to be persuading each other to change deep - seated beliefs, but the point is not change - at least, not immediately. The point is to get people thinking at least, instead of clinging to a single set of beliefs and - perhaps more importantly - never questioning their supposed moral superiority in the matter.

 

To answer the implied accusation - Yes, I have pirated before. I have no doubt that during my usual course of web - surfing I also get involved in numerous IP violations unwittingly, by taking and using images that don't belong to me, or a variety of other offenses. I do my best not to these days, especially when it's quite obvious that it *is* going to be a violation of someone else's property, but I can't say that I've never done it - Because I have. The point is not to proclaim that I - or anyone taking a stance against piracy - is an angel in such matters, but to suggest that what is happening is morally wrong, and perhaps everyone should think twice when you're looking at that torrent file you're downloading, and consider whether you are really justified in doing so. Not just blithely accept that what you're doing is okay because of the kind of faulty reasoning displayed earlier in the thread, and in the other one. Or worse, thinking that it's okay just because you are unquestionably in the right in everything you say, or do.

 

Regarding the future of the internet and such technology - Yes, a lot of people are going to have the power to do whatever they want, with digital media. But having the power to do something does not mean it is morally justifiable to do it. To use the old adage - Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. The boss you're working for has the power to make your life miserable for his own amusement. A corporation has the power to bind you to lopsided contracts that lock you into only patronizing them. A tyrannical government can use the strength of its military and nuclear arsenal to forcibly impose their will on their neighbors. All of them can do it, but most people agree that forcing your will on someone else against their own desires is morally wrong - so they shouldn't do it. Is it only wrong when big, powerful entities misuse their powers against you, but justifiable "because no one really gets hurt" when you do it to someone else?

 

Also, just to clarify - I'm not from a first - world country. I'm from Malaysia.

 

No one's saying anyone is - or is going to be - perfectly honest, but there's a large difference between someone doing something potentially wrong, and just not thinking about it because that's the easy way out (And flying into a rage when someone dares to question whether they're doing is morally justifiable, how dare they); And someone doing something potentially wrong, taking the time to pause for a moment to think "Hey, is what I'm doing here the right thing to do?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Christ, by arguing about arguing I've created an argument about arguing! 

 

... argueception...

 

Sorry man, I didn't mean to start anything else. Wasn't exactly myself when I posted that. Didn't mean to point fingers or anything. If you check my profile, you'll notice I'm relatively young, so my beliefs tend to still be forming. Though sometimes I come across a little too strong. The way I'm starting to see things is simply that 'right' and 'wrong' are not, as you say, solid concepts, and are only something generated by the society with live within. Sometimes, life just seems too complex. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...