Well, we should be concerned about what happens to our home planet, right? If you knew for sure that an asteroid would cause the extinction of humanity on Earth in the year 2182, and we failed to prevent it, would you care? Anyways, I'd rather we have as much time as possible to deal with potentially fatal threats to our species, and hope that we have the science by then to either deflect the asteroid or preserve Bruce Willis.
That argument doesn't sit well with you because you misunderstood my hobby. I said that "I keep my finger on the pulse of the gaming industry", which is to say, of course I'm up to date. There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying older games; in fact, I have a nice collection of classic games. But for me it's not about having the latest and greatest as a status symbol. The excitement comes from following the progress of the industry as a whole, not just the simple joy of playing a game. Now, say I were to take your advice, and solely play old used games that I could afford. That would hurt the game publishers far more than downloading their games. Publishers don't make a single cent off of the sale of a used game. Buying used games does not put money back into the industry, it puts money into retailers' pockets. So, I ask you: in this situation, what would a game publisher prefer? Buying antiquated used games instead of their games, or downloading their recent games and telling all of my friends how good they are?
I'm not trying to justify piracy in general. I'm simply pointing out that it's not necessarily in a publisher's best interests to squash all unpaid use of their products.
I think the article is pretty insightful, and shares a lot of my own sentiments that I've had since the "Don't copy that floppy!" era.
The average software pirate on the Internet is not within the publisher's potential customer base. Honestly, how many young adults do you know who have the money to plunk down on Adobe Photoshop, yet how many have it? If they weren't able to get Photoshop for free, they would not get it at all, and would instead go with a free (or at least cheaper) alternative. Net money loss for Adobe: 0. Popularity and word of mouth advertisement (maybe reaching those that DO have money): priceless.
Personally, I'm a starving college student. I also love video games. The problem here is money: I really can't afford to pay for my favorite hobby, yet I keep my finger on the pulse of the gaming industry. Unfortunately, until I graduate, I won't be able to contribute, effectively excluding me from the potential customer base (though rest assured, I do buy games whenever I can). Whether the publisher prevents me from playing their game or not makes no difference, they can't take money where there is none. Though, there is a boon... gamers come in packs. If I download a game that I end up loving, and give a glowing recommendation to my friends, they will pay for it. Sure, the publisher didn't profit from me directly, but this one penniless pirate hooked 2 or 3 paying customers that wouldn't have otherwise bought the product. The publisher still wins.
I have never met a person who could comfortably afford to pay for their games and does not. Though many do pirate games here and there, the game industry still gets their money from games they do buy. A person tends to spend an allotted entertainment budget no matter what; even if a game is potentially free, if the customer has money to blow, they will blow it.
...I'd say this would constitute as an attack on the Internet itself. The 'Net is all about freely sharing data all over the world. What the data contains, or what you do with it, is your own problem. If it's something like underage porn or pirated movies, and you're caught with it, then you should be punished under their respective laws! But this is attacking it at its source: the actual sharing of data. What do you think the Internet is? Sharing mother****ing data! This is a massive encroachment on the most fundamental liberty of the modern age of communication. Sharing copyrighted data? Punish those individuals that have no right to it, but don't make most of the wired citizens of the world into felons.
This is another step towards the annihilation of free speech.
Restricting the sale of games with a very specific kind of violence like this? Only against law enforcement officers? Sounds to me like cops are just afraid of 14 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto grabbing some guns and blowing them away. That Doug Lowenstein guy is right; games ARE free speech, and to be restricted in such a specific manner is ridiculous.
It's just the narrow definition of the law that bothers me. Violence against pregnant women? Sure, beat the hell out of them with a baseball bat. Punch a cop? Uh-uh, we're not gonna let you do that, son.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we should be concerned about what happens to our home planet, right? If you knew for sure that an asteroid would cause the extinction of humanity on Earth in the year 2182, and we failed to prevent it, would you care? Anyways, I'd rather we have as much time as possible to deal with potentially fatal threats to our species, and hope that we have the science by then to either deflect the asteroid or preserve Bruce Willis.
That argument doesn't sit well with you because you misunderstood my hobby. I said that "I keep my finger on the pulse of the gaming industry", which is to say, of course I'm up to date. There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying older games; in fact, I have a nice collection of classic games. But for me it's not about having the latest and greatest as a status symbol. The excitement comes from following the progress of the industry as a whole, not just the simple joy of playing a game. Now, say I were to take your advice, and solely play old used games that I could afford. That would hurt the game publishers far more than downloading their games. Publishers don't make a single cent off of the sale of a used game. Buying used games does not put money back into the industry, it puts money into retailers' pockets. So, I ask you: in this situation, what would a game publisher prefer? Buying antiquated used games instead of their games, or downloading their recent games and telling all of my friends how good they are? I'm not trying to justify piracy in general. I'm simply pointing out that it's not necessarily in a publisher's best interests to squash all unpaid use of their products.
I think the article is pretty insightful, and shares a lot of my own sentiments that I've had since the "Don't copy that floppy!" era. The average software pirate on the Internet is not within the publisher's potential customer base. Honestly, how many young adults do you know who have the money to plunk down on Adobe Photoshop, yet how many have it? If they weren't able to get Photoshop for free, they would not get it at all, and would instead go with a free (or at least cheaper) alternative. Net money loss for Adobe: 0. Popularity and word of mouth advertisement (maybe reaching those that DO have money): priceless.
Personally, I'm a starving college student. I also love video games. The problem here is money: I really can't afford to pay for my favorite hobby, yet I keep my finger on the pulse of the gaming industry. Unfortunately, until I graduate, I won't be able to contribute, effectively excluding me from the potential customer base (though rest assured, I do buy games whenever I can). Whether the publisher prevents me from playing their game or not makes no difference, they can't take money where there is none. Though, there is a boon... gamers come in packs. If I download a game that I end up loving, and give a glowing recommendation to my friends, they will pay for it. Sure, the publisher didn't profit from me directly, but this one penniless pirate hooked 2 or 3 paying customers that wouldn't have otherwise bought the product. The publisher still wins.
I have never met a person who could comfortably afford to pay for their games and does not. Though many do pirate games here and there, the game industry still gets their money from games they do buy. A person tends to spend an allotted entertainment budget no matter what; even if a game is potentially free, if the customer has money to blow, they will blow it.
...I'd say this would constitute as an attack on the Internet itself. The 'Net is all about freely sharing data all over the world. What the data contains, or what you do with it, is your own problem. If it's something like underage porn or pirated movies, and you're caught with it, then you should be punished under their respective laws! But this is attacking it at its source: the actual sharing of data. What do you think the Internet is? Sharing mother****ing data! This is a massive encroachment on the most fundamental liberty of the modern age of communication. Sharing copyrighted data? Punish those individuals that have no right to it, but don't make most of the wired citizens of the world into felons. This is another step towards the annihilation of free speech.
Restricting the sale of games with a very specific kind of violence like this? Only against law enforcement officers? Sounds to me like cops are just afraid of 14 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto grabbing some guns and blowing them away. That Doug Lowenstein guy is right; games ARE free speech, and to be restricted in such a specific manner is ridiculous. It's just the narrow definition of the law that bothers me. Violence against pregnant women? Sure, beat the hell out of them with a baseball bat. Punch a cop? Uh-uh, we're not gonna let you do that, son.