Excuse me above where I said "But he did get ticked off and turn to the police, he went to the authorities and they turned him away." I did not read the rest of your comments in that paragraph. I would just like to apologise for not reading your post thoroughly enough.
You said:Plus - it's a freaking game. It's something you do for enjoyment.
The time investment involved is the biggest thing for you to recognize. Just as a writer might spend months working on a piece of writing, or maybe it is an artist using digital tools to create a picture.
Say this artist then lent a friend of his the laptop that he had saved all of his hard work on for all those months. He lent his friend the laptop so that the friend could take an extended chance to critique the work. Then this supposed friend sold the work. He used the cut option and instead of creating another copy he gave the only copy of it away for money.
Well that work was only digital right? That artist's picture which he had labored away on was only bits, there was no physical copy. But just the same it is gone. And the time invested into it is gone. Just because you replace artist with gamer and art with dragon sword doesn't make it any different. The seller was in the wrong even if the gamer was even more wrong for resorting to violence; killing someone else. But don't try to write it off as one crazy man killing another over 'just bits,' because it is now to define where these bits are to be located legally.
You also said:If your iPod breaks and you fly to California and try to physically assault Steve Jobs, you'd be called a nut too.
This guy did not find the game creators and kill any of them, his sword did not break, it was sold for money. This comparison is extremely weak and off base because of the monetary exchange taking place with this guy's sword.
Then you said:The thing you're forgetting is that this guy didn't get mad over a virtual theft, he killed someone over a virtual theft. If he got ticked off and complained to the police, that would be one thing. Instead he got ticked off, complained to the policy, and then went and killed the thief.
But he did get ticked off and turn to the police, he went to the authorities and they turned him away. And no, I'm not going to try to diminish what he did here, this man was extremely wrong. He was probably unbalanced before the sale of his sword. The death and murder are important here, that is from the standpoint that this man needs help, but the fact that the police refuse to accept something digital as property also must be addressed.
Finally you said:Likewise, if your iPod was stolen, and you went to the police, and they told you there was nothing they could do because you gave away your iPod, so you went and killed the guy you gave it to, then you would be a nut in need of help.
Gave away != loaned. Loaning implies the intent that the loanee will return whatever object is being loaned. Giving something away is the same as a present. This was not a present, it was not one guy saying, "you're my friend, I like you, take this sword and do with it what you will."
I think Backwards Compatability is going to be the thing that will turn the Revolution from a, "it'd be nice if I had that..." to a, "must have that console at risk of life and limb!"
It'll give me the chance to pick up and play all the Nintendo games from the GC that I've been looking at with so much longing, and then be able to try out this whole new set of titles that will take advantage of whatever the Revolution is going to do so differently.
Overall the announcement of backwards compatability on the Revolution is pretty much the best thing Nintendo could've done to make this little geek happy in that 'special way.'
I absolutely hope that you are being sarcastic, and fear for the life of the gaming community if you are being serious and actually are that stupid.
Innovation surely is not creating another first-person shooter and just replacing Generic Guy #1 with Mario. Innovation is a buzz word that gets thrown around way too often and throws people into fits of frenzy. Everything has been done before, let's get over that fact and try to make sure that this time when we do it we make it fun.
Uh...yeah that was a tangent, but I didn't really want to leave my post that short and lacking in substance. But my main point still remains that I hope you choke and die on your own feces you horrible piece of human waste.:(
"I wonder how many kids now wanna play San Andreas because of the hubub about it."
I wonder how many parents now don't let their kids play San Andreas because of the hubub about it?
WTF?!?!?!?!?....
I'm calm now...but seriously wtf?
I don't see any problems with rockstar putting black people in gangs and committing crimes and putting racial stereo-types into the game. Guess what, it's called a stereo-type for a reason. Not all black people are in gangs, but some of them are. Rockstar just chooses to put those in here. If you want to show what else can happen, the opposite of all these stereo-types than you go right ahead and make a game about a columbian man who works his ass off and raises to the top of a company. I'm sure it'll sell perfectly.
I mean if parents want to shit a brick just because of what appears in these games then they have some serious problems. Considering the fact that they can:
1. Not buy the fucking game
2. Talk, yes, fucking talk to their kids about stereo-types and how it's all wrong and shit
3. Fucking deal with it
Wait, that might not have been the best way to state my argument...Instead let me close with the following:
fucking n00b
Slashdot Mirror
Linx kthx.
Excuse me above where I said "But he did get ticked off and turn to the police, he went to the authorities and they turned him away." I did not read the rest of your comments in that paragraph. I would just like to apologise for not reading your post thoroughly enough.
You said: Plus - it's a freaking game. It's something you do for enjoyment.
The time investment involved is the biggest thing for you to recognize. Just as a writer might spend months working on a piece of writing, or maybe it is an artist using digital tools to create a picture.
Say this artist then lent a friend of his the laptop that he had saved all of his hard work on for all those months. He lent his friend the laptop so that the friend could take an extended chance to critique the work. Then this supposed friend sold the work. He used the cut option and instead of creating another copy he gave the only copy of it away for money.
Well that work was only digital right? That artist's picture which he had labored away on was only bits, there was no physical copy. But just the same it is gone. And the time invested into it is gone. Just because you replace artist with gamer and art with dragon sword doesn't make it any different. The seller was in the wrong even if the gamer was even more wrong for resorting to violence; killing someone else. But don't try to write it off as one crazy man killing another over 'just bits,' because it is now to define where these bits are to be located legally.
You also said: If your iPod breaks and you fly to California and try to physically assault Steve Jobs, you'd be called a nut too.
This guy did not find the game creators and kill any of them, his sword did not break, it was sold for money. This comparison is extremely weak and off base because of the monetary exchange taking place with this guy's sword.
Then you said: The thing you're forgetting is that this guy didn't get mad over a virtual theft, he killed someone over a virtual theft. If he got ticked off and complained to the police, that would be one thing. Instead he got ticked off, complained to the policy, and then went and killed the thief.
But he did get ticked off and turn to the police, he went to the authorities and they turned him away. And no, I'm not going to try to diminish what he did here, this man was extremely wrong. He was probably unbalanced before the sale of his sword. The death and murder are important here, that is from the standpoint that this man needs help, but the fact that the police refuse to accept something digital as property also must be addressed.
Finally you said: Likewise, if your iPod was stolen, and you went to the police, and they told you there was nothing they could do because you gave away your iPod, so you went and killed the guy you gave it to, then you would be a nut in need of help.
Gave away != loaned. Loaning implies the intent that the loanee will return whatever object is being loaned. Giving something away is the same as a present. This was not a present, it was not one guy saying, "you're my friend, I like you, take this sword and do with it what you will."
I think Backwards Compatability is going to be the thing that will turn the Revolution from a, "it'd be nice if I had that..." to a, "must have that console at risk of life and limb!"
It'll give me the chance to pick up and play all the Nintendo games from the GC that I've been looking at with so much longing, and then be able to try out this whole new set of titles that will take advantage of whatever the Revolution is going to do so differently.
Overall the announcement of backwards compatability on the Revolution is pretty much the best thing Nintendo could've done to make this little geek happy in that 'special way.'
I absolutely hope that you are being sarcastic, and fear for the life of the gaming community if you are being serious and actually are that stupid. Innovation surely is not creating another first-person shooter and just replacing Generic Guy #1 with Mario. Innovation is a buzz word that gets thrown around way too often and throws people into fits of frenzy. Everything has been done before, let's get over that fact and try to make sure that this time when we do it we make it fun. Uh...yeah that was a tangent, but I didn't really want to leave my post that short and lacking in substance. But my main point still remains that I hope you choke and die on your own feces you horrible piece of human waste. :(
"I wonder how many kids now wanna play San Andreas because of the hubub about it." I wonder how many parents now don't let their kids play San Andreas because of the hubub about it?
Volume, that's where the profit is. Volume.
WTF?!?!?!?!? ....
I'm calm now...but seriously wtf?
I don't see any problems with rockstar putting black people in gangs and committing crimes and putting racial stereo-types into the game. Guess what, it's called a stereo-type for a reason. Not all black people are in gangs, but some of them are. Rockstar just chooses to put those in here. If you want to show what else can happen, the opposite of all these stereo-types than you go right ahead and make a game about a columbian man who works his ass off and raises to the top of a company. I'm sure it'll sell perfectly.
I mean if parents want to shit a brick just because of what appears in these games then they have some serious problems. Considering the fact that they can:
1. Not buy the fucking game
2. Talk, yes, fucking talk to their kids about stereo-types and how it's all wrong and shit
3. Fucking deal with it
Wait, that might not have been the best way to state my argument...Instead let me close with the following:
fucking n00b