Lost potential customers. Once they steal it, they aren't gonna buy it..most likely. I have no statistics to reference for what percentage of pirates would have considered buying what they stole, but I'm willing to bet it's enough that it would make a difference to the bottom line.
Yes they are still part of it. Out of X number of potential customers Y of them will buy it, and Z won't. It matters that some percentage of Z take it without paying for it. Yes, you can still reach your goals with Y, but maybe you won't. Or are you thinking a company or person should be okay as long as the sell enough to pay for the cost of making whatever it is? $100,000,000 in profit means a sequel may be made, $1 in profit probably means it won't. Quit pretending like piracy isn't stealing, we all know it is.
When you make a movie, create a game, record a song with the intent to sell, there are real costs to do so. Those are offset by the sales of those things. While I am sure there are cases of people creating any one of those things with the intent to lose money, for the most part they intend to make money. So whether the budget is $10,000 or $500,000,000, they do so with the projection and the intent that they'll make more than they put in. If they need to sell 5000 units to make their money back, then someone getting the entertainment value out of it without paying for it does negatively affect the bottom line. Yes, there are always those who argue that they wouldn't have paid for it anyway, they just wouldn't have seen/played/listened to it if they had to pay for it. But that still does count as taking something without paying...aka stealing. Just because it's easy and doesn't result in the physical transfer of property from the owner to you doesn't make it morally okay. But it's not worth the content producers time to seek prosecution of most cases. And that still doesn't mean it's right.
Dunbal was acting like that building in that cost doesn't impact business. If you have to build in a 2% or whatever overhead to account for thieves, that erodes your chance at making money. Both because you're assuming that people will steal it, and less people will buy it at the higher amount.
Yeah I guess it's been a while, so they just gave people the real version of the game versus having to crack it. But that doesn't change that it was a shareware version that id distributed free of charge to hook people in, NOT the full version as was insinuated by the post that prompted my reply.
Doom was shareware. Yes people cracked the real thing and distributed it too, but I personally found and first played the game through a legitimate channel whereby I could try a few levels and if I liked it pay for the right to play the rest. Shoplifting happens all the time and stores still make lots of money. Yeah, Blizzard won't actually miss one copy of, or even a thousand copies of their latest game that they're charging $60 for, but mom n pop shop up the road it makes a difference to them. Just because they can survive the piracy doesn't make it okay. It is irrelevant to the morality of the act of theft whether or not the person being stolen from can afford it.
What word am I redefining? Piracy? Pretty sure that word is applied to make it sound even worse than theft, since piracy involves attacking and stealing, not just stealing, which itself is obviously silly. But I'm not taking your philosophical bait on whether software is a thing that can be stolen. If it Paradigm costs $50 to play for those using legitimate channels, and someone gets it without paying using a method not approved by the creator is taking $50 worth of game play time from the creator. Just because that $50 isn't directly being removed from Jacob's bank account doesn't mean it wasn't stolen from him.
But not enough to pay $180-$200US for it. And even if I happen to stumble upon one of these SNES in store, I'm not paying $80 mostly because I never played SNES. I played the shit out of the original NES. But after that my parents decided to go Sega and I decided to go PC gaming. I'm sure the nostalgia market for SNES will be huge, I'm just not among their potential buyers. Maaaaaybe if they combined the SNES with the NES classic so I could still get the NES stuff, but not as a separate thing.
The moral of this story is everyone should steal and be okay with being stolen from because it sorta equals out....right? Lol I like that he did this because it's his choice to do so, but the reasoning..yeah... not so karmically solid. I admire those who continue to make games as independent developers as it's a very cold, low chance of upside industry where almost no one wants to pay for the game up front (big shift since mobile apps became a thing) and many have no desire to pay for it after even if they enjoy it. Hard to spend hundreds of hours of your life working on something that people will take without paying for unless you truly enjoy what you do so much. But given the nature of the industry, it's now almost the rule to be free to play with the money coming from ads or more likely "micro-transactions" in game. Good luck to Jacob and to all game developers who do it at least somewhat for the love of the craft. Good luck to the ones who it for money too, because I ain't hating.
Part of my contribution to this site is to call out stupidity, like yours, when I see it. That there were enough people who upvoted this story to make it to the front page is severely disappointing.
Phoenix, Arizona and Palm Springs are desert cities. These temperatures, while certainly unsafe, are not irregular for summer time. Palm Springs has been 123 degrees before. Sacramento has been 115. Phoenix has hit 122. That's not to say this isn't a danger to those living there, especially old people, but it's being reported as if it's evidence of global warming. It isn't. So the idea of it being human caused warming or not is irrelevant because it's not global warming in the first place. If it's 130 degrees in Fargo, North Dakota today and you'll have my attention.
Did Greenpeace hijack slashdot today? There is literally nothing to talk about here. At least with the Ethiopia coffee story you could draw the line between IT workers and coffee drinking, which was already pretty weak. But come on. This article is a load of shit. Oh holy crap it gets hot in places. MSMash and "anonymous reader" you are both fucking idiots.
So there had been a time where instead of watching random TV I would instead watch random YouTube videos. Then I joined Facebook and instead spent those minutes there. Then Facebook did this really annoying thing with their videos where they randomly start an ad in the middle. So I decided to poke around SnapChat's "discover" which is now loaded with a combination of recent events and mindless "entertainment". Their ads are 10 seconds and you can skip them just like you can skip any snapchat. However, the content really is...oh so terrible. I have no idea why I ever go there. Why am I even admitting that I do? Hopefully they have metrics that show people will give a shit, because I am really skeptical that this is a good platform for truly original content versus the rehashed 10 second blips that are there now. I mean...I'm certain that I'm a couple decades removed from their target demographic, but my daughter is and she never, ever goes to that area of snapchat.
Typical statist is what he should have said. Our civic duty as citizens of the United States is to guard against the constant onslaught against our freedom that can come from any direction. It knows no political party lines. "Think of the children" is a rallying cry for many a legislation that has proposed to limit freedom. The political party lines just obscure this because you'll get people on the "opposite" side opposing it purely because it's from the other party, and you'll get people on the same side promoting it because of that as well. The actual meaningful debate/argument gets lost in party politics. Mi has a valid point that this is a bad thing, but it's completely lost in the fact that he has put the blame for that in the wrong place. I suppose you could argue on his behalf that anything that causes change is liberal, and anything that keeps it the same is conservative, but regardless this law/idea is bad and should be treated as such.
The way they (specifically Ben Smith since he did it) handled the dossier showed such a lack of journalistic integrity that anything they published before or after is tainted. When your personal opinion on and hatred for someone cloud your judgement that much, you cannot possible be considered a valid source of news. EVER.
Also, that Dossier has only become more and more discredited with each passing day. Perfectly framed by the fact that Michael Cohen didn't go to Prague. The super duper investigative journalism on display to not fact check something so simple is a perfect example of why BuzzFeed is not news, but opinion entertainment at best. So far literally nothing has been found to be accurate that in any way tied Trump or his campaign to illegal or unethical activities with Russia.
To me there's a difference between a sensational headline that still aptly alludes to the content of the associated article, and click-bait like this. This article's headline falls more into the "Lady puts ham in a toaster, you'll never believe what happens next" category of click-bait.
Slashdot Mirror
Lost potential customers. Once they steal it, they aren't gonna buy it..most likely. I have no statistics to reference for what percentage of pirates would have considered buying what they stole, but I'm willing to bet it's enough that it would make a difference to the bottom line.
Yes they are still part of it. Out of X number of potential customers Y of them will buy it, and Z won't. It matters that some percentage of Z take it without paying for it. Yes, you can still reach your goals with Y, but maybe you won't. Or are you thinking a company or person should be okay as long as the sell enough to pay for the cost of making whatever it is? $100,000,000 in profit means a sequel may be made, $1 in profit probably means it won't. Quit pretending like piracy isn't stealing, we all know it is.
When you make a movie, create a game, record a song with the intent to sell, there are real costs to do so. Those are offset by the sales of those things. While I am sure there are cases of people creating any one of those things with the intent to lose money, for the most part they intend to make money. So whether the budget is $10,000 or $500,000,000, they do so with the projection and the intent that they'll make more than they put in. If they need to sell 5000 units to make their money back, then someone getting the entertainment value out of it without paying for it does negatively affect the bottom line. Yes, there are always those who argue that they wouldn't have paid for it anyway, they just wouldn't have seen/played/listened to it if they had to pay for it. But that still does count as taking something without paying...aka stealing. Just because it's easy and doesn't result in the physical transfer of property from the owner to you doesn't make it morally okay. But it's not worth the content producers time to seek prosecution of most cases. And that still doesn't mean it's right.
Dunbal was acting like that building in that cost doesn't impact business. If you have to build in a 2% or whatever overhead to account for thieves, that erodes your chance at making money. Both because you're assuming that people will steal it, and less people will buy it at the higher amount.
Yeah I guess it's been a while, so they just gave people the real version of the game versus having to crack it. But that doesn't change that it was a shareware version that id distributed free of charge to hook people in, NOT the full version as was insinuated by the post that prompted my reply.
WADs
Doom was shareware. Yes people cracked the real thing and distributed it too, but I personally found and first played the game through a legitimate channel whereby I could try a few levels and if I liked it pay for the right to play the rest. Shoplifting happens all the time and stores still make lots of money. Yeah, Blizzard won't actually miss one copy of, or even a thousand copies of their latest game that they're charging $60 for, but mom n pop shop up the road it makes a difference to them. Just because they can survive the piracy doesn't make it okay. It is irrelevant to the morality of the act of theft whether or not the person being stolen from can afford it.
What word am I redefining? Piracy? Pretty sure that word is applied to make it sound even worse than theft, since piracy involves attacking and stealing, not just stealing, which itself is obviously silly. But I'm not taking your philosophical bait on whether software is a thing that can be stolen. If it Paradigm costs $50 to play for those using legitimate channels, and someone gets it without paying using a method not approved by the creator is taking $50 worth of game play time from the creator. Just because that $50 isn't directly being removed from Jacob's bank account doesn't mean it wasn't stolen from him.
But not enough to pay $180-$200US for it. And even if I happen to stumble upon one of these SNES in store, I'm not paying $80 mostly because I never played SNES. I played the shit out of the original NES. But after that my parents decided to go Sega and I decided to go PC gaming. I'm sure the nostalgia market for SNES will be huge, I'm just not among their potential buyers. Maaaaaybe if they combined the SNES with the NES classic so I could still get the NES stuff, but not as a separate thing.
Much as you dread every work day.
The moral of this story is everyone should steal and be okay with being stolen from because it sorta equals out....right? Lol I like that he did this because it's his choice to do so, but the reasoning..yeah... not so karmically solid. I admire those who continue to make games as independent developers as it's a very cold, low chance of upside industry where almost no one wants to pay for the game up front (big shift since mobile apps became a thing) and many have no desire to pay for it after even if they enjoy it. Hard to spend hundreds of hours of your life working on something that people will take without paying for unless you truly enjoy what you do so much. But given the nature of the industry, it's now almost the rule to be free to play with the money coming from ads or more likely "micro-transactions" in game. Good luck to Jacob and to all game developers who do it at least somewhat for the love of the craft. Good luck to the ones who it for money too, because I ain't hating.
No my statement is fact. AC made the same unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.
Jokes on you, that AC is a woman.
Your fake rebuttal is meaningless. No meaning by a long shot.
If they started with actual science, then you can question with actual science. Anecdotal evidence is not science.
Part of my contribution to this site is to call out stupidity, like yours, when I see it. That there were enough people who upvoted this story to make it to the front page is severely disappointing.
Phoenix, Arizona and Palm Springs are desert cities. These temperatures, while certainly unsafe, are not irregular for summer time. Palm Springs has been 123 degrees before. Sacramento has been 115. Phoenix has hit 122. That's not to say this isn't a danger to those living there, especially old people, but it's being reported as if it's evidence of global warming. It isn't. So the idea of it being human caused warming or not is irrelevant because it's not global warming in the first place. If it's 130 degrees in Fargo, North Dakota today and you'll have my attention.
Did Greenpeace hijack slashdot today? There is literally nothing to talk about here. At least with the Ethiopia coffee story you could draw the line between IT workers and coffee drinking, which was already pretty weak. But come on. This article is a load of shit. Oh holy crap it gets hot in places. MSMash and "anonymous reader" you are both fucking idiots.
So there had been a time where instead of watching random TV I would instead watch random YouTube videos. Then I joined Facebook and instead spent those minutes there. Then Facebook did this really annoying thing with their videos where they randomly start an ad in the middle. So I decided to poke around SnapChat's "discover" which is now loaded with a combination of recent events and mindless "entertainment". Their ads are 10 seconds and you can skip them just like you can skip any snapchat. However, the content really is...oh so terrible. I have no idea why I ever go there. Why am I even admitting that I do? Hopefully they have metrics that show people will give a shit, because I am really skeptical that this is a good platform for truly original content versus the rehashed 10 second blips that are there now. I mean...I'm certain that I'm a couple decades removed from their target demographic, but my daughter is and she never, ever goes to that area of snapchat.
I would love to watch this series...but the hell I'm not gonna subscribe to another service to do it...so I guess I don't really want to watch it.
Typical statist is what he should have said. Our civic duty as citizens of the United States is to guard against the constant onslaught against our freedom that can come from any direction. It knows no political party lines. "Think of the children" is a rallying cry for many a legislation that has proposed to limit freedom. The political party lines just obscure this because you'll get people on the "opposite" side opposing it purely because it's from the other party, and you'll get people on the same side promoting it because of that as well. The actual meaningful debate/argument gets lost in party politics. Mi has a valid point that this is a bad thing, but it's completely lost in the fact that he has put the blame for that in the wrong place. I suppose you could argue on his behalf that anything that causes change is liberal, and anything that keeps it the same is conservative, but regardless this law/idea is bad and should be treated as such.
Also...anyone can browse at -1 and see everything. Which I almost always do unless I'm looking for a particular comment that I know was rated higher.
shouldn't the headline be like this:
Trump-suckling Uber CEO To Take Trump-Style Leave, Diminished Role After Trump-Like Workplace Scandals: Trump, Trump, Trumpity, Trump, Trump
The way they (specifically Ben Smith since he did it) handled the dossier showed such a lack of journalistic integrity that anything they published before or after is tainted. When your personal opinion on and hatred for someone cloud your judgement that much, you cannot possible be considered a valid source of news. EVER.
Also, that Dossier has only become more and more discredited with each passing day. Perfectly framed by the fact that Michael Cohen didn't go to Prague. The super duper investigative journalism on display to not fact check something so simple is a perfect example of why BuzzFeed is not news, but opinion entertainment at best. So far literally nothing has been found to be accurate that in any way tied Trump or his campaign to illegal or unethical activities with Russia.
To me there's a difference between a sensational headline that still aptly alludes to the content of the associated article, and click-bait like this. This article's headline falls more into the "Lady puts ham in a toaster, you'll never believe what happens next" category of click-bait.