Well since people still keep this thread alive, I think the first huge obstacle in this "debate" is the language. From the start, you use the language of the copyright holders/stakeholders. The word piracy is a red herring in itself. I don't think that people here disagree with that.

The onus is on the creators to create a product that will buy them future loyalty from their customers. The big money mills basically ensure that any AAA gets the max hype/advertising possible, but the way they make games now, a lot of times what they deliver is underwhelming. The only thing that is driving innovation in these games are the graphics, those are improved every iteration as it helps sell hardware, and it is more trivial to do than taking a risk and changing the game design. For me a perfect example of this is far right, if you've played 2 (1) of those games you've played them all.

Meanwhile the price of games go up, no one in the 'big' games market scales back, more bugs etc. creep in. Not to even mention the live service/gambling stuff they experimented with.

So I think the better question would be what these companies could do better to make you pay that money? I think Valve is a good example, even though I don't like their client im not too bothered to buy games there, since after they decided to support my platform of choice they've continued to do that (and better and better) in their games.

It would be much better if things were freer in the game scene too, but that sadly won't happen.

Quoting: dvdWell since people still keep this thread alive, I think the first huge obstacle in this "debate" is the language. From the start, you use the language of the copyright holders/stakeholders. The word piracy is a red herring in itself. I don't think that people here disagree with that.

On this I do agree with you, which is why I wanted to rephrase the question in a way that avoids loaded language entirely.

There are good conversations to be had about abandonware, expiration dates on copyright, whether the money is going to the right people, etc.

But I don't like reducing that conversation to just "I just don't wanna pay for anything and I don't need any further reason than that." I think that's wack, and if everyone else were to think that way, how do creators make a living?

Honestly, I'd have more respect for y'all if you'd just said "I know it's not cool, but I live in this capitalist hellscape too and my budget is limited sometimes." Do what you gotta do, but I don't like pretending it's ethical.

Quoting: missingno

Quoting: dvdWell since people still keep this thread alive, I think the first huge obstacle in this "debate" is the language. From the start, you use the language of the copyright holders/stakeholders. The word piracy is a red herring in itself. I don't think that people here disagree with that.

On this I do agree with you, which is why I wanted to rephrase the question in a way that avoids loaded language entirely.

There are good conversations to be had about abandonware, expiration dates on copyright, whether the money is going to the right people, etc.

But I don't like reducing that conversation to just "I just don't wanna pay for anything and I don't need any further reason than that." I think that's wack, and if everyone else were to think that way, how do creators make a living?

Honestly, I'd have more respect for y'all if you'd just said "I know it's not cool, but I live in this capitalist hellscape too and my budget is limited sometimes." Do what you gotta do, but I don't like pretending it's ethical.

The problem is that these days the companies and normal people will attack you for not paying for a product even if you do not pirate it (As is the case I showed you with what Denuvo said, they are attacking people who are neither buying the product nor pirating it, you are simply a bad person for disagreeing with their tactics).

I mentioned that I see it as ethical to not purchase a product and not use it when I disagree with technologies used within like forced Denuvo, Kernel-Level anti-cheats and excessive third party launchers which may hinder my ability to use the product.

You will literally have the normal people telling you that you're being unreasonable for choosing not to choose to purchase a product for these reasons.

I think a key aspect that those normal people forget is that you are the customer and you have an ethical right to choose not to purchase that item. After all, the product is supposed to be made to interest you, and if it doesn't then, it doesn't. Just because someone wants to get paid for it does not oblige me to buy the game and play it.

I am a pirate and I am also a paying customer.

So, let me ask you:
If I purchase a video game and then that video game gets updated to include technologies that prevents me playing it on Linux (my only OS) before I have had time to play it, is it unethical for me to then crack the game allowing me to continue using the product I have legally purchased? Or is the company unethical for intentionally locking me out of using the product I paid for, without offering refund?

Quoting: BlackBloodRumI mentioned that I see it as ethical to not purchase a product and not use it

I think you know that isn't what I meant. Do you need me to rephrase my wording to "using a product without paying for it"?

Quoting: BlackBloodRumIf I purchase a video game and then that video game gets updated to include technologies that prevents me playing it on Linux (my only OS) before I have had time to play it, is it unethical for me to then crack the game allowing me to continue using the product I have legally purchased?

I think this is valid. You did pay for it.

Quoting: missingno

Quoting: dvdWell since people still keep this thread alive, I think the first huge obstacle in this "debate" is the language. From the start, you use the language of the copyright holders/stakeholders. The word piracy is a red herring in itself. I don't think that people here disagree with that.

On this I do agree with you, which is why I wanted to rephrase the question in a way that avoids loaded language entirely.

There are good conversations to be had about abandonware, expiration dates on copyright, whether the money is going to the right people, etc.

But I don't like reducing that conversation to just "I just don't wanna pay for anything and I don't need any further reason than that." I think that's wack, and if everyone else were to think that way, how do creators make a living?

Honestly, I'd have more respect for y'all if you'd just said "I know it's not cool, but I live in this capitalist hellscape too and my budget is limited sometimes." Do what you gotta do, but I don't like pretending it's ethical.

You are right, I should've added that I recommend not breaking the laws. I also think that creators are well within their rights to get paid for the software they make if they wish to. But my opinion is still that "piracy" is largely a trumped up red herring especially in rich western countries, and for the second/third world the strategies that most of the big companies employ (and let's face it, they are the drivers, gaming is driven like the rest of entertainment industry by marketing/hype) make gaming a prohibitively expensive hobby anyway, not that these companies care too much for the sales there. (unless you don't care about saving some money for important stuff)

Last edited by dvd on 27 October 2024 at 10:05 am UTC