It'd be interesting to know how much of the "positive effects of piracy" software companies factor in. The creators of GalCiv2 practically encouraged illegal downloads[/I], and the game was a huge commercial success. I for one downloaded it, played one game, and bought it.
Starforce literally encouraged by posting a link to a torrent of it. GalCiv2's makers just practically encouraged since there were no measures in place to keep an illegally downloaded copy from being any different than a normal one.
This is in part a reply to sanstodo... but really the entire thread as well.
I pirate. I do not feel bad about it. My excuse? If I did not pirate then there would be no way for me use the software to begin with, and thus the company producing would not be any richer regardless. So why not use what I can until I can afford to use w/e legally?
Question: What in way of basic function really changes from version to version in the actual code or function of some software?
The truth is I would buy Photoshop 7 if it were offered at $100-200. It is not. So instead I am left with the full version of w/e it is that they are still selling. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate their business model, it makes them money. The costs are a barrier to entry whether it simply to learn or for business purposes.
Same goes for windows. I would, and so would most other people, buy copies of XP if the price would drop. (I own a legal copy of XP mind you) But instead I know some people who saved up (like sanstodo suggests) just to buy a computer in the first place. So after saving up just to buy a computer powerful enough to run some of these programs, they still have to save up for the programs to do what they want to creatively. How fucked up is that? (yeah, I cussed again.) Saving up thousands, not hundreds, just to be able to pirate software in the first place.
Do the math, how much does a compter that can run 3ds7 decently cost? Add to the the cost of PS CS3 for Skinning the model, and then 3ds7 itself.
I have some friends who saved up just for their first computers, screwed up their first comp and have no copy of windows to do a clean boot from or format. :-/ So they essentially have a computer that just sits there... Until they can save enough for it. And soon (a year or more) you wont be able to find a copy of XP as easy. They are screwed.
Office... How much has the office package really improved? Why does it still cost so much? The cost of developing it has more than been covered by now. So almost ever penny they make goes into their pockets. Not saying M$ is a company for the people to begin with... But hey, this business practice sucks for the consumer.
Why do people pay for something like office? Because to most people, there are no alternatives. We do not learn OpenOffice in school, we learn how to use office.
Blender, as far as the GUI goes, sucks. But if they were giving classes on blender at colleges it might become an industry used program. If they made the damned thing more user friendly, I'd use it. Instead I am forced to pirate 3d7 (3ds9 bugs on my comp for some reason)
One day I am going to be using CAD for business purposes. At that time, I will buy it. And I will buy photoshop at that time as well. Until then, why not learn with them?
well... other than the fact that it is "illegal"
If you are really against pirating... ask yourself a question:
In a lil over two years from now would you rather be A) In a building or structure that someone designed after years of working with CAD, or In a building or structure that someone who has been working with CAD for a month designed?
Because in 2 years... I will have a contractors license.
Starforce literally encouraged by posting a link to a torrent of it. GalCiv2's makers just practically encouraged since there were no measures in place to keep an illegally downloaded copy from being any different than a normal one.
If there is no copy protection, that doesnt mean the publishers are encouraging piracy, its just that they see it as a lost cause and aren't going to spend a ton of money on something that will be broken and bypassed the first week its available (and oftentimes before it reaches stores).
I usually stay away from the downloading games thing unless they are really old and hard to find. I don't have any kind of moral issue with downloading hugely expensive software usually though, since I wouldn't use it for anything commercial, just kind of dicking around and occasionally entertaining myself. Is it a god given right, of course not, but with so much power as a consumer and with the rise of the age of freeware, its almost becoming the natural thing to do.
I guess I should've also mentioned that it received a lot of coverage on this aspect and how it was very enlightened, which undoubtedly led to more people downloading it to try it out. It also led to more sales. It was a smart move in a lot of ways.
Unless I'm mistaken, there was at least one measure in place to deter GalCiv2 piracy...updates. You had to have a registered copy to get/use them. It was enough to encourage me to shell out the cash after giving the game a spin, even though I imagine there was a crack of some kind.
Couldn't you just download a patch from a site like filefront and apply it yourself? I went on google and found the patch for download from a generic download site (not galciv's website) within 5 seconds.
Unless it actually checks before you install it, than its rather clever.
The lack of a demo for a $50 game that may or may not be compatible with my hardware is a fucking travesty.
Then again, I pretty much only play console games these days for that very reason.
Especially when it's absolutely impossible to return an opened game that didn't work.
Pretty much the only reason I pirate games nowadays is for this reason. If it works well on my system, I buy it.
The only reason I actually pay for the game is to enjoy its multiplayer aspects through the game's online servers.
I've pirated Photoshop. Until I'm at a point where I'm making money by using photoshop or run into a large sum of money I'll continue to pirate it. As long as I have goals of working in the animation industry I'll pirate the software that's too expensive for me to buy. And I won't feel bad about it.
But that doesn't exactly make it right. If I was in the possition to get a student copy of these programs I would go that route. If I could buy an older version of the software (Like, lets say Photoshop CS instead of CS2) at a price more reasonable to an average consumer (lets say $200) I'd go that route. But as an amature who stands to make no profit off of his use of the software I feel that the crime, while not justified, is understandable.
I'm in a position where it'd be impossible for me to afford PS, 3d Studio Max, and Zbrush ($460 for PSCS, $590 for 3dSM 6 and $500 for Zbrush 3 = $1550). I have a ton of student loans to pay off, rent, food, and gas to pay for. And the most I'm going to make an hour for quite a while is about $9 (around $1190 a month). There's no way I'd be able to save up for that software. I'm barely able to afford just living on that salary. But in order to move forward in the career field I want I need these programs. Gimp might be able to get me by instead of PS, but nothing would be able to replace Max, Maya, or any other expensive 3d suite. Milkshape can only do so much.
The lack of a demo for a $50 game that may or may not be compatible with my hardware is a fucking travesty.
Then again, I pretty much only play console games these days for that very reason.
Especially when it's absolutely impossible to return an opened game that didn't work.
Pretty much the only reason I pirate games nowadays is for this reason. If it works well on my system, I buy it.
The only reason I actually pay for the game is to enjoy its multiplayer aspects through the game's online servers.
So you don't pay when a game is singleplayer? That's really terrible of you.
Actually, "victimless" crimes is a misnomer. Common examples of victimless crimes are speeding tickets and jaywalking. It's not that they are "victimless," it's simply hard to pinpoint the exact victims.
No it isn't, you just choose to see the world in generalisations rather than specifics, black and whites rather than greys. Just to settle a curiosity; would you label yourself a conservative?
I still call it a victimless crime because the truth is that even if I did not pirate the janitor and base level salary guys are going to make the same amount of money.
Even if I bought the product, they would make the same amount of money.
A few years ago there was an Anti Video piracy thing in theaters that use "boom"s men and other behind the scenes movie workers that they say "suffer" from movies being pirated.
That seems to be bullshit to me. And I said so quite loudly every time I saw it in theaters.
Those jobs have a set salary that follows a supply and demand for labor. The people writing their checks are not going to pay them any more or less because of how many times a movie is pirated. And if anyone should be taking the hit, it should be the guy or girl making millions of dollars per movie and making 4-5 of them a year. Actors and actresses used to make zilch, now they are among the richest people.
When it comes to software... who is really taking the hit for me pirating something that I could not afford in the first place?
A few years ago there was an Anti Video piracy thing in theaters that use "boom"s men and other behind the scenes movie workers that they say "suffer" from movies being pirated.
That seems to be bullshit to me. And I said so quite loudly every time I saw it in theaters.
Those jobs have a set salary that follows a supply and demand for labor. The people writing their checks are not going to pay them any more or less because of how many times a movie is pirated.
No, but they may just make fewer movies. And with less movies being made comes fewer slots for backstage staff, which means less opportunities for them TO work, which means less money for them. The same thing happens here as well.
I still call it a victimless crime because the truth is that even if I did not pirate the janitor and base level salary guys are going to make the same amount of money.
Even if I bought the product, they would make the same amount of money.
You assume that you're the only person who exists. You downloading a product probably has a negligible effect, but if a substantial amount of people do it then don't kid yourself that no-one suffers.
Actually, "victimless" crimes is a misnomer. Common examples of victimless crimes are speeding tickets and jaywalking. It's not that they are "victimless," it's simply hard to pinpoint the exact victims.
No it isn't, you just choose to see the world in generalisations rather than specifics, black and whites rather than greys. Just to settle a curiosity; would you label yourself a conservative?
Oh, I definitely see where people are coming from. I simply don't agree with their assertion, implicit or otherwise, that they somehow have a right to use the fruits of someone else's labor without any kind of payment simply because they disagree with pricing. I understand that it's hard to get money especially as a student. Hell, I just graduated from college last year and I'm broke as shit. There are lots of things out there I'd love to have. But if I can't afford them right now, then I have to either save up for them or wait until my financial situation changes. In no way do I think that magically, because I'm poor, that I have a free pass to take shit I can't afford and don't really NEED.
A lot of people are saying that they want to be a designer or artist and therefore NEED Photoshop. From experience, I know how it is to want to be an artist; I worked to become a musician. You know what? I've recognized that I'm probably not going to make any money as a musician because of market conditions. So I've switched fields and I'm going into advertising and trying to start up a company with some friends. Hopefully, I'll be able to make enough money that I can, later in my life, make a studio and change into music as my occupation.
It sucks but that's life. You can't control the fact that you don't have a trust fund and that other kid does. It would be great if people didn't have to compromise their dreams to suit financial considerations. Thing is, that's how life works. That's part of being a responsible adult. Sometimes, you gotta put your dreams on hold and deal with the hand you're dealt. Never give up but realize that the path from where you are now to where you want to be isn't necessarily a straight line and that it's going to take a lot of hard work and sacrifice to get there.
Btw, I'm pretty damn liberal. On the political compass and similar tests, I come out farther to the left than any of my friends (no mean feat). So..........no.
The lack of a demo for a $50 game that may or may not be compatible with my hardware is a fucking travesty.
Then again, I pretty much only play console games these days for that very reason.
Especially when it's absolutely impossible to return an opened game that didn't work.
Pretty much the only reason I pirate games nowadays is for this reason. If it works well on my system, I buy it.
The only reason I actually pay for the game is to enjoy its multiplayer aspects through the game's online servers.
So you don't pay when a game is singleplayer? That's really terrible of you.
I'm not gonna pay 50 bucks for something I'll play for 5 hours and then get rid of, thank you very much.
Couldn't you just download a patch from a site like filefront and apply it yourself? I went on google and found the patch for download from a generic download site (not galciv's website) within 5 seconds.
Unless it actually checks before you install it, than its rather clever.
It did. I thought it was pretty clever as well. It's like the original release was a fully-functional, non-time-limited demo...and if you wanted updates/patches you had to pay. [/tangent]
Sometimes, you gotta put your dreams on hold and deal with the hand you're dealt.
Fuck that noise. Sure, if, as you say, it turned out that being a designer wouldn't lead to a well-paying career, then I'd be the first to jump ship. From observing the job market, it seems okay. No-one's desperate for designers but they don't seem to be inundated either. I'm not going to let my financial situation hamper my development in the field so I can work in a bar for a few years saving up enough money to then train on a program for another five. That, quite simply, is for idiots. I might be a thief in your eyes, but at the very least I won't spend the next seven years of my life broke as fuck.
For the sake of clarification, Adobe and lot of other companies actually allow trial downloads of complete functioning software suites from their own websites which are easily defeated at no risk to the pirate.
Heh. I remember doing that with a demo of Photoshop 6. You couldn't save in the demo. I found a way around it pretty easily.
For the sake of clarification, Adobe and lot of other companies actually allow trial downloads of complete functioning software suites from their own websites which are easily defeated at no risk to the pirate.
Heh. I remember doing that with a demo of Photoshop 6. You couldn't save in the demo. I found a way around it pretty easily.
Mess around in Photoshop.
Finish.
Press "Print Screen"
The catch with doing it that way is that you can't do anything that requires high resolutions (like prints), or preserve layers. :P
The lack of a demo for a $50 game that may or may not be compatible with my hardware is a fucking travesty.
Then again, I pretty much only play console games these days for that very reason.
Especially when it's absolutely impossible to return an opened game that didn't work.
Pretty much the only reason I pirate games nowadays is for this reason. If it works well on my system, I buy it.
The only reason I actually pay for the game is to enjoy its multiplayer aspects through the game's online servers.
So you don't pay when a game is singleplayer? That's really terrible of you.
I'm not gonna pay 50 bucks for something I'll play for 5 hours and then get rid of, thank you very much.
So if a game lasts less than 5 hours, you deserve it for free? How did you decide on that threshold? Prince of Persia is only 8 hours long; how about downloading that?
The lack of a demo for a $50 game that may or may not be compatible with my hardware is a fucking travesty.
Then again, I pretty much only play console games these days for that very reason.
Especially when it's absolutely impossible to return an opened game that didn't work.
Pretty much the only reason I pirate games nowadays is for this reason. If it works well on my system, I buy it.
The only reason I actually pay for the game is to enjoy its multiplayer aspects through the game's online servers.
So you don't pay when a game is singleplayer? That's really terrible of you.
I'm not gonna pay 50 bucks for something I'll play for 5 hours and then get rid of, thank you very much.
Well, that and you can't really play a game online if you're using a pirated install.
Also the vast majority of games will drop in price at some point, so if you can't buy them now, you can wait a bit and get them for cheaper later. And $50 for 5 hours is an extreme exaggeration. Few games are that short and those that are, are often priced more cheaply, such as HL2: Episode 1.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
The lack of a demo for a $50 game that may or may not be compatible with my hardware is a fucking travesty.
Then again, I pretty much only play console games these days for that very reason.
Especially when it's absolutely impossible to return an opened game that didn't work.
Pretty much the only reason I pirate games nowadays is for this reason. If it works well on my system, I buy it.
The only reason I actually pay for the game is to enjoy its multiplayer aspects through the game's online servers.
So you don't pay when a game is singleplayer? That's really terrible of you.
I'm not gonna pay 50 bucks for something I'll play for 5 hours and then get rid of, thank you very much.
If it's not worth the money to you you shouldn't be playing it. It's very simple.
The idea that it's okay to steal things if you wouldn't buy them anyway sounds right, but it's not economically sustainable. Things you can get for free are worth less to you.
I usually stay away from the downloading games thing unless they are really old and hard to find.
For those who can't afford a new PC every 12 months piracy is almost the only way to get your hands on the kind of games your system can handle. I built my PC back in late 2004 for £250 (~$400 at the time). Trying to find anything for it in shops is a joke, unless I wanted to play Army Men, or shit like the £5.99 Super Arcade Turbo EX Plus Alpha Solitaire Compendium.
I usually stay away from the downloading games thing unless they are really old and hard to find.
For those who can't afford a new PC every 12 months piracy is almost the only way to get your hands on the kind of games your system can handle. I built my PC back in late 2004 for £250 (~$400 at the time). Trying to find anything for it in shops is a joke, unless I wanted to play Army Men, or shit like the £5.99 Super Arcade Turbo EX Plus Alpha Solitaire Compendium.
Thankfully now we have Steam, which has a large collection of excellent old games for sale. Seriously, it's library is like a collection of the best games of the last 6-7 years.
If I can only play a game single-player, I will download it. I'm not buying Oblivion or Morrowind.
However, I pay for plenty of games that are multiplayer.
And what exactly makes you think that this is alright? Do you think the singleplayer games take less resources to build, or is it basically "I like to steal stuff, but I can't play multiplayer if I steal the game"?
It's obviously not games length/value issue, seeing how the two games you mentioned are tremendously long.
he doesn't steal multilayer games, because they have copy protection that prevents him from playing online?
noble.
meh, I only steal games who's creators/publishers are unwilling to sell me their IP. Fuck that. I'm not paying $150 or more for fucking radiant silvergun, or whatever.
I don't steal software anymore. For most stuff, open source options are good enough. If I did actually need a piece of software, I'd probably end up stealing it though, because there is no real way I'd pay for photoshop for the 3 times a year I need to work in CMYK or need to pantone spot colours. If it was something I'd use with any regularity, I'd might buy it, but prices are retardedly steep for something only marginally better.
I'm not gonna pay 50 bucks for something I'll play for 5 hours and then get rid of, thank you very much.
So if a game lasts less than 5 hours, you deserve it for free? How did you decide on that threshold? Prince of Persia is only 8 hours long; how about downloading that?
Yeah, I downloaded that too. The threshold is completely arbitrary. Basically, if I decide -- after playing the singleplayer -- that the company did a really good job and deserve my $50, I definitely (as in, no exceptions) go buy the game. If not, I play it, and get rid of it (or not. it doesn't really matter) after that.
In other words, I treat the games I download as an "extended demo". In this sense, I'm not causing the company any harm. On the contrary, me downloading and playing the game is good for them -- it gives them a shot at my money.
If it's not worth the money to you you shouldn't be playing it. It's very simple.
Why not?
What harm is done by playing the game versus not playing the game?
Because if you enjoy something enough to play through it you should support the people who went through the trouble of making it.
I know this seems hypocritical of me after what I said about Photoshop and various other media production software, but I do feel the same way about pretty much all the things I enjoy.
I'm currently going through all the music I've pirated over the years and I'm buying all of it, album by album. Every TV show I've downloaded I'm buying. If a TV show is currently on the air, I try to watch new episodes on the network's website. If not, I'll torrent it. But whenever the DVD hits I buy it.
As far as games, I might download them to see if I can get them running on my computer. If they can, and it's something I might enjoy I buy it. If its something I see I wouldn't enjoy I delete it. However I don't play all the way through it without buying it.
And I do this because I want more of the things I enjoy to be made. I view entertainment medium as a giant democracy. People vote with their wallets on what type of entertainment they want. If you steal these things rather than buy them you're not voting. And not voting leads to less quality entertainment and more crap.
Nothing worse happens to the company if he steals games than if he doesn't play them. Your post assumes he does not think they are valuable enough to pay for, so clearly he does not think they are worth spending his dollar votes on.
I still call it a victimless crime because the truth is that even if I did not pirate the janitor and base level salary guys are going to make the same amount of money.
Even if I bought the product, they would make the same amount of money.
You assume that you're the only person who exists. You downloading a product probably has a negligible effect, but if a substantial amount of people do it then don't kid yourself that no-one suffers.
If I wouldn't Have bought the product to begin with... how am I negating from the amount they make?
layman's terms... IF NEVER GET MONEY THEN CONDITIONAL MONEY NOT GET EITHER.
Same with movies. Oh and... that was 4 years ago when they ran those ads... they don't seem to have cut down on the # of movies. In fact i see more independent films these days.
People who are speaking against piracy seem to be assuming that given the choice of paying for a product and stealing it, people are choosing the latter.
Whereas the fact is, most people wouldn't pay for the product in the first place. For them, the choice isn't between paying and playing, and stealing and playing. It is between playing and not playing. So the argument of opportunity cost does not come into play.
My personal take on piracy is that if it's a game/album/movie that I enjoy all the way through, I'll pay for it. But if I only enjoy one level/song/scene out of it, I can't justify paying for it. Software I don't really do unless it's a program that I'll be using in school and want to practice with (and due to being a student, can't pay hundreds of dollars for).
So.. yeah, it's not legal, blah blah.. but that's just how I do things. *shrug* I don't see it as much different than borrowing from a friend.
Posts
Actually, I think that was the Starforce people.
I pirate. I do not feel bad about it. My excuse? If I did not pirate then there would be no way for me use the software to begin with, and thus the company producing would not be any richer regardless. So why not use what I can until I can afford to use w/e legally?
Question: What in way of basic function really changes from version to version in the actual code or function of some software?
The truth is I would buy Photoshop 7 if it were offered at $100-200. It is not. So instead I am left with the full version of w/e it is that they are still selling. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate their business model, it makes them money. The costs are a barrier to entry whether it simply to learn or for business purposes.
Same goes for windows. I would, and so would most other people, buy copies of XP if the price would drop. (I own a legal copy of XP mind you) But instead I know some people who saved up (like sanstodo suggests) just to buy a computer in the first place. So after saving up just to buy a computer powerful enough to run some of these programs, they still have to save up for the programs to do what they want to creatively. How fucked up is that? (yeah, I cussed again.) Saving up thousands, not hundreds, just to be able to pirate software in the first place.
Do the math, how much does a compter that can run 3ds7 decently cost? Add to the the cost of PS CS3 for Skinning the model, and then 3ds7 itself.
I have some friends who saved up just for their first computers, screwed up their first comp and have no copy of windows to do a clean boot from or format. :-/ So they essentially have a computer that just sits there... Until they can save enough for it. And soon (a year or more) you wont be able to find a copy of XP as easy. They are screwed.
Office... How much has the office package really improved? Why does it still cost so much? The cost of developing it has more than been covered by now. So almost ever penny they make goes into their pockets. Not saying M$ is a company for the people to begin with... But hey, this business practice sucks for the consumer.
Why do people pay for something like office? Because to most people, there are no alternatives. We do not learn OpenOffice in school, we learn how to use office.
Blender, as far as the GUI goes, sucks. But if they were giving classes on blender at colleges it might become an industry used program. If they made the damned thing more user friendly, I'd use it. Instead I am forced to pirate 3d7 (3ds9 bugs on my comp for some reason)
One day I am going to be using CAD for business purposes. At that time, I will buy it. And I will buy photoshop at that time as well. Until then, why not learn with them?
well... other than the fact that it is "illegal"
If you are really against pirating... ask yourself a question:
In a lil over two years from now would you rather be A) In a building or structure that someone designed after years of working with CAD, or
Because in 2 years... I will have a contractors license.
-Stork, of the 91
If there is no copy protection, that doesnt mean the publishers are encouraging piracy, its just that they see it as a lost cause and aren't going to spend a ton of money on something that will be broken and bypassed the first week its available (and oftentimes before it reaches stores).
I usually stay away from the downloading games thing unless they are really old and hard to find. I don't have any kind of moral issue with downloading hugely expensive software usually though, since I wouldn't use it for anything commercial, just kind of dicking around and occasionally entertaining myself. Is it a god given right, of course not, but with so much power as a consumer and with the rise of the age of freeware, its almost becoming the natural thing to do.
Unless it actually checks before you install it, than its rather clever.
The only reason I actually pay for the game is to enjoy its multiplayer aspects through the game's online servers.
But that doesn't exactly make it right. If I was in the possition to get a student copy of these programs I would go that route. If I could buy an older version of the software (Like, lets say Photoshop CS instead of CS2) at a price more reasonable to an average consumer (lets say $200) I'd go that route. But as an amature who stands to make no profit off of his use of the software I feel that the crime, while not justified, is understandable.
I'm in a position where it'd be impossible for me to afford PS, 3d Studio Max, and Zbrush ($460 for PSCS, $590 for 3dSM 6 and $500 for Zbrush 3 = $1550). I have a ton of student loans to pay off, rent, food, and gas to pay for. And the most I'm going to make an hour for quite a while is about $9 (around $1190 a month). There's no way I'd be able to save up for that software. I'm barely able to afford just living on that salary. But in order to move forward in the career field I want I need these programs. Gimp might be able to get me by instead of PS, but nothing would be able to replace Max, Maya, or any other expensive 3d suite. Milkshape can only do so much.
So you don't pay when a game is singleplayer? That's really terrible of you.
No it isn't, you just choose to see the world in generalisations rather than specifics, black and whites rather than greys. Just to settle a curiosity; would you label yourself a conservative?
Even if I bought the product, they would make the same amount of money.
A few years ago there was an Anti Video piracy thing in theaters that use "boom"s men and other behind the scenes movie workers that they say "suffer" from movies being pirated.
That seems to be bullshit to me. And I said so quite loudly every time I saw it in theaters.
Those jobs have a set salary that follows a supply and demand for labor. The people writing their checks are not going to pay them any more or less because of how many times a movie is pirated. And if anyone should be taking the hit, it should be the guy or girl making millions of dollars per movie and making 4-5 of them a year. Actors and actresses used to make zilch, now they are among the richest people.
When it comes to software... who is really taking the hit for me pirating something that I could not afford in the first place?
No, but they may just make fewer movies. And with less movies being made comes fewer slots for backstage staff, which means less opportunities for them TO work, which means less money for them. The same thing happens here as well.
You assume that you're the only person who exists. You downloading a product probably has a negligible effect, but if a substantial amount of people do it then don't kid yourself that no-one suffers.
Oh, I definitely see where people are coming from. I simply don't agree with their assertion, implicit or otherwise, that they somehow have a right to use the fruits of someone else's labor without any kind of payment simply because they disagree with pricing. I understand that it's hard to get money especially as a student. Hell, I just graduated from college last year and I'm broke as shit. There are lots of things out there I'd love to have. But if I can't afford them right now, then I have to either save up for them or wait until my financial situation changes. In no way do I think that magically, because I'm poor, that I have a free pass to take shit I can't afford and don't really NEED.
A lot of people are saying that they want to be a designer or artist and therefore NEED Photoshop. From experience, I know how it is to want to be an artist; I worked to become a musician. You know what? I've recognized that I'm probably not going to make any money as a musician because of market conditions. So I've switched fields and I'm going into advertising and trying to start up a company with some friends. Hopefully, I'll be able to make enough money that I can, later in my life, make a studio and change into music as my occupation.
It sucks but that's life. You can't control the fact that you don't have a trust fund and that other kid does. It would be great if people didn't have to compromise their dreams to suit financial considerations. Thing is, that's how life works. That's part of being a responsible adult. Sometimes, you gotta put your dreams on hold and deal with the hand you're dealt. Never give up but realize that the path from where you are now to where you want to be isn't necessarily a straight line and that it's going to take a lot of hard work and sacrifice to get there.
Btw, I'm pretty damn liberal. On the political compass and similar tests, I come out farther to the left than any of my friends (no mean feat). So..........no.
I'm not gonna pay 50 bucks for something I'll play for 5 hours and then get rid of, thank you very much.
It did. I thought it was pretty clever as well. It's like the original release was a fully-functional, non-time-limited demo...and if you wanted updates/patches you had to pay. [/tangent]
Fuck that noise. Sure, if, as you say, it turned out that being a designer wouldn't lead to a well-paying career, then I'd be the first to jump ship. From observing the job market, it seems okay. No-one's desperate for designers but they don't seem to be inundated either. I'm not going to let my financial situation hamper my development in the field so I can work in a bar for a few years saving up enough money to then train on a program for another five. That, quite simply, is for idiots. I might be a thief in your eyes, but at the very least I won't spend the next seven years of my life broke as fuck.
Heh. I remember doing that with a demo of Photoshop 6. You couldn't save in the demo. I found a way around it pretty easily.
Mess around in Photoshop.
Finish.
Press "Print Screen"
The catch with doing it that way is that you can't do anything that requires high resolutions (like prints), or preserve layers. :P
I doubt I would have needed to do anything deep.
So if a game lasts less than 5 hours, you deserve it for free? How did you decide on that threshold? Prince of Persia is only 8 hours long; how about downloading that?
If it's not worth the money to you you shouldn't be playing it. It's very simple.
For those who can't afford a new PC every 12 months piracy is almost the only way to get your hands on the kind of games your system can handle. I built my PC back in late 2004 for £250 (~$400 at the time). Trying to find anything for it in shops is a joke, unless I wanted to play Army Men, or shit like the £5.99 Super Arcade Turbo EX Plus Alpha Solitaire Compendium.
Thankfully now we have Steam, which has a large collection of excellent old games for sale. Seriously, it's library is like a collection of the best games of the last 6-7 years.
However, I pay for plenty of games that are multiplayer.
And what exactly makes you think that this is alright? Do you think the singleplayer games take less resources to build, or is it basically "I like to steal stuff, but I can't play multiplayer if I steal the game"?
It's obviously not games length/value issue, seeing how the two games you mentioned are tremendously long.
noble.
meh, I only steal games who's creators/publishers are unwilling to sell me their IP. Fuck that. I'm not paying $150 or more for fucking radiant silvergun, or whatever.
I don't steal software anymore. For most stuff, open source options are good enough. If I did actually need a piece of software, I'd probably end up stealing it though, because there is no real way I'd pay for photoshop for the 3 times a year I need to work in CMYK or need to pantone spot colours. If it was something I'd use with any regularity, I'd might buy it, but prices are retardedly steep for something only marginally better.
Why not?
What harm is done by playing the game versus not playing the game?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, I downloaded that too. The threshold is completely arbitrary. Basically, if I decide -- after playing the singleplayer -- that the company did a really good job and deserve my $50, I definitely (as in, no exceptions) go buy the game. If not, I play it, and get rid of it (or not. it doesn't really matter) after that.
In other words, I treat the games I download as an "extended demo". In this sense, I'm not causing the company any harm. On the contrary, me downloading and playing the game is good for them -- it gives them a shot at my money.
Because if you enjoy something enough to play through it you should support the people who went through the trouble of making it.
I know this seems hypocritical of me after what I said about Photoshop and various other media production software, but I do feel the same way about pretty much all the things I enjoy.
I'm currently going through all the music I've pirated over the years and I'm buying all of it, album by album. Every TV show I've downloaded I'm buying. If a TV show is currently on the air, I try to watch new episodes on the network's website. If not, I'll torrent it. But whenever the DVD hits I buy it.
As far as games, I might download them to see if I can get them running on my computer. If they can, and it's something I might enjoy I buy it. If its something I see I wouldn't enjoy I delete it. However I don't play all the way through it without buying it.
And I do this because I want more of the things I enjoy to be made. I view entertainment medium as a giant democracy. People vote with their wallets on what type of entertainment they want. If you steal these things rather than buy them you're not voting. And not voting leads to less quality entertainment and more crap.
Nothing worse happens to the company if he steals games than if he doesn't play them. Your post assumes he does not think they are valuable enough to pay for, so clearly he does not think they are worth spending his dollar votes on.
That's nice, but that's also dodging the question.
What harm is done by him playing the game?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If I wouldn't Have bought the product to begin with... how am I negating from the amount they make?
layman's terms... IF NEVER GET MONEY THEN CONDITIONAL MONEY NOT GET EITHER.
Same with movies. Oh and... that was 4 years ago when they ran those ads... they don't seem to have cut down on the # of movies. In fact i see more independent films these days.
Maybe this will help?
People who are speaking against piracy seem to be assuming that given the choice of paying for a product and stealing it, people are choosing the latter.
Whereas the fact is, most people wouldn't pay for the product in the first place. For them, the choice isn't between paying and playing, and stealing and playing. It is between playing and not playing. So the argument of opportunity cost does not come into play.
So.. yeah, it's not legal, blah blah.. but that's just how I do things. *shrug* I don't see it as much different than borrowing from a friend.
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...