As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

I just downloaded Photoshop

2456710

Posts

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I'm also guessing most of the internet Photoshops and things came from not-so-legal versions of the software. That means that because of the rampant pirating of this software, it now has the name for any image manipulation; Photoshopping. Without people being able to use Adobe's software, they all would have probably went for the alternatives. Hell, what we call Photoshopping could have been GIMPing or something. As it stands now, most people think you must have Photoshop in order to photoshop something, which is a huge adobe foot in everyone's door.

    This is true; pirating helped Adobe build "mindshare," or how much people think about a specific product in a field over its competitors. This was really useful for Adobe when it was trying to get market penetration.

    However, now that Photoshop is firmly entrenched in consumers' minds, Adobe needs to monetize that mindshare. This explains why they're cracking down on piracy more now.
    The funny part is, it takes all of five seconds to make their anti-piracy efforts utterly worthless.
    Also, do the newer versions actually offer anything that the average consumer who just uses them to muck around with existing images would care about?
    CS3 has a few new features that I use, but your average joe taking shitty, indoor flash photos with the cheap digital they got at Wal-Mart pretty much just needs Picasa and whatever the camera came with.

    Azio on
  • NumiNumi Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Lezta wrote: »
    Well, I think Price has to be a factor.

    Software is really, really expensive - especially if you only want it for casual use.

    Price seems to be the big thing, especially when it comes to people that don't usually pirate software etc. Which is the group that is most interesting, the habitual pirate obtaining his or her software through illicit means is just par for the course after all.

    Numi on
  • PicklesPickles Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Man, I can back up the GIS software concerns. With ESRI's licensing, it's ri-goddamn-diculous to the point that a lone practitioner cannot afford even the most basic professional grade system. And this is just for ArcView. There's no way in hell a budding GIS professional can afford the $10,000 start-up cost for an ArcInfo license. And then after paying that, they get raped with the annual subscription "service" costs...? Forget it.

    It's not like MapInfo or any other professional grade alternatives are any better at the cost-factor, though.

    And screw the free GIS programs... if I need basic mapping functions, I'll use Google Earth. There are no free GIS systems that are both user friendly (thus eliminating GRASS) and complex enough to be used professionally on an on-going basis. Yes, a buffer feature is nice... but it's not a Theissen polygon coverage. And sometimes a man needs to create donut polygons... is that so hard to ask?

    Pickles on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    azio wrote:
    Azio wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    The funny part is, it takes all of five seconds to make their anti-piracy efforts utterly worthless.
    Also, do the newer versions actually offer anything that the average consumer who just uses them to muck around with existing images would care about?
    CS3 has a few new features that I use, but your average joe taking shitty, indoor flash photos with the cheap digital they got at Wal-Mart pretty much just needs Picasa and whatever the camera came with.

    Again, it's not aimed at casual users. Casual users may want Photoshop because it's a brand name but they don't actually need the features it provides.

    Also, activation is not all that difficult, especially for their target users. Adobe is only really targeting professionals and avid amateurs with CS3. I've never, ever heard of anyone in those categories complaining about how difficult activation is. And even if activation is a little annoying, ongoing technical support and troubleshooting is more than worth the extra time it takes to install a legitimate copy.

    @OP: I think what motivates some people to pirate is a sense of entitlement. They think that they deserve to have use of a product at a price that THEY deem fair, even if that price has absolutely no basis in current market conditions. That leads them to brand companies as greedy bastards who deserve what they get.

    And honestly, that annoys me.

    sanstodo on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Pickles wrote: »
    Man, I can back up the GIS software concerns. With ESRI's licensing, it's ri-goddamn-diculous to the point that a lone practitioner cannot afford even the most basic professional grade system. And this is just for ArcView. There's no way in hell a budding GIS professional can afford the $10,000 start-up cost for an ArcInfo license. And then after paying that, they get raped with the annual subscription "service" costs...? Forget it.

    It's not like MapInfo or any other professional grade alternatives are any better at the cost-factor, though.

    And screw the free GIS programs... if I need basic mapping functions, I'll use Google Earth. There are no free GIS systems that are both user friendly (thus eliminating GRASS) and complex enough to be used professionally on an on-going basis. Yes, a buffer feature is nice... but it's not a Theissen polygon coverage. And sometimes a man needs to create donut polygons... is that so hard to ask?

    I don't know anything about the costs of creating, updating, and servicing GIS software so I have no clue if their prices are fair.

    I think that the lack of workable free alternatives shows that it is indeed difficult to make a professional level program of that kind.

    sanstodo on
  • Rabid_LlamaRabid_Llama Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    If they wanted to sell me (the casual user) the software they would put it at a reasonable price. But no, they are focused on the professional market. Me using their software does not hurt them at all because I would never actually buy it. They don't stand to make any money on me anyway so what do they care if I use it?

    What I am saying is, if I want to dick around with AutoCAD I shouldn't have to pay $2,706.99 to do so. If I were part of a mechanical engineering firm where using the CAD software is the business, then the company should definately pay for it.

    Rabid_Llama on
    /sig
    The+Rabid+Llama.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »

    Again, it's not aimed at casual users. Casual users may want Photoshop because it's a brand name but they don't actually need the features it provides.

    Hell, I was a professional artist, and I only occasionally needed the features it provides. After using it extensively for 7 years, there's still tons of stuff I have no idea how to use.

    Me, I dropped PS and Max on my home machine so that I could do work from home. I don't feel too bad about it, since it was sort of a continuation of my company's site license. I mean, it was either that, or lug my work machine to and from my house, and I'm too lazy for that.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    If they wanted to sell me (the casual user) the software they would put it at a reasonable price. But no, they are focused on the professional market. Me using their software does not hurt them at all because I would never actually buy it. They don't stand to make any money on me anyway so what do they care if I use it?

    What I am saying is, if I want to dick around with AutoCAD I shouldn't have to pay $2,706.99 to do so. If I were part of a mechanical engineering firm where using the CAD software is the business, then the company should definately pay for it.

    A bunch of problems. First, your definition of reasonable price is wrong. As you noted, they are focused on the professional market. Therefore, reasonable in this scenario means "the price that provides the best value for both the producer and the target market." It does not mean "what you want to pay."

    Second, your sense of entitlement that bothers me. Your argument is "I want it. Who cares if I violate their intellectual property? I'm going to take it because I CAN."

    My response: It is not your god-given right to dick around on AutoCAD for free any more than it is for your company to use it for their business for free. If you want to use the fruits of someone else's labor, no matter for what purpose, then you should abide by the lawful restrictions and conditions they put upon your use of that product.

    sanstodo on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »

    Again, it's not aimed at casual users. Casual users may want Photoshop because it's a brand name but they don't actually need the features it provides.

    Hell, I was a professional artist, and I only occasionally needed the features it provides. After using it extensively for 7 years, there's still tons of stuff I have no idea how to use.

    Me, I dropped PS and Max on my home machine so that I could do work from home. I don't feel too bad about it, since it was sort of a continuation of my company's site license. I mean, it was either that, or lug my work machine to and from my house, and I'm too lazy for that.

    I understand that. But part of Photoshop's appeal now is its market penetration. You don't have to learn a bunch of different programs if you switch clients. If you master and own Photoshop, you can do work at home, at work, for just about anyone.

    The following applies to some of the previous posters, not you Jeffe.

    You have to think of the value of the entire product, from its market penetration to its features to its support. All of things combined is what convinces consumers to continue to buy Photoshop above all other image editing programs of its kind. Despite a price that some of you think is too high, they continue to sell just fine. And you know what? If another company came out with a program that provided greater overall value, then that product would gain marketshare.

    Adobe isn't some evil megalith trying to prevent young artists from creating masterpieces. They're a company dedicated to maximizing consumer value and satisfaction while increasing their profits. They're just like pretty much everyone else in that regard because it's the best for both the company and the consumer in the long run.

    sanstodo on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Price dropping indicates competition. I hate to knock the GIMP users here but PhotoShop really has no competition in it's field. Thus they don't need to worry about competing with anyone else's prices.

    nexuscrawler on
  • PicklesPickles Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I don't know anything about the costs of creating, updating, and servicing GIS software so I have no clue if their prices are fair.

    I think that the lack of workable free alternatives shows that it is indeed difficult to make a professional level program of that kind.

    Oh, definitely. The price is justified by the cost of them doing business. It's not an easy feat to make their product, and I don't blame them for trying to profit from it in the least. It just sucks that pricing it accordingly makes the product unaffordable to anyone but established firms, universities, or government agencies.

    If they could somehow establish a professional grade product on a per PC basis (I think the $10,000 ArcInfo license provides something like 10 license keys... which is overkill for a start-up), then my complaints would be unwarranted. But as it stands their cheapest product is $1,500 for one ArcView license, which is a gimped version of their software and does not provide enough upper-level processes to make it of use to dedicated professionals.

    It's things like this that make me wish I were more proficient at programming so I could assist with the open source alternatives and help them catch up. Until the day arrives where the open source can at least do some advanced pro level operations, the demand for piracy will continue. And from the looks of it, that day is way too far off in the future for my tastes. D:

    Pickles on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Pickles wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I don't know anything about the costs of creating, updating, and servicing GIS software so I have no clue if their prices are fair.

    I think that the lack of workable free alternatives shows that it is indeed difficult to make a professional level program of that kind.

    Oh, definitely. The price is justified by the cost of them doing business. It's not an easy feat to make their product, and I don't blame them for trying to profit from it in the least. It just sucks that pricing it accordingly makes the product unaffordable to anyone but established firms, universities, or government agencies.

    If they could somehow establish a professional grade product on a per PC basis (I think the $10,000 ArcInfo license provides something like 10 license keys... which is overkill for a start-up), then my complaints would be unwarranted. But as it stands their cheapest product is $1,500 for one ArcView license, which is a gimped version of their software and does not provide enough upper-level processes to make it of use to dedicated professionals.

    It's things like this that make me wish I were more proficient at programming so I could assist with the open source alternatives and help them catch up. Until the day arrives where the open source can at least do some advanced pro level operations, the demand for piracy will continue. And from the looks of it, that day is way too far off in the future for my tastes. D:

    I just think, generally, open source communities don't have enough motivation to make truly professional grade products when there are suitable professional alternatives that are widely available and provide enough value to make it easier to buy. That's why I think OpenOffice is so brilliant. It wasn't really that hard to make (though accusations of stolen code are interesting) compared to something like Photoshop or ArcInfo if what you say is correct. Open source is great for certain kinds of products but not adequate for others, like those that require extensive technical support and customer assistance.

    I agree that ArcInfo is ignoring a user base and should make a program that would be useful for a freelancing professional.

    The solution would probably not be open source. If you could find programmers who could code a competing product with a more flexible pricing structure, you might have a winning business right there!

    sanstodo on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Look at PS's credit list. It they have like 45 active programmers listed. That's a fuckton of people for a single prgram.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Rabid_LlamaRabid_Llama Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    If they wanted to sell me (the casual user) the software they would put it at a reasonable price. But no, they are focused on the professional market. Me using their software does not hurt them at all because I would never actually buy it. They don't stand to make any money on me anyway so what do they care if I use it?

    What I am saying is, if I want to dick around with AutoCAD I shouldn't have to pay $2,706.99 to do so. If I were part of a mechanical engineering firm where using the CAD software is the business, then the company should definately pay for it.

    A bunch of problems. First, your definition of reasonable price is wrong. As you noted, they are focused on the professional market. Therefore, reasonable in this scenario means "the price that provides the best value for both the producer and the target market." It does not mean "what you want to pay."

    Second, your sense of entitlement that bothers me. Your argument is "I want it. Who cares if I violate their intellectual property? I'm going to take it because I CAN."

    My response: It is not your god-given right to dick around on AutoCAD for free any more than it is for your company to use it for their business for free. If you want to use the fruits of someone else's labor, no matter for what purpose, then you should abide by the lawful restrictions and conditions they put upon your use of that product.

    I respectfully disagree. I am not hurting them at all by using their software. If they wanted to get me to buy their software they would provide some sort of alternative pricing for private use.

    The Laffer curve is in full effect here.

    Rabid_Llama on
    /sig
    The+Rabid+Llama.png
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I respectfully disagree. I am not hurting them at all by using their software. If they wanted to get me to buy their software they would provide some sort of alternative pricing for private use.

    The Laffer curve is in full effect here.

    You're ignoring my argument. Again, just because you can't afford to buy their product does not give you the right to infringe upon their IP and distribution rights. Monetary damage is besides the point.

    sanstodo on
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The way I see it, if you pirate a $20 piece of software that you use a lot, you're being a dick and that's wrong. Pirating a $700 piece of software that you screw around with for a bit isn't at all. You weren't going to pay $700 to casually play with the software, so there is no lost sale for the company. In addition, Photoshop-specific plugins and tutorials are so ubiquitous that it's created a moderate lock-in effect for it. Using reasonably priced image editing software (like Paint Shop Pro) is more difficult because of this. Many others are creating value for Photoshop that Adobe didn't do jack for.

    Also, there exists a working keygen for CS3, so the "piracy immune" statement is just bunk.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Rabid_LlamaRabid_Llama Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I respectfully disagree. I am not hurting them at all by using their software. If they wanted to get me to buy their software they would provide some sort of alternative pricing for private use.

    The Laffer curve is in full effect here.

    You're ignoring my argument. Again, just because you can't afford to buy their product does not give you the right to infringe upon their IP and distribution rights. Monetary damage is besides the point.

    I did not ignore it, I simply disagreed.

    Rabid_Llama on
    /sig
    The+Rabid+Llama.png
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Adobe isn't some evil megalith trying to prevent young artists from creating masterpieces. They're a company dedicated to increasing their profits.

    Fixed.

    MikeMan on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Trouble is if you're an aspriing graphic designer knowing Paintshop Pro or GIMP is uterrly useless.

    nexuscrawler on
  • EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited August 2007
    Trouble is if you're an aspriing graphic designer knowing Paintshop Pro or GIMP is uterrly useless.

    Well, GIMP was utterly useless the last time I tried it anyway. :P

    Is it still unable to handle CMYK images?

    Echo on
  • SquashuaSquashua __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    Wait! Put the pitchforks down. This is academic.

    I can't count the number of times I've seen a person proudly declare that they're in the middle of downloading hundreds, even thousands of dollars in software on internet forums and chatrooms. It usually comes up in the most casual of manners:

    Person A: Hey, can someone help me find a good image editor?
    Person B: Just download Photoshop or something.

    What I think is hilarious is that these people TRUST the source that they're getting their WAREZ from. Yeah, let me download this gigantic executable that might happen to be LABELED Photoshop and WOOPS, C:\ baleeted!

    How do these idiots know they're not downloading spy-infected garbage?

    Answer: They don't. They don't care. Which is why they later become identity theft or hack victims themselves. Crime, meet Punishment.

    Squashua on
  • Elbonian ManElbonian Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I just think, generally, open source communities don't have enough motivation to make truly professional grade products when there are suitable professional alternatives that are widely available and provide enough value to make it easier to buy. That's why I think OpenOffice is so brilliant. It wasn't really that hard to make (though accusations of stolen code are interesting) compared to something like Photoshop or ArcInfo if what you say is correct.

    I'm not sure if you know or not, but OpenOffice started as a proprietary suite called StarOffice. Sun bought it and made it open source. It wasn't as good as Office at the time and still has some shortcomings, but it's come a long way.

    Elbonian Man on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Echo wrote: »
    Trouble is if you're an aspriing graphic designer knowing Paintshop Pro or GIMP is uterrly useless.

    Well, GIMP was utterly useless the last time I tried it anyway. :P

    Is it still unable to handle CMYK images?

    http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml ?

    MKR on
  • Mai-KeroMai-Kero Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    The way I see it, if you pirate a $20 piece of software that you use a lot, you're being a dick and that's wrong. Pirating a $700 piece of software that you screw around with for a bit isn't at all. You weren't going to pay $700 to casually play with the software, so there is no lost sale for the company. In addition, Photoshop-specific plugins and tutorials are so ubiquitous that it's created a moderate lock-in effect for it. Using reasonably priced image editing software (like Paint Shop Pro) is more difficult because of this. Many others are creating value for Photoshop that Adobe didn't do jack for.

    Also, there exists a working keygen for CS3, so the "piracy immune" statement is just bunk.

    I thought they had some sort of Steam-system going on where you have to confirm online in addition to having the key. I think with CS2 you even had to call a number, didn't you?

    Mai-Kero on
  • The CheeseThe Cheese Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I think the keygens for Photoshop take the code that you would use to activate by phone (which IIRC is based on a serial number and then unique information from your computer) and then they give you the activation code, but I might be wrong.

    edit: at any rate, few things are uncrackable. Pro-tools is one of the few applications I can think of off the top of my head that nobody has cracked and that's because it relies on a hardware device being present to work, and most other uncracked software have something similar going on.

    The Cheese on
  • KrizKriz Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    supposedly the GIMP is going to get a huge GUI redesign in 2.4, along with a bunch of features that people always cite it lacks when compared to Photoshop.

    Paint.NET is a nice free alternative if your image editing consists of just playing around a bit in your free time, though.

    Kriz on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Kriz wrote: »
    supposedly the GIMP is going to get a huge GUI redesign in 2.4, along with a bunch of features that people always cite it lacks when compared to Photoshop.

    Paint.NET is a nice free alternative if your image editing consists of just playing around a bit in your free time, though.

    http://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.4.html

    :D

    MKR on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I've always said that the GIMP is appropriately named, as you have to severely beat it to get it to do any work for you, and it's pretty crippled.

    As for the "OMGWTFBBQ Photoshop $700 too much LOL" comments, I've always seen them in the vein as complaining that a decent DSLR body costs a couple thousand.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    But isnt that $700 license is for up to like 7 computers? so why dont they just make single licenses $100 and downloadable, it would explode their market share, and end that little white lie feeling of stealing photoshop from a warez site.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Price dropping indicates competition. I hate to knock the GIMP users here but PhotoShop really has no competition in it's field. Thus they don't need to worry about competing with anyone else's prices.

    This. This right here.

    The free alternatives are weak compared to Photoshop. Even doing something simple is just much easier with Adobe because their interface is more straightforward.

    Cracking it is incredibly simple, too. Even on Mac OS X, where cracks for programs are rare, CS3 doesn't even require a fancy work around, just a simple drag-and-drop to use it for free. When there are options like this out there, why would you think to use GIMP instead?

    Also, to whoever bought CS2 for their Intel Mac, are you serious? Having to use Rosetta to run a program = pure pain. CS3 is designed to run natively, that's what you wanted.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Price dropping indicates competition. I hate to knock the GIMP users here but PhotoShop really has no competition in it's field. Thus they don't need to worry about competing with anyone else's prices.

    This. This right here.

    The free alternatives are weak compared to Photoshop. Even doing something simple is just much easier with Adobe because their interface is more straightforward.

    Cracking it is incredibly simple, too. Even on Mac OS X, where cracks for programs are rare, CS3 doesn't even require a fancy work around, just a simple drag-and-drop to use it for free. When there are options like this out there, why would you think to use GIMP instead?

    Do cracked versions of Photoshop count as competition for retail Photoshop?

    jothki on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    Price dropping indicates competition. I hate to knock the GIMP users here but PhotoShop really has no competition in it's field. Thus they don't need to worry about competing with anyone else's prices.

    This. This right here.

    The free alternatives are weak compared to Photoshop. Even doing something simple is just much easier with Adobe because their interface is more straightforward.

    Cracking it is incredibly simple, too. Even on Mac OS X, where cracks for programs are rare, CS3 doesn't even require a fancy work around, just a simple drag-and-drop to use it for free. When there are options like this out there, why would you think to use GIMP instead?

    Do cracked versions of Photoshop count as competition for retail Photoshop?

    They do when people use that instead of the retail version. One costs morals, the other costs $500.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • aesiraesir __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    So much more work goes into developing a video game then it goes into developing a pretty simple program like photoshop. It should be 50 bucks I say!!!

    aesir on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    azio wrote:
    Azio wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    The funny part is, it takes all of five seconds to make their anti-piracy efforts utterly worthless.
    Also, do the newer versions actually offer anything that the average consumer who just uses them to muck around with existing images would care about?
    CS3 has a few new features that I use, but your average joe taking shitty, indoor flash photos with the cheap digital they got at Wal-Mart pretty much just needs Picasa and whatever the camera came with.

    Again, it's not aimed at casual users. Casual users may want Photoshop because it's a brand name but they don't actually need the features it provides.

    Also, activation is not all that difficult, especially for their target users. Adobe is only really targeting professionals and avid amateurs with CS3. I've never, ever heard of anyone in those categories complaining about how difficult activation is. And even if activation is a little annoying, ongoing technical support and troubleshooting is more than worth the extra time it takes to install a legitimate copy.
    My dad is a commercial photographer, and he bought CS2 when it came out. It worked fine for a while but after a few months it decided to de-activate itself, and his CD-key became blacklisted. Tech support was literally useless -- on the rare occasion that we were able to talk to an agent they simply told us that they don't provide support for unlicensed software -- so after a couple weeks of getting nowhere, we downloaded a crack from German software pirates and that was the end of that.

    Azio on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    The Laffer curve is in full effect here.

    The Laffer curve is for tax revenue, you dimbulb. If you're going to try to justify software theft, at least get the terminology correct.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    aesir wrote: »
    So much more work goes into developing a video game then it goes into developing a pretty simple program like photoshop. It should be 50 bucks I say!!!

    Image processing is pretty complicated.

    MKR on
  • furiousNUfuriousNU Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    aesir wrote: »
    So much more work goes into developing a video game then it goes into developing a pretty simple program like photoshop. It should be 50 bucks I say!!!

    If Photoshop is such a simple program, why is it the premier digital program of choice in the professional world? Correct color management, correct filter management and the layers/mask system are quite complicated processes that no other program of it's kind can match.

    furiousNU on
  • aesiraesir __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    MKR wrote: »
    aesir wrote: »
    So much more work goes into developing a video game then it goes into developing a pretty simple program like photoshop. It should be 50 bucks I say!!!

    Image processing is pretty complicated.


    Im not saying its easy, and in fact they probably have some really really smart people over there working on new photoshop iterations, but when you look at the improvements when you go from one version to another, I'd be surprised if it took more than one programmer and one graphic designer. They have over a years worth of time between iterations, and they barely add any features, most of which you'll never use. The rest of the program has already been done for them for a decade, and even then, the meat and potatoes of the program can be found in freeware like GIMP and OpenCanvas.

    Then look at most modern video games. Teams of a hundred, if not more artists, designers, and programmers, building an interactive world from scratch.


    EDIT: to furious: you ask why its the program that everyone loves and uses? Its the best at what it does. Simple as that. I also think Gears of War is the best at what it does as an xbox 360 game but Im not paying 500 dollars for it.


    Also, if this adds to my credibility at all (doubtful) I work in the game industry and use photoshop daily.


    I have these same complaints with 3d programs that usually cost 3,500...

    aesir on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Why should I have to pay a thousand bucks to use the thing once? I'll just download it. And no, it's not wrong. What is wrong is for the companies to rip off the captive market.

    With software, there needs to be a "pay as you use" system.

    You acquire a copy, then pay X amount per hour as you use it. That way, casual users have to pay a minimal amount, whereas dedicated users have to pay more (make it cap at a certain amount of course, or at least establish it on a logarithmic curve).

    ege02 on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    With software, there needs to be a "pay as you use" system.

    You acquire a copy, then pay X amount per hour as you use it. That way, casual users have to pay a minimal amount, whereas dedicated users have to pay more (make it cap at a certain amount of course, or at least establish it on a logarithmic curve).
    This is one of those ideas, like DRM and activation, which simply encourage users to pirate by making the retail version less usable than the pirated version.

    Azio on
Sign In or Register to comment.