The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I've started to see this on many fronts. Ege bitching about videogame prices are one, even though each game represents a substantial risk to the studio. I bet if they lowered prices, he'd say "I'm not risking $40 on a game I might not even like!" and so on and so forth. Same with people here complaining about Photoshop prices. They're saying "I'd buy it if it were $50!" They're not even interested in paying a fair price because they have no idea what a fair price is. And that, I think, more than anything, is what makes piracy so dangerous.
Well, I understand what you're saying, but I also think that piracy has allowed a lot of people to get a lot of stuff that they otherwise wouldn't, and that it's tangibly improved their lives. It's done so at some cost to the IP holders, I'd concede, but the question is how much cost? For example--I've bought two CDs in my entire life, one of which I split with two other people. I listen to the radio, internet and physical, quite a bit. Suppose I were to have pirated thousands of songs. If I hadn't done so, I might have wound up purchasing one whole additional CD (to be generous). On the balance, does my quality of life increase from the thousands of songs more than anyone is hurt by the loss of my $20? Probably.
I understand the dangers of rationalization when applied over groups. But I still don't think the answer is as simple as "well, Adobe owns Photoshop, end of story," which is also precisely why it's so easy to rationalize piracy.
I've started to see this on many fronts. Ege bitching about videogame prices are one, even though each game represents a substantial risk to the studio. I bet if they lowered prices, he'd say "I'm not risking $40 on a game I might not even like!" and so on and so forth. Same with people here complaining about Photoshop prices. They're saying "I'd buy it if it were $50!" They're not even interested in paying a fair price because they have no idea what a fair price is. And that, I think, more than anything, is what makes piracy so dangerous.
Well, I understand what you're saying, but I also think that piracy has allowed a lot of people to get a lot of stuff that they otherwise wouldn't, and that it's tangibly improved their lives. It's done so at some cost to the IP holders, I'd concede, but the question is how much cost? For example--I've bought two CDs in my entire life, one of which I split with two other people. I listen to the radio, internet and physical, quite a bit. Suppose I were to have pirated thousands of songs. If I hadn't done so, I might have wound up purchasing one whole additional CD (to be generous). On the balance, does my quality of life increase from the thousands of songs more than anyone is hurt by the loss of my $20? Probably.
I understand the dangers of rationalization when applied over groups. But I still don't think the answer is as simple as "well, Adobe owns Photoshop, end of stoy," which is also precisely why it's so easy to rationalize piracy.
I do understand what you're saying. It's hard to balance the welfare of the public against the needs of business. I simply think in this case, with Photoshop and most software in general, the pendulum is swinging way too far in the direction of the consumer. If anything, consumers are hurting themselves long term by reducing the variation of IP goods in the marketplace.
I really understand that there are a small segment of users who absolutely NEED a product like Photoshop and cannot feasibly get it any other way. However, just because such users exist does NOT condone the kind of casual piracy that Ege and others here have promoted.
And in those cases of users who absolutely need Photoshop and cannot afford it no matter what they can do, they might want to look toward foundations and maybe even write Adobe themselves. Companies will do a lot to improve their public image and create long-lasting customer relationships. It could be interesting if you laid out your situation, what action they would choose to take. It would be worth the postage to send a letter and see what happens.
At my college we had to do projects in Painter, Photoshop, Illustrator, Maya, Flash and Premiere. Living 30 minutes off campus you can bet your ass I wasn't going to spend every waking hour in the labs trying to get my projects done. I had all the learning editions of those that were available at the time, but they just didn't work that well, and when I took my files in to the labs they would never work right with their versions.
So eventually I said fuck it and downloaded any that I needed, as buying them would have cost more than my tuition. I don't feel the least bit bad about it either because if you're going into a career where those programs are the standard you'll be expected to already know how to use the latest version. However, If I ever start my own business or make a career out of it I'll need to own a legal copy.
That's why I don't think Adobe cares too much about piracy. They know that if you ever start doing any photo/vector/whatever work professionally you'll need to own a legal copy, and that's when you'll have to swallow their 600$ price tag. They're insane if they think anyone besides a pro is going to pay that much, which is why they created photoshop elements and the like.
I haven't read the whole thread yet but want to know the real goddamn irony here?
My company purchased CS3 for me last week. $800. I tried to install it. Didn't work. It fucking crapped out during install and now it says I need to finish installing it before i uninstall but when I try installing it says I need to UNINSTALL. I want to KILL THEM.
You know what I'm using? My $50 Photoshop elements that I personally purchased. On my personal laptop. Yeah way to waste $800. It's so not worth it.
I actually think Photoshop is a far better thing to casually pirate. It costs enough that the average home user will never seriously plunk down the dough, and it makes Adobe more money off of professionals who need a legitimate copy and the service that comes with it, than it does off of casual users. A corporation pirating 1,500 copies, that's a big deal. A single individual who wants a way to make LOLcats with lens-flare is not the consumer Adobe desperately needs. With a computer game, I'd say it's more likely that at some point a company lost $20-$50 on a sale because someone tried out a game they were almost interested in enough to purchase, but never bothered to because they got all they needed out of the pirated copy. This is a bigger deal for single player experiences.
However, I think the answer to this is developing services that the average home user thinks are worth more than a free copy. For instance, I am sure a lot of the games I have gotten from Steam are available cracked, but I like the service a lot. Stardock is another excellent example.
There is also the fact that when the game is available only used, I have no idea why it would be wrong to just download it. What part of intellectual property says that I need to pay some random dude for your work if it's never getting back to you?
I actually think Photoshop is a far better thing to casually pirate. It costs enough that the average home user will never seriously plunk down the dough, and it makes Adobe more money off of professionals who need a legitimate copy and the service that comes with it, than it does off of casual users. A corporation pirating 1,500 copies, that's a big deal. A single individual who wants a way to make LOLcats with lens-flare is not the consumer Adobe desperately needs. With a computer game, I'd say it's more likely that at some point a company lost $20-$50 on a sale because someone tried out a game they were almost interested in enough to purchase, but never bothered to because they got all they needed out of the pirated copy. This is a bigger deal for single player experiences.
As has been said, stealing software that you'd never be able to afford doesn't hurt Adobe; it hurts Corel, the people who make the software you can afford.
I don't pirate anything but if I did I'm sure I was never going to buy it if I couldn't pirate it. They haven't really lost a customer but they have gained an audience member.
I don't pirate anything but if I did I'm sure I was never going to buy it if I couldn't pirate it. They haven't really lost a customer but they have gained an audience member.
You would think that. But it's based on a fallacy.
The idea is that a given product has a given value for each person. If it's priced below that value, it's worth it to them, and they'll buy it. If it's priced above that, it's not worth it to them, and they won't buy it, therefore if they steal it, it's no harm done.
However, this doesn't take into account the fact that the price affects the value. Things you can get for free are worth less to you than things you can't. The ability to steal software stops you from buying it at the price you would have.
I don't pirate anything but if I did I'm sure I was never going to buy it if I couldn't pirate it. They haven't really lost a customer but they have gained an audience member.
You would think that. But it's based on a fallacy.
The idea is that a given product has a given value for each person. If it's priced below that value, it's worth it to them, and they'll buy it. If it's priced above that, it's not worth it to them, and they won't buy it, therefore if they steal it, it's no harm done.
However, this doesn't take into account the fact that the price affects the value. Things you can get for free are worth less to you than things you can't. The ability to steal software stops you from buying it at the price you would have.
...which is also a fallacy, which relies on everyone inherently being a criminal.
I don't pirate anything but if I did I'm sure I was never going to buy it if I couldn't pirate it. They haven't really lost a customer but they have gained an audience member.
You would think that. But it's based on a fallacy.
The idea is that a given product has a given value for each person. If it's priced below that value, it's worth it to them, and they'll buy it. If it's priced above that, it's not worth it to them, and they won't buy it, therefore if they steal it, it's no harm done.
However, this doesn't take into account the fact that the price affects the value. Things you can get for free are worth less to you than things you can't. The ability to steal software stops you from buying it at the price you would have.
...which is also a fallacy, which relies on everyone inherently being a criminal.
Eh? That only applies to people who steal. That makes them criminals, I guess.
If the developer wanted me to pay for their product badly enough, they wouldn't make it so insanely overpriced.
You're aware that it's exceedingly difficult to turn a profit on a video game that's not part of an established franchise, right? For both the developer and the publisher. It's not like publishers charge $60 for the game and then laugh all the way to the bank riding on their massive float made of money. Most games lose money. Even really, really good games. It's fucking expensive to make a modern video game, because unless it looks like fucking Gears of War, people will ignore it and whine about where the photo-realistic games to which they're entitled have gone. Shit, most developers eventually go out of business because it's so difficult to actually remain profitable. And publishers routinely lose a fortune on a given game title.
Also, if I wanted to be pedantic, I'd point out that the developer has nothing to do with how much a game costs.
tl;dr: You have no idea what you're talking about.
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.
If the developer wanted me to pay for their product badly enough, they wouldn't make it so insanely overpriced.
You're aware that it's exceedingly difficult to turn a profit on a video game that's not part of an established franchise, right?
If it's a shitty game, yeah.
Yeah, like that awful Psychonauts, and that terrible Okami, and that piece of shit Beyond Good & Evil. They suck in comparison to something of unbridled quality, like Madden 2k-whatever-they're-all-the-same-fucking-game.
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.
If the developer wanted me to pay for their product badly enough, they wouldn't make it so insanely overpriced.
You're aware that it's exceedingly difficult to turn a profit on a video game that's not part of an established franchise, right?
If it's a shitty game, yeah.
Yeah, like that awful Psychonauts, and that terrible Okami, and that piece of shit Beyond Good & Evil. They suck in comparison to something of unbridled quality, like Madden 2k-whatever-they're-all-the-same-fucking-game.
Marketing is as important as the product.
Look, there is no such thing as luck in sales. If a product doesn't sell, there is a good reason for it. The claim that "it's a hit and miss" is ignorant and narrow-minded.
--
So these developers/publishers are basically putting insane price tags over their products to make up for their lack of skill in development and/or marketing. No wonder it doesn't work and why a lot of companies are having a hard time surviving.
About pricing, I would mention that my best purchase this year was Geometry Wars. $4 for a decent little shoot-em-up? Okay. I spend that much on chips and a soda, I can spend that much on a game.
I'd love for companies to branch out more often into what used to be the realm of shareware. I would buy Burning Monkey games on Steam, the VC, PSN, or XBLA. Or Ambrosia games. If they managed to cut the price, and put it somewhere easily accessible, these would be amazing purchases. And the best part of it would be that the software would come with some form of large-scale company backing it, so you wouldn't lose the key and watch them shut down, or something.
It is hard to define what "actual value" is, but for the sake of the argument I think we can make the following assumptions:
- If a person likes to do something or use something, they will continue doing it or using it.
- If a person doesn't like to do something or use something, they will stop doing it or using it.
- Therefore, we can assume that for most people, the time spent doing something or using something is a pretty accurate measurement to calculate, or at least get a basic idea of, "actual value".
Yes it is hard to come up with an actual definite value for what something is worth. That is because there is no "actual value". No such definite thing exists. What it is worth to one person is different to what it is worth to another, buyer and sellers alike. So yes you would find it hard to define it. :roll:
And so, all your assumptions are not only crap and flawed - but pointless. Why try and define something for the sake of an argument when the argument at hand is that it doesn't exist?
The play off is between the cost of buying it versus the difficulty of getting it free and not getting caught. Sure people try to justify it to themselves using your argument. But really it has bugger all to do with morality. It's just getting something for nothing.
For the vast majority of products out there, a crack is released within hours of the product's release.
Holy crap! Is there? I'd never have known that unless you'd told me. If only I'd have know that bloody obvious and irrelevant info I'd have realised my whole argument was pointless, and I'd never have bothered trying to engage such a great mind as yours. :roll:
It's really quite pathetic. You don't even seem to get the idea that, relative v. absolute, fixed v. variable, and upfront v. per-use are separate things.
I'm not going to bother debating the points in your post. Because they stem from a fundamental inability to understand what I had said in the first place. And the problem would only get worse if I tried to explain to you. I'll leave I to more patient people to point out how ineffectual your argument is.
Your post has absolutely no content. It doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. Why did you bother posting it? I guess it's because you get a kick out of being a sarcastic smartass. If you don't want to debate, get the fuck out of this thread.
My argument is simple:
1- Piracy is the symptom of a problem, not the cause. Trying to address symptoms is not only unproductive, it is also unfeasible and will not yield any meaningful results.
2- Our current measures against piracy aren't working. Piracy is on exponential growth. So, do we continue on a road that by all indications leads to nowhere, or do we change our stances and approaches on the matter as society, perhaps by trying to work on changing and improving the underlying systems (such as pricing)?
And let's get one thing straight: pointing out that it is not within someone's rights to pirate a piece of software is nothing other than self-righteous sanctimony.
1- Piracy is the symptom of a problem, not the cause. Trying to address symptoms is not only unproductive, it is also unfeasible and will not yield any meaningful results
Since when can't you treat symptoms? That is like half of medicine. A disease with no symptoms is not much of a disease.
1- Piracy is the symptom of a problem, not the cause. Trying to address symptoms is not only unproductive, it is also unfeasible and will not yield any meaningful results
Since when can't you treat symptoms? That is like half of medicine. A disease with no symptoms is not much of a disease.
You can treat the symptoms, but as long as you don't address the cause, they'll never go away. Same with piracy.
1- Piracy is the symptom of a problem, not the cause. Trying to address symptoms is not only unproductive, it is also unfeasible and will not yield any meaningful results
Since when can't you treat symptoms? That is like half of medicine. A disease with no symptoms is not much of a disease.
You can treat the symptoms, but as long as you don't address the cause, they'll never go away. Same with piracy.
The same with crime. You want to focus on ending poverty and fire all the cops?
1- Piracy is the symptom of a problem, not the cause. Trying to address symptoms is not only unproductive, it is also unfeasible and will not yield any meaningful results
Since when can't you treat symptoms? That is like half of medicine. A disease with no symptoms is not much of a disease.
You can treat the symptoms, but as long as you don't address the cause, they'll never go away. Same with piracy.
The same with crime. You want to focus on ending poverty and fire all the cops?
Crime is far more complicated than piracy and has many aspects. Not a very good analogy. People don't go over the speed limit because they are poor. So firing all the cops would be a bad idea (for a lot of other reasons as well).
Still, addressing poverty is far more effective than trying to catch criminals and detain them. I would rather work on preventing a problem from occurring in the first place than only trying to fix it after it occurs. Or, at the very least, a healthy balance of both. But currently we are not working on the former. We're only spending money and resources on the latter.
If the developer wanted me to pay for their product badly enough, they wouldn't make it so insanely overpriced.
You're aware that it's exceedingly difficult to turn a profit on a video game that's not part of an established franchise, right?
If it's a shitty game, yeah.
Yeah, like that awful Psychonauts, and that terrible Okami, and that piece of shit Beyond Good & Evil. They suck in comparison to something of unbridled quality, like Madden 2k-whatever-they're-all-the-same-fucking-game.
Man, all of those games were amazing.
They were marketed pretty well, too. I saw a bunch of TV commercials for Okami and the others got a lot of industry awards at sites with significant readerships. I dunno why they didn't take off but it's too bad
sanstodo on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Crime is far more complicated than piracy and has many aspects. Not a very good analogy. People don't go over the speed limit because they are poor. So firing all the cops would be a bad idea (for a lot of other reasons as well).
Still, addressing poverty is far more effective than trying to catch criminals and detain them. I would rather work on preventing a problem from occurring in the first place than only trying to fix it after it occurs. Or, at the very least, a healthy balance of both. But currently we are not working on the former. We're only spending money and resources on the latter.
Wait - you want to forestall piracy by eliminating poverty?
That's like curing the flu by genetically re-engineering life on earth.
Crime is far more complicated than piracy and has many aspects. Not a very good analogy. People don't go over the speed limit because they are poor. So firing all the cops would be a bad idea (for a lot of other reasons as well).
Still, addressing poverty is far more effective than trying to catch criminals and detain them. I would rather work on preventing a problem from occurring in the first place than only trying to fix it after it occurs. Or, at the very least, a healthy balance of both. But currently we are not working on the former. We're only spending money and resources on the latter.
Wait - you want to forestall piracy by eliminating poverty?
That's like curing the flu by genetically re-engineering life on earth.
You kinda missed the mark there.
I honestly wonder how some people on these forums function in todays society on a day to day basis. Or perhaps our social structures and assumptions vary this much by region. Either way it is baffling that subtle context is missed.
To clarify further... IT WAS AN ANALOGY. And if you wrote that just to be funny then Ive come to the conclusion that the mods here spend most of their time in /b/.
God, shut up. Pirating videogames is one thing -- it is illegal in many jurisdictions, and unethical no matter how you slice it -- but I do it sometimes because I'm a cheap bastard and I can get away with it, and I don't particularly mind other people doing it. But pirating videogames, and then proudly informing everyone that you do so "out of necessity", makes you a fucking douche.
God, shut up. Pirating videogames is one thing -- it is illegal in many jurisdictions, and unethical no matter how you slice it -- but I do it sometimes because I'm a cheap bastard and I can get away with it, and I don't particularly mind other people doing it. But pirating videogames, and then proudly informing everyone that you do so "out of necessity", makes you a fucking douche.
So doing something despite the opinion that it is immoral and unethical doesn't?
I have a question, to those who are so adamantly against piracy, have you ever borrowed a game from someone? Or lent one to a friend?
Surely thats just "stolen" $50 from the devs as well? Your friend won't go out and buy whatever the game is if he can get it free from you.
Exactly.
In a sense, broadcasting is piracy as well. When my roommates turn on their speakers and play the latest Dave Matthews album, I'm less inclined to go buy it.
The problems with IP exist because we are trying to apply legal and moral frameworks that are made for physical property on intellectual property. Clearly does not work.
God, shut up. Pirating videogames is one thing -- it is illegal in many jurisdictions, and unethical no matter how you slice it -- but I do it sometimes because I'm a cheap bastard and I can get away with it, and I don't particularly mind other people doing it. But pirating videogames, and then proudly informing everyone that you do so "out of necessity", makes you a fucking douche.
So doing something despite the opinion that it is immoral and unethical doesn't?
I don't go around shoving it in people's faces and trying to justify it as being necessary.
I have a question, to those who are so adamantly against piracy, have you ever borrowed a game from someone? Or lent one to a friend?
Surely thats just "stolen" $50 from the devs as well? Your friend won't go out and buy whatever the game is if he can get it free from you.
Exactly.
In a sense, broadcasting is piracy as well. When my roommates turn on their speakers and play the latest Dave Matthews album, I'm less inclined to go buy it.
The problems with IP exist because we are trying to apply legal and moral frameworks that are made for physical property on intellectual property. Clearly does not work.
God, shut up. Pirating videogames is one thing -- it is illegal in many jurisdictions, and unethical no matter how you slice it -- but I do it sometimes because I'm a cheap bastard and I can get away with it, and I don't particularly mind other people doing it. But pirating videogames, and then proudly informing everyone that you do so "out of necessity", makes you a fucking douche.
So doing something despite the opinion that it is immoral and unethical doesn't?
I don't go around shoving it in people's faces and trying to justify it as being necessary.
Who cares? You're still doing something immoral/unethical (in your opinion). Whether you talk about it openly or not is pretty much irrelevant.
Crime is far more complicated than piracy and has many aspects. Not a very good analogy. People don't go over the speed limit because they are poor. So firing all the cops would be a bad idea (for a lot of other reasons as well).
Still, addressing poverty is far more effective than trying to catch criminals and detain them. I would rather work on preventing a problem from occurring in the first place than only trying to fix it after it occurs. Or, at the very least, a healthy balance of both. But currently we are not working on the former. We're only spending money and resources on the latter.
Wait - you want to forestall piracy by eliminating poverty?
That's like curing the flu by genetically re-engineering life on earth.
You kinda missed the mark there.
I honestly wonder how some people on these forums function in todays society on a day to day basis. Or perhaps our social structures and assumptions vary this much by region. Either way it is baffling that subtle context is missed.
To clarify further... IT WAS AN ANALOGY. And if you wrote that just to be funny then Ive come to the conclusion that the mods here spend most of their time in /b/.
Read it again. The zomg analogy was "speeding," while the reference to poverty as the root motivator for piracy was direct.
itt: We learn that only ege knows the secret to crafting and marketing video games, and that cracking and downloading free software is the same as listening to your Dave Matthews CD in earshot of your roommate.
Goddamn, this thread makes me fucking weep.
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.
itt: We learn that only ege knows the secret to crafting and marketing video games, and that cracking and downloading free software is the same as listening to your Dave Matthews CD in earshot of your roommate.
If listening to my roommate's broadcasting of the CD makes me not buy the CD, then for all intents and purposes, he is hurting the sales of the CD and thus having a negative impact on the artist's income.
God, shut up. Pirating videogames is one thing -- it is illegal in many jurisdictions, and unethical no matter how you slice it -- but I do it sometimes because I'm a cheap bastard and I can get away with it, and I don't particularly mind other people doing it. But pirating videogames, and then proudly informing everyone that you do so "out of necessity", makes you a fucking douche.
I dont pirate video games.
"I dare say $60 for some games is worth it."
And let me add for the attempted flame.
"I honestly wonder how some people on these forums function in todays society on a day to day basis. Or perhaps our social structures and assumptions vary this much by region. Either way it is baffling that subtle context is missed."
Read it again. The zomg analogy was "speeding," while the reference to poverty as the root motivator for piracy was direct.
Pirating Out of Necessity
Get over yourself.
The speeding thing was in reference to something earlier. About it being asinine to get rid of cops.
The Criminal part was assuming that the downloading was not a crime. It was also still in ref to something earlier. Meaning that Criminals mainly steal because they are impoverished.
The criminal part relates to this in that people steal this because they cannot afford it.
"To clarify further... IT WAS AN ANALOGY. And if you wrote that just to be funny then Ive come to the conclusion that the mods here spend most of their time in /b/."
I justify this statement again because you are continuing to make this personal.
Posts
Well, I understand what you're saying, but I also think that piracy has allowed a lot of people to get a lot of stuff that they otherwise wouldn't, and that it's tangibly improved their lives. It's done so at some cost to the IP holders, I'd concede, but the question is how much cost? For example--I've bought two CDs in my entire life, one of which I split with two other people. I listen to the radio, internet and physical, quite a bit. Suppose I were to have pirated thousands of songs. If I hadn't done so, I might have wound up purchasing one whole additional CD (to be generous). On the balance, does my quality of life increase from the thousands of songs more than anyone is hurt by the loss of my $20? Probably.
I understand the dangers of rationalization when applied over groups. But I still don't think the answer is as simple as "well, Adobe owns Photoshop, end of story," which is also precisely why it's so easy to rationalize piracy.
I do understand what you're saying. It's hard to balance the welfare of the public against the needs of business. I simply think in this case, with Photoshop and most software in general, the pendulum is swinging way too far in the direction of the consumer. If anything, consumers are hurting themselves long term by reducing the variation of IP goods in the marketplace.
I really understand that there are a small segment of users who absolutely NEED a product like Photoshop and cannot feasibly get it any other way. However, just because such users exist does NOT condone the kind of casual piracy that Ege and others here have promoted.
And in those cases of users who absolutely need Photoshop and cannot afford it no matter what they can do, they might want to look toward foundations and maybe even write Adobe themselves. Companies will do a lot to improve their public image and create long-lasting customer relationships. It could be interesting if you laid out your situation, what action they would choose to take. It would be worth the postage to send a letter and see what happens.
So eventually I said fuck it and downloaded any that I needed, as buying them would have cost more than my tuition. I don't feel the least bit bad about it either because if you're going into a career where those programs are the standard you'll be expected to already know how to use the latest version. However, If I ever start my own business or make a career out of it I'll need to own a legal copy.
That's why I don't think Adobe cares too much about piracy. They know that if you ever start doing any photo/vector/whatever work professionally you'll need to own a legal copy, and that's when you'll have to swallow their 600$ price tag. They're insane if they think anyone besides a pro is going to pay that much, which is why they created photoshop elements and the like.
My company purchased CS3 for me last week. $800. I tried to install it. Didn't work. It fucking crapped out during install and now it says I need to finish installing it before i uninstall but when I try installing it says I need to UNINSTALL. I want to KILL THEM.
You know what I'm using? My $50 Photoshop elements that I personally purchased. On my personal laptop. Yeah way to waste $800. It's so not worth it.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
However, I think the answer to this is developing services that the average home user thinks are worth more than a free copy. For instance, I am sure a lot of the games I have gotten from Steam are available cracked, but I like the service a lot. Stardock is another excellent example.
There is also the fact that when the game is available only used, I have no idea why it would be wrong to just download it. What part of intellectual property says that I need to pay some random dude for your work if it's never getting back to you?
As has been said, stealing software that you'd never be able to afford doesn't hurt Adobe; it hurts Corel, the people who make the software you can afford.
You would think that. But it's based on a fallacy.
The idea is that a given product has a given value for each person. If it's priced below that value, it's worth it to them, and they'll buy it. If it's priced above that, it's not worth it to them, and they won't buy it, therefore if they steal it, it's no harm done.
However, this doesn't take into account the fact that the price affects the value. Things you can get for free are worth less to you than things you can't. The ability to steal software stops you from buying it at the price you would have.
...which is also a fallacy, which relies on everyone inherently being a criminal.
Eh? That only applies to people who steal. That makes them criminals, I guess.
You're aware that it's exceedingly difficult to turn a profit on a video game that's not part of an established franchise, right? For both the developer and the publisher. It's not like publishers charge $60 for the game and then laugh all the way to the bank riding on their massive float made of money. Most games lose money. Even really, really good games. It's fucking expensive to make a modern video game, because unless it looks like fucking Gears of War, people will ignore it and whine about where the photo-realistic games to which they're entitled have gone. Shit, most developers eventually go out of business because it's so difficult to actually remain profitable. And publishers routinely lose a fortune on a given game title.
Also, if I wanted to be pedantic, I'd point out that the developer has nothing to do with how much a game costs.
tl;dr: You have no idea what you're talking about.
If it's a shitty game, yeah.
Yeah, like that awful Psychonauts, and that terrible Okami, and that piece of shit Beyond Good & Evil. They suck in comparison to something of unbridled quality, like Madden 2k-whatever-they're-all-the-same-fucking-game.
Marketing is as important as the product.
Look, there is no such thing as luck in sales. If a product doesn't sell, there is a good reason for it. The claim that "it's a hit and miss" is ignorant and narrow-minded.
--
So these developers/publishers are basically putting insane price tags over their products to make up for their lack of skill in development and/or marketing. No wonder it doesn't work and why a lot of companies are having a hard time surviving.
I'd love for companies to branch out more often into what used to be the realm of shareware. I would buy Burning Monkey games on Steam, the VC, PSN, or XBLA. Or Ambrosia games. If they managed to cut the price, and put it somewhere easily accessible, these would be amazing purchases. And the best part of it would be that the software would come with some form of large-scale company backing it, so you wouldn't lose the key and watch them shut down, or something.
And so, all your assumptions are not only crap and flawed - but pointless. Why try and define something for the sake of an argument when the argument at hand is that it doesn't exist?
Yes it is... Didn't say it was. Holy crap! Is there? I'd never have known that unless you'd told me. If only I'd have know that bloody obvious and irrelevant info I'd have realised my whole argument was pointless, and I'd never have bothered trying to engage such a great mind as yours. :roll:
It's really quite pathetic. You don't even seem to get the idea that, relative v. absolute, fixed v. variable, and upfront v. per-use are separate things.
I'm not going to bother debating the points in your post. Because they stem from a fundamental inability to understand what I had said in the first place. And the problem would only get worse if I tried to explain to you. I'll leave I to more patient people to point out how ineffectual your argument is.
Your post has absolutely no content. It doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. Why did you bother posting it? I guess it's because you get a kick out of being a sarcastic smartass. If you don't want to debate, get the fuck out of this thread.
My argument is simple:
1- Piracy is the symptom of a problem, not the cause. Trying to address symptoms is not only unproductive, it is also unfeasible and will not yield any meaningful results.
2- Our current measures against piracy aren't working. Piracy is on exponential growth. So, do we continue on a road that by all indications leads to nowhere, or do we change our stances and approaches on the matter as society, perhaps by trying to work on changing and improving the underlying systems (such as pricing)?
And let's get one thing straight: pointing out that it is not within someone's rights to pirate a piece of software is nothing other than self-righteous sanctimony.
Sharing is caring
Since when can't you treat symptoms? That is like half of medicine. A disease with no symptoms is not much of a disease.
You can treat the symptoms, but as long as you don't address the cause, they'll never go away. Same with piracy.
The same with crime. You want to focus on ending poverty and fire all the cops?
Crime is far more complicated than piracy and has many aspects. Not a very good analogy. People don't go over the speed limit because they are poor. So firing all the cops would be a bad idea (for a lot of other reasons as well).
Still, addressing poverty is far more effective than trying to catch criminals and detain them. I would rather work on preventing a problem from occurring in the first place than only trying to fix it after it occurs. Or, at the very least, a healthy balance of both. But currently we are not working on the former. We're only spending money and resources on the latter.
Man, all of those games were amazing.
They were marketed pretty well, too. I saw a bunch of TV commercials for Okami and the others got a lot of industry awards at sites with significant readerships. I dunno why they didn't take off but it's too bad
Wait - you want to forestall piracy by eliminating poverty?
That's like curing the flu by genetically re-engineering life on earth.
$60 for Madden is bullshit. It is the same game.
If they offered PS7 for $80 now since it is "obsolete" I would gladly pay it.
You kinda missed the mark there.
I honestly wonder how some people on these forums function in todays society on a day to day basis. Or perhaps our social structures and assumptions vary this much by region. Either way it is baffling that subtle context is missed.
To clarify further... IT WAS AN ANALOGY. And if you wrote that just to be funny then Ive come to the conclusion that the mods here spend most of their time in /b/.
Pirating Out of Necessity
So doing something despite the opinion that it is immoral and unethical doesn't?
Surely thats just "stolen" $50 from the devs as well? Your friend won't go out and buy whatever the game is if he can get it free from you.
While it's clearly on a different scale to the inevitable pirating of Bioshock in a few weeks, as Angelhedgie linked earlier;
Exactly.
In a sense, broadcasting is piracy as well. When my roommates turn on their speakers and play the latest Dave Matthews album, I'm less inclined to go buy it.
The problems with IP exist because we are trying to apply legal and moral frameworks that are made for physical property on intellectual property. Clearly does not work.
http://jaykinney.com/Texts/shmoo.html
Blatantly cribbed from the admittedly biased BoingBoing, but a reasonable article about this very point, presciently written in 1987.
Who cares? You're still doing something immoral/unethical (in your opinion). Whether you talk about it openly or not is pretty much irrelevant.
I like that article durandal.
It's frightening how relevent it still is.
Read it again. The zomg analogy was "speeding," while the reference to poverty as the root motivator for piracy was direct.
Get over yourself.
Goddamn, this thread makes me fucking weep.
If listening to my roommate's broadcasting of the CD makes me not buy the CD, then for all intents and purposes, he is hurting the sales of the CD and thus having a negative impact on the artist's income.
Do you disagree?
I dont pirate video games.
"I dare say $60 for some games is worth it."
And let me add for the attempted flame.
"I honestly wonder how some people on these forums function in todays society on a day to day basis. Or perhaps our social structures and assumptions vary this much by region. Either way it is baffling that subtle context is missed."
The speeding thing was in reference to something earlier. About it being asinine to get rid of cops.
The Criminal part was assuming that the downloading was not a crime. It was also still in ref to something earlier. Meaning that Criminals mainly steal because they are impoverished.
The criminal part relates to this in that people steal this because they cannot afford it.
"To clarify further... IT WAS AN ANALOGY. And if you wrote that just to be funny then Ive come to the conclusion that the mods here spend most of their time in /b/."
I justify this statement again because you are continuing to make this personal.
Pirating Out of Necessity