Quake3World

dzjepp's sarcasm.. *whoosh*

DRuM wrote:It's one thing to torrent games just because it's easy to do. A lot of people do that, me included. But I don't do it because I refuse to pay over some principle.

then i'd argue that he has more principles or is more devoted to his principles than you.

sorry, im just being picky. i do understand what youre saying.

I think console licensing requires a baseline price for retail? So it's dictated that yes, you can have a nintendo (or whatever) license for the console, but the game must retail at $whatever in the US and £whatever in the UK at launch.

Probably more complex than that and covers the life of the product not just the launch, but you get the idea.

DRuM wrote:It's one thing to torrent games just because it's easy to do. A lot of people do that, me included. But I don't do it because I refuse to pay over some principle.
There isn't a principle that would justify someone playing games for free that should be paid for. If I say a ferrari is too expensive, does that justify me stealing one? Steal it by all means, but don't try justifying it because that's bullshit. Then again, everything geoff comes out with is bullshit.

I have to disagree with this analogy. A Ferrari is a physical object with intrinsic worth and people recognize that. Intangible software which consists solely of bits and bytes isn't valued by the vast majority of the populace as "property", regardless of what the RIAA/MPAA/other Ass' say. I'm not saying its a right or wrong viewpoint, only that it's the most common one.

Yeah. regardless of opinion on the root matter that analogy is just plain poor Drum.

Copyright infringement is not stealing and both common sense and the legal systems across the globe acknowledge this.

inolen wrote:dzjepp's sarcasm.. *whoosh*

it would have gone better without the icon at the end. with it, it makes him sound like a knob.

Jackal wrote:

dzjepp wrote:It's not stealing if you download the game off the net and never had any previous intentions of buying it in the first place.

?

What is being stolen? The gas money the truck had to use in order to freight the merchandise to the store shelves? Oh wait, there is no truck on the intardnet.

perhaps some of you idiots just need better jobs to start paying for your software. careers aren't about fast food.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:perhaps some of you idiots just need better jobs to start paying for your software. careers aren't about fast food.

I do pay for my application/game software and would pay for my digital music if iTunes offered it in MP3 format (or any format compatible with both WMP10 and iTunes). If a CD has enough decent content to warrant it's purchase then I'll buy it. That being said, I don't view copyright infringement as theft. Stealing physical property and infringing on someone's intellectual property are quite different in my personal opinion.

Tormentius wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:perhaps some of you idiots just need better jobs to start paying for your software. careers aren't about fast food.

I do pay for my application/game software and would pay for my digital music if iTunes offered it in MP3 format (or any format compatible with both WMP10 and iTunes). If a CD has enough decent content to warrant it's purchase then I'll buy it. That being said, I don't view copyright infringement as theft. Stealing physical property and infringing on someone's intellectual property are quite different in my personal opinion.

sure, but it doesn't make it right.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:
sure, but it doesn't make it right.

Didn't say that it did :icon1: . Copyright infringment is still morally and legally wrong but its not exactly "stealing" IMO.

You know Juggz, maybe, just maybe, the developers of said software should spend more money on making inpenetrable or close-to it protection if they so value their software. If they don't want to spend millions out of their pocket developing said protection scheme it ain't my fault. Better protection is definately possible. Look at starforce3.x, it's seriously crippled the casuall users knowhow and ability to use downloaded games.

Leave it up to the intel/microsoft palladium initiative with the embedded hardware schemes to fix this?

Oops, forgot the

What do you use your super leet fast broadband connection for Juggz? Email?

Eraser wrote:That whole games being more expensive to produce is a big box of bullshit as well.

No it's actually true.

Development teams that want to create "triple A" content usually get larger as more detail goes in.

Several developers are using 3rd party companies to "outsource" their asset creation (of course the final asset is finished by the developer) to save money instead of retaining large staff numbers.

Other developers utilize more than one team to create multiple projects simultaneously. This of course means the company and the staff numbers get bigger. (Team members are also usually switched around to work where they are needed instead of idling and basically wasting development funds)

On top of this not all developers use licensed engines so they must create - and pay for - an internal R&D team.

In total...the average game needs a team of 20 - 50 people working on it for 2 - 4 years. And the industry doesn't pay McDonald's wages. That can get expensive quickly. Don't kid yourself.

These days a typical title will run anywhere from 1 - 7 million (US$) just for development. Then there's another 3 - 15 million for marketing, unit production and distribution. All in all...a "triple A" title could end up costing over $20 million from the start of the project to when the first customer loads it into their DVD drive or console.

Games in the old days never cost this much.

Some people in the industry are worried that this "next gen" craze of cramming megabite after megabite of data into the finished product is the wave of the future that will nessesscitate the need for a team of over 100 people working on it for 3 - 4 years.

That won't come cheap.

You forgot to mention the increase in developments is a mere pittance compared to the increase in volume of sales, increase in prices, and the billions that they rake in as a result, seems contrary to the standard that increase volume=lower cost per unit

there is always 2 sides to this type of story, the idiots like jugs side, and that other side

btw ever noticed how MS pc games are always a bit more expensive than other games (at least in dutcholand they are)? same thing

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Eraser wrote:That whole games being more expensive to produce is a big box of bullshit as well.

No it's actually true.

Development teams that want to create "triple A" content usually get larger as more detail goes in.

Several developers are using 3rd party companies to "outsource" their asset creation (of course the final asset is finished by the developer) to save money instead of retaining large staff numbers.

Other developers utilize more than one team to create multiple projects simultaneously. This of course means the company and the staff numbers get bigger. (Team members are also usually switched around to work where they are needed instead of idling and basically wasting development funds)

On top of this not all developers use licensed engines so they must create - and pay for - an internal R&D team.

In total...the average game needs a team of 20 - 50 people working on it for 2 - 4 years. And the industry doesn't pay McDonald's wages. That can get expensive quickly. Don't kid yourself.

These days a typical title will run anywhere from 1 - 7 million (US$) just for development. Then there's another 3 - 15 million for marketing, unit production and distribution. All in all...a "triple A" title could end up costing over $20 million from the start of the project to when the first customer loads it into their DVD drive or console.

Games in the old days never cost this much.

Some people in the industry are worried that this "next gen" craze of cramming megabite after megabite of data into the finished product is the wave of the future that will nessesscitate the need for a team of over 100 people working on it for 3 - 4 years.

That won't come cheap.

I think most people underestimate the amount of time and effort a game takes to make. Most people I talk to seem to be under the impression that after a game is announced work has just started on it.

dzjepp wrote:

Jackal wrote:

dzjepp wrote:It's not stealing if you download the game off the net and never had any previous intentions of buying it in the first place.

?

What is being stolen? The gas money the truck had to use in order to freight the merchandise to the store shelves? Oh wait, there is no truck on the intardnet.

I originally thought you were kidding, I guess you weren't.
If you download a game illegally it is stealing. Just because you weren't going to buy it doesn't make it right. People still worked to make that game and they should be being compensated for doing so.
If I go and steal a diamond then say "Well I sure wouldn't have bought it.", it's the same thing.

You sir, need to realign your logic.

It's not really stealing though.

Imagine as a hypothetical situation, that there was a machine that could scan an object holographically, and then reproduce it physically as many times as you wanted.

Now imagine BMW came out with a new model. If someone managed to sneak into the factory with this holo-gadget, got a complete scan of the car, took it home and started magically reproducing the car and giving it away to whoever wanted, would it be stealing?

It would be copyright infringement definitely, but it wouldn't really be stealing/robbery/larseny.

edit: The diamond analogy isn't accurate either. When you steal a diamond (or anything physical), that is one less diamond that the company will be able to sell for a profit, which means you cost the company the value of that diamond. Not quite true with intellectual property.

The slaves working in the diamond mines would be punished by not getting their bread and water for a week.

Besides that you're using physical objects again. Theres an inventory that needs to be accounted for.

R00k wrote:It's not really stealing though.

Imagine as a hypothetical situation, that there was a machine that could scan an object holographically, and then reproduce it physically as many times as you wanted.

Now imagine BMW came out with a new model. If someone managed to sneak into the factory with this holo-gadget, got a complete scan of the car, took it home and started magically reproducing the car and giving it away to whoever wanted, would it be stealing?

It would be copyright infringement definitely, but it wouldn't really be stealing/robbery/larseny.

edit: The diamond analogy isn't accurate either. When you steal a diamond (or anything physical), that is one less diamond that the company will be able to sell for a profit, which means you cost the company the value of that diamond. Not quite true with intellectual property.

It is totally true for intellectual property. If the person goes and dl's the program they sure as hell aren't going to buy it. They will however get entertainment out of it, something which they are supposed to pay for.
It's stealing, and it's really quite cut and dry.
And your analogy is clumsy as hell. Even I do steal a diamond, it isn't one less diamond for the world to have, sure it is my diamond but someone could just as easily take it from me. When it comes to IP the person that steals it has the ability to retain it even after passing the product along.

dzjepp wrote:You know Juggz, maybe, just maybe, the developers of said software should spend more money on making inpenetrable or close-to it protection if they so value their software. If they don't want to spend millions out of their pocket developing said protection scheme it ain't my fault. Better protection is definately possible. Look at starforce3.x, it's seriously crippled the casuall users knowhow and ability to use downloaded games.

Leave it up to the intel/microsoft palladium initiative with the embedded hardware schemes to fix this?

Oops, forgot the

W.T.F. i'm seriously thinking you've gone off the deep end and are clawing at any excuse to make your "morals" sound plausible.

dzjepp wrote:What do you use your super leet fast broadband connection for Juggz? Email?

Jackal wrote:It is totally true for intellectual property. If the person goes and dl's the program they sure as hell aren't going to buy it. They will however get entertainment out of it, something which they are supposed to pay for.
It's stealing, and it's really quite cut and dry.
And your analogy is clumsy as hell. Even I do steal a diamond, it isn't one less diamond for the world to have, sure it is my diamond but someone could just as easily take it from me. When it comes to IP the person that steals it has the ability to retain it even after passing the product along.

Precisely. The 'thief' has the ability to retain it even after passing it along. By the same token, the company also has the ability to retain it and make the same amount of profit from it even after it has been taken.

Which was the point of the analogy.

None of this matters much though, because the same thing remains; why is CoD2 so much on 360, but not on PC?