@KevinvanderVelden If I recall correctly, it was a response to someone saying they couldn't afford it. Which, frankly, boils down to the same thing there. You can't exactly monitor if someone can afford it so it's an honour system no matter what.
> Hacking TimTech Software is not liable and will not be held responsible for any problems or damage arising from any content on this website that is connected with any sort or type of hacking, modding, reverse engineering, code injecting, viruses, DDoS software, pirating, and out-of-site links.
I hate the "I can't afford it" argument for pirating video games. That almost always means "I don't consider it a priority to spend actual money on. Cigarettes, booze, and handjobs from the massage parlor come first."
@Sterno I don't consider it a bad argument, what would you prefer as a game developer? Someone not paying and not playing, or someone not paying but playing
Two questions stuck out in my head on a recent playthrough of the game.
1: Who is paying Talon Company, established as mercenaries numerous times in the game, to assault the D.C. ruins?
2: Who is paying Reilly's Rangers for Geomapper data on the Capitol Wasteland?
Both questions serve as circu...
@KevinvanderVelden That's an entirely different argument. That's arguing it helps the developer rather than hurts them. Not that "I can't afford it." I want an itemized list of everything you've purchased in the last month before I will even consider your claim valid. Plus, if you don't have a job, even a minimum wage job flipping burgers, you'd better have a damn good reason before telling me "I can't afford it" is a valid excuse.
@KevinvanderVelden How old? I had actual paying jobs from about 14 on. And do you have an allowance? Fancy new $200 Nikes? Other shit you beg your parents to buy you that aren't necessities?
I'm not saying there aren't a small set of people for which it's valid, but for most, "I can't afford" means "I could if I did without something else non-essential, but since I can get it for free and not have to give up the other thing, that's what I'm going to do."
I didn't have the allowance to play all the games I wanted to play, so I prioritized the ones I really wanted and bought those. Then saved up for the others later.
I did pirate for a while in college, and I claimed the "I can't afford it!" excuse, but knew that was crap. I think the main reason I did it was because it was really, really easy in a college environment. You didn't even have to download it yourself. Someone would just hand you some burnt discs.
I'm talking much younger than college. Too young to get a job. Lower class family - if my total allowance amounted to $200 from age 8 to 14, I would be amazed.
Yeah. There was a lot of stuff I wanted and couldn't get either. And some I pirated. I'm totally agreeing with you about why people do it. I just disagree in that I think the excuse is BS. We are not entitled to not pay for games just because we can't afford them.
I kinda don't even know how people remotely get the logic that "I can't afford it" is in any way legitimately an excuse to pirate.
Before we even look at whether or not you literally can afford it, it's a thing with a price tag attached! It's no more a valid excuse for gamery as it is for shopliftery.
@GraceNote I think because the excuse starts there but moves on to "And it won't actually hurt the developer since I can't afford it anyway, so it's a win for me and no loss for them"
There's a big difference between people who pirate because "fuck it I wouldn't pay anyway" and "I am incapable of downloading this game legally so I will torrent it for now"
@KevinvanderVelden In the cases of the people who literally would never, ever have bought it even though all their friends were playing it and its really cool but they just couldn't afford it or convince a family member to give it to them as a birthday present or work the neighbors lawn and save up to buy it or whatever, sure.
Yes, copyright infringment is totally not thievery because if it was it would be thievery and we wouldn't need "copyright infringment" to be a thing that exists to begin with
The problem is, people don't even try. They say, "Eh, I don't have $40 in my wallet. Pirate time!" and never revisit the idea of trying to legally acquire the game
I don't think that a game being in digital copy in any way makes it any less ridiculous sounding than "I can't afford this dress, but I love it and I want to parade around in it, so I'll just take it. It's not money they would've gotten anyway since I couldn't afford it."
The thing is, I know when I was a kid and there was something I really, really wanted, I found a way to get it. Whether saving various small monies earned, asking for it as a gift, trading other things, selling things, whatever. If you want something, you find a way to make it happen.
@Sterno Looking back, I have to think it actually was a bit like your college experience. I didn't pirate what I wanted, I pirated what was simple to obtain (i.e. the games my friends had and could quickly copy onto another floppy).
At a fundamental, the sheer entitlement thought of "I don't have enough money to acquire an item, ergo it's okay for me to use means to acquire it at zero cost" completely undermines the entire concept of respectful exchange between parties. It's quite clear that if that is your "excuse" then you don't actually care and making excuses at that point is quite dumb. You're just doing it, just accept it.
@murgatroid99 Because it's a clear example where theft-but-not-really-theft of the product is probably going to result in actually costing the publisher sales
@murgatroid99 Example: Titan's Quest had an early cracked version that was buggy. A lot of people took to forums complaining that the game was buggy and sucked. The LEGIT copy was not.
@GraceNote What do you think of people who buy the "legitimate" game and then play the pirate one because the "legitimate" game is wrapped into awful, awful DRM that you want none of?
This very likely led to less sales and revenue, so even if those pirates wouldn't have bought it ever themselves and you buy the argument that they therefore cost the publisher nothing, the trash talk resulting from them playing the pirated version still cost sales
I did read something once upon a time about some guy who wrote a comic. It did very poorly upon release and basically made no money. A few years later, some people uploaded it to a torrent site and it actually got popular and the actual book started selling a bit.
There's a lot of reasons to pirate something that I have absolutely no problem with. For all I care, piracy has its benefits and downsides, like any other market force. But a pirate is not on the same grounds as a legitimate consumer, and pirates that feel that way are, honestly, disgusting.
Bought the game, sat there waiting for the DRM to update itself from a thin wrapper to a full uPlay client, uninstalled the game and got it from bit torrent... then I found that the thin wrapper still wants you to login
In fact it makes things easier just not to make excuses. I could not care any less which versions or acquisitions one uses to achieve their satisfaction, ain't my business unless people try to make it my business by giving dumb excuses.
@Sterno Justification isn't much my concern either. It eases their mind, it is at least an honest (or at least it should be, otherwise it's again: disgusting) reason why (even if it's not a good reason).
I owned a DS Flashcart because keeping up with multiple tiny bits of plastic that I paid $35 each for is a lot harder than keeping track of one. Especially on trips.
@tugs I don't think that trying to pass of "I do not have enough money to buy something" as something that actually validates and makes robbery A-OK is about changing society's view on issues.
@GraceNote It might be a poor argument in a poorly framed discussion, but why would a person go out of their way to make this "excuse" if not to try to change other people's minds?
The market effects of the latter are vastly different than the market effects of the former. Which in no way justifies either, but you just cannot compare them.
This is about the simple logic that "I only have $40, there's an item that costs $60" somehow validates acquiring the item without paying the price tag.
@tugs Which they're doing to me for absolutely no reason and no impact, as it happens far too often for the fact that I never ask about these things ever.
@tugs Justifying and wanting to enact social change are two completely different things.
A child who takes a toy from another child then says "they told me I could play with it!" isn't trying to enact social change, they're trying to keep out of trouble.
@GraceNote But you have to take into account that there is a difference between acquiring a copy of something without paying for it and taking something without paying for it
@GraceNote That is part of the reasoning behind "I can't afford it." When you ask someone who says that, most of the time they will elaborate on that exact point. I can tell you, I did that, too, two years ago.
@GraceNote I'm not sure who the they is that we're talking about, I'm just saying that as different actions, they have to be considered separately in an ethical discussion
@Sterno I don't see how that's relevant, since the reason that that would be a problem is in no way related to the reason that piracy would be considered a problem
@GraceNote Your original statement that started this reply chain seems to imply that taking a physical item without paying for it is logically equivalent to taking a digital copy without paying for it. I disagree with that assertion
@GraceNote The elaborate form of the "I can't afford it." argument in piracy is almost always "I can't afford it and they don't lose anything from it, so there's no harm." Which is a poor argument, but it is vastly different from theft/etc.
The part where they can't afford it is important insofar as - if they showed integrity, which they usually don't - they would buy it if they could - and also will when they can.
The difference lies in the part where it (allegedly) causes no harm, though.
@murgatroid99 Speaking of analogies though, where does piracy compare in relation to sneaking into the movie theater (which isn't full) to see a movie?
Saying "I can't afford this item so I will get it for free" is an equally valid justification whether its digital or physical. Zero. That is what @GraceNote is saying.
@murgatroid99 "Taking a digital copy without paying for it because one has insufficient funds" and "Taking a physical item without paying for it because one has insufficient funds" are equal to me.
I'm not saying that it's a good argument, or that it's even actually valid. But it is vastly different from theft, and equating the two purely on phrasing is not getting us anywhere in regards to piracy. We're just invalidating sound discussion by nitpicking on smaller parts - and equating them with stuff that's completely unrelated in the big picture.
You may not care about the big picture, but the big picture cares about you.
@Sterno I think it is analogous. And I think that, like piracy, it does not uniformly harm the theater when that happens. The main difference is that the theater can throw you out
@Wipqozn In my mind the kid is already in trouble, the excuse is made to change that. In my mind the excuse is made to the authority, one part of society. Other than scale, I'm not sure where the difference is. Is it motive that I'm ignoring and you're focusing on?
@murgatroid99 That's not even a difference. Piracy can (theoretically) be combated, too. The problem is that you're essentially entering the movie theatre with an invisibility cloak (and tons of other people that do the same), for analogy's sake.
@tugs Scale and motive. The child isn't trying to make widespread change, he doesn't care whether the kid next door gets in trouble for doing the same thing, all he cares is that he personally doens't get in trouble. In other words, he's not trying to change society's view on the issue (stealing another kids toy), but just staying out of trouble.
@OrigamiRobot Which is all nice and dandy, but nitpicking there still does more harm than good. The justification is shit. But it is still an honest explanation.
What's interesting is that in the case of the movie, without paying customers they wouldn't run the projector for that particular showing. You're only getting it for free because other people paid for it. If everybody shared the rationale that they weren't harming anyone if the theater isn't full, and everyone snuck in, there would be no movie to see. Therefore, someone has to pay so that everyone else can get it for free.
@Wipqozn Huh. Getting back to the real issue, whenever I've heard any piracy excuse it's been in the context of questioning&discussing piracy's legal/moral status. I guess that's why I see the motive as changing society's stance.
@Sterno That is true in both cases. That is actually a very close to equivalent analogy. Therefore, arguably, if there was a good reason to pirate a movie then it would also be a good reason to sneak into a theater
@tugs I'm sure that's why some people are doing, but there's probably just as many if not more that just want free games and are making excuses for why they don't want to pay. Whereas in reality it's nothing more than "I don't want to pay"
...in fact I can't think of anything aside from that and (in the future) Smash (which I can just rely on a friend to have that) that piques my interest in the Wii U, and 1.2 items is not remotely enough.