How do you show disapproval towards Publishers/Developers

[spoffle]

Pirating something that you object to buying just tells publishers that you're a filthy thief, and their fan base can't be trusted. Most don't understand why charging the earth for content that should really be part of the game, allowing pay to win, preorder early access (used to be called beta testing and was free) is unpopular.

Don't like it, don't have it. It's called self control

Pirates use any excuse for their theft, claiming it's sending a message that they are not happy about X, Y, Z problem is just an excuse, 9 times out of ten they would pirate the game anyway, they are the reason we get ridiculous DRM on games (another reason pirates give for pirating ironically). If I don't like a direction a game is heading, I go on the official site & explain why I won't be buying & then I don't buy simple as that, pirating the game just sends the message that PC gaming is rife with thieves!

If you don't like what a company is trying to sell you don't buy it.

Don't try and justify theft.

"dont buy , pirate" - perhaps one of the most ridiculous arguments ever, your still playing the game and no doubt enjoying it , it effectively makes you a scumbag thief.

or alternatively you could be like the millions of COD fans out there that voice their disapproval of the franchise every year and then proceed to rush out on day 1 to buy it. herpderp!

That's not how theft works. You might whinge about how it's pedantic to point that out, but then why are you changing the definition of words to suit your causes/arguments?

There is no reason to call piracy/copyright infringement "theft" because it's simply not theft.

A sure way to see whether someone can be objective in a discussion about piracy/copyright infringement is whether or not they try to claim it's theft, and how quickly they wheel it out.

Generally it's a good idea not to take anyone seriously who does so.

What you're doing is essentially taking two different legal terms and claiming they are the same thing because they are similar.

Why not start calling all cases of assault "attempted murder"? Because they're the same thing, right? No one dies but someone gets a beating.

So if something is rubbish is it ok to steal it?

No it's not, but copyright infringement isn't stealing so it's a moot point.

Why do people have to be so emotive about things?

 

[Fenris]

I assume I'm one of the few people who just doesn't care.

Last Light is a game I was planning on buying on Day 1 anyway and seeing as the price is no different I don't lose any money by pre-ordering.

Also chances are they will just release it to everyone else free a few months down the line anyway. Remember 2033 didn't get Ranger modes until months after it came out.

 

[spoffle]

In some cases I think yes it is just spin, the big developers can swallow a certain amount of piracy but a small developer that is struggling in a crowded market place needs that revenue, the only time I could agree with someone getting a pirate copy of a game is, If they own a legitimate copy but that game has ridiculous DRM that restricts or hampers how the game or your machine runs.

Smaller developers with original content are doing very well in this digital age.

Look up what Oddworld and Just Add Water are doing, it's very interesting stuff.

They are self financing and publishing their games, cutting out as much "middle man" as they can and are doing very well.

They used to need millions of sales to keep afloat using the old methods of content distribution, now they just need sales in the tens of thousands to be in profit.

They make more money now selling their games for $10/15 a copy than they ever did going through a publisher and retail selling for $50/60 a copy, and they have no shareholders to satisfy.

More developers are going this way, and I think it's for the better.

 

[Divinious]

Given that you cannot (often) test a game before habd?, like you can test drive a car, or play with an example on the shop shelf and because you lose the right to return once you effectively test the game out, I.e online codes...then games are unique in the respect that, like food, you don't know how good it will be till you've tasted it.

So hypothetically speaking if once you have illegally downloaded the game & tested it, you decide you like it but not enough to buy it, do you delete the game without completing it? I highly doubt it!
Theft is theft however you look at it end of, & trying to justify it by saying you have bought bad games in the past or felt ripped off...well boo hoo! welcome to the real world, it's not fair sometimes, learn from you're mistake & be a bit more discerning in what you choose to buy in the future, play demos if available wait for a review you trust (hard sometimes I admit) or wait for word of mouth, sometime you will get burned or miss a pre-order bonus but if you do you're homework before hand you can minimize the risk of buying a stinker.

 

[spoffle]

So hypothetically speaking if once you have illegally downloaded the game & tested it, you decide you like it but not enough to buy it, do you delete the game without completing it? I highly doubt it!
Theft is theft however you look at it end of, & trying to justify it by saying you have bought bad games in the past or felt ripped off...well boo hoo! welcome to the real world, it's not fair sometimes, learn from you're mistake & be a bit more discerning in what you choose to buy in the future, play demos if available wait for a review you trust (hard sometimes I admit) or wait for word of mouth, sometime you will get burned or miss a pre-order bonus but if you do you're homework before hand you can minimize the risk of buying a stinker.

I find it amusing that you claim "theft is theft" then ascribe it to something that isn't theft.

So by your own post, theft is theft, except when it isn't.

 

[Narj]

I avoid buying UbiSoft games and I haven't purchased ME3 because of the no-choice-in-the-matter Origin bundling.

 

[Shamikebab]

I find it amusing that you claim "theft is theft" then ascribe it to something that isn't theft.

So by your own post, theft is theft, except when it isn't.

It isn't legally theft but morally I would imagine a large percentage of people consider it to be. Really the 'it isn't theft' argument, only gets trotted out when people are trying to justify their actions.

 

[spoffle]

It isn't legally theft but morally I would imagine a large percentage of people consider it to be.

But theft is a legal term, so really what's the point in using it if not trying to be emotive?

From a completely objective perspective, it is what it is and its name doesn't change it, it's not theft but people try to claim it is theft to give it a stronger more emotive feeling.

Really the 'it isn't theft' argument, only gets trotted out when people are trying to justify their actions.

Does that make any difference what so ever to the validity of the claims that it is theft?

 

[Divinious]

I find it amusing that you claim "theft is theft" then ascribe it to something that isn't theft.

So by your own post, theft is theft, except when it isn't.

Sorry but you are being pedantic for the sake of it, taking something which you have not paid for is theft in my book (& any sane person), try to justify it by any means you like at the end of the day you know it's wrong.

 

[spoffle]

Sorry but you are being pedantic for the sake of it, taking something which you have not paid for is theft in my book (& any sane person), try to justify it by any means you like at the end of the day you know it's wrong.

But it's not theft, and your "book" doesn't count.

Oh and it's not pedantic. It simply and factually isn't theft.

It begins and ends there, it's copyright infringement, it's not theft.

Why do you assume that anyone who corrects anyone on that point is doing so to justify it to themselves?

If it's not theft (which factually it isn't) what purpose does it serve constantly insisting that it is?

The definitions of words are important, and it serves no real purpose to try and twist the definitions of words to suit something you're trying to say.

As I said, it's akin to calling all cases of assault "attempted murder" because in both situations a person could receive a beating.

 

[Fenris]

Why do you assume that anyone who corrects anyone on that point is doing so to justify it to themselves?

Because generally speaking it's true.

If you want to pirate games, pirate games, don't try and justify your actions as it doesn't work.

You are gaining access to a product you have no right to, you can keep whining away that "it's not theft" but most people, myself included, will still consider you the same as any other thief.

By all means keep banging the "It's not theft" drum, the rest of us will just continue thinking of you as a dirty little ***** and get on with our lives.

 

[spoffle]

Because generally speaking it's true.

If you want to pirate games, pirate games, don't try and justify your actions as it doesn't work.

You are gaining access to a product you have no right to, you can keep whining away that "it's not theft" but most people, myself included, will still consider you the same as any other thief.

By all means keep banging the "It's not theft" drum, the rest of us will just continue thinking of you as a dirty little ***** and get on with our lives.

Those assumptions are your problem though, not mine.

As I keep saying, factually it's not theft, so why bother trying to force "it's theft" on to people?

I'm not trying to justify anything, in fact it's the opposite to your assumptions.

I've got 400+ games on Steam. But that has got nothing to do with my disdain for people changing the definitions of words to suit themselves.

That's the sad thing, you can't point out that it's incorrect without people excitedly falling over themselves to point the finger at you.

 

[Fenris]

As I keep saying, factually it's not theft, so why bother trying to force "it's theft" on to people?

No one is trying to change the definition of words or force anything on to anyone, all anyone is saying is that we "consider" it theft and react to it in the same way, which has nothing to do with factual definitions and is an entirely subjective opinion, something we have every right to. We all know it isn't technically "theft" by the legal definition, however many people consider that legal definition to be outdated anyway. It is less a matter of technicality, and more one of ethics.

The reason people are responding to you is that you are pushing your case a little hard for someone who apparently only cares about the definition of a word.

 

[spoffle]

I didn't say that's all I cared about (dem assumptions).

But what purpose does it serve to insist that it's theft when it's not?

Part of the issue is that most people simply don't understand copyright law, and I've noticed that there's a correlation between those who understand it the least, and those who say it's theft.

For example, watching an unauthorised video on youtube by your definition would be "theft" to "stealing".

Breaking licensing terms on products you own constitutes as copyright infringement, lending movies, games, music and other media/content to friends is in breach of the licensing terms. Backing up/ripping your content to hard disk is in breach and is technically copyright infringement. Is all of that theft too? Because it's "copyright infringement".

 

[Jasonst888]

The definitions of words are important, and it serves no real purpose to try and twist the definitions of words to suit something you're trying to say.

As I said, it's akin to calling all cases of assault "attempted murder" because in both situations a person could receive a beating.

I think the use of the word theft is simply because most people equate this form of copyright infringement with theft, the reason being, you wouldn't go into your local supermarket and steal the game but claim its ok because its crap anyway, or there is no demo, etc...

Whilst you are technically correct copyright infringement is not theft you are derailing the purpose of the thread (or at least the current trend of conversation) by dealing in semantics, whilst you may care about the usage of the word 'theft' I think most people on here really don't give a damn, and are rather more focused on wha they consider the immoral act of copyright infringement/ theft which in this case are at least is factually almost identical.

 

[spoffle]

I think the use of the word theft is simply because most people equate this form of copyright infringement with theft, the reason being, you wouldn't go into your local supermarket and steal the game but claim its ok because its crap anyway, or there is no demo, etc...

Whilst you are technically correct copyright infringement is not theft you are derailing the purpose of the thread (or at least the current trend of conversation) by dealing in semantics, whilst you may care about the usage of the word 'theft' I think most people on here really don't give a damn, and are rather more focused on wha they consider the immoral act of copyright infringement/ theft which in this case are at least is factually almost identical.

You can't make the example of going in to a supermarket and taking it off a shelf because that is theft. The item is being taken, and the shop is then left without the item.

That's why it's an issue that people say copyright infringement is theft. Firstly those who do say it don't understand copyright law.

A copy (albeit unauthorised) is made of the item. No one is permanently deprived of that item.

As I said though, if they want to call it theft, then viewing videos on youtube that are in breach of copyright laws is also "theft", no?

As for almost being identical, have a look at my example of assault versus attempted murder. They're very similar aren't they? But they're certainly not the same thing, and the only reason you'd call assault, attempted murder is for the purposes of drama, to be emotive about it and make it into something that it isn't.

 

[AWPC]

Do not buy the game spread the word the game is terrible & why is all you can do really

Then be more careful in future & do not pre-order unless your very sure you can trust the people behind it

 

[spoffle]

Do not buy the game spread the word the game is terrible & why is all you can do really

Then be more careful in future & do not pre-order unless your very sure you can trust the people behind it

I only pre-order from devs I know stand by quality games.

I'll pre-order an Oddworld game without second though, same goes for Valve.

 

[Pighardia]

Even though DA2 was horrendous, I didn't think they could do a bad job with ME3. I don't particularly care about the technical aspects of the game, which were obviously being scaled down for ME3, I can put up with simplified gameplay, or gameplay I don't really care for so long as the story is good...and I really couldn't see them messing up the story....Boy was I wrong. Amazingly, it is the writing where the game really fails!

I have learned my lesson the second time though and will not buy anymore BW games withough some serious good reviews from people I trust.

 

[Jasonst888]

You can't make the example of going in to a supermarket and taking it off a shelf because that is theft. The item is being taken, and the shop is then left without the item.

That's why it's an issue that people say copyright infringement is theft. Firstly those who do say it don't understand copyright law.

A copy (albeit unauthorised) is made of the item. No one is permanently deprived of that item.

As I said though, if they want to call it theft, then viewing videos on youtube that are in breach of copyright laws is also "theft", no?

As for almost being identical, have a look at my example of assault versus attempted murder. They're very similar aren't they? But they're certainly not the same thing, and the only reason you'd call assault, attempted murder is for the purposes of drama, to be emotive about it and make it into something that it isn't.

You assume I don't understand copyright law....

I never said theft was copyright infringement and my example was merely to demonstrate how most people feel about game piracy and why they equate it with theft.

You are again quite right that a copy does not deprive the owner of the game like my supermarket example so there can be no theft, the counter arguement is that you are stealing a sale, of course the counter arguement to that is you can't steal a sale as it may never of happened.

The point people have been trying to raise is not however a legal one, but a moral one, how they choose to do that is up to them and whilst you are free to comment on that; my point to you is that your comments add nothing of note to the discussion as this is not a debate as to the legality of piracy or under which statute it should fall, rather the point raised by those you criticise is simply that as with theft, the copying of a game no matter the excuse is as intrinsically wrong and shouldn't be done.

You also assume the use of the word theft to be emotive, instead of considering that to that person it is MORALLY theft, of course it is not legally theft but to that person such a distinction is irrelevant and entirely pointless.