The Denuvo DRM Thread

[Osvir]

Major Malfunction - I'll bite. I think it's an interesting subject anyways.

Can you even compare "nutrition" with "entertainment"?

It's the same with cars. Can you even compare "transportation" with "entertainment"?

Of course you can, but does it make any sense whatsoever?

"This is my car, don't steal it". Yeah I'll probably not sit in jail, probably get sued somehow and owe money in the end.
"This is my gigabytes, don't steal it". It's just 1's and 0's bro click click and it's done, catch me if you can!
"This is my nutrition, don't steal it". I'm hungry you Walmart corporate asshole!

A) For one, the car is a big physical object. Secondly, you'd probably have to beat the owner up to steal it (or smash a window, whatever). You'd probably be looking at a felony to get the car. It's a property. Breaking an entry, theft, burglary and beating someone up (aggressive and violent behavior). Have fun in jail! The owner will thank you for the insurance ;D ... and you're probably getting sued as well.

B) Downloading the game, you just need enough hardware space. It is a misdemeanor, I believe, but there are hardly any consequences. Say hello to Big Data in a little while though that's gonna ruffle your chicken feathers.

C) Shop lifting food, yeah, you know who does that? People with no money, living in (most cases) extreme poverty or on a minimum wage. Why? Because video games aren't selling enough! (Okay sorry, it was an open goal I just had to... obviously it's a joke) My point? Nutrition and food stuff that physically keeps you going, that you digest into your biological system, is something you need. Most people in (my culture) aren't that poor, luckily.

My point is: You don't need video games. It's a luxury item. A bonus on top of the food (that you need), a bonus on top of the car (which also is a luxury item, depending on how your commuter system works in your area). Entertainment is "after work" and "weekend" relax.

I don't quite understand myself saying this (because I get the feeling a lot of people would probably think me a communist), but you go to work, you earn your money, you pay your bills, your food, your fuel, your shelter. Save some money away, and buy the entertainment you want. This is the capitalistic reality we live in today, and it ain't no illusion in practicality.

Ex-Pirate, Ex-Commie.

....

Wait... what.... what's happening... my crotch is evolving into...



... Capitalism?



---------------------

I wanna see a documentary of a dude walking into Software Stores and just openly take stuff with no care in the world. See how the staff reacts at GameStop or at an Apple store (Photoshop, Business & Security Programs etc.), and on the other end, someone sitting at home just downloading the same shit :D Hey, EVEN BETTER, why not have some dude walking into Stygian's office and download the game straight from his computer? (Underrail) Or Obsidian Entertainment, or why not inXile, BioWare or whoever it is you want to pirate from? That'd be interesting to see how they would react, but also how the pirate would sneak in, find the right computer, hack the password and download to their device. That'd be cool to see. Hmm, only thing... I wonder if such a person would be a tad bit stressed out?

1) Which one would you do? And, because I'm pretty sure that 9 out of 10 active pirates would choose to stay at home... "why did you choose that one?"

I'm only asking for one Rule to be followed: "Comfort" or "Convenience" (if the choice is to stay at home) isn't a legitimate option/answer in this make-believe scenario (This magical GameStop would be just outside your front door *poof* and you'd be there). If I were to be pre-cognitive I can suspect the answer to that question would be something like "Because I don't want to risk getting caught". Close?

2) And in that case the most important question to ask yourself is: "Why would you be afraid of getting caught in the GameStop store?"

Because face it, you're a chicken shit.

Spoiler

Seriously though, probably because there's real world consequences in stealing from a store, compared to stealing the exact same thing virtually (the occasional malware/virus consequence). That hit the spot?

 

[Osvir]

Meh, I've only started actually buying games recently because steam sales are incredibly cheap, but I still tend to pirate more than buy. For me, pirating means I really own the game, without it being bound to my steam account, and I can keep it on my external HDD in my games archive forever. That's why I generally prefer GoG over steam, as you actually have installers you can put into your collection that are not bound to an account.

Piracy is completely fine. It doesn't hurt devs at all. A pal of mine has never bought a single game in his life, he's a prolific pirate who pirates everything, and if a game can't be pirated he'll just skip it. But because he plays so many games he tends to give recommendations to his friends, who sometimes buy a game based on his recommendation. Therefore, his piracy actually adds to the company's profit, rather than detract from it.

Let's say there's 10 pirates with 2 friends each.

That's 20 customers. That's -10 customers total (30 potential customers, 10 didn't buy the game equals 20 customers).

How does it not detract again? Because I mean, he could buy a game and recommend it, right? And if he just downloads games at random, he has little insight or knowledge of any of the companies and developers he's supporting, the money gets all spread out?

What if he downloads 3 games from 3 different companies, and recommends 1 game to 1 friend each. That's 25% to 1 company, 25% to one company, and 25% to the third. Still -25%. What if he would've bought the game he thought was best, and told his 3 friends to get that? That'd be 100% for that company. Or 33% to each company.

Just thoughts. And math. Add a couple of 0's to the numbers and the detraction gets more noticeable (E.g. 20'000 customers, 10'000 pirates). That's not a loss? Why can't you buy a game and market it? Do you have to pirate a game to market it? That's new to me, and I pirated for ~17 years! (From 7 years to 23-24, well, not quite true, we bought pirated CD's from people who did burn it on discs when I was 7 up til I was like 13-14).

So, I pirated for 10 years. Actively for maybe 5-6 years, and 4-5 years asking myself this question more and more often "Am I okay with this?".

EDIT: Of course, if the pirate can't pay or purchase the game because he/she is still in school or an unemployed young adult, then I understand how the pirate could recommend to friends that have money, and also create more sales. It depends on the circumstance and the pirate's living situation and age...

Obviously, parents wouldn't economically support a lot of their childrens gaming habits, not when their wallets on the line, so if parents tightened discipline and didn't allow their children to pirate, that would probably detract sales.

I mean, I understand how pirate marketing is a form of marketing and can give titles more success in reaching a larger audience. I feel a weird "I'm not doing it anymore, but I'm kinda okay with it if others do. It's not really any of my business". And at the same time I feel "It's not okay at all! Zero tolerance!". It's weird.

Finally, teaching children to pirate at young age might create a huge wave of consumers with bad consience when they grow up, and when they get a nice job they give something back. Long term economics...

Pirate honor...?

 

[JarlFrank]

You're making the logical fallacy of seeing every pirate as a potential customer. As I said, my pal wouldn't buy most of the games he pirates, and neither would I, so there is no lost sale if we couldn't pirate. And what is better - when someone doesn't play your game at all, or when he pirates it and spreads positive propaganda about it? The latter is definitely preferable.

Yes, of course you can buy and market. But what if you don't buy? At least half the pirates, and especially those who are the heaviest pirates, don't buy at all, they only pirate. There are no lost sales at all for this demographic.

 

[Osvir]

Why wouldn't you buy the games though? I'm just curious.

A) It is that many games? "Gotta catch em all!!" (Trust me, I know that feeling)
B) Unemployed? (I know that feeling as well)
C) Student/School? (Yeah, I guess I know that feeling as well)

Those were my 3 reasons to why I didn't purchase and went to pirating. I guess these ones as well:

D) Accessibility. It was easy, lazy and comfortable (Digital Stores such as Steam and GoG satisfied that comfort)
E) Most games don't have Demo's, there was a period where I tried a game out. Didn't like it so I didn't pay for it, but I forgot to completely delete it. Some games I just plowed through with no care in the world (New refund systems will probably evolve, GoG Galaxy is still p. young)

Then somehow I started to game less, work more, and getting a life. No insult or ill intended by the way. Just gaming fatigue, I guess, and started to pay for new games as well as pay back for the older titles I had pirated earlier in my life

 

[JarlFrank]

Because I like saving money, and because sometimes buying gives me a worse deal than pirating (no complete ownership of the game because it's account-bound, DRM, etc), and because there are more games out there I'd like to try than games I'd be willing to pay for. I like derping around in those modern open world sandboxes like Skyrim or Ass Creed, but I wouldn't pay for them - they're not worth the amount of money they cost.

There are actually many games that I'd like to try but haven't even pirated yet, but probably will one day just to give them a try. I have a minor interest in them, but that interest isn't big enough to be willing to pay for it.

 

[Jaedar]

You're making the logical fallacy of seeing every pirate as a potential customer. As I said, my pal wouldn't buy most of the games he pirates, and neither would I, so there is no lost sale if we couldn't pirate. And what is better - when someone doesn't play your game at all, or when he pirates it and spreads positive propaganda about it? The latter is definitely preferable.

Not to mention someone pirating a game, finding out they like it and then buying it instead of regretfully skipping buying it and then forgetting about it.

 

[Osvir]

"No complete ownership" is such a bullshit excuse. I get all the rest of the reasons, but this one I just can't because it's such a terrible excuse.

There is literally one tiny difference between playing a game through the Steam client or running a game through it's pirated executable file except having to log into Steam.

Digital rights management (DRM) is a term referring to various access control technologies that are used to restrict the usage of proprietary software, hardware, or content.

Never has Valve or Steam locked me out from any of my content (it is a question of definition~ I have full access to my own Steam library. I understand if you think just being "in Steam" is a restriction enough). Valve isn't going to go bankrupt in a very long time, and if they showed any sign of it, journalists, business experts, would warn about it a long time ahead for their users to download all their purchased content to their local harddrive before closing their servers

 

[JarlFrank]

Thing is, Steam games can't be played without being connected, you can't just take a Steam game, download it, and install it offline on another PC. It's only a minor pet peeve of mine, really, and I do buy on Steam sometimes without making a fuss about it. Doesn't change the fact that having a torrented .iso with crack on my external HDD is more permanent than having something in my Steam library.

Not to mention someone pirating a game, finding out they like it and then buying it instead of regretfully skipping buying it and then forgetting about it.

This, too. I have several games I pirated and bought later because I enjoyed them.

 

[FugueLah]

A lot of even 'approved' games aren't ready/feature complete until a year after release. If I am going to spend money it better be a finished product. I typically have the patience and time (given my backlog) for one playthrough, so I don't give a shit about all the substantial improvements and bugfixes you made a year later when after spending $40-60 all I got was a mediocre experience.

I do feel a little guilty about D:OS and WL2 (though maybe I wouldn't be if I played pre DC), but living in maybe-China I can't justify spending that much money. I'm also glad I didn't d1p PoE after playing it for 5 hours and completely forgetting about it.

I have quite few games lined up for when they go 75% off, which is a decision that wasn't going to change, so it really doesn't matter when I actually play it.

 

[pippin]

After all these years, internet piracy is just a problem of companies not knowing how to properly deal with distribution, with not making it easier for people to just buy games. For many people it's too complicated to buy things on the internet, because official retailers only receive international credit cards, which is something not everyone has and if they do, not everyone is willing to give away this kind of personal information to a business they don't "know". Then there's the fact that other stores are shady and etc. If people weren't just lazy assholes, they'd realize they aren't covering the market because they expect people to go their way, when it's supposed to be the other way around.

 

[Osvir]

Yeah, you'd have to log on on another device as well, then you'd be able to download it (I've done it several times at friend's places~ just log onto Steam on their computer, download the game).

Or... albeit I haven't tried it, but it should be possible to either:

A) Hotlink
- Download the game on PC1
- Ethernet cable to PC2
- Transfer the files to PC2
- Still have to have Steam on PC2 (log on your account, verify cache)

B) External Storage Device
- Download on PC1
- Put it on Storage (Put in PC2)
- Log onto Steam PC2
- Install

I also think you can "cheat" a bit by installing a game on one device (let's say PC1), turn on Offline mode. Log in on another device (PC2) whilst you are in the game on PC1, install the game on PC2. You won't be able to play online with each other (And I dunno, Steam might've "fixed" this~ I remember it working a long time ago).

Finally, there's Family Sharing (I have no clue, never tried it), but, again, I think you can share one of your games with a friend/family in your contact list.

I think it makes sense, if we compare to the time of CD's (the Run or Play CD had to be in the CD-drive to be able to play), Steam is simply simulating the same thing. With GoG install packs, you could purchase 1 game, and then install it on your device, and all of your friends devices as well... is that correct? Pay once, install on an Infinite amount of devices. Complete freedom, but you're basically just copying from 1 source file. Gaming industry would wither away if the online gaming community banded together and bought 1 pack that they passed around... sounds familiar... sounds like pirating.

 

[Cassidy]

stealing and kidnapping are less immoral acts than piracy.

How much are RIAA and MPAA paying you, shill?

 

[Major Malfunction]

Seriously though, probably because there's real world consequences in stealing from a store, compared to stealing the exact same thing virtually (the occasional malware/virus consequence). That hit the spot?

Sure, but when you're talking about social damage and morals in contrast with the potential of punishment you get a rather wonky argument. If my head remaining firmly attached to my neck hinges on me wearing a black plastic bag over my entire body whenever I'm outside in the ISIS compound I'm certainly going to take that fact into consideration if I wish to survive, but arguing that not doing so is immoral or socially eroding by the very nature of the severe punishment is just coming out in support of capital punishment for non-compliance to arbitrary laws.

So, in essence, whether or not punishment follows a crime is irrelevant to the discussion whether an act is A) wrong on a moral level and B) socially eroding, correct? Let's review your argument(s) now that we've raised the FOV from 70 to 120.

Can you even compare "nutrition" with "entertainment"?

It's the same with cars. Can you even compare "transportation" with "entertainment"?

Of course you can, but does it make any sense whatsoever?

Beats me. I don't know why you would though; what's the point? Are you attempting to justify criminal behavior with the need of an individual to commit crimes? I am going to assume that it is, because I see no other significance in what you're trying to say here.

First off, stealing a car in most civilized societies isn't transportation as much as it is entertainment, right? Stealing transportation implies not paying for your ticket on a bus or train, with the semi-legal option of hitch-hiking. Stealing food for nutrition implies stealing the bare essentials necessary for survival, which is pointlessly selective in contrast to the store chain incinerating a third of its stock anyway -- how would you differentiate between a stolen apple and a stolen pot-roast in this context? Stealing entertainment is, I don't know, kidnapping a stand-up comedian and forcing him to crack jokes, or joyriding as per the first example -- it would be intrinsically linked to some other crime, because obviously entertainment itself cannot be stolen from people, other than perhaps by engaging them in inane discussions such as this one.

A) For one, the car is a big physical object. Secondly, you'd probably have to beat the owner up to steal it (or smash a window, whatever). You'd probably be looking at a felony to get the car. It's a property. Breaking an entry, theft, burglary and beating someone up (aggressive and violent behavior). Have fun in jail! The owner will thank you for the insurance ;D ... and you're probably getting sued as well.

Doesn't consider the possibility of a Mad Maxian post-apocalyptic environment. Thing is, what is a car anyway and what makes it special? The utility? The production costs? Personal attachment? Perhaps the registration of property? You can steal a car wreck that doesn't run from an abandoned junk-yard, but there's nothing in the eye of the law that transfers this property to you even if you work night and day to get it running. Meanwhile, beating the owner and taking his car for a ride isn't even in the realm of theft anymore; it's like stealing a house -- it's occupation.

My point is: You don't need video games. It's a luxury item. A bonus on top of the food (that you need), a bonus on top of the car (which also is a luxury item, depending on how your commuter system works in your area). Entertainment is "after work" and "weekend" relax.

Meanwhile, a person may feel a very real need to rape somebody, or a very real need to kill somebody who, mind you, is not posing any physical threat to the person in question. And? If need, which is just a signal bouncing around in your head, is the moral justification for villainy, then the most desperate and degenerate criminals are saints by default. Meanwhile, yogis and Buddhist monks switch off their needs for years on end meaning that whatever else they get up to is probably highly immoral. People don't really need to be alive anyway -- plenty of folks are dead after all -- and every other need depends on the primary need being met.

I don't quite understand myself saying this (because I get the feeling a lot of people would probably think me a communist), but you go to work, you earn your money, you pay your bills, your food, your fuel, your shelter. Save some money away, and buy the entertainment you want. This is the capitalistic reality we live in today, and it ain't no illusion in practicality.

This generalization applies to you and others like you. I don't make any money and live off the land most of the year, eventually looking to do it full time. Others earn money without working and can buy more than mere entertainment. So, you're happy with your place in life and the status quo -- good for you. Where's the argument in this?

How much are RIAA and MPAA paying you, shill?

I just mean that piracy is more inconsequential to an individual's well being on average. Pirating or leaking government documents which expose some sinister conspiracy seems to have little impact on anything and is contrasted by the sheer amount of piracy focused on, say, bestiality porn and the latest EA shovelware. Meanwhile, a single act of theft or kidnapping can have profound consequences both on an individual and social level.

 

[Daedalos]

Why wouldn't you buy the games though? I'm just curious.

A) It is that many games? "Gotta catch em all!!" (Trust me, I know that feeling)
B) Unemployed? (I know that feeling as well)
C) Student/School? (Yeah, I guess I know that feeling as well)

Those were my 3 reasons to why I didn't purchase and went to pirating. I guess these ones as well:

D) Accessibility. It was easy, lazy and comfortable (Digital Stores such as Steam and GoG satisfied that comfort)
E) Most games don't have Demo's, there was a period where I tried a game out. Didn't like it so I didn't pay for it, but I forgot to completely delete it. Some games I just plowed through with no care in the world (New refund systems will probably evolve, GoG Galaxy is still p. young)

Then somehow I started to game less, work more, and getting a life. No insult or ill intended by the way. Just gaming fatigue, I guess, and started to pay for new games as well as pay back for the older titles I had pirated earlier in my life

Spending money on shit, is a bad investment, and only retards do that. I'm not a retard, so I don't spend money I otherwise could have spent better and more productive elsewhere. Get it?

Like JarlFrank says, the games that people pirate and never buy, are usually the ones because they're fucking terrible.
It makes logical sense.

Even IF you pirate something that most people would buy, there's a high chance that you end up buying the product later, because you discovered how great it is. You wouldn't have been able to do that in the first place, without buying it (which you wouldn't do). So.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

I'm gonna keep pirating games until foreigners stop thinking brazilian gamers are all rich and can waste 200 reais on a game.

 

[Celerity]

This escalated quickly...

Know what'd prevent me from pirating? If developers became honest and competent. If there was no BS obscuring the actual game, then I could fairly gauge it based on their words and either buy or don't because I have a good enough grasp on what I like by now. Failing that?

Long, extensive screening process.
Piracy demo.
Don't even look.

I rarely have time for the first, so the last is the only way non trash games can shine through.

If you think I'm justifying myself or think less of me for this look at all the fucks I don't give. And don't compare this with other merchandise either - there's shit like laws against false advertisement and more leeway in return policies that protect the consumer when buying non gaming related goods.

 

[Osvir]

Arguing? I'm probing

Interesting points.

Sure, but when you're talking about social damage and morals in contrast with the potential of punishment you get a rather wonky argument.

What do you mean with social damage and morals?

If you steal from a GameStop store in broad daylight, there's the risk of getting caught. If you break in during the night to steal, there's the risk of getting caught (alarms, security patrols, cameras, etc.)

This act is instantly punishable, handcuffs and your freedom removed. You might even be beaten, if it's certain states in the US. Maybe even tazed and at worst, shot. Put in the backroom until security comes. Get a ticket. Why? Because it's a crime to steal, and different country security deal/punish differently with theft/breaking an entry.
Where is the moral?

If I steal from the comfort of my home, through my computer, to access the exact same files I was aiming for at the GameStop store... nothing. I keep my freedom, no handcuffs, no violence, no backroom, no ticket. Worst case, virus or malware. Just a download bar waiting to finish. I commited the same crime with more success and with no consequences. Upside? No one was harmed during this theft (except the owners of the product).
Where is the moral?

A) Rob a GameStop store for Witcher III! = Sirens, tickets, jail! (Depends whether it is a hostile/violent robbery, or a passive robbery).
B) Download Witcher III directly! = Nothing.

Speculative facts.

Of course, in A), the perp could get away as well without even being noticed. It is still riskful wherein the other option is not, even though the "price/value" of the target "treasure" is the same.

Beats me. I don't know why you would though; what's the point? Are you attempting to justify criminal behavior with the need of an individual to commit crimes? I am going to assume that it is, because I see no other significance in what you're trying to say here.

First off, stealing a car in most civilized societies isn't transportation as much as it is entertainment, right? Stealing transportation implies not paying for your ticket on a bus or train, with the semi-legal option of hitch-hiking. Stealing food for nutrition implies stealing the bare essentials necessary for survival, which is pointlessly selective in contrast to the store chain incinerating a third of its stock anyway -- how would you differentiate between a stolen apple and a stolen pot-roast in this context? Stealing entertainment is, I don't know, kidnapping a stand-up comedian and forcing him to crack jokes, or joyriding as per the first example -- it would be intrinsically linked to some other crime, because obviously entertainment itself cannot be stolen from people, other than perhaps by engaging them in inane discussions such as this one.

Yes! You caught it :D I chose "transportation" rather than "vehicle" or "car" on purpose.

In Stockholm, it's not unusual for people to run behind you to get past the ticket zones (we have doors, put a card on a reader, and the door opens, one person can manage to sneak in behind and you can go 2). Do I turn around and kick anybody or act rude towards anybody who runs behind me? No, even though the card costs about $100 a month. I enable others to "cheat", and in the most extreme way of looking at it, each time I let someone through, the commuter system looses $100, because that person isn't paying for the card. Comparing in video game piracy terms, I'm enabling others to pirate, kind of like a seeder.

But what if someone grabbed and stole my card out of my hand? Or stole the $100 from the train company directly? Is that not a crime? (One that quite nicely compares with video game piracy in fact... steal a $100 card every month from the train company, and steal a $100 game every month from developing studio). Though, the train card has more utility in real life, it can take you places and would serve you better than the game would if you want to move around town, go to meetings, interviews, a job maybe, a date with friends, the card has practical applications. The game would give you entertainment, maybe. Or why not a lifechanging artistic experience?

Food. I can't say much about food because I am of the opinion that everybody should have food on their tables and it should be a human right. Naive dreams and illusions. What I'm trying to get to is that if someone is hungry and needs food, they should be given food. Let them steal, or provide food banks, food stamps and soup kitchens for those that require it the most. Although, that can easily turn into an abusive relationship where the needy goes where food is provided every day, but no attempts are made at any progress in their own lives (I'm speaking of homeless, I was homeless in Boulder, Colorado for just 2 months during a summer. I understand a lot of people live like that all the time). We went and ate the food, then went our way.

LIES LIESNo programs to help anyone get out of the bad circle, no one to help with a job, or to get contacts, or to get education or anything. No therapy or aid. Just foodLIES LIES*. I was grateful, of course, but I always knew I was going to back to Sweden, none of the others were. I also hope you understand that "nutrition" is a variable meant to represent "food in your stomach" or "food on your table". Not just "survival" and "essentials" but getting fed every day. Some of my past friends stole food, even though they had a job (not a well paying one) and an apartment. They didn't quite steal because they were starving, but just to be stocked enough.

*There was one place that actually helped with job contacts and engaged with the younger generation of homeless (kids between 16-20) and were very helpful.

On food waste, I agree 100%. Humanity across the world (specially in the western culture, if I'm not mistaken), throw away so much food (because it's cheaper to throw it away rather than transport it where needed). Something must be wrong in the supply line somewhere, or more probable, capitalism at work. "It's cheaper to make tons of food and then throw it away than administer it, employ people, organize it, transport it and feed people!" but this is derailing into "How to solve food crisis across the world?" problems.

Stealing the car in itself may be "entertainment" for some, if you wish to define it like that. Driving a car can be "entertainment" too. What's your point? It is a major crime (Which was what I was trying to get at; you can't really compare "Would you steal a car?" with "Would steal a movie?" in this context. It's nonsensical due to too differentiating consequences, imo). In spirit, maybe you can compare if you simply look at the fundamentals of what "Theft" is: "What is theft?". If I see a car with keys in the ignition and I sit down in it and start driving, that's an easy theft, a comfortable and convenient theft, it is still a major theft, if I go into GameStop and pick a video game box and leave peacefully without getting caught, that's a minor theft.

Speaking of entertainment, let me rephrase then... "digital media entertainment software" (that's a mouthful), kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, terrabytes, you know of this and I've already explained my POV and my history on this across several posts, so I don't know if there's anything for me to add.

Meanwhile, a person may feel a very real need want to rape somebody, or a very real need want to kill somebody who, mind you, is not posing any physical threat to the person in question. And? If need want, which is just a signal bouncing around in your head, is the moral justification for villainy, then the most desperate and degenerate criminals are saints by default. Meanwhile, yogis and Buddhist monks switch off their needs wants for years on end meaning that whatever else they get up to is probably highly immoral. People don't really need to be alive anyway -- plenty of folks are dead after all -- any every other need depends on the primary need being met.

What are you trying to get at? I was saying that video games is a luxury (clarification: I think it is a luxury item). But perhaps not as luxurous as a yacht or a private jet or the finest restaurant or the best seats at the cinema, or the VIP longue all for yourself at a club or the finest diamonds. Video games is luxury, even if low on a "luxury" scale. Of course, we can define "luxury" as well, because that's different from culture to culture, to family to family, I'm sure. "It's a luxury to have food on our tables" in one family, or another "It is a luxury to go on this trip to Spain". A monk might find luxury in nature. You might find luxury in not having money. Luxury can be a philosophy of life.

Plenty of people die, plenty of people are born as long as reproduction occurs, but do I sense an underlying philosophical tone meaning that Earth does not need humanity? If that's the case: True, I agree.

My point? It was a comparison with food. You need food or else you will starve (your choice, of course). You can't eat digital 1's and 0's (at least not yet). Ergo, you will starve if you only have video games. Thus, food is more important than video games for your health and hunger. That's the need I was talking about. Human needs. Not individual wants. Speaking of which, there's a clear distinction and a clear difference between "Needs" and "Wants". "Wants" tend to sometimes disguise themselves as "Needs", and "Needs" sometimes disguise themselves as "Wants" ("I'm hungry, I need food!" or in disguise "I'm hungry! I want food!"). If I'm not completely mistaken, Monks aim to let go of all "Wants" and reach a harmony in spiritual and bodily "Needs".

Needs = You don't need much to function human. A plant gneeds water to grow or else it will starve and wither.
Wants = You're going to lust and desire a lot of stuff along the way "I need you!" to a loved one, for instance. But is it a need? No. It's a want. "I need to rape someone now!!", is the same. Nobody needs to rape anybody, it's lust and desire, "I want to rape someone now!!".

Makes sense? Check the bold in your paragraph if you haven't seen it btw.

I don't make any money and live off the land most of the year, eventually looking to do it full time.

You're off-grid! What the hell are you doing on-grid? Fuck off! Enjoy life and the beauty around you (yeah I'm jealous). You probably do too though Happy for you.

To the horse! *gallops away into the sunset*

I feel the need to explain my individual moral, my own "what is right and what is wrong?", not because I think you should think the same or that you should agree, but merely for insight and I don't shy in sharing, might get easier to understand my position? (If it's not clear enough yet):

- Stealing someones work (Video games, Music, Movies) is Theft. It is wrong. Further using it for your own benefit should be some sort of plagiarism of distribution(?). How much ad revenue does a torrent site generate?
- Stealing someones property (cars, houses, credit card) is Theft. It is wrong.
- Stealing food? It was meant to be eaten and digested. You can't steal food. Corporations withhold food and keep the world hungry, and that is a far greater crime than someone taking what should be rightfully theirs. As I said, that's for another discussion (Maybe I'm a commie when it comes to essentials, food, water, shelter/house, basic needs for everyone! And a capitalist when materialism is involved)
- Stealing a life (murder, abuse, negligence) is Theft (of freedom, of life). It is wrong. US Police seem to be good at this, none of the ones I've met though.
- Stealing someone else's wife*, is actually morally okay by me. You save someone and sacrifice yourself, is that not honorable?
(I just realized these started to look like a version of the 10 commandments and I'm faithless so I'll just stop here *it was the rhyme I was going for)

 

[Mustawd]

ITT: A bunch of poor 'tards.

It's hard to imagine people with careers writing a lot of these posts. Personally, time is limited. What stopped me pirating video games was the convenience of Steam and GoG.

I aint got time to browse through the shit to try and find something to run on my PC that's not loaded with malware. So I buy all my video games.
I aint got time to browse through various streaming sites with all their virus popup shit. So I usually just have my Netflix account and am happy enough.

If/when I pirate I'm perfectly aware of what I'm doing.

 

[mondblut]

The only problem with piracy is that nowadays it is too easily available to average peons. It needs to be restricted to monocled individuals like ourselves, who would advise those peons on what to buy from our ivory towers (if we feel like it).

Kinda like games journalism, except not done by faggots.

 

[Excidium II]

Some stuff is still hard to pirate. Specially old stuff.

 

[Celerity]

Average peons mostly just find the links with malware in them instead of the actual warez.

 

[an Administrator]

Piracy is completely fine. It doesn't hurt devs at all.

I don't know about outside world but piracy actually ruined everything about developing here.
You can't earn profit from your programs/games.
For example your team has worked for 3 years to make a game. You put it on market for around 5 dollars while AAA games like Twitcher or CoD are available at 1~3 dollars in stores! So no one buys your products when there are cheaper (and better) alternatives.

 

[JarlFrank]

And how is that the fault of piracy rather than of too low pricing?

 

[vonAchdorf]

And how is that the fault of piracy rather than of too low pricing?

Because the $1-3 copies are pirated.

But I wouldn't blame it only on piracy. It's hard to compete with high budget productions unless you target a specific niche. Sure, you could make the whole country a niche, by restricting the sale of (legit or pirated) foreign titles, but I think the better way would be for the team to go international and try to find a larger audience, which is also willing to pay.

 

[JarlFrank]

Ah, right. I forgot about Eastern Europe and selling pirated copies on the street or even in stores.