phalzyr said:
Didn't say that
. I said the loss of sales between a game with DRM and one without DRM are 0. OF course pirating costs a loss of sale, but it is sales that you not going to get no matter what, DRM or not. All that a DRM truly does is make it so the average pleb that knows absolutely nothing about computers can't go out and copy the cd and give to their friends. Almost non-exitant number, since young kids no adays are gernerally computer savy(at least enough to download a ripper program).
Eh, sort of the same thing. We're coming from mostly the same direction. But you can't say the addition of DRM doesn't affect sales either; look at Spore for some very obvious proof that it does. Presence or lack of DRM changes how people perceive a game's value, and therefore whether they'd buy it.It is certainly true, however, that the only people it stops are the very lazy and/or the very stupid. I would agree wholeheartedly with that.
phalzyr said:
Piracy is thieving no matter how its put. Justify to yourself how it is ok to ripoff peoples work if it makes your own personal guilt go away. I am sure the people that developed The Witcher completely agree with your pathetic comments.
Digital "piracy" is not the same as traditional stealing. It's not equivalent. I thought I explained it fairly succinctly. There is no analogy to be made: it's not the same.Stealing means taking. Taking, right? As in, you have something, I steal it, then I have it, and
you no longer do. That's what stealing means. Just so we're clear.Piracy (not the men in boats kind, natch) could be considered unethical in the sense that the person doing so receives something at (essentially) no cost. BUT nobody loses anything. The point of old-school stealing is that it's a one-way interaction. Zero sum. Someone gains, someone loses. Digital transfers are NOT like that. And most of society hasn't come to terms with it.If you make a piece of software, and try to sell it, good for you. If people think it's worth paying for, they will. If, under no imaginable circumstances would I ever buy it, no matter what, how is it possible to argue that I, by obtaining it by means other than through you, somehow affect you in any way? I really can't see how the second follows from the first. Most companies' public statements would claim it does, but since a lot of corporations have the ethical sense of a serial rape murderer who also enjoys curbstomping children and mixing cocktails (er, this was supposed to say c-o-c-k-t-a-i-l-s, but it got bleeped) out of abortions, I wouldn't be inclined too hard to listen to sob stories about how there'll only be one new luxury car under the christmas tree this year instead of three.. But even if it's some indie guy in a basement, what's he going to say in public? Obviously they're going to tell people to buy their crap instead of not buying it. That won't change anyone's minds, in all likelihood, but what else can you say?For what it's worth, I don't pirate very many games. Usually it's only to try stuff; demos are a lost art. But if something's not worth paying for, then if you've as much disposable income as me (well, actually I'm pretty poor, but I'm really, really cheap with everything else so I can afford a decent number of games a year), if it's not worth buying it probably isn't really worth having at all. That's irrelevant to my argument, however.And hey, if the mods didn't like the direction we're veering in, they'd shut it down just like every thread mentioning DRM on EA's fora...
