Brian Fargo on DLC

[CaptainPatch]

And before used games stores there were used book stores. Somehow they're still publishing books.

Wellll, maybe not for all that much longer, at least not in the Ye Olde Bookshop or several MegaBook Stores versions. Since the Kindle has been followed by a parade of similar devices, bookstores here in metro San Francisco have been dropping like flies.

I'm not a fan of GameStop at all since the local outlet has reduced its PC selection to ZERO.

As for pirating, it will ALWAYS be siphoning off sales that should have gone to the retailers/manufacturers. Generally speaking, those that can pirate, do pirate -- unless it means that they won't be able to get something that they really, really want which they can NOT get via pirating.

Apparently there is something of a distinction between fans of a game, and fans of a developer. Second-hand shoppers are NOT a fan of the manufacturer. They're voting with their dollars by NOT buying an original copy -- which the manufacturer needs to stay in business and finance the next game. And in case it escaped your attention, the greater the sales of the current game, the more resources can go into making that next game.

Or perhaps the publisher could set the price for the product so that it already includes the the cost of resales?

You're actually suggesting that the manufacturers raise prices?

Or perhaps make games with less money?

And now you're suggesting that many features be left out? That's what happens when the budget shrinks. Multi-player, bye-bye. Animation and expository cutscenes, adios. Voice acting, bring on the mimes. I suppose they could revive Text Adventure games; that would seriously reduce the cost of production. (And seriously reduce sales as well.)

But you know what. People aren't complaining that games bought at Steam can't be resold. Neither are they complaining that games bought from physical stores can be resold. What they are complaining about is that they buy a physical object that they can't handle physically.

You can actually blame Bill Gates for that one. He came up with the concept that you are NOT buying an object, but are rather simply paying for the right to _use_ software. Like going to the theater to see a movie: You pay for the activity rather than buying anything substantive. But with games, it's an activity that you can do over and over again, if you like. You just don't have anything physical that _you_ can profit from by turning around and selling it to others. Others that pointedly are NOT paying the owner and creator of the Intellectual Property. Effectively, if they want to experience that game, they have to buy it directly from the people that are ultimately responsible for making it available in the first place. Or resort to being an out and out criminal -- which says a whole lot about their basic character, so their rationalizations are easily recognized for what they are.

[suz]

Wellll, maybe not for all that much longer, at least not in the Ye Olde Bookshop or several MegaBook Stores versions. Since the Kindle has been followed by a parade of similar devices, bookstores here in metro San Francisco have been dropping like flies.

And nothing of value was lost

As for pirating, it will ALWAYS be siphoning off sales that should have gone to the retailers/manufacturers. Generally speaking, those that can pirate, do pirate -- unless it means that they won't be able to get something that they really, really want which they can NOT get via pirating.

Piracy is NOT a lost sale. If a game has no demo, I'll pirate it. If I want a game or a friend wants me to get it, but it has securom, sony's rootkit or other crap then I'll probably pirate it even though I can afford it.

Apparently there is something of a distinction between fans of a game, and fans of a developer. Second-hand shoppers are NOT a fan of the manufacturer. They're voting with their dollars by NOT buying an original copy -- which the manufacturer needs to stay in business and finance the next game. And in case it escaped your attention, the greater the sales of the current game, the more resources can go into making that next game.

In case it escaped your attention not everyone is born with a few million USD as birthday present. People buy what they can afford, if they can't afford a $60 game they simply don't buy it, it's not a lost sale if they buy it used for $40, it wasn't a sale in the first place.

Guess where majority of people with $40 in their pocket would go to if there wasn't second hand? Either the highway or TPB. Again, it's not a lost sale.

TL;DR
If you think game companies will be at a loss releasing proper game without cut content, draconian DRM you're in for a surprise; They didn't go out of business before "DLC" arrived to milk money.

But you can continue to bend over I suppose, after all your favorite publisher needs their exec bonuses paid out.

[CaptainPatch]

I'm saddened, suz. You've rationalized your thievery into being something okay. "It's okay to steal something that I _want_ if I think the price is too high or the manufacturer's version is more complicated than I like." So, is how you plan to acquire your next car? "I really, really want a Porsche, but the manufacturer set the price too high! But I can one get one for an affordable price from the local car thieves!" Do you keep store detectives on their toes when you go shopping? "Too expensive! Must have!"

There is, of course, a very simple legal method for dealing with products that you feel are over-priced: DON'T BUY THEM.

Games are luxuries, nothing at all that you need. If you don't pay the owner when it is acquired, at worst you are a thief; at best you're a "receiver of stolen goods".

But I doubt very much if you can see yourself in such a harsh light. I could be wrong about that, but it seems you are thoroughly enmeshed with your rationalization.

[suz]

I'm saddened, suz. You've rationalized your thievery into being something okay. "It's okay to steal something that I _want_ if I think the price is too high or the manufacturer's version is more complicated than I like." So, is how you plan to acquire your next car? "I really, really want a Porsche, but the manufacturer set the price too high! But I can one get one for an affordable price from the local car thieves!" Do you keep store detectives on their toes when you go shopping? "Too expensive! Must have!"

I don't mind if you want a Porsche that rings to police if you go over 25 and refuses to run if you have more than 2 CD drives, comes with a 0-day seatbelt DLC and setups up wiretapping at your house, you can have it. I'll get a patch from a local mechanic to rip all that crap out instead.

There is, of course, a very simple legal method for dealing with products that you feel are over-priced: DON'T BUY THEM.

I usually don't.

Games are luxuries, nothing at all that you need. If you don't pay the owner when it is acquired, at worst you are a thief; at best you're a "receiver of stolen goods".

But I doubt very much if you can see yourself in such a harsh light. I could be wrong about that, but it seems you are thoroughly enmeshed with your rationalization.

You missed the point of the post. Keep on sheeping.

[CaptainPatch]

You missed the point of the post. Keep on sheeping.

Hmm. I'm hearing Eli Wallach in "The Magnificent Seven": "If God had not meant for them to be sheared, He would not have made them sheep." He was good with rationalizations too.

[Deathstyk]

dlc has become a dirty word
most people associate it with the avatar clothing items, or gun/map packs that many games seem to offer.
dlc is simply any content added to the game, usually in the form of a download.
expansion packs are dlc, but dlc doesnt always mean expansion pack.
we only have ourselves to blame for how micro transactions have taken off. but lets be honest, weve all paid for a few silly somewhat useless addons to a game at some point.
although it is usually a "mage armor pack" type of thing we see coming from most companies these days. (though i did thoroughly enjoy the fallout 3 and new vegas addons. more so the later ones, op anchorage left much to be desired, but the others were cool.)

[CaptainPatch]

dlc has become a dirty word.

Sort of like being the Edsel of this generation. Nothing inherently wrong with what it IS. Rather, the problem stems from the way it was presented to the consumers: greedy, grasping, squeeze-every-possible-dollar-out-of-the-customers, etc. Hostility as a result of poor Marketing strategy.

[ButchinMelancholy]

So, is how you plan to acquire your next car? "I really, really want a Porsche, but the manufacturer set the price too high! But I can one get one for an affordable price from the local car thieves!"

Except that we don't buy from thieves, but from other customers who paid it in the first place, you know, as we are allowed to sell our own car to someone else because it is legal (in my country anyway)...

I think there's nothing wrong in getting a game sometimes from piracy for a reason or another (which doesn't mean for no reason indeed), and it's what many people do. In reality, you can't blame anything unilaterally, as everything is about measure. And I personally think that not buying a game you would really like to because it has some unacceptable conditions attached to it and hack it instead is not a cowardly act as, again, people who care will be the first to suffer the consequences while people who don't care wouldn't have buy it anyway. So I see no evil in finding a way to enjoy something you love because some people find a way to spoil your pleasure for the sake of a sad assumption, which is that people will not care about you unless you force them to do so, or that forcing people that wouldn't care about you anyway would make them do, because that's not true, and you will just manage to make everyone turn away from you by being so egoistic...

But of course, we live in a monetary system, so it's everyone for himself I guess...

Hostility as a result of poor Marketing strategy.

And of real bad practices...

[CaptainPatch]

So, is how you plan to acquire your next car? "I really, really want a Porsche, but the manufacturer set the price too high! But I can one get one for an affordable price from the local car thieves!"

Except that we don't buy from thieves, but from other customers who paid it in the first place, you know, as we are allowed to sell our own car to someone else because it is legal (in my country anyway)...

Uhm,

If a game has no demo, I'll pirate it. If I want a game or a friend wants me to get it, but it has securom, sony's rootkit or other crap then I'll probably pirate it even though I can afford it.

I don't think that simple resale gets lumped in with piracy.

"Definition of: software piracy

"The illegal copying of software for distribution within the organization, or to friends, clubs and other groups, or for duplication and resale."

I think there's nothing wrong in getting a game sometimes from piracy for a reason or another (which doesn't mean for no reason indeed), and it's what many people do. In reality, you can't blame anything unilaterally, as everything is about measure. And I personally think that not buying a game you would really like to because it has some unacceptable conditions attached to it and hack it instead is not a cowardly act as, again, people who care will be the first to suffer the consequences while people who don't care wouldn't have buy it anyway. So I see no evil in finding a way to enjoy something you love because some people find a way to spoil your pleasure for the sake of a sad assumption, which is that people will not care about you unless you force them to do so, or that forcing people that wouldn't care about you anyway would make them do, because that's not true, and you will just manage to make everyone turn away from you by being so egoistic...

Rationalizationshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9FJiDFVoOo

[Shady314]

Or perhaps make games with less money? Then you wouldn't need as many sales to break even (and perhaps people who usually wait to buy the game for few dollars less would be interested at launch as well)?

Think this is the idea behind WL2 isn't it? Apparently CaptainPatch is against games being made for less than tens of millions of dollars. So why did he back WL2?

And now you're suggesting that many features be left out? That's what happens when the budget shrinks. Multi-player, bye-bye. Animation and expository cutscenes, adios. Voice acting, bring on the mimes. I suppose they could revive Text Adventure games; that would seriously reduce the cost of production. (And seriously reduce sales as well.)

You realize LESS money is not the same as NO money right? Tens of millions of dollars can get you most of those features just not all of them. Pretty much all of those things I would say good riddance too anyways. Half Life and Half Life 2 is famous and liked for not having cutscenes. Voice acting? Please do get rid of it. Often terrible. Always limiting to the dialogue. Makes bringing voice actors back for DLC impossible, just making DLC even worse than it already is. Adios Multiplayer. Couldn't be happier. Every game in the universe has some multiplayer now which only kills the game quicker. A few weeks after most games release their MP is a ghost town. Usually shoehorned in or tacked on which are resources wasted that could have been better spent on the actual game.

But you left out the easiest and best thing they could cut. Attempting to achieve photo-realistic graphics. Nothing is contributing to the rising costs like graphics.

So yes if they honestly can't recoup the money on their 50 million dollar game then stop spending 50 million dollars on it. We'll live. As many people are very fond of saying all the time, "It's just a game."

But you know what. People aren't complaining that games bought at Steam can't be resold.

? People sure as hell do. Even stupider is that I can't even gift Steam games I've bought to fellow friends on Steam. I personally no longer financially support Steam. I don't put up with any of that "I don't actually own the game" crap anymore.

I don't think that simple resale gets lumped in with piracy.

Publishers treat it exactly the same way. Every single download or used game bought is seen as a potential sale lost. When publishers say we lost X million to piracy and X million to resales they are assuming every single one of those people would have bought it new at full price if the publisher could only have prevented all piracy and resales. Day One DLC is to stop resales and DRM is to stop piracy. Hasn't worked so far but they aren't going to give up on getting every penny they can from customers.

Have to agree with you on one thing though. None of this excuses stealing. If you pirate games you are a thief plain and simple. Have some willpower and self respect and just ignore the damn game. I hated what happened to ME3 so I didn't buy it. I didn't pirate it and I won't even buy it on sale.
The sole exception is if you bought the game legally then go ahead and download the superior pirated version and play that instead.

[ijusten]

And before used games stores there were used book stores. Somehow they're still publishing books.

Wellll, maybe not for all that much longer, at least not in the Ye Olde Bookshop or several MegaBook Stores versions. Since the Kindle has been followed by a parade of similar devices, bookstores here in metro San Francisco have been dropping like flies.

People read less books these days than they used to, what with TV, videogames, Internet and whatnot. I think you've heard these arguments several times with the music industry. The numbers have been falling for years, long before Kindle became popular.

If you're talking of Borders, apparently they had it coming.

But I hear Book Depository has been doing some really good business lately. So has Amazon.

I'm not a fan of GameStop at all since the local outlet has reduced its PC selection to ZERO.

As for pirating, it will ALWAYS be siphoning off sales that should have gone to the retailers/manufacturers. Generally speaking, those that can pirate, do pirate -- unless it means that they won't be able to get something that they really, really want which they can NOT get via pirating.

Research done in the subject suggests that the people who pirate more are also the biggest customers of the industry.

Logic also dictates that people who are ready to put money on second-hand are most likely to buy stuff first-hand as well, while people who are accustomed pirates may have higher threshold for buying.

But I'm not here arguing for piracy's merits. I'd just like put worth the idea that the two greater groups of pirates are those without money and those who don't really appreciate the product/the producer and the work that went into the making.

Apparently there is something of a distinction between fans of a game, and fans of a developer. Second-hand shoppers are NOT a fan of the manufacturer. They're voting with their dollars by NOT buying an original copy -- which the manufacturer needs to stay in business and finance the next game. And in case it escaped your attention, the greater the sales of the current game, the more resources can go into making that next game.

What about first-hand shoppers who buy games knowing they can then turn around and sell them?

Or perhaps the publisher could set the price for the product so that it already includes the the cost of resales?

You're actually suggesting that the manufacturers raise prices?

Or perhaps make games with less money?

And now you're suggesting that many features be left out? That's what happens when the budget shrinks. Multi-player, bye-bye. Animation and expository cutscenes, adios. Voice acting, bring on the mimes. I suppose they could revive Text Adventure games; that would seriously reduce the cost of production. (And seriously reduce sales as well.)

From 80s to about 2005 the money needed to develop a game rised very slowly, some percentages over inflation and was supported by the ever-growing amount of people with a game console or PC. Then, about the time Xbox360 and PS3 came to market, the budgets started growing exponentially. Today, they're huge. This means more years in development, bigger amount of people needed to create the game and a gargantuan amount of money to even break even.

Which means that the game must be bought by a even bigger amount of people. And not in absolute, in relative. Bigger percentage of gamers has to buy the game for it to break even.. and for the makers to make their money back. One or two games is enough to break developer's back. To alleviate the risk, the games have to be dumbed down, DLC's have to be made, second-hand buyers are the devil themselves and/or the game has to be split into chapters to be sold every year again.

Meanwhile, Angry Birds was the 52nd try from Rovio to make a successful game. True, the guys had rich parents, but they got the first 25 games out without any additional funding. How many console game developers can say the same?

Just so that the only example wouldn't be a company targeting iPhone, Legend of Grimrock was made by four people in under a year and broke even within 24 hours of the game being published. Minecraft was made by one person.

Wasteland 2 will be made by about 20 people, if I remember reading correctly. It has budget comparable to that of Fallout 2. Meanwhile technology has marched forward and actually creating the maps will be easier now than it was 15 years ago. Wasteland 2 will look better than Fallout 2 did.

And I'm going to guess that developing Neverwinter Nights 2 cost closer to Fallout 2 than Skyrim.

Not every game NEEDS multiplayer, Patrick Stewart voice-acting a great intro-movie or a commercials on the Superbowl. Sure, you lose some people buying the game, but then, you don't really need them in the first place.

To repeat my point from earlier post; games need to be done cheaper and sold cheaper. There are a lot more people out there today owning computers and being interested in games of whatever genre to make out for the lost money. And the price of failure is less as well.

But you know what. People aren't complaining that games bought at Steam can't be resold. Neither are they complaining that games bought from physical stores can be resold. What they are complaining about is that they buy a physical object that they can't handle physically.

You can actually blame Bill Gates for that one. He came up with the concept that you are NOT buying an object, but are rather simply paying for the right to _use_ software. Like going to the theater to see a movie: You pay for the activity rather than buying anything substantive. But with games, it's an activity that you can do over and over again, if you like. You just don't have anything physical that _you_ can profit from by turning around and selling it to others. Others that pointedly are NOT paying the owner and creator of the Intellectual Property. Effectively, if they want to experience that game, they have to buy it directly from the people that are ultimately responsible for making it available in the first place. Or resort to being an out and out criminal -- which says a whole lot about their basic character, so their rationalizations are easily recognized for what they are.

The book publishers tried the "physical product as a licence" hundred years ago and it didn't fly then.

.
.
.

[Goon]

I think we have gone slightly off topic here.. This is about DLC not piracy.. But since you bring up piracy it is STEALING. No matter how you try and justify it. Some people have just become so use to it that they don't even think its wrong.

Anyway back to DLC. Personally I tend to like certain kinds of DLC. New missions or extra gameplay is something I have no problem forking over money for. Additional costumes in Street Fighter 4 in which you basically just change the color? Not so much.

[CaptainPatch]

If you're talking of Borders, apparently they had it coming.

Not just Borders (but that was the biggest to tumble). About the only big store left in the county is Barnes & Noble -- and they're visibly struggling. B. Dalton. Waldens. Crown. Kroch's & Brentanos. All gone.

To repeat my point from earlier post; games need to be done cheaper and sold cheaper. There are a lot more people out there today owning computers and being interested in games of whatever genre to make out for the lost money. And the price of failure is less as well.

The ONE thing that would undoubtedly drop prices is for consumers to stop buying. Boycott. Unfortunately, too many people have to get their gaming "fix". So they leave the boycotting to others. Unfortunately, the addicts are in the Majority, and a very solid Majority at that. What's the motivation to lower prices when, though people complain, they still pony up $50, $60, or more?

The book publishers tried the "physical product as a licence" hundred years ago and it didn't fly then.

1912? Could you elaborate on this? You've caught my curiosity.

[Drool]

Not just Borders (but that was the biggest to tumble). About the only big store left in the county is Barnes & Noble -- and they're visibly struggling. B. Dalton. Waldens. Crown. Kroch's & Brentanos. All gone.

Well... B. Dalton and Waldens were both owned by Borders parent company, so of course they folded.

Wasteland 2 will be made by about 20 people, if I remember reading correctly. It has budget comparable to that of Fallout 2.

Actually, I believe it'll have about 75% of the budget Fallout 1 did (adjusted for inflation).

[ijusten]

If you're talking of Borders, apparently they had it coming.

Not just Borders (but that was the biggest to tumble). About the only big store left in the county is Barnes & Noble -- and they're visibly struggling. B. Dalton. Waldens. Crown. Kroch's & Brentanos. All gone.

As you may have guessed from my bad spelling, I'm not American and those chains or their situations are not really familiar to me. Borders was known to me from my misspent youth, but otherwise..

I'm sorry to hear that the situation is such. Bookstores are important for vibrant community. Ten years ago when I lived abroad, I did notice that most of the bookstores were really only selling bestsellers and candy. Was happy to get back to homeland where there were (and is!) good bookstores.

I always thought that there were proper stores out there somewhere and I just didn't find them. Perhaps this wasn't the case.

To repeat my point from earlier post; games need to be done cheaper and sold cheaper. There are a lot more people out there today owning computers and being interested in games of whatever genre to make out for the lost money. And the price of failure is less as well.

The ONE thing that would undoubtedly drop prices is for consumers to stop buying. Boycott. Unfortunately, too many people have to get their gaming "fix". So they leave the boycotting to others. Unfortunately, the addicts are in the Majority, and a very solid Majority at that. What's the motivation to lower prices when, though people complain, they still pony up $50, $60, or more?

I'm not sure that would work. Publishers aren't really interested in funding smaller games. From their view the profit must look really small indeed.

Boycotting casual gaming isn't going to work. There are far more casual players than there are "non-casuals". Nobody will ever even notice the boycott!

But now we have Kickstarter. It is my hope that once publishers notice that you can make money with smaller games.. that you can make great games without 50 million dollars, they might try their hand on them as well, maybe scale the budget down a bit.

Incidentally, they say that Xbox 720 and Playstation 4 are going to concentrate on stuff like Kinect to move the attention away from expensive stuff that caused the exponential climb of game budgets. For some reason I took this to mean more games like Kinect Star Wars and Han Solo dancing in front of the carbonite freezer.

I think the trick is not in making one big game that's sorta suitable for everybody, but many smaller games that each garter to one demographic. You earlier mentioned the lack of multiplayer; I played Counter-Strike when there was still "Beta 6" after the name and some Jedi Knight with my friends before that, but all in all I've never really liked them. I think it's great that not every game is made multiplayer in mind.

The book publishers tried the "physical product as a licence" hundred years ago and it didn't fly then.

1912? Could you elaborate on this? You've caught my curiosity.

Ars Technica did a series of articles on on the subject few years back. Tried to find the links, but they publish so many articles each day concentrating on the subjects of licences, piracy etc. that finding the right one proved impossible for me even with keywords (it doesn't help that I remember the article vividly but not if I read it in 2007 or 2009).

Basically publishers printed an EULA on the front-inside cover saying that the book couldn't be resold. Ars dug out some related material where the publishers argued against the evil of second-hand shops etc. In the end it went to courts and the judge decreed that you can't curtail the right to resale with licences.

I'll try to dug it up.

[suz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

[ButchinMelancholy]

So, is how you plan to acquire your next car? "I really, really want a Porsche, but the manufacturer set the price too high! But I can one get one for an affordable price from the local car thieves!"

Except that we don't buy from thieves, but from other customers who paid it in the first place, you know, as we are allowed to sell our own car to someone else because it is legal (in my country anyway)...

Uhm,

If a game has no demo, I'll pirate it. If I want a game or a friend wants me to get it, but it has securom, sony's rootkit or other crap then I'll probably pirate it even though I can afford it.

I don't think that simple resale gets lumped in with piracy.

My point was that we don't buy from thieves. So those who steal themselves are those who wouldn't pay anyway and are willing to act like that. This is a substantial nuance I think.
So I am agree with preventing piracy (but feel like it is quite absurd and stupid to crusade against it at some point though... and won't blame it as long as I find some reasonable justifications to it), but am absolutely appalled by this will to put down the second-hand market. It doesn't feel "legal" in my own value system. But again, the notion of theft is only relevant in a monetary system, while in the absolute, it's only relevant with the notion of property that can be discussed...

"Definition of: software piracy

"The illegal copying of software for distribution within the organization, or to friends, clubs and other groups, or for duplication and resale."

I think there's nothing wrong in getting a game sometimes from piracy for a reason or another (which doesn't mean for no reason indeed), and it's what many people do. In reality, you can't blame anything unilaterally, as everything is about measure. And I personally think that not buying a game you would really like to because it has some unacceptable conditions attached to it and hack it instead is not a cowardly act as, again, people who care will be the first to suffer the consequences while people who don't care wouldn't have buy it anyway. So I see no evil in finding a way to enjoy something you love because some people find a way to spoil your pleasure for the sake of a sad assumption, which is that people will not care about you unless you force them to do so, or that forcing people that wouldn't care about you anyway would make them do, because that's not true, and you will just manage to make everyone turn away from you by being so egoistic...

Rationalizationshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9FJiDFVoOo

English is not my native language so perhaps I didn't understand everything, but the main idea at least. That said, I want your own words and arguments to explain me what in this precise case, because as I said -in a way- everything is relative (and you could indeed find an example were those present words you've noted are faulted of course), is wrong with justifying the legitimacy of acting knowingly of the good and wrong of something as the balance between the two appears to be positive? There's no saint on earth, and certainly no way to absolutely do good, so I guess it is wise to just recognize it and assume that responsability; and not trying to find a universal principle from which you would judge everyone but knowing their own particular value and consider their acts from that is showing discernment in my opinion -but for all those previous reasons, it is not equally true for everyone...-. I think we're not supposed to aim some kind of almighty order when considering the right and wrong, but justice.
Now let me give you a metaphor to specify my opinion. Imagine that I own an object and decide to show it to you, and it turns out that you fall in love with it. So I hold it out to you, but each time you want to catch it, I take it off and ask you to accept some condition in return that you wouldn't want to accept in any case (like "do the chair for me as long as you are using it" -as it's not something enjoyable in my opinion and will prevent you from enjoying the thing too- or something), so you say no. But now you feel sad and frustrated, and one day, while feeling kind of ashamed by your own villainy, you decide to steal the object from me, so you can finally enjoy it. The next morning, I realize it and make you pay for it. Would you think it is fair to bait you like that for you to accept some degrading offer and call you a criminal when you manage to acquire the desired object by your own means when you could have reciprocate to me if it was something honest? Because that's what happens in fact, we are constantly baited by medias and industries (and many DLCs are aiming this goal), and treated like criminals when we don't accept their conditions.
Again, I am not trying to say that this is a worthy behaviour, nore that it is the case for everyone, but I think most people feel that way, and I won't blame them for that. That said, I am perfectly agree with everything shady314 said, and if I have to not buy a game that really interests me yet for any reason, I would try to find a decent pirated copy, then buy it new at low cost and replace the CD by my own copy. I feel like it is a good compromise.

I'm not a fan of GameStop at all since the local outlet has reduced its PC selection to ZERO.

As for pirating, it will ALWAYS be siphoning off sales that should have gone to the retailers/manufacturers. Generally speaking, those that can pirate, do pirate -- unless it means that they won't be able to get something that they really, really want which they can NOT get via pirating.

Research done in the subject suggests that the people who pirate more are also the biggest customers of the industry.

[...] (snip)

To repeat my point from earlier post; games need to be done cheaper and sold cheaper. There are a lot more people out there today owning computers and being interested in games of whatever genre to make out for the lost money. And the price of failure is less as well.

Only one thing to add, when we consider the quality of "blockbuster" games in general, I don't even think all this money is worth it...

[CaptainPatch]

want your own words and arguments to explain me what in this precise case, because as I said -in a way- everything is relative .

Seems like this is turning into Ethics 101.
To begin, can we all agree that _generally speaking_ Stealing is a Bad Thing?

Given the acceptance that a Bad Thing is indeed a Bad Thing, then it follows that
1) ________ is a Bad Thing.
2) But it is okay for me to do this Bad Thing because __________.
That is a rationalization. It's an excuse for a person to do something he _wants_ to do when he already knows he should not be doing that Bad Thing.

SOMETIMES a rationalization is actually valid. For instance, "Exceeding the posted 35 mph speed limit is a Bad Thing, but I have an injured person that I have to get to a hospital before he dies." However, I'm fairly certain that all acceptable rationalizations relate a _need_ rather than a _desire_.
Okay: "Stealing is Bad, but I need to feed my family and it's the only way I can do that." Arguably an acceptable excuse.
Not okay: "I heard this is a great game and I really, really got to have it!" If that ever becomes a valid excuse, it will be total anarchy during the End Of Days. _Nothing_ would be safe from theft by EVERYONE.

Playing games in no way shape or form can be construed as a need. As such, any rationalization to justify theft just to enable the playing of games is a monumental FAIL.

**********************
On the subject of multiplayer options for games: It seems that on this subject there is a clear delineation between those that seriously want a multi-player option, and everybody else. From the most recent market analysis I've seen, a VERY obvious majority of gamers prefer to have the multi-player option.

So, if you are one of those that really doesn't care about multiplayer (as am I), recall that on that subject you are pointedly in the minority. They have just as much to want the things that they do as you have the right to want the things that you want. Just recall that _they_ are in the majority and then play nice.

[Vryheid]

SOMETIMES a rationalization is actually valid. For instance, "Exceeding the posted 35 mph speed limit is a Bad Thing, but I have an injured person that I have to get to a hospital before he dies." However, I'm fairly certain that all acceptable rationalizations relate a _need_ rather than a _desire_.
Okay: "Stealing is Bad, but I need to feed my family and it's the only way I can do that." Arguably an acceptable excuse.
Not okay: "I heard this is a great game and I really, really got to have it!" If that ever becomes a valid excuse, it will be total anarchy during the End Of Days. _Nothing_ would be safe from theft by EVERYONE.

The counterargument would be that "it's a victimless crime" is an acceptable rationalization in this case, and whether it's "moral" or not is simply philosophical pandering. For example, I might want to download some abandonware that is no longer being sold in stores or by the developer online. I could potentially buy a used copy on eBay or something, but regardless of whether I get the game legally or not the developers/publishers will not benefit monetarily from my decision. Personally I can't see the harm in it. Is it technically violating someone's intellectual property rights to download this software? Yes. However, it's also equally fair to view our modern, all-encompassing understanding of "intellectual rights" as a backwards, convoluted legal concept which has no moral basis to begin with.

In other words, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Drool]

The counterargument would be that "it's a victimless crime" is an acceptable rationalization in this case

How is theft ever a victimless crime? Calling something "abandonware" is just another rationalization since it's not a legally recognized term. EA still holds the copyright, it's not in the public domain.

Now, I generally agree with the idea of abandonware, but I'm under no illusions about its legality, or the fact that it really just stems from "I want it but I can't have it so I'm gonna take it."