<-- moved from screenshots thread
Your noble justifications are not fucking cutting it anymore. In my last rant about piracy, one person said they pirated "out of necessity" and seemed to get some people agreeing with him. Really? Necessity? It is necessary that you play a videogame? Since when was a luxury item like a videogame a necessity, to the point where you get to steal it? A fucking bit of bread for a dirt-poor family is a necessity, son. Not your stupid videogame.
Vilham wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This assumes that people who pirate games would have otherwise bought them if they weren't available to pirate. I'm not going to say that piracy has never costed game developers sales, since that would be ignorant, but I'm not really going out on a limb when I say that it's not nearly as much as some people would have you believe.
No it doesn't. It simple states you don't need to have games, they aren't a necessity.
It does at that, but the article complains about damage done to the PC gaming industry by piracy. I contend that the majority of game pirates aren't really a viable market to care about or even acknowledge, and are in fact potential customers...who will, if anti-piracy ethics sink in, become legitimate customers who are already familiar with and/or addicted to your games/series. It's the group of people who pirate shit when they can otherwise afford to buy it that bother me, and those are the people all the strong-arm ads and legal battles should be targeting.
Some of the anti-piracy measures put into place (not just by video games) are so glitchy and restrictive that some of the pirated copies are actually functionally
superior to legitimate ones. This is what is called stabbing yourself in the foot.
mtb0minime wrote:
So do you actually buy a game that you like after "sampling" it? Even if it's single-player only?
I do, and I've caught up on all the ones I did download. If I didn't download them to begin with, I probably wouldn't have bought them later when I had the money for it.
