i'll admit that in the past, if i've been interested in a game and i can't get hold of a legit copy to have a go at it, i've dl'd pirated copies. if i liked, i bought. if it gets to the point that these 'evaluation copies' aren't available, then i'll buy fewer games. simple as that.

maybe some people can take a chance that their ?40 won't get them a pig in a poke, but not me.

using a copied game doesn't take money out of anyones hands, it just doesn't put any in them either. thats the complaint.

i have worked mid to upper level management most all my life. i hate the mindset of "we are losing money", its usually they have their sights set so high that its not realistically possible to achieve.

i was in meetings, they would be discussing the years forecast profits in say January.. they projected 1.5 million, but by years end after all the bills were paid they only made 1.3 million.. i heard crying to no end about losing 200,000 dollars. they didn't lose a damned thing, they made 1.3 million after all debts were paid off

same is true about game copying, they are losing money??? nope. they are just not making it is all. i reflect fishy's sentiments.. i am not willing to fork over 50 bucks each time on a chance it will be good.

now, if they lowered it to a realistic number say 20 bucks i might give up borrowing all together, cause its a pain sometimes, and i may want the game NOW!! and buy it at 20 bucks.

borrowed games harm no one, and anyone who thinks so is... well their thinking really needs looked into.

/ 2 cents.

I think it only *feels* like a victimless crime when softwares are pirated. Most obviously, it makes all of the legitimate users who bought the game pay a higher price to compensate for the company's loss from piracy.

Wouldn't be nice if the cost of games were 30-40% lower in a world when piracy is completely controlled? That way, we wouldn't be paying for someone else's wrongdoing.

If the analogy if a stolen vehicle isn't "relevant" for some, what about journalistic plagerism or copyright infringement? For most cases, it's just a "copy" that's being distributed, not a physical property. But I would think that most people would readily agree that it's wrong because the society has gotten used to the sanctity of the written words.

Not the case for the software industry. In fact, the rampant looting of software has made the general public accept piracy as part of normal and acceptable behavior. But under close observation, it's just as wrong as stealing idea from a writer and claiming it as your own.

I have been in meetings where the big minds are, and there just is no way you are going to convince me that in a perfect world they would willingly drop the price because no one is pirating.

its naive to even entertain such an idea.

reputation,price and demand, and quality are deciding factors to be sure, but greed drives the motive. its 50 bucks no matter what because people will pay 50 bucks.

i am not trying to say you are stupid guys if you believe such nonsense, but i do think you should look around and smell the coffee.

there are a few around here who would argue that Microsoft gives it away because it is so defective they couldn't sell it for no amount of money

on another note, what if Microsoft gives it away just to saturate the market with their products??

many people are dumb, they will buy a name before they will buy a quality product, just because the name is more familiar to them.

say what you will, i don't fault you for it, but piracy harms no one, and there have been studies that show it improves sales so go figure.

no, reno posted a link once i think to a news letter on MP3 theft.

OK, I read this article where it said that people downloaded music, and they bought it if they liked it or something, thought it might be like that.