My trouble with the Law.

Nickelplate, from my experience, saying that people who pirate something wouldn't have bought it anyway as a general statement is utter rubbish. From the "Don't currently have enough cash - I'll just download it for now" excuse, through the "Well I might as well try before I (don't) buy" excuse, to the "I want it right now, not when I next go to the shops" excuse, there are plenty of cases where people download something that they would, without the means, have bought in the shops.

Of course this is a moot point when it comes to the discussion of used items, which are being sold to people who are obviously willing to pay for the item to some degree. Whether or not they are potential customers for the full priced version is debatable, but the price difference is quite often negligable which can suggest that yes, they would be.

If we take the case of Xbox 360 games, they currently retail for about ?40-50 brand new, and my local store offers preowned versions for ?35-45 - a mere ?5 saving pretty much across the board. At these prices, and with such a tiny margin of difference, it can be fairly safely assumed that anybody buying the preowned copies would be buying brand new copies if the preowned ones were not available. In this case, it is just about a given that the games companies are losing out on a sale because a copy they already sold is being bought in place.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Right. USED items: i don't even see the problem.

All I can tell you is that I have bought 2 CDs in my whole life and I don't plan on buying many more. I have about 700 mp3s and many of those are legit. I listen to the radio or to internet streaming radio. I used to have over 10,000 MP3 and like almost 100 movies on my computer, I have gotten rid of all but the 700 mp3s. I'd say most of the stuff I download is old tunes that are not copyrighted, like old bluegrass or classical/opera. Just start liking stuff that is not NEW and you can DL all you want. because at the time, it was never for sale anyway.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Great solution there man - "just start liking stuff that is not NEW"

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

haha, well, retro's in anyway ain'it?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

i spose you could always say f**k the public altogether, and just put a scrambler in the disc.....you buy it, you got it...you copy it, you lose it....game over....do i hear any constitutional rights being smashed? hmm?

Doc....

btw, nickel, i think that was undoubtedly the lamest argument ive heard you put up ever man....im dissappointed... :/

Dr Brasso-Kona- said:
btw, nickel, i think that was undoubtedly the lamest argument ive heard you put up ever man....im dissappointed... :/

Sorry, Doc. I'm feelin a bit lame today anyway...

I'll do better next time, k? :smile:

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Crono said:
It's odd, because every industry looks at it differently.

Let me ask this question: you know those time trial demos you get of programs ... would you consider it "illegal" or "wrong" to simply remove the time restriction?

To carry this thinking one step further in a non-software direction.

Many high performance engines are deliberately dummied down for economy reasons with a chip added to the onboard computers. If you went to a junkyard and got the other chip, would you need to pay the chip makers for your junkyard acquisition?

The other chip returns the engine to its high powered design. You see, the engine was capable of doing all those neat high powered things but they fixed it with the other chip.

Is the chip maker losing capitol? Are you cheating them?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

i buy a game. the only other person on the planet to buy the same game is Orph. so, there are two games in circulation, and the developers have been paid for two games. if i sell my copy to Reno(since he buys 2nd hand games) then there are still only two games in circulation, that the developers have had their cut from.

to me, the 'pay for the experience' argument, is akin to whisteling a made up tune on the bus, and then demanding payment from anyone that heard it.

---

i eat paint

Wierd how topics change over time...

In my opinion the buy game to piracy game to 2nd hand buy ratio is fine- the developers, for thier style and intensity of work get paid the right amount and the money aquired by the publishers is enough.

I occasionally buy games, but tbh most I either get 2nd hand or download-

If I download a game it is usually because I only want it for the single player (as games generally have pretty damn good online piracy control) but also because I wouldn't buy the game if I didn't have the option to download it. It's rare for me to buy a game just because I can't download it, unless its very cheap 2nd hand (Mechwarrior 2: Lone Wolf for Xbox for instance).

If I buy 2nd hand its usually because the game is cheaper and because I can locate the game. In this situation I tend also not to play online and only buy 2nd hand because I can locate a 2nd hand copy.

.

As for general resale of goods, which I think games apply to, its stupid expecting money, not matter what your selling. The only ever instrument I've bought has been my Platinum Pro warlock guitar- the rest are 2nd hand, and as a manufacturer of a/an instrument/s I wouldn't expect any money for resale.

This does however raise the issue that seperates media from other objects for resale- the condition of the item. Usually a 2nd hand item is not as good quality as the original, which was the case with VHS cassettes. With DVD's and games the quality does not deterioate unless theres a physical problem with the disc, in which case the game/Film probably wouldn't work. Therefore there is no deterioation of quality of the product, its the same every time for anyone- this is most likely the reason publishers/developers get pissed off.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

fishy said:
i buy a game. the only other person on the planet to buy the same game is Orph. so, there are two games in circulation, and the developers have been paid for two games. if i sell my copy to Reno(since he buys 2nd hand games) then there are still only two games in circulation, that the developers have had their cut from.

to me, the 'pay for the experience' argument, is akin to whisteling a made up tune on the bus, and then demanding payment from anyone that heard it.

EXACTLY.

Good explaination Fishman.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

That's a fair point about the whistling on a bus comparison except that they are a passive (or non-requesting) audience - thats more comparable to hearing some music in a shop, or on the radio, or having a shot of a game on a kiosk in a shop. You don't have any claim to that "experience" - it was simply a taster that the designer/owner bestowed upon you. I think it is far more comparable to paying the guard on the cinema door to let you sneak in and view a film rather than buying a ticket.

I'm still undecided as to the right and wrong of the argument to be honest, I just wanted to present the industry's take on it. I'm still going to be buying everything I can first hand though, in order to support the industry. Far too many games developers (and publishers for that matter) are closing lately, and while I would never claim that piracy or used games sales are to solely to blame, I also think it is completely naive to think that they don't contribute to the situation. Two of the main four games development studios in Scotland have shut down in the past few months, adding hundreds of people to the number looking for my sort of work at exactly the wrong time for me (as I'm about to graduate). It's a story repeating all over the world. Far more games than you might think end up making losses - this is far from a "make game, make money" industy and quality is rarely a factor in profits - and if you buy a used copy / pirated copy of the game, then you are getting the game experience without paying the developers a penny. Whether or not they have already had all they should get from that instance of the game, I guess is never gonna have a definate, universally accepted answer.

Things like Steam however are going to rectify the situation (in the developers view at least!) I'm sure. To me it makes far more sense to be paying the developers for access to the experience/content, not some random guy for the disk.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

ReNo that's the way I see things too. I think the movie analogy is apt.

This second-hand sales thing is just ridiculous.

Example: A manufacturer uses $20 to make a video card. the manufacturer sells a Video card to a wholesaler for about $90, the wholesaler in turn sells it to retailer for $120. The retailer sells it to us for $230. If we sell it to our friend, and it does not matter how much, do we owe a part of that to all of these people? I don't see how music or games are any different. As long as you do not keep a copy for yourself after you sell it, there are still the same amount of CD's in circulation as there were before you sold it.

If a company makes 500 CDs and each one costs $1 to make and 500 people buy them for $2 each, that is a profit for the company on every CD they've made so if buyer number 500 sells his CD to guy #501 , the company has not lost any money, because the number of products sold by them matches the current number of products. And they have been paid once for each one in circulation.

• Total manufactured:500
• Total bought:500
• Remainder:0
• Money Gained:$500
• Money Lost:$0

If the same scenario happens but the company made 600 CDs and only 500 were bought, and #500 sells to guy #501, the company STILL has not lost any money, because the total number of products is equal to the total number sold, and they have been paid for each product once.

But if the company has some surplus products, how is that our fault. That is part of running a business. We cannot be responsible for the fact that they thought they would sell more than they actually did.

[*] Total manufactured: 600
[*] Total bought: 500
[*] Remainder: 100
[*] Money Gained: $500
[*] Money lost Due to Analysts' Misprojections: $100
[*] Money Lost Due to resale: $0
Same scenario only there are a total of 1000 CDs produced and 500 buy them. buyer #400 makes 500 copies and sells them to buyers #501-1000. Buyer #500 sells his copy to #1001.

[*] Total manufactured: 1000
[*] Total bought: 500
[*] Remainder: 500
[*] Total Copied: 500
[*] Money Gained: $500
[*] Money lost Due to Analysts' Misprojections: $500
[*] Money Lost Due to resale: $0
[*] Money lost Due to Piracy: $500
See, piracy, resale and corporate losses are different, but the companies want to lump them all together to try to get money from everyone.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I can certainly see where you are coming from Nickel, but I think where we differ in opinion is that I still don't see the "product" as a physical object - I don't pay for the disk, I pay for the game. I think that the developers should get a cut when I buy the game, and used games bypass this. This debate is really growing pointless now as my past several posts have pretty much just stated the same point.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

the though that i could charge people to play hl2 on my machine, and never pay valve anything extra, makes me all warm and fuzzy. :smile:

---

i eat paint

ReNo said:
I can certainly see where you are coming from Nickel, but I think where we differ in opinion is that I still don't see the "product" as a physical object - I don't pay for the disk, I pay for the game. I think that the developers should get a cut when I buy the game, and used games bypass this. This debate is really growing pointless now as my past several posts have pretty much just stated the same point.

Granted. You may see it as "Paying for the game" but... Once the game is complete, they can cut 500 copies or 5 million copies for little or no additional capitol Duncan.

Where is the line drawn, since you only see it as purchasing a GAME, where the developmental team is doing good business, and being greedy s**ts?

Seriously. You have to look at it as DISKS SOLD because if they expect to sell 500 copies and they actually DO SELL 500 copies then if 100 additional people burned copies of their own, the developmental team hasn't lost one red cent.

I see your point, but I think you are not quite seeing it from a profit/loss angle. You are determined to see it as loss/loss because 100 people got the game for nothing.

That cannot be if 500 disks were produced, and sold.

NOW, lets look at it from one more angle. A semi-tractor-trailer rig crashes and burns up 500 copies. The only 500 copies in existence. They have to make 500 more. Did they lose 500 copies?

I think not. They are not in circulation so they cannot be claimed. The cost of the new 500 copies can be gained by increasing the final price by a couple bucks.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Wait if 500 copies burned up how did they not lose anything?
Clearly, they had something beforehand and now they have nothing...
with no money to show for it now.

What if they broke the bank producing those 500 copies that burned up
in the accident and now they can't produce any more games to make up
for the copies they lost?

Either in my example or your example they still lost 500 copies of the
game, it doesn't matter whether or not they can still make money by
selling additional copies... those original 500 copies were an
investment they didn't see any returns on.

Whats the difference between these two situations Nickel:

#1:

There is a demand for 1,000 copies of a game so 1,000 copies are
manufatured. 500 are sold immediately. Each of those people
resell their games to 500 others the next day after beating the
game. The second group of 500 people were going to buy it from
the game company but got it from their friends for less money.

#2:

There is a demand for 1,000 copies of a game so 1,000 copies are
manufactured. 500 are sold immediately. Buyer #500 makes
500 copies and sells those to 500 others. The second group of 500
people were going to buy it from the game company but got it from the
pirate for less money.

In both cases by the end 1,000 people got to play the game and the
company only made money off of the first 500 copies. Example #1
is resale, Example #2 is piracy. In both examples the company had
their revenue cut in half. The only difference in the end result
is the total number of products on the market (500 in example #1 and
1,000 in example #2) but the number of products on the market doesn't
matter because the amount of money the game company lost in the end is
the same for both examples.

Am I missing something? The way I've set this up there doesn't
seem to be any difference between piracy and resale from the game dev's
point of view.

If they had 100,000 printed, and ony 20,000 sold but 300,000 people
played it, the developer would lose funding as a a result of the
publisher viewing the game as not much of a success.

Something like that - but people legitimately buying the game in the
first place ensures the developer is allowed to go and make more games,
as opposed to falling to profit based measures of success.

Addicted to Morphine said:
Wait if 500 copies burned up how did they not lose anything? Clearly, they had something beforehand and now they have nothing... with no money to show for it now.

What if they broke the bank producing those 500 copies that burned up in the accident and now they can't produce any more games to make up for the copies they lost?

Either in my example or your example they still lost 500 copies of the game, it doesn't matter whether or not they can still make money by selling additional copies... those original 500 copies were an investment they didn't see any returns on.

You are still thinking loss/loss. You cannot view it thus.

If the marketing agent was so obtuse as to ship the product uninsured,then they deserve to go broke.

Again I say, they have lost NOTHING because the games are NOT IN CIRCULATION.

I am beginning to believe that this discussion is going weird because of a simple case of "Lack of personal experience with cash, or life as a commodity user"

No insult intended, but have you not noticed that all the old members seem to be on one side of the fence, and the younger members upon the other?

Its as if, since we have had to deal with cash, and its resulting impact upon our lives for a longer period, that we view loss in a totally different way.

I, would be upset if I bought a winning lottery ticket, but lost it prior to cashing it in. I never actually had the cash, so the loss is minimized. Most youth see it as "But you won, it was yours and now you lost it"

Damned few adults, or older adults see life as "could have had"

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orph, pretend like you're developing and distributing videogames.
You spend the time and money to manufacture the videogames. You
expect to make back the money (and more) from selling them. They
get lost/destroyed before you can put them on the shelves. You've
lost money. I'm not just talking about the money you would have made by selling the videogames... I'm talking about the money you spent manufacturing the videogames.

Am I wrong in thinking that you lose money (you can seperate actual
from potential if you'd like) when you lose the manufactured product
before its sold?

Addicted to Morphine said:
Am I wrong in thinking that you lose money (you can seperate actual from potential if you'd like) when you lose the manufactured product before its sold?

Yes and no. You do lose money, but you do not actually lose anything in doing so.

Its true that you have lost the initiative of having those 500 disks hit the shelves but with the payment of the insurance, and I would hope that the coverage is more than up to the loss, the only real item you have lost is.... TIME.

The time the product would have been on the shelves trying to be sold. Now, if the check from the insurance is enough to cover ALL the loss, and the check arrives sooner than the approximate selling time for the 500 disks at the market you have actually come out ahead.

You see, you are narrowing your viewpoint to what would happen to YOU if bad luck were to cost you 500 disks. YOU being inexperienced in marketing are assuming that you lost 500 disks. YOU lost nothing. YOU are still thinking loss=loss.

Did that clear it up?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

It's clear to me now that you're not limiting yourself to the bounds of
the hypothetical situation by thinking very real world and introducing
other factors like insurance. I thought we were just debating the
types of situations Nickelplate and I set up. I mean -- we never
mentioned insurance but if you want to introduce that into the
hypothetical situation, then yes its very clear to me how you would
come out ahead with insurance. You would get paid for the disks
without actually putting any on the market. You get paid without
slackening the demand for your product... which is something any
company would like.

I just look at it in the sense that if people buy used / pirated copies, then the potential market - the number of people that would potentially buy the game from the store shelves - is being reduced. The chance of the game breaking even or makign a profit is severely hampered if the number of people interested in the game is cut away by them obtaining it through other means.

Losing 500 copies in a fire isn't really the same effect whatsoever, because of the fact that the value of the product isn't the physical objects themselves but in the demand for the game. Copies burning in a fire aren't reducing the demand, but people buying pirated/used copies ARE reducing the demand.

In this way, 10000 potential customers estimated by the developers/publishers could easily only see 5000 sales, because the other 5000, who wanted the game and would buy it normally, obtained second hand or pirated copies. The demand was estimated successfully, the game might have been exceptional, but the game didn't meet sales expectations and so the publisher doesn't work with those developers anymore. Not a terrible thing to happen in all cases - maybe the developers held the rights to whatever IP they were working on and have good relations/opportunities with other publishers - but it CAN and DOES spell doom for a great number of them.

Also, are you saying that they should just raise the price of the products in order to accomodate for lack of income due to pirated/used copies, or were you being specific to the "burnt up copies" example? If the former then that is a ridiculous solution that will only make the situation worse. Game prices are already high, and is one of the prime reasons why piracy and used copies are so prominant. Increasing prices will decrease legitimate sales.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

ReNo said:
I just look at it in the sense that if people buy used / pirated copies, then the potential market

• the number of people that would potentially buy the game from the

store shelves - is being reduced. The chance of the game breaking even
or makign a profit is severely hampered if the number of people
interested in the game is cut away by them obtaining it through other
means.

This was the point I was trying to illustrate with my little piracy versus resale example.

Yeah well. I am beginning to see that IT may be my fault we are miscommunicating.

The problem I am having is, there are to many scenarios in play now.

Is piracy the same as loss due to fire? Nope. Even I see that.

Is piracy causing loss? Yeah it is but, is the loss incurred exceeding the profit value presently in effect? I think not.

My reasons are simple. The initial cost of a game is (this much)..

The sales, once it reaches (this much) means they are breaking even.

Once it exceeds (this much) then its PROFIT.

I feel that the real issue isn't piracy but how much money there is on the other side of (this much) -----> profit.

Sadly, I cannot keep up with which discussion we are currently on and am woefully confused.

And Morph. In my description of the hypothetical insurance... Thats part of the equation, I didn't include it. YOU failed to. Thats the differences in how I view the theory.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

i'd wager that a lot of half-life's popularity derived from the fact that you could easily get a cd key without buying it. this inflated popularity wen't how far in making hl2, with it's mediocre gameplay, into a top seller?

/stands clear...

---

i eat paint

But you can't insure against losses incured from piracy (I don't imagine anyway!), so I don't really see how that hypothetical scenario has any bearing on the discussion of used/pirated games?

Orph, are you saying that it's okay to buy used/pirated copies once the game has broken even? Or are you saying that the companies make enough on legal sales to overcome the pirated/used copies?

Fishy - I doubt you could ever answer that question. I also think that HL1's popularity was more down to the critical reception it recieved from the press, word of mouth, the ease of editing it, and the wealth of support/mods available. That and Counter Strike. I'm sure there were a lot of people who got into it because it was free, but I'd also wager that a great deal of those people would have bought it legally had it not been easy to get for free. With CS being such a hit, and CS:S coming bundled with HL2, it was a sure fire hit from the start.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

ReNo said:
Orph, are you saying that it's okay to buy used/pirated copies once the game has broken even? Or are you saying that the companies make enough on legal sales to overcome the pirated/used copies?

.

No. What I am saying is that there would be less of an issue if the profit margin was bigger.

In other words, there seems to be only a problem with piracy, because it decreases only that portion.

Realistically speaking. A company cannot continue if they do not at least break even. Some companies would fail even if there was NO PIRACY at all. Bankruptcy isn't a new concept.

Anyway. I think the issue is, they aren't making as much money as they WISH, not making money.

and, the insurance comment only pertained to the shipping loss. NOT piracy of course.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
And Morph. In my description of the hypothetical
insurance... Thats part of the equation, I didn't include it. YOU
failed to. Thats the differences in how I view the theory.

No offense, but I think you failed to keep insurance out of the
hypothetical situation. No one else mentioned it in all the
posts, only you. Why complicate a simple hypothetical
situation? The reason we make simple analogies is to prove a
point, not paint a picture of reality.

Edit:

Orpheus said:
Anyway. I think the issue is, they aren't making as much money as they WISH, not making money.

And I think they're entitled to every penny that get stolen by software piracy.

Addicted to Morphine said:
Why complicate a simple hypothetical situation? The reason we make simple analogies is to prove a point, not paint a picture of reality.

I cannot believe you actually typed that out loud. :rolleyes:

and

I agree with your edit, only problem is that piracy is not easy to calculate since, the people doing it aren't really going to perk right up and say "Hey over here. I stole your game" :razz:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
I cannot believe you actually typed that out loud. :rolleyes:

Feel free to explain why you think it's a stupid comment, I think it's a valid point.

Addicted to Morphine said:
Feel free to explain why you think it's a stupid comment, I think it's a valid point.

No, thats OK. I am still flabbergasted that you posted it in public.

Obviously you felt it prudent. I am within my rights to decline commenting further on it.

I feel the best course would be a moment of reflection. Mostly on your part but, on mine as well.

If I have caused you to post such a reply, I have obviously done something badly.

/me bows out.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

My point is during a debate one's counter-point can't simply be
something like "wow I can't believe you said something that stupid" and
then use the :rolleyes: smiley to back yourself up.

If you think I said something stupid, validate your comment with actual
thought and substance to your reply, otherwise it's just being
offensive and definitely not constructive in the least.

I'm now wanted in the state of arizona for a speeding ticket. I'm such a rebel.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting fishy</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>i'd wager that a lot of half-life's popularity derived from the fact that you could easily get a cd key without buying it. this inflated popularity wen't how far in making hl2, with it's mediocre gameplay, into a top seller?

/stands clear...

</DIV></DIV>
Quoted for Emphasis.

Orph, it does kinda seem like this:
I can't beleive you're so stupid.
What? why?
Because, well, nevermind, I'll just leave it at that.
I don't think you KNOW why.
Oh I know why I'm just so amazed that you are so stupid. :rolleyes: See? there's my proof, the roll-eyes-smiley proves it...
Uh... okay.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

fishy said:
i'd wager that a lot of half-life's popularity derived
from the fact that you could easily get a cd key without buying it.
this inflated popularity wen't how far in making hl2, with it's
mediocre gameplay, into a top seller?
/stands clear...

I heard about Half-Life through magazines and friends. In fact,
he gave me the game because he thought it sucked ("You don't even start
with a weapon!") and I played it just enough to get hooked, then I went
out and bought my own copy.

I'm sure the cd key generators were a factor, but I still think the glowing reviews and word of mouth shouldn't be ignored.

What I cannot understand is, neither one of you has even considered that "I" was the one pissed off. Both of you are talking as if I pissed someone else off.

Consider this:

Why complicate a simple hypothetical situation? The reason we make simple analogies is to prove a point, not paint a picture of reality.

Now understand. We have been talking hypothetically about REAL WORLD EVENTS. Only the scenarios were actually fictional.

I read the quote and you know what I saw?

"Orph, whats your f**king problem? We are talking and damned if you don't screw it up with realism.

Well, we were not talking about a video game "Whats my theft"

Jeez guys. Stop for a moment and realize. When I bow out, its because I need to asses if I screwed up badly enough to warrant being told to shut up.

Don't fool yourselves. Thats exactly how I read the quote.

My question to you is two fold.

Why did neither of you realize I was upset and why can someone not use realism to illustrate a real problem?

Now.. I need to take a breather because.. I just do.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Well, because it's all hypothetical ... even companies claim to "lost revenue" is hypothetical, since it's based on the concept "If they didn't get a pirate/used copy they would have bought a retail copy ..." It's an assumption that you make out of situation. You can't really debate this type of situation without hypotheticals ... it'd get too complicated and then it would become an ARGUMENT and not a debate. Or a "I'm right, you're wrong situation", which isn't what this is, everyone is expressing their views on the isolated subject, since, honestly, something like insurance is negligeble. Here's an example:

It's now easier to pirate something. Before everything was digital (DVDs, CDs, Games on Discs, etc) and everyone had a computer, if you pirated something it was either bootlegged (filmed in the theater and sold on the street ... literally) or it was actual copies that got ripped off from the loading bay during shipping, or something like that. But now, one person has to take one copy. That's it. I don't know if people have noticed this, but the source of most piracy comes from people who work for those companies taking copies of the product a month, or so, before the actual release, putting it up online, or something like that.

Something like that would be a far better argument than "insurance pay offs". Also, why would what morphine said piss you off anyway? It's a valid point. I'm just confused why whenever there's a discussion, Orph, you get so heated about it. Shrug it off: someone doesn't agree with you, woopdie doo. And to be honest, the way you say things is far more ... enfuriating, than anything Morph, nickle, or myself, has said to you (unless I'm messing with or something).

Anyway, if you want to make it more realistic then this debate will spin out of control and be rediculous. That's why you ignore certain things, you keep it to a hypothetical situation that the only problem is in fact the end users failure to buy brand new copies. Disregarding whether or not they'd buy it anyway, or any other factors. Otherwise people wouldn't have a leg to stand on and you'd need a market analasys to prove any point to shed some light on the situation. In any other case, You're just slinging s**t to sling s**t, there's no reason to brind moot points into the debate.

Also, this post is unedited, because I'm running late. DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY!!! :smile:

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Orpheus said:
Why did neither of you realize I was upset and why can someone not use realism to illustrate a real problem?

I had no idea you were actually pissed. Nothing in your posts
indicated you were losing your cool, until this one right above.

And Orph, I don't know what to tell you if you see "Orph, whats your
f**king problem? We are talking and damned if you don't screw it up
with realism." when all I wrote was "Why complicate a simple
hypothetical situation? The reason we make
simple analogies is to prove a point, not paint a picture of reality."

I feel bad that you took my comment to be harsh and disrespectful, but
I'd say most people would agree that's not what I said or even
meant. I think we can just chalk this up as an example of why
conversations online can be so hard without the face to face element
and move on. Besides, we've had worse arguments when you were UD.


As for your second question, I think you can either attempt to cover
all the bases of a complicated reality or you can talk about a
simplified analogy. I think this conversation shows that it can
get confusing when you mix the two.

Orpheus said:
Why did neither of you realize I was upset and why can someone not use realism to illustrate a real problem?

I couldn't hear the tone of your voice because you forgot to color your text.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Throughout history, being mad at something has been a predominantly irrational action. Understanding why someone is mad, is not a necessity to its existence.

There are however warning signs when its happening. Learning those warning signs is probably a good idea.

Fishman and I used to argue often. We do not really argue much anymore, at least I assume we don't because we seem to have learned each other signs.

Most recently, when I slipped up and said "I am a law abiding citizen it seems" What actually meant was, I have not gotten into trouble and had to go to court or jail. He tactfully pointed out my error and, I caught it. I knew he was tweaked slightly for my apparent slip of the tongue and being a liar.

My point is, telling me that I really have no reason to be mad is only infuriating the situation. It doesn't matter if you meant to make me mad. Thats bound to happen. Telling me its stupid to be mad is not winning you any points I promise you.

When I said I couldn't believe you typed that out loud. That was warning #1.

When I told you I needed to bow out that was the last warning.

This is not a majority rules situation people. Telling me in many different ways how childish I am for being mad is only creating more tension.

Anyway. learn from this.

I know I piss a lot of people off very often, but I try to stop before it reaches critical mass. I do not often succeed but I try.

Morph, I am not real keen on the idea of people telling me to shut up. And telling me that my complicating something with realism is telling me to shut up.

It may not have been meant that way, but i took it as such.

Crono... I read what you wrote, honest I did but I still am not understanding your point. Nothing new there I suppose.

nite-nite all.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
And telling me that my complicating something with realism is telling me to shut up.

It may not have been meant that way, but i took it as such.

I still have no idea how you made that leap, but you did. So
where does that leave me? Am I not supposed to type my thoughts
in fear that you'll misread what I've written and reinterperate it in a
way that will offend you?

No. What you are supposed to do is wait. Thats what the rest of us do whenever someone gets pissy. I am still waiting for Gwil to pull his head out of his butt. We haven't spoken in days. An odd thing really. He is worth the wait however. Perhaps, I am not, to you.

I am still amazed that you actually said it. I am worse shocked that you still do not see it as such BUT.. I refuse to go into a multipage tangent on how f**king silly I am. I really do not want to hear multiple people tell me to get over it.

Anyway.. Moving on.

What bothers me most is that the thread stalled. In fact, BOTH threads stalled.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Wow, this thread is a bit derailed :razz:

Once we and some friends where out in town on a normal friday night, and we had bought a load of alcohol, and where going up to the local lake.
We where quite a large group, and had ALOT of alcohol, so we split up to walk up there, since the other group went to get other things first.
I was in the group walking up to the lake first, and we where taking this little back road around just talking like normal.
Then all of a sudden we heard a car and saw headlights behind us, a cop car had crept up behind without its light etc.
We where like 'fuuuck' since most of us where under the legal drinking age here, there was one person who was over the age.
But he wasn't carrying the alcohol at this point because he had litterally jsut handed the bag over to one of us while he got something out of his coat.

The car was coming up beside us, we where all thinking and saying that we where gonna run if they got out, since there where about 7 of us, and it was a heavily forested area and very dark.
The car pulled up, he asked where we where going, what was in the bag etc. How old we where.
But in the end, all that happened was he said 'Have a good night then, and don't get too pissed' despite knowing we where blatantly underage with all this alcohol.

:biggrin:

I watched a PG once, without any parental guidance. luckily, I was never caught..

:razz:

---

My Pit

I don't know if I should be proud of myself because I'm a goody two-shoes who doesn't get arrested, or if I should be disapointed because I have no awesome story to tell

---

Breaking the laws of mapping since 2003 and doing a damn fine job at it

I watched a PG once, without any parental guidance. luckily, I was never caught..

:razz:

You know, In countries that end is -stan that's passable for the firing squad. :razz:

I once put a virus of sorts on my school network semi-intentionally... interesting story, but since I didnt actually get in legal trouble (just got shouted at by the IT people) I dont think that counts.

The closest I come to illegality was taking notes during a court case (I was observing as part of a school thing), I got told off by security.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

G.Ballblue said:
I don't know if I should be proud of myself because I'm a goody two-shoes who doesn't get arrested, or if I should be disapointed because I have no awesome story to tell

You know, I feel like a goody-goody for only having 1 REAL ticket.

but one time, I heard a kid tell a lie in church and I didn't tell the pastor.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

one man has an intresting story about getting in trouble by the law, one man has an intresting story.

its all the same.