Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #46 - mrgoodbunny (05/31/2012) [-]
I bought games like Portal 2, HL2, LFD2, the GTA series, Fallout NV, skyrim, Limbo, and a couple of others because i like to support the makers, and encourage them to make more awesome games. I pirated MWF3 and BF3 because i could give less than a **** about the studio.

So when you buy, you support the studio and all the people who put work into the game.
When you don't buy, nothing happens.

I like to think of it as a donation.
User avatar #396 to #46 - bosskiss (05/31/2012) [-]
I pirate all my games
however each time i finish a game. i ask myself should i support the developers?
if it was a bad game -> " **** no, i am not buying it"
if it was a good game -> "let's buy the game/dlc/artbook]

i have at the moment 350 game cd's and around 70 games in my steam wallet
so does pirating harm the developers?
User avatar #114 to #46 - symustafa ONLINE (05/31/2012) [-]
I bought BF3 because I liked DICE. They are a good game company. Just because EA owns them doesn't mean they suck. Criterion Games and BioWare are good examples.
User avatar #134 to #114 - chiktikkavaspaus (05/31/2012) [-]
Correction: Criterion and Bioware USED to be good. After dragon age 2 I thought, "OK, I forgive them, I still have Mass Effect." Then they gave that game multiplayer. Worst idea EVER! It ****** up the single player, and they lied about it! They said something like, "Multiplayer will not effect single player at all." When in reality, it is really ******* hard to get the best ending without multiplayer, and the "best" Ending sucks.

Oh, and Criterion kind messed up NFS, but they might redeem themselves with Most Wanted 2.
User avatar #145 to #134 - symustafa ONLINE (05/31/2012) [-]
Maybe, but Mass Effect 3 was still a good game. Multiplayer didn't turn it into complete **** . And what do you mean Criterion messed up NFS? Hot Pursuit was better than everything after Most Wanted that Black Box made. And Most Wanted 2 will probably never come anyway.
User avatar #154 to #145 - chiktikkavaspaus (05/31/2012) [-]
Actually, Most wanted 2 wast leaked to show up at E3.

And you're right, Mass Effect isn't complete **** , But all I cared about was singleplayer, then they added multiplayer and I have yet to see singleplayer DLC.
User avatar #136 to #134 - chiktikkavaspaus (05/31/2012) [-]
I feel stupid. I take back the part of Criterion. They are good.
User avatar #167 to #136 - ABabyEater (05/31/2012) [-]
I disagree, Criterion completely dropped their PC support for Burnout Paradise, one of the best driving games out there (IMO because of free-roam) but they still tantalize you with a total ******** of dlc that is PC exclusive but that you still can't buy.
User avatar #174 to #167 - chiktikkavaspaus (05/31/2012) [-]
I didn't know that. But then again, I don't play PC, (INB4: Shun the non-believer). But that still sounds like it sucks. Criterion is now on my mediocre list.
User avatar #175 to #174 - ABabyEater (05/31/2012) [-]
And EA refuses to even provide ANY support for the game without giving Steam permission to do so either.
User avatar #320 to #175 - chiktikkavaspaus (05/31/2012) [-]
Yeah. EA is **** . They take good companys, and **** them up just for a quick buck. The only game developer/publisher I have faith in is Take two and Rockstar. They still make amazing games.
User avatar #53 to #46 - MrTurdTastic (05/31/2012) [-]
Dice put a hell of a lot of work into BF3, then EA stabbed them in the back.
User avatar #59 to #53 - demonchain ONLINE (05/31/2012) [-]
I must have missed that news, what happened?
User avatar #131 to #59 - chiktikkavaspaus (05/31/2012) [-]
EA is pretty much making it like COD with an "Elite" Service. It's retarded, EA only cares about money.
#51 to #46 - Airmanator (05/31/2012) [-]
Before I had moderately disposable income, I used to pirate games often and pay for them if I enjoyed the content and the developer (Dragon Age, The Witcher 2, Portal 2, etc.). I think of it as trying before buying.
User avatar #422 to #51 - captainrattrap (05/31/2012) [-]
I buy console games and, like skyrim and FNV, if I really want to access mods and PC content, I'll pirate them and play them on PC.
#237 to #51 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/31/2012) [-]
Not adding much, but that is a very nice picture of Crysis
User avatar #48 to #46 - cadaverbox (05/31/2012) [-]
It's not a donation, it just means you're not a thief anymore.
#90 to #48 - pazzaar (05/31/2012) [-]
Why thumb this guy down? It costs a magical thing called MONEY to create high quality games. It's their (the developers) job to create a product which can be sold, they need some sort of income. Taking their games is stealing - you are a thief until you pay them.
User avatar #121 to #90 - Lawlor (05/31/2012) [-]
Actually it's copyright infringement, not theft.

Something is being copied, not taken, so it costs nothing to replace it.
#183 to #121 - pazzaar (05/31/2012) [-]
It does cost money, because the developers have to sell the copies to make money. Basically theft.
User avatar #185 to #183 - Lawlor (05/31/2012) [-]
No, it isn't "basically" theft.
It isn't theft.

I'm not condoning it, I just feel a distinction has to be made.
I know that they put a lot of work into making this stuff, and it deserves to be bought.

But that doesn't change the fact that downloading it for free is not stealing.
It's just copyright infringement.

Because they're not making a loss by pirating it as to them, it the exact same as you just not buying their product. There's no difference.
#203 to #185 - pazzaar (05/31/2012) [-]
I'm sorry, your logic makes no sense. Copyright infringement IS stealing from the company.

Here's a good example. Lets say that a company produces a download-only game. How do you think they make their money? That's right, by people buying it online. By pirating the game, it means they don't get money whilst you still get their service.

With your logic, I should be able to simply walk into a games store, grab a game, and take it. It effectively costs them nothing to create the CD and casing, so why not do it? Because it is stealing!
User avatar #215 to #203 - Lawlor (05/31/2012) [-]
Oh and also, when you walk into a store and steal it, it's different.
You're stealing from the store. Not the devs.
They bought it from them.

And the store pays a LOT more then just what it costs to make the physical copy.
So it would be a fairly big theft.
#221 to #215 - pazzaar (05/31/2012) [-]
You are still stealing, no matter who from. Its not different - you have taken something you are not entitled too. Do you think you are entitled to a pirated thing?
User avatar #223 to #221 - Lawlor (05/31/2012) [-]
Having something you're not entitled to have is not theft.
Taking physical property from someone is theft.
#225 to #223 - pazzaar (05/31/2012) [-]
Definition: To take (the property of another or others) without permission or right.

Where in that does it say that to steal something, it has to be a physical object?
User avatar #227 to #225 - Lawlor (05/31/2012) [-]
Sorry, that was my mistake.
I see now that that's not necessarily the case.

Doesn't change the fact that since piracy is just creating a duplicate, and theft is leaving them with a gap that they have to pay to refill, there is a clear difference.
#244 to #227 - pazzaar (05/31/2012) [-]
Sorry, didn't see this comment.
So, when they create a duplicate, the company doesn't *technically* loose any money. However, they have not gained money, whilst the person who has made the copy has gained something of value, for free. Gaining something of value for free, without permission, when it should have cost money, is stealing
User avatar #214 to #203 - Lawlor (05/31/2012) [-]
You're missing my point that to the person selling the product, you not buying the game and you downloading it for free are the same thing to them, they make no money.

However, if you STEAL a game from a store, as in steal a physical copy, someone has to pay for that physical copy to be replaced. Hence where money is lost.

Look, I'm not on the side of Piracy, it's still a bad thing, I'm just saying that blatent theft and copyright infringement are not the same thing.

Copyright Infringement is not giving money where money is due.

Stealing is (as defined by google) "Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"
You're not taking property, you're copying it.

It's not okay. But it's not the same thing.
#219 to #214 - pazzaar (05/31/2012) [-]
When you pirate a game, the developer (or whoever is distributing it) looses sale. By pirating it, you have taken something which you should have paid for. It's all well and good saying that someone will buy the proper game, but the second you pirate it, you have stolen it until the moment you pay the distributor for the game

And with your google defenition. To take another persons property without permission. Do you think they give you permission to take their game and pirate it? You are viewing property you haven't paid the rights to view for. That is stealing
User avatar #222 to #219 - Lawlor (05/31/2012) [-]
Who says that I was going to buy a game I pirated?
If I pirate a game that I was NOT going to buy, EVER, what difference does it make to the developer other then your mess of semantics?

It makes none. I hate when people say "hurr durr you were going to buy it!"
That's irrelevant to my argument.
My argument is that their not losing money.
That would mean that they actually lose money from every person who just doesn't buy their game, which is crazy.

And what's your logic with the google definion, by the way?
"Well, if it fits half the definion, it's good enough for me!"
It said property. No property was taken.
Something was just copied.

That's it. Piracy isn't a good thing.
Personally, I buy the vast majority of my games.
I'm not arguing as someone who pirates a lot of **** .

I'm just arguing on the grounds that people know the difference between theft and piracy, and stop using it as a word to make the crime sound worse then it is.
#231 to #222 - pazzaar (05/31/2012) [-]
I didn't include the last half of the google definition because I thought its damn obvious how relevant it is. Without permission OR legal right (same thing) and regarding 'without intending to return it'. You can't return a download. Also, how is it not their property? They have the licence for that. You have stole- sorry, taken that licence, their property. You may well have copied it, but you have still have that licence, their property.

And I am mentioning the idea of buying after copyrighting because the guy who I originally replied to talked of it. I was trying to justify the idea of it not being stealing because you paid for it in the end.
User avatar #236 to #231 - Lawlor (05/31/2012) [-]
I know, and that's copyright infringement.

When you have something that is very similar or the same to something that already exists and is copyrighted.
When you copy it, you have a file that that fits that description nicely.

But as I said... it just isn't theft.
And also, I think that the impossibility to return a download also backs up my argument, as it clearly shows that it's referring to something completely different.
#243 to #236 - pazzaar (05/31/2012) [-]
It's not completely different at all. And you have taken their licence, which means the distributor should have gained money when they have not, which in my books is stealing. It may be copyright infringement as well, but it is also stealing
 Friends (0)