4 ms·

Or just don't play it? Why is the default always pirating and not just skipping? It's not as if there aren't more games available out there than there is time

Or just don't play it? Why is the default always pirating and not just skipping? It's not as if there aren't more games available out there than there is time to play them. Reward the developers/publishers who aren't being asses, and we might just get more of 'em. EDIT: When writing this, I focused too much on piracy and not enough on "you've already bought this." My bad.

hibikir 3y ago
The real problem here is that this was added a ling while after launch. At that point, "don't buy it" is like telling someone that they should have invested in apple in 2006 if they wanted a good retirement. The product changes under you, and the only way to keep it working is piracy. Not ideal.
- falcolas 3y ago
  Yeah, I kinda forgot about that aspect. If you bought it and it changed out from under you (especially when it drops an entire platform), I can see piracy being acceptable.
ndriscoll 3y ago
In the case, the OP already paid for it and can't get a refund, so the thing they paid for is being stolen from them. Meanwhile, some helpful people on the Internet will--for free--give them the original that they paid for. That said, why judge if they didn't buy it? The publisher decided to specifically ensure that they couldn't be a customer by specifically going out of their way to make it be incompatible with their hardware/OS. So the choices are skipping, or to receive a free, working copy from someone else, so they aren't using any of the publishers resources or affecting them in any way. Why is option 2 morally bad in any way?
- falcolas 3y ago
  I think you're right in one aspect, if the product is changed out from under us when it's been purchased, finding a working copy is acceptable. > That said, why judge if they didn't buy it? Because my paycheck (I'm a software dev), and the paychecks of millions of other workers, depends on people paying for such products. Pirating smacks of entitlement; it says that everyone is entitled to a product whether they pay for it or not. There's plenty of arguments that it doesn't really impact developers/actors/etc - I've seen most of them on HN - and they're just wrong. Those arguments are just crutches to help pirates believe they are behaving morally. So why is option 2 morally bad? The truth is that piracy does impact developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth. It disproportionately impacts those who work in the margins, who aren't EA or Universal or Disney. And the truth is that nobody is entitled to a product, even if that product is an IP and not a physical good, created by another person. Anyways, that's my rant.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    If you can't buy a working product, then the counterfactual to piracy is that you are not a customer and do something else. You yourself suggested they do something else, not that they do something like go buy a windows computer to run it. Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it? How does that choice affect developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth? None of them are getting paid in either situation. Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party instead of going on a bike ride or playing with your cat? And why aren't you "entitled" to have someone willingly share something with you, given that it has no moral consequences to any other party? In my moral framework, you have a right by default to do anything that has no effect on others. I don't see how you could justify otherwise.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      > Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it? With respect, this is a logical impossibility since there is no way to prove that nobody who pirated would have purchased that same product if a piracy was not an option. Accordingly, there must be at least some harm to others. Beyond this logical problem, there have been published studies done by "Danaher et al", "Aguiar and Martens" and others which show that purchases do increase when piracy is not an option. And no, these studies do not just rely on "every pirated copy is a lost sale", they look at specific data about how sales of music and movies are affected by the availability of piracy. > Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party I covered that: my ability to survive (i.e. paycheck) depends on people paying for the product I build. Heck, if we step back and look at the macro scale, a good 40% of the US GDP depends on people purchasing things which can potentially be pirated (goods which rely on IP or copyright protections).
      - ndriscoll 3y ago
        I'm not making a claim that no one who pirates would have purchased. I'm addressing the reasoning behind "if you're not going to buy it, you should abstain". In the case that you've already decided that you will not buy something (e.g. because the version that's for sale will not work, or requires some unacceptable rootkit to run), then why still abstain? It feels to me like that's just appealing to some self-congratulatory puritan ethic. Why is it better to deny yourself the thing and go stare at the clouds because you don't "deserve" it? Literally no one is affected by your abstention. Sitting in a quiet room isn't going to put food on the tables of artists.
babypuncher 3y ago
This is about a change that was made to the game after it's release, so presumably OP already paid for it. They are simply taking back the thing they already paid for. If Capcom doesn't like that, then maybe they shouldn't be pulling stupid pointless shit like this. I swear, it's like some giant corporations actively detest their customers.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
In this case it seems to be an issue with a product people have already purchased.

hibikir 3y ago

The real problem here is that this was added a ling while after launch. At that point, "don't buy it" is like telling someone that they should have invested in apple in 2006 if they wanted a good retirement. The product changes under you, and the only way to keep it working is piracy. Not ideal.

falcolas 3y ago
Yeah, I kinda forgot about that aspect. If you bought it and it changed out from under you (especially when it drops an entire platform), I can see piracy being acceptable.

ndriscoll 3y ago

In the case, the OP already paid for it and can't get a refund, so the thing they paid for is being stolen from them. Meanwhile, some helpful people on the Internet will--for free--give them the original that they paid for. That said, why judge if they didn't buy it? The publisher decided to specifically ensure that they couldn't be a customer by specifically going out of their way to make it be incompatible with their hardware/OS. So the choices are skipping, or to receive a free, working copy from someone else, so they aren't using any of the publishers resources or affecting them in any way. Why is option 2 morally bad in any way?

falcolas 3y ago
I think you're right in one aspect, if the product is changed out from under us when it's been purchased, finding a working copy is acceptable. > That said, why judge if they didn't buy it? Because my paycheck (I'm a software dev), and the paychecks of millions of other workers, depends on people paying for such products. Pirating smacks of entitlement; it says that everyone is entitled to a product whether they pay for it or not. There's plenty of arguments that it doesn't really impact developers/actors/etc - I've seen most of them on HN - and they're just wrong. Those arguments are just crutches to help pirates believe they are behaving morally. So why is option 2 morally bad? The truth is that piracy does impact developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth. It disproportionately impacts those who work in the margins, who aren't EA or Universal or Disney. And the truth is that nobody is entitled to a product, even if that product is an IP and not a physical good, created by another person. Anyways, that's my rant.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  If you can't buy a working product, then the counterfactual to piracy is that you are not a customer and do something else. You yourself suggested they do something else, not that they do something like go buy a windows computer to run it. Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it? How does that choice affect developers, actors, writers, artists, and so forth? None of them are getting paid in either situation. Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party instead of going on a bike ride or playing with your cat? And why aren't you "entitled" to have someone willingly share something with you, given that it has no moral consequences to any other party? In my moral framework, you have a right by default to do anything that has no effect on others. I don't see how you could justify otherwise.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    > Given that in your suggested reality, they still wouldn't pay for the thing, why does it matter if they then pirate it? With respect, this is a logical impossibility since there is no way to prove that nobody who pirated would have purchased that same product if a piracy was not an option. Accordingly, there must be at least some harm to others. Beyond this logical problem, there have been published studies done by "Danaher et al", "Aguiar and Martens" and others which show that purchases do increase when piracy is not an option. And no, these studies do not just rely on "every pirated copy is a lost sale", they look at specific data about how sales of music and movies are affected by the availability of piracy. > Why do people get so bent out of shape if you decide to download something from a willing third-party I covered that: my ability to survive (i.e. paycheck) depends on people paying for the product I build. Heck, if we step back and look at the macro scale, a good 40% of the US GDP depends on people purchasing things which can potentially be pirated (goods which rely on IP or copyright protections).
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      I'm not making a claim that no one who pirates would have purchased. I'm addressing the reasoning behind "if you're not going to buy it, you should abstain". In the case that you've already decided that you will not buy something (e.g. because the version that's for sale will not work, or requires some unacceptable rootkit to run), then why still abstain? It feels to me like that's just appealing to some self-congratulatory puritan ethic. Why is it better to deny yourself the thing and go stare at the clouds because you don't "deserve" it? Literally no one is affected by your abstention. Sitting in a quiet room isn't going to put food on the tables of artists.

babypuncher 3y ago

This is about a change that was made to the game after it's release, so presumably OP already paid for it. They are simply taking back the thing they already paid for. If Capcom doesn't like that, then maybe they shouldn't be pulling stupid pointless shit like this. I swear, it's like some giant corporations actively detest their customers.

_Algernon_ 3y ago

In this case it seems to be an issue with a product people have already purchased.