Which of these are piracy in your opinion?

[shortylickens]

It would seem many of us think the same. Or lie to appear to be normal.

 

[Gneisenau]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Which of the poll options do you consider to be morally fine? I'm not asking what the law says, just what is okay by you personally. I want to know what most people consider to be within their rights when it comes to games they own.

Since this is based on personal opinion and not law. My take is this: If you buy the game, you should be able to do anything you want to with it to insure you can play it for as long as you like. i.e. switch platforms, make back-up copies, load it on more than one computer, etc. On the other hand, it's wrong to play a game you didn't pay for. (The waters get a little murky if you consider sampling games.)

 

[reallyscrued]

Answered all no.

The one about multiplatform is a head-scratcher though.

TheKub hit the nail on the head. Game companies need to stop being nazi's about their IP. Even the movie industry isn't as anal.

Just out of curiosity, do game companies make money for every time a game is rented out at Blockbuster? They get a share of the profits right?

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
Answered all no.

The one about multiplatform is a head-scratcher though.

TheKub hit the nail on the head. Game companies need to stop being nazi's about their IP. Even the movie industry isn't as anal.

Just out of curiosity, do game companies make money for every time a game is rented out at Blockbuster? They get a share of the profits right?

I used to tape my records so I could listen to them in my car all the time. Conceptually it's the same thing.

 

[Fingolfin269]

What has me baffled is how the %'s can be so skewed on two of the questions...

Why would you not put the same answer for the following:

'Friend borrowing a game'
'Friend borrowing your Steam account'

Unless I'm forgetting something about Steam you can only be logged in from one location, right? So what's the difference?

Of course this assumes that your 'friend' uses it online only and does not attempt to move anything to an offline mode.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
The one about multiplatform is a head-scratcher though.

On that one I took it as my Atari\Genesis\SNES had died or my TV no longer has a RF\Co-ax\composite connector so I cant use play the console. I may (or may not) have the console any more but if I have the game in a box in the closet\basement\garage and I want to play it I have no reservations using a emulator.

In some cases I prefer games on emu's. Really hard games or games that you couldn't save or required save points can be snapshot-ed at will. No more I have to go to school\work\etc but Im 30 min from a save spot.

That being said it doesnt mean that becasue I bought FF3 on the SNES Im entitled to FF37 or what ever they are up to now.

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Unless I'm forgetting something about Steam you can only be logged in from one location, right? So what's the difference?

Some people may have voted no becasue it could be possible to abuse the offline feature. Which I would classify pirating. Giving the entire account (if offline wasnt an option) or just being able to transfer a game to a buddy (perm or temp) I wouldnt classify as pirateing

 

[mindcycle]

I answered no to everything but the multiplatform question. There is an extra development cost in producing multiple versions since there are often separate development teams that work on the console version of a game vs the PC version or handheld version, etc.. So, IMO, if you purchase one version it doesn't automatically mean you should have access to every version available. If there was a discount for those who wanted a game on more than one system, that would be more reasonable than paying full price, but it shouldn't be free.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Everything but the multiplatform I put as a no.

Think about lending your games like a company that rents out games. If a blockbuster can buy a game and let you rent it for 2 weeks. Why can't I buy a game and lend it to a friend for 2 weeks(no copying) Same thing with Steam, as long as I'm not getting around the system and playing at the same time, I see no problem with this.

 

[1LordEmperor1]

Just replace the word "game" with the word "toaster" in any of your scenarios.

If you determine in any of your examples that you've stolen a toaster from someone, there's something wrong happening.

If no one is unwillingly losing a toaster, no one is being harmed.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1
Just replace the word "game" with the word "toaster" in any of your scenarios.

If you determine in any of your examples that you've stolen a toaster from someone, there's something wrong happening.

If no one is unwillingly losing a toaster, no one is being harmed.

Hmmm... the multi-platform question is puzzling then. I bought a toaster that makes toast but now Im toasting bagels?... I bought a toaster for the kitchen but now im using it in the bedroom?... I bought a toaster in Europe but am now using it in the US??..

 

[veri745]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: 1LordEmperor1
Just replace the word "game" with the word "toaster" in any of your scenarios.

If you determine in any of your examples that you've stolen a toaster from someone, there's something wrong happening.

If no one is unwillingly losing a toaster, no one is being harmed.

Hmmm... the multi-platform question is puzzling then. I bought a toaster that makes toast but now Im toasting bagels?... I bought a toaster for the kitchen but now im using it in the bedroom?... I bought a toaster in Europe but am now using it in the US??..

I bought a toaster, and then I backed it up on DVD...

 

[minmaster]

same title on different platform. i always thought if you bought it for one platform, you should at least get a discount if you want to buy it again for another. i used to have a mac and pc, and i bought just one copy of RtCW and was allowed to use the same key. at least between mac/pc they should allow you to use 1 copy and share the keys.

 

[dguy6789]

What if I buy the 360 version of Gears of War, play it a little bit, then take it back and get my money back, buy the PC version of Gears of War and play that for a bit. That's perfectly legal and perfectly acceptable morally. How is that any different from the above multi platform question? The developer gets the same amount of money from me in both scenarios and I get to play the game on either platform in both scenarios.

 

[coloumb]

Interesting to see piracy being voted as YES on topics which are obviously NOT piracy.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
What if I buy the 360 version of Gears of War, play it a little bit, then take it back and get my money back, buy the PC version of Gears of War and play that for a bit. That's perfectly legal and perfectly acceptable morally. How is that any different from the above multi platform question? The developer gets the same amount of money from me in both scenarios and I get to play the game on either platform in both scenarios.

If you buy the 360 version of Gears and then return it, you no longer have the 360 version of Gears. In your initial question you ask if you should have the right to download if for any platform as long as you pay for it on one. That's completely different than the example you just gave above.

 

[dguy6789]

As long as you don't use more than one copy at the same time, it makes no difference whether you still have it or not. It's the use of the software that determines if it is morally correct or not, not the mere possession.(I can obtain possession of pretty much any piece of software I want, but that in itself doesn't hurt anything just yet. It's what I do with it that can cause damage.) I can spend only $50 and play the game on any platform I want using a buy and return method. I don't see the difference between that and the download method as long as you honor the concept of playing only one copy at a time.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
As long as you don't use more than one copy at the same time, it makes no difference whether you still have it or not. It's the use of the software that determines if it is morally correct or not, not the mere possession.(I can obtain possession of pretty much any piece of software I want, but that in itself doesn't hurt anything just yet. It's what I do with it that can cause damage.) I can spend only $50 and play the game on any platform I want using a buy and return method. I don't see the difference between that and the download method as long as you honor the concept of playing only one copy at a time.

Exactly... If there were added maps, or features on a different platform, I may reconsider, but as it stands now, I treat it like my record-tape example from earlier.

 

[nitromullet]

The whole multi-platform question is interesting. I would actually think that MS would look into this as means to push XBL and Games for Windows Live. You already can buy games/DLC on either with your XBL gamertag, so why not let you download both PC and 360 versions? You can't be logged in more then once concurrently - I know, I kept getting logged out while playing GoW for Win while my wife was watching Netflix movies on the 360. It's a win-win for MS. You use their DL service on either their console or their OS, plus by tying it to an account they would prevent re-sale.

Steam or Sony can't compete with that. They simply couldn't offer anything close.

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: Newbian

Constant sharing like that is no different then burning a cd for your friend and letting them use that.

Also Borrowing is usually a term to describe short time use and not something that is permanent.

No, your WoW login can only be used by one person at a time. It's more like swapping the CD back and forth multiple times rather than burning them a copy.

Plus, you still have to pay the monthly fee to keep the account active. Blizzard makes money off an active WoW account regardless of who's playing, even though sharing accts is against their EULA.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I can spend only $50 and play the game on any platform I want using a buy and return method. I don't see the difference between that and the download method as long as you honor the concept of playing only one copy at a time.

As mentioned in my first post in this thread, making games for additional platforms requires additional money. They are counting on sales from the additional platform(s) to make up for the additional costs. If everyone just bought the 360 version and then download the PC version of Gear of War it would tell the publisher that PC versions don't sell and then they may drop support for the PC completely in their next game (which actually happened with Gears of War 2). That's what you risk when you take the approach you are suggesting.

I do believe that there should be a discount of some sort if you want to own a game for multiple platforms, but in no way should you have the right to own a piece of software you didn't pay for. The difference between Gear of War for the 360 as compared to the PC is most likely many millions of lines of code. Thus, even though they look and play similarly, they are entirely different pieces of software.

 

[dguy6789]

I'm aware that it costs money to develop the game for multiple platforms. But who is to say that the $50 cost of the game doesn't attempt to account for all development costs? Even if it doesn't, my point still stands: "I can spend only $50 and play the game on any platform I want using a buy and return method. I don't see the difference between that and the download method as long as you honor the concept of playing only one copy at a time."

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Even if it doesn't, my point still stands: "I can spend only $50 and play the game on any platform I want using a buy and return method. I don't see the difference between that and the download method as long as you honor the concept of playing only one copy at a time."

However you want to justify it to yourself is fine. The simple fact is if a game doesn't sell well on one platform there is a good chance future games (by the same publisher) won't be appearing on that platform. If you value PC gaming I suggest you support the industry by buying PC games, and vice versa for other platforms.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If it cost the company a sale then it is usually piracy. Not always, but a general way of deciding.

Subjective. Not everyone who pirates a game would be willing to buy it anyway.

 

[Nik]

I voted no for all of those.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: mindcycle

As mentioned in my first post in this thread, making games for additional platforms requires additional money. They are counting on sales from the additional platform(s) to make up for the additional costs. If everyone just bought the 360 version and then download the PC version of Gear of War it would tell the publisher that PC versions don't sell and then they may drop support for the PC completely in their next game (which actually happened with Gears of War 2). That's what you risk when you take the approach you are suggesting.

I don't know if you have a 360 or not, but when you are logged in with your gamertag on either XBL or GFWL it shows what game you are playing to your friends. So, obviously MS could (and probably does) track what games people are playing. Not only could they see what version you played, but they could track for long and how often you played and whether you played single player or multi-player more.

The more one company can offer and control via a single login, the more information they can glean about your gaming/leisure activities.

 

[paperfist]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If it cost the company a sale then it is usually piracy. Not always, but a general way of deciding.

You could say that of used games sales though

I thin they are all piracy except: Is it piracy to burn backup copies of games you already own?

I'm not sure what Steam's ToS says though, but I don't see how that's 'illegal' when you can only play it one person at a time.