Staredit Network

It is said that downloading games from internet causes grate losses to the game industry. Ofcourse this is partly true, but the matter can be analyzed also from the different perspective. When games are spred trough internet, the good games gain fame and the community of the game grows larger. This affects positively to the sales number. However downloading is and stays illegal.

Lately many people have been sued from downloading and sharing copirighted material in P2P network. Yet the chances to get caught from downloading is minimal. Therefore the question of downloading is a pure matter of selfconsous. Feeling guilty is a reason enough to not download.

My personal poinion is that downloading is wrong, but acceptable. The game prices are insane (new games can cost 50$) and it really doesn't harm the game developers that much (since downloading affects also positively). What do you think?

Well, obviously it's legally wrong. However, I don't think it really negatively affects sales enough for game companies to worry too much about it.

There's also a certain point where I believe that downloading it off the internet should become legal. If it's say, 5 years after release or something like that, then just let people download it. You aren't going to be making much money off it, and it just keeps your fanbase alive longer.

the game industrey plans around this. they figure, people will download games so they econmicly plan around that.

i think that dl-ing games shouldn't happen. it's illegal and it is the reason a lot fo people have viruses

It's right, but people go about it all wrong.

Like a hooker.

I've long since lost my SC CD, but I bought it with my own money about 4 years ago. I'm still playing it today. How? I downloaded it off of Limewire, and used my own CD-key and a No-CD crack. So in some circumstances, DLing the game is helpful, so that you don't have to buy it again.

PS: 1000 mins.

Me and my family have only bought around 4 games ever, as you can probobly guess, there's a huge amount of pirated software in my house. No, I don't feel guilty because I wouldn't be able to afford these games otherwise.

It's wrong.
Why do I have to pay $50 dollars for a game a like and someone else get it for free? That's not fair, and it's not legal. That's what demos are for, those take less time to download as well.

downloading old games is fine in my opinion. Especially if they have a sequel

I think that downloading a gmae online is good, as long as it is like half the game or something. No time limit and just a restriction of what you can do to the game, kinda like a demo. Cause I hate ones that let you do everything in the game but for only ike 15 or 30 days. So stupid I want time. See if I get bored of this thing. Probably will because you can only do certain things but still see if you like it, I think tht wuld help video game industries!

Oh yeah.
Any game that's like 7 years old I don't care if you download. They're virutally free anyway and almost impossible to find. But things like FEAR, and other games, that's not fair.
EDIT:

That's just dumb. You want a "demo" with the full game and no time limit? That's basically buying the game. Did you actually think that was a good idea?

...because people won't just start only playing games that are 5 years old and waiting for new ones to get old. Oh wait.

The games that cost $50.00 are always aimed at a demographic who can afford it. So it's 50 dollars? That's a reasonable price considering the amount of time it will entertain you. A movie ticket alone costs $6.50 and it's only good for 2 hours.

It takes a lot of people to make a video game. You're not screwing a faceless corporation. The only people in those corporations who take a cut in pay are the little guys (ie low level employees).

Don't get me wrong though. I'm a big fan open source, but if a copyright holder chooses to sell his or her work, that's his or her lookout and you should respect that.

PS: My views on this topic change when the things you download are stuff you never would have bought anyway. At that point I just say "**** it, victimless crime" because the sales of said product won't be affected in the least. Just don't upload, because then you give dishonest people the chance to get things they would have paid for.

I personally think it wrong to download these brand new games however, i would rather download it for free, than buy a new $50 cd because my old one got a scracth on it.....especially if the cd key is going to go to waste.
I think it is ok to download games that arent being made any more....

I think that downloading games is fine, but, if you like the game alot, you should go buy a copy to support the developer.

Well, first of all, let's get a few things clear...

When you buy a game, you're not buying the CD, or the box, or the manual that came with it, that's all chump change. You're buying the intellectual property on it, and the license to use it.

So yes, if you lost or scratched the CD, its fine to download a copy of the game since you still likely have the CD key, and well, you already paid for the license to play it. There's nothing morally wrong with that (and even legally, I doubt you can get charged with it, owning a copy of a CD is completely legal if you bought the original...)

As for downloading games as opposed to buying them? Of course it's illegal, and yes, also morally wrong. It's equivelant to theft. Someone made a product, and it's their choice to sell it at a price they think is worth it to the public. Think it's too expensive? Don't buy it. It's not a necessity.

As someone mentioned, considering the amount of enterntainment one game can provide in comparison to other everyday things, the price isn't all that outrageous.

On top of that, the more you download, the more the game companies lose. If a game company is losing money, how do you think they'll make up for that? Screw their employees, as someone mentioned already, which is wrong on its own, and possibly would result in worse quality games, and possibly also jack up the price...

As for the argument that it spreads popularity: Well, it's really not upto you to decide for the company what's good for them is it? If they thought 'popularity' was worth allowing people to download the game for free, they'd do it themselves.

As for old games, it really depends on the publisher's discretion. Sierra released Tribes 1 and 2 for free download when Vengeance came out... If they don't want you downloading them, then you still shouldnt... However, it'd be a much lesser crime if anything... Although I'd also imagine they'd be much cheaper as well as so why NOT buy them? (unless its a hard find, in which case you don't have much of a choice...)

I think that once they stop offering the game in retail stores, it's not morally wrong to download the game. It may not be legally alright, but the media can be really prickly about things. For example, the RIAA said it was illegal to burn .mp3's from a CD to an mp3 player. Maybe companies will start offering the game on sites like Direct 2 Drive, and still make a small profit.

It's stealing. Someone say that stealing is OK. *prepares flame*

I'll take this one.

A wealthy family who works as hard as anyone else has twice as much bread as they need, but refuse to part from it. A poor family who works very hard, but still gets the short end of the stick does not have enough bread to feed their family. Is it wrong for the poor family to steal what they need to feed themselves family from the rich family?

Stealing is not always wrong.

Yes it is. It's like the debate of whether or not wealthier people should pay higher taxes. They worked for that money and food why should they have to give it to you? And food and games/music are two huge things. You NEED food to survive, if you NEED games then you need to get a life, if you can't afford it don't buy it. There's thousands of people that wanted to buy certain things but can't. I can't buy a Plasma TV, I want one, but i'm not going to steal it. And whether or not some family has twice as many more doesn't make a difference, I don't need it, I can't afford it, that's life. There's nothing good about stealing.

When you're older, it is likely you will not so easily be able to say "STEALING IS ALWAYS WRONG" right off the bat. Based on Piaget's Theory, I would assume your brain simply has not developed enough and hasn't yet become Formal Operational. I'm not trying to insult you, you just havn't developed yet.

The example contained a necessity of life for a reason. And it clearly implied the poorer family worked harder. From a Darwanist point of view, the poorer family is more capable of surviving, and thus has better genes. The richer family has simply been more fortunate. This is not an uncommon case in the real world.

A penny for your thoughts: Do you think Bill Gates earns the enormous amounts of money he is paid a second? I don't deny he works hard, but he certainly doesn't give his employees the percent of the cash for the percent of the work they actually do. That's capitalism. Capitalists (the upper class) have never earned the money they recieve and proletariats (the lower class) have never recieved the amount of money they earn. The way the free market works itself out isn't actually fair.

I accept life is a very random toss of luck, and that if someone is luckier than the other, so be it. I do not accept this when it interferes with a frankly more productive member of society's ability to live.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4837609090332617729

'Nuff said.

Common argument fallacy.

"An opposing viewpoint is belittled so that agreeing with it would put you in the same category.

e.g., Only a fool would endorse this candidate! No patriotic American would disagree! You'd have to be stupid to believe that."

... on a smaller scale. The entire point makes no reference to the argument itself, just that if he holds his particular opinion, he must not be mature, and since he must not be mature, his opinion cannot be right (also circular reasoning).



From a Darwinist point of view, the poorer family is more capable of surviving? Based on what? The fact that they need to do more mundane work to get through? Better "genes"? Just because someone happens to sit in a plant, hitting the same nail over and over again 14 hours a day, doesn't give them any better "genes", nor does it make them more capable of surviving.



He happened to have put forward the operating system most users around the world today happen to use. Don't like it? Don't use his operating system. If enough people follow suit, he won't be that rich. If his employees are unhappy enough, they can also quit.



Who'se interfering with whom? The rich family is interefering by having bread that could potentially be stolen? Bill Gates is interfering by giving his employees jobs? Everyone can be very "interference-free" if they want to. I doubt that'd get them very far.

As for the guy who needs to steal to feed himself and his family?

Yes, it's still wrong, but it's simply wrong to a far smaller degree.

You're using a rule of debating as a point, while arguing with someone who is currently arguing that rules do not always apply. Impressive (HAHA! I'm breaking your rule again!).

I will not spend my time arguing your points. I am confident that the majority of people who read this topic will agree with me, and that no amount of argument will convince you of my views.

If you wish to understand my views better, I suggest you research "Supply and Demand", "Darwanism", and the struggles of lower class workers.

Actually, you were arguing a certain rule doesn't always apply. And although I might even agree with you on that to an extent, you don't seem capable to make your point without resorting to petty "I know something you don't, so HA" behaviour (which, in short, is what my previous post stated, in a nicer way...)... Oh well, that's too bad =/

It doesn't matter how old I am, stealing something from someone else who might've worked hard for it for there own needs will never be justified (In common society). If I happen to be poor when I get older doesn't mean I'll have a sudden change of thought, I'll still know stealing is wrong.

That's not true, those famlies had to start somewhere, it's not like they were born and handed a large sack of money.

He earns $42 dollars a second, and he worked hard to get to that point. It just so happens what he made is so useful that it's globally used. And for the record he donates around 10 Million Dollars to charity each year (That's why he doesn't pay taxes)

And for that video that someone posted, your allowed to make copies of your own files, so if the RIAA came into my house and saw I have an extra copy of brood war, I won't get arrested. It's so if my current one breaks i'll have an extra. But if I have like 100 copies? Than that's a bit suspcious.