By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
greenmedic88 on 28 January 2010
Edit Thread
ChichiriMuyo said:
greenmedic88 said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
greenmedic88 said:
Second, while I can't speak for everyone, I can say that the number of times I game on a PC per week that isn't actively connected to the net is about... let me count on my fingers here, might need both hands. Wait, nope: zero times.

Seriously, who actually disconnects from the net before gaming? When you're at work and supposed to be I don't know, working?!

Good thing everyone gets free Internet, right?  Oh wait.  25% of AMERICANS don't have Internet access at all.  Imagine what it's like in a poorer country where it's also very likely that you pay for how long you are connected or how much data you transfer.  Yeah, that's right, for some people it's going to cost additional money just to play this game because that's the only sort of service even available to them.

Seriously, people from 1st world countries are painfull ignorant of how the world actually works.  Hell, in many/most 1st world countries people still pay for specific bandwith usage.  You think that's a justifiable additional cost to play a game you've already bought and paid for?  I don't.

Here's your big oversight: if you're that impoverished, why the hell are you spending your "discretionary time" on something as frivolous as gaming in the first place. More importantly, why are you spending your hard earned money on such frivolity? If it were such an issue, I would think eating better or maybe taking up a sporting activity for heath (since the impoverished generally don't have the time or money for gym memberships) or working more hours if work is available, would be a better option. 

One would think that the essentials of life would take priority, but... maybe that's just me and maybe all the game companies need to look out for those who really can't afford to game, either from a monetary, time (or both) perspective.

The way the world really works is this: if you can't afford to do or buy something, you don't do it or buy it. And that's the unvarnished truth. You want to do it on someone else's dime (ie credit), again, why would you be doing this on frivolous activities if you're hungry or cold, or both?

Something you're forgetting about the way the worlde works - if people can't buy something because they have to spend their money on the essentials that is as much a lost sale to the developers as it is if that very same person pirated the game.  In the grand scheme of things it is no loss whatsoever to developers when that person pirates their game because they were already not able to buy it.

It's not that the retail version has lost out to the pirated version, though, it's that it has lost out to the market at large.  They have lost to the food industry, or some other provider of essential goods.  Chasing these people down is a complete waste of time because there's not a whole lot to take from them. There is no value gained by taking the copy back, if they could, and if they don't have money to buy games there's nothing to sue them for.  In reality "losing a sale" to someone who couldn't buy the product in the first place is the same as losing a sale to someone who could have but chose not to because of disinterest.  Neither were going to put up the cash, neither is a lost sale.

As has been mentioned by others, psychologically people WANT to pay for goods, sometimes they just can't.  Whether or not piracy occurs as result of that is irrelevant to the developer's bottom line.

You're missing the point. You wouldn't have a gaming PC or console for that matter to play games on, pirated or otherwise.

How does everyone pirate games these days? They download them. Pretty tough to do without a) a PC and b) an internet connection.

Sure you can always find sources that will sell you pirated copies of games, but paying for bootlegs in the days of file sharing for the convenience of having someone steal something for you is a pretty odd concept.