vaio said:
Munkeh111 said:
Of course its wrong, it is very simple. It is not just a case of me lending to my few friends, it is a case of me giving to several thousand other people.
Let's say I buy Uncharted Drake's Fortune, then I lend it to a friend. I don't give him an extra copy, I give it to him for a short period of time, then he buys himself a copy because it is such a good game (that part is true).
Somebody has to pay for the artists to make money. The OP uses the idea that it allows new artists to be heard, but it doesn't allow them to get paid does it? Being heard might benefit the number of people who turn up to live events, but it won't directly put money in their pocket
Let's just look at the PSP, it would be a lot more successful, in terms of profitability, for Sony if people didn't download illegally. So what is happening there is Sony is making a loss because they don't get the royalties that they should, and so the people providing the services are suffering because they don't get the money from the people who are playing it. I don't care about the "they wouldn't actually buy it so they are no losing money," you can't seriously suggest that they are not losing any customers. Even though it may only be 1/5 people, they are still losing money.
I don't see why it is any different to stealing a CD from a shop other than the small price that it costs to actual make and transport those physical items |
Another case of doule standards.
You are assuming that the same doesnt happend for downloaders which it does more then we actually know (that part is true as my whole gaming community and I have been doing this for 30 years with the Commodore 20&64, Nes, Snes, Atari and spectrum) and you also assume that every one that lends their games to friends get their friends to buy a copy wich is false. In both cases you will have people that wont buy the original in any case wether they borrow, download or rent it.
The whole thing about my friend buying another game was kind of a joke, but it is not double standards. The reason he bought the game was because I only gave him 3 days to play it, so he did not get to experience it properly. On the other hand, if he had downloaded he wouldn't have had to rush it. He didn't buy it to show his appriechiation to the developers, but because he wanted to enjoy it properly
PSP:
The psp´s main problem is not piracy it a part of the problem but it´s very small part, the Nes, Snes, Gamecube, Wii, PS1, PS 2, xbox, box 360, DS etc did just fine and in the case of the Wii, DS and 360 the piracy is bigger on those platforms (and you would know this if you had access to torrentsites) and they still do fine more then fine, the psp´s problem is and identity one as it might as well be a regular console it has not the games to set it apart from regular consoles and it´s heavily advertised as a portable media device wich many users are buying it for wich makes the portable gaming device part even less relevant even though it is supposed to be one.
The fact is, there are about 60m PSP owners out there, and a large reason why they are not buying the game is piracy. Admittedly, the fact that the games aren't as appealing might have some impact, as shown by the fact that the really big releases do sell quite well, but they would sell much better without piracy
|
