Some random article writers "Morals" do not apply to anyone and especially not the autonomous me.

In this day in age where most games are pathetically mediocre but yet still cost $60 at launch like every other game, piracy has its place. Only games that truly deserve costing $60 are bought by the sensible, informed buyer; especially in a recession. You never know, maybe some of those pirates actually go out and buy the game if they feel it's worth it.

Edit. Looking back at my post, it's completely unrelated to the OP, but oh well.

You just expanded on one of the points on the poll so...I guess it works

In my oppinion the game makers should look into more ways to get revenue from a game rather than just the initial purchase.

I thought about this subject quite a bit and I came up with a few ideas.

1- Advertise revenue. Example, the game Motorstorm RC was on sale for PS Vita for something around 10 to 15$ (not sure the precise amount) and yet because Sony had some partnership with a car manufacturer to sponsor the game, you could chose to get this game for free with adds (same like happens in some games in the mobile market).

This way the person who wants to dish out some money for the game upfront doesn't need to put up with adds, and the person who would otherwise crack the console's firmware and pirate a game, could simply download it for free (or lower cost) completely legally.

The important factor here is to keep track of how much the game is played and how much this add is seen so the company will actually earn more money the more the game is actually played. It will completely nullify the lost revenue on 2nd hand market and give a true incentive for game makers to actually put out a quality product that will engage the users for a longer time.

2- Using the DLC milking strategy in a 'good way'.

Example, Ubisoft releases the next AC3 and for all the people who purchase and register the game to their system, all future DLC for the game would be absolutely free of charge. This would require you to register your copy and link it to your ID (psn or xbox live account or even steam).

For the person purchasing this in 2nd hand or without a unique CD key, they could still play the game but the DLC for the game would have to be paid. In this case would it be more profitable to pay the 50/60 €/$ for the game originally and 0 for dlc, or save 30/40% on the original price and then have to pay for all the DLC?

This is just a couple of ideas i came up with and I'm not being paid to do so. I think the people working in marketing in the top companies should come up with even more creative forms to generate revenue but somehow they rather waste resources in a pointless war on piracy that they will never win.

Better be smart and adapt then cry about it.

Just for full disclosure I did and sometimes do play pirated games. The common denominator when I do so is simply this one. It's easier to play the pirated copy than going through all the hassle of purchasing and dealing with all the DRM protections this particular game has.

Another common denominator, 90+% of the time I test the game for maybe an hour or so and delete it as it's not good enough to keep me engaged. When the game is really good and I feel i will actually play it some, then i'll just go and buy it obviously.

1 last thing, if digital 'renting' of games was a reality i probably would never touch a pirated copy again.

Discuss.......

I disagree with the OP on nearly everything said in regard to the "law. Much of the laws passed to restrict backups and modification of property has yet to be tested in the supreme court. In my opinion all it would take is one lawsuit and the whole debate would be over and we would be able to use and copy our property as we see fit. Besides that most of what the OP said is an interpretation of laws which I believe are unconstitutional.

I have a fundamental right to do anything I want with my property. If I decide to use my DVD movies as coasters for my sodas I can do that. If I want to modify and link my Xbox 360s into a giant super computer to calculate the human genome I can do that. If I want to rip Star Wars Episode I, re-edit it, and screen my superior version to my friends I can do that. The copy protection that my stand in my way is unconstitutional and if it was ever challenged in the supreme court it would get banned outright.

But all that is moot. What matters is if using emulation to play an Atari 2600 game is morally wrong. It's not. There isn't even any question about it. The hardware is so old it's cost prohibitive to keep it running. No publisher manufactures the games and no retailer stocks them. If you do find an original Atari cartridge for sale and buy it the original copyright holder will not see a single red cent. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with emulating a game that is out of print.

It's wrong to sell copies of anything but public domain stuff, but it's not wrong to give it away or use it. That's real piracy. But that's not what we are talking about

Let me ask you a simple question. Whats the difference between an old out of print Atari game available for download or play online and an old out of print book at the library? Still thinking, well here's the answer: Nothing!

BTW hey OP, where's the Poll answer for? :

"I buy new/used games and rent/barrow them too. I only emulate the unavailable, out of print, and none-domestic games.