$40US or so - I've enjoyed HOI and EU2 (although I suck at them) and I'm sure I'll like Victoria, too.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
$40US or so - I've enjoyed HOI and EU2 (although I suck at them) and I'm sure I'll like Victoria, too.
Originally posted by Darkrenown
I don't think it's so bad to play is pirate version IF you've pre-ordered it. No one has offered me a copy of Vic, but I'd take it if they did, I have to wait untill the 22nd, maybe the 24th (no post on sundays) for my copy. But yeah, this is not the best place to annouce you have a pirate copy even if you are buying the game the instant it is released.
Let me ask you something, when you download a pirate copy, is someone making sure you have preordered a legal copy before?
Well, piracy is like a virus, it spread beyond control. The more people pirate things, the more others will feel it is ok to do it. And then paying for a fellow's work becomes a simple act of charity. I am sure what Johan's answer is to this.
No. The post was deleted. It wasn't pro-piracy, but the information still doesn't need to be detailed here.Originally posted by Alexandru H.
This wasn't for me, was it?
Actually I kind of see his point. It's like realpolitik applied to software piracy. It's an argument based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives. It's not a pretty picture it paints, but unfourtunatley this is the reality that software companies are going to need to adjust to. It's not right, but that's irrelevant.
So you pay for it but defend the right for others to get it for nothing.
Like I said - some weird views in this thread
Yey! reopened. Good time to cool down, Although I forgot what I was going to say.
Anyways, let see it the following parallel makes it clear.
An engineering company (ACME) gets a contract with certain goverment to build a bridge. Since the goverment does not have the money to pay for the contract, it gives the ACME a 10 years lease of the bridge. Calculating the amount of people that will yearly pass through the bridge, and the toll at certain level (3bucks) ACME determines that the bridge will pay for itself in 7 years, and the next 3 years will be profit. During the first month of operation ACME finds out that there is an easy way for drivers to skip the toll and still cross the bridge, so a very low percent of the drivers actually pay the toll. The try to complain to authorities but the authorities response is that drivers are ok not paying the toll since by crossing through the bridge does not add to the cost of the bridge (???).. In less the a year ACME goes bankrrupt unable to enforce the toll payments.
*Edit: assume that ACME pays the toll worker a commission for every car that pays, does this make any difference?
Anyways, let see it the following parallel makes it clear.
An engineering company (ACME) gets a contract with certain goverment to build a bridge. Since the goverment does not have the money to pay for the contract, it gives the ACME a 10 years lease of the bridge. Calculating the amount of people that will yearly pass through the bridge, and the toll at certain level (3bucks) ACME determines that the bridge will pay for itself in 7 years, and the next 3 years will be profit. During the first month of operation ACME finds out that there is an easy way for drivers to skip the toll and still cross the bridge, so a very low percent of the drivers actually pay the toll. The try to complain to authorities but the authorities response is that drivers are ok not paying the toll since by crossing through the bridge does not add to the cost of the bridge (???).. In less the a year ACME goes bankrrupt unable to enforce the toll payments.
*Edit: assume that ACME pays the toll worker a commission for every car that pays, does this make any difference?
Last edited:
Your example certainly underscores the perils of capricious government contracts, and I think you prove my point. If you take the (unsueable, in the US) government out of the equation (substitute Fred), you've got a simple breach of contract. Fred said he'd make drivers pay the toll for 10 years, but then changed his mind. ACME can sue Fred for breach and recover their damages. If you leave the government in the equation, it's a very different story. Say the government changes it's mind for a compelling reason - the country's attacked, and the rapid flow of vehicles is suddenly critical, for example. Then ACME's still driven into bankruptcy, but for the public good. Just like that scenario's tough for ACME, our future looks grim for publishers who have relied on copyright laws that are now practically unenforceable.
EDIT - no, ACME's relationship to their employees doesn't have much bearing on the state's decision to change the laws or not.
Last edited:
Piracy isn't a virus - it's a natural response to market conditions. We've set up a system under which anyone can undetectably copy games for free. Maybe some folks will decide not to, for any number of reasons, including charity. But Paradox is selling more than just the copyable bits - their product is the box, the manual, updates & improvements, and a vigorous community. Some folks will buy the original game for any of those reasons.
Times haven't changed. The case of software piracy is similar to that of someone printing a written work without a contract to do so---one of the major reasons that copyright law was originally established. In both cases, the creator of the work loses something very tangible, proceeds from lost sales.
I think times have changed. Where once it took a significant commitment of resources for a reader to print (duplicate) a written work, it's now free. That fact has an immediate impact on the question of whether and to what extent copyright law ought to protect the creator or the publisher's investment.
Proceeds from lost sales aren't tangible, they're fiction. For an example, see the RIAA's claims about how much music piracy has cost that industry.
Deals like this are pretty common around the world, and they do work, because the authorities are willing to enforce the payment of the tax.
The example it suppose to show that:
1) The software model is not unique to the software bussines. Paradox is not much different than ACME, they have fixed costs, and they pay them in advance. Also untangibles products are not unique to the digital bussines either.
2) Just as ACME is selling the right to cross the point and not the pass through the toll, Paradox is selling the right to use the software, not the CDs. So the point about the pirates not damaging the company by stealing the software but CDs is not applicable.
3) Just because the authorities (in the context of our discussion, us) are unwilling to condemn the theft, it does make it right.
4) Just becase the law is hard to enforce does not make the crime less abominable.
5) etc.
The example it suppose to show that:
1) The software model is not unique to the software bussines. Paradox is not much different than ACME, they have fixed costs, and they pay them in advance. Also untangibles products are not unique to the digital bussines either.
2) Just as ACME is selling the right to cross the point and not the pass through the toll, Paradox is selling the right to use the software, not the CDs. So the point about the pirates not damaging the company by stealing the software but CDs is not applicable.
3) Just because the authorities (in the context of our discussion, us) are unwilling to condemn the theft, it does make it right.
4) Just becase the law is hard to enforce does not make the crime less abominable.
5) etc.
Oh I beg to differ. Let's say we have 10 Victoria fanatics waiting for the game. Come release date, normally all 10 of them would pay for a copy at their local gaming store for a copy of Victoria. Good. That money goes from the fan's pockets to the gaming store, to the publishing company, and eventually trickles down to the developers (Paradox). Everybody is happy.
Now enter the pirates. They release the game for absolutely FREE and without the permission of the developers. Let's say now that 5 of those Victoria fans find and d/l the pirate game. That's money that's NOT going to Paradox... it stays in the fan's pockets and thus they are getting enjoyment for a game that they did not pay for - essentially this is an unfair trade!! Paradox is not getting the money that it should because pirates disobeyed the law.
Granted it is prolly next to impossible to realistically enforce the law, but that doesn't make it right. Pirates should be penalized for breaking the law, anywhere. It is just the same as stealing a man's wallet off the street.
Paradox can clearly see that its profits are not as large as it expected. Then it sees the lucrative Swedish Alcohol industry and decides to fire its employees and go into THAT industry because it sees much larger profits in that. And thus we lose the benefit of Paradox and its great games.
Sure the loss may not be counted tangibly, but the economic cost of the piracy must be factored in; because so long as the money gained from making games drops below the money gained from switching to another industry, the company will switch.
It's a basic law of economics.
Again, Paradox is in the bussiness of making software games and charging people for the right to play it (use it). They are not selling CDs.
Your claim seems to be Paradox sells:
1) the game content
2) updates and improvements
3) community
4) manual/box
You seem to say (1) will not make them a profit because it's "uncontrollable," so they should come up with a business model that sells 2-4. But (2) and (3) are equally uncontrollable--logically anyone willing to pirate the game will pirate the updates, and anyone with a server to host the pirated version can host a community board too.
So what business model exists to give someone an incentive to make games in your perceived new world of low distribution costs?
Oh, no, they are not fictional. Untangible does not equal fictional, and this is where your ignorance of basic economics is shown. The whole of economics is based is potential earnings/costs.
Red Dog is a thief, using techno-centric McLuhanist hype and an information age corruption of marxist ideology to rationalize theft. No matter how old he is, he's another example of a childish, spoiled brat from a childish, spoiled society that is incapable of seeing anything beyond the pleasure of instant gratification.
End of story.
If he hasn't been bounced from your forum, I suggest you do, since clearly he is an enemy of our efforts to get decent games from Paradox. If he wants the empty box, though, I'll be happy to send him my box when I get my (bought copy).
The box won't cost him a thing.
R.III
End of story.
If he hasn't been bounced from your forum, I suggest you do, since clearly he is an enemy of our efforts to get decent games from Paradox. If he wants the empty box, though, I'll be happy to send him my box when I get my (bought copy).
The box won't cost him a thing.
R.III
Ok, I still don't get what the first part of the paragraph has to the end of it. In what way does the decreasing costs of piracy have anything to do with what the law should protect in regard to copyrights?
This paragraph is just :wacko:
Here's the problem with this logic. The box and the manual are not worth $40. If one concluded piracy is ethical and the the only reason not to pirate was to get the box and the manual, there would be no reason to buy the game. Hell, at that point Paradox may as well release the game for free and just ask for donations.
What you seem to miss is Paradox has real costs to pay. The only way people can pirate is if other, paying customers, are willing to shoulder the costs of development. If everyone pirated, no one couldp lay the games, since Paradox would be broke, so pirates depend on leeching off the efforts of Paradox and other, more ethical gamers, picking up the slack as far as paying for the costs of the game.
It isn't the decreasing cost of piracy, it's the vanishing cost of publishing creative works. Our system of copyrights was established on two assumptions: a) that it cost a lot (relatively) to get a creative work published, so publishers ought to have their rights in the work preserved enough to realize a return on their investment; and b) those rights should be limited and should (after 14 years, originally) defer to the public domain. The goal of the whole system was to kickstart a cycle of creation, publishing, and improvement. If it doesn't cost anything to publish creative works, the first of those assumptions goes away, and the whole system of copyright falls open to reexamination.
Sorry you feel that way, but just because somebody might by my widgets if everyone the US was required by law to do so isn't a very good argument for actually enacting a law that requires everyone to buy a widget.
- Status