MSNBC talks piracy with stardock

Go figure, a guy who really doesn't give a rat's arse about other people being able to play and enjoy a game is supporting piracy. A PC gamer, no less, where a *huge* portion of the released games are improved by community involvement - clans, mod communities, or just simple guys who enjoy dropping for games making for opponents for good fun online play. Go figure, your apathy is hurtful to PC gaming - I'm just glad in some of the circles I hang around with, Civfanatics and such, there aren't many apathetic PC gamers around because that would be a silver bullet to thriving, productive communities that make games better for everyone by collectively caring about each others' experiences. THAT is what makes PC gaming great.

I'm sorry, however you want to spin-doctor it, the people who steal are the ones guilty of theft. The fact that they're screwing other gamers and Stardock & friends in doing so just shows incredible selfishness that is hurtful to the PC gaming community, and the PC gaming developer who have the interest of the community in mind.

The only thing that this developer should be blamed for is thinking that a reasonable number of gamers who didn't like the game wouldn't buy the game. As he said in that video, you can't talk to pirates though - they've already rationalized their theft and really don't give a rats' arse who or what it hurts. He's talking about you.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Shafftehr"]Interesting, seeing as Stardock has been this forum's PC gamer argument for the viability of small developers on the PC.Shafftehr

Their stance hasn't changed on it, so I don't see why you made this comment. Did you watch the video?

I'm sorry, however you want to spin-doctor it, the people who steal are the ones guilty of theft. The fact that they're screwing other gamers and Stardock & friends in doing so just shows incredible selfishness that is hurtful to the PC gaming community, and the PC gaming developer who have the interest of the community in mind.

The only thing that this developer should be blamed for is thinking that a reasonable number of gamers who didn't like the game wouldn't buy the game. As he said in that video, you can't talk to pirates though - they've already rationalized their theft and really don't give a rats' arse who or what it hurts. He's talking about you.

Ironic considering PC gamers despise DRM, but then will easily pirate this game.Next-Gen-Tec

[QUOTE="Next-Gen-Tec"]Ironic considering PC gamers despise DRM, but then will easily pirate this game.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Shafftehr"] If that were true, that many people wouldn't be downloading them. But here we are.Vandalvideo

Which is illegal, illogical, aswell as slefish and destructive. Whether or not you think it's worth buying or not means nothing. Fact is this game cost lots of money and time to create. Everything you do you have to earn. If you don't some one loses out. That's why we have laws in the first place. People seem to think they are entitiled to things they don't deserve. I guess that's human nature, constant want but with no desire to give something in return.

Which is illegal, illogical, aswell as slefish and destructive. Whether or not you think it's worth buying or not means nothing. Fact is this game cost lots of money and time to create. Everything you do you have to earn. If you don't some one loses out. That's why we have laws in the first place. People seem to think they are entitiled to things they don't deserve. I guess that's human nature, constant want but with no desire to give something in return.Ek-Andy

Sorry, but we're not discussing legality here. We're discussing ethics. Legality and ethics are two entirely seperate venues. While legality is based on morality, legality is not in and of itself a system of ethics. As a matter of fact, Since the developers put out a bad game, they instigated the act of piracy. Their actions brought about people to perform an act which they normally may or may not have performed. They created an environment which instigated the act of piracy through their wanton abandon for any type of good matchmaking. Whether or not you agree with pirates you have to admit that the developers put out an unfinished product with Demigod. This unfinished product prompted many people to refrain from buying the game. Whether or not piracy is justified is of little concern to my points. I am more concerned with the fact that the developer, in and of themselves, cannot rely on the pirates as a scapegoat completely. You repeatedly twist my message because you are mistaken. I am not justifying piracy. I am not belittling the developers. I am not siding with the pirates. I am merely showing that there are more than one side of the story, and the developer is partially to blame here. The game is in a bad state because of a developer. The developer ignored the needs of the gamer in creating an unfinished products. Now they have the audacity to blame the gamer for things that are directly their own doing. They created this environment by pointing out a bad product. They are partly to blame.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]Which is illegal, illogical, aswell as slefish and destructive. Whether or not you think it's worth buying or not means nothing. Fact is this game cost lots of money and time to create. Everything you do you have to earn. If you don't some one loses out. That's why we have laws in the first place. People seem to think they are entitiled to things they don't deserve. I guess that's human nature, constant want but with no desire to give something in return.Vandalvideo

Robin Hood robed from those who got something for nothing and gave to those who got nothing for something. The Robin Hood you talk of robs from those who get nothing for something and give to those who want something for nothing. See how it's illogical to defend that action? Robing from the productive to give to the useless. A complete imbalance. It dosn't matter how consumers are treated, that dosn't give you an excuse to rebel against those you rely on. Eventually that revolution will be succesful and all it will have achived is to destroy what is important to us. That's pure destruction for the sake of greed, entirely selfish aswell as illogical.

We are discussing legality and ethics here, and we're discussing an issue in which the pirates are wrong on both fronts. You could try and swing some "Oh, but illegal things aren't always wrong - I steal bread to feed my starving family"... Nothing even close to that is happening here. People are stealing and you're giving it half-arsed justification because of things like insults, perceived value, etc, all things which any moral philosopher will tell you are slippery slope cases that would lead to a complete breakdown of any system of morals if we allow them into any system of morals. Well, barring amoralist systems, but from a moral standpoint, those are functionally anti-systems. I'm sorry, but you're twisting more than anyone here. I've been discussing legality insofar as legality reflects morality in this case, and whether you could name cases in which they are not synonymous, this is clearly not one of them. Why? Because there are perfectly legal moral recourses one can take to do all of the things you're suggesting Gas Powered deserves here - some sort of indirect punishment for this insult, for their "bad" game (which we've even had people coming in here saying they like it), etc etc. But you're twisting - because here you are trying to make it out like the legal case isn't synonymous with the moral here, trying to fall back onto abstractions so you can introduce weak reasoning like "audacity" and "insult" as justification for clearly hurtful and wrong actions. Audacity is not a moral phenomenon. Quality is not a moral phenomenon. They are, respectively, amoral ones which are processed through moral systems making moral decisions. The decisions concerning them are moral, and when Gas Powered had audacity and released a bad game (in your eyes), they didn't do anything moral. When some jerk comes along and says "Hey, rather than remaining morally neutral myself, like THEY did, I'll steal from them." Gas Powered/Stardock created a morally neutral environment in which people had a moral choice. They aren't morally culpable - the pirates are. Again, you're desperately trying to wriggle your way into making it look like this developer is in some way committing a moral wrong that justifies the moral wrong of the pirates as if it were some sort of moral retribution - but they simply didn't, and the pirates are simply thievesShafftehr

Robin Hood robed from those who got something for nothing and gave to those who got nothing for something. The Robin Hood you talk of robs from those who get nothing for something and give to those who want something for nothing. See how it's illogical to defend that action? Robing from the productive to give to the useless. A complete imbalance. It dosn't matter how consumers are treated, that dosn't give you an excuse to rebel against those you rely on. Eventually that revolution will be succesful and all it will have achived is to destroy what is important to us. That's pure destruction for the sake of greed, entirely selfish aswell as illogical.Ek-Andy

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]Robin Hood robed from those who got something for nothing and gave to those who got nothing for something. The Robin Hood you talk of robs from those who get nothing for something and give to those who want something for nothing. See how it's illogical to defend that action? Robing from the productive to give to the useless. A complete imbalance. It dosn't matter how consumers are treated, that dosn't give you an excuse to rebel against those you rely on. Eventually that revolution will be succesful and all it will have achived is to destroy what is important to us. That's pure destruction for the sake of greed, entirely selfish aswell as illogical.Vandalvideo

So basically pirates are ignorant to the truths of the world? No I don't think so. They don't care. You can sit down and say their actions are justified becaues it's based on their own opinions and feelings, but then I quite easily disprove it with logic, as I already have done. To deny this is to deny what is reality.

So basically pirates are ignorant to the truths of the world? No I don't think so. They don't care. You can sit down and say their actions are justified becaues it's based on their own opinions and feelings, but then I quite easily disprove it with logic, as I already have done. To deny this is to deny what is reality.Ek-Andy

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]So basically pirates are ignorant to the truths of the world? No I don't think so. They don't care. You can sit down and say their actions are justified becaues it's based on their own opinions and feelings, but then I quite easily disprove it with logic, as I already have done. To deny this is to deny what is reality.Vandalvideo

When you simply apply logic to a situation to prove it to be incorrect then it is illogical. So apparently piracy can be justified because pirates believe they are fighting for a just cause? And that just cause is to destroy the gaming industry? That's a just cause? No it is not. It's destruction of the purest form, and destruction at the expense of others and themselves is not really justifiable under anything. You could argue that that is not there cause at all, but really, lets face it that's what they are doing. To say otherwise is illogical, and there is evidence to support this. It's simple, it's completely unjust and can be proved to be so.

When you simply apply logic to a situation to prove it to be incorrect then it is illogical. So apparently piracy can be justified because pirates believe they are fighting for a just cause? And that just cause is to destroy the gaming industry? That's a just cause? No it is not. It's destruction of the purest form, and destruction at the expense of others and themselves is not really justifiable under anything. You could argue that that is not there cause at all, but really, lets face it that's what they are doing. To say otherwise is illogical, and there is evidence to support this. It's simple, it's completely unjust and can be proved to be so.Ek-Andy

We are most certainly not discussing legality here. I have conceded long, long ago that a pirate should be held to the fullest extent of the law's punishment for their actions. I am not discussing whether or not they can, in a court of law, blame the developer for their act of piracy. What I am discussing is far different. I am discussing whether or not we can hold the developer culpable for poor sales and a lackluster online support. I am responding to the developer blaming pirates for the poor online play and the lack of sales overall. On both of these fronts, a case can be made for blaming the developer. You are clearly twisting the heart of my poist to meet your own points, when in all actuality you are failing. I am not saying that piracy is right in this case. That is an entirely different argument to make. I am saying that the developer IS to blame for the shoddy match making and the developer IS to blame for the poor sales. They can only blame themselves for the sad state of affairs that they are currently in. The developer treated their customers like thieves, insulted them, and released a poor product. There isn't anyone else to blame for the poor sales and lackluster online support but themselves. I reitterate; This post chain is not justifying piracy. It is pointing out the injustice of blaming poor sales and shoddy online matchmaking on pirates.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]When you simply apply logic to a situation to prove it to be incorrect then it is illogical. So apparently piracy can be justified because pirates believe they are fighting for a just cause? And that just cause is to destroy the gaming industry? That's a just cause? No it is not. It's destruction of the purest form, and destruction at the expense of others and themselves is not really justifiable under anything. You could argue that that is not there cause at all, but really, lets face it that's what they are doing. To say otherwise is illogical, and there is evidence to support this. It's simple, it's completely unjust and can be proved to be so.Vandalvideo

You've spent that last 3 posts saying nothing at all but state that under an diffrent ethical system certain things become acceptable. If that's the case, prove it. Prove how under the correct ethical system piracy can be acceptable both morally and legally. By using factual evidence it is clear that piracy is causing alot of damage to the gaming industry, and that it could eventually leave a serious wound from which it might not recover even if piracy us halted. Justify that. People are not supposed to get something for nothing, and if that is the case then someone somewhere must get nothing for that something they produced. Justify that. If you can justify either of those outcomes I would be amazed.

To quote you from earlier,I'm saying that you can't necessarily blame the pirates for the game selling poorly. There is more to this than just; Pirates booo, developers yaaay. PC Gamers won't purchase half efforts."To be *dead* clear, this is "pirates booo" - and there isn't any way you can spin it that's it's notDon't go on about my twisting. I already made it quite clear above that developers are are blamed and suffer completely independent of pirates, therefore pirates have no moral leg to stand on. Your earlier talks about "audacity" and "bad game" in any way morally weighing in on a pirate's decisions to pirates are utterly bogus - that's what I've been driving at. If you're now doubling back and trying to simply present your position as one of the non-moral reasoning, then you're claiming that you've just been stating the blatently obvious uninteresting fact that pirates have reasons for what they do, while trying to make no moral comment on those reasons whatsoever. Go figure, everybody knew that almost in virtue of the definitions of reason and action, and you may as well tell us that CDs spin because they're round - you're spouting tautologiesThe actions of Gas Powered/Stardock in no way leave them morally guilty in this, whereas the actions of pirates clearly fall within the moral realm. Games sell, games don't sell, developers suffer for bad quality, etc etc - all amoral issues. Pirates steal from these developers - immerdiately a moral issue, and a moral transgression. "Developers boo" is almost built into the situation, an amoral booing that reflects itself in poor sales, poor reviews, etc. "Pirates boo" stems from piracy being a step that elevates this whole thing into the realm of morality, an undeserved and overly drastic step that you can't justify, merely explain. Stealing is wrong in many cases, this is one of them - pirates are pricks who commit a wrong, bad dvelopers make bad games and get punished for it by the reception of their bad game. You're mixing two very different types of wrong that aren't even on the same level together, trying to wriggle them into a position where it looks like one justifies the other. Don't talk to me about twisting.Shafftehr

You've spent that last 3 posts saying nothing at all but state that under an diffrent ethical system certain things become acceptable. If that's the case, prove it. Prove how under the correct ethical system piracy can be acceptable both morally and legally. By using factual evidence it is clear that piracy is causing alot of damage to the gaming industry, and that it could eventually leave a serious wound from which it might not recover even if piracy us halted. Justify that. People are not supposed to get something for nothing, and if that is the case then someone somewhere must get nothing for that something they produced. Justify that. If you can justify either of those outcomes I would be amazed.Ek-Andy

Shafftehr and ek-Andy...you can try and explain to a thief all the reasons why what they do is wrong...but ultimately it's a futile effort. Being a thief means taking things that aren't yours, this action is based on selfishness, and selfishness stems from a disregard for other people and their hard work. So what exactly con you tell a person who is selfish and disregards other people that will make a difference in how they think? As you can plainly see from Vandalvideo's moral tap-dancing and disregarding of anything sensible...they simply do not care.dnuggs40

You can show a theif a diagram of himself and show him the sad state he has become, and then perhaps give them a chance to turn their back on their actions and start a new.

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]You've spent that last 3 posts saying nothing at all but state that under an diffrent ethical system certain things become acceptable. If that's the case, prove it. Prove how under the correct ethical system piracy can be acceptable both morally and legally. By using factual evidence it is clear that piracy is causing alot of damage to the gaming industry, and that it could eventually leave a serious wound from which it might not recover even if piracy us halted. Justify that. People are not supposed to get something for nothing, and if that is the case then someone somewhere must get nothing for that something they produced. Justify that. If you can justify either of those outcomes I would be amazed.Vandalvideo

You can't win a case on discussing the ethical system alone, I asked for complete justification under this ethical system, the essential component, what I got was a re-tread.

What you're doing isn't applying logic. You're applying your own ethical system to theirs to say that it is wrong. When presented with a formal version of their ethical system; An act of declaring property ownership is just if and only if it isn't a coagulation of arthimetic formulas, then it is becomes quite a bit harder to critique. Under this formulation it would be quite easy to justify piracy by ignoring the foundation for the declaration of the property ownership in the first place. Simply because it isn't a just cause under YOUR system doesn't mean it isn't a just cause.Vandalvideo

The better a PC game is, the less likely people will be to pirate it.Vandalvideo

The hell are you talking about? Game media coverage and high critical acclaim have always correlated strongly with high piracy rates.

Also, Demigod is hardly "half-finished" ..the core game is fun and has a very high amount of polish (great pacing, very balanced.) It is only the connectivity aspect of the game that has issues, and that's only because of the bizarre P2P connection system they've utilized (that is to say: the connection issues have NOTHING to do with piracy rates like some have been trying to imply. Maybe connections from pirates compounded this issue in the beginning, but piracy is not the cause of the issue. The P2P connection system is inherently flawed.)

You can't win a case on discussing the ethical system alone, I asked for complete justification under this ethical system, the essential component, what I got was a re-tread.Ek-Andy

You can show a theif a diagram of himself and show him the sad state he has become, and then perhaps give them a chance to turn their back on their actions and start a new.

Ek-Andy

Good luck with that...especially over the internet where your actions and people's perceptions bear no consequence on the individual...much worse is it's very easy to find other people with similar moral misgivings to reinforce their sad views.

I appluad your effort though, they should hear it...maybe something will stick :P

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]The better a PC game is, the less likely people will be to pirate it.Velocitas8

The hell are you talking about? Game media coverage and high critical acclaim have always correlated strongly with high piracy rates.

Also, Demigod is hardly "half-finished" ..the core game is fun and has a very high amount of polish (great pacing, very balanced.) It is only the connectivity aspect of the game that has issues, and that's only because of the bizarre P2P connection system they've utilized (that is to say: the connection issues have NOTHING to do with piracy rates like some have been trying to imply. Maybe connections from pirates compounded this issue in the beginning, but piracy is not the cause of the issue.)

You know, I'm done here. As the fellow in the video said, as several people have pointed out in this thread, you can't convince someone who rationalizes thievery that it's wrong. Vandal is desperately trying to splice non-moral and moral culpability in order to make it seems that a developer's non-moral actions make them blameworthy for the pirate's moral decisions. Now he's actually tried to argue moral relativism to make it seem like he's not just blowing smoke, as if those thieves weren't just apathetic towards general moral codes, but were instead exercising their own unique brands of morality which makes stealing *this* type of thing OK. Outright intellectual dishonesty... Whoever used the term tap-dancing nailed it.Shafftehr

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]You can't win a case on discussing the ethical system alone, I asked for complete justification under this ethical system, the essential component, what I got was a re-tread.Vandalvideo

That's your justification? Invalidating ownership? To make theft moral under an ethical system is adequete justification? So what's this ethical system, the ethical system of tyranny? That's what I call illogical. Spin words all you want, but piracy dosn't make sense unless you make greed justifiable, and to make greed justifiable is illogical because all it will do is lead to destruction. That's not my ethics, that's taking and analysing evidence and making a logical statement.

You know, I'm done here. As the fellow in the video said, as several people have pointed out in this thread, you can't convince someone who rationalizes thievery that it's wrong. Vandal is desperately trying to splice non-moral and moral culpability in order to make it seems that a developer's non-moral actions make them blameworthy for the pirate's moral decisions. Now he's actually tried to argue moral relativism to make it seem like he's not just blowing smoke, as if those thieves weren't just apathetic towards general moral codes, but were instead exercising their own unique brands of morality which makes stealing *this* type of thing OK. Outright intellectual dishonesty... Whoever used the term tap-dancing nailed it.Shafftehr

You are absolutely right, you can't argue, or discuss anything with someone who doesn't have an open mind, or will never admit they are wrong. On topic though, it will be a sad day when in order just to play the single player portion of a game you will be required to be connected to the internet. Shame on the pirates.

That's your justification? Invalidating ownership? To make theft moral under an ethical system is adequete justification? So what's this ethical system, the ethical system of tyranny? That's what I call illogical. Spin words all you want, but piracy dosn't make sense unless you make greed justifiable, and to make greed justifiable is illogical because all it will do is lead to destruction. That's not my ethics, that's taking and analysing evidence and making a logical statementEk-Andy

Vandalvideo has officially justified piracy.

[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]That's your justification? Invalidating ownership? To make theft moral under an ethical system is adequete justification? So what's this ethical system, the ethical system of tyranny? That's what I call illogical. Spin words all you want, but piracy dosn't make sense unless you make greed justifiable, and to make greed justifiable is illogical because all it will do is lead to destruction. That's not my ethics, that's taking and analysing evidence and making a logical statementVandalvideo

What is a theif if he has nothing to steal. If property is no longer property then why produce goods in the first place? If we remove the value from video games, then they disapear. No one owns them, and there is nothing wrong with taking them for free, so then they simply will no longer exsist because why waste time making something that has no value? Remove the purpose of value and all you have left is the downfall of civilisation as we know it. Does a theif really want to destroy the world by removing the value from objects? Of course not, that would be an inconvience for him. So under what ethical system would be ok to walk a path of destruction with no desire to destroy? That would be illogical. It wouldn't matter if I disagree, I'm only stating what would happen, and why it is hypocritical to state that stealing can be justifiable while at the same time feeling that we deserve more than were worth is ok when to steal is to remove the concept of worth. At no point have I simply said "This is wrong". I've just applied logic and came to a resonable conclusion that can be backed by evidence. The only way the ethical system you describe could ever be considered acceptable/correct would be if people were completely and utterly ignorant of the consequences of their actions, and in which case it's still invalid because it's an ethical system built on short sighted ignorance.