Never really cared for Razer products so far, but I would like to see them, among others, try to make an awesome racing wheel comparable to the offerings of Logitech.

Would buy.

I miss my Neo Geo Pocket. I'd love to have some of their great arcade games on a portable like that because those pics are pretty sexy.

We know people exist that just dont pay for things because they dont have too. I know people that do that, which invalidates that statement.

BibiMaghoo

But what you don't know is if they'd be purchasing that same stuff if pirating was not an option, and that's the point.

Wow, SE is really turning into an American company!

Chutebox

DLC is absolutely huge in Asia, and has been for many years.

It's not right to point at America as the reason DLC exists as a standard today.

Girls.MonsieurX

Those do smell good.

I want one too!

In regards to the statement that bothered you, I think you have misunderstood my intent.

I dont think it should be purchased to reward the creator, or to simply own it. It should be purchased to experience it in most cases.

If that experience is good or not boils down to taste and preferance. I'm not suggesting for a second that if you dont enjoy something then you should purchase it, not at all, but that paying for the experience of it to be able to make that decision is fair. The reason being that as I said its down to taste. So while you personally didnt like something, and therefore wont be buying it, that is not the case for all who have experienced it for free. Many will like it, and many of those wont follow up and buy it.

You should only feel the need to reward the creator if you personally find it enjoyable and valued, my point is that prehaps it isnt fair to be able to make that judgement without paying for it in the first place. I think you are not the majority of people that file share, and seem to have a good moral basis for your points, remember though that not every one shares such a moral standpoint. If you can say (which you have) that you will always seek to obtain it legitimatly, then you are an exception, not the majority.

I tend to agree more with your points when looking at music alone, You are very much correct in that regard, people buy albums because they have heard a tune and like it, and so know what to expect. but I dont feel that same arguement carries so well to Movies or Games.

In regards to the video, I can see how that would be beneficial to an author, especially the examples given of translating his works into other launguages. But again, I feel the same argument doesnt work so well with Movies or Games, simply because many will experience them once and move on. Ive seen many good films that Ive only watched once, great games I have only played through once. Good Music will be used more than a good film or game.

BibiMaghoo

As the author stated:

Nobody who would have otherwise bought the product is not buying it because it's available for free.

And those are words I 100% agree with.

It just doesn't make sense. If that wasn't true then every entertainment industry would make $0 because it's all available for free.

I highly doubt the majority of pirates are doing it for the sake of stealing, and I highly doubt those who do it for the sake of stealing are actually playing through the entirety of what they pirate. I'd ask your friends next time you see them if they actually play through all the content they pirate. I imagine they treat their collection of pirated material in the same manner they would a free flash game; maybe, just maybe 30 minutes of fun, but a very high chance they'll never play much more than that.

I'm betting low income, or unavailability play much larger parts in piracy rates than stealing, but those people who suffer from low income or unavailabilty switch to purchasing games once their income increases, or translations and support are given in their countries.

For the last week a small part of me kept saying "there's no way the PS Vita will sell less than 18k".

I mean I don't even think I've actually commented on the PS Vita about it being doomed because of that reason. I just didn't think it'd go below 18k.

And yet there it is at 15k...

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="JimmyJumpy"]Build it yourself, then you can adapt stuff to your own liking. Go to a car scrapyard and seek out a still decent sportscar seat to start with...JimmyJumpy

You know the stuff sign posts are made out of? The rectangular prism metal piping with all the holes drilled into it?

I believe it's entirely possible to find that stuff at hardware stores, and for a good price. You could easily bolt pieces of that together into a very sturdy frame, and it'd be easy to take apart as well.

That's what I'm going to try to do.

BTW that chair link is fantastic. I would have never even guessed to search for chairs that way. My only problem is mounting a chair onto some sliders that'd allow the seat to be adjusted depending on who's sitting in the seat (kinda like how an actual car seat functions).

I need to look into that.

Sure, Ill make a brew and check it out dude. Do you get my points though? agree or disagree with any of them? BibiMaghoo

There is truth in this. If I was to say I had never pirated something and purchased it later, I would be a liar.

However, other factors are involved in this equation. Firstly, by purchasing something at a later date, its usually cheaper, meaning that even though you have supported the media with a purchase, it is at a reduced value to what it may be worth at the time you enjoyed it for free. Thats arguably unfair, as the media was worth more at the time you enjoyed it at no cost.

True, but there is also the idea that borrowing an earlier game in the series leads you to buy the next one at full price.

While not piracy I did buy the original Half Life for $4. I later went on to buy HL2 for $50 along with practically every other Valve game for near full price. I have never bought one of their games during a holiday sale.

Secondly, Im not so sure that the argument of something being crap means it shouldnt have been paid for, for you to realise that. If music, film or game is poor or not is down to preferance and taste the majority of the time, so while you checked it out for free, decided it was crap and therefore didnt buy it, perhaps ten times your number found it appealing and didnt make that purchase, or did later at a reduced price.

This whole statement bothers me.

There's the idea of buying something because you want to reward the creator, and buying something just to have it.

If I borrow a movie, or a book, and find it to be crap then no I'm not going to go out to buy it to clear my conscience.

When I hear bad songs on the radio I never go online to find out more about the band, and where I can buy their stuff.

That's just not how things work.

Its been common for a long time to share books, lend a movie or game to a friend. I totally agree that there is nothing wrong with this, however, in these cases the media is returned to the person that purchased it, meaning you dont keep it, you just get to enjoy it for a time. Taking movies, music, games etc via file sharing results in them being kept, and not returned (obviously they are digital copies and so cant be returned) but the point is you keep them, they are then yours, so its a little different.

Like said earlier if I was to borrow something and not like it I wouldn't care to use it again, and the same would go in the case of piracy.

In both cases if I liked the product I personally would seek out ways to obtain it.

It is blown out of proportion with the damage it causes, but at the same time I certainly wouldnt agree that it benefits companies more than it hinders them. I dont think its something that can be properly proved either way though, thats just an opinion of mine.

I still think it's more beneficial. I mean seriously I don't think I could find a single person who just went out to the store, looked at the rack of music CDs, and just bought one without any knowledge of what was on it. I guarantee practically 100% of all people who ever bought a music CD did so because they knew what was on the album, and gained that knowledge through free means.

And same goes with a ton of other stuff affected by piracy, or free borrowing, or w/e.It may be one step backwards in a lot of cases, but always two steps forward.

BibiMaghoo

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"] Just curious, but what do you mean by that? BibiMaghoo

What I mean is when I look at my music collection not one album was bought without me first knowing if I liked the band or not which I found out FOR FREE through either radio, youtube, or w/e.

When I look at my favorite book authors, and what books I own from them, the majority of the time I bought their books after BORROWING one of their books without paying.

Movies are the same way, and so is my video game collection. Many of the games/movies I own I bought because I first experienced them for free, or at least experienced an earlier title of a series for free.

Nobody is not buying stuff just because they can get it for free. If that was the case there wouldn't be a single video game ever sold, or music cd, or movie.

In my experience the only people I know who pirate are my friends with absolute crap income, or no income at all, but they don't sit there pirating every single thing they can get their hands on. Just stuff they'd otherwise buy if they had money because they do, from time to time, buy games when they can afford.

And all of my friends who used to pirate (including me) began paying for stuff the moment we got jobs. I've even gone back, and purchased games I pirated years ago just for the sake of it.

I just think the whole thing is blown way out of proportion.

I 100% disagree with people profiting off pirating, but freely sharing w/e I just don't see to be a problem. I'd say it helps way more than it hurts. It's free advertising.

There is truth in this. If I was to say I had never pirated something and purchased it later, I would be a liar.

However, other factors are involved in this equation. Firstly, by purchasing something at a later date, its usually cheaper, meaning that even though you have supported the media with a purchase, it is at a reduced value to what it may be worth at the time you enjoyed it for free. Thats arguably unfair, as the media was worth more at the time you enjoyed it at no cost.

Secondly, Im not so sure that the argument of something being crap means it shouldnt have been paid for, for you to realise that. If music, film or game is poor or not is down to preferance and taste the majority of the time, so while you checked it out for free, decided it was crap and therefore didnt buy it, perhaps ten times your number found it appealing and didnt make that purchase, or did later at a reduced price.

Its been common for a long time to share books, lend a movie or game to a friend. I totally agree that there is nothing wrong with this, however, in these cases the media is returned to the person that purchased it, meaning you dont keep it, you just get to enjoy it for a time. Taking movies, music, games etc via file sharing results in them being kept, and not returned (obviously they are digital copies and so cant be returned) but the point is you keep them, they are then yours, so its a little different.

It is blown out of proportion with the damage it causes, but at the same time I certainly wouldnt agree that it benefits companies more than it hinders them. I dont think its something that can be properly proved either way though, thats just an opinion of mine.

Here's the best video I have on the subject we're discussing.

It's an author who, obviously, works in an industry affected by piracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

Take 4 minutes out of your day to watch that, and it becomes a bit more understandable.

His video, other videos I've seen, and the countless discussions on the topic and my personal experience is why I think the way I do.