Widescreen Gaming Forum

Neither is cable, neither is a residence, neither is internet access, neither is food for that matter.

Uh yeah, those are "monthly dedications." Either you pay for them every month or you don't have them at all.

There's no reason to not live in a building and not survive off of your own muscles. Even if this means your life span is cut down to only a few weeks

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. These things are basic necessities in a first-world standard of living. Video games are not a basic necessity to any standard of living whatsoever.

But if your income isn't that high, then saving up for a brand new game once a year and that being the only spare amount of money around, then it's a constant strain on your cash flow, budgeting or no budgeting.

Not at all. If you're saving up for any item that isn't required to sustain your standard of living (and games are NEVER required for this) and it becomes a "strain" on your cash flow, then you're doing budgeting wrong.

The point I was making with the monitor and the PC being one-time payments is that if your cash flow is 1500 dollars a month and you have an excess amount at one point to buy nice electronics, and then you get fired and are forced to get a job that pays 200 dollars a month (obviously an exaggeration for the point), then you no longer have the influx of money and thus it's unreasonable to justify a "you have a nice computer so you should be able to buy video games" argument.

If something like that severe happened, trying to get ahold of video games should be the last thing on your mind.

You obviously did not catch the concept and went straight after the idea.

What? I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. Or what you mean by differentiating between "the concept" and "the idea." All I know here is that you presented a flawed hypothetical scenario, and I explained why it was flawed.

Your argument is flawed, your attacking our reasons for piracy instead of defending the companies.

I don't see what purpose "defending" the companies would serve, as opposed to attacking flawed excuses for stealing from them.

You make no arguement to justify any companies pathetic and abusive means to protect content

I don't have one. I made my position on DRM clear several posts back - I just don't care whether they use it or not.

justify it all under the umbrella that "its not your right".

What does this have to to with DRM? Believe it or not, all the time I was explaining to you why it's bad to steal CoD4, it was in fact not an attempt to justify EA's use of SecuROM.

Want I want from is a viable, intelligent REASON for companies doing this.

Because it's their product. They made it, they own it, they sell it. They can do their own business of their own product any way they please as long as they follow existing regulations. And there's nothing unfair about the way they do business either - anyone who doesn't like the conditions they've set has the option to rightfully and conveniently choose not to get the game.

Not rebuttals to our reasoning of why we do it.

Not making excuses for stealing in the first place can't hurt your odds of not getting rebuttals to them.

@skeeder Cranky will never understand, he still has games that he has queued up to play from the 90s, he doesn't know what its like to have nothing to play.

@skeeder Cranky will never understand, he still has games that he has queued up to play from the 90s, he doesn't know what its like to have nothing to play.

But he does know "Thou shalt not steal" well

he doesn't know what its like to have nothing to play.

I know quite well what it's like. Back in '01, I was so poor I had to make Deus Ex last eight months. I rented Conker's Bad Fur Day one week too.

he still has games that he has queued up to play from the 90s

Thanks to things like Steam, GameTap, GoG, and eBay, you can too even if you have to live on the cheap (relatively speaking).

Hello again !
DRM turning your *full retail game* into a *3-install license rental* has nothing to do with your budget !
See ya !

quote... overload......

.....brain...hurting.....

Can't... handle..........!!



AAAAAARRRRGGH!!

DRM turning your *full retail game* into a *3-install license rental* has nothing to do with your budget !

Precisely.

I don't care whether you think piracy is valid, or whether it's the most evil thing this side of the Devil himself. But if you want to keep this evidently pointless backwards-and-forwards going (pointless because it's painfully evident that neither of the parties are going to change the views of the other party) then take it to Private Messages.

Cranky and I have managed to completely de-rail this thread.

I apologize for him.

:lol:

I'd put the 'needs an online server' as a bigger drawback to the max limit of installs.

Of course the 2 are related.

Example, I have here ev:nova, needs the online server, if it ever goes down, my game is dead.

Neither is cable, neither is a residence, neither is internet access, neither is food for that matter.

Uh yeah, those are "monthly dedications." Either you pay for them every month or you don't have them at all.

Missed the point.

There's no reason to not live in a building and not survive off of your own muscles. Even if this means your life span is cut down to only a few weeks

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. These things are basic necessities in a first-world standard of living. Video games are not a basic necessity to any standard of living whatsoever.

Missed the point.

But if your income isn't that high, then saving up for a brand new game once a year and that being the only spare amount of money around, then it's a constant strain on your cash flow, budgeting or no budgeting.

Not at all. If you're saving up for any item that isn't required to sustain your standard of living (and games are NEVER required for this) and it becomes a "strain" on your cash flow, then you're doing budgeting wrong.

No. If a new game is 50 dollars, and you only have 5 dollars left over after budgeting for all necessary first world expenses, and it would therefore take ten months to purchase a game, I would say that's most definitely a strain on your cash flow.

It's not "doing budgeting wrong," it's not having that much money.

The point I was making with the monitor and the PC being one-time payments is that if your cash flow is 1500 dollars a month and you have an excess amount at one point to buy nice electronics, and then you get fired and are forced to get a job that pays 200 dollars a month (obviously an exaggeration for the point), then you no longer have the influx of money and thus it's unreasonable to justify a "you have a nice computer so you should be able to buy video games" argument.

If something like that severe happened, trying to get ahold of video games should be the last thing on your mind.

Severe? Losing a job and gaining one that pays less is "severe" if you still have enough money for monthly payments for everything?

Want I want from is a viable, intelligent REASON for companies doing this.

Because it's their product. They made it, they own it, they sell it. They can do their own business of their own product any way they please as long as they follow existing regulations. And there's nothing unfair about the way they do business either - anyone who doesn't like the conditions they've set has the option to rightfully and conveniently choose not to get the game.

So let me ask you this.

What is your opinion on the Sony BMG Rootkit scandal?

(Also sorry for derailing the thread)