The Doom 3 (pre)order thread

[meglamaniac]

Delivery Method: First Class (1 business day)
Subtotal of Items: £21.27
Shipping & Handling: £1.69
------
Total before VAT: £22.96
VAT: £4.02
------
Total for this order: £26.98


Let the wait commence...

[Zar]

pffft - legal copies are silly

[Kurashima]

Its apparently a good game, very scary indeed (moreso than even HalfLife was) , and very playable.

Apart from the fact it has more bugs than a beta version of Planetarion

[meglamaniac]

Kudos to kura for working in the PA joke.
Does this mean we can keep clicking "initiate" in rapid sucession to restore our health?


Anyway, bugs or no bugs I'm-a-gonna play it.
I have the prerequisits:
* Nice big monitor: check!
* Capable processor, graphics card, and sound card: check
* 5.1 surround sound with nice bug sub: check

I shall report back on initial experiences when it arrives (in around a week).


To those who would pirate it, I'd say for a game that's had THIS much work put into it don't you think it's worth buying just once? I'm not exactly mr squeeky clean myself, but this is not just another shooter using someone elses (usually a poorly modded Quake 3) game engine.
The entire thing's been designed from scratch with quality in mind, and I'm prepared to pay for quality.

More realisticly, it's a 2gb download and I don't have a DVD burner.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Kudos to kura for working in the PA joke.
Does this mean we can keep clicking "initiate" in rapid sucession to restore our health?

Indeed.

And if you run it on the Laptop and on your Base Unit at the same time over a LAN, you can "Farm" the other game for extra health and powerups.

I wont be ordering it, as TBH, ive kinda fallen into UT2004 far too much, and Doom was always a bit Linear for my liking. I may play it if it falls into my lap somehow

[Zar]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

To those who would pirate it, I'd say for a game that's had THIS much work put into it don't you think it's worth buying just once? I'm not exactly mr squeeky clean myself, but this is not just another shooter using someone elses (usually a poorly modded Quake 3) game engine.
The entire thing's been designed from scratch with quality in mind, and I'm prepared to pay for quality.

More realisticly, it's a 2gb download and I don't have a DVD burner.

its apparently not that great a game. Apart from the lush graphics it is just another standard fps with very little new - and often quite stupid ai and repetitiveness. They obviously havent put in enough effort.....or people are getting dumber and they realise this and cater for a more stupid market

[LHC]

If anything the people are getting less dumb, and that is why they aren't accepting Doom 3.

edit: and yeah, from what I've read, it's basically a case of the graphics and atmosphere trying to make up for the lack of gameplay

[meglamaniac]

Well as I was hoping for a remake of the original doom just with better atmosphere, graphics and sound it looks like I've got what I wanted.
Crap AI and repetative gameplay IS Doom!

It's not that I'm dumb or just want to run around shooting things mindlessly all the time - splinter cell, pretty much the exact opposite of Doom, is another of my favourite games - it's just nice to do it occasionally. If you can do it with great graphics and surround sound then all to the good.

[Sandsnake]

mixed reviews. I enjoyed it. It was a blast, and the atmosphere is amazing. In all honesty, it's a standard-fare FPS with little or no tactics other than how to deal with whatever is trying to kill you at the moment. It's literally Doom with new graphics and an expanded story. Doom 3 wasn't designed to be some great tactical shooter, it was designed to scare the piss out of you and it does that rather well.

The graphics engine and the general atmosphere make it quite good. They manage to change things up, introduce new weapons, or change atmosphere on you really well. It's also designed to be moddable with an easy-import mod menu. The constant shit leaping out of shadows tends to keep it interesting too.

Oh yeah, and buying games is how you encourage developers to actually do this shit...I'm tired of watching top-notch game companies go out of business because several thousand ****tards made excuses on why they shouldn't have to pay for it.

Good review. I agree with most everything he says

And Kura, I didn't encounter any bugs while playing, so it must not be THAT bad.

[Androme]

I'm getting Doom3 for £20 from GAME

[Phil^]

its £27.99 from play.com (inc del) , im shocked, they`re usually really cheap for things

[NEWSBOT3]

i have no interest in it.

[Structural Integrity]

I might buy this. Perhaps...

[Leshy]

I find little to no games coming out currently worth the money.

Considering I have 66 original game boxes sitting on the top shelf of my bookcase, I have no qualms with the actual purchase of a game if it's worth it.

[NEWSBOT3]

leshy speaks all that there is to say on this issue.
my quantity is far more than 66 though. (i catalogued at least 45 for sale on ebay, and i ahve 2-3 times that left :/)

[Sandsnake]

I didn't point any fingers, no need to defend yourselves specifically, unless you have a guilty conscience or something. :P

I've downloaded a fair few myself. I've always bought the ones I liked though. The rest never stayed on my HD long enough to finish. My problem is with people who never pay for anything as if it's their god-given right to have free entertainment regardless of how much money and effort was put into it.

Between downloading and downright piracy, most games never make back their dev costs, much less make enough money for the company to start a new one.

[Sunday8pm]

Tbh I blame the uprise in piracy for the fact everyone knew production companies were taking big fat mark ups on games that they could of sold for 50% less and made a profit on.

When they didn't listen to us, the gaming community got smart, the software community that write these games did not wisen up and seek out producers or an alternative means of delivering their software at a more decent value and hence have got screwed on the issue.

All this anti-piracy stuff is a total smokescreen for the fact that all these fat ass corporations do not want to forgo the big fat mark ups they were used to having on games/music before the regular paying customer got smart.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Leshy

I find little to no games coming out currently worth the money.

Considering I have 66 original game boxes sitting on the top shelf of my bookcase, I have no qualms with the actual purchase of a game if it's worth it.

Im actually starting to Ebay all the original games i have here. Theres ****ing hundreds of them.

[Leshy]

I have a good few more original games than just the ones that came in boxes - that was just easier than counting my stacks of CD's and the racks for all of them individually. I don't want to sell them though, I like their nostalgic value - the games that I don't care enough about to consider selling are likely the ones who won't make more than $2.50 on eBay anyway.

After having played a few minutes of Doom 3 through a "surprisingly large preview version", I don't hold out much hopes I'll even consider the purchase of this thing. I haven't gotten to the part where the story begins yet, and already I disliked it. Apparently Mars facilities are made out of rooms that all look the same and contain useless metal grates, pipes, walkways and random computer screens against every single ****ing wall. Apparently people all weigh 250 pounds at birth and grow from there on. Apparently people in 2145 wear armor that increases their size by a factor three. Apparently people on Mars never get to see any sun whatsoever. Apparently people on Mars can see very well in the total ****ing darkness, as the ****ing place where the ****ing people are supposed to ****ing work seems to be lit solely by that ****ing TFT screen in the ****ing corner and my arse has more light coming out it's crack than that ****ing flashlight.

I actually can't be arsed firing it up and go look for the missing scientist.

[NEWSBOT3]

i actually think the piracy problem is completely unrelated to game prices.
people download them because its free, theres nothing particularly more complicated than that.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

My problem is with people who never pay for anything as if it's their god-given right to have free entertainment regardless of how much money and effort was put into it.

This is a common attitude people seem to take but I've never met anyone who thought it was their "god given right" to have free entertainment. What I do think it is my "god given" right to do is exchange, swap, and copy whatever I like with other consenting individuals. If you make up a joke and tell us on this forum, I'll (if I feel inclined) repeat this joke to whomever I wish. I don't care if it took you two minutes or two years to make up the joke.

Between downloading and downright piracy, most games never make back their dev costs, much less make enough money for the company to start a new one.

Yawn. They can get another job if video games are unprofitable. I don't remember anyone forcing them at gun point into their current careers.

Didn't you hear the free market mantra dudes? If your enterprise is unprofitable, quit bitching about it, just get a new business model or pack up and go home.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This is a common attitude people seem to take but I've never met anyone who thought it was their "god given right" to have free entertainment. What I do think it is my "god given" right to do is exchange, swap, and copy whatever I like with other consenting individuals. If you make up a joke and tell us on this forum, I'll (if I feel inclined) repeat this joke to whomever I wish. I don't care if it took you two minutes or two years to make up the joke.

Then what is the value of intellectual property? oh wait, you're a communist. nevermind, no point in getting into that particular argument, huh?

btw Poor example. That joke probably didn't cost me millions of dollars to develop and I gave it away for free to begin with.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yawn. They can get another job if video games are unprofitable. I don't remember anyone forcing them at gun point into their current careers.

Didn't you hear the free market mantra dudes? If your enterprise is unprofitable, quit bitching about it, just get a new business model or pack up and go home.

And my point was that so many HAVE. Black Isle, Looking Glass, Interplay...the gaming business has always been hell because of high development costs with so little return. The survivors are companies like EA....yeah, that's great, honest.

They can figure on a shelf life of 3-6 months. The internet file sharing thing does a fair bit of damage here as well. I mean, lets face it, SOME people will pay for something that they enjoyed, but most never will.

Sure, in the case of Doom 3, they only lost....something like an estimated $5million before the game even released, if not more...pocket change, right?

Intellectual property needs to be protected. Sure, the major record labels and major software producers can take the hit, but smaller companies can't, and smaller companies are typically the ones putting out the not-so-shit stuff.

[Sunday8pm]

Snake, take a good look at my post and explain away that as that is the real reason software development is in the mire it is now.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

That joke probably didn't cost me millions of dollars to develop and I gave it away for free to begin with.

What if an author gives me a free copy of his book? That probably didn't cost millions of dollars to develop, and he gave it away for free to begin with!

Black Isle

Actually, Black Isle is still going. Most of the former Black Isle people are now at Obsidian, doing both Knights of the Old Republic 2 and Neverwinter Nights 2.

I mean, lets face it, SOME people will pay for something that they enjoyed, but most never will.

I'll enjoy driving in a Ferrari for free if I get the chance, but I'll never actually buy one. Many people might enjoy a copied game, but that doesn't imply they would buy the original.

Sure, in the case of Doom 3, they only lost....something like an estimated $5million before the game even released, if not more...pocket change, right?

Give people an incentive to buy the original then (making a good game would be a decent start). Goodies in the box generally are also a bonus.

Intellectual property needs to be protected.

Intellectual Property != Copyright.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Snake, take a good look at my post and explain away that as that is the real reason software development is in the mire it is now.

it's not worth addressing as it's blatantly innaccurate...People steal stuff that's cheap too.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Leshy

What if an author gives me a free copy of his book? That probably didn't cost millions of dollars to develop, and he gave it away for free to begin with!

Would that make it ok to make hundreds of copies and then pass them around? no.

Originally Posted by Leshy

Actually, Black Isle is still going. Most of the former Black Isle people are now at Obsidian, doing both Knights of the Old Republic 2 and Neverwinter Nights 2.

"former" does not mean "present"...hence them being different words.

Originally Posted by Leshy

I'll enjoy driving in a Ferrari for free if I get the chance, but I'll never actually buy one. Many people might enjoy a copied game, but that doesn't imply they would buy the original.

these are not even remotely the same things...besides, if you kept the ferrarri, it would be considered theft.

Originally Posted by Leshy

Give people an incentive to buy the original then (making a good game would be a decent start). Goodies in the box generally are also a bonus.

While this is a good idea, it still doesn't justify theft. A company should not have to significantly increase it's overhead in an attempt to encourage it's demographic to NOT STEAL.

Originally Posted by Leshy

Intellectual Property != Copyright.

"Property that enjoys legal protection and stems from the exercise of the mind. Includes patents, trademarks, copyright, design protection and some minor rights." so yes, they aren't, in as much as IP covers copyrighted material.

[Sandsnake]

The problem is that many of you haven't had anything you've worked very hard on stolen by someone who could afford it. You've never seen a software company struggle because they'd become the next hot thing but half their customer base had downloaded a crack off of astalavista.

It's easy to justify it with some shallow "if they can't make money, they should do something else" or "I can give what I want to whomever I want." Sure, it's technically correct, but if you want to split hairs like that, the blade cuts back the other way. Even if you're just testing it out, if the company didn't offer it, you're still a thief. The product wasn't offered for free, so what entitles anyone to get it for free without the owners' explicit permission?

Game companies are rarely very large and the industry itself is a very difficult one to survive in. Rampant file sharing and piracy hurts them significantly, which leaves companies like EA making all the games. You complain that nothing has been out recently worth a damn...well go figure, corporate game mills are all that can stay alive.. YOU might actually pay for stuff, but I know dozens of people who literally mock anyone who would actually BUY software.

I've never understood why someone who wouldn't shoplift, steal a car, or otherwise dream of taking anything that wasn't theirs, could justify taking something that wasn't theirs simply because it fit on a cd.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

it's not worth addressing as it's blatantly innaccurate...People steal stuff that's cheap too.

It's pretty ****ing accurate, your just a tool of the capitalist system if you believe otherwise.

In Malaysia they managed to pwn dvd priacy thanks to getting the production warehouses and the movie corporations to agree to selling their movie's at a LOWER price.

There's an article on the BBC somewhere a long while back about it.

Lower mark ups will have people preferring legit over illegal. There is a LOT of room to lower the mark ups they put on it but they'd rather fight to defend the high mark ups than just to crush piracy by doing what people want and lowering the overall price of their product (prolly some irrational fear that piracy can constantly undercut away at their price all the time etc but piracy really only legitimately exsists where there is room for profit to be made, you show me people involved in pirating who just do it cause they want to **** up the industry and risk massive fines and a jail sentence and aren't in it for the money.)

****ing petard.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Even if you're just testing it out, if the company didn't offer it, you're still a thief. The product wasn't offered for free, so what entitles anyone to get it for free without the owners' explicit permission?

Under the legal system that I live in (and originally, the one you live under as well, although god knows where they're going with it at the moment) COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT*.

It is evil and wrong to many (including our lawmakers) but that does not make it theft. Theft is something with an entirely different set of moral / practical rammifications. Trying to mix the two concepts together is dishonest (and thankfully, hasn't penetrated our laws yet).

As for these businesses, I couldn't care less if they all go to the wall. If they do it's because they were either badly managed or simply had the wrong business model. As for small companies going to the wall and only large companies remaining - I doubt this is exclusively the fault of piracy as it's happened with pretty much every industry there is. Can the decline of small shops and the rise of massive supermarket chains be blamed on copyright infringement? What about consolidation in the airline, banking or insurance markets? Is that all the evil pirates fault too?

I've never understood why someone who wouldn't shoplift, steal a car, or otherwise dream of taking anything that wasn't theirs, could justify taking something that wasn't theirs simply because it fit on a cd.

Just to clarify, I would never *Steal* software. To steal software, I would need to deprive the owner of the original item. That is not the case here.

* = While we're at it, I can't be bothered to put inverted commas around the term "pirate" but that's a stupid term too. Piracy is a problem that each year results in people losing their lives. Trying to name CD/video-copying after such a serious crime is something truly worthy of propagandists.

edit :

The product wasn't offered for free, so what entitles anyone to get it for free without the owners' explicit permission?

What entitles you to stop me giving a CD to my friend to try out? You're attacking the notion that I have a god given right to have free-entertainment. But I'm attacking your (presumably) god given right to restrict what I do with my stuff in private transaction with others. If I have a contract with you, fine. You can pursue the matter with me through civil channels. But screaming at my friend for being a thief isn't going to help. He had no agreement with you to compensate you for your efforts, so quit bitching.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Would that make it ok to make hundreds of copies and then pass them around? no.

Surely, the book became my personal property upon accepting the gift. Why should I not do with it as I please? I'm pretty sure that if I were able to use my carpenting skills to recreate the table in my living room to give as a gift to friends, you wouldn't object.

"former" does not mean "present"...hence them being different words.

It was more of a sidenote, not in any way part of my argument - I wasn't sure if you knew the Black Isle team was still going

these are not even remotely the same things...besides, if you kept the ferrarri, it would be considered theft.

The difference is that if I kept the Ferrari, someone else would be without their Ferrari. That is why theft is illegal - you take someone elses property away from them. If you let your front door open at night, a man enters your house, paints a replica of the painting on your wall and disappears again, is he a thief? Most people would find that a ridiculous statement - yet when it comes to software, that's exactly what's being said. As such, theft is a ridiculous statement.

so yes, they aren't, in as much as IP covers copyrighted material.

Which is fairly nonsensical, as they are two different things altogether. Copyright is the rule that prohibits you from making a copy of something that has been copyrighted, while intellectual property is about prohibiting you from passing off someone else's work as that of someone else, usually yourself.

The first is stupid, as I should be allowed to do with my personal property what I want - including making copies of them if I possess the skill and desire to do so, and giving them out as gifts or whatever. The second is perfectly logical and should remain in place.

Take an example from the art world: Someone repaints the Mona Lisa and signs it with Leonardo Da Vinci's signature, then tries to sell it as an original Da Vinci - he has created a forgery. Now another man repaints the Mona Lisa in the exact same manner, except he signs it with a "Greetz, Jeff Painter, 2004" and sells it on the local market for 50 quid. He has created a replica.

Both have blatantly copied someone else's work. One is a criminal, the other isn't.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

IIn Malaysia they managed to pwn dvd priacy thanks to getting the production warehouses and the movie corporations to agree to selling their movie's at a LOWER price.

Are you ****ing stupid? That has to be one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. Malaysia's attempt to lower regular DVD prices was a complete failure, and to boot it all, Malaysia is one of the top pirated DVD producers in the world.

[Sandsnake]

*sigh* you know, the problem isn't that you don't consider software stealing or copyright infringement, theft. It's that you say "if it hurts you, well **** you anyway." I can't and won't argue with people who have little or no concern for others. It DOES deprive someone when you pass out software or a book, or whatever. Simply because there's nothing physical doesn't mean you're not.

Those companies depend on the revenue generated by their labor to pay their bills, salaries, and provide capital for future development, same with authors. By giving it out, you DEPRIVE them of their revenue, you reduce the profit they will make, sometimes in such a significant manner that the company cannot continue to operate, or that author has to get a normal job and doesn't have the time to write.

If that's victimless, then I don't know what the **** isn't.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Leshy

The difference is that if I kept the Ferrari, someone else would be without their Ferrari. That is why theft is illegal - you take someone elses property away from them. If you let your front door open at night, a man enters your house, paints a replica of the painting on your wall and disappears again, is he a thief? Most people would find that a ridiculous statement - yet when it comes to software, that's exactly what's being said. As such, theft is a ridiculous statement.

Yeah, it's more like trespass. But the analogy to theft is fine - you end up better off by enjoying that which is someone else's legal right. So for example, I'd say informally if you trespass on Legoland's property and have a free ride, you are thieving. Just in plain old english terms, not any sort of legal thing.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Surely, the book became my personal property upon accepting the gift. Why should I not do with it as I please? I'm pretty sure that if I were able to use my carpenting skills to recreate the table in my living room to give as a gift to friends, you wouldn't object.

The table would be an original work. A copied book would not be. As for the book, there's a certain "rule" I think you'll agree with. "Do what you will, harm no one." By making copies, you're harming the author by reducing his customer base. I am not saying that if you gave the book to a friend, that this is wrong. I'm not THAT extreme. I'm saying that if you make copies, you're producing the sold product. By giving it away, you're reducing the return the creator can expect. This wasn't a big deal 10-20 years ago, but the internet has created something of a monster here.

We have a very popular local band here that isn't making much money on CD sales and haven't been able to devote their time to producing music. Why? because while they're great and fine and everyone loves them, the fact that someone ripped their CD and made it available online has significantly hurt them. MAYBE that'll pay off in the long run, but whether they'll make it that far is something else entirely.

Originally Posted by Leshy

It was more of a sidenote, not in any way part of my argument - I wasn't sure if you knew the Black Isle team was still going

The question will be if anyone will be able to reproduce the dynamic that BI did.

Originally Posted by Leshy

The difference is that if I kept the Ferrari, someone else would be without their Ferrari. That is why theft is illegal - you take someone elses property away from them. If you let your front door open at night, a man enters your house, paints a replica of the painting on your wall and disappears again, is he a thief? Most people would find that a ridiculous statement - yet when it comes to software, that's exactly what's being said. As such, theft is a ridiculous statement.

How is taking an intangible any less theft? You HAVE deprived the creator of something, the royalties he could expect from your purchase.

Originally Posted by Leshy

Which is fairly nonsensical, as they are two different things altogether. Copyright is the rule that prohibits you from making a copy of something that has been copyrighted, while intellectual property is about prohibiting you from passing off someone else's work as that of someone else, usually yourself.

Not at all, IP is about ownership of an intangible item. They own the words in the book or the code in the software. What you buy is a physical item, or lacking that, permission to use it - whether it be a book or a CD.

Originally Posted by Leshy

The first is stupid, as I should be allowed to do with my personal property what I want - including making copies of them if I possess the skill and desire to do so, and giving them out as gifts or whatever. The second is perfectly logical and should remain in place.

The thing is the WORDS are NOT your property. They are the authors. You can copy the book all damn day and no one cares, but the second you put the words taht you didn't write in them, you're stealing.

Originally Posted by Leshy

Take an example from the art world: Someone repaints the Mona Lisa and signs it with Leonardo Da Vinci's signature, then tries to sell it as an original Da Vinci - he has created a forgery. Now another man repaints the Mona Lisa in the exact same manner, except he signs it with a "Greetz, Jeff Painter, 2004" and sells it on the local market for 50 quid. He has created a replica.

Both have blatantly copied someone else's work. One is a criminal, the other isn't.

Bad example: the mona lisa is old enough that the you can do that. The image itself is considered public domain. If you did the same thing to an artist currently alive, it would be a completely different story.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

The table would be an original work.

Hardly. Obviously someone else has spent a good deal of time in designing an elegant table. If I make a simple copy, how is my work more original than copying a book? Only because it's more difficult to do woodwork than writing?

I am not saying that if you gave the book to a friend, that this is wrong.

So if I lend the book to 20 people, after which they've read it and don't want to purchase it, I'm not reducing an author's customer base; but if I create copies and hand them out to said 20 people, then I am? Even ignoring the fact that these 20 people might have never bought the book to begin with.

Why? because while they're great and fine and everyone loves them

Surely, if they are popular, they should gather a good bit of revenue from local performances. And selling their CD at local performances. And asking people to purchase their official CD at local performances. People will be happy to oblige - after all, everyone loves them, right?

the fact that someone ripped their CD and made it available online has significantly hurt them.

In the sense that their music is now available to an audience worldwide, greatly increasing their chances to be discovered and break through on a level beyond locality, if they are indeed good enough?

How is taking an intangible any less theft? You HAVE deprived the creator of something, the royalties he could expect from your purchase.

Your argument completely crumbles like a card house, as it rests on the unlikely assumption that if the copy had not been made, a purchase would have instead.

Not at all, IP is about ownership of an intangible item. They own the words in the book or the code in the software.

So if I memorize a book, someone else now owns the portion of my mind where that is stored? And if I have read the book without having purchased it, does that give the author the right to have me lobotomized? Clearly I've stolen his property and it should be returned.

but the second you put the words taht you didn't write in them, you're stealing.

I'm pretty sure a good deal of words uttered in this thread have been used by authors before, likely even in the same configuration. We're clearly all thieves.

Bad example: the mona lisa is old enough that the you can do that. The image itself is considered public domain. If you did the same thing to an artist currently alive, it would be a completely different story.

Not really. Having replica's made of contemporary paintings is done as well - although in such an instance paintings may be a lesser example as they're generally not considered great or famous enough to replicate often until the artist is dead.

Having said that, repainting old paintings that are considered public domain and trying to pass them off as the original is still forgery and punishable.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Your argument completely crumbles like a card house, as it rests on the unlikely assumption that if the copy had not been made, a purchase would have instead.

It's not an argument, it's the law. A set of rules doesn't have to be consistent. If banning copies while allowing lending works ok, then that's fine. Are you stealing by avoiding the queue for Legoland?

The form of scupltures isn't generally copyrighted because people respect artists' marks. But interestingly the form of a "vessel hull" is copyrightable. http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

It DOES deprive someone when you pass out software or a book, or whatever. Simply because there's nothing physical doesn't mean you're not.[...] If that's victimless, then I don't know what the **** isn't.

I think this depends on what you mean by "victim". To be a victim of something (in this context), a right has to be infringed. For instance, let us say you spend £5 million on developing an ace new computer game. Unfortunately, a month before it's released I make a game vastly superior to yours. Yours is an embarrasment by comparison. Your sales are awful due to my game coming onto the market.

Now, my game is "depriving" your game of money. But the world doesn't owe you a living. I feel sorry for you, sure, but this doesn't make it criminal behaviour. You're a victim of consequences, but it'd be unfair to say you were my victim as such.

And I do have a strong concern for others. I know people who work in the content producing industries (including, indirectly, game development). I wouldn't want them to go hungry. But that doesn't mean that we should be using the coercive force of the state to try and imprison people who don't buy their products.

[JonnyBGood]

If you can't survive on your state-provided salary there's no place for you in modern society.


Leshy made an interesting point about the ownership of ideas. It's a conclusion very often dismissed by most supporters of "intellectual property" but the rationality behind the reasoning isn't that different.

[Structural Integrity]

Hobbyist game developers > game factories