Elder Scrolls: Oblivion

[stano]

Like I said, gogamer.com got it for 34.90.. 😳

(it took them a few extra days)

StanO

 

[jrnyfan]

Oblivion is amazing...and i could stop there but for the fact that my boss is gone at lunch so i can type more (with this work ethic, you'd swear i was french but that's for another time) I had just finished Fable: TLC and loved that game to death minus the fact that it is so short and then i bought oblivion to satiate my need for a good RPG and thought it sucked for the first hour or so i played it. Then i got into it and DAMN! THIS GAMES IS AWESOME! the eye candy is amazing, the open-ended story line is wonderful and the abundance of quests...omg, i love it! Im a memeber of 5 factions right now and after having played the game for 40+ hours i still have not gotten around to talking to baurus somewhere in imperial city after delivering martin to cloud rider temple.

I play it on my X2 4200+ / 6800gt / 2gig system and it was detected at high quality and i have never looked back...visually stunning...i though fable looked amazing but this is jaw dropping

as far as the leveling thing is concerned...some of it is not linked to your level as evidenced by the rats i can whack with one blow where that use to take 3 or 4 pokes...but those damn goblin berserkers are irritating enough to wish i had some AOE magic on me...maybe i should work on leveling that up...oh well

BUY THIS GAME AND THEN CRACK IT FOR YOUR FRIENDS! no cd-key needed and gamecopyworld has the crack...hell, everyone just get a friend and you both can split the 50$ down the middle

 

[red_onion]

BUY THIS GAME AND THEN CRACK IT FOR YOUR FRIENDS! no cd-key needed and gamecopyworld has the crack...hell, everyone just get a friend and you both can split the 50$ down the middle

Better idea: everybody buy his or her own copy so that Bethesda keeps its full development team and puts out another ES game before the end of the century!

 

[jrnyfan]

sure...if you want to do things the legal way...sheesh :lol:

 

[red_onion]

sure...if you want to do things the legal way...sheesh :lol:

It happens to be legal, but it's also just me trying to support an industry that, as far as I can tell, brings nothing but butterflies and sunshine to us all. 😛

Seriously: I have real trouble with this kind of theft, partly because so many people don't think of it as theft at all. They think of it as a "victimless" crime at worst, or any of a hundred other excuses, but a lot of us don't see it that way. Especially not when it comes to a product like Oblivion, which obviously required a ton of skill and effort, and offers many, many hours of gaming bliss. Fair is fair.

 

[jrnyfan]

i will agree that fair is fair in this instance and i will agree that it is easy to rationalize this away. i majored in criminal justice in college with a criminal law emphasis and while i would like to apply a duress defense to this in that it the game costs as much as the GNP of most african nations, i will concede and retract my earlier statement.

new statement of general intent:

BUY THIS GAME AND CRACK IT FOR YOU!!! DONT DO ILLEGAL THINGS!!!

😀

 

[Snorkius]

OT: While being illegal and immoral, it isn't theft.

 

[red_onion]

BUY THIS GAME AND CRACK IT FOR YOU!!! DONT DO ILLEGAL THINGS!!!

I think I'll have that made into a bumper sticker. :lol:

I forget exactly how it goes, but there used to be a story floating around about some kid telling the lead singer of a band he liked that he was the band's "biggest fan." The singer asked which albums the kid owned, and the kid repled, "why buy them when I can download them for free?"

Lotsa clueless folks out there. Doesn't sound like you're one of them after all.

 

[BomberBill]

I have a level 56 Mage whose specialty is summoning.

 

[red_onion]

OT: While being illegal and immoral, it isn't theft.

If it isn't theft, then what's the crime? What makes it illegal or immoral?

I honestly believe it is theft. It may not be theft in the sense of stealing a physical object, but in a technology-driven culture, there are a lot of non-physical things you can steal. Identities, for example. Or in this case, the ability to play a game.

 

[hjohnso2]

i will agree that fair is fair in this instance and i will agree that it is easy to rationalize this away. i majored in criminal justice in college with a criminal law emphasis and while i would like to apply a duress defense to this in that it the game costs as much as the GNP of most african nations, i will concede and retract my earlier statement.

new statement of general intent:

BUY THIS GAME AND CRACK IT FOR YOU!!! DONT DO ILLEGAL THINGS!!!

😀

I like this much better..I hate game pirates..they think nothing of dropping thousands and thousands of dollars on hardware but can't come up with 20-40 bucks to buy a game developers poured their blood sweat and tears into.

As PC Gamers we need to be especially vigilant about discouraging this.

 

[jrnyfan]

the reason why i crack is similiar to the reason of others....it takes me a while to decide if i like a game. the demo is never enough to allow me to decide, hell i thought BF:2 suck'd hard with the demo until i actually played more than 50 hours...same with AOE:III, couldnt stand the demo and had no desire to play until it became a staple at the lan's i go to...after being forced to play it over and over i decided it was ok. if i had payed 50$ for a game that resembled the demo i would have almost no games in my cache.

pirating is wrong, i will not deny that...but while spending 400 on a video card may seem like different than 50 on a game, the vc is guaranteed to produce, the game isnt and then you are stuck with a game that you can't return and dont want cause it sucks...

obtw, Democrats suk and so does socialized medicine...random thought

 

[stano]

blah...blah...blah

18r
StanO

 

[Snorkius]

The crime is copyright infringement.

It's different for a whole lot of, non-semantic, reasons.

And it's only immoral if you like a game, can afford it, but don't buy it - a rather small category of "pirates" if you ask me.

 

[red_onion]

The crime is copyright infringement.

Tell you what: I'm not a lawyer and I never played one on TV, so if you're telling me you know what you're talking about, I'm going to give you a big thumbs-up and say, "Whatever you say, Snorkius."

And it's only immoral if you like a game, can afford it, but don't buy it - a rather small category of "pirates" if you ask me.

Still feels sticky to me. I'd be interested in evidence (non-anecdotal) suggesting that gamers who crack really do pay for the games they've enjoyed OR have played up to or beyond the expected lifespan of the game. I mean, the common argument is that you need a longer demo than what's offered by the company ... but a lot of games only run 20 hours or less, and not all are intended to be replayed. What about the person who plays for 10 hours and loses interest, but did enjoy for the first 10 hours? Will that person pay? Somehow I can't see it.

I think it's very dangerous to advocate consumers deciding if and when companies "deserve" to be paid for their efforts. I realize there are some philosophical gray areas, but you gotta put your foot down somewhere.

 

[red_onion]

As PC Gamers we need to be especially vigilant about discouraging this.

Amen, friend. Testify!

 

[jkburk]

And it's only immoral if you like a game, can afford it, but don't buy it - a rather small category of "pirates" if you ask me.

Wow.

I really, really like the Infiniti G35. I mean really. I've even test driven one. However, it's a bit out of my price range.

After I gank one and the po-po pulls me over, I'll be sure and let them know that it wasn't immoral cause Snorkius said so.

If you really like a game but can't afford it. . . practice some monetary responsibility, save up and PURCHASE it.

Never ceases to amaze the excuses people will give to rationalize THEFT of movies, music and games/software. Read the EULA!

/steps off the soapbox/

 

[Snorkius]

*sigh* Another lost soul, blinded by the wicked.

Let us imagine a device that allows the replication of all physical objects without cost beyond a few cents for electricity and maybe a handful of dirt.

Enter a world, a probable paradise, free from all forms of poverty and hunger. Everyone can drive an Infiniti G35, or whatever they damn wish, without cost or detriment to anyone at all.

But a device like that would be totally wrong because you know, a thing that in no way hurts anyone, but benefits everyone would be totally wrong.

------------

We know a device like that is impossible, at least in the near future, but it illustrates the clear difference between ( and our inability to understand all the consequences of) virtualy free, unlimited copies and the concept of theft.

 

[jkburk]

Far be it from me to get into a pissing contest. . .

But here goes.

First things first. . . that was one of the more obscure analogies I've read in a while. Comparing a PC game with an imaginary machine that can replicate anything out of dirt and electricity? But let's roll with it.

I'm sure that in "analogyland" it's possible, perhaps even likely, that a machine like this replication device just appeared (since it can replicate all physical matter). However, I'm willing to bet my soon to be replicated G35 that someone invested a lot of "analogyland" time and money into creating it. Here comes the rhetorical question - how are these individuals compensated for their marvelous invention? (kinda a moot point as nothing would have value, as everyone can have anything they want for a few pennies and some dirt)

I never cease to be amazed by the whole "virtually free, unlimited copies" argument. Anyone who has any knowledge of manufacturing processes knows that physically producing game disks costs pennies. So why are we not charged pennies?

Because it costs MILLIONS and sometimes TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars to create a game. MILLIONS! Some games take THREE OR MORE YEARS to develop! And even after the game is complete, there are still patches to develop, support to offer to customers, etc. More money.

So if I'm reading you correctly, a publisher (which typically makes the investment to develop a game) relies on only the people who can afford the game to recoup the initial investment it made and make a profit, while all of those out there are "too poor" to buy it get to have it for free? I'm pretty sure the developers never intended these games to be part of a wellfare system.

It's criminal. No two ways around it. Rationalize it all you want, but that fact remains. At the very least, have the stones to come out and say "I realize what I'm doing is criminal but I'm going to do it anyway because I can."

I am right there with hjohnso2. I HATE pirates.

---------

Now I'm all riled up. I'm gonna go take a grumpy.

 

[Snorkius]

Perhaps my point was not very well stated: it's completely ridiculous, comparing cars and intellectual property.

Take these situations:
1) A kid whose parents give him a limited games budget can't afford that game he heard about that seemed mildly interesting. This kid lacks logic and can't think things through by himself and his teacher just told him how downloading stuff makes the baby Jesus cry - so he doesn't download it.

2) That same kid, or a mildly rebellious twin, does download the game.

Results:
1)The publisher and developer don't see a cent. The kid is unaffected.
2)The publisher and developer don't see a cent. The kid got a couple weeks free enjoyment.

You: Theft! The kid got something for nothing! This is unfair! Freeloader! Welfare! Communists!

Me: Wrong! Quantifiably more (isolated) good was created in the second end-result! You can't build a system of values, or anything, based on subjective, ephemeral and completely undefinable concepts like "fairness"!


Copyright infringement is one thing and one thing only: illegal. 100% percent illegal. Whether the laws are just, practical and maximize benefit for humanity, and whether following those laws that you don't agree with is the only "moral", right thing to do - that's a completely different question. A question with much harder to find anwers.

 

[BomberBill]

Me: Wrong! Quantifiably more (isolated) good was created in the second end-result! You can't build a system of values, or anything, based on subjective, ephemeral and completely undefinable concepts like "fairness"!

I disagree.

"A system of values" being built? Absolutely. For the last 6000 years that process has been in place and in particular its been the case since the Renaissance.

"A system of values" being built "on subjective, ephemeral and completely undefinable concepts". Come now, Snorky, this is ludicrous. Look at the major civilisations of today. What are they built upon, within the framework of your proposition, of course?

They are not built upon logical, objective-based, empircal knowledge type foundations. Naturally, there are institutions within a nation that reflect this type of human development - medical and scientific, to name but two - but a great majority is built upon a ever-developing, completely subjective, cultural ethos.

 

[red_onion]

Results:
1)The publisher and developer don't see a cent. The kid is unaffected.
2)The publisher and developer don't see a cent. The kid got a couple weeks free enjoyment.

I'm not looking to gang up on you, but I see this justification a lot, and I find it deeply disturbing. Player A "doesn't have the money" for a game, so his choice is either not to buy it or to crack it and play it anyway. Either way, the company never sees a cent, so what's the difference, right? Right? It's faulty and short-sighted logic.

Let me add a couple words to your results to try to illustrate the difference:

1)The publisher and developer don't see a cent, and don't deserve a cent because the game wasn't played. Players pay, the company meets its revenue goals, and decide to develop another game. The kid is unaffected.
2)The publisher and developer don't see a cent, although they deserve full payment and rely on full payment from every player to remain in business. The project is unprofitable and future planned projects are scrapped. The kid got a couple weeks free enjoyment.

Copyright infringement is one thing and one thing only: illegal. 100% percent illegal. Whether the laws are just, practical and maximize benefit for humanity, and whether following those laws that you don't agree with is the only "moral", right thing to do - that's a completely different question. A question with much harder to find anwers.

I appreciate your attempt to wax philosophical, but no, some of us find this answer very easy. If a company invests time and money into creating a product, and the business model requires that consumers purchase the product to recoup costs and to create profit (some of which, by the way, is reinvested in the business so that better games can be built), and someone decides to intentionally use the product without paying the price, it's not just illegal. It's WRONG and it's SELF-DEFEATING. If players are going to play without paying, what exactly is a developer's impetus for developing anything new? I hope you like that Infiniti G35 you've copied with your machine, because it's the last new car anybody is ever going to build. Why invest time and money to innovate if there's no chance to recoup the costs let alone make a profit and maybe hand out a raise or two to the hardworking team of designers and developers? You argue like we're not talking about real money owed to real people who have brought us something we enjoy.

I can't believe a gamer, who is interested enough in gaming to participate on the forums as much as you have, would even consider justifying this kind of crime (I'll refrain from calling it theft). I hope you're just playing devil's advocate a bit at our expense and that you'll get a jolly good chuckle when we're all talked out.

 

[Snorkius]

Our society has been trying to get away from concepts such as "fair" and "moral" as a metric! You simply cannot judge people by your own subjective scale of what is wrong and right - that is a dark road that leads to most of the crap humanity has experienced over the last couple of centuries.

 

[BomberBill]

Sure, Snorky, but what do governments do? They represent, most typically, the subjective values held dear by their respective constituents.

 

[Snorkius]

You might have had a point if there was any (non-anecdotal) evidence at all that piracy hurts developers or publishers.

There might be such evidence in your mind, I mean it's obvious that all those hundreds of millions of downloads mean hundreds of millions of lost dollars, but they're not.

People buy games and they buy music and all other mass-culture products. And they buy them despite the absolute ease with which they could pirate said products.

"Piracy" (a false term for P2P) is really a non-issue. The only people who do it are 1) those that can't really afford all the products they use (teens and such) 2)the nefarious "thieves" that would gladly steal something. Despite what you all may think the second category is a miniscule part of humanity and the first one is a non-issue*.

A company that makes good-games will never be run-out of business (see Oblivion or WoW sales) because the vast majority of people will buy it regardless.


*Non-issue execpt for "fairness" - the using of things you don't "deserve". But like I said, it doesn't affect the end-result, and these things have to be decided by each person for themselves and their conscience. (Constantly using freeware without donating, for example, is just as bad, if not worse, in my opinion.)