On a scale of 1 to 10, how wrong is this?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I own a (legal) copy of Civ 3, and a (legal) copy of PtW. I paid (I think)
$29.95 for PtW, on a pre-order. When C3C came out and I found out that it
would contain the PtW expansion in it (and cost the same) it kind of p*ssed
me off. I'm not normally a software pirate, but I did locate a pirated
copy of C3C, under the justification that I had paid the same amount for
PtW that some new player would pay to get both PtW and C3C.

I'm not normally a pirate... I even spent extra money for the collector's
tin version of Civ 3, and had it on pre-order for a half-year before it
came out. I just felt kind of ripped off when C3C came out.

So, how wrong is that? I know it's legally wrong, but on a moral level do
you think I'm justified? Or should I go out and spend another $29.95 on an
expansion that I already legally own half of?

I really wish they would have offered an upgrade-path for PtW owners -
maybe sell it for $15 or $20 if you could prove you have a legit copy of
PtW or something.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 17 May 2004 00:44:53 GMT, Scott McNair
<scott.mcnair@sfmco.[takethispartout].com> wrote:

>I own a (legal) copy of Civ 3, and a (legal) copy of PtW. I paid (I think)
>$29.95 for PtW, on a pre-order. When C3C came out and I found out that it
>would contain the PtW expansion in it (and cost the same) it kind of p*ssed
>me off. I'm not normally a software pirate, but I did locate a pirated
>copy of C3C, under the justification that I had paid the same amount for
>PtW that some new player would pay to get both PtW and C3C.

PtW is older software and older software titles always devalues and
eventually, in the case of expansions, usually because bundled in
"value packs" with other expansions and/or the main software. Using
this to "justify" pirating the newer expansion is only fooling
yourself. The fact, however, that you felt the need to come here and
seek reassurance makes it obvious that you already know this.

I can guarantee you that if you go out now and buy just PtW, you'll be
paying half of what you paid when it first came out, if that. That's
the way software works.

--
Dark Tyger

Sympathy for the retailer:
http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
"Door's to your left" -Gord
(I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 17 May 2004 00:44:53 GMT, Scott McNair
<scott.mcnair@sfmco.[takethispartout].com> wrote:

>So, how wrong is that? I know it's legally wrong, but on a moral level do
>you think I'm justified? Or should I go out and spend another $29.95 on an
>expansion that I already legally own half of?

Let me add on to this statement: You don't already legally own half of
C3C. You legally own PtW. PtW just happens to be bundled in with C3C
as a "bonus". That in no way means that PtW is PART OF C3C. Think of
C3C as an expansion of PtW, which is an expansion of Civ3.

There is no 1 to 10 scale. It's a binary.

--
Dark Tyger

Sympathy for the retailer:
http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html
"Door's to your left" -Gord
(I have no association with this site. Just thought it was funny as hell)

Protect free speech: http://stopfcc.com/
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Scott McNair" <scott.mcnair@sfmco.[takethispartout].com> wrote in message
news:Xns94EBC8E2CF42Fqwertyuiop@129.250.170.85...
> I own a (legal) copy of Civ 3, and a (legal) copy of PtW. I paid (I
think)
> $29.95 for PtW, on a pre-order. When C3C came out and I found out that it
> would contain the PtW expansion in it (and cost the same) it kind of
p*ssed
> me off. I'm not normally a software pirate, but I did locate a pirated
> copy of C3C, under the justification that I had paid the same amount for
> PtW that some new player would pay to get both PtW and C3C.
>
> I'm not normally a pirate... I even spent extra money for the collector's
> tin version of Civ 3, and had it on pre-order for a half-year before it
> came out. I just felt kind of ripped off when C3C came out.
>
> So, how wrong is that? I know it's legally wrong, but on a moral level do
> you think I'm justified? Or should I go out and spend another $29.95 on
an
> expansion that I already legally own half of?
>
> I really wish they would have offered an upgrade-path for PtW owners -
> maybe sell it for $15 or $20 if you could prove you have a legit copy of
> PtW or something.

I understand what you are saying, but you should purchase a legal copy.
After all, we do want them to make a Civ 4 don't we?

Keep checking Amazon.com and Ebay. I got my copy of C3C last christmass for
only $10 at Amazon.
So it is possible to find it relatively inexpensive...
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:1e8ga019gs409qeq9o5ld4hn5qv7eepreg@4ax.com:

> I can guarantee you that if you go out now and buy just PtW, you'll be
> paying half of what you paid when it first came out, if that. That's
> the way software works.

It runs anywhere from $16 to $32 on the web (including shipping), depending
on where you buy it.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Dark Tyger <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in
news:3j8ga01ii5bclsubksr1pm1063psln3ju5@4ax.com:

> There is no 1 to 10 scale. It's a binary.

Technically 1 to 10 would work in binary. :)

1 = 1
10 = 2
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 17 May 2004 00:44:53 GMT, Scott McNair
<scott.mcnair@sfmco.[takethispartout].com> wrote:

>I own a (legal) copy of Civ 3, and a (legal) copy of PtW. I paid (I think)
>$29.95 for PtW, on a pre-order. When C3C came out and I found out that it
>would contain the PtW expansion in it (and cost the same) it kind of p*ssed
>me off. I'm not normally a software pirate, but I did locate a pirated
>copy of C3C, under the justification that I had paid the same amount for
>PtW that some new player would pay to get both PtW and C3C.
>
>I'm not normally a pirate... I even spent extra money for the collector's
>tin version of Civ 3, and had it on pre-order for a half-year before it
>came out. I just felt kind of ripped off when C3C came out.
>
>So, how wrong is that? I know it's legally wrong, but on a moral level do
>you think I'm justified? Or should I go out and spend another $29.95 on an
>expansion that I already legally own half of?

Yes, you should. If you use the expensive expansion logic, PTW
counts as such too. For all practical purposes, PTW is the upgraded
replacement for Civ3 -- once you have it, you need never go and use
the original Civ3 again to play.

Also, you don't quite own half. The PTW disk included more scenario
material than C3C does, though you can download any of it (and should
as some of the scenarios were upgraded).

>I really wish they would have offered an upgrade-path for PtW owners -
>maybe sell it for $15 or $20 if you could prove you have a legit copy of
>PtW or something.

Too hard to prove, not worth the effort especially as a packaging
issue.

C3C includes PTW, but it isn't PTW itself -- any more than PTW is
Civ3, even though for all practical purposes it replaces it. You are
getting the expansion material in C3C -- a new game executable and new
cool scenarios. PTW is just a bonus. If you'd held off getting PTW,
you wouldn't have been playing it all this time. I figure that the
$30 price for PTW is money well spent for the time I've enjoyed it,
before C3C came out.

Now, of course, I'm into the new C3C conquests and the new rules,
trying those out. Really, C3C for me is about playing the new stuff,
not PTW.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 17 May 2004 00:44:53 GMT Scott McNair
<scott.mcnair@sfmco.[takethispartout].com> wrote in message
<Xns94EBC8E2CF42Fqwertyuiop@129.250.170.85>...

It's very wrong indeed to ask people how wrong something is.

You should make your own moral evaluations.

--
Daran

2^20996011-1 is prime! <http://www.mersenne.org>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On 17 May 2004 00:44:53 GMT, Scott McNair
<scott.mcnair@sfmco.[takethispartout].com> wrote:

>I really wish they would have offered an upgrade-path for PtW owners -
>maybe sell it for $15 or $20 if you could prove you have a legit copy of
>PtW or something.

They do this for some commercial desktop software. I recall getting
large discounts if I was upgrading my software. Those packages are
generally very expensive so the cost of verifying proof is worth it.

Where I felt ripped off was pre-ordering it and waiting about one
month longer than I could get it in the store for the same price. I
really was expecting to get it before the people in the stores not
much later. Then a month or two after that it had dropped from $30 to
$10 on a Christmas special. I plan to never pre-order again.

In all I have spent $90 for my current version of civ. Yet if I
consider the countless hours of entertainment I have gotten that is a
bargain. I have some games I have spent $50 on and played for 5
minutes.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Dark Tyger" <darktiger@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:3j8ga01ii5bclsubksr1pm1063psln3ju5@4ax.com...
> On 17 May 2004 00:44:53 GMT, Scott McNair
> <scott.mcnair@sfmco.[takethispartout].com> wrote:
>
> >So, how wrong is that? I know it's legally wrong, but on a moral level
do
> >you think I'm justified? Or should I go out and spend another $29.95 on
an
> >expansion that I already legally own half of?
>
> Let me add on to this statement: You don't already legally own half of
> C3C. You legally own PtW. PtW just happens to be bundled in with C3C
> as a "bonus". That in no way means that PtW is PART OF C3C. Think of
> C3C as an expansion of PtW, which is an expansion of Civ3.
>
> There is no 1 to 10 scale. It's a binary.
>
> --
> Dark Tyger

The question was 'how wrong' was his action...not how 'legal' it was.
Legality most often has nothing to do with the morality of behavior; just
who has the best lawyer etc. My sense of 'fair play' says that McNair was
essentially screwed, not intentionally, but by circumstance. A 'fair
minded' seller of a product would see this delimma [I would anyway] and
offer him a trade in to get the full benefit that other purchasers have with
the same money. Look at it this way, as a matter of imperfect information.
If the buyer had known of this information of a product that was available
that included what he was purchasing PLUS additional addon, he would have
never made the original purchase sans the addon.

If the seller was intentionally practicing 'withheld information' [such as
car dealers do for example], the morality sits decidedly with the purchaser
here. But, if its just 'circumstance' as I imagine it was, then the moral
dilemma was not intentional, and no one is at fault, but remedy is still
desired by one party [not legally mandated of course]. But 'fair
mindedness' is becoming more and more rare in this world of objectified
legalese and rationalization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom