Community Feedback Poll - Game Piracy
- Thread starter CheapyD
- Start date
- Status
XTommyDonX
CAGiversary!
As long as they're not being pirated again or available for download illegaly through CAG, then impressions are fine. What's the harm of telling how the game is being that the illegal downloading is already completed.
jimijumper
Banned
No. I would ignore any review of a pirated game anyways.
Undead98
CAGiversary!
Who is to say the "early" release of the game is in fact the shipping version? Its absolutely ridiculous to give a review on something that may not be the final product thus possibly corrupting the initial experience of a potential buyer. Until you have the copy in your hand from a store, I don't trust any content that is experienced, period.
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Undead98']Who is to say the "early" release of the game is in fact the shipping version? Its absolutely ridiculous to give a review on something that may not be the final product thus possibly corrupting the initial experience of a potential buyer. Until you have the copy in your hand from a store, I don't trust any content that is experienced, period.[/QUOTE]
DesertEagleXIX
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='Trakan']I don't think he could have worded it any better. I understand the question perfectly, but it seems like a lot of people are misinterpreting it.
[/QUOTE]
I don't mean to be a dick Traken, but from a communication standpoint, if you put a message out and 'a lot' of people are misinterpreting it, then there's a problem. Either:
A) The receivers aren't bright enough to understand the concept, or
B) The sender didn't encode the message properly.
The discussion seems to be centered on the enforcement of the policy; not so much the policy itself. By not addressing anything about how this policy will be enforced, your opening yourself up to a wormhole of ambiguity.
People need a context. Sure, you could ask, "is lying bad", and you'll receive a myriad of responses, some in support, some against. In order for the discussion to be worthwhile, you need to limit the boundaries, in other word, be VERY specific.
Ok, rant off- Now I need to get back to working on my "Thrill Kill" review
[/QUOTE]
I don't mean to be a dick Traken, but from a communication standpoint, if you put a message out and 'a lot' of people are misinterpreting it, then there's a problem. Either:
A) The receivers aren't bright enough to understand the concept, or
B) The sender didn't encode the message properly.
The discussion seems to be centered on the enforcement of the policy; not so much the policy itself. By not addressing anything about how this policy will be enforced, your opening yourself up to a wormhole of ambiguity.
People need a context. Sure, you could ask, "is lying bad", and you'll receive a myriad of responses, some in support, some against. In order for the discussion to be worthwhile, you need to limit the boundaries, in other word, be VERY specific.
Ok, rant off- Now I need to get back to working on my "Thrill Kill" review
pimpinc333
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
[quote name='DesertEagleXIX']I don't mean to be a dick Traken, but from a communication standpoint, if you put a message out and 'a lot' of people are misinterpreting it, then there's a problem. Either:
A) The receivers aren't bright enough to understand the concept, or
B) The sender didn't encode the message properly.
The discussion seems to be centered on the enforcement of the policy; not so much the policy itself. By not addressing anything about how this policy will be enforced, your opening yourself up to a wormhole of ambiguity.
People need a context. Sure, you could ask, "is lying bad", and you'll receive a myriad of responses, some in support, some against. In order for the discussion to be worthwhile, you need to limit the boundaries, in other word, be VERY specific.
Ok, rant off- Now I need to get back to working on my "Thrill Kill" review[/QUOTE]
I'm going with A. Many Many People are going way off topic on this one. It's a simple question.
A) The receivers aren't bright enough to understand the concept, or
B) The sender didn't encode the message properly.
The discussion seems to be centered on the enforcement of the policy; not so much the policy itself. By not addressing anything about how this policy will be enforced, your opening yourself up to a wormhole of ambiguity.
People need a context. Sure, you could ask, "is lying bad", and you'll receive a myriad of responses, some in support, some against. In order for the discussion to be worthwhile, you need to limit the boundaries, in other word, be VERY specific.
Ok, rant off- Now I need to get back to working on my "Thrill Kill" review
[/QUOTE]I'm going with A. Many Many People are going way off topic on this one. It's a simple question.
corrosivefrost
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 45 (100%)
[quote name='DesertEagleXIX']I don't mean to be a dick Traken, but from a communication standpoint, if you put a message out and 'a lot' of people are misinterpreting it, then there's a problem. Either:
A) The receivers aren't bright enough to understand the concept, or
B) The sender didn't encode the message properly.
The discussion seems to be centered on the enforcement of the policy; not so much the policy itself. By not addressing anything about how this policy will be enforced, your opening yourself up to a wormhole of ambiguity.
People need a context. Sure, you could ask, "is lying bad", and you'll receive a myriad of responses, some in support, some against. In order for the discussion to be worthwhile, you need to limit the boundaries, in other word, be VERY specific.
Ok, rant off- Now I need to get back to working on my "Thrill Kill" review[/QUOTE]
A little of column (b) and a lot of column (a), in this case.
A) The receivers aren't bright enough to understand the concept, or
B) The sender didn't encode the message properly.
The discussion seems to be centered on the enforcement of the policy; not so much the policy itself. By not addressing anything about how this policy will be enforced, your opening yourself up to a wormhole of ambiguity.
People need a context. Sure, you could ask, "is lying bad", and you'll receive a myriad of responses, some in support, some against. In order for the discussion to be worthwhile, you need to limit the boundaries, in other word, be VERY specific.
Ok, rant off- Now I need to get back to working on my "Thrill Kill" review
[/QUOTE]A little of column (b) and a lot of column (a), in this case.
pimpinc333
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
[quote name='x2k-one']yes
is not illegal to have piracy games everywere[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure what this means......
is not illegal to have piracy games everywere[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure what this means......
bigdaddybruce44
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Piracy should not be promoted or encouraged at all.
aknowlesjr
CAGiversary!
don't censor!!!!!!! this is what the internet is about.
goldvenom69
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Man I said allow it! This is becoming like the official Xbox forum man I hate them.
Lieutenant Dan
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 10 (100%)
I accidentally voted for no, so add one to yes. Darn wireless mouseses.
Demontooth
CAGiversary!
No.
corrosivefrost
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 45 (100%)
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Piracy should not be promoted or encouraged at all.[/QUOTE]
And where in this thread do you get the idea that cheapyd and cag will be sponsoring piracy? Do you think they're going to give away a stack of R4s on the next CAGcast? WTF?
And where in this thread do you get the idea that cheapyd and cag will be sponsoring piracy? Do you think they're going to give away a stack of R4s on the next CAGcast? WTF?
opportunity777
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='corrosivefrost']And where in this thread do you get the idea that cheapyd and cag will be sponsoring piracy? Do you think they're going to give away a stack of R4s on the next CAGcast? WTF?[/QUOTE]
A lot of people in this thread aren't even discussing the relevant issue, so I don't think you should be too surprised from the shallow responses.
The issue is not about actual piracy. The relevant issue is whether the reviewers will be objective or not, which is also a problem for professional review sites. An argument or poll about the act of pirating should be in a different thread. Unfortunately, Cheapy did not help facilitate the discussion to be on topic.
In the future, I think if Cheapy wants to conduct another poll, then he should wait for 3 to 7 days before allowing people to vote. That way, both sides will have time to provide real evidence and concise arguments. This is just a shithouse for discussion.
A lot of people in this thread aren't even discussing the relevant issue, so I don't think you should be too surprised from the shallow responses.
The issue is not about actual piracy. The relevant issue is whether the reviewers will be objective or not, which is also a problem for professional review sites. An argument or poll about the act of pirating should be in a different thread. Unfortunately, Cheapy did not help facilitate the discussion to be on topic.
In the future, I think if Cheapy wants to conduct another poll, then he should wait for 3 to 7 days before allowing people to vote. That way, both sides will have time to provide real evidence and concise arguments. This is just a shithouse for discussion.
corrosivefrost
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 45 (100%)
[quote name='opportunity777']A lot of people in this thread aren't even discussing the relevant issue, so I don't think you should be too surprised from the shallow responses.
In the future, I think if Cheapy wants to conduct another poll, then he should wait for 3 to 7 days before allowing people to vote. That way, both sides will have time to provide real evidence and concise arguments. This is just a shithouse for discussion.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. I'm just having fun pointing out the "A" types.
In the future, I think if Cheapy wants to conduct another poll, then he should wait for 3 to 7 days before allowing people to vote. That way, both sides will have time to provide real evidence and concise arguments. This is just a shithouse for discussion.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. I'm just having fun pointing out the "A" types.
bigdaddybruce44
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='corrosivefrost']And where in this thread do you get the idea that cheapyd and cag will be sponsoring piracy? Do you think they're going to give away a stack of R4s on the next CAGcast? WTF?[/quote]
Wow, a bit touchy, maybe? People shouldn't be giving out reviews and impressions of games that were STOLEN. It's that simple. A site allowing such things to be posted are promoting it. See, it's called a line of thought. Dig it.
Wow, a bit touchy, maybe? People shouldn't be giving out reviews and impressions of games that were STOLEN. It's that simple. A site allowing such things to be posted are promoting it. See, it's called a line of thought. Dig it.
opportunity777
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Wow, a bit touchy, maybe? People shouldn't be giving out reviews and impressions of games that were STOLEN. It's that simple. A site allowing such things to be posted are promoting it. See, it's called a line of thought. Dig it.[/QUOTE]
I'm singling you out because I'm too lazy to go back to other pages. This is exactly why the thead is a trap.
I like how people are also using "slippery slope." You can't just call it.
WHY does posting an early review promote piracy? HOW do you know whether a title was obtained legally or illegally? HOW would you be able to prove it?
Just because you type it doesn't make it true.
I'm singling you out because I'm too lazy to go back to other pages. This is exactly why the thead is a trap.
I like how people are also using "slippery slope." You can't just call it.
WHY does posting an early review promote piracy? HOW do you know whether a title was obtained legally or illegally? HOW would you be able to prove it?
Just because you type it doesn't make it true.
pimpinc333
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Wow, a bit touchy, maybe? People shouldn't be giving out reviews and impressions of games that were STOLEN. It's that simple. A site allowing such things to be posted are promoting it. See, it's called a line of thought. Dig it.[/QUOTE]
So you are saying that anyone who writes a review also states they it was a STOLEN/Pirated game?
So you are saying that anyone who writes a review also states they it was a STOLEN/Pirated game?
pimpinc333
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
[quote name='opportunity777']You can't just call it.
WHY does posting an early review promote piracy? HOW do you know whether a title was obtained legally or illegally? HOW would you be able to prove it?
Just because you type it doesn't make it true.[/QUOTE]
WHY does posting an early review promote piracy? HOW do you know whether a title was obtained legally or illegally? HOW would you be able to prove it?
Just because you type it doesn't make it true.[/QUOTE]
corrosivefrost
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 45 (100%)
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Wow, a bit touchy, maybe? People shouldn't be giving out reviews and impressions of games that were STOLEN. It's that simple. A site allowing such things to be posted are promoting it. See, it's called a line of thought. Dig it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because someone posts an impression of a game early on my site, I must assume they are a pirate. And because I assume they're a pirate, and I don't moderate/disallow/whatever their comment I assume implicates them to be a pirate, that means I condone it and support it. Promoting means encouraging. Encouraging means rewarding. Rewarding people for pirating games and giving early impressions. Is CAG paying these reviewers? Is CAG telling them where to d/l their warez? Is CAG giving them the supplies to steal? Not in any way shape or form.
Yes, because someone posts an impression of a game early on my site, I must assume they are a pirate. And because I assume they're a pirate, and I don't moderate/disallow/whatever their comment I assume implicates them to be a pirate, that means I condone it and support it. Promoting means encouraging. Encouraging means rewarding. Rewarding people for pirating games and giving early impressions. Is CAG paying these reviewers? Is CAG telling them where to d/l their warez? Is CAG giving them the supplies to steal? Not in any way shape or form.
pimpinc333
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
[quote name='corrosivefrost']Yes, because someone posts an impression of a game early on my site, I must assume they are a pirate. And because I assume they're a pirate, and I don't moderate/disallow/whatever their comment I assume implicates them to be a pirate, that means I condone it and support it. Promoting means encouraging. Encouraging means rewarding. Rewarding people for pirating games and giving early impressions. Is CAG paying these reviewers? Is CAG telling them where to d/l their warez? Is CAG giving them the supplies to steal? Not in any way shape or form.[/QUOTE]
Well Said.
Well Said.
ryanflucas
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Will the CAG Trading system have access to a universal games database (similar to lets say Gamestop's current and coming soon listings)? If so then I'd do this if not already mentioned.
-- Have it coded in the system that a game is either "released" "soon to be released" or "not released".
-- When reviews are posted, set it so that the user needs to post the review by choosing the game from a list (fed off the central database).
-- Have a section of their post that posts a disclaimer line that reads "This game is released/soon to be released/not yet released".
-- Have a link they can click on explaining the definition of each of those. Put in a blurb stating what piracy is, that it's bad, and that you the site owner are not liable for their actions.
I figure that reviewing a pirated copy & a pre-released reviewers copy are identical (except for stability implications). If these two are not held in the same regard and this idea spreads, what's stopping publishers from saying that all reviewers, analysts, etc need to have a license to receive pre-release copies? That would cut down on 3/4ths of video game bloggers, thus slowing the industry in one shot. Piracy is the risk you take when you allow your game to be seen by anyone before it's release date, and in many cases played before the actual street date. Either some risk is assumed, or nobody gets to blog/review/see copies of any game before they are released in stores.
-- Have it coded in the system that a game is either "released" "soon to be released" or "not released".
-- When reviews are posted, set it so that the user needs to post the review by choosing the game from a list (fed off the central database).
-- Have a section of their post that posts a disclaimer line that reads "This game is released/soon to be released/not yet released".
-- Have a link they can click on explaining the definition of each of those. Put in a blurb stating what piracy is, that it's bad, and that you the site owner are not liable for their actions.
I figure that reviewing a pirated copy & a pre-released reviewers copy are identical (except for stability implications). If these two are not held in the same regard and this idea spreads, what's stopping publishers from saying that all reviewers, analysts, etc need to have a license to receive pre-release copies? That would cut down on 3/4ths of video game bloggers, thus slowing the industry in one shot. Piracy is the risk you take when you allow your game to be seen by anyone before it's release date, and in many cases played before the actual street date. Either some risk is assumed, or nobody gets to blog/review/see copies of any game before they are released in stores.
Gothic Walrus
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
Looking through this thread, I'm starting to notice a trend. Most of the users who said "yes" seem to be focusing on the benefits to themselves or to individual users, whereas a lot of the people saying "no" are focusing on the site as a whole. 
k
k
I just want to know if this also applies to movies, TV shows, and music. If so, how will one figure out if another's opinion on movies, TV shows, and music is based on illegally-acquired items?
Generally speaking, how will one be able to determine how another has acquired their media? What if a game pirate waits until the release date to post their review?
Going by what people have said in this thread, the only exacting way to determine a game pirate is that they have posted an early review. Essentially, all pirates could by-pass issues by simply posting on the release date; thereby possibly making the system impotent.
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']Looking through this thread, I'm starting to notice a trend. Most of the users who said "yes" seem to be focusing on the benefits to themselves or to individual users, whereas a lot of the people saying "no" are focusing on the site as a whole.k[/quote]
I respect and admire Cheapy and how he actually cares about the community even after all his fame. Policing reviews is difficult, though, as, I mentioned, there are ways around it for the patient.
Generally speaking, how will one be able to determine how another has acquired their media? What if a game pirate waits until the release date to post their review?
Going by what people have said in this thread, the only exacting way to determine a game pirate is that they have posted an early review. Essentially, all pirates could by-pass issues by simply posting on the release date; thereby possibly making the system impotent.
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']Looking through this thread, I'm starting to notice a trend. Most of the users who said "yes" seem to be focusing on the benefits to themselves or to individual users, whereas a lot of the people saying "no" are focusing on the site as a whole.
k[/quote]I respect and admire Cheapy and how he actually cares about the community even after all his fame. Policing reviews is difficult, though, as, I mentioned, there are ways around it for the patient.
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']Looking through this thread, I'm starting to notice a trend. Most of the users who said "yes" seem to be focusing on the benefits to themselves or to individual users, whereas a lot of the people saying "no" are focusing on the site as a whole. k[/QUOTE]
:lol: I noticed this too.
k[/QUOTE]:lol: I noticed this too.
chex20
CAGiversary!
Being a person who follows the piracy world daily, I don't see a problem with posting reviews. I don't, and never will condone piracy but just wanted to posts some thoughts.
Pirated games usually come out at MAX a week early (the earliest game I've seen is Halo 3, about a week early. Rock band 2 was just released early, about 6 days before release).
Pirated games are straight rips of the legit copy/game (a full 1:1 copy via a special dvd pc drive). Its not like movies in which there are a ton of options (CAM, telesync, telecine, dvdrip, screeners,etc.).
As for reviews, they should be allowed. Why? Well, they are basically just like IGN, Gamespot, etc. Except for they are from people who play the games for fun, and it isn't their jobs. I don't see the difference between reviews on IGN/Gamespot/etc vs. a review by a CAG member that *maybe* has it pirated.
Do you know for a fact that they have it pirated? Simply put, no. It's a logical guess that they have it pirated, but not sure, as I know gamestops among other stores receive their games in early (as early as a week before release). The reason I know this, is not only have I worked in retail but also, without the stores getting copies in early, then pirates would have nothing to copy. Some store must of gotten rock band 2 in a couple of days ago or else it would not be released online.
They are just reviews, not much more. It's not like we are telling them HOW-TO pirate the games. Granted, pirates look to get games for free, but a good deal of pirates use it to test the game out, before they buy it, and see if its worth it.
Those are just my thoughts/opinions.
Pirated games usually come out at MAX a week early (the earliest game I've seen is Halo 3, about a week early. Rock band 2 was just released early, about 6 days before release).
Pirated games are straight rips of the legit copy/game (a full 1:1 copy via a special dvd pc drive). Its not like movies in which there are a ton of options (CAM, telesync, telecine, dvdrip, screeners,etc.).
As for reviews, they should be allowed. Why? Well, they are basically just like IGN, Gamespot, etc. Except for they are from people who play the games for fun, and it isn't their jobs. I don't see the difference between reviews on IGN/Gamespot/etc vs. a review by a CAG member that *maybe* has it pirated.
Do you know for a fact that they have it pirated? Simply put, no. It's a logical guess that they have it pirated, but not sure, as I know gamestops among other stores receive their games in early (as early as a week before release). The reason I know this, is not only have I worked in retail but also, without the stores getting copies in early, then pirates would have nothing to copy. Some store must of gotten rock band 2 in a couple of days ago or else it would not be released online.
They are just reviews, not much more. It's not like we are telling them HOW-TO pirate the games. Granted, pirates look to get games for free, but a good deal of pirates use it to test the game out, before they buy it, and see if its worth it.
Those are just my thoughts/opinions.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
We could solve this by giving special user designations to those cats who get legit review copies/work for publications or online sites.
Like that RockSolidAudio cat. Give 'em cute special username colors or somethin'.
That way, if someone posts about how disappointing the ending of Gears 2 is, if they ain't one of 'em, it's pretty clear.
Like that RockSolidAudio cat. Give 'em cute special username colors or somethin'.
That way, if someone posts about how disappointing the ending of Gears 2 is, if they ain't one of 'em, it's pretty clear.
No for a plethora of reasons, first and foremost being I don't want MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc coming after CheapyD and by extension, CAG.
Even if they can't prove that he's promoting piracy by not slapping people down with the banhammer, the legal fees required for CAG to fight any major software company would be enough to spell the end of CAG.
Even if they can't prove that he's promoting piracy by not slapping people down with the banhammer, the legal fees required for CAG to fight any major software company would be enough to spell the end of CAG.
pimpinc333
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']We could solve this by giving special user designations to those cats who get legit review copies/work for publications or online sites.
Like that RockSolidAudio cat. Give 'em cute special username colors or somethin'.
That way, if someone posts about how disappointing the ending of Gears 2 is, if they ain't one of 'em, it's pretty clear.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty clear what? I've read numerous times when a CAG scored an early legit copy of a game when a store breaks release dates. Why should they be punished or have everyone point fingers at them as if they stole the game?
Like that RockSolidAudio cat. Give 'em cute special username colors or somethin'.
That way, if someone posts about how disappointing the ending of Gears 2 is, if they ain't one of 'em, it's pretty clear.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty clear what? I've read numerous times when a CAG scored an early legit copy of a game when a store breaks release dates. Why should they be punished or have everyone point fingers at them as if they stole the game?
pimpinc333
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
[quote name='Halo05']No for a plethora of reasons, first and foremost being I don't want MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc coming after CheapyD and by extension, CAG.
Even if they can't prove that he's promoting piracy by not slapping people down with the banhammer, the legal fees required for CAG to fight any major software company would be enough to spell the end of CAG.[/QUOTE]
None of this would happen. Unless the CAG who reviewed said game came straight out and stated they Pirated the game there would be no way in hell Sony, MS, Nintendo, etc. would come after Cheapy or any specific CAG Why? There is no proof that the game was pirated. MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc. could have a hell of a lawsuit on them if they did that.
Even if they can't prove that he's promoting piracy by not slapping people down with the banhammer, the legal fees required for CAG to fight any major software company would be enough to spell the end of CAG.[/QUOTE]
None of this would happen. Unless the CAG who reviewed said game came straight out and stated they Pirated the game there would be no way in hell Sony, MS, Nintendo, etc. would come after Cheapy or any specific CAG Why? There is no proof that the game was pirated. MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc. could have a hell of a lawsuit on them if they did that.
Well game companies have sued small websites for having a review before the game officially came out at retail (has to do with embargo rules).
However, since the reviews are not from CAG (Cheapy), and by its users then I imagine he wouldn't be held responsible since I'm sure it's in the ToS (if not it should be). Also, CAG reviews are not published on sites like MetaCritic where publishers take their scores very seriously.
However, since the reviews are not from CAG (Cheapy), and by its users then I imagine he wouldn't be held responsible since I'm sure it's in the ToS (if not it should be). Also, CAG reviews are not published on sites like MetaCritic where publishers take their scores very seriously.
I just wonder how one would plan on devising a system for reviews. Would reviewers be required to take a picture of themselves and the game? If not, again, one could simply wait until or after the release date. There has to be more to this system than simply waiting to see who posts before the release date. Also, what is the percentage of present CAG blog reviews that were posted before the release date? Certainly, after this thread, the percentage will be insignificant, if not zero, come time the game database goes live.
And anyway, this poll isn't necessarily about reviews. Do you guys think people who pirate games should be allowed to discuss the game at all? As in writing about it to give their personal impression of the game without putting their final opinion or a score to it?
corrosivefrost
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 45 (100%)
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']Looking through this thread, I'm starting to notice a trend. Most of the users who said "yes" seem to be focusing on the benefits to themselves or to individual users, whereas a lot of the people saying "no" are focusing on the site as a whole. k[/QUOTE]
the site is a community of users. i see no harm to the community by allowing people to talk about games prior to their release, so long as they're not screaming "I DOWNLOADED THIS HERE, GO GET IT HERE, BUYING GAMES IS FOR CHUMPS!!".
k[/QUOTE]the site is a community of users. i see no harm to the community by allowing people to talk about games prior to their release, so long as they're not screaming "I DOWNLOADED THIS HERE, GO GET IT HERE, BUYING GAMES IS FOR CHUMPS!!".
[quote name='chasemurata']Generally speaking, how will one be able to determine how another has acquired their media? What if a game pirate waits until the release date to post their review?[/QUOTE]you can't tell the difference that's why I don't care. This idea doesn't target pirates. it targets pirates who download game early. If i pirate games a week after release noone cares (in this discussion). 'Discussion' and 'review' for this question are basically the same thing. and once again long as they aren't giving directions to pirate who the bloody heck cares?
CheapyD doesn't allow linking or pointing to pirated copies** and that's good enough.
** I think this point should be reiterated in the poll because I'm getting the impression that a lot of the 'no' people here haven't considered that discussion/review early or not if they discuss HOW they pirate that would be crossing the line.
CheapyD doesn't allow linking or pointing to pirated copies** and that's good enough.
** I think this point should be reiterated in the poll because I'm getting the impression that a lot of the 'no' people here haven't considered that discussion/review early or not if they discuss HOW they pirate that would be crossing the line.
Bloodbooger
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 50 (100%)
Can someone just point out how the pirate is being rewarded by posting an early review?
He/She isn't getting paid, they're not attaining fame or infamy. It's just a damn review, hell until a solid release, it's a preview of an unfinished product. Just a few written thoughts, no website endorsements, no instructions; this is a forum, a place for thoughts. If anything this review would be honest, no advertisements, no suits involved.
People are going to do whatever the hell they want to do, whether it be productive or destructive, that's their choice and the consequences their reward. That being said, would CAG itself be affected by having someone else post these up? Doubtful, but it's on CheapyD... Look at how the Circuit City vs. Speedy1961 ended up, he's posting previews of sales every week, and I'm damn thankful, he'd put his neck out there for our benefit.
He/She isn't getting paid, they're not attaining fame or infamy. It's just a damn review, hell until a solid release, it's a preview of an unfinished product. Just a few written thoughts, no website endorsements, no instructions; this is a forum, a place for thoughts. If anything this review would be honest, no advertisements, no suits involved.
People are going to do whatever the hell they want to do, whether it be productive or destructive, that's their choice and the consequences their reward. That being said, would CAG itself be affected by having someone else post these up? Doubtful, but it's on CheapyD... Look at how the Circuit City vs. Speedy1961 ended up, he's posting previews of sales every week, and I'm damn thankful, he'd put his neck out there for our benefit.
Aleryn
CAGiversary!
No.
It'll sometimes harm early information sources, which may make it hard to compete with other sites... but - Pirating is the single most damaging thing to PC Gaming, especially, I believe.
It doesn't help console gaming, either.
It's... somewhat irrational, in ways, but the principles behind not condoning piracy are whats important.
It'll sometimes harm early information sources, which may make it hard to compete with other sites... but - Pirating is the single most damaging thing to PC Gaming, especially, I believe.
It doesn't help console gaming, either.
It's... somewhat irrational, in ways, but the principles behind not condoning piracy are whats important.
- Status
bread's done