Mamoulian War

And, sometimes, the publisher/developer. Cracked Steam games have led to banned accounts, and there's other examples like these gems. the problem with this stuff is that if the code for detecting legality of the software is not programmed properly, lot of honest users will get screwed... there was lot of crying about FADE protection kicking in for legal copies... but because we are on the internet, you never know how many of them were true...

Only your conscience

Wrong! Because of the levy put on every single CD and DVD sold in many countries (so called piracy tax), law says you are able to download copy of a movie or a song for personal use after it has been publicly aired in Movie Theatre or Radio. You can be persecuted if you share it while downloading, because that is direct infringement of the copyright. OFC software does not fall into this category, because of two reasons... 1 - piracy tax is payed only to the movie and music industry copyright organization. 2 - there are now ways of legal public performance of the software. That is called a balance between state mandatory tax going to some white collars without any effort made from people who never pirated but are using these media for movies of their children, pets, etc etc... and fair use.

And I am amused, that how can someone with any sense of reality connect Rolex watches with any kind of digital goods...

That would depend on the amount of people who download from the same source. You would have to take the purchase and compare that to the number of people who only downloaded it verses the number of people who both downloaded it and then bought a copy. Also, you would have to look at the number of people who are 'lost sales', the number that are 'gained sales', and the number of downloaders who would never have bought the game anyways. This is contrasted to the friend's legal copy that has more quantifiable numbers (it might expand slightly if multiple people watched or borrowed the game, and then you would have to start looking at the same statistics that were covered above). I, honestly, would find it fascinating to see, or even preform, a wider study of the file-sharing phenomenon to grasp some of the exact numbers involved. I really would like to see some study like this as well, but I honestly do not believe that anybody will ever do this, because pirate boogieman is very convenient scapegoat... So in the end, it will always end up with us arguing over the internet, thinking that only our own opinion is valid and everybody else is WRONG

Watching a Let's Play is not equal to playing the game, nor is it equal to downloading the game. So? Again, watching a video does not equal playing through the game yourself - nor does uploading a Let's Play equal to uploading a torrent (and, honestly, most torrent uploaders do not have a real copy as most torrents are 'Scene' releases that got taken from 'Top Sites' - the cracking groups might have had an original copy or two, and might even have paid, but it's not normal for those groups to use P2P methods to distribute unless it's a P2P group). Again, incorrect. In one scenario you have one purchased copy and the potential for another purchased copy; the other merely has the potential for one purchased copy. To put in in more mathematical terms: The watching option has these outcomes: 1+0 = 1 or 1+1 = 2 The downloading option has these outcomes: 0+0 = 0 or 0+1 = 1 The net outcome of watching/borrowing is, at worst, the same as the best-case outcome of downloading while also having the potential for an additional sale over the original. But when we play with silly numbers, one torrent can produce in the end much more sales, than the friend, because more people are exposed to it

Incorrect. if you're playing a game at a friend's house, or even borrowing the disc(s), a copy was, unless your friend is a pirate, originally paid for (i.e. a legal copy). Thus, unlike if you download a copy, at least one copy was bought. But the end effect for the industry is the same, one additional copy of the game will be bought in in both cases.

alan, if the "SteamBox" will not require Steam as only distribution for games, it would be miracle, but the step in the right direction and then I would be thinking very hard about purchasing the "box". Because then for me, it would have more positives than negatives. In any other scenario Ouya, would suits my needs more...

no it is completely the same as playing the game at friends house and buying it next day in your brick and mortar store... You get free ride for one day and then you shell out your hard earned money for your own copy of the game few hours later...

Depends on what your stance is on things like DRM. If you are adamantly against DRM, you should never download because all you do is provide data points that encourage people to enact various types of DRM. Best to stick exclusively with DRM free software. In other words, only download something if you are okay with the fact that your action will provide additional incentive for new DRMs (even if paradoxically DRM isn't as effective as some would like it to be). I know this is kind of hard to discuss this because in different countries there are different laws about DRM circumvention and fair use... But using DRM free software only is impossible in this world, therefore lot of countries allow as a basic right of the customers to make one working copy of your software or music or movie and the only option how to achieve this is DRM circumvention. I am complying to our local law and every time I buy myself a game, be it PC or console, I make myself this one fair use copy either by burning software, or if the DRM is to complicated, I download my backup copy from the internet. Works for me like a charm. I still have working CDs from 1996 and floppies from even earlier, because I was able according our law to use my backup copies for personal entertainment.

Can you please explain me, what is morally wrong on downloading a game today and paying full price few days later? The seller is not offering their games in that way. They aren't running an honor system here, they are running a business. They have chosen not to give you a taste of their product before you buy. Your choice is to pay up front or refuse to buy. To take that taste without their permission is illegal and quite clearly immoral. There are plenty of other services that do offer the try before you buy option. Enjoy those instead. Yes and maybe next time you accuse somebody that he is immoral because he was playing the game at his friends place and not bought it himself... Seems right...

Can you please explain me, what is morally wrong on downloading a game today and paying full price few days later?

controlled environment = console whatever OS it will run... ... If you're curious how it's different from, say, the XBOX 360 and the PS3, I suppose the answer would be "it depends." The PS3 and 360 are very different to develop for, and even then you can't just take code compiled for the 360 and expect it to run natively on the PC. A "PC console" would literally be a console that can just as well take the PC game that you're playing in your desktop, and still run it. Or perhaps more appropriately, a game developed for the "PC console" runs on your PC with no extra work required. As a PC gamer, this doesn't sound appealing to you? ... No not at all, if the only option to get your games is Steam...

controlled environment = console whatever OS it will run...

And how is this very controlled environment any different from a console?

I just jizzed into my pants...

Best 3D platformer ever = Crash Bandicoot, nuff said!

Back to topic... Interesting article about prediction of how DRM would not work by 4 Microsoft engineers published in 2002. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/how-four-microsoft-engineers-proved-copy-protection-would-fail/

OMG, WHAT A RIDICULOUS DRM!!!

While I absolutely love the idea of crowdfunding, and it does change the landscape of the publisher/develop relationship, I don't see how it affects copyright. Obsidian still owns the rights to Project Eternity, by crowd funding it we've just freed them up from having to share that copyright or give it over completely to a publisher. Obsidian is promising to release a DRM free version, but that still doesn't mean by funding the game you now own the IP. Also I think you are overstating the impact crowdfunding will have on gaming. It gives a developer leverage in their business practices. It gives a studio like Obsidian a chance to do a project that publishers won't touch. But there are two problems here: 1. We, as the crowdfunders, have now taken on the risks of the publisher. If the game stinks, or fails to get finished, we are out of luck. 2. The Project Eternity numbers are still nowhere near as impressive as a major game release. Obsidian got 70,000+ backers and over $4 million dollars, that's awesome. But those numbers still don't compare to what a typical blockbuster does in their first week of sales. Hey Hurlshot, thanks for the reply. I noted that this is assuming that crowdfunding ends up being significantly larger in scale, to the point where AAA games can be funded through it. Seeing as Kickstarter's growth rate has been pretty close to exponential over the years, this doesn't seem unlikely once we look five to ten years into the future - especially since it's consumer spending, and thus not subject to the unique issues that rapid investment growth brings (ie. bubbles). And the point wasn't that crowdfunding as it is now is in some way killing copyright, it's that a successful crowdfunding economy is one that doesn't need copyright. And seeing that copyright is an intrusive government interference in the marketplace, it's difficult to explain why you should keep it if private industry is able to raise capital consistently without it. The crowdfunding model doesn't forbid copyright, but it doesn't need it either. It's a monetization model completely different from the software-as-a-product mentality behind copyright. There are a bunch of other examples of alternate monetization systems (SAAS, microtransactions, advertising), but crowdfunding is both the most visible and the most conservative, in many ways. Actually crowdfunded games still need some sort of protection from copyright, because the money they get are used only for funding the creation of the game, but the business as a whole needs some kind of profit after the release of the game, so that there would be at least some justification to create expansions and sequels... If the current copyright system is good, is whole different question, and always makes flame wars, so I am not gonna open that can of worms...

It completely depends on what you're doing with it and for what price. We know how small Sony can make a PS3, the super slim PS3, obviously remove the BD-ROM, HDD, it would be pretty small with an external PSU. Why not just get a super slim PS3 if you want to play PS3 games? I don't know. What's being transferred through the bus or thunderbolt? It's possible you could connect the Cell to the new GPU through it, but then you're using AMD to emulate games designed for Nvidia, using Nvidia patented technology, one of the reasons why Microsoft said they couldn't make the Xbox 360 backwards compatible. So in this dongle you have Cell, RSX, XDR, so it can use the HDD, BD-ROM, NIC, controllers of the PS4, all for $70-99. The PS3 super slim costs $270. The question isn't why can't you miniaturize a PS3 and plug it into a PS4, it's why would you ever want to, why would Sony sell it for $99. It doesn't make sense. Because 1 big box + dongle takes up less shelve space than 1 big box and one slim box, easy as that.

Got today boring home-office work. Found lot of news, that I missed lately due my business trips, so I thought I share them with my fellow forumites

SSD != streaming service as far as I know, PS4 will not offer such service... apple orange juice much? EDIT: 1600 users maximum at any given time according the news I posted says imo much more about QoS than youtube video

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19896362 And this bring more than a few doubts, that what OnLive says about their service, is reality...

Ehm... who would like to stream laggy 720p/30fps game, when they can play 1080p/60fps with no input lag from disc is beyond my understanding...