 | SuperNerdLand General | 98 Members |
| General Chat for SuperNerdLand.com Matrix server | 23 Servers |
| SuperNerdLand General | 98 Members |
| General Chat for SuperNerdLand.com Matrix server | 23 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 20 May 2019 | ||
 Trigger#1239 | Seems a bit over the top, but nothing I can't handle. | 17:15:41 |
 Ty_McDK | Tbh this seems to Have massively derailed from a simple point I made earlier about when piracy is acceptable. Already made that point and answered anything directly relevant so I'm leaving this here | 17:16:19 |
| Trigger#1239 | Damn shame. It's not often I get to test this with people who aren't overtly hostile. | 17:16:48 |
| Ty_McDK | I've been far from hostile | 17:17:10 |
| Trigger#1239 | people who aren't overtly hostileYes, this applies to you | 17:17:19 |
| Ty_McDK | You do you dude, like I say I'm leaving it here | 17:17:33 |
| Trigger#1239 | I've been attempting to say that there appears to be, in your perspective, a baked-in assumption that you don't own certain things which are nevertheless objectively within your possession -- that you are, in fact, paying for more content. | 17:19:08 |
| Trigger#1239 | The Google Drive analogy doesn't work because you don't already have anything that service offers you. That storage space belongs to someone else, somewhere else; in no way can you say you are in possession of it. You pay for temporary authorization to use that storage space. | 17:20:45 |
| Trigger#1239 | The Smash characters and stages, however, you do already have within your copy of the game. A little datamining would prove it. Yet you are still being asked to pay for them. | 17:21:49 |
| Trigger#1239 | As mentioned, this happens largely because, in multiplayer games, doing so prevents fragmentation of the player base. | 17:22:04 |
| Trigger#1239 | And most people still perceive that they are buying a good, even though they're not, which makes it feel "fair". | 17:22:29 |
| Trigger#1239 | But this can be -- has been -- horribly abused, because the principle has now been established. | 17:23:49 |
| Trigger#1239 | Companies are allowed to charge you for things they've already provided you -- disguising goods as services. | 17:24:11 |
| Trigger#1239 | As long as it looks like a discrete item, and you can buy it, people will treat it as a good. | 17:24:44 |
| Trigger#1239 | The FreeLC model prevents this problem from existing while still providing the benefits of a non-fragmented player base and allowing the "whales" to throw money at developers if they wish. | 17:26:24 |
| Trigger#1239 | All of the facts are as I have stated them. The only variable is whether you consider data that exists on your hard drive to belong to you. | 17:34:07 |
| Trigger#1239 | That's the moral question. | 17:34:36 |
| Trigger#1239 | (yeah I should probably stop filling the chat with tismatic discussions but god damn it you folks are interesting conversationalists and you generally don't immediately reject things with "but that's just immoral no discussion allowed") | 17:41:50 |
 Vysetron | we all have our -tisms | 17:44:26 |
| Trigger#1239 |
Companies are allowed to charge you for things they've already provided you -- disguising services as goods. | 17:49:46 |
 DocBray#7463 | FWIW you are technically right (the best kind of right, I've heard lol), but it is all a measure of morality. You don't pay for the DLC in most all cases, you pay for the "entitlement" to it (to steal from MS Xbox live terms). But there are a lot of cases where, even in single player games, the data exists and can oft times be easily unlocked. Example being Cities Skylines. You have the data for the DLC sitting in your HDD when you own that game. There is even a utility that is just a simple DLL pass through and ini file that will unlock them for you. That's a line I don't cross on a personal level because of morality, but that doesn't stop the data from existing on your system. And it's a bit of a unique setup in a lot of cases when compared to other purchases. The only thing I can even really think of that compares is what I've seen happen with cars and like even farm equipment. Functions locked out or restricted but baked into what the product is, so that if they hacked around they could unlock those features without paying. But that doesnt stop the general setup these days being that you pay for an entitlement to access data, and could see how that rubs people the wrong way when you put something on THEIR system and tell them they also cannot access it without $$ | 17:51:49 |
| Trigger#1239 | If it had stopped at the line Ty draws -- at the perception of a good that is actually substantive, a one-time exchange, not nickel-and-diming for an endless stream of digital "goods" | 17:52:54 |
| Trigger#1239 | I'd probably leave it alone | 17:53:00 |
| Trigger#1239 | If it weren't illegal to circumvent the access measures, I'd probably also leave it alone | 17:53:48 |
| Trigger#1239 | Still seems extremely scummy to me to effectively inject inconvenience and ask for money to remove it, but if it's not illegal to just do the work myself, then it's a valid service (as long as you make it clear that it's a service) | 17:54:46 |
| Trigger#1239 | but as it is we've given companies free rein with splitting anything off into a pseudo-good and we legally cannot just perform the service ourselves | 17:56:14 |
| Trigger#1239 | so instead of government intervention, just fuck the whole model, make it a good or a service but not one disguised as the other | 17:57:00 |
| Trigger#1239 | if it's single-player then just sell me a download package | 17:59:34 |
| Trigger#1239 | if it's multi then use FreeLC or a similar crowdfunded method | 17:59:48 |
| Ty_McDK | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-48339080 Inevitable conflict between Muslims and LGBT | 19:58:23 |