Hacking 3DS roms yet?

[totalnoob617]

thats crap, slynk is right, you have ust been brainwashed by the corporate controller media, its not "piracy" its "fair use" read my post ,read what the very companies who are now the the largest content providers today said about back in the day when they were trying to have things their way ,now they change mind again ,like they do whenever its more profitable for them ,its total hypocrisy

and if you dont believe me then go to psx-scene , search for posts by squarepusher, he is one the few people who know whats up, and he is a dev of alot homebrew and emulators and knows devs that program for big commercial companies,here is someone who knows people in the industry and even they feel much the same way

 

[doyama]

Better yet, you "piracy is wrong" guys. Answer me this: What is the difference between you pirating a game and you borrowing your friend's copy?

"borrowing your friend's copy" requires at least one purchased copy --> profit for developers
"piracy" does not require one single purchased copy --> no profit for developers.

Got it?

Also borrowing a copy ensures the license that only a single 'instance' of that game is playable at any given time. It is in essence a 0 dollar sale between you and your friend, and you transfer the license to use the game accordingly. No different than renting the game, or taking out a book at a library.

Piracy allows multiple copies to be run without limit. That's the difference.

 

[Slynk]

It's not an excuse, it's facts. Say on average you have the money to buy 5 games a year. Lets say on average there are 10 Games you want to play a year. What do you do?

Buy the games used, sell them when you're done with them and use the money on the next games... easy huh? The only games that cost me money is games that are the age 18+ ones because eBay.de won't allow people to sell those, everything else costs me only the 8% eBay fee (that's like 1.50-2.50 Euros) and sometimes even earns me money when I'm selling something that got rare.
Just stop making up all those excuses to pirate, they'll never work. Just admit you're pirating because of convenience, because you're cheap and lazy or whatever. But don't blame money.

But the developers don't get money for you buying it used. Just shot your own foot there.

 

[Slynk]

Better yet, you "piracy is wrong" guys. Answer me this: What is the difference between you pirating a game and you borrowing your friend's copy?

"borrowing your friend's copy" requires at least one purchased copy --> profit for developers
"piracy" does not require one single purchased copy --> no profit for developers.

Got it?

Also borrowing a copy ensures the license that only a single 'instance' of that game is playable at any given time. It is in essence a 0 dollar sale between you and your friend, and you transfer the license to use the game accordingly. No different than renting the game, or taking out a book at a library.

Piracy allows multiple copies to be run without limit. That's the difference.

Not if it's a pc game. My mom's boyfriend uses my steam account for the games I bought. We both have them installed. And that's beside the point. It's all about money. It's all the same financially. This whole debate was about whether piracy harmed developers. >.<

Also, squarepusher is my hero. XD A bit over dramatic sometimes, but his heart's in the right place.

 

[doyama]

@Ravenius

Why do Xbox 360 and PS3 games cost $60 on release when the EXACT SAME PC game usually costs $45-$50? By using your argument that piracy hurts sales and development companies, then you could justify the higher price tag by saying that you are compensating for the massive amount of piracy. But, as already stated, developers claim that PC games are pirated more than console games. Funny isn't it?

It's called free market. If you produce a crappy game, and it isn't worth $60, it doesn't sell. I'm sure you've seen those games, few weeks after release they are being sold in stores for $40 instead of $60. Strange isn't it, how quick they can come off $20 on the price of the game? Even at $40, the profit off games is still high enough to easily offset and profit from development costs. Just like the music industry, good games will sell; crappy ones will get left behind.

Take a look at Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for a second. It was a million seller, even without AP protection (honestly, it was a disc tray check...). The game sold so well that they are making a 5th one in the series. If piracy was killing the industry, after the 3rd game, they would have put in stronger AP protection. Bethesda knew their product and knew it would sell even without the protection in place.

But I suppose you would like me to 'justify' piracy. Try this, you purchase a game and all DLC for it on the xbox 360. You are ONLY 'licensed' to use that software on the xbox 360. You just bought a $3,000 computer and want to try the game out on that? Maybe you want to see what all the hype about mods is about? Well, you can't. That would be breaking the licensing on the software. Not a big deal, though, cough up another $40 for the game and $30-$40 for the DLC, and you can enjoy it on the computer too. I believe that both sides, the developers and the pirates, are dicking each other.

By the way, before you decide to flame, I did purchase the game and DLC for BOTH systems...

Pricing differences can mean a whole lot of things.

1) Regional pricing is already different depending on where you are in the world
2) Price sensitivity can be a factor in the PC market where there is low volume of sales. And price elasticity, where people will pay $60 for xbox360/ps3 so why not charge that much. You'd be stupid not to.
3) Licensing costs to print disks for a specific media (X360/Blu-ray), or other licensing issues (cut of a games sales on a per item basis) need to be offset compared to the low cost of DVD media printing on the PC side.

 

[doyama]

Better yet, you "piracy is wrong" guys. Answer me this: What is the difference between you pirating a game and you borrowing your friend's copy?

"borrowing your friend's copy" requires at least one purchased copy --> profit for developers
"piracy" does not require one single purchased copy --> no profit for developers.

Got it?

Also borrowing a copy ensures the license that only a single 'instance' of that game is playable at any given time. It is in essence a 0 dollar sale between you and your friend, and you transfer the license to use the game accordingly. No different than renting the game, or taking out a book at a library.

Piracy allows multiple copies to be run without limit. That's the difference.

Not if it's a pc game. My mom's boyfriend uses my steam account for the games I bought. We both have them installed. And that's beside the point. It's all about money. It's all the same financially. This whole debate was about whether piracy harmed developers. >.<

Also, squarepusher is my hero. XD A bit over dramatic sometimes, but his heart's in the right place.

Unless you're exploiting the Offline Mode of Steam you can't run games on 2 computers concurrently with the same account.

And yes it's about money. These aren't non-profits trying to cure AIDS in Africa. They're for-profit companies. Since when did 'making money' become such a 'bad' thing.

 

[Slynk]

Pricing differences can mean a whole lot of things.

1) Regional pricing is already different depending on where you are in the world
2) Price sensitivity can be a factor in the PC market where there is low volume of sales. And price elasticity, where people will pay $60 for xbox360/ps3 so why not charge that much. You'd be stupid not to.
3) Licensing costs to print disks for a specific media (X360/Blu-ray), or other licensing issues (cut of a games sales on a per item basis) need to be offset compared to the low cost of DVD media printing on the PC side.

For those interested in the matter:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainm...video-game.html

 

[Slynk]

Unless you're exploiting the Offline Mode of Steam you can't run games on 2 computers concurrently with the same account.

And yes it's about money. These aren't non-profits trying to cure AIDS in Africa. They're for-profit companies. Since when did 'making money' become such a 'bad' thing.

You can't run the online at the same time sure but offline yes. And there are plenty of lan-able games that you can run off of 1 disc. And even more that are simple single player games.

I meant that my argument was about money. I know that the game industry is about making money

I was saying that your argument didn't touch on financial difference between borrowing and pirating as far as the developer is concerned.

 

[totalnoob617]

please ,this is the exact same thing as the napster debate, and the game companies are represented by greedy douche bag lars ulrich,and brittney spears represents the shovelware producers,,i think this south park episode sums it up best www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e09-christian-rock-hard watch 3:08-4:10 then 5:13-7:22
especially pay attention to 5:37-7:22

"the gulfstream 3 doesnt even have a remote control for its surround sound dvd system"LOL

and just remember the actual artist is treated as the lowest common denominator they are paid $hit, a negligable ammount and they are still living like royalty ,the ceo of a record label prolly looks down on the lifestyle of the artist that are signed to it and makes fun of them and says wow these people live in squalor, because they are making 100's of times more than the people who are actually producing the actual product,and its the same thing in the game industry,only they dont pay the developers like they pay rock stars ,even though a video game brings in much more money for a game label than a music album brings in for its label

the point is ,that all this sort of thing, napster,limewire,(both defunct,i know)and console modding and backup and flashcards,should all fall under fair use,and not "piracy"
unless you are making multiple copies and selling them to make money then its not piracy,thats what the copyright was first invented for,not to police fair use ,only through corporate influence and this media brainwashing has it been able to be turned into this over reaching, all encompassing, tyrannical juggernaut ,and people have bought into it, hook line and sinker without even thinking for themselves

 

[damedus]

Unless you're exploiting the Offline Mode of Steam you can't run games on 2 computers concurrently with the same account.

And yes it's about money. These aren't non-profits trying to cure AIDS in Africa. They're for-profit companies. Since when did 'making money' become such a 'bad' thing.

You can't run the online at the same time sure but offline yes. And there are plenty of lan-able games that you can run off of 1 disc. And even more that are simple single player games.

I meant that my argument was about money. I know that the game industry is about making money

I was saying that your argument didn't touch on financial difference between borrowing and pirating as far as the developer is concerned.

but if you know how u can pirate games online from steam by using backdoor hooks and using different accounts. some people believe games aren't worth the price specially if 1 ps3 game = feeding my family for 5 days I think they will opt to piracy, i have many pc clients who bring pcs to be jack-loaded of pirated pc games they cant get to run just to offer gaming to their kids cause they wont spend hard earned money on games (they don't play anything either) just to get their kids off their cases. But sooner or later the kids learn the methods and piracy isn't a second thought for them but rather a normal way to buy games before or at release date lol. Garena/Games Ranger and other services which are legal permit ppl to bypass steams online code protection so pirates have been able to play pc games online (which is what most ppl thing they cant do when pirating pc games, use it online)

In the end piracy is not illegal but rather immoral, selling or attaining profit from piracy is illegal(this is the copyright law in my country, a giant loophole because movie piracy places "charge" for the media and "burning it" not for the movie itself and thus legal according to law. Basically I don't even see piracy as immoral, I care as much for the income and profit of the game companies as they care for mine, if its online and free and i wanna see it I will, but to pay for something to see it no I wont ever, I buy mmorpgs cause I like them and I buy console rpgs from specific series because I collect them.(I don't even open them I play a backup) It's the society of today and companies will have to learn to either find better security methods, stop publishing or bundle physical items with games that promote the purchase over a "download" otherwise piracy will always win since free is always more attractive even if it isn't better.

 

[totalnoob617]

i think you have backwards,it is in fact illegal ,but its not immoral, i guess you thinks its not immoral to gouge people too, there is a difference between making money ,and gouging people ,yea its ok to make money ,its ok to have a sustainable business model where your making a profit ,but that is not what this is, these are public companies, once a company goes public that whole thing is out the window ,you are no longer trying to be a profitable business ,you are trying to "beat the street" or meet it,trying to meet an unreal expectation put on you by the exchange, its an unreal expectation that is put on you when you become a public company to make more and more and more and more money each quarter without end its not based on whatever that is the amount is that you need to stay viable and make a decent profit for yourself ,it has nothing to do with that anymore when a company becomes public, its goal is to "suck every last penny out at any cost"and it is not sustainable, and believe me it has nothing to do with being "moral"

 

[tj445]

Love how this has gone totally off topic.

On a side note, Nintendo FBI has found this thread an will now terminate all posters.

 

[GameGeek]

Better yet, you "piracy is wrong" guys. Answer me this: What is the difference between you pirating a game and you borrowing your friend's copy?

"borrowing your friend's copy" requires at least one purchased copy --> profit for developers
"piracy" does not require one single purchased copy --> no profit for developers.

Got it?

That's just wrong. To rip a disc you need a disc. Unless it's a stolen copy, which most of the time it's not, it was purchased. So your point is moot. Crackers have "suppliers", people who buy and ship the games to them. And regardless, we're not talking about the up-loader, we're talking about the user. Me borrowing my friends copy of a game doesn't support a developer. The purchase has already been made. So from this perspective there is no difference.

There's a difference between lending a game to a friend, and uploading a game to the Internet for thousands of people to download it and play it for free.

 

[Slynk]

There's a difference between lending a game to a friend, and uploading a game to the Internet for thousands of people to download it and play it for free.

So how many people is it ok to lend your game to? 1? 3? 10? They're playing it for free as well; what's your magical cut off number? Why is it ok for such a small amount but not 1000? If something's wrong on a large scale, it's wrong on a small scale. If you think someone uploading a game is wrong then it's just as wrong for someone to lend their game to a couple friends. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.

But that's all beside the point. We're talking about pirating a game, aka downloading it not cracking and uploading it.

 

[m3rox]

Better yet, you "piracy is wrong" guys. Answer me this: What is the difference between you pirating a game and you borrowing your friend's copy?

"borrowing your friend's copy" requires at least one purchased copy --> profit for developers
"piracy" does not require one single purchased copy --> no profit for developers.

Got it?

That's just wrong. To rip a disc you need a disc. Unless it's a stolen copy, which most of the time it's not, it was purchased. So your point is moot. Crackers have "suppliers", people who buy and ship the games to them. And regardless, we're not talking about the up-loader, we're talking about the user. Me borrowing my friends copy of a game doesn't support a developer. The purchase has already been made. So from this perspective there is no difference.

There's a difference between lending a game to a friend, and uploading a game to the Internet for thousands of people to download it and play it for free.

^This.

You kids are very ignorant.

 

[damedus]

i think you have backwards,it is in fact illegal ,but its not immoral, i guess you thinks its not immoral to gouge people too, there is a difference between making money ,and gouging people ,yea its ok to make money ,its ok to have a sustainable business model where your making a profit ,but that is not what this is, these are public companies, once a company goes public that whole thing is out the window ,you are no longer trying to be a profitable business ,you are trying to "beat the street" or meet it,trying to meet an unreal expectation put on you by the exchange, its an unreal expectation that is put on you when you become a public company to make more and more and more and more money each quarter without end its not based on whatever that is the amount is that you need to stay viable and make a decent profit for yourself ,it has nothing to do with that anymore when a company becomes public, its goal is to "suck every last penny out at any cost"and it is not sustainable, and believe me it has nothing to do with being "moral"

The law for my country only punishes profiting from piracy in monetary ways, it is legal here to own piracy or to use it but its illegal to purchase it. One good example is we have 5 major net companies where 3 are local and 2 are United states based, the 2 united state based companies consider us a USA territory and thus we get locked out from continental websites and games meant for USA. they also prevent most of the use of peer to peer and monitor the bandwidth use of internet. while the local internet ones are fully open with VPN forwarding and basically allow the use of content that's blocked on the other ones plus there's no band with limit per month and peer to peer works excellent not to mention we get free use-net(i know its paid in the sub price but since its the same as the USA providers costs here its basically free). The customer service sucks, they think ppl don't know anything about networking and call times are horrid but the service itself is up 99% of the time(ive had 2 days of no net in a period of 4 years). Whats even more funny is pirated copies of office, antiviruses and other software is offered for download in your account settings as a thank you for being a customer.(OEM versions intended for companies offered to clients is the same as pirating it basically as they aren't paying for licenses for us). A fun fact is that a local rental place got closed down for renting pirated movies, but a shop not 5 feet from it is legal because their terms of work state that they sell backup services and only charge for media and the actual work time. According to this the client states he has the game/media and he is requesting a copy (mind you he brings no actual proof that he does) then the owner will either make a copy of the media they already have charging 2USD(wich is kinda of a strech for a dvd cost) for the dvd media and a 1 USD work fee so basically things they have cost 3 USD (5 if its a DL disk) if they dont have it they charge 1USD per 1GB of downloaded data. Then there's the side of the road sale spots, shops dedicated to flash drives and jailbreak/mod devices, rom shops, retroemulation stands that sell knockoff devices and the list goes on. Its safe to say (at least in music terms) my country everyone owns at least 1 copied music cd or tape 80% of console owners have some sort of modding in the consoles and at least 50% of them pirate with 20% or so only pirating and never purchasing a game.(this is just example numbers not a real statistic) the best example is going to gamestop and asking for one of those low amount games that usually sell out, they are there lol the only thing that's almost always sold out is consoles.

 

[ccfreak2k]

There's a difference between lending a game to a friend, and uploading a game to the Internet for thousands of people to download it and play it for free.

So how many people is it ok to lend your game to? 1? 3? 10? They're playing it for free as well; what's your magical cut off number? Why is it ok for such a small amount but not 1000? If something's wrong on a large scale, it's wrong on a small scale. If you think someone uploading a game is wrong then it's just as wrong for someone to lend their game to a couple friends. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.

But that's all beside the point. We're talking about pirating a game, aka downloading it not cracking and uploading it.

With a "pirated" ROM, two people play from the same copy. With a lent game, only one person can have the physical copy and thus only one person can play from that copy. This is the difference. Rental businesses such as Blockbuster Video and GameFly rely on this.

 

[Slynk]

With a "pirated" ROM, two people play from the same copy. With a lent game, only one person can have the physical copy and thus only one person can play from that copy. This is the difference. Rental businesses such as Blockbuster Video and GameFly rely on this.

Again, except with PC games. What's your point? It doesn't matter how many people are playing at a time unless it's an online game. If 10 people are playing from an iso over 10 days or 10 people are playing from a lent copy over a hundred days(giving 10 days for each person), it all equates to the same amount of money people. Every one has yet to prove that piracy affects the gaming industry financially. You're just pointing out semantics that in the long run don't change anything.

If you buy a game you can play it online, if you pirate it most of the time you can't; If you pirate a game you can play it without a disc, if you buy it you'd have to rip and crack it. See how those statements had nothing to do with the topic at hand. >.

 

[ccfreak2k]

With a "pirated" ROM, two people play from the same copy. With a lent game, only one person can have the physical copy and thus only one person can play from that copy. This is the difference. Rental businesses such as Blockbuster Video and GameFly rely on this.

Again, except with PC games. What's your point? It doesn't matter how many people are playing at a time unless it's an online game. If 10 people are playing from an iso over 10 days or 10 people are playing from a lent copy over a hundred days(giving 10 days for each person), it all equates to the same amount of money people. Every one has yet to prove that piracy affects the gaming industry financially. You're just pointing out semantics that in the long run don't change anything.

If you buy a game you can play it online, if you pirate it most of the time you can't; If you pirate a game you can play it without a disc, if you buy it you'd have to rip and crack it. See how those statements had nothing to do with the topic at hand. >.<

The topic of economic consequences of piracy has been beaten to death. I was simply making a point.

 

[Slynk]

The topic of economic consequences of piracy has been beaten to death. I was simply making a point.

Even so, it's what we were talking about.