then pay a dollar
no in fact DO pay the 1c because it's better that you at least MEAN well than just pirating a set of several games instead of paying a sum of money that you would otherwise have spent on what, a soda??? just pay for it gosh.
in fact it is NEVER better to "just pirate it" because guess what you aren't entitled to this game, if you don't pay for it then you don't get to play it, why do pirates always set up arguments that assume that they deserve to end up with the game in the end no matter how they get it? you either pay the 1c or $1 or whatever or you don't get it, you don't get to make up a scenario in which it's cool to get it anyway because "oh processing fees", if you can't pay enough to cover the processing fees then just don't get it you don't DESERVE this game
this wasn't targeted towards you specifically this is just something i see people do trying to defend piracy and it pisses me off
It's not that they are trying to defend piracy (except for the ones that are).
It's more like they are trying to put objective meaning to the idea of something being "better" than another thing. I mean regardless of whether someone pays money to get the games is not going to change the fact that it is indeed possible to obtain that material without paying any money whatsoever. Something being "right" or "wrong" or someone "deserving what they get" are all abstract concepts, basically ideas people imagine for themselves. You can denounce someone for trying to imagine a way to feel justified in pirating a game over legitimately purchasing the material, but can you name any objective difference between justifying the act of pirating software, and justifying the act of
not pirating software? The only difference is the ideals involved, and any ideal you apply to the situation does not make it any more tangible than any other train of thought your brain uses when making any sort of decision whatsoever.
The point is, regardless of the process in making that decision, the people who pay for the software are going to be the people who pay for the software, and the people who don't pay for the software are going to be the people who don't. Maybe the pirates and thieves are trying to justify what they do. Or maybe they are instead pointing out that what is actually gained as an end result completely ignores whatever the moral implications are. Does morality have a price you can pay with money? Because buying that software for any price they offer when you
know that you didn't have to seems to imply that it does, since (economically speaking) that is literally all that you are actually paying for.
The people that pay for the software will only get software they paid for, while the people who pirate software, will get it without paying for it. It is in the sheer fact that those people are capable of doing things that way that "justifies" their actions, because all anyone ever needs in order to do anything the "better" way is a reason to do so. It won't change the opinions of whether or not that way is better. It seems silly to let something so intangible and undefinable be such a strong influence on what you decide you can or can not accomplish.
I mean, if that wasn't the case, nobody would ever do anything anyone considered to be "wrong" ever. And we both know such a world would make absolutely zero sense.
Gaming World Forums
The Humble Indie Bundle