Rimworld as CD for christmas

[RawCode]

second hand games not real, most DRM schemes for physical media have cdkey involved, ever if disk is traded - cdkey already activated by first owner...

[Evul]

This will be future stuff cause its still an alpha.
You'll need to wait a looong time before even consider buying an collectors box

[Mikhail Reign]

Well since this game doesn't have a Drm, we can probably assume that I wasn't talking about games with a DRM feature. Second hand games = piracy. You get the game, and don't pay the developers.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Well since this game doesn't have a Drm, we can probably assume that I wasn't talking about games with a DRM feature. Second hand games = piracy. You get the game, and don't pay the developers.

Wow. That, uh...

By that logic, buying a car should be considered Grand Theft Auto. You get the car, and didn't pay the manufacturer.

[StorymasterQ]

Well since this game doesn't have a Drm, we can probably assume that I wasn't talking about games with a DRM feature. Second hand games = piracy. You get the game, and don't pay the developers.

Wow. That, uh...

By that logic, buying a car should be considered Grand Theft Auto. You get the car, and didn't pay the manufacturer.

Yes, well, a car (and anything with moving parts) in 10 years is worth much less than when it comes out of the factory. Computer code is ageless, so it doesn't really match the analogy.

[Mikhail Reign]

I never said you were stealing the game (or car), simply that you were pirating it. You attain a copy of the game that you are able to get 100% playability out of, with out paying anyone involved in the development or publishing process. How if that any different to piracy?

If you would care to explain to me how me freely downloading the game is MORE detrimental to the dev then me getting it by giving a pawn show $5 I'm all ears.

[Matthiasagreen]

I never said you were stealing the game (or car), simply that you were pirating it. You attain a copy of the game that you are able to get 100% playability out of, with out paying anyone involved in the development or publishing process. How if that any different to piracy?

If you would care to explain to me how me freely downloading the game is MORE detrimental to the dev then me getting it by giving a pawn show $5 I'm all ears.

I think the difference is that the original owner of the car is no longer getting use of the car. He purchased the car, the company got their money. He transfered his right to use the car to someone else for a portion of the money he originally sent. The key word is transferred. When one person buys a game and then sells it, only one person is enjoying the game at a time. One person's worth of gameplay was purchased. When one person's worth on gameplay is purchased and 5, 10 or 100 people are getting gameplay from it, that is when the money is lost.

[Mikhail Reign]

Doesn't matter if it isn't at the same time. One person purchased a single license of the game, and mutilple people get to use it. By that logic pirating a game would be ok as long as everyone wasn't playing it at the same time.

The first person not playing it while the second one is doesn't remove the enjoyment the first person had.

[Matthiasagreen]

Doesn't matter if it isn't at the same time. One person purchased a single license of the game, and mutilple people get to use it. By that logic pirating a game would be ok as long as everyone wasn't playing it at the same time.

The first person not playing it while the second one is doesn't remove the enjoyment the first person had.

The question isn't enjoyment, it is ownership. By buying a game you own that single copy. You can choose to do what you want with that single copy, except copy and distribute. The only person with the rights to copy and distribute the game is the creator of it. By uploading it, you are stealing that right and therefore the act and the copy is illegal. Therefore those using the copies are purchasing illegal content and are also breaking the law. Obviously buying secondhand isn't illegal, while pirating is, so the thought process that they are the same is not shared by many, mostly by people participating in the illegal side of it.

[Mikhail Reign]

Giving it to someone, who is going to give it to someone else isn't distributing? Kinda seems like the definition of it.

My point wasn't that secon hand is or isn't illegal. It was that at the end of it by buying or selling a game second hand you are distributing the game to people who never payed the orginal creator = to piracy. From the developers point of view there is no difference.

Developer sells game to person A and wants to sell to person B. If person B gets a copy from person A, either through piracy or buying the copy second hand, the end result is the same. developer cannot sell to person B. At least a decent percentage of pirates will buy a copy of the game if it turns out to be good, while a person with a second hand copy will never consider buying it again

[ShadowDragon8685]

Wow. The RIAA and MPAA must love you guys. Shall I pour you some more kool-aid, or would you like to just chug straight from the barrel?


The original maker of the game sold it at a price that was acceptable to it.

That's it. Done. That was the end extent of any claim of theirs to ownership of that specific copy of the game. They sold that claim for money; the new owner, henceforth, may do whatever the hell with it that they please, provided that it isn't duplicating it and selling/giving away those copies.

The copy they bought, on the other hand, is theirs to do with whatever they please, whether it be to sell it secondhand, give it away as a gift, microwave the motherhumper and upload the resulting light show to YouTube - whatever.

[Mikhail Reign]

Ight, how about this:

I lived in an apartment building at one point, hundred or so people in it. It had a main entrance with post boxes, one of which was the large business type. Since there was no business (or likely to be) in the building, some guy talked to the super and got the key to the box and gave out copies of the key to a bunch of people he knew. Whenever someone had a console game they weren't playing, they would put it in the box so that other people could play them. At its peak, about 25 people had the key to that box, and the games had to start being stored in plastic sleeve instead of their cases so they would fit. There would be many times that there would be AAA titles in there, the day, or the day after their release. Basically you would wonder down when ever you wanted, browse through what was there, grab it, play it and put it back. An honor system said ya should put in something when you took something. Say each game cost on average $50 and there was about 80 games that works out to be $4000. For simplicity, lets says that everyone of those 25 people played one of those games at least once. That works out to be $96000 of lost profits. Never was a game copied.

The only difference between that, and a second hand store, was the lack of money changing hands. 25 people got to experience each game, with only the purchase cost of a single license going to the developer.

[RawCode]

As long as individual who sold you his licence for software stopped to use it self, there is no violation of any common law.
Some states have absurd laws about software and other IP, some developers implement absurd DRM.

xboxone is great sample of DRM absurd that disallow to share games with friends\family.
USA is great sample of IP absurd with patent trolls who get patent for obvious things like emails.

[Electroman195]

I don't know, just thought it would be able to physically hold a gift rather then just an icon on a screen. I'm quite young and have loads of CD games, but I do understand where people are coming from when they say it is outdated.