Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: buenaventura...we have libraries where you can borrow books for free, there are free concerts etc.

A lot of libraries these days also lend video games. For that matter, some of them even lend you the system to play them on (console, obviously). And many video games are legitimately available for free through other channels. Which is to say that if you want to engage in the "culturally enriching experience" of playing video games (I can't say that with a straight face) then you can do so, legally and ethically, without spending a dime.

In other words, you just refuted your own argument.

Yes isn't it a damn communist world we live in? Burn the libraries! THEY ARE STEALING!!!!1

Sorry, but you are the one arguing that culture should not be free, that it is a bad thing if it is. I've been referring to alterntive ways of pricing (such as itch.io) and other services that are free the entire time, as examples of how I am not alone in believing that it is good if culture is accessible and free. Also, you just ignored my entire post.

Edit: I mean, thanks, the example of libraries enabling people to borrow games for free by using public funds to pay a license to the creator in the interest of public accessibility is EXACTLY what I think is a Good Idea. I couldn't have said it better myself. If you look back, I have in fact not advocated stealing, piracy, or purchasing from g2a anywhere, as you seem to think?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdaweOkay then, humour me. In what country is it acceptable to take a computer game that you're legally supposed to pay for, without paying for it? The digital vs hard copy for computer games is a pathetic strawman argument used by pirates to try to sway people towards not paying for others hard work. The fact is, if a developer wanted people to not pay, they wouldn't put a price tag on their works. If you argue against that, then I don't consider your opinion to hold very well. People need to earn money to live, it's as simple as that.

That is probably not what anyone is arguing for - there is a difference between believing that it is good if culture was more available, and encouraging people to steal. Also, stealing is not even related to that sentiment, since stealing will not help make culture more available.

Quoting: liamdaweLet's remove all other things like water and food which are necessities to live. You cannot lump those together to make this argument, a hobby is completely different.

That is not as straight forward as you seem to think. On an individual level, access to culture is generally very important for people's well being (here, doctors can prescribe for example visiting the theatre as a treatment to various ailments), and on a collective level, access to culture is essential to promote peace and understandning in any society.

And the idea that games are a hobby and not part of culture is just odd, where have you seen that? I am currently enrolled in a game design course at the California Institute of the Arts, on the radio and in news papers you will find game reviews next to music CD reviews in the culture section, in the academic field of Cultural Studies you certainly see studies of video games and other new media.

Quoting: liamdaweI have a pretty broad view already, but the counter-arguments I've all seen so far, to repeat myself, are from people wanting a world that as far as I am aware, does not exist.

I'm not talking about things that could be or should be, neither is anyone else, we are laying out our arguments for things as they are in the world right now.

OKay, so why are you hosting a site where you try to influence people to support linux gaming? As far as I know, linux gaming is still quite a small part of the gaming market and THAT DAMN WELL SHOULD BE THE CASE BECAUSE THAT'S THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. NO DISCUSSION; NO DREAMING; NO ADVOCACY. ;) ONLY FACTS ALLOWED.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManI think the worst of your argument is arbitrarily declaring that video games are culture, and that culture should be free. So if you want to justify taking something for free, all you have to do is convince yourself that it's "culturally enriching"? How far are you willing to stretch that logic? Do you sneak into a movie theater without paying? What about the local opera, or a sporting event? Help yourself to a "free" book from the corner store? Take your neighbor's car without permission because driving a vehicle is part of the cultural experience? Go through your friend's CD collection and take what you want without asking? Enter a stranger's home without being invited to watch television with his family?

? I can just stay at games being culture (what do you think that it is? o__O) comparable to literature, movies, and theater for example. And that yes, it is good if culture is accessible to as many people as possible - it is good for society, learning, equality, diversity etc. This sentiment is at least where I live entirely mainstream - we have libraries where you can borrow books for free, there are free concerts etc. It is also extensively researched as an academic subject, and extensively promoted in law.

To jump to the conclusion that I therefore should "take" things from others or something like that, is strange though. I can, for example, choose to buy a game that is available from multiple stores, from a particular store that lets me choose my own price (like itch.io), to tip the creators and know that my money arrived in their hands. That would be an action in accordance with the belief that culture should be available to all and preferably priced in accordance to what a person can afford.

However to take a book at a corner store, that would be not be in accordance with that belief, it would not help in any way I can see at least, and would be wrong on other grounds - I would be stealing. To buy something from g2a, that would not be helpful or in accordance with that belief either, but not as wrong on other grounds, however certainly fishy.

Believing that culture should be available to as many people as possible is, believe it or not, not particularly uncommon, and in fact not equal to stealing (wtf?). Not even by logical extension, things do not become free or available regardless of finance to people because someone steal them...

Quoting: Mountain Man[
I think the worst of your argument is arbitrarily declaring that video games are culture, and that culture should be free. <SNIP>

Are you beginning to understand just how silly your argument is?

Uh, are you from like 200 years ago or something? Since when is it silly to say, that culture should be free? I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the notion that it would be good (given that artists were compensated properly) if most culture was widely available without barriers, to further understanding, peace etc. Are you also opposed to libraries?

Edit: thinking about it, you seem to think that if one holds a belief, one will act as if that belief is fully realized already... Or what? Who the hell does that? If you believe that we should ban cars in city centres for environmental reasons, would you walk on the streets pretending that there were no cars there to further that cause? :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManFor the record, this is a logical fallacy known as "ad hominem tu quoque", also called "against the man".

In other words, you're arguing against the person making argument and not against the argument itself. That is to say that if someone condemns immoral or unethical behavior that they themselves are guilty of, that makes them a hypocrite, but it doesn't make them wrong to condemn the behavior.

And this sort of sums up the "you are just silly entitlement people" argument that came from the article and was reiterated over and over.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdaweI don't remember who it was, but someone used my Patreon as a counter-argument to my own article here. Claiming I would make everyone pay $5 to read the content based on my views. That's insanity, we're talking about two completely different mediums, you can't throw all funding types into the same basket for different things. Not to mention how dumb an idea that is for a niche website like GOL.

I feel I responded pretty well to the rest of your post in my previous one, but this part I want to answer specifically. Dragged to its logical conclusion, the idea that any pricing system that lets people pay what they want is inherently unfair, would result in not using patreon, but instead imposing a fixed price for everyone. As you said, that would be stupid, and that is the point - it is unwise to air such unreflected sentiments that when dragged to their conclusion, essentially invalidates much of the linux gaming market. And you would get fewer visitors, further limiting your advocacy potential - that would be stupid.

To me we are discussing two different matters:

1. FUNDING OF CULTURE: Whether choose-your-own-price models like humblebundle, patreon etc. are a good way to fund culture, specifically games
2. METHOD: Whether saying that you dislike a kind of person, in an editorial that is ostensibly about helping people make informed choices is, tactically and strategically, a smart method, given that the goal is to further linux gaming and money going to the right person.

That g2a etc. are bad we all agree upon, essentially. What is interesting, is nr 2.

Edit: I should add, that issue 1. I am not so interested in debating, as I've tried to make clear. I am to old for internet ideology discussions.
Edit2: I of course admit that I did drift into nr 1. quite a bit, but I also think that I've made my points there, so it is relatively irrelevant whether I continue. Sorry.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: buenaventuraIf you don't want people expressing opinions that differ from yours, to the extent that you cannot even respond, then just ban them, I would say, or disable commenting.

Says the guy who seems to systematically ignore anything he doesn't agree with. You've made your point clear, and also made it clear that you don't even read what the rest of us write.

The reason I am ignoring some comments is that I want to stay on point - I want to discuss (with Liam) the issue of whether his article was effective, as described above. I can answer again to your critique now, but then I dont feel like it anymore, sorry. I did enter into too wide a discussion, but at least I am trying to get out again.

Quoting: tuubiYou say all games are culture, and that you're entitled to all culture, because that's your right as a human being. You use a wide definition of culture as a catch-all, and flash the declaration of human rights as if it had anything to do with anything.

That is essentially right yes, I consider games culture, and I think that the UDHR is relevant - I believe that the goal of systems of pricing culture (private and public) should be to ensure that finance is a little a barrier as possible to all culture, while funding culture producers as equally as possible to support the widest variety of products and views/pespectives in them. I am not sure about the word "entitled", but what I mean is that I think that is a fair goal to have in mind.

Quoting: tuubiOthers have responded many times that there's tons of culture that is free, but not all artists (or in this case studios with wages to pay, whose employees include some artists) are willing to work for free, or in hope of donations.

Yes, isn't it funny that people keep repeating that as if it is an argument or something. Also, at day the sun is up, while at night, it is down.

Quoting: tuubiIf you want things to change, you've got to fix the system, not subvert it. There's the difference between activism and self-entitlement.

It subverts the cause of linux gaming to shoehorn in irrelevant bashing of some people in a otherwise needed article about how to ensure money goes to the right people, simply because we have to wade through some paragraphs of Liam's feelings about some people to get to the actual information.

Quoting: tuubiSorry about my tone, but you're pissing a lot of people off with your attitude. No use getting in a huff. I know you're looking for a ban to "prove you are right", but that would only prove how annoyed Liam is with you, nothing else.

I've tried to stay calm, and I am definately not looking for a ban - I am in fact talking to Liam privately as well, and we are both equally interested in keeping the debate on point. Why would anyone be pissed? Is it upsetting to hear the sentiment that we it is desirable to be able to pay what we want/can for games, if possible while ensuring producers livelihood? Humble bundle and itch must be very distressing then.

Quoting: scaineThe article has generated lots of views - many of your comments have had likes, as have many of the counter arguments. Gaming On Linux has never been "in it for the hurrah's". The near-complete lack of advertising should attest to that.

True, but I was referring to this specific article and even more specific, to the paragraph Liam just posted (and which I quoted I believe). I dragged the sentiment he expressed to its logical conclusion in order to show that it is silly - I use it as a rhetorical device to prove a point, I do not mean to imply that Liam is thinking this way, but that his sentiment leads to that.

Quoting: scaineThere's some nice irony that you're getting upset because not everyone agrees with you, so you're attacking the editorial and website... because you don't agree with it.

I am not attacking, I am critiquing his approach, his METHOD, not him. I do agree with him in most respects, except for this particular part of his method.

Edit: typos and some additions.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: scaineBut this article isn't about piracy. It's about buying dodgy keys, knowing that they're dodgy, knowing that the porting house won't see a penny, then complaining that this article made them feel guilty for it. That is sheer entitlement, and that's what made me laugh. The straight up rationalisation the "boo hoo" of it all. By all means, buy from where you like, that's your prerogative. But don't spout on public forums about how doing so is your right (as a human??) because you're entitled to experience everything that's ever made... because <mumble> culture <something>.

Just needed to quote this again to give it some more light, because never has a hammer hit the nail on the head so damn hard. <SNIP>

It simply echoes what you wrote in your article. Using "arguments" like "that's just how it is" or "it's just a fact" or "you say something else but I am right so buzz off", even "this is my site and look, a lot of people repeat my baseless "it's a fact, you are just entitlement sillies" statement over and over, thus it is true", it would have been better to just disable commenting for this article - you do not seem like you want to read or respond to anything but people agreeing with you. Perhaps a like-button on your articles would be better than letting people actually write, if you are just looking for hurrah's.

This sort of stuff will be posted on GOL in future, because I personally feel it's important to highlight, especially given the recent spate of increased pro-piracy comments on GOL which to be frank, piss me right off. This is a pro-legal website, that should have been clear since day-1 of us opening given our content.

You bashing random people does not make this a pro-legal website, it just makes it a personal blog. You would never see that kind of editorial on a professional pro-whatever site, you would perhaps hear Donald Trump say that kind of thing, and sure, you do get the same kind of "HELL YEAH UGH UGH UGH WE RULE THEY SUCK" sentiments from people who agree with you that he gets. But it is a crappy way of furthering a cause in the long term, I think. What was the purpose, exactly, with this article? What is it that is "important to highlight"? That you think people who buy from g2a are scum, or information about how to buy games in the interest of your money going to the right people?

As an aside, many sites ban/forbid discussions of piracy, which I think is fine - it is important to be seen as responsible and legal.

Edit: removed repetition.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: emphyIts an interesting discussion - as I see it, roughly speaking, there seem to be two views clashing:

One side of the argument sees video games as goods/services. From this it easily follows that if you can't pay you don't get the stuff.

The other side of the argument sees video gaming as a cultural activity. Money barely enters the equations in this view: the street artist has to perform first, then if the audience liked it they pay, or not.

Nicely explained! And impressive that other people feel like airing anything but the consensus of the guffawing mass of self important brutes set with "TOUGH LIFE KID" and "THAT's JUST HOW IT IS" blargh. Funny also that different systems of artist compensation are very common and established even in our small gaming world - itch.io, humblebundle, patreon etc. - so it's strange how the very NOTION is communist, but these things aren't. And that we are all using linux, where to start on that. Anyway.

So that is essentially my view on that matter as well (and I wont elaborate further). To keep the discussion civil and interesting/useful, it is good to limit it to a specific issue and try to stay there, I think.

My basic issue with the article is, bashing people for the way they spend their money will not help "our cause". See for example the free software foundation (fsf.org). They have VERY strong views about software freedom, yet in all their activism, certification, newsletters etc. I have never seen them vilifying or express aggression towards a specific person or group of people - they are super critical about organisations, systems, choices etc., but they are not aggressive towards individuals, because (I suspect they reckon) such behavior is counter productive and more the realm of far right nazi groups or the Red Brigades and the like. No professional/smart organisation or activist would do that. Instead they work by informing people and helping them make decisions, not by bullying them. And most of your article is informing, while a subset is unprofessional bashing or simply irrelevant and just takes up space. You would never see a site like Rock Paper Shotgun write something like that; it simply takes focus from the important information you are trying to convey, if nothing else.

I would like to see some more about how, for example, itch.io counts linux sales, or EXACTLY how the process works with Steam (there is obviously some confusing regarding this). Perhaps all written upp more like a table with an index of stores and information about how purchasing from each store impacts developers and linux gaming, including a "shame corner" where dubious sites (such as g2a) are warned against. What do you think (Liam), and I ask without hostility because I do really like your site, and I want to help make it better if I can. I guess the question is what your site is first and foremost:
1. your personal blog (in that case then fine, go ahead)
2. site for furthering and advocating gaming on linux (then perhaps think again)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: liamdawe@buenaventura, since when do people having more money mean they should pay more for the same hobby as everyone else? Richer people already pay higher taxes (usually, apart from the dodgers, but that's another story for another day). Developers set their prices, it's not up to rich people to pay more for the same thing.

That is my question to you, your argument inconsistent - why should poor people pay a higher percentage of their income for the same cultural product compared to rich people? Why should it not scale (if possible, such as in a humble bundle or on Patreon) according to the purchasing power of the customer?

You apparently support the notion of high income people supporting you through Patreon according to their ability/will to do so, while you (apparently) accept others to visit your site without paying (perhaps since they do not have that extra income to support you). But perhaps the latter is a mistake, since you do not approve that argument when it comes to games and other things? To be consistent with your view as you express it above, you should simply set the price to 5 dollars for entry to this site, no scaling applied, and leave Patreon. The stupid poor people can play with sticks and stones instead, until they can pay, and it is unfair to ask any more from the rich than what you the developer ask from everyone, right? I am sure all linux game developers will thank you.

And taxes, yeah, counteracting systemic inequality is something that at least I think is a good idea.

I have never argued that it is a good idea to buy from illegitimate sources (or pirate) - I expressed my understanding/compassion of people who do, given income restraints. I would think it would be stupid to actively, greedily, vilify people who do. It is just simply ineffective given that we all want to support linux gaming, what could possibly be gained from it? Do you really think that racking down on some random people from some sort of moral high horse will help any person developing linux games? What do you know about those people, really? What did that part add to your article?

And regarding attacking me or others in comments for what we buy or how we are as persons, did you never learn not to engage in personal attacks when discussing something? It is tempting to defend myself after revealing personal stuff like what I buy or my economy, but I just don't think it's worth it, so bugger off.

Edit: trying to stay on point here.
Edit2: and remove some unneeded aggression.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AurelienIt is really funny to see people sayin' "i don't have enough money so i pirated the game" and give any excuses to cover their acts. Let's change "games (digital or not)" with anything else from the common life for the fun :

I don't have money so i can go to the shop and take all i want because there's plenty of people eating what they want ?! One day i'll have money and then i will pay them for sure !
My neighboor is making a delicious dishes and since i can't cook the same because of my situation, i have the right to take some food from him but, hey it's OK, i'm not taking the whole thing, just a little ?!
Transportation belongs to the human's right so i don't need to buy my ticket for the train ?!

Come on guys ! In what world do you live ?

Don't forget this : from the law's perspective you're a thief whatever the reason you may bring and this is right. Because you can hide at home by stealing digital contents, away from the sight of people, does not mean you're innocent. You are a thief as well as the thief who stole in a physical shop or the one who's taken someone's belonging.

When i was child, my family did not have enough money to buy me computer and games. Instead we used papers and pens, making things with our hands. We were playing outside the house with wood, rocks and other materials you can found in the nature. And what did we do to play video games ? We just gathered with friends that owned games and played with them. There was no reason for us to steal other's property. Nowadays it would be different? Are you kidding me ?

If you would be really poor, as a lot of people in those comments claim to be, you would certainly not own a gaming computer, nor have access to internet, and use precious time to debate on this website.
Trust me i know some poor people and for them "playing games on console or computer" is really not their concern for sure.

Urgh, where to start. There are multiple discussion here, and they are not as straightforward as you present them.

1. Law/theft: Sure, it is true that certain acts that you describe are defined as theft in most current law. Great work. Are you trying to scare someone or what? What is the purpose of relating current law that everyone knows to us? The issue is the worth of chiding people for buying legal or illegal copies of games in Liams article.

2. Human rights. They are very much up to interpretation (although there is none of "transportation"). However, often people agree to their spirit, thus they can be useful in discussions. It is good to refer to them specifically though, not just "UH HUMAN RIGHTS DUH WAH WAH".

3. Poverty. A useful definition of poverty is relative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty [External Link]
So yeah, think again.

And again, I am not defending myself, it is annoying that people just jump on that for the abusive potential it has. Grow up/get off yer high horses. Is this a contest over who is the poorest? I related my own experience since I wanted to convey the anguish that many feel about small purchases, something that is often hard for rich/careless people to empathize with. It is very easy to talk about needy lazy poor people who just hang around on social benefits etc (puke).

View this comment - View article - View full comments