Quoting: Leopard

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Leopard

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Spirimint

As always, emulation remains as a vital part of gaming's history. Not just so we don't lose access to tons of older games many years later when a developer moves on, but so we can play them often better than the developer was able to run them on the system it was originally designed for.

Totally agree!! Emulation keeps games alive!

It would just be so much nicer if it could be completely legal. I get that devs don't want to put any effort into old games, but at least they could just sell the roms/isos on Steam.

????????

https://rpcs3.net/quickstart [External Link]

Due to legal reasons, PlayStation 3 titles cannot be distributed online and must be self-dumped from your own PlayStation 3 console or from your computer using a compatible Blu-ray drive.

Completely legal.

Emulation is legal. Dumping games is legal, but how many people are actually dumping their own games? Barely any. And even if they do: it would still be annoying. I'd rather just start Steam, click on "download" and then play it with an emulator.

Well , if you look at that way many PC gamers are also pirating PC games despite how accesible they are. There are many people who has GTX 1080 class gpu's yet still pirating games.

Pirates will be pirates , always.

But buying/playing games on Steam is easier than piracy and the difference is that buying games is possible. I can't buy isos for PS3 games, even though I would.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: no_information_hereGabeN won't live forever

You can't say that with certainty.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Leopard

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Spirimint

As always, emulation remains as a vital part of gaming's history. Not just so we don't lose access to tons of older games many years later when a developer moves on, but so we can play them often better than the developer was able to run them on the system it was originally designed for.

Totally agree!! Emulation keeps games alive!

It would just be so much nicer if it could be completely legal. I get that devs don't want to put any effort into old games, but at least they could just sell the roms/isos on Steam.

????????

https://rpcs3.net/quickstart [External Link]

Due to legal reasons, PlayStation 3 titles cannot be distributed online and must be self-dumped from your own PlayStation 3 console or from your computer using a compatible Blu-ray drive.

Completely legal.

Emulation is legal. Dumping games is legal, but how many people are actually dumping their own games? Barely any. And even if they do: it would still be annoying. I'd rather just start Steam, click on "download" and then play it with an emulator.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Spirimint

As always, emulation remains as a vital part of gaming's history. Not just so we don't lose access to tons of older games many years later when a developer moves on, but so we can play them often better than the developer was able to run them on the system it was originally designed for.

Totally agree!! Emulation keeps games alive!

It would just be so much nicer if it could be completely legal. I get that devs don't want to put any effort into old games, but at least they could just sell the roms/isos on Steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut if you just read the sentence "Greed is not the same as seeking your own advantage"--well, what is it then?
Perhaps we could come up with a decent, reasonably well defined distinction between bad greed and good not-exactly-greed, but I would suggest that it's subtle enough to make use of the term pretty defensible . . . especially since nobody seems to quite agree what they want to call it instead.

Let me give it a try:

Everbody deserves its share.
The border between being seekingyouradvantagely and greedy is if you're trying to get "your share" (whatever that may be) or if you're trying to get way more than "your share" (whatever that may be) - and thus eating away from other people's share.

It's clearly hard to say what's on which side (starting with the huge problem of defining "your share" in different parts of the world), but I don't think there's any subtility to the overall difference.

It's "I want what I deserve" contra "I want what you deserve".

If you're going to define greed as anything beyond just trying for "your share", then I think it's going to include a lot of what some of the other people here want to exclude. And it's certainly going to include about all the people I was talking about in my original post that got people annoyed, thus meaning there was no point in bugging me about it.
Let's see . . . one might distinguish greed as the refusal to weight other factors such as causing distress to others when deciding whether to pursue a gain, or something like that. But then, some people are clearly greedy and yet have limits to what they would do for a buck. It's tricky.

Greed is wanting more of everything even though you already have more than you need.

And no matter the semantics... you accuse everybody of being greedy. That's bad.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: tuubi"Greed" might not be the best term, and clearly carries different connotations in different cultures, but until someone suggests a less "accusatory" word (and I'm accusing the system, not individuals here) that is still explicitly negative, that's what I'm sticking with.

I think what's in the brackets is the point:
Our economic system is anti-social, without most of the people being anti-social.

And that's a HUGE difference.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: doomiebaby

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: orochi_kyo

Quoting: HoriHowever I wonder when will the big elephant be addressed - namely the house's cut on each sale. That thing should definetely be more open (read: reduced), as it actually does affect the consumers. Devs aren't happy with it, at all (and for good reason) and decide to sell elsewhere, which is not ideal at all for the users.

How does affect consumers? Because Greedy devs wants a bigger cut

Well, of course they're greedy. It's capitalism, everyone in the game is greedy. That's the point. Developers are greedy, portal owners are greedy whether Valve or EGS or even GoG, and we consumers all want cheaper games, we're greedy too. Everyone is, in effect, forced to be greedy.

That seems like an overly negative attitude :dizzy:

It's also quite an accurate summary of capitalism. You can call it the pursuit of personal gain instead of greed if you prefer. But in the end, we have to be greedy if we want to be (financially) successful in a capitalist system. That's something we should all be able to agree on, no matter our political leanings.

"Should" all be able to agree on?? how's about we can all at least agree on definitions for words like 'greed'? that is if we're going to use them and bother trying to communicate at all. personal gain != greed. if i work for food, i want personal gain. that is not the same as greed.

" You can call it" .. tell ya what, i'll call it what's most accurate and not accusatory. sounds like a serious case of characterization. is it really honest to start making assumptions about people's motives?

Why so insistent on sanitizing language? I can see where it bothers you to think that the way of life you're embedded in is based on "greed" as opposed to some less-ignoble-sounding version of the same thing. But let's be clear, the system isn't based on working for food, it's based on maximizing income, on the idea of everyone trying for an infinite amount of money. "Greed" seems a succinct summation of that. Now a lot of people don't, for practical purposes, really do that--most don't really have the opportunity anyway. But anyone who's a player in the game, anyone who could be considered an entrepreneur or engaged in any for-profit endeavour, is greedy, grabbing what the traffic will bear, or they're losing. And even those of us who aren't, are constrained to operate and even think that way to some extent. It's not like it's our fault. It's how things are rigged.
So any time someone calls out Valve, or developers, or whoever, for greed . . . depending how you look at it, it's either irrelevant or it's someone's personal instincts rebelling against the existing economic system without realizing it. But it's not really a valid personal criticism of the people involved; they're just doing what they're supposed to.

It's not what you're supposed to be/do. It's not about sanitizing language. It's not about maximizing income. Not everybody who is for-profit is greedy. It's a really really sad world view.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: orochi_kyo

Quoting: HoriHowever I wonder when will the big elephant be addressed - namely the house's cut on each sale. That thing should definetely be more open (read: reduced), as it actually does affect the consumers. Devs aren't happy with it, at all (and for good reason) and decide to sell elsewhere, which is not ideal at all for the users.

How does affect consumers? Because Greedy devs wants a bigger cut

Well, of course they're greedy. It's capitalism, everyone in the game is greedy. That's the point. Developers are greedy, portal owners are greedy whether Valve or EGS or even GoG, and we consumers all want cheaper games, we're greedy too. Everyone is, in effect, forced to be greedy.

That seems like an overly negative attitude :dizzy:

It's also quite an accurate summary of capitalism. You can call it the pursuit of personal gain instead of greed if you prefer. But in the end, we have to be greedy if we want to be (financially) successful in a capitalist system. That's something we should all be able to agree on, no matter our political leanings.

But calling _everybody_ greedy... that's kinda insulting. Even the less offensive "pursuit of personal gain" is hard to swollow. Is everything you do just for your personal gain? Don't you share things? Don't you gift other people presents? Don't you think others should be treated and compensated fairly?

If you think that's how all people are... that would be just sad.

Well, let me give a contrast. Imagine there was a system where everyone got a certain amount of credit every year that they could dedicate to paying creative people via sort of patreon/kickstarteresque portals (and that's all--it's not money, it's just a sort of vote to award someone money). Musicians, writers, game developers and so on. They'd all get paid from that. The amount any given creator could get per year would have a sort of soft cap, with rapidly diminishing returns past a certain point--but that point would involve a pretty solid living. But then the stuff they created would be free to all, available on public websites, steam-like portals or what have you built with open source code.
Of course this would all involve a fair amount of tax money. And might be inefficient, and so on, so it might not turn out to be a desirable setup, that's not my point.
But it would not push anyone to be greedy. The game designers could make a decent living without coming up with all kinds of tricks to boost revenue; they could just get on with making cool stuff. The "Steam" things would be public, not for profit. The public would get all the games, music, books or whatever they wanted, for free. Incentives would be very different. Our current system, for better or for worse, is based on greed, on harnessing the power of greed to (in theory) motivate productive effort. It is possible to imagine other systems based on other things, on harnessing different aspects of human motivation, but those would be different systems. Could be worse; the feudal system was largely based on pride and bloodthirstiness.

Even if that is/would be true... what makes you say that everybody is greedy? I'm not. Many others aren't.

I can see it's a disturbing thought. And I'm willing to believe you are, say, less greedy than many or most other people. But you are constrained to be motivated by money; it's the game in town. Do you prefer buying things on sale or full price? If you have retirement savings, do you want them to make a high rate of return? Would you like a raise? Would you like to win the lottery? Do you worry about either the poor, or the rich, taking all the money (via social programs or immigration for the former or tax breaks/evasion and subsidies for the latter) and leaving none for your kind of people?

Buying games on sale for example makes me responsible, not greedy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: orochi_kyo

Quoting: HoriHowever I wonder when will the big elephant be addressed - namely the house's cut on each sale. That thing should definetely be more open (read: reduced), as it actually does affect the consumers. Devs aren't happy with it, at all (and for good reason) and decide to sell elsewhere, which is not ideal at all for the users.

How does affect consumers? Because Greedy devs wants a bigger cut

Well, of course they're greedy. It's capitalism, everyone in the game is greedy. That's the point. Developers are greedy, portal owners are greedy whether Valve or EGS or even GoG, and we consumers all want cheaper games, we're greedy too. Everyone is, in effect, forced to be greedy.

That seems like an overly negative attitude :dizzy:

It's also quite an accurate summary of capitalism. You can call it the pursuit of personal gain instead of greed if you prefer. But in the end, we have to be greedy if we want to be (financially) successful in a capitalist system. That's something we should all be able to agree on, no matter our political leanings.

But calling _everybody_ greedy... that's kinda insulting. Even the less offensive "pursuit of personal gain" is hard to swollow. Is everything you do just for your personal gain? Don't you share things? Don't you gift other people presents? Don't you think others should be treated and compensated fairly?

If you think that's how all people are... that would be just sad.

Well, let me give a contrast. Imagine there was a system where everyone got a certain amount of credit every year that they could dedicate to paying creative people via sort of patreon/kickstarteresque portals (and that's all--it's not money, it's just a sort of vote to award someone money). Musicians, writers, game developers and so on. They'd all get paid from that. The amount any given creator could get per year would have a sort of soft cap, with rapidly diminishing returns past a certain point--but that point would involve a pretty solid living. But then the stuff they created would be free to all, available on public websites, steam-like portals or what have you built with open source code.
Of course this would all involve a fair amount of tax money. And might be inefficient, and so on, so it might not turn out to be a desirable setup, that's not my point.
But it would not push anyone to be greedy. The game designers could make a decent living without coming up with all kinds of tricks to boost revenue; they could just get on with making cool stuff. The "Steam" things would be public, not for profit. The public would get all the games, music, books or whatever they wanted, for free. Incentives would be very different. Our current system, for better or for worse, is based on greed, on harnessing the power of greed to (in theory) motivate productive effort. It is possible to imagine other systems based on other things, on harnessing different aspects of human motivation, but those would be different systems. Could be worse; the feudal system was largely based on pride and bloodthirstiness.

Even if that is/would be true... what makes you say that everybody is greedy? I'm not. Many others aren't.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: orochi_kyo

Quoting: HoriHowever I wonder when will the big elephant be addressed - namely the house's cut on each sale. That thing should definetely be more open (read: reduced), as it actually does affect the consumers. Devs aren't happy with it, at all (and for good reason) and decide to sell elsewhere, which is not ideal at all for the users.

How does affect consumers? Because Greedy devs wants a bigger cut

Well, of course they're greedy. It's capitalism, everyone in the game is greedy. That's the point. Developers are greedy, portal owners are greedy whether Valve or EGS or even GoG, and we consumers all want cheaper games, we're greedy too. Everyone is, in effect, forced to be greedy.

That seems like an overly negative attitude :dizzy:

It's also quite an accurate summary of capitalism. You can call it the pursuit of personal gain instead of greed if you prefer. But in the end, we have to be greedy if we want to be (financially) successful in a capitalist system. That's something we should all be able to agree on, no matter our political leanings.

But calling _everybody_ greedy... that's kinda insulting. Even the less offensive "pursuit of personal gain" is hard to swollow. Is everything you do just for your personal gain? Don't you share things? Don't you gift other people presents? Don't you think others should be treated and compensated fairly?

If you think that's how all people are... that would be just sad.

View this comment - View article - View full comments