C
TirithRRAnd if they want to play the full game they can purchase added content themselves (or use your account with the added content enabled).
ya, account sharing might be the only way out, but that is the last resort, when they make ending or certain "core" of the game lockout by DLC.
But i heard that Sony have ban some PSN user for account sharing.
so IF Sony is truely able to catch account sharing PSN user, then that only make thing worse, not only you lost your PSN account, you also lost the right to play the DLC for that game that you already paid.
tehuber1337calvin:Why do you feel so entitled to be able to share games with friends? What makes your friends so special that they don't need to pay the full price for the full experience? What makes the developers unworthy of a little compensation for everyone who enjoys the fruits of their labour?For the record, not having friends to share with is not the same as not sharing with friends.
why not if your friend is trustworthy enough? some people share thier DVD collection with thier friends, some share thier music collection with thier friends, some share thier book collection with thier friends, so why not game?
Replying to #21
What does trust have to do with it? What does it matter if the same thing is done with other media? The facts remain unchanged.
Sharing, whether it be with friends or strangers, deprives the creators of money they've earned. With EA's $10 plan, the creators are reimbursed and the buyer gets a massively discounted item, and if they'd rather have it yet cheaper, they don't get a little more content. It's win/win as the developers can get paid and the consumers are free to decide whether or not to pay extra for extra.
That said, I reckon the $10 payment should be phased out of necessity for games that are no longer viable retail.
Re: you\'re one step closer to losing your ownership rights!Replying to #22
Dont think trust is needed? dont you care for your property?
sharing can also be a way to promote games, IF the developer make a game good enough, by sharing it, can lead to buying, thats how my friend got LBP.
the way i see it, the "small fee" its only win for the developer. it server nothing but as an annoying drawback on the consumer side.
Post Merge: [time]1266168913[/time]
sorry for double post, PS3 character caps.
anyway i think i already make my self clear where i stand in this "problem".
M
This is why I hate EA, firstly in order to play the game you need to have EA Link installed, then in the future they are planning this.EDIT: I remember reading that spore was leaked a week or so early and loads of peopel downloaded it to AVOID the copy protection, not because they couldn't afford it.
T
calvin_0 · #23Dont think trust is needed? dont you care for your property?
Point completely and utterly missed.
calvin_0 · #23sharing can also be a way to promote games, IF the developer make a game good enough, by sharing it, can lead to buying, thats how my friend got LBP.
Nothing changes here. You won't be missing out on much if you don't pay the $10, and what's left is more than capable of "promoting" the game. Hell, given that the player only has to pay an extra $10 instead of full price if they decide the game is good enough, they're saving a crapton of money right there.
calvin_0 · #23the way i see it, the "small fee" its only win for the developer. it server nothing but as an annoying drawback on the consumer side.
The consumer pays a measly ten bucks, plus whatever they paid for the used disc/manual/case. Chances are it's
far cheaper than paying the recommended retail price. The only way they're likely to get it cheaper is to pirate it which, as we're discussing legal means here, is not exactly a valid alternative.
