See, the thing about the Telltale engine is that while great, it's quite different from the original SCUMM engine. Even the Curse version of the SCUMM engine is a big departure from the original used in Secret. The Curse engine took the original 9 verbs and changed them into 3 context-dependent verbs. While that worked out great for Curse, it also means that the verb coin would never work in a true Secret or MI2 remake. For example: the verbs push, pull, use, open, close, and pick up were all consolidated into the hand icon, which would automatically provide the necessary verb depending on the situation. Now remember the safe puzzle, where push and pull were both necessary to unlock the safe? Or the rock catapult on Monkey Island?
And the puzzle underwater would be WAAAAYYYY too easy with 3 verbs(yet it was still easy but clever very clever)
So making a game a $xx million dollars is cheaper than buying it in the store for $50,-? I see a flaw there.
If you made it, and if you like what you made - absolutely. Don't forget that if you made the game investing millions, then it should at least be as profitable to bring you back billions.
Or not. If you're a millionaire already and just like building games for yourself, right, Mr. Gates?
Also, your interpretation of copyright laws is seriously flawed, but I wont be said if you get a massive penalty one day for it.
For what? Misinterpreting copyright laws? Am I actually saying copyrights are BS? Am I saying that I don't follow them? Am I propagandizing sites to download TTG games for free? Do I even know they exist?
Don't forget that if you made the game investing millions, then it should at least be as profitable to bring you back billions.
I don't think games make that much money, not even CoD:MW2. And that was, what, $260 million dollar or something to make? (It doesn't quite show does it, but whatever).
Or not. If you're a millionaire already and just like building games for yourself, right, Mr. Gates?
I don't think you realise how expensive it is to make a videogame.
Am I actually saying copyrights are BS?
Pretty much.
"It's posted on the internet... thus... it's free to use however you like!"
Yup, doesn't work that way...
My example of forced sales wasn't to say that they are wrong, it was on the contrary to show you how companies can make easy cash, and btw I accept this method as one of "scrubbing" potential customers.
Both LA (in the past) and TTG have done some great games and I, for one, never pirated any of them. But I did regret buying MISE and think that it's absolutely normal for this game to get pirated because it's not worth even 10$ of its price.
And this is where the brouhaha started.
If it's not worth half of it, then why bother even playing the pirated version? Around here 10€ is less than the cost of two good pints of beer (you can get two pints of shitty lager for cheaper though). So, 10€ is really almost nothing for a game. I could buy even shitty game for that price, if some aspect of it would amuse me. Personally I did like SE, so I didn't think that it was waste of money, although Tales was much better investment of my money.
Pretty much.
"It's posted on the internet... thus... it's free to use however you like!"
Yup, doesn't work that way...
Example 1:
a) you come to a website,
b) the website is not part of any larger domain group that is itself copyrighted,
c) it doesn't say anywhere on the website its material is copyrighted,
d) it posts stuff usually prone to be "stolen". Question: if, under these conditions, you take something from the website, repost it as yours, copyright it and sell it, are you breaking the law? Answer: no.
Example 2:
a) you come to a website that says its material is copyrighted
b) you do the same thing Question: are you breaking the law? Answer: yes.
Question: how is this saying that copyrights are BS?
If it's not worth half of it, then why bother even playing the pirated version? Around here 10€ is less than the cost of two good pints of beer (you can get two pints of shitty lager for cheaper though). So, 10€ is really almost nothing for a game. I could buy even shitty game for that price, if some aspect of it would amuse me. Personally I did like SE, so I didn't think that it was waste of money, although Tales was much better investment of my money.
Oh, did I mention that I also brew beer from sugar and yeast? Sugar = 1.49$ a pack in Canada, yeast = 50¢ a pack. Water... bah, I'll get some from a puddle and boil
Seriously though, I bought the game. I played it. It was half-way okay, the other half being "unfinished". That's the impression it gave me. Then someone comes in this thread and says: "Damn those haters! They don't know what they're talking about. This game is dynamite!" I protest and here we are, seven hours later, me vs everybody vs piracy being wrong.
And now you're forcing me to say that beer is expensive in Europe too.
If someone is worth playing it, then it's worth making. Nuff said.
Example 1:
a) you come to a website,
b) the website is not part of any larger domain group that is itself copyrighted,
c) it doesn't say anywhere on the website its material is copyrighted,
d) it posts stuff usually prone to be "stolen". Question: if, under these conditions, you take something from the website, repost it as yours, copyright it and sell it, are you breaking the law? Answer: no.
Example 2:
a) you come to a website that says its material is copyrighted
b) you do the same thing Question: are you breaking the law? Answer: yes.
Question: how is this saying that copyrights are BS?
Around here you become owner of the intellectual property immediately when you create it. For example if I take photo and put it to my own homepage, then it's my copyrighted intellectual material no matter if I put copyright symbol to it or not. Sure anyone can download it for their personal use if they want, but they can't legally distribute it etc.
Around here you become owner of the intellectual property immedaitely when you create it. For example if I take photo and put it to my own homepage, then it's my copyrighted intellectual material no matter if I put copyright symbol to it or not. Sure anyone can download it for their personal use if they want, but they can't legally distribute it etc.
I was talking about your own domains. For example you created a website on some bigger server that has no parent providers. Then you posted your pic there. Then I came, saved it, posted it on eBay for 5 bucks. Now if I do the same thing but take it from your Facebook account, for example, this be considered as copyright infringement. What is there so hard to understand? It's not even a topic subj, it's just how copyright legal mumbo-jumbo works on internet.
I am a music artist myself, I create electronic music using FLStudio, CuBase, Reason, etc. And I used to sell my stuff (now I don't) until I joined the freesound community, where you are obliged to say your tracks goodbye if you post them there. I did it with a couple of tunes, then someone came and took samples from one of it, remixed it into something I hated, and put back. That was the story, ever since I don't do that anymore.
That is to say that if you see a person telling you how copyrights work on the internet, it doesn't mean that they are against them.
I was talking about your own domains. For example you created a website on some bigger server that has no parent providers. Then you posted your pic there. Then I came, saved it, posted it on eBay for 5 bucks.
Now if I do the same thing but take it from your Facebook account, for example, this be considered as copyright infringement.
What is there so hard to understand? And btw, it's not even a topic subj, it's just how copyright legal mumbo-jumbo works on internet.
Nope, I checked the law book. It's my property even if it's in my private site, server doesn't affect to it (unless I agree to give away my copyright to owner of the server). That's how the copyright laws work around here, you just can't take other person's private photographs and drawings and use those commerically without legal consequences. It's a different matter if I care about such things and enforce my copyright.
preferred the original. why remake a classic? the words "lazy" and "money" come to mind...
Lazy? Then why would they make the game in the 1st place?
I know the majority of the posters on this forum already owned SOMI, but do you realize how much easier (and cheaper) it is to access the game? I am very happy that LucasArts made the remake.
And why do people always have problems with companies making money? Let's face it, LucasArts is a business, and their goal is to sell games and to make money just like the local Deli. All products, such as Secret of Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, etc. were produced to make money. So? Because of LucasArts being "bloodthirsty for money," we end up with two masterpieces of games. As stated in the whole Piracy debate, why would any company be motivated to make a product if they gain no capital? You see, profits make the world go round:cool:.
As soon as you create something and put it online, it's copyrighted, and your property. Putting "copyright" on the webpage does little, except maybe convince stealers they'd better not steal this specific content.
However, I think the point you're getting at is that it can be hard to prove it's yours. And that's true. However, if the person mails the content to themselves in a sealed envelope prior to posting it, for instance, then they can prove it.
The problem becomes, will people bother to do that? Most people won't. It is still illegal to use their content, but it's harder for them to prove you did. Just like it's always illegal to shoplift, but if there are no cameras it's harder for the store to prove you did it.
Doesn't make it right just because you might be able to get away with it, though.
And then you get all kinds of privacy laws where the right of observation of such behaviour is fought.
Instead of cavemen who bash each other's heads in, we've become white collars sueing each other's asses off. That's civilization for ya Makes you wish that sometimes people would just hit you and get it over with.
Now, back on topic: it all depends what you understand under "improvement". Better graphics and sound will always be an improvement in my book. I'll gladly buy any game remake done in the same vein (if it's an old game I already own, or one I've been dying to get but never found a copy of). Remakes like this got me back into the King's Quest series, one which I've always abhorred. And the Quest for Glory 2 remake actually inspired me to play the third game (though I gave up on it because it became too tedious).
Sure, individual people, and thus artists as well, all have their individual style. Concepts are created, discussed, approved. I don't think these guys simply slapped a doodle on there and called it a day. They're still creating things I can only dream of doing myself, so I'll always applaud them for that; sure, I might not like all of it for the full 100%, but so what? I don't have a problem getting over myself and moving on.
On topic: I didn't buy it, so I can't give my opinion on how it is, but I can tell you why I didn't buy it: you couldn't play the old game with the voices (and I didn't like the graphics of the new one).
In other words, I wouldn't have played the new one because I thought it looked weird, and the old one being exactly the same, not with added voices, I didn't need to re-buy it.
I would have bought it if it had been old graphics + voices.
On Topic: I've already said that I voted "about the same" because in some ways it's better, and in some ways it's not.
About piracy: I think that, while legal rights to IP's are decisively more clear, we'll never actually come to agreement about the moral implications about such things.
On the one hand, if a person or business created an intellectual property and copyrighted it, then it is theirs and they are well within their rights to be monetarily compensated (in other words, get money) for the sale, use, or distribution of it.
On the other hand, there are times when it would seem that the price of said merchandise had been set at a value that is by far and away as higher than would seem reasonable. For example, I personally think that it is ridiculous beyond words that a retail copy of the latest version of Photoshop is ~$600, or for a copy of MS Office is ~$400. Now, I know why they charge this much. It is because such software is popular and many a corporation will pay those prices because it is still cheaper than paying for the time spent teaching employees how to use different software. To the average consumer, however, those prices are ludicrous (which is why I have Corel Paint Shop Pro, WordPerfect X2, Word 2000 and OpenOffice.)
While it's just a cop-out for some to say "if it's on the internet, it's free" in an effort to justify their use of software piracy, I won't deny that I too have personally acquired pirated software when I felt that the publisher was charging exorbitant prices, or wanted to try out the full version of software before deciding whether or not to buy it, or else only needed to use certain software for one task only and one time only, and did therefore not feel the need to pay $50 for one simple task that I could find no decent freeware to accomplish.
Also, I used to have the argument in favor of piracy that sometimes a version of software becomes so old that it becomes difficult to find, especially at a reasonable price. While this might still be the case in some respects (ie. original copies of old console games), I would say that in this day and age with so much business on the net, if you can't find something for a reasonable price, you probably aren't looking hard enough. (ie. I found a retail copy of CMI on overstock.com at $25 for someone on these forums who was asking about it.)
EDIT: I bought SMI:SE from Steam, and it being my only Steam game as well as I hate to have Steam running in my system tray without it closing after I quit playing, I then acquired a torrented cracked copy of SMI:SE which does not use Steam, though I already have a legit purchased one.
Is that piracy? If you say "yes," and that I should only use software in the condition that it was sold to me, then feel free to have that opinion, but I'm still going to use it and not run Steam.
Well, to be honest, you don't have to be a pirate to get free versions. Like, I could buy Illustrator for... a lot of money, or get Inkscape for free, legally. Not the same program, sure, but it gets the work done as far as I'm concerned.
I agree about prices being ridiculous at times. For instance, I bought a pocket book 10 years ago that cost €17. It was an omnibus edition of a trilogy.
Yesterday I thought "hey, I'll buy the first two books (didn't like the third one) for my Sony Reader" (so, e-book version).
Looked for them, could only find the first one. For €17.50. Yeah, 50 cents more than the whole trilogy as a pocket book, and under the price was "original price 19.50" by which they meant that when it was released (20 years ago, by the way), the first edition of the book cost that (or rather the equivalent in Francs).
Now, I don't think that a book that was released 20 years ago should be sold as an ebook for pretty much the same price as the first edition, big-sized copy, when I could buy the pocket version for 5 bucks. It does not make any sense, and I didn't buy it as a result.
When books are first released, I can see the ebook selling for the same price - 2 bucks: that's how much they spend for printing costs, so that's how much less it should cost.
But when the paperpack version is out, the ebook shouldn't cost more than the pocket version. It just shouldn't.
Anyways, if people price these things so high, they shouldn't wonder why people don't buy them. But that in no way justifies pirating a copy.
(However, since I own the paper version of the book, I've been typing it myself, which I figure is perfectly legal as long as I don't distribute it. I would hate to have to do that for every book though, so I'm glad English-language ebooks are priced more reasonably than the French ones).
Avistew, on the subject of books, I have bought the entire book series of Harry Potter (US edition) in hardcover. Since Rowling refuses to release said series in ebook, I downloaded a torrented copy of them in PDF format and used Calibre to convert it for use on my wife's Kindle2. Again, is this piracy? I'm not going to type it out all myself, especially since I don't have a scanner and someone else already did that... and I do own paper copies of the books. So then if it is piracy, I don't care. Rowling should make it available for ebook, and then I would consider not doing it.
Also, I do own the first 3 Inheritance Cycle (Eragon) books in hardcover, and did also buy Eldest (the 2nd in the series), which I'm currently reading, in ebook because the PDF versions downloadable via torrent all sucked as far as formatting when converted to ebook with Calibre. However said Eldest ebook only costs $7 on Amazon.
EDIT: Plus, I use Python scripts on a regular basis to break the DRM on any ebook I buy from Amazon so that I can change the Title and Author listed on Home menu of my Kindle, so that it will sort better in the case of book series' that don't have the series' name in the book title or have a long author name that reduces the viewable length of book titles. Is this piracy? Again, if it is, I don't care. I did buy the books legitimately, and so therefore feel within my right to organize it how I wish.
You don't miss out on the text box jokes on the 360 (which I played it on). You could bring up a little menu with the choices and they changed the menu just for the parrot scene. I don't know how anyone could be upset with the SE, really, considering it had the old one, too. It also brought quite a few new people into the world of MI. Always a good thing.
You don't miss out on the text box jokes on the 360 (which I played it on). You could bring up a little menu with the choices and they changed the menu just for the parrot scene. I don't know how anyone could be upset with the SE, really, considering it had the old one, too. It also brought quite a few new people into the world of MI. Always a good thing.
Agreed. However fail LA was at some things regarding updating the game, getting more new fans of the MI series, or adventure games in general, is always a plus.
Avistew, on the subject of books, I have bought the entire book series of Harry Potter (US edition) in hardcover. Since Rowling refuses to release said series in ebook, I downloaded a torrented copy of them in PDF format and used Calibre to convert it for use on my wife's Kindle2. Again, is this piracy? I'm not going to type it out all myself, especially since I don't have a scanner and someone else already did that... and I do own paper copies of the books. So then if it is piracy, I don't care. Rowling should make it available for ebook, and then I would consider not doing it.
Yeah... It's a grey area at best. I mean, while you're torrenting it you're also peering/seeding it, meaning people who might not have bought the books get to have them illegally thanks to you. I'd say as long as your ratio is under one you had a neutral impact since the people could have downloaded it from whoever you downloaded it from instead, therefore you're not making a difference.
But I agree that when you bought the paper version and want to own it as an ebook, it's very annoying when no ebook is available. I'm not sure if the authors realise it encourages piracy. On the other hand, maybe the point is that this way, anyone who owns a Harry Potter ebook got it illegally and therefore can be sued? No clue about that.
Other things aren't clear. For instance I lived in France, had lots of CDs, ripped them into mp3s. Had to move urgently, taking all of my possessions to Canada in a few suitcases. I didn't bring books or CDs, appart from my few favourites. Everything I could, I brought the digital copy instead. Now I technically own the digital copy and not the physical one, that I abandonned behind. Is it legal?
And if it is, then is it legal to buy a CD, get the mp3s out of it, sell the CD on ebay and keep the mp3s?
And how do you prove these things? I'm usually too lazy to rip my own CDs myself, so after I buy a CD I download the mp3s. Is that more illegal than ripping them myself?
And if I then lose, break or sell the CD, and keep the mp3s, is it the same as downloading them without ever purchasing the CD?
What if I buy a CD second hand, then rip it? Since it was second hand, the author and disc company got absolutely no money out of it. Yet it's probably legal, isn't it?
These things are extremely complicated. A lot of the time, it's just details. If someone sees my mp3s and can prove I downloaded them from a website, how do I prove that I did purchase the CDs, but had to leave them in France? Even if I call and it turns out my parents got their hands on my stuff after I left, can I prove it is mine and not theirs? And since they could have used it, is it still legal for me to also use the mp3s?
I'm not sure about all this stuff. But I know that if I had just downloaded the mp3s without buying any CD, it would be more wrong than the way things are now.
Of course nowadays you can download mp3s so that makes things simpler. Plus you can usually track that. Although it brings up the point, if I already own the CD, do I legally have to pay for the mp3 version too? Probably not since I can get it out of my CD. Then can I download it for free? Probably not. If I do download it, I probably need to download the version that costs money.
I don't know how anyone could be upset with the SE, really, considering it had the old one, too. It also brought quite a few new people into the world of MI. Always a good thing.
I'm not upset about it, personally, but I'd say it's not worth buying it for me. Then again, I wasn't the target audience, since I already have the original game. And I agree it's good that it lets new people play the games.
But I would have paid for just the voices and a way to add them to the game I own.
However, I think the point you're getting at is that it can be hard to prove it's yours. And that's true. However, if the person mails the content to themselves in a sealed envelope prior to posting it, for instance, then they can prove it.
Hum, I think what I was trying to say is that copyright laws of the internet are dubious and easy to counterfeit. IRL if you created something, a signature would suffice, but here, if you put something up and proclaim it yours, you have as much chance as 0% to prove it once it's been lifted for unwanted distribution. Putting a copyright sign or uploading on a mass resource (such as this forum) can increase the chances of protecting your content from "pirate" distribution.
But some companies go about imposing laws such as if you "stole" something, they will track you down, put you to jail, etc etc. that I find absolutely ridiculous. The whole internet affair is so anonymous having this on your hard drive can hardly be proven as portraying your motivation of having stolen it. And same is with computer games that the person did not pay for and *poof* it's on their HD. Where is the chance of really downloading it from the internet versus copying it from a friend's CD (with the internet not being a culprit in that case)?
"copyright laws of the internet?" The internet itself doesn't have laws, nor a legal governing body. The laws of data transfer on the net apply to the countries where the data exists.
The way the internet works, if the there is evidence to support that a particular set of illegally distributed/obtained copyrighted data exists somewhere in a particular country, then that particular country's copyright laws apply concerning said data and it's government is the one who then takes legal action to stop you. I don't think you understand how international laws apply, especially when it comes to data on the net.
Just because the nature of data transfer makes it hard to determine where it first came from, that doesn't mean people can't be held liable for distribution of unauthorized data. That's how Napster got shut down back in the day... because the file storage system was centralized and therefore easy to target. (Note: I know that from reading about it. I don't fileshare music, I use Lala.com)
EDIT: I think basically what I'm saying is that, whether you're a software pirate or not, the way you argue in favor of it is dubious at best since it makes no sense. The internet is a medium, of course it has no laws since it has no government. The laws are upheld by the countries where the data is.
"copyright laws of the internet?" The internet itself doesn't have laws, nor a legal governing body.
It's almost going that way in Australia, with the Rudd government trying to censor the internet. I mean, most of the stuff they're censoring isn't stuff I would ever look at, but internet censorship is just not a power that anyone should have.
Please read some of my posts on the previous page. I don't want to step on the same rake twice.
What makes you think that I'm "in favor" of software piracy? Just where exactly did I pinpoint such interest? I was simply saying that some games are as worth paying for as getting for free. Effort should always be rewarded, however.
And another thing, if people argue about piracy is that because they know how it works. And if they know how it works, they all have pirated software from the internet at least once in their lifetime. So they're not more sinless than I am, for the record.
And another thing, if people argue about piracy is that because they know how it works. And if they know how it works, they all have pirated software from the internet at least once in their lifetime. So they're not more sinless than I am, for the record.
What makes you to make such conclusion? People can have extended knowledge about various topics without necessary requirement that they themselves break the law. Like I mentioned earlier my own pirate activities happened before the Internet became popular method of distributing pirated games. Still despite the fact that knowing how to copy Amiga floppies doesn't help with modern topic of modern software piracy, I would say that I know something about it.
I have read many articles about the software piracy from computer magazines, so I would say that I have at least some idea how it works without being pirate myself. I also know how P2P works and how you can make disc image, because there's also legal ways to use those things.
Plus - It's easier to get your hands on, now(legally, at least)! Minus - To me, and, it seems to a lot of fans, it just didn't feel the same. Believe me, I was downright excited about the SE. I didn't really see any screenshots, but I was still pretty eager to get my hands on it.
But it just didn't feel right.
It felt as if Mozart was being covered by your local indie rock band. To me, at least, the game didn't feel like it was built to be voiced, or in HD. Just like the cello won't really be appealing when replaced by a distorted electric guitar.
I think I'm the only one who feels this way, but by the time I got to Monkey Island, I was honestly slightly nauseated. The artwork, while appealing to most, was(in my view) hideously unprofessional at spots(the map seller being the most memorable example).
This will probably spark the "Graphics vs. Gameplay" debate once again, but I'm not talking about the gameplay at all. The gameplay was bound to be the same. I'll set aside my inconveniences related to the new interface.
So, was it an improvement? Not in my opinion. And the only reason I don't want another remake is not because I feel like "It's my game, and no one should dare disturb it", but it's more along the lines of - "Y'know, the original was pretty awesome, and I feel it works better. Why not just re-release it? It'll encourage new players to play an old game, which still doesn't feel dated unless you have a phobia for 256 colors. Which, personally, I don't think many people have.
I have read many articles about the software piracy from computer magazines, so I would say that I have at least some idea how it works without being pirate myself. I also know how P2P works and how you can make disc image, because there's also legal ways to use those things.
It's a general deduction. Not saying that everybody pirates stuff, but those who are violently arguing about how they never visited a pirate website in their lifetime are usually the culprits.
To close the debate, I just want to add my own opinion: piracy is kinda like mafia: you can never eliminate it completely, yet it doesn't really affect regular sales that much (for all the aforementioned reasons). And I do believe that there are games still worth a buy, but I don't believe that MISE is one of them.
It's a general deduction. Not saying that everybody pirates stuff, but those who are violently arguing about how they never visited a pirate website in their lifetime are usually the culprits.
To close the debate, I just want to add my own opinion: piracy is kinda like mafia: you can never eliminate it completely, yet it doesn't really affect regular sales that much (for all the aforementioned reasons). And I do believe that there are games still worth a buy, but I don't believe that MISE is one of them.
No Mafia here. What Mafia, please? We're Mafia free.
Comments
And the puzzle underwater would be WAAAAYYYY too easy with 3 verbs(yet it was still easy but clever very clever)
Or not. If you're a millionaire already and just like building games for yourself, right, Mr. Gates?
For what? Misinterpreting copyright laws? Am I actually saying copyrights are BS? Am I saying that I don't follow them? Am I propagandizing sites to download TTG games for free? Do I even know they exist?
That's a capital N and an o.
EDIT: if this http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6356 can be considered as rules, then please point to me what exactly did I say/do wrong. No, really.
"Yeah, sure, I stole stuff. I didn't kill no one in the process, thou. So, I'm innocent." That's how you sound when you say it
"It's posted on the internet... thus... it's free to use however you like!"
Yup, doesn't work that way...
If it's not worth half of it, then why bother even playing the pirated version? Around here 10€ is less than the cost of two good pints of beer (you can get two pints of shitty lager for cheaper though). So, 10€ is really almost nothing for a game. I could buy even shitty game for that price, if some aspect of it would amuse me. Personally I did like SE, so I didn't think that it was waste of money, although Tales was much better investment of my money.
Example 1:
a) you come to a website,
b) the website is not part of any larger domain group that is itself copyrighted,
c) it doesn't say anywhere on the website its material is copyrighted,
d) it posts stuff usually prone to be "stolen".
Question: if, under these conditions, you take something from the website, repost it as yours, copyright it and sell it, are you breaking the law?
Answer: no.
Example 2:
a) you come to a website that says its material is copyrighted
b) you do the same thing
Question: are you breaking the law?
Answer: yes.
Question: how is this saying that copyrights are BS?
Seriously though, I bought the game. I played it. It was half-way okay, the other half being "unfinished". That's the impression it gave me. Then someone comes in this thread and says: "Damn those haters! They don't know what they're talking about. This game is dynamite!" I protest and here we are, seven hours later, me vs everybody vs piracy being wrong.
And now you're forcing me to say that beer is expensive in Europe too.
Around here you become owner of the intellectual property immediately when you create it. For example if I take photo and put it to my own homepage, then it's my copyrighted intellectual material no matter if I put copyright symbol to it or not. Sure anyone can download it for their personal use if they want, but they can't legally distribute it etc.
I was talking about your own domains. For example you created a website on some bigger server that has no parent providers. Then you posted your pic there. Then I came, saved it, posted it on eBay for 5 bucks. Now if I do the same thing but take it from your Facebook account, for example, this be considered as copyright infringement. What is there so hard to understand? It's not even a topic subj, it's just how copyright legal mumbo-jumbo works on internet.
I am a music artist myself, I create electronic music using FLStudio, CuBase, Reason, etc. And I used to sell my stuff (now I don't) until I joined the freesound community, where you are obliged to say your tracks goodbye if you post them there. I did it with a couple of tunes, then someone came and took samples from one of it, remixed it into something I hated, and put back. That was the story, ever since I don't do that anymore.
That is to say that if you see a person telling you how copyrights work on the internet, it doesn't mean that they are against them.
Nope, I checked the law book. It's my property even if it's in my private site, server doesn't affect to it (unless I agree to give away my copyright to owner of the server). That's how the copyright laws work around here, you just can't take other person's private photographs and drawings and use those commerically without legal consequences. It's a different matter if I care about such things and enforce my copyright.
If you want to predict about copyright laws, learn it yourself first.
Lazy? Then why would they make the game in the 1st place?
I know the majority of the posters on this forum already owned SOMI, but do you realize how much easier (and cheaper) it is to access the game? I am very happy that LucasArts made the remake.
And why do people always have problems with companies making money? Let's face it, LucasArts is a business, and their goal is to sell games and to make money just like the local Deli. All products, such as Secret of Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, etc. were produced to make money. So? Because of LucasArts being "bloodthirsty for money," we end up with two masterpieces of games. As stated in the whole Piracy debate, why would any company be motivated to make a product if they gain no capital? You see, profits make the world go round:cool:.
However, I think the point you're getting at is that it can be hard to prove it's yours. And that's true. However, if the person mails the content to themselves in a sealed envelope prior to posting it, for instance, then they can prove it.
The problem becomes, will people bother to do that? Most people won't. It is still illegal to use their content, but it's harder for them to prove you did. Just like it's always illegal to shoplift, but if there are no cameras it's harder for the store to prove you did it.
Doesn't make it right just because you might be able to get away with it, though.
Instead of cavemen who bash each other's heads in, we've become white collars sueing each other's asses off. That's civilization for ya
Now, back on topic: it all depends what you understand under "improvement". Better graphics and sound will always be an improvement in my book. I'll gladly buy any game remake done in the same vein (if it's an old game I already own, or one I've been dying to get but never found a copy of). Remakes like this got me back into the King's Quest series, one which I've always abhorred. And the Quest for Glory 2 remake actually inspired me to play the third game (though I gave up on it because it became too tedious).
Sure, individual people, and thus artists as well, all have their individual style. Concepts are created, discussed, approved. I don't think these guys simply slapped a doodle on there and called it a day. They're still creating things I can only dream of doing myself, so I'll always applaud them for that; sure, I might not like all of it for the full 100%, but so what? I don't have a problem getting over myself and moving on.
In other words, I wouldn't have played the new one because I thought it looked weird, and the old one being exactly the same, not with added voices, I didn't need to re-buy it.
I would have bought it if it had been old graphics + voices.
About piracy: I think that, while legal rights to IP's are decisively more clear, we'll never actually come to agreement about the moral implications about such things.
On the one hand, if a person or business created an intellectual property and copyrighted it, then it is theirs and they are well within their rights to be monetarily compensated (in other words, get money) for the sale, use, or distribution of it.
On the other hand, there are times when it would seem that the price of said merchandise had been set at a value that is by far and away as higher than would seem reasonable. For example, I personally think that it is ridiculous beyond words that a retail copy of the latest version of Photoshop is ~$600, or for a copy of MS Office is ~$400. Now, I know why they charge this much. It is because such software is popular and many a corporation will pay those prices because it is still cheaper than paying for the time spent teaching employees how to use different software. To the average consumer, however, those prices are ludicrous (which is why I have Corel Paint Shop Pro, WordPerfect X2, Word 2000 and OpenOffice.)
While it's just a cop-out for some to say "if it's on the internet, it's free" in an effort to justify their use of software piracy, I won't deny that I too have personally acquired pirated software when I felt that the publisher was charging exorbitant prices, or wanted to try out the full version of software before deciding whether or not to buy it, or else only needed to use certain software for one task only and one time only, and did therefore not feel the need to pay $50 for one simple task that I could find no decent freeware to accomplish.
Also, I used to have the argument in favor of piracy that sometimes a version of software becomes so old that it becomes difficult to find, especially at a reasonable price. While this might still be the case in some respects (ie. original copies of old console games), I would say that in this day and age with so much business on the net, if you can't find something for a reasonable price, you probably aren't looking hard enough. (ie. I found a retail copy of CMI on overstock.com at $25 for someone on these forums who was asking about it.)
EDIT: I bought SMI:SE from Steam, and it being my only Steam game as well as I hate to have Steam running in my system tray without it closing after I quit playing, I then acquired a torrented cracked copy of SMI:SE which does not use Steam, though I already have a legit purchased one.
Is that piracy? If you say "yes," and that I should only use software in the condition that it was sold to me, then feel free to have that opinion, but I'm still going to use it and not run Steam.
I agree about prices being ridiculous at times. For instance, I bought a pocket book 10 years ago that cost €17. It was an omnibus edition of a trilogy.
Yesterday I thought "hey, I'll buy the first two books (didn't like the third one) for my Sony Reader" (so, e-book version).
Looked for them, could only find the first one. For €17.50. Yeah, 50 cents more than the whole trilogy as a pocket book, and under the price was "original price 19.50" by which they meant that when it was released (20 years ago, by the way), the first edition of the book cost that (or rather the equivalent in Francs).
Now, I don't think that a book that was released 20 years ago should be sold as an ebook for pretty much the same price as the first edition, big-sized copy, when I could buy the pocket version for 5 bucks. It does not make any sense, and I didn't buy it as a result.
When books are first released, I can see the ebook selling for the same price - 2 bucks: that's how much they spend for printing costs, so that's how much less it should cost.
But when the paperpack version is out, the ebook shouldn't cost more than the pocket version. It just shouldn't.
Anyways, if people price these things so high, they shouldn't wonder why people don't buy them. But that in no way justifies pirating a copy.
(However, since I own the paper version of the book, I've been typing it myself, which I figure is perfectly legal as long as I don't distribute it. I would hate to have to do that for every book though, so I'm glad English-language ebooks are priced more reasonably than the French ones).
Also, I do own the first 3 Inheritance Cycle (Eragon) books in hardcover, and did also buy Eldest (the 2nd in the series), which I'm currently reading, in ebook because the PDF versions downloadable via torrent all sucked as far as formatting when converted to ebook with Calibre. However said Eldest ebook only costs $7 on Amazon.
EDIT: Plus, I use Python scripts on a regular basis to break the DRM on any ebook I buy from Amazon so that I can change the Title and Author listed on Home menu of my Kindle, so that it will sort better in the case of book series' that don't have the series' name in the book title or have a long author name that reduces the viewable length of book titles. Is this piracy? Again, if it is, I don't care. I did buy the books legitimately, and so therefore feel within my right to organize it how I wish.
Agreed. However fail LA was at some things regarding updating the game, getting more new fans of the MI series, or adventure games in general, is always a plus.
Yeah... It's a grey area at best. I mean, while you're torrenting it you're also peering/seeding it, meaning people who might not have bought the books get to have them illegally thanks to you. I'd say as long as your ratio is under one you had a neutral impact since the people could have downloaded it from whoever you downloaded it from instead, therefore you're not making a difference.
But I agree that when you bought the paper version and want to own it as an ebook, it's very annoying when no ebook is available. I'm not sure if the authors realise it encourages piracy. On the other hand, maybe the point is that this way, anyone who owns a Harry Potter ebook got it illegally and therefore can be sued? No clue about that.
Other things aren't clear. For instance I lived in France, had lots of CDs, ripped them into mp3s. Had to move urgently, taking all of my possessions to Canada in a few suitcases. I didn't bring books or CDs, appart from my few favourites. Everything I could, I brought the digital copy instead. Now I technically own the digital copy and not the physical one, that I abandonned behind. Is it legal?
And if it is, then is it legal to buy a CD, get the mp3s out of it, sell the CD on ebay and keep the mp3s?
And how do you prove these things? I'm usually too lazy to rip my own CDs myself, so after I buy a CD I download the mp3s. Is that more illegal than ripping them myself?
And if I then lose, break or sell the CD, and keep the mp3s, is it the same as downloading them without ever purchasing the CD?
What if I buy a CD second hand, then rip it? Since it was second hand, the author and disc company got absolutely no money out of it. Yet it's probably legal, isn't it?
These things are extremely complicated. A lot of the time, it's just details. If someone sees my mp3s and can prove I downloaded them from a website, how do I prove that I did purchase the CDs, but had to leave them in France? Even if I call and it turns out my parents got their hands on my stuff after I left, can I prove it is mine and not theirs? And since they could have used it, is it still legal for me to also use the mp3s?
I'm not sure about all this stuff. But I know that if I had just downloaded the mp3s without buying any CD, it would be more wrong than the way things are now.
Of course nowadays you can download mp3s so that makes things simpler. Plus you can usually track that. Although it brings up the point, if I already own the CD, do I legally have to pay for the mp3 version too? Probably not since I can get it out of my CD. Then can I download it for free? Probably not. If I do download it, I probably need to download the version that costs money.
Sorry, that was a bit long.
I'm not upset about it, personally, but I'd say it's not worth buying it for me. Then again, I wasn't the target audience, since I already have the original game. And I agree it's good that it lets new people play the games.
But I would have paid for just the voices and a way to add them to the game I own.
Hum, I think what I was trying to say is that copyright laws of the internet are dubious and easy to counterfeit. IRL if you created something, a signature would suffice, but here, if you put something up and proclaim it yours, you have as much chance as 0% to prove it once it's been lifted for unwanted distribution. Putting a copyright sign or uploading on a mass resource (such as this forum) can increase the chances of protecting your content from "pirate" distribution.
But some companies go about imposing laws such as if you "stole" something, they will track you down, put you to jail, etc etc. that I find absolutely ridiculous. The whole internet affair is so anonymous having this on your hard drive can hardly be proven as portraying your motivation of having stolen it. And same is with computer games that the person did not pay for and *poof* it's on their HD. Where is the chance of really downloading it from the internet versus copying it from a friend's CD (with the internet not being a culprit in that case)?
"copyright laws of the internet?" The internet itself doesn't have laws, nor a legal governing body. The laws of data transfer on the net apply to the countries where the data exists.
The way the internet works, if the there is evidence to support that a particular set of illegally distributed/obtained copyrighted data exists somewhere in a particular country, then that particular country's copyright laws apply concerning said data and it's government is the one who then takes legal action to stop you. I don't think you understand how international laws apply, especially when it comes to data on the net.
Just because the nature of data transfer makes it hard to determine where it first came from, that doesn't mean people can't be held liable for distribution of unauthorized data. That's how Napster got shut down back in the day... because the file storage system was centralized and therefore easy to target. (Note: I know that from reading about it. I don't fileshare music, I use Lala.com)
EDIT: I think basically what I'm saying is that, whether you're a software pirate or not, the way you argue in favor of it is dubious at best since it makes no sense. The internet is a medium, of course it has no laws since it has no government. The laws are upheld by the countries where the data is.
It's almost going that way in Australia, with the Rudd government trying to censor the internet. I mean, most of the stuff they're censoring isn't stuff I would ever look at, but internet censorship is just not a power that anyone should have.
Please read some of my posts on the previous page. I don't want to step on the same rake twice.
What makes you think that I'm "in favor" of software piracy? Just where exactly did I pinpoint such interest? I was simply saying that some games are as worth paying for as getting for free. Effort should always be rewarded, however.
And another thing, if people argue about piracy is that because they know how it works. And if they know how it works, they all have pirated software from the internet at least once in their lifetime. So they're not more sinless than I am, for the record.
What makes you to make such conclusion? People can have extended knowledge about various topics without necessary requirement that they themselves break the law. Like I mentioned earlier my own pirate activities happened before the Internet became popular method of distributing pirated games. Still despite the fact that knowing how to copy Amiga floppies doesn't help with modern topic of modern software piracy, I would say that I know something about it.
I have read many articles about the software piracy from computer magazines, so I would say that I have at least some idea how it works without being pirate myself. I also know how P2P works and how you can make disc image, because there's also legal ways to use those things.
Plus - It's easier to get your hands on, now(legally, at least)!
Minus - To me, and, it seems to a lot of fans, it just didn't feel the same. Believe me, I was downright excited about the SE. I didn't really see any screenshots, but I was still pretty eager to get my hands on it.
But it just didn't feel right.
It felt as if Mozart was being covered by your local indie rock band. To me, at least, the game didn't feel like it was built to be voiced, or in HD. Just like the cello won't really be appealing when replaced by a distorted electric guitar.
I think I'm the only one who feels this way, but by the time I got to Monkey Island, I was honestly slightly nauseated. The artwork, while appealing to most, was(in my view) hideously unprofessional at spots(the map seller being the most memorable example).
This will probably spark the "Graphics vs. Gameplay" debate once again, but I'm not talking about the gameplay at all. The gameplay was bound to be the same. I'll set aside my inconveniences related to the new interface.
So, was it an improvement? Not in my opinion. And the only reason I don't want another remake is not because I feel like "It's my game, and no one should dare disturb it", but it's more along the lines of - "Y'know, the original was pretty awesome, and I feel it works better. Why not just re-release it? It'll encourage new players to play an old game, which still doesn't feel dated unless you have a phobia for 256 colors. Which, personally, I don't think many people have.
To close the debate, I just want to add my own opinion: piracy is kinda like mafia: you can never eliminate it completely, yet it doesn't really affect regular sales that much (for all the aforementioned reasons). And I do believe that there are games still worth a buy, but I don't believe that MISE is one of them.
No Mafia here. What Mafia, please? We're Mafia free.