I think a better comparison would be a “Drive-In Theater”, because with pirating you’re just seeing the film, not using their seats/venue (servers) so it’s like you’re sitting in the neighbors yard watching it from their porch. Still costing them what would be considered a “viewing purchase” for the data but you’re really not putting a strain on the theater itself by “attending or sneaking in”.
It’s a license to play the game, so when you pirate it is like sneaking into the movie theater. There’s no additional cost to the producer, but theoretically a loss of revenue from the license (movie ticket) you didn’t buy.
All that ignores the fact that they sure do pretend they are SELLING the game when it’s convenient.
Cataphract@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I mean you’re still using the Drive-In’s gravel and taking up space, but I see what you mean.
TheOakTree@lemm.ee 2 days ago
… you’re using the drive-in’s gravel and space… from the neighbor’s yard?
clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Ah I missed that. Thanks.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
the fact is, that most people who pirate, wouldn’t pay for it if they couldn’t pirate. It’s not a loss of revenue in most cases.
TwoSteps@programming.dev 2 days ago
I agree with this point, and it’s also why I think the class action suit makes sense. Some of the people who bought The Crew got a physical copy, which is now just a useless disc. It’s still just a license like you said, and I agree that it feels like they’re selling the game.
It’s like if the movie theater sold a DVD for a movie, but the disc will only work while you’re in the theatre. Pirating might still be a crime legally but I don’t think anyone should feel bad about doing it here, Ubisoft absolutely does not deserve your money over slimy business practices like this.
clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Agree top to bottom.