55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Humakt83]

Did anyone notice Reaper landing on Mars?

[Big Bad]

HellishFiend wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

byne wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

I'm curious... do you guys think it would be legal to download a copy of the PC version if all I do is poke at the files and never actually try to launch the game?

Do you think it is legal to steal money even if you never actually intend to spend it?

Yeah, if filesharing were legally so trivial then we wouldn't have any discussions on it, anymore. It's a very grey area. Hence, the EULAs.

Exactly. When you buy a physical copy of a game, you are buying two things. You're buying the media the game is on and the packaging/materials it comes with, as well as the license to use it. That license legally allows for you to have digital or physical backups of your original copy. It's not a stupid question to ask if the PC version files could possibly be covered by that license as long as I dont actually try to use them to play.

From a legal standpoint, I don't think whether or not you actually plan on playing the game matters at all.  How you acquire it is what matters.  That being the case, I think we can be quite confident that the purchase of the game for one platform (360) does not in any way legally entitle the buyer to ownership of the game on a separate platform (PC).

That said, it may not be legal, but is it unethical?  Well, only you can decide that.

[HellishFiend]

Humakt83 wrote...

Did anyone notice Reaper landing on Mars?

There are actually two of them in that shot, and yup, I did notice them. 

Didnt surprise me though since Joker does warn you that you have incoming Reapers. 

[MaximizedAction]

Humakt83 wrote...

Did anyone notice Reaper landing on Mars?

Why did they do it as an easter egg? They did mention that the Reapers were coming and Normandy had to leave.
So why make it so difficult to spot? After having played that part 3 times, I never once noticed it until your post.

It's like that third squadmember disappearing behind the bushes during the Synthesis cutscene...

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 16 juin 2012 - 04:49 .

[HellishFiend]

Big Bad wrote...


From a legal standpoint, I don't think whether or not you actually plan on playing the game matters at all.  How you acquire it is what matters.  That being the case, I think we can be quite confident that the purchase of the game for one platform (360) does not in any way legally entitle the buyer to ownership of the game on a separate platform (PC).

That said, it may not be legal, but is it unethical?  Well, only you can decide that.

Actually, last time I checked, how you acquire it doesnt matter. For example, if you buy a legal copy of ME3 for PC, at that point its legal for you to download a copy of the torrent for backup purposes. In fact, it's even legal for you to install the game on someone else's PC as long as you both dont play it at the same time. That technicality doesnt come up much these days due to copy protection preventing people from playing concurrently with a single license, but it still stands legally from back in the cd-key era, as far as I know. 

That was what caused the huge outcry over Spore, in fact. Spore technically violated the consumer's legal rights to the use of their purchase. Since then, developers have been more careful to walk that fine line between doing the most that they can to prevent piracy, and protecting the consumer's rights. 

[Rosewind]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

Did anyone notice Reaper landing on Mars?

Why did they do it as an easter egg? They did mention that the Reapers were coming and Normandy had to leave.
So why make it so difficult to spot? After having played that part 3 times, I never once noticed it until your post.

It's like that third squadmember disappearing behind the bushes during the Synthesis cutscene...

*A wild squad member appears*

[HellishFiend]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

Did anyone notice Reaper landing on Mars?

Why did they do it as an easter egg? They did mention that the Reapers were coming and Normandy had to leave.
So why make it so difficult to spot? After having played that part 3 times, I never once noticed it until your post.

It's like that third squadmember disappearing behind the bushes during the Synthesis cutscene...

I noticed the two Reapers in the background on my first playthrough..

[Rosewind]

HellishFiend wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

Did anyone notice Reaper landing on Mars?

Why did they do it as an easter egg? They did mention that the Reapers were coming and Normandy had to leave.
So why make it so difficult to spot? After having played that part 3 times, I never once noticed it until your post.

It's like that third squadmember disappearing behind the bushes during the Synthesis cutscene...

I noticed the two Reapers in the background on my first playthrough..

they look like those silverfish you get crawling around on the floor.

[MaximizedAction]

HellishFiend wrote...

Big Bad wrote...


From a legal standpoint, I don't think whether or not you actually plan on playing the game matters at all.  How you acquire it is what matters.  That being the case, I think we can be quite confident that the purchase of the game for one platform (360) does not in any way legally entitle the buyer to ownership of the game on a separate platform (PC).

That said, it may not be legal, but is it unethical?  Well, only you can decide that.

Actually, last time I checked, how you acquire it doesnt matter. For example, if you buy a legal copy of ME3 for PC, at that point its legal for you to download a copy of the torrent for backup purposes. In fact, it's even legal for you to install the game on someone else's PC as long as you both dont play it at the same time. That technicality doesnt come up much these days due to copy protection preventing people from playing concurrently with a single license, but it still stands legally from back in the cd-key era, as far as I know. 

That was what caused the huge outcry over Spore, in fact. Spore technically violated the consumer's legal rights to the use of their purchase. Since then, developers have been more careful to walk that fine line between doing the most that they can to prevent piracy, and protecting the consumer's rights. 

That first paragraph, it's how most non-game software licensing works. E.g. Adobe concurrent liceses, where a maximum number of allowed programms running is purchased, Microsoft also works that way.

The problem only here is, that there is still no general law to 'cover them all'. That's why every program is shipped with its own EULA. So we can't really follow it from other programs. I would ask this one on the EA forums to risk less trolling from the rest of BSN.

[Big Bad]

HellishFiend wrote...

Big Bad wrote...


From a legal standpoint, I don't think whether or not you actually plan on playing the game matters at all.  How you acquire it is what matters.  That being the case, I think we can be quite confident that the purchase of the game for one platform (360) does not in any way legally entitle the buyer to ownership of the game on a separate platform (PC).

That said, it may not be legal, but is it unethical?  Well, only you can decide that.

Actually, last time I checked, how you acquire it doesnt matter. For example, if you buy a legal copy of ME3 for PC, at that point its legal for you to download a copy of the torrent for backup purposes. In fact, it's even legal for you to install the game on someone else's PC as long as you both dont play it at the same time. That technicality doesnt come up much these days due to copy protection preventing people from playing concurrently with a single license, but it still stands legally from back in the cd-key era, as far as I know. 

Are you sure about that?  IANAL, so you very well could right, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  In any case, purchasing a PC game and then downloading another copy of the PC game is not the same thing as purchasing an XBOX copy and downloading a PC (or PS3) copy.  I'm sure that all three platforms have their own separate legal agreements with the software company, and I wouldn't think that these agreements allow for free interchange between platforms on the part of the end user.  It's not as if you could go to Best Buy, show them your XBOX game and expect them to allow you walk out with a free PC copy.

Modifié par Big Bad, 16 juin 2012 - 04:57 .

[MaximizedAction]

HellishFiend wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

Did anyone notice Reaper landing on Mars?

Why did they do it as an easter egg? They did mention that the Reapers were coming and Normandy had to leave.
So why make it so difficult to spot? After having played that part 3 times, I never once noticed it until your post.

It's like that third squadmember disappearing behind the bushes during the Synthesis cutscene...

I noticed the two Reapers in the background on my first playthrough..

Then I should pay better attention next time.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 16 juin 2012 - 04:59 .

[HellishFiend]

MaximizedAction wrote...

That first paragraph, it's how most non-game software licensing works. E.g. Adobe concurrent liceses, where a maximum number of allowed programms running is purchased, Microsoft also works that way.

The problem only here is, that there is still no general law to 'cover them all'. That's why every program is shipped with its own EULA. So we can't really follow it from other programs. I would ask this one on the EA forums to risk less trolling from the rest of BSN.

Those laws and precedents apply to gaming, too. Its not legal for a publisher to write an EULA that violates your rights. And last time I checked (which was many years ago, I'll admit), posessing backups of software you have purchased is legal whether its a game or not. 

[asdfsdadfs]

Another reason Spore caused an outcry: piracy. The most piracy of any game in history. It's a two-way street.

[HellishFiend]

Big Bad wrote...

Are you sure about that?  IANAL, so you very well could right, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  In any case, purchasing a PC game and then downloading another copy of the PC game is not the same thing as purchasing an XBOX copy and downloading a PC (or PS3) copy.  I'm sure that all three platforms have their own separate legal agreements with the software company, and I wouldn't think that these agreements allow for free interchange between platforms on the part of the end user.  It's not as if you could go to Best Buy, show them your XBOX game and expect them to allow you walk out with a free PC copy.

For the first bolded sentence, I'm not sure, and thats why I asked. For the second bolded sentence, that's not the same thing. Thats like invoking the same analogy that byne used earlier, comparing it to stealing money. A free retail PC copy would allow you to play it, and playing it is not my intention. So it could potentially fall under the technicality of being able to install games on multiple PCs as long as you dont play on more than one concurrently. 

[Arian Dynas]

Salient Archer wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Salient Archer wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

Salient Archer wrote...

I've been playing through the genophage story arc again and just finished my conversation with Eve about how she became a Korgan Shaman and I remembered that when I first played through that scene I really thought that both the crystal she hands you and her quote "Take it as a reminder, commander. In the darkest hour, there is always a way out." were going to relate directly to the end game somehow (as cheesy as that sounds).

Between this, Liara's "gift", the consort from ME1, Shiala's cipher, your contact with the prothean beam etc etc etc, I think this will have something to do with your ability to overcome indoctrination...

Agreed, the more I think about it the more I refuse to believe that all that foreshadowing would just be ignored, why establish any of it in the first place only to not have them play out.

Couldn't sleep, came back on to pester all of you.

Very well done Salient, you should A). proofread it, . Make a thread for it and see what you get, and C). Send this to Parabolee.

Thanks Arian and sucks that you can't sleep, although I know all to well what that's like.
A). doing that right now actually as I'm fine tuning it for google docs.
. Hadn't considered that, but I'll give it a go. Besides, whats the worst that'll happen? I doubt trolls will get far enough through it to know how to criticize it and
C). Who is Parabolee?

Parabolee is running the official IDT website.

Which despite my most valiant efforts, I remain uncredited on. 

[Big Bad]

HellishFiend wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

Are you sure about that?  IANAL, so you very well could right, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  In any case, purchasing a PC game and then downloading another copy of the PC game is not the same thing as purchasing an XBOX copy and downloading a PC (or PS3) copy.  I'm sure that all three platforms have their own separate legal agreements with the software company, and I wouldn't think that these agreements allow for free interchange between platforms on the part of the end user.  It's not as if you could go to Best Buy, show them your XBOX game and expect them to allow you walk out with a free PC copy.

For the first bolded sentence, I'm not sure, and thats why I asked. For the second bolded sentence, that's not the same thing. Thats like invoking the same analogy that byne used earlier, comparing it to stealing money. A free retail PC copy would allow you to play it, and playing it is not my intention. So it could potentially fall under the technicality of being able to install games on multiple PCs as long as you dont play on more than one concurrently. 

Yeah, I don't really know the law, I'm just going by what makes sense to me.  This is also known as talking out of my ass.  I better stop giving poor, uninformed legal advice before somebody sues me!

[MaximizedAction]

HellishFiend wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

That first paragraph, it's how most non-game software licensing works. E.g. Adobe concurrent liceses, where a maximum number of allowed programms running is purchased, Microsoft also works that way.

The problem only here is, that there is still no general law to 'cover them all'. That's why every program is shipped with its own EULA. So we can't really follow it from other programs. I would ask this one on the EA forums to risk less trolling from the rest of BSN.

Those laws and precedents apply to gaming, too. Its not legal for a publisher to write an EULA that violates your rights. And last time I checked (which was many years ago, I'll admit), posessing backups of software you have purchased is legal whether its a game or not. 

Of course, rights cannot be violated. That's also what caused the outcry about Origin in Germany.

So I think you're question boils down to is, when you buy ME3 for PC then what do you really purchase? The files, or that licence key?

And to all having doubt in the seriousness of that question: if you like the analogy of money, how do digital versions of the games fit within that analogy? And to make it more grey: How many game files, like models, can you upload before it's considered filesharing? Does that depend on what one intents to do with those files? All of that makes it highly non-trivial.

I recall some online games devs let you download the client for free, but you can only play them with a licence, which comes from you monthly fee (before the free2play emerged). But those games also cannot be played in singleplayer. ME3 however can, and you don't have to be connected to EA's server to start it.
So that might hint the official answer to your question.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 16 juin 2012 - 05:18 .

[HellishFiend]

 Interesting little quote pyramid here I got into with a Synthesis sympathizer in another thread:
http://social.biowar...5163/3#12606178

HellishFiend wrote...

mcz2345 wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

mcz2345 wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

mcz2345 wrote...

If IT is going to be true then it would mean that our choices (as few as we have) would be all nullified. No reason to pick anything else than the destroy ending, which would be retarded

Given that Control and Synthesis are massive thematic contradictions, I dont see that as a problem. 

How can it be a thematic contradiction if the theme of the game is dictated by the player ?

The theme of the game is determined by the author, not the player. 

Author -> Plot -> Themes
Player -> Choices -> Outcomes

I wanted to join the Reapers or to convince them to join us, therefore Synthesis ending was perfect for my Shepard

If my goal in a Tomb Raider game is to get Lara killed in the most gruesome way possible, does that mean it was the theme of the game as intended by the author? 

Synthesis is a thematic contradiction, which is described as a conflict between the main plot and a subplot. And that is the opposite of Thematic resonation, which is the harmony and consistency of expression of a theme throughout all plots and subplots in a story. 

Synthesis is thematically depicted as horrific and wrong throughout the entire trilogy. Just because you disagree doesnt change that fact. Thus, the subplot of picking synthesis at the end is a thematic contradiction. That point is a fact, end of story, regardless of whether IT is true or not. Its basic literature. 

 

[Big Bad]

HellishFiend wrote...

If my goal in a Tomb Raider game is to get Lara killed in the most gruesome way possible, does that mean it was the theme of the game as intended by the author? 

Synthesis is a thematic contradiction, which is described as a conflict between the main plot and a subplot. And that is the opposite of Thematic resonation, which is the harmony and consistency of expression of a theme throughout all plots and subplots in a story. 

Synthesis is thematically depicted as horrific and wrong throughout the entire trilogy. Just because you disagree doesnt change that fact. Thus, the subplot of picking synthesis at the end is a thematic contradiction. That point is a fact, end of story, regardless of whether IT is true or not. Its basic literature. 

 

To nobody's surprise, I agree completely with this argument.  Also, while I realize that "thematic contradiction" is probably the proper term to use, to me, it doesn't feel strong enough to convey the true magnitude of incongruence between the ending and the rest of the series.  I think I'm going to start calling it "Thematic Treason."  

[HellishFiend]

Big Bad wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

If my goal in a Tomb Raider game is to get Lara killed in the most gruesome way possible, does that mean it was the theme of the game as intended by the author? 

Synthesis is a thematic contradiction, which is described as a conflict between the main plot and a subplot. And that is the opposite of Thematic resonation, which is the harmony and consistency of expression of a theme throughout all plots and subplots in a story. 

Synthesis is thematically depicted as horrific and wrong throughout the entire trilogy. Just because you disagree doesnt change that fact. Thus, the subplot of picking synthesis at the end is a thematic contradiction. That point is a fact, end of story, regardless of whether IT is true or not. Its basic literature. 

 

To nobody's surprise, I agree completely with this argument.  Also, while I realize that "thematic contradiction" is probably the proper term to use, to me, it doesn't feel strong enough to convey the true magnitude of incongruence between the ending and the rest of the series.  I think I'm going to start calling it "Thematic Treason."  

And thus, Mass Effect 3 coined a brand new literary term. 

[MaximizedAction]

HellishFiend wrote...

If my goal in a Tomb Raider game is to get Lara killed in the most gruesome way possible, does that mean it was the theme of the game as intended by the author? 

Synthesis is a thematic contradiction, which is described as a conflict between the main plot and a subplot. And that is the opposite of Thematic resonation, which is the harmony and consistency of expression of a theme throughout all plots and subplots in a story. 

Synthesis is thematically depicted as horrific and wrong throughout the entire trilogy. Just because you disagree doesnt change that fact. Thus, the subplot of picking synthesis at the end is a thematic contradiction. That point is a fact, end of story, regardless of whether IT is true or not. Its basic literature.

Over the time here on BSN I must'Ve developed a spidey sense, because reading that last paragraph I imagine hordes of users rageposting "see, BW is lazy, bad writers, etc.".

But of course I agree with you.

[Big Bad]

HellishFiend wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

If my goal in a Tomb Raider game is to get Lara killed in the most gruesome way possible, does that mean it was the theme of the game as intended by the author? 

Synthesis is a thematic contradiction, which is described as a conflict between the main plot and a subplot. And that is the opposite of Thematic resonation, which is the harmony and consistency of expression of a theme throughout all plots and subplots in a story. 

Synthesis is thematically depicted as horrific and wrong throughout the entire trilogy. Just because you disagree doesnt change that fact. Thus, the subplot of picking synthesis at the end is a thematic contradiction. That point is a fact, end of story, regardless of whether IT is true or not. Its basic literature. 

 

To nobody's surprise, I agree completely with this argument.  Also, while I realize that "thematic contradiction" is probably the proper term to use, to me, it doesn't feel strong enough to convey the true magnitude of incongruence between the ending and the rest of the series.  I think I'm going to start calling it "Thematic Treason."  

And thus, Mass Effect 3 coined a brand new literary term. 

Hooray!  After 2000+ pages, I have finally contributed something semi-useful! 

Anywho, I'm off for a while.  Have a good day, everybody!

[HellishFiend]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Over the time here on BSN I must'Ve developed a spidey sense, because reading that last paragraph I imagine hordes of users rageposting "see, BW is lazy, bad writers, etc.".

But of course I agree with you.

To be fair, if the endings are meant to be taken at face value, I would wind up agreeing with them. Since they do think the endings are meant to be taken at face value (rather than 2 sudden, unprecedented, massive thematic contradictions being a hint towards IT), it makes sense for them to draw a conclusion that BW is lazy and they are bad writers. 

In other words, failing to see the thematic contradictions as clues is a mistake on their part, but seeing the "Literal endings" as an epic literary collapse/failure is not a mistake. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 16 juin 2012 - 05:35 .

[BatmanTurian]

So, as you guys might know, I watch a bit of anime in my free time, dubbed and subbed. I'm watching Pumpkin Scissors dubbed and apparently Wrex's voice actor voices one of the characters. It's really weird hearing that voice coming from a human (even though I know the voice actor is human.).

[TSA_383]

HellishFiend wrote...

Big Bad wrote...


From a legal standpoint, I don't think whether or not you actually plan on playing the game matters at all.  How you acquire it is what matters.  That being the case, I think we can be quite confident that the purchase of the game for one platform (360) does not in any way legally entitle the buyer to ownership of the game on a separate platform (PC).

That said, it may not be legal, but is it unethical?  Well, only you can decide that.

Actually, last time I checked, how you acquire it doesnt matter. For example, if you buy a legal copy of ME3 for PC, at that point its legal for you to download a copy of the torrent for backup purposes. In fact, it's even legal for you to install the game on someone else's PC as long as you both dont play it at the same time. That technicality doesnt come up much these days due to copy protection preventing people from playing concurrently with a single license, but it still stands legally from back in the cd-key era, as far as I know. 

That was what caused the huge outcry over Spore, in fact. Spore technically violated the consumer's legal rights to the use of their purchase. Since then, developers have been more careful to walk that fine line between doing the most that they can to prevent piracy, and protecting the consumer's rights. 

I would have thought that, regardless of any actual argument over legality, discussing it on a forum run by the makers of said software using an account which gives them your player account, IP address and email would be not just the brightest idea ever.


This is the same reason that I didn't set up a folder on my FTP for IDT stuff - I'm pretty sure the sharing of game files for speculation purposes is a legal grey area at the very least...