Far Cry 6

[Flogger23m]

Now how short is too short is a matter of personal opinion but like it or not the general consensus seems to be that 40 hours is the standard length, a 20 hour game is half that and is considered too short for full price by many.

And that is my point. Once games start going past the 30 hour or so mark, few use that time effectively. There are outliers. I think FF7 Remake is a good example, however it is a linear game and not open world. That is around 42-45 hours but I didn't feel like much if any time was wasted.

Far Cry games tend to run about 60 hours for me and I consider them a decent value all things considered but are already borderline and a 24 hour game would have to be much better to be worth it.

Generally I finish Far Cry games in around 36-40 hours. FC6 got a bit longer as is the trend, but the game design has gradually been suffering as a result.

I'd be interested in hearing some examples of what you consider good games that were 16-24 hours because I can't think of a single one,

I can think of many older games, but I am going to post more recent ones instead:

Mass Effect
Dues Ex Human Revolution
Wolfenstein The New Order
Alan Wake
Ace Combat 7
Dead Island 2
The Last of Us
Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order
Uncharted 4
Crysis
Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart
Tomb Raider
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Assassin's Creed Rogue
Resident Evil 7, 8, 2, 3 & 4


On the other hand I can think of plenty of games that would have been better with less junk content, and took 10 hours out and added in 1-2 hours of good gameplay/story.

 

[evhvis]

And that is my point. Once games start going past the 30 hour or so mark, few use that time effectively. There are outliers. I think FF7 Remake is a good example, however it is a linear game and not open world. That is around 42-45 hours but I didn't feel like much if any time was wasted.



Generally I finish Far Cry games in around 36-40 hours. FC6 got a bit longer as is the trend, but the game design has gradually been suffering as a result.



I can think of many older games, but I am going to post more recent ones instead:

Mass Effect
Dues Ex Human Revolution
Wolfenstein The New Order
Alan Wake
Ace Combat 7
Dead Island 2
The Last of Us
Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order
Uncharted 4
Crysis
Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart
Tomb Raider
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Assassin's Creed Rogue
Resident Evil 7, 8, 2, 3 & 4


On the other hand I can think of plenty of games that would have been better with less junk content, and took 10 hours out and added in 1-2 hours of good gameplay/story.

Crysis was more like 8-12 hours and similar for Wolfenstein the new order with 12 hours being either snail pace or dying a lot from playing on very hard difficulty. Very few linear FPS games that gain from going much past 10 hours as there is often too much repetitiveness or filler once you approach the 12-13 hour mark.

 

[Ebernanut]

And that is my point. Once games start going past the 30 hour or so mark, few use that time effectively. There are outliers. I think FF7 Remake is a good example, however it is a linear game and not open world. That is around 42-45 hours but I didn't feel like much if any time was wasted.



Generally I finish Far Cry games in around 36-40 hours. FC6 got a bit longer as is the trend, but the game design has gradually been suffering as a result.



I can think of many older games, but I am going to post more recent ones instead:

Mass Effect
Dues Ex Human Revolution
Wolfenstein The New Order
Alan Wake
Ace Combat 7
Dead Island 2
The Last of Us
Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order
Uncharted 4
Crysis
Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart
Tomb Raider
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Assassin's Creed Rogue
Resident Evil 7, 8, 2, 3 & 4


On the other hand I can think of plenty of games that would have been better with less junk content, and took 10 hours out and added in 1-2 hours of good gameplay/story.

The Witcher 3 was about 120 hours for me with dlc and was about the perfect length IMO. The only part I would consider drudgery in that game is some of the time spent running around the one city but if they had that many more fast travel points you'd just end up spending the time in loading screens instead. Many of my favorite games are 80+ hours if you take your time and explore which I like to do.

Far cry games fall into the 40-60 hour range for me.

I've only played a little less than half of that list but all of them that I have played(ME, DEHR, SWJFO, TR(all), ACR) except Star Wars: JFO was 40+ hours for me. Fallen Order was about a 20-25 hour game for me and it would have been too short except that I didn't care for the gameplay and was ready for it to be over by the end.

It's clear we not only tend to play different games but play them different as well but it's interesting to get a different perspective.

 

[That_Sound_Guy]

Crysis was more like 8-12 hours and similar for Wolfenstein the new order with 12 hours being either snail pace or dying a lot from playing on very hard difficulty. Very few linear FPS games that gain from going much past 10 hours as there is often too much repetitiveness or filler once you approach the 12-13 hour mark.

I was going to make a similar point. The whole amount of hours makes the game argument is irrelevant depending on genre and playstyle. FarCry cannot be compared to Metro or Doom for example. Just as it can't compare to GTA-V, CP or other massive open world.

Clearly the FarCry system is working as they found it profitable to make so many of them. The timer I admit worries me as thats a new mechanic that can destroy the feel like the forced story advances of FC5.

 

[kirbyrj]

At least Ubisoft didn't charge full price for their last Assassin's Creed game because it wasn't as long as the others that preceded it. Even so it's probably larger than most of the Assassin's Creed games pre Black Flag.

 

[Flogger23m]

The Witcher 3 was about 120 hours for me with dlc and was about the perfect length IMO.

The problem with the Witcher 3 is the story dragged on and it got repetitive. The world design is still better than most games, but left a lot to be desired.

I've only played a little less than half of that list but all of them that I have played(ME, DEHR, SWJFO, TR(all), ACR) except Star Wars: JFO was 40+ hours for me.

I'd have a hard time seeing the TR games being 40+ hours. Although I looked at my DE HR on Steam and it does say 36 hours, although that includes DLC. I do believe that includes replaying some levels. The Director's Cut version I have 42.6 hours in it. I know I replayed a few levels in that to try different approaches post game. And that is what I do like about mission/level based games. It is easy to jump to a middle section that is worth replaying. I seldom ever replay open world type games, because typically a large portion of the game is not worth replaying. Example, collecting items and running back and fourth to sell them Witcher 3 style.

I was going to make a similar point. The whole amount of hours makes the game argument is irrelevant depending on genre and playstyle. FarCry cannot be compared to Metro or Doom for example. Just as it can't compare to GTA-V, CP or other massive open world.

I agree. But a lot of people will pan the Metro series because of their shorter length, yet they felt more like full/complete games than most open world games I have played.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I cannot get any traction in this game. 4 was probably my favorite, thinking about it right now.

I felt similarly. 4 is my favorite of the series. 3 was good too, but felt a little too much like a "whiteboy fantasy" for me, and I couldn't quite get over it.

From a level of engagement, Far Cry 6 felt more like the half-assed "New Dawn" expansion than a main game in the series. That was probably the biggest problem with it. If the story had been more engaging I would probably have been able to overlook the games other problems.

Many choices about the game, moving away from a gritty more realistic vibe with the fantastical super weapons and the silly backpack made it feel silly.

And the UI elements really took a hard turn in the direction of "silly phone game" land instead of a proper PC title. The forced 3rd person in encampments drove me up a literal wall. Generally out-of-body experiences are not particularly realistic, and I go for realism in FPS titles. All of these things detracted from the title IMHO.

Giancarlo Esposito makes for a great villain, and brings some acting talent to the game, but it was tough to not get distracted and think about "pollos".

I tend to think celebrity cameos detract from games more than they add to them, as the need for suspense of disbelief becomes greater when you recognize the actor.

(The exception to this was Cyberpunk, where the Johnny Silverhand thing really worked, but every other game that has done it I wind up wishing they would have just used some unknown voice actor and a randomly generated game character rather than a famous actor)

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I can think of many older games, but I am going to post more recent ones instead:

I haven't played all of these, but the ones I have are below:

Dues Ex Human Revolution

This was a rare game for me in that I played through it twice (I almost never do that). Over two playthroughs I spent ~89 hours in game according to Steam. Lets call it an average of 45 hours.

Wolfenstein The New Order

Yeah, this one was short. Only 21 hours for me. I didn't mind though, because I was getting bored with it by the end. I would have been pissed had I paid anywhere near full price for it though.

Crysis

I never played the original, but I did play through the remaster relatively recently.

And yeah, it was super short at only 12 hours. If I hadn't picked it up really cheap during a Steam sale I would have been pissed. That a quarter game if you ask me. If I am going to be happy with a quarter game, then I am going to expect a quarter of the price.

Anyway, the rest on your list I haven't played.

In general, I expect a single player story based title to get me at least 40 hours. If it doesn't I feel cheated. That said, all of those 40 hours have to feel engaging. I don't want hours of filler and/or grind.

I can really only think of one truly short game I felt was really good, and that was Singularity from 2018. I only got 13 or so hours out of it, but those 13 hours were really good. Normally I would have been bothered by the short playtime, but I paid like $4.99 for it or something, so I wasn't expecting much.

Oh, and while the premise of a North Korean invasion of North America was absolutely ridiculous, Homefront was pretty decent too, and I only got like 6 hours out of that. But I only paid $3.99 for it, so again, not too disappointed at that price.

If I get to the end of a game, and I've paid more than about a dollar an hour for the experience, I start getting pretty annoyed.

 

[Vegas P11]

I felt similarly. 4 is my favorite of the series. 3 was good too, but felt a little too much like a "whiteboy fantasy" for me, and I couldn't quite get over it.

From a level of engagement, Far Cry 6 felt more like the half-assed "New Dawn" expansion than a main game in the series. That was probably the biggest problem with it. If the story had been more engaging I would probably have been able to overlook the games other problems.

Many choices about the game, moving away from a gritty more realistic vibe with the fantastical super weapons and the silly backpack made it feel silly.

And the UI elements really took a hard turn in the direction of "silly phone game" land instead of a proper PC title. The forced 3rd person in encampments drove me up a literal wall. Generally out-of-body experiences are not particularly realistic, and I go for realism in FPS titles. All of these things detracted from the title IMHO.

Giancarlo Esposito makes for a great villain, and brings some acting talent to the game, but it was tough to not get distracted and think about "pollos".

I tend to think celebrity cameos detract from games more than they add to them, as the need for suspense of disbelief becomes greater when you recognize the actor.

(The exception to this was Cyberpunk, where the Johnny Silverhand thing really worked, but every other game that has done it I wind up wishing they would have just used some unknown voice actor and a randomly generated game character rather than a famous actor)

Have to disagree with you on Giancarlo Stanton in FC6. I really like him and I thought he was really good in the game.
But I could not agree with you more about the 3rd person view in the camps. That was absolutely horrible.

 

[That_Sound_Guy]

Have to disagree with you on Giancarlo Stanton in FC6.

The Ney York Yankees are villains to a lot of teams so I can see the mix up.

Giancarlo Esposito - and I thought he did ok as well. Vass still my top pick.

 

[GoldenTiger]

If I get to the end of a game, and I've paid more than about a dollar an hour for the experience, I start getting pretty annoyed.

How about with movies?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Have to disagree with you on Giancarlo Stanton in FC6. I really like him and I thought he was really good in the game.
But I could not agree with you more about the 3rd person view in the camps. That was absolutely horrible.

The Ney York Yankees are villains to a lot of teams so I can see the mix up.

Giancarlo Esposito - and I thought he did ok as well. Vass still my top pick.

Don't get me wrong, I thought he did great. It's just that I was distracted by his other roles that he also did very very well in.

In the end, I don't think casting him as the villain worked, but I don't think it was his fault. He is an awesome actor, both in person and animated/3D rendered. I just think the problem is his role in Breaking Bad was so amazingly iconic, that it wound up being 4th wall breaking for me in FC6.

And in general, I just don't think it's worth wasting money on celebrities (or their likenesses) in video games, when they can do just as well with an artists rendering of a fake person no one knows.

 

[That_Sound_Guy]

Don't get me wrong, I thought he did great. It's just that I was distracted by his other roles that he also did very very well in.

In the end, I don't think casting him as the villain worked, but I don't think it was his fault. He is an awesome actor, both in person and animated/3D rendered. I just think the problem is his role in Breaking Bad was so amazingly iconic, that it wound up being 4th wall breaking for me in FC6.

And in general, I just don't think it's worth wasting money on celebrities (or their likenesses) in video games, when they can do just as well with an artists rendering of a fake person no one knows.

I hear ya - I mainly commented to poke fun of the Yankees player name slip up.

Your last comment is spot on however I think I like the digital modeling pathway to gain facial movements and eye subtleties. That said, video games are the best avenue possible of letting a new voice actor get a chance and give us a new name and face to decide the character we wish to interpret. Cheap labor and no previous roles to contest with.

 

[Flogger23m]

That said, all of those 40 hours have to feel engaging. I don't want hours of filler and/or grind.

The amount of 40 hours games I have played with few filler or grind is very limited.

If I get to the end of a game, and I've paid more than about a dollar an hour for the experience, I start getting pretty annoyed.

Of course everyone derives value in a different way. Though I find it odd for such a strong fixation on a dollar per hour. Does it adjust for inflation?

To me I always put the experience/enjoyment first. If I spent at 18 hours and had a lot of fun, I will value that more than the typical 50 hour game that is a mediocre experience. If anything I feel the value goes down if a game drags on forever, I see it as an excessive waste of time. Furthermore those games often make me rush to finish them so I start taking in less details.

Now if a game is good and long, that is certainly different. I just have less time to play those so often have to put them off in favor of shorter games. Cyberpunk's Phantom Liberty took me about twice as long as I thought, around 40 or so hours. But it didn't really feel like a 40 hour game because I was having fun with it. Time flew.

 

[Ebernanut]

The Ney York Yankees are villains to a lot of teams so I can see the mix up.

Giancarlo Esposito - and I thought he did ok as well. Vass still my top pick.

Vaas is my favorite video game villain and possibly my favorite fictional villain.

Castillo had excellent voice acting but the role felt cliched and predictable.

 

[GoldenTiger]

How about with movies?

Zarathustra[H]? Why the fixation on # of hours?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Of course everyone derives value in a different way. Though I find it odd for such a strong fixation on a dollar per hour. Does it adjust for inflation?

The $1/hr thing is not a strict requirement by any means, but if I pay a lot of money I expect to be entertained for a long time.

That doesn't sound like it should be an unreasonable request.

 

[GoldenTiger]

The $1/hr thing is not a strict requirement by any means, but if I pay a lot of money I expect to be entertained for a long time.

That doesn't sound like it should be an unreasonable request.

Define a "lot of money"? Do you buy movies ever? Those are much more and offer less time. That's a few times now you have answered others but ignored me?

 

[hu76]

Guys there was ubisoft connect update ,new interface and better performance now on far cry 6 . Try it.

 

[usa all day]

Define a "lot of money"? Do you buy movies ever? Those are much more and offer less time. That's a few times now you have answered others but ignored me?

Interesting comparo - I also define a games value at $1~2 per hour as a cost average.

I use STEAMs wish list, wait for sales & have a huge backlog, so I am never jonesing to play the latest & greatest because I have a huge library that I am hoping to get through before I die.

Basically - to pay $40 for a 20 hour Tomb Raider is OK in my book because I love TR & also because I paid $20 for an old RPG and ended up playing 80+ hours.

RE: movies - I rarely buy movies - I might have 10 DVD's and 5 AMAZON digitals & never go to the theater anymore @ $10 for 1.5 hours.

I have a very hard time renting a movie on AMAZON streaming & jamming that 1.5 to 2 hour flick into my life within 3 days because movies are passive & put me to sleep vs active gaming.

PRO TIP: (that everyone knows) https://howlongtobeat.com/

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Guys there was ubisoft connect update ,new interface and better performance now on far cry 6 . Try it.

Nah. No devs/publishers launcher/store will ever find their way onto my machine.

If they force the issue, then I won't buy.

I have other ways of getting titles if I need to.

I have no problem paying, but I am not going to have them force me to install useless bloat I don't need or want, and I won't reward any publisher/developer who does with my hard earned cash.

I will die on this hill.

 

[hu76]

Nah. No devs/publishers launcher/store will ever find their way onto my machine.

If they force the issue, then I won't buy.

I have other ways of getting titles if I need to.

I have no problem paying, but I am not going to have them force me to install useless bloat I don't need or want, and I won't reward any publisher/developer who does with my hard earned cash.

I will die on this hill.

Nah. No devs/publishers launcher/store will ever find their way onto my machine. What you mean?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Nah. No devs/publishers launcher/store will ever find their way onto my machine. What you mean?

It means that when I bought Far Cry 3, and unlike in Far Cry 2, Steam - in addition to the game itself - also installed a Ubisoft launcher that required me to create an account and sign in in order to play, I immediately quit the game and requested a refund from Steam.

I did not want that garbage on my machine.

A game should launch straight from steam (or the star menu) without requiring a separate launcher program and/or store.

I can make some limited exceptions, but one thing I absolutely cannot abide by under any circumstances is a requirement to be online for a single player game, and/or a requirement to create an account.

 

[hu76]

It means that when I bought Far Cry 3, and unlike in Far Cry 2, Steam - in addition to the game itself - also installed a Ubisoft launcher that required me to create an account and sign in in order to play, I immediately quit the game and requested a refund from Steam.

I did not want that garbage on my machine.

A game should launch straight from steam (or the star menu) without requiring a separate launcher program and/or store.

I can make some limited exceptions, but one thing I absolutely cannot abide by under any circumstances is a requirement to be online for a single player game, and/or a requirement to create an account.

Ah oki then.

 

[kirbyrj]

It means that when I bought Far Cry 3, and unlike in Far Cry 2, Steam - in addition to the game itself - also installed a Ubisoft launcher that required me to create an account and sign in in order to play, I immediately quit the game and requested a refund from Steam.

I did not want that garbage on my machine.

A game should launch straight from steam (or the star menu) without requiring a separate launcher program and/or store.

I can make some limited exceptions, but one thing I absolutely cannot abide by under any circumstances is a requirement to be online for a single player game, and/or a requirement to create an account.

And as time goes on there will be fewer and fewer games for you to try out. While in principle I agree with you, that's just not a realistic way to navigate 2024 and beyond. So you very well may die on that hill playing 15-year-old steam games.

 

[Flogger23m]

And as time goes on there will be fewer and fewer games for you to try out. While in principle I agree with you, that's just not a realistic way to navigate 2024 and beyond. So you very well may die on that hill playing 15-year-old steam games.

They will either give up gaming or just play old games. Some people aren't that big of gamers, and it seems like that is the case here.

I don't mind something like the DCS updater. It is essentially a bare bones updater, without any real client. Yes you do need to set it to auto login, but it is more or less just an auto updater.

 

[Armenius]

It means that when I bought Far Cry 3, and unlike in Far Cry 2, Steam - in addition to the game itself - also installed a Ubisoft launcher that required me to create an account and sign in in order to play, I immediately quit the game and requested a refund from Steam.

I did not want that garbage on my machine.

A game should launch straight from steam (or the star menu) without requiring a separate launcher program and/or store.

I can make some limited exceptions, but one thing I absolutely cannot abide by under any circumstances is a requirement to be online for a single player game, and/or a requirement to create an account.

And yet looking through this thread it appears you played through every game in the Far Cry series up to New Dawn.

I'm hoping it is better than New Dawn. That was the worst installment of the series to date. (if you ignore the first one, which is a completely different game)

I go back and forth between which was my favorite, 3 or 4, but I am leaning towards 4.

I enjoyed all of them I have played. 2,3,4,Primal and 5, except New Dawn. That shit I had to force myself to finish.

 

[Flogger23m]

And yet looking through this thread it appears you played through every game in the Far Cry series up to New Dawn.

I assume they bought the games and then used a non-Ubisoft Connect version to play.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

And yet looking through this thread it appears you played through every game in the Far Cry series up to New Dawn.

While I do believe in paying for what I play, I am not above using "community editions" as a form of protest against bad industry behavior.

You try to screw me over, I'll return the favor.

I got into the Far Cry franchise very late. I bought 1 in Steam (didn't care for it), bought 2 in Steam (was very impressed by it, especially how it still felt relevant for such an old title) but when I bought 3 in Steam, when I went to launch it I was faced by a logon screen to an automatically installed piece of software I didn't feel I should need or want. I saw it as a violation of my trust and of all that is holy, and immediately requested a refund which I was granted.

It's been "community editions" from there on out. If they ever change their ways and remove the stupid logon account/yet another launcher/always online requirement, I will go back and buy all of the titles I have played in one fell swoop, but until then, fuck 'em.

 

[kirbyrj]

I assume they bought the games and then used a non-Ubisoft Connect version to play.

I've never seen a non-connect version. Everything I've seen linked back to the Ubisoft account.

 

[GoldenTiger]

I've never seen a non-connect version. Everything I've seen linked back to the Ubisoft account.

He means a stolen version aka piracy.

 

[GoldenTiger]

While I do believe in paying for what I play, I am not above using "community editions" as a form of protest against bad industry behavior.

You try to screw me over, I'll return the favor.

I got into the Far Cry franchise very late. I bought 1 in Steam (didn't care for it), bought 2 in Steam (was very impressed by it, especially how it still felt relevant for such an old title) but when I bought 3 in Steam, when I went to launch it I was faced by a logon screen to an automatically installed piece of software I didn't feel I should need or want. I saw it as a violation of my trust and of all that is holy, and immediately requested a refund which I was granted.

It's been "community editions" from there on out. If they ever change their ways and remove the stupid logon account/yet another launcher/always online requirement, I will go back and buy all of the titles I have played in one fell swoop, but until then, fuck 'em.

No, the proper answer is to not play them and affirm you like what they make but are just a petty thief for insert random reason here. You can send feedback about their launcher via email or Twitter.

 

[Enigma]

While I do believe in paying for what I play, I am not above using "community editions" as a form of protest against bad industry behavior.

You try to screw me over, I'll return the favor.

I got into the Far Cry franchise very late. I bought 1 in Steam (didn't care for it), bought 2 in Steam (was very impressed by it, especially how it still felt relevant for such an old title) but when I bought 3 in Steam, when I went to launch it I was faced by a logon screen to an automatically installed piece of software I didn't feel I should need or want. I saw it as a violation of my trust and of all that is holy, and immediately requested a refund which I was granted.

It's been "community editions" from there on out. If they ever change their ways and remove the stupid logon account/yet another launcher/always online requirement, I will go back and buy all of the titles I have played in one fell swoop, but until then, fuck 'em.

** I am going to get on my soap box** Pirating hard work and riding on the backs of others is just like stealing welfare, Food Stamps, or Disability Fraud. You make good money for the work that you do, How do expect the devs and the low lvl people that work for them to get paid if you steal their work? SMH

No, the proper answer is to not play them and affirm you like what they make but are just a petty thief for insert random reason here. You can send feedback about their launcher via email or Twitter.

There have been a lot of arguments and disagreements between me and you but this is one thing that we can agree on here.... F**k Pirates.

 

[Hershy]

I have a couple people here on my ignore list, but I’m guessing that they’re pirates and are presenting ‘arguments’ that they think justify their piracy.

You don’t even need to read the posts of these people. LOL. They’re all the same.

 

[Flogger23m]

No, the proper answer is to not play them and affirm you like what they make but are just a petty thief for insert random reason here. You can send feedback about their launcher via email or Twitter.

If he paid for it I don't see what the big deal is. If anything they save money by not dealing with download bandwidth/cloud saves.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

No, the proper answer is to not play them and affirm you like what they make but are just a petty thief for insert random reason here. You can send feedback about their launcher via email or Twitter.

** I am going to get on my soap box** Pirating hard work and riding on the backs of others is just like stealing welfare, Food Stamps, or Disability Fraud. You make good money for the work that you do, How do expect the devs and the low lvl people that work for them to get paid if you steal their work? SMH

There have been a lot of arguments and disagreements between me and you but this is one thing that we can agree on here.... F**k Pirates.

I used to feel this way, but I have done a complete 180 on it.

These people will screw any and all of us over at the drop of a hat, so I have no regard for them what so ever.

Don't get me wrong. I still think it is the right thing to do to pay for your stuff, and for the overwhelming majority of titles I play, I do. I am also not going to reward those I consider to be ruining the industry by giving them my hard earned cash.

Of all the titles I've played over the last 20+ years, I've paid for all of them, except the Far Cry series, over this forced launcher/account/always online nonsense.

(I initially did the same with the Outer Worlds as a protest over the corrupt exclusive deal bribe Epic paid them, but as soon as it went live on Steam, I bought it on principle, at full price, despite the fact that I had already finished it and never launched it again.)

It's not about the money for me. It's not about getting something for free. It's all about the principle of the thing. I will not reward bad actors in the industry with my money.

If I had to, I'd definitely just abstain from their products on principle. I've done this with many other things. But since I don't have to deprive myself of something I enjoy, while still making a stand through economic incentives, I will.

And no. Piracy is nothing even remotely like theft. The only reason theft is bad is because someone loses something when you steal it from them. They lose absolutely nothing by me pirating their product, for the simple reason that as long as they are up to their antics, I was never going to buy their product anyway.

** I am going to get on my soap box** Pirating hard work and riding on the backs of others is just like stealing welfare, Food Stamps, or Disability Fraud. You make good money for the work that you do, How do expect the devs and the low lvl people that work for them to get paid if you steal their work? SMH

There have been a lot of arguments and disagreements between me and you but this is one thing that we can agree on here.... F**k Pirates.

I say fuck 'em. If they were the good ones, they wouldn't be trying to screw us over. Them getting hurt by this is the entire point.

If they go out of business because of my not paying for their games (they won't) I'd consider that a huge success beyond my wildest dreams. Imagine my little protest had such a big impact!

Let a better company, run by better people take their place in the market. (Their share of wallet)

Gaming isn't going away. There is still demand in the marketplace, and as long as there is someone better will come along and out-compete them, and if they don't try to do shady shit, abuse the market, and hurt the community, I'll pay them too.

It's the best of both worlds really. This way I get to take a stance on something I feel very strongly about, while at the same time not losing out on experiences.

I would never support piracy as a way to get something free and not pay for it. I totally support piracy as a form of protest though. Hit 'em in the wallet where it hurts. Is it a moral grey area? Sure, but so is what they are doing. My conscience is perfectly clear.

 

[Vegas P11]

I used to feel this way, but I have done a complete 180 on it.

These people will screw any and all of us over at the drop of a hat, so I have no regard for them what so ever.

Don't get me wrong. I still think it is the right thing to do to pay for your stuff, and for the overwhelming majority of titles I play, I do. I am also not going to reward those I consider to be ruining the industry by giving them my hard earned cash.

Of all the titles I've played over the last 20+ years, I've paid for all of them, except the Far Cry series, over this forced launcher/account/always online nonsense.

(I initially did the same with the Outer Worlds as a protest over the corrupt exclusive deal bribe Epic paid them, but as soon as it went live on Steam, I bought it on principle, at full price, despite the fact that I had already finished it and never launched it again.)

It's not about the money for me. It's not about getting something for free. It's all about the principle of the thing. I will not reward bad actors in the industry with my money.

If I had to, I'd definitely just abstain from their products on principle. I've done this with many other things. But since I don't have to deprive myself of something I enjoy, while still making a stand through economic incentives, I will.

And no. Piracy is nothing even remotely like theft. The only reason theft is bad is because someone loses something when you steal it from them. They lose absolutely nothing by me pirating their product, for the simple reason that as long as they are up to their antics, I was never going to buy their product anyway.



I say fuck 'em. If they were the good ones, they wouldn't be trying to screw us over. Them getting hurt by this is the entire point.

If they go out of business because of my not paying for their games (they won't) I'd consider that a huge success beyond my wildest dreams. Imagine my little protest had such a big impact!

Let a better company, run by better people take their place in the market. (Their share of wallet)

Gaming isn't going away. There is still demand in the marketplace, and as long as there is someone better will come along and out-compete them, and if they don't try to do shady shit, abuse the market, and hurt the community, I'll pay them too.

It's the best of both worlds really. This way I get to take a stance on something I feel very strongly about, while at the same time not losing out on experiences.

I would never support piracy as a way to get something free and not pay for it. I totally support piracy as a form of protest though. Hit 'em in the wallet where it hurts. Is it a moral grey area? Sure, but so is what they are doing. My conscience is perfectly clear.

Wow.

 

[kirbyrj]

He means a stolen version aka piracy.

Yeah, I guess that was obvious, I just wasn't paying attention

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Wow.

I don't think it should be controversial that any company doing anti-consumer things deserves to be killed by any means necessary.

IN a capitalist market, they are supposed to fight over us, and give us what we want. When that model breaks, anything goes.

 

[kirbyrj]

I don't think it should be controversial that any company doing anti-consumer things deserves to be killed by any means necessary.

IN a capitalist market, they are supposed to fight over us, and give us what we want. When that model breaks, anything goes.

I'm pro capitalist as much as the next guy, but it surely seems as if you are overstating your importance in the system. When four of the five largest companies by market cap are Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon, they generally don't need YOU as much as you need one of them.