Hideo Kojima retweets MGS5 fan made pic - Konami files copyright claim

[AuraDesru]

Isn't Japan strict about fanart?

I think it's just konami. 

[shirokado]

So if you had the choice of getting something for your hobby that you normally couldn't afford for free at the expense of it being morally wrong, or buying the item for your hobby at full price at the expense of not being able to pay certain bills. Which choice do you choose?

There's a third option, NOT BUY IT UNTIL I CAN AFFORD IT Or what, are you to self-entitled to think you can't live without a hobby?

[blu4]

#LoveKojimaFucKonami

[mattebad]

There's a third option, NOT BUY IT UNTIL I CAN AFFORD IT Or what, are you to self-entitled to think you can't live without a hobby?

That option only apparently applies to "pirates" but somehow doesn't apply to people who use emulators. Double standards eh?

 

Your question is a false dichotomy based on the assumption that getting a game, which is purely a luxury item, is a necessity.

I know it wasn't directed at me, but my answer would be: I would look for a way to engage in my hobby more cost-efficiently, i.e. wait for prices to drop, buy things on sale, if one game is too expensive right now, play another one.

I'm not saying that pirating is an ethical thing to do in a situation where you can't afford it, but the majority of the people who are in that situation do so because they would have never been able to afford the game in the first place, therefore negating any type of lost sales. And I'm sure the amount of lost sales due to pirates are minuscule. If you look at the top torrents for particularly new AAA games, they rarely go over a few thousand downloads compared to the millions that actually go out and buy the game. The same argument is true for movies and tv shows, how many of you use popcorntime or go on tv streaming websites. I'm sure none of you admit it but the majority of people my age do, and I know rarely anyone who doesn't.

[Ekpyrosis]

That option only apparently applies to "pirates" but somehow doesn't apply to people who use emulators. Double standards eh?

Pirating a ROM is no different from pirating a native application. There are, however, methods to use emulators legally, for example with a Wii homebrew channel which allows to dump gamecube and wii games from discs to play them via Dolphin on your PC with various kinds of enhancments

I'm not saying that pirating is an ethical thing to do in a situation where you can't afford it, but the majority of the people who are in that situation do so because they would have never been able to afford the game in the first place, therefore negating any type of lost sales. And I'm sure the amount of lost sales due to pirates are minuscule. If you look at the top torrents for particularly new AAA games, they rarely go over a few thousand downloads compared to the millions that actually go out and buy the game. The same argument is true for movies and tv shows, how many of you use popcorntime or go on tv streaming websites. I'm sure none of you admit it but the majority of people my age do, and I know rarely anyone who doesn't.

If you can't afford it, you are not entitled to have it. This is true for all goods, luxury goods like games especially. You seem to start from the premise that people somehow have the right to access everything one way or the other. And besides, if you already have the money for the hardware, you probably also have the money to buy some games, why do you need one particular game when there are many other games that are cheap to have (some even f2p)? The "but I want it" mentality is the same mentality as a child's that is arguing with his mother while they're shopping, because it can't have something it wants.

[shirokado]

That option only apparently applies to "pirates" but somehow doesn't apply to people who use emulators. Double standards eh?

 

I'm not saying that pirating is an ethical thing to do in a situation where you can't afford it, but the majority of the people who are in that situation do so because they would have never been able to afford the game in the first place, therefore negating any type of lost sales. And I'm sure the amount of lost sales due to pirates are minuscule. If you look at the top torrents for particularly new AAA games, they rarely go over a few thousand downloads compared to the millions that actually go out and buy the game. The same argument is true for movies and tv shows, how many of you use popcorntime or go on tv streaming websites. I'm sure none of you admit it but the majority of people my age do, and I know rarely anyone who doesn't.

Double standard? Who said pirating ROM's is any different from pirating a game? Why wouldn't it apply to people who use emulators? It's just as wrong. You should buy the damn thing.

 

 

And again, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. Is that such a hard concept to understand? Capitalist country, money is what makes things work. If you want something, you pay for it. Economic concept called "TINSTAFL".

[Kamina]

How long before Konami's slot machines are no longer profitable? 

 

Fuck this company. I hope they go bankrupt.

[Isocadia]

Double standard? Who said pirating ROM's is any different from pirating a game? Why wouldn't it apply to people who use emulators? It's just as wrong. You should buy the damn thing.

And again, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. Is that such a hard concept to understand? Capitalist country, money is what makes things work. If you want something, you pay for it. Economic concept called "TINSTAFL".

So if I want to play Pokemon Yellow I should go out and buy a second hand gameboy and a second hand pokemon yellow cartridge where none of the money payed goes to the original creator? How is that different from downloading the ROM and playing it on an emulator?

I'm not trying to be any kind of flame-war starter, and to be clear I disapprove of piracy, but by that logic all second hand selling of games should be forbidden, something which everyone was complaining about with the new DRM key based always online kinds of DRM. The issue with piracy is that you are not taking anything from the creator, except for supposed lost sales but you can't exactly prove that they would have bought the game if piracy wasn't available.

Just think about this example:

I used to be able to go to the store and buy a game. This game required me to insert the disk when I wanted to play the game. I hated this so I made a virtual disk which I could mount so I wouldn't have to locate the disk.

I'm gonna assume that this is not what you consider piracy. I am making a copy for my personal use.

Now, my friend wants to try said game, so I lend him the CD, he installs it and using the CD to play the game.

Still assuming you agree, I don't think it is bad to be able to loan people the stuff you own, since I am also able to loan out my car etc. to other people.

Now, I forget he has the CD, I use my virtual disk I made and he uses my CD. Where did things become morally wrong, since basically what has happened is I have allowed someone to download the game. Was my original copy morally wrong? This would force me to rebuy the game every time the cd would get lost or damaged, which to me sounds very strange.

Was me lending out the cd morally wrong? This would mean that lending out a car or a shovel is also morally wrong.

Now apply this to a bigger scale scenario, where he makes a copy and lends the CD to someone else etc. This would be what we call piracy, yet I fail to see which precise step in the process makes the event morally wrong.

Just to make things clear again, I am against piracy, but calling people who pirate all kinds of names I do not agree with. The entirety of piracy happening could be called morally wrong, but I don't think you are able to call the individual person morally wrong based on the action.

TL;DR:

People who pirate aren't morally wrong, but piracy is. You shouldn't call people who pirate names or whatever, but you should instead focus on the process as a whole and how to stop that from happening.

[dimitriianghelov]

Isn't Japan strict about fanart?

they are not strict about rule 34, there are people making that kind of art as a profession

[shirokado]

So if I want to play Pokemon Yellow I should go out and buy a second hand gameboy and a second hand pokemon yellow cartridge where none of the money payed goes to the original creator? How is that different from downloading the ROM and playing it on an emulator?

I'm not trying to be any kind of flame-war starter, and to be clear I disapprove of piracy, but by that logic all second hand selling of games should be forbidden, something which everyone was complaining about with the new DRM key based always online kinds of DRM. The issue with piracy is that you are not taking anything from the creator, except for supposed lost sales but you can't exactly prove that they would have bought the game if piracy wasn't available.

Just think about this example:

I used to be able to go to the store and buy a game. This game required me to insert the disk when I wanted to play the game. I hated this so I made a virtual disk which I could mount so I wouldn't have to locate the disk.

I'm gonna assume that this is not what you consider piracy. I am making a copy for my personal use.

Now, my friend wants to try said game, so I lend him the CD, he installs it and using the CD to play the game.

Still assuming you agree, I don't think it is bad to be able to loan people the stuff you own, since I am also able to loan out my car etc. to other people.

Now, I forget he has the CD, I use my virtual disk I made and he uses my CD. Where did things become morally wrong, since basically what has happened is I have allowed someone to download the game. Was my original copy morally wrong? This would force me to rebuy the game every time the cd would get lost or damaged, which to me sounds very strange.

Was me lending out the cd morally wrong? This would mean that lending out a car or a shovel is also morally wrong.

Now apply this to a bigger scale scenario, where he makes a copy and lends the CD to someone else etc. This would be what we call piracy, yet I fail to see which precise step in the process makes the event morally wrong.

Just to make things clear again, I am against piracy, but calling people who pirate all kinds of names I do not agree with. The entirety of piracy happening could be called morally wrong, but I don't think you are able to call the individual person morally wrong based on the action.

TL;DR:

People who pirate aren't morally wrong, but piracy is. You shouldn't call people who pirate names or whatever, but you should instead focus on the process as a whole and how to stop that from happening.

I don't even say they're morally wrong. They're just plain and simple, in the wrong. If the game required a disk to play, and you let someone else borrow that disk, then you shouldn't be able to play that game. And yes, if your disk breaks you should either get the company to replace it for you, or go buy another one. "I already bought it, but since it broke I'll pirate it, but since I already bought it once, it's not wrong" no that's not how it works.

[mattebad]

So if I want to play Pokemon Yellow I should go out and buy a second hand gameboy and a second hand pokemon yellow cartridge where none of the money payed goes to the original creator? How is that different from downloading the ROM and playing it on an emulator?

I'm not trying to be any kind of flame-war starter, and to be clear I disapprove of piracy, but by that logic all second hand selling of games should be forbidden, something which everyone was complaining about with the new DRM key based always online kinds of DRM. The issue with piracy is that you are not taking anything from the creator, except for supposed lost sales but you can't exactly prove that they would have bought the game if piracy wasn't available.

Just think about this example:

I used to be able to go to the store and buy a game. This game required me to insert the disk when I wanted to play the game. I hated this so I made a virtual disk which I could mount so I wouldn't have to locate the disk.

I'm gonna assume that this is not what you consider piracy. I am making a copy for my personal use.

Now, my friend wants to try said game, so I lend him the CD, he installs it and using the CD to play the game.

Still assuming you agree, I don't think it is bad to be able to loan people the stuff you own, since I am also able to loan out my car etc. to other people.

Now, I forget he has the CD, I use my virtual disk I made and he uses my CD. Where did things become morally wrong, since basically what has happened is I have allowed someone to download the game. Was my original copy morally wrong? This would force me to rebuy the game every time the cd would get lost or damaged, which to me sounds very strange.

Was me lending out the cd morally wrong? This would mean that lending out a car or a shovel is also morally wrong.

Now apply this to a bigger scale scenario, where he makes a copy and lends the CD to someone else etc. This would be what we call piracy, yet I fail to see which precise step in the process makes the event morally wrong.

Just to make things clear again, I am against piracy, but calling people who pirate all kinds of names I do not agree with. The entirety of piracy happening could be called morally wrong, but I don't think you are able to call the individual person morally wrong based on the action.

TL;DR:

People who pirate aren't morally wrong, but piracy is. You shouldn't call people who pirate names or whatever, but you should instead focus on the process as a whole and how to stop that from happening.

This was my main point. I don't support piracy myself but I can see why others do it. If you are able to get something for free then why not? Sure, you might not be supporting the content developers, but if you were thinking about pirating the game you weren't going to buy it in the first place.

 

I never hear anyone complain about people who literally download libraries of ROM's and call them Pirates. It's only the people who download new games. Why should the same not apply to people who use emulators? What about the millions who use PopcornTime and other movie and tv streaming sites. Why aren't they getting the same treatment your giving me right now? You can't just say that one group of people are pirates because they are doing it to games. While another group does it to emulators and tv and movies. Piracy in itself is wrong, but the pirates themselves for the most part are just taking advantage of getting something for free in a grey area of the law.

 

 

Double standard? Who said pirating ROM's is any different from pirating a game? Why wouldn't it apply to people who use emulators? It's just as wrong. You should buy the damn thing.

 

 

And again, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. Is that such a hard concept to understand? Capitalist country, money is what makes things work. If you want something, you pay for it. Economic concept called "TINSTAFL".

So you're saying you've never downloaded a ROM for something that you didn't own? Or that you've never watched a movie or tv show online that you didn't pay for? If so then I'm calling bullshit on that since everyone has done so at least once before. Millions of people do that for Game Of Thrones alone, and that's just one TV show.

 

My point was that nobody ever calls out the people who use emulators or watch movies online. It's always the people who pirate games that get called out. And that's because the minority pirate games while the majority pirate emulators and movies but don't want to admit that it's "pirating".

 

And I think you misunderstood me, I am not in support of piracy. I am just calling out the people who call out those who pirate games, when them themselves have most likely pirated ROM's for emulators or tv shows and movies. There is a double standard for this

[mattebad]

I don't even say they're morally wrong. They're just plain and simple, in the wrong. If the game required a disk to play, and you let someone else borrow that disk, then you shouldn't be able to play that game. And yes, if your disk breaks you should either get the company to replace it for you, or go buy another one. "I already bought it, but since it broke I'll pirate it, but since I already bought it once, it's not wrong" no that's not how it works.

Technically you own the licence for the product and not the product itself, so you should legally be able to make a virtual disc of the product since you already have the license for it. It's not stealing since you technically already bought the license to use for that copy. Your not giving the copies to others, but making one for yourself to use.

[shirokado]

This was my main point. I don't support piracy myself but I can see why others do it. If you are able to get something for free then why not? Sure, you might not be supporting the content developers, but if you were thinking about pirating the game you weren't going to buy it in the first place.

 

I never hear anyone complain about people who literally download libraries of ROM's and call them Pirates. It's only the people who download new games. Why should the same not apply to people who use emulators? What about the millions who use PopcornTime and other movie and tv streaming sites. Why aren't they getting the same treatment your giving me right now? You can't just say that one group of people are pirates because they are doing it to games. While another group does it to emulators and tv and movies. Piracy in itself is wrong, but the pirates themselves for the most part are just taking advantage of getting something for free in a grey area of the law.

 

 

So you're saying you've never downloaded a ROM for something that you didn't own? Or that you've never watched a movie or tv show online that you didn't pay for? If so then I'm calling bullshit on that since everyone has done so at least once before. Millions of people do that for Game Of Thrones alone, and that's just one TV show.

 

My point was that nobody ever calls out the people who use emulators or watch movies online. It's always the people who pirate games that get called out. And that's because the minority pirate games while the majority pirate emulators and movies but don't want to admit that it's "pirating".

 

And I think you misunderstood me, I am not in support of piracy. I am just calling out the people who call out those who pirate games, when them themselves have most likely pirated ROM's for emulators or tv shows and movies. There is a double standard for this

Yes you are correct, I have NEVER downloaded a ROM, or watched a movie or a tv show that I didn't pay for. Don't think everyone in the world is self-entitled. I bought every gameboy and playstation game I ever played, TV shows were watched on cable service, and movies were watched in a theather, or bought on a DVD. When I was a kid I spent more time playing with actual toys, digivices, and yugioh cards, although I don't know how popular those things were in america during 2001, but they were pretty popular with kids in japan. Now I might have the advantage, growing up from a rich household, but there were things I couldn't get, so I had to save up months to buy it. It's not a hard concept, kids pirate alot, because their parents failed and didn't teach them how to work for things they want.

[Pyromaniac225]

konami is always dick.

 

Always

[Nineshadow]

I don't even say they're morally wrong. They're just plain and simple, in the wrong. If the game required a disk to play, and you let someone else borrow that disk, then you shouldn't be able to play that game. And yes, if your disk breaks you should either get the company to replace it for you, or go buy another one. "I already bought it, but since it broke I'll pirate it, but since I already bought it once, it's not wrong" no that's not how it works.

[shirokado]

So if you let your friend borrow your car, can both of you drive it at the same time? And if you let your friend take your TV back to their place, can you use it in your house? No you can't. Same should apply for content. If you let someone borrow it, it's not in your possession.

[mattebad]

So if you let your friend borrow your car, can both of you drive it at the same time? And if you let your friend take your TV back to their place, can you use it in your house? No you can't. Same should apply for content. If you let someone borrow it, it's not in your possession.

Except the difference here is that you own that TV. You can do whatever the hell you want with it. Why should I not be able to do whatever the hell I want with a product I own, whether it's sharing it with others or making a virtual disc of that game so that if I lose the disc I can still play the game. 

Yes you are correct, I have NEVER downloaded a ROM, or watched a movie or a tv show that I didn't pay for. Don't think everyone in the world is self-entitled. I bought every gameboy and playstation game I ever played, TV shows were watched on cable service, and movies were watched in a theather, or bought on a DVD. When I was a kid I spent more time playing with actual toys, digivices, and yugioh cards, although I don't know how popular those things were in america during 2001, but they were pretty popular with kids in japan. Now I might have the advantage, growing up from a rich household, but there were things I couldn't get, so I had to save up months to buy it. It's not a hard concept, kids pirate alot, because their parents failed and didn't teach them how to work for things they want.

 

 

I find that very hard to believe in this day in age that you've never pirated a ROM for an emulator or a movie or tv show. If you haven't then props to you for being one of the few that haven't, but that's very unlikely.

[shirokado]

Except the difference here is that you own that TV. You can do whatever the hell you want with it. Why should I not be able to do whatever the hell I want with a product I own, whether it's sharing it with others or making a virtual disc of that game so that if I lose the disc I can still play the game. 

I find that very hard to believe in this day in age that you've never pirated a ROM for an emulator or a movie or tv show. If you haven't then props to you for being one of the few that haven't, but that's very unlikely.

Is it that surprising that I'm not self-entitled? And what do you mean this day and age, there's even LESS reason to pirate in this day and age with all these streaming services up. Digital content made it even easier to pay for things, I don't need to physically go to a store to buy it, or wait for someone store to ship it to me.

[mattebad]

Is it that surprising that I'm not self-entitled? And what do you mean this day and age, there's even LESS reason to pirate in this day and age with all these streaming services up. Digital content made it even easier to pay for things, I don't need to physically go to a store to buy it, or wait for someone store to ship it to me.

People below the age of 30 are generally the people who pirate either because they are tight on money and don't really give a fuck about the illegality of pirating or they generally can't pay for streaming services. I don't think you understand that this is the major age group in which people pirate, you may be different, but this is the majority

[shirokado]

People below the age of 30 are generally the people who pirate either because they are tight on money and don't really give a fuck about the illegality of pirating or they generally can't pay for streaming services. I don't think you understand that this is the major age group in which people pirate, you may be different, but this is the majority

No I do understand the major age group, they're self entitled. Anything you pirate is a luxury, meaning it's not a necessity. You're not going to die because you don't get to watch the latest TV shows or play the newest AAA games. Don't go and try to justify all of the morons, they're self entitled plain and simple.

[mattebad]

No I do understand the major age group, they're self entitled. Anything you pirate is a luxury, meaning it's not a necessity. You're not going to die because you don't get to watch the latest TV shows or play the newest AAA games. Don't go and try to justify all of the morons, they're self entitled plain and simple.

There is a difference between someone who is self-entitled and someone who can't afford entertainment. If I can take advantage of the system and get something for free that I normally wouldn't be able to afford, why shouldn't I?

[Sharkyx1]

Could someone remind me about the Hideo and Konami story?

I forgot.

Kojima can't manage projects and is several years late and millions over budget.

[shirokado]

There is a difference between someone who is self-entitled and someone who can't afford entertainment. If I can take advantage of the system and get something for free that I normally wouldn't be able to afford, why shouldn't I?

Um of course there's a difference between not being able to afford it and being self entitled. Out of the people who can't afford entertainment, the self entitled ones pirates. Don't even try to justify idiots who pirate. Pirates who try to justify their actions are worse than the ones who just don't give a fuck, they know what they're doing is wrong and that they're an asshole, they just couldn't care less. The true morons are the ones who pirate and try to give it a justified reason.

[mattebad]

Um of course there's a difference between not being able to afford it and being self entitled. Out of the people who can't afford entertainment, the self entitled ones pirates. Don't even try to justify idiots who pirate. Pirates who try to justify their actions are worse than the ones who just don't give a fuck, they know what they're doing is wrong and that they're an asshole, they just couldn't care less. The true morons are the ones who pirate and try to give it a justified reason.

Wow, you really have some kind of insane hard on for people who pirate. Generalizing an entire group of people won't convince others of your opinion, but just look at you and see you as a bit of an ass. Not saying you are, because you have a point, but you can't just generalize an entire group of people because of your view on the practice. People are assholes because they pirate. That's your opinion. My opinion is that people who pirate are either too poor to afford that entertainment or are taking advantage of the system which I can respect. Taking advantage of the system is how you move up in life and jobs, and if you know how to do it on one level, you can most definitely do it on other levels and use it in practice.

 

If there was a loophole in your contract at work that allowed for you to have 80 paid vacation days instead of 30. Would you take advantage of that? Or would your morals get in the way and point it out to your employer. I personally would take advantage of that and if they tried to deny me that I would lawyer up, and note that it is a legally binding contract that both parties have agreed to. The smart people in life take advantage of these opportunities at the cost of making enemies along the way. But that's mainly because their morals align differently then ours. We thrive to get ahead in life and be the best we can be, while they are complacent following the societal norm.

[shirokado]

Wow, you really have some kind of insane hard on for people who pirate. Generalizing an entire group of people won't convince others of your opinion, but just look at you and see you as a bit of an ass. Not saying you are, because you have a point, but you can't just generalize an entire group of people because of your view on the practice. People are assholes because they pirate. That's your opinion. My opinion is that people who pirate are either too poor to afford that entertainment or are taking advantage of the system which I can respect. Taking advantage of the system is how you move up in life and jobs, and if you know how to do it on one level, you can most definitely do it on other levels and use it in practice.

If there was a loophole in your contract at work that allowed for you to have 80 paid vacation days instead of 30. Would you take advantage of that? Or would your morals get in the way and point it out to your employer. I personally would take advantage of that and if they tried to deny me that I would lawyer up, and note that it is a legally binding contract that both parties have agreed to. The smart people in life take advantage of these opportunities at the cost of making enemies along the way. But that's mainly because their morals align differently then ours. We thrive to get ahead in life and be the best we can be, while they are complacent following the societal norm.

You're deluded. You're claiming intellectual property has no value. Anyone who's too poor to buy something should just steal it. Oh but it's okay, I might have stolen this car but it's not like this model is ever out of stock so it wasn't a lost sale anyway

Pirating is not a loophole, it's theft. According to your logic authors shouldn't make any money, people should all just go to a bookstore and scan every single page into their computer, who cares right? Wasn't going to buy it anyway.

As long as you don't understand the concept of paying for products you'll always be deluded.