PAY FOR TORRENTED GAMES AT GOG.COM

[Siannah]

So, taking other people's work and removing the credits to sell as your own work is a-ok

Yeah, just bitchin'

No. And no, two wrongs doesn't make a right.
But martens complaining about egg thieves is just hilarious - especially in this case where everybody's aware that drastic DRM was and still is used, because of those other peoples work in the first place.

So... keep on bitchin'. It's rather amusing.

As far as I see, this whole thread is based on an assumption that GoG took the crack, and ignoring the option that maybe properly removing the DRM would produce an identical exe.

This. Assumption = facts for some guys around here.

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

Circumventing DRM (without publisher's permission) is illegal, therefore the crackers have no right to complain that their crack is being used legally for profit, and I seriously doubt any of them even give a shit (you always hear that crackers in the scene only crack for the challenge, why would they contradict that mantra?).

Are you kidding me? Crackers get into flame wars all the time because one is prone to stealing part of the work of another to improve their own, or taking it, doing a few tweaks, and passing it off as an original crack. A new argument starts off every few weeks.



Also, it's interesting to look down on the stealing pirates do, while saying that it's alright for a legal group to steal from them.

 

[analt]

You see, I never got why people buy digital version of old games.

I do it because I don't have any choice. My analog computer blew its vacuum tubes ages ago.

You know what I mean though.

Yeah, in this particular case. The thing is, it's getting harder and harder to tell. We start out with phrases that are just redundant, like "digital download" and "interactive game" and nobody calls bullshit on them, so eventually people assume there must be some meaning to it and you end up with weird arbitrary definitions of everything. "Interactive" means electronic now, as far as I can tell.

I see a movie and the box says that the 2-disc edition includes a "digital version" and I don't know what the fuck they mean. Since they can't mean the same digital version that is in every box on the fucking shelf, I have to interpret it to mean that they are thinking of a "diigital download" version. Which, since it's on the disc, is not a download. So I assume they mean what might better be called an iPod or mobile or portable copy. But I have no fucking way of knowing.

That's like three degrees of separation between what they mean and what they say. What the hell is going on when even the people who produce the products or the users who are techncal enough to discuss hexadecimal offsets don't have a common language in which to discuss them?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

So... keep on bitchin'. It's rather amusing.

Hmm-hm.

 

[Gragt]

This is a real scandal.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Nah, it's more intense than a simple scandal.

 

[Melcar]

I think it's beyond outrage.

 

[Thor Kaufman]

This is a sore topic for me

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I think it's beyond outrage.

 

[Droog White Smile]

DRAMA
http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/gog ... ene_crack/

 

[SuicideBunny]

i am surprised this thread made it past page 3.

 

[Droog White Smile]

Lots of quality posts there.

Codex regulars don't see a distinction between old and new "free" games; they will download any game they think is sure to be garbage (by Codex standards, any game released since about 2001 is automatically garbage, with the possible exception of turn-based, isometric RPGs). They tend to allude to their pirating ways along the lines of "I didn't remove it from the inventory".

What makes this even more amusing and saddening is that they purport to be the last bastion of true RPG design, but any modern developer passing by will see that they are a bunch of selfish, greedy pirates who won't even pay for games they love when a developer actually takes the time to make them available again; if they treat their much-loved old games that way, why bother making new games that satisfy this sort of audience?

So where are RPGCodex on the great scale of internet fuckwittery? Above 4chan I assume because it seems that everythig else in creation is, are they above NMA as well?

Nah, the Codex is below 4chan because at least 4chan are dicks when they're right and they prove that they are right. The morons here are NEVER right and they have an aversion to buying old games.

And any real rpg gamer goes to RPG Watch for his rpg news anyway : ).

 

[Konjad]

Codex regulars don't see a distinction between old and new "free" games; they will download any game they think is sure to be garbage (by Codex standards, any game released since about 2001 is automatically garbage, with the possible exception of turn-based, isometric RPGs). They tend to allude to their pirating ways along the lines of "I didn't remove it from the inventory".

What makes this even more amusing and saddening is that they purport to be the last bastion of true RPG design, but any modern developer passing by will see that they are a bunch of selfish, greedy pirates who won't even pay for games they love when a developer actually takes the time to make them available again; if they treat their much-loved old games that way, why bother making new games that satisfy this sort of audience?

I buy games and I like plenty of games released after 2001 (and my favourite one is from 2004!).

Some codexers are bunch of fags but not everyone here are them.

 

[spekkio]

@Droog-kun

Jesus, man. SMA is less obvious with her attention whoring.
At least make an alt to bump this thread for you...

 

[starfish]

Also, it's interesting to look down on the stealing pirates do, while saying that it's alright for a legal group to steal from them.

we have no problem letting police buy new toys by selling the confiscated assets of drug pushers. you'd think they'd do the moral thing and destroy such illegitimate proceeds, but remember-- drugs are bad!!!

 

[entertainer]

that is some butthurt over there

 

[Zeus]

The majority of posters on GOG are too busy asking, "Why does RPGCodex suck so much?" to ask, "Why are GOG and Activision so quiet on the issue?"

I can forgive their ignorance of the Codex (every GOG hate thread here is filled with a more-or-less equal amount of GOG supporters), but talk about your ad hominem attacks. What does a few RPGCodexers hatred of paying for old RPGs have to do with GOG's apparent use of scene cracks?

Cracks are a huge safety concern. You really have to be careful. If GOG (or Activision, more likely) really IS downloading random cracks off the internet to patch the games they sell, it's only a matter of time before they ruin their reputation.

Unlikely Nightmare Scenario:
Step 1. Release a new crack for old Activision games which defeat the copy protection and phone home passwords and bank account info.
Step 2. Wait for GOG to release a game patched with your crack.
Step 3. Profit!

 

[spekkio]

Cracks are a huge safety concern. You really have to be careful. If GOG (or Activision, more likely) really IS downloading random cracks off the internet to patch the games they sell, it's only a matter of time before they ruin their reputation.

Unlikely Nightmare Scenario:
Step 1. Release a new crack for old Activision games which defeat the copy protection and phone home passwords and bank account info.
Step 2. Wait for GOG to release a game patched with your crack.
Step 3. Profit!

7/10

 

[Gerrard]

The majority of posters on GOG are too busy asking, "Why does RPGCodex suck so much?" to ask, "Why are GOG and Activision so quiet on the issue?"

Considering that the majority of the posters on GoG are about as intelligent as the majority of the posters on Steam, it sounds about right.

 

[starfish]

Cracks are a huge safety concern. You really have to be careful. If GOG (or Activision, more likely) really IS downloading random cracks off the internet to patch the games they sell, it's only a matter of time before they ruin their reputation.

Sometimes in torrent comments I see one person mention that "OMG THE EXE HAZ VIRUS!!!" and someone else will follow up with something along the lines of "no, it's not a virus, just that the way the pirates modify the EXE to bypass DRM is the same way virus writers modify EXEs to spread their trojans."

Anybody know if there's any truth to this? I've used quite a few cracks in my time, some of which did get detected as trojans by AVG/Norton. I also have both a software and hardware firewall; no supposed trojan I've ever installed has ever tried to phone home (from what I can tell).

 

[janjetina]

AVG and Norton are shit. There are no keyloggers in cracks, and disguising malware as a crack, while as possible as disguising it as another piece of software, is easily detectable.
Current leader on the butthurt list is cogadh, known Team Jizzka apologist and moderator, so the cause of his ache isn't a mystery.

 

[Gragt]

Hell yeah, that guy got all the intellectual vivacity of a dead herring.

 

[Zeus]

disguising malware as a crack, while as possible as disguising it as another piece of software, is easily detectable.

Well, yeah, but one of the reasons people go through GOG is so they don't have to worry about things like that.

It's easy enough to spot bad meat, but when I go to a restaurant, I don't inspect my hamburger for green spots because I expect that the meat was passed by health inspectors at the factory, and that the local health inspectors regularly check the business.

This is like hearing that a restaurant bought meat off some guy in an alley. Sure, it's probably safe, but there's always a chance it's really ground hobo.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

They tend to allude to their pirating ways along the lines of "I didn't remove it from the inventory".

 

[reaven]

So, taking other people's work and removing the credits to sell as your own work is a-ok

Yeah, just bitchin'

If they release a non legally modified exe they are exposed to get his work copied by other looking to get the same result (other cracker or in this case gog) and they cant do anything.
GoG did nothing wrong as they copied something that is not protected by any means. Would have been more ethical that they mentioned the source of exe? Yeah sure, but I guess they though that nobody would give a fuck, but there was Droog with thirst for drama...

 

[Gragt]

Bleh, I'd like some facts before making any assumptions. Like who is responsable for removing protection, GOG or the one who publishes a game through it.