Is A Multi-Platform Release An Excuse For Piracy?

Kotaku commenter Mellowguy wants to know if downloading an illegal copy of a PC game is OK if you already own the console version. What's your take?

The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim comes out in only about five weeks now. I'm getting it for the 360 — my computer is great but I don't want to have to worry about balancing the graphics with frames per second. However, I was thinking of downloading Skyrim illicitly after I buy my 360 copy. My reasoning is so: I bought the game — what could be wrong with playing my game on a different system? It's just like playing Skyrim on a different 360, except that it's my computer.

So I suppose what I'm wondering is, does anyone else use this reasoning? Am I actually stealing the game because I'm only allowed to use the version I purchased?


    How can you even be confused on the issue, it's stealing and there is no grey area.
    If you didn't want it on PC in the first place then don't steal it because you think you're entitled too after buying a copy on a different system. Theft is theft and this why PC gamers get a bad rap.

      you imply copyright infringement is theft

      I think Sess he is more interested in the legality of multi-platform ownership. In terms of copyright, if you consider the game a singular object then he has payed for the right to own the copyrighted game. Does that allow (legally) for him to own it on multiple platform without infringing copyright?

      Now i doubt publisher's legal teams would allow that sort of loop hole to be un-plugged, however Valve did it with Portal 2, allowing ps3 users to download a free Steam version.

      It would nice to see this trend continue, because when you buy a game, the majority of the price is for the copyright to play the game (the game box/disk would be a small part of the total cost i assume) and PC users can download their version for no cost to the publishers (via digital distribution).


      P.S. in a similar vein, purchasing a video clip on itunes doesn't seem to entitle you to owning the audio track (although surely you own the copyright to it if you own the video clip?)

        Like when some developers let you have DLC on multiply platforms. Not that we've seen much of this lately. If a developer gives the means to download the same game on PC that you have on a console then yeah fine. But going and finding it from some dingy torrent somewhere and nicking it just because you feel justified because you have a legit copy already isn't right. It's still stealing...

          Given each version of the games coding is slightly different due to its console of origins nature (or pc) it is therefore considered a different product. It's not a case of being a mirror image merely running on each system. It's theft, plain and simple. Have I pirated before? Yep. Am I aware I'm stealing? Yep. Do I make excuses for it? Nope.

          Does it piss me off when people try to justify it? Oh hells yeah.

          You don't own software of any kind, you own a license to use the software and a physical disk that contains it, the software itself is still the property of the developer/publisher however.

          As far as the legality goes, it would depend on what is stipulated in the license agreement, you may very well be free to play the game on any platform if you only own a copy on one, but if you need to crack the game in order to play it you'd be violating the section of the license agreement that forbids unauthorised modification or reverse engineering and you would instantly lose your right.

          It gets even vaguer in regards to who exactly is breaking the law if the pirate copy comes pre-cracked and pre-installed with no license agreement attached.

            Couldn't have said it better myself.

            A bit OT..

            But I have always wondered why the hell us gamers ever let the publishers get so much power over us consumerwise to the pointe we're politely asking to play a game w/ cash as opposed to owning the actual software on hand for use.

            It's just one of the very many small insidious erosion of consumer powers gamers have put up w/ as the market has matured and now tolerate =/

              This is well beyond the scope of just videogames, the entire software industry operates like this, and always has.

        Australian law actually does allow you to make copies of content across formats for your own personal use (Phillip Ruddock of all people was behind this law!) so you can convert your VCRs to DVD or burn your DVDs to a hard drive - so technically if you could somehow port your 360 copy to be playable on your PC then you could do it - but given that's all but impossible then I'd say no.

        Besides which this is kind of trolling - who needs the one game across multiple formats (save for TF2 which I bought on Xbox and later on PC cuz they're so different)

          I'll take BF3 for example of WHY I need the same title on more than one 'console'.
          I have more than one friend. Hell, I have a number of gamer friends. Guess what? They don't all own the same console. I am currently unsure of what format to buy this game simply because of this issue. I will definitely not be buying it more than once.
          See why it'd be nice to have it open to my PC, XBOX, and PS3 yet?

            Wait until the Wii U, then there'll be more of a mindf***. God I hate these situations. :P

      Let's at least discuss this properly - Piracy and stealing are not functionally equivalent. Thievery or Stealing deprives the original owner of an item. Piracy does not. Shoplifting and filesharing are not the same thing; the former is more tangibly, measurably detrimental to the original owner than the latter.

      In any case there's no actual product to be stolen; as any game you buy, even at a shop, is just a license to view/use a piece of copyrighted media, and a copy of that media. There are physical production and logistical costs behind the 'hard' copy you'd find at a shop, but you do not -own- any game you purchase.

        By that logic you could steal 1 million dollars electronically and not have it be theft

        You are depriving the publisher/developer of income they might have otherwise received (not going to get into the issues of if the person would have bought it given no option to pirate).

          Disagree, If you stole that million, someone would lose it. If you could duplicate that million, with no loss to anyone else, then it would be copyright infringement. Then again this is not possible, as the gov earns tax $ off every dollar, so your ripping off the gov buy making (counter fitting?) which there are criminal laws against. Copyright violation is not theft as theft is dealt with by the criminal code, copyright violation is dealt with by civil, both very very different things. One is jail, one is you handing money over to a private entity.

            BTW must post as it might not be clear, both are wrong, I dont agree with piracy and do buy games. But legally speaking, theft and software piracy are very very different (piracy only becomes a Crime legally when you seek to make money from it).

      What everyone needs to remember is that you are not purchasing the game or the data itself, but rather the license to use said data. As such, once you have purchased the license to use the data contained within the game "The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim", you should be able to use it on whichever hardware you choose to (without making copies), not limited by that and forced to then spending more money to purchase software that is being sold under the same name. Developing for the different systems is just a way of making more profit from the guys who buy it on one system, realise that it's shit on the 6 year old system they just bought it for, and then are forced to go out and purchase it on the pc to actually get the gaming experience they should have gotten the first time around

      In short, I'm against piracy in general. The developers who do a good job deserve your support. The one case where I honestly think it should be reconsidered is where there is a lack of multi-platform support without actually going out and buying another copy of it

        So therefore, you're purchasing a license, a license is a tangeable product. A license is therefore stolen, stealing is theft. *shrug* It's pretty straight forward.

          yes, but when you've purchased a license to use the software already, why should you then have to purchase another license just to be able to use the same software on a different OS? You've already got the license, you should be entitled to use the license on whatever software or hardware configuration you choose. The lack of cross-compatibility is neither your fault nor responsibility, after all.

          I mean, don't get me wrong, I always go for the PC version regardless, but when I hear console players complaining about controls, graphics and limitations on their versions, I can't help but feel that they should be entitled to play it on the pc instead without having to fork over another $100

            Because you've purchased the license to play it on say the 360, not the ps3, or the pc. I understand what you're saying but it's not exactly rocket science.

            I agree whole heartedly and long for the day that they give you the right to download via code use or something, other versions when you purchase the physical copy or whatever, like Valve with portal 2, but at this point, you guys are just pissing up against a thousand foot wall that aint budging.

            How exactly is a licence a tangible product? And if a pirate version is unlicensed how have you deprived the owner of anything? You obviously haven't taken a "licence". It is not at all similar to stealing. If you haven't deprived anyone of anything, you haven't stolen. It's pretty strait forward.

      the reason you cannot download one game for the other platforms when you own it for one is the way that licensing, publishing, development, and ownership are intertwined. I am not a lawyer but I do know a bit about the subject. I would not recommend you use this information in a legal dispute but for the basic purposes of understanding why it is not legal it will do just fine.

      Company A develops the game. They develop versions for each platform. These are essentially the same product, typically with a slightly modified engine to allow for running on the "port" devices. Sometimes independent versions are developed from scratch but this is more rare.

      Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sega, Zenimax... etc, these companies are publishers. Either they own company A or company A has come to them requesting them to publish the game. It is possibly for a developer and publisher to be the same company but this does not always happen.

      Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo determine licensing for their respective consoles. They make money by allowing the publishers to sell the game they received from the developers in versions that run on their consoles. There is no licensing for pc (As far as i know.)

      Then there are the distributors. These are companies like WalMart, Amazon, Gamestop, Newegg, and other stores. They purchase product directly in bulk and sell it at a small markup.

      When you buy a game, you purchase from a distributor. They are not concerned which platform you choose to play on, however they can't let you have all platforms for one price because they do not own the intellectual property on the game disks, they only own the disks themselves.

      The developer typically is also not affected by which platform has the best sales, unless they have incentives from the licensing companies or publishers.

      The publisher typically is not affected by which platform has the best sales, unless they have incentives from the licensing company.

      The licensing companies, Sony Microsoft and Nintendo, are in direct competition with eachother. They sell essentially the same software (in the case of cross platform titles where this argument applies), however they only profit from the versions that are sold on their consoles.

      Because each licensor is a separate entity and do not share profit, the purchase price for your game does not go to each of them, but only one. When you buy the game on one console and then torrent for the other, the licensor loses out.

      The licensors like sony have invested tens of hundreds of millions of dollars into development of the gaming hardware and they take losses on selling consoles with the hope of making more money on licensing later.

      This is also the reason why PC hardware is typically more expensive than console hardware. The developers of PC hardware do not get licensing rights on software that is developed for pc, while the console developers do.

    Sesshomaru is right. There is no middle-ground on this. It IS stealing.

      It may be stealing, but the theory isn't wrong. Why do people have to buy it multiple times for different platforms? I've never pirated a game because I wanted it on PC as well but I have had to re-buy games because a friend has it on another platform and I don't see why I should have to.

      As it stands it is stealing, but perhaps publishers could devise a way to let people get a code to download it for the other platforms either for free or for a nominal fee.

        Sorry Pioneer, but I think you're wrong at least twice. Firstly, it's not stealing at all - see my response to Sesshomaru. Secondly, the theory is unsound in the case of videogames, because while very similar, the products are not identical, and the different platforms' versions have wildly different costs and production histories. So they're sold separately because they cost different amounts to produce; it's not realistic to suggest that a payment for one platform covers the development cost for all platforms.

        Were we talking about music or video formats, then I'd agree with your logic, but videogames are more complex.

          It's not stealing? Well I'm glad you were there to tell us that, silly Law and all that giving us disinformation! I guess those people fined for copyrighting and STEALING music in the ole days of Napster when they were made examples of would be so comforted by this...

            Not a single person who used Napster was charged with Theft. They were charged with Copyright Infringement, which is a different kind of violation of the law. The same is true for any user of bittorrent or usenet websites or technologies.

              By definition, you are right it isn't real theft, but you have a product that you did not pay the creator for. Dance around the meaning of the word all you like, the fact is if everyone did it there wouldn't be anything to pirate.

                You're right - it's illegal, and even more importantly, it's unethical. Don't get me wrong: I definitely do not agree with Fahey here today.

                  Thank you for making that point, I totally agree with you. Piracy is not stealing and can not be stealing. It may be illegal but it is a completely different crime and should be treated differently because of it.

                  In fact I believe it was Notch from Mojang that actually came out and admitted this, that piracy does not affect him as he loses nothing from it. He does not even consider it a lost sale, as if the person couldn't get it illegally it does not mean they would then buy it, but rather move on to something else.

    Anybody who justifies this is an idiot.

      It's called thinking or having an opinion on something. Doesn't make someone an idiot.

      I most certainly see both sides of the fence on this issue. I see the legal issues surrounding it and agree with them - if you buy said game then you agree to the Terms & Conditions of owning such a product. Much similar to tampering with the OS on the PS3 for example and Sony retaliating or suing someone.

      However I BELIEVE publishers should start looking at introducing such practices with their games. Allowing more people to cross play. It can be implemented in a number of ways. A universal disc, cross platform with 360/PS3/PC etc.. or download codes for different systems.

      I also see more people buying these games to play with their friends. So there is certainly a logical excuse to believe in/want such a thing.

      I've never done it myself but believe that something should be introduced. Piracy is a topic that is never going to agree with everyone and thats fine cause everyone has their own opinion. Right now - if its illegal to buy one copy and download another, then its illegal you shouldn't do it. But it doesn't mean their heart or logic is wrong, it just means the way they are going about it is legally wrong.

      I will say though - I have purchased a book before. I left it somewhere and was without it for two days. So I downloaded an eBook copy from a torrent to continue reading. I still purchased the book legally and read 80% of it with the physical copy but read a part of it through an "illegal copy".... is that wrong?!

    I wish you COULD do this legally though. Fat chance with all the greedy publishers around though. It is not like they would lose money, who buys TWO copies of a game for themselves anyways?

    If you wanted to play it on PC, surely the smart thing to do would be to buy it on PC in the first place?

      Makes it harder to pirate for the consoles though. No one said pirates weren't lazy.

    It's not stealing. It's copyright violation. Stealing something takes it away from the rightful owner. If someone steals my motorcycle, I have to take the peasant cart tram to work. If someone copies my motorcycle, Honda doesn't get the money from selling one… but the person might not have bought one if he couldn't have copied it.

    It's still wrong, but it's not stealing.

      Yep. "Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization."

    It is stealing.


    joke, i would buy it on the PC in the first place.

    You buy an MP3 place it on your Ipod, burn it to CD to play in your car, stream it from your computer and play it through your 360 etc. etc....
    Why shouldn't you be able to play the same game on different platforms?

      Great example. Realistically... If you're buying a cd, then shouldn't you be buying the iTunes version to use on your mp3 player etc.

      Personally it still seems wrong to me, but it's definitely NOT a black and white issue.

      The developer has simply made the SAME game for different consoles/ pc etc. So you'd be paying saying $250 for 3 of the same thing with different comparability yes?

      This is still similar to the mp3 argument. Why would you be paying more than once for the EXACT same thing when all you're getting is x-comparability.

        While my view is that if you've bought it in on one platform it's free on another.

        But the difference here is that an MP3 on a CD or itunes is the same no matter what you use it in.

        However when it comes to Video Games, Theres a PC version that had it's own budget and dev team(even if only for porting) same with the 360 and PS3 version.

        each platform has it's own cost's. And as such when it's bought on 360 and pirated on PC. You are funding the 360 development and propogating that all PC gamers are pirates.

        So when it comes down to that i say If you want the same game on different platforms you can god damned well pay for it.

        because the last thing we need is for PS3/360 users also being counted as PC pirates to make the figures even worse

          This I agree with. I think at least a fee or some small charge let's you download it for the other platforms, at least enough to cover the cost of porting it over.

      To put it simply, the PC version of a game *should* outshine both the PS3 and 360 versions. However in this day and age its easier (quicker?) to port an inferior console version to PC and sell that. :(

        and when people are willing to pay for the console product and steal the PC one.

        you wonder why they don't bother putting in the effort

        Wow... That didn't take long. PC gamers never miss a chance, do they? Well done, sir. Thanks for your stellar contribution!

      Because the song you listen to on your car, the song you listen to on your MP3 player, and the song you listen to on your PC are all the exact same song; you've just copied it.

      A 360 game and a PS3 game and a PC game are not the same; they work differently, were built differently, and have to pay different license fees for their respective right to be played on their respective platforms. While I disagree with the licensing of platforms, it's absolutely irresponsible to say that the different games are the same.

      Where it's ethical (though likely not legal) to download a copy of your game is when you already own that platform. For example, if you buy Dragon Age in a shop, and you lose the disk and CD Key but have proof of purchase, it's not unethical to download a copy and crack it to play. Such is the benefit of owning a license, not a copy of the media.

        That's an interesting point, it's a different "version". So in theory if you could play the 360/PS3 version on an emulator on your PC then it would be perfectly fine. Never thought of that...

          Huh. I never thought of that. I suppose that'd be okay, because it's not like it costs the developer anything!

          Along those lines of thought, if you purchase The Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of Time (N64), and then choose not to purchase the 3DS version... I guess you're still not doing anything unethical! Hooray for licenses and not products! \o/

      Well, if you use the examples of a mp3, let me take the example of an operating system. Windows 7 requires you to purchase separate licences to run on multiple machines, where as Mac OSX Lion only requires you to purchase one copy, and instal i on as many machines as you like, therefor, it is essentially up to the developer to control how it should be distributed.

        Not up to the developer, it's up to the publisher, or in consoles' case, the licenser (e.g. Sony, M$, Nintendo).

    Agreed, but i hope publishers go the way of valve with Portal 2 copies included with ps3 i believe (bought 360 myself).

    Gotta go with the gang on this one. Just dont. At the very least, it sways things unfairly in the direction of consoles. Some of us still prefer Computers. If you're gonna play a AAA game, the least you can do is support the console you play it on.

    Also...It's gonna be hard to get the inevitable, amazing mods on 360. Which version of the game are you going to be playing in a few years time?

    If your reasoning to download the PC version illegally is for access to the user-created content that you won't be able to get on Xbox 360, then the least you could do is shell out the money for the PC version so Bethesda have adequate reason to continue investing such time and effort into their toolsets for the community.

    I'm definitely not with the crowd on this one. I can't agree that this is stealing, or even immoral/unethical. You might be breaking the EULA, but to me that's a problem with the agreement, not what this gamer is proposing.

    Time and time again, publishers take the line that when you are buying a game you are really buying a license to "play" it. If that's the case, they need to be more flexible about which platforms I use that license on. It really should be platform agnostic. I think Valve moved in the right direction on this with Portal 2, and I'd like to see it become the norm.

    Regardless, just get the PC version. It'll be cheaper and we need the sales numbers.

      It would be fine if the development money was spread equally regardless of what platform you buy on.

      But all they are going to see when they consider their next game is that there was a sale for 360, and a pirate copy for PC.

      and that isn't good long run for the PC.

      The fact that he's even considering the PC version means it has something he want's that the 360 copy doesn't offer and if that's the case he should pay for it

      It's not stealing; it's copyright infringement. But it is unethical because different people did different work to result in a similar product that runs on different hardware and with a different operating system.

      I'd absolutely -love- to see platform agnosticism be brought in to gaming, but while there are different production constraints and licensing fees, it's just not practical.

    "My reasoning is so: I bought the game — what could be wrong with playing my game on a different system?"

    You have not bought the game - only the license.

    Read the EULA - either online or if you are luck at the back of the instruction manual.

    Game publishers are one of the few companies that ensure a specific platform is specified in the EULA.

    Thus, if you buy a copy for the 360, your have purchased a license to play the game on the 360 only. You have not purchased a license to play the game on a PC.

      This guy has made the most sense so far.

      Surely things like iTunes say the same thing in their EULA don't they? The reason I feel that it's ethical to circumvent those EULA's terms but not a game's is that the amount of work and cost involved in bringing a song to another platform is negligible (you just export the raw data into a new format), but it's very expensive for games (you rebuild the whole thing to run on the new OS/platform). I personally respect the work and effort that people put into the media I consume, not the terms of use cooked up by a corporate lawyer. How do you feel about that? Am I a terrible thief, or am I okay? I'd like to hear your opinion, WiseHacker.

        I do not think so, then again, the iTunes EULA is almost updated every few months.

    "but I don’t want to have to worry about balancing the graphics with frames per second."

    This has to be the lamest thing I've ever read. It's like a grandpa talking about video games.

      Yeah, I think that in this instance you should buy the pc version instead of the 360 version. My reasoning? You will be supporting a version of the game that will be superior in almost every way. If you are worried about balancing graphics with fps, just set it to about 360 graphics because that is all you will get on a 360. If your computer isn't good enough to achieve that, then don't bother getting it on the computer at all, legally or not.

      No, it's a good point. PC gaming is a pain in the arse sometimes.

    How many people here back up their music or movie collections?

      I do, but it's not the same as grabbing another videogame which is very similar that runs on a different platform.

      I'm okay with backup of the games you own, but Skyrim (360) and Skyrim (PC) are not the same game!

        Were the CDs you purchased meant to be played on an mp3 player?

          When you purchase digital media, you're purchasing a license to access it, not a physical copy, because, well, there -is- no physical copy. To use an analogy, when you purchase sheet music, you're not allowed to play it, because you didn't buy the CD. Or maybe you could play it, but only if you did so in such a way that noone could hear it.

          Whether or not the CD fits into the mp3 player is irrelevant; I purchased a license to the mp3 files on the CD.

            Music CDs don't have MP3s on them.


              Ha, well said, Cerzel. I always forget that.

              In that case, if you had a 360 emulator on your PC, and you owned Skyrim (360), and you downloaded an ISO and played it on your PC, without using the PC version, while owning the 360 version, are you committing an unethical act?

              It's probably a violation of the ToS/EULA, but legal definitions are boring because they're so clear cut; I'm more interested in the moral/ethical judgement :P

                I think that's something more people should be able to agree upon.
                I buy DS games. I don't even own a DS. I do have a Wii, but if a game doesn't have motion controls I'll buy it and play it with Dolphin instead. I like having that backup of the game I own as comfort (especially since my nephew turns to the Wii when he visits), and emulators are ever capable of providing a better experience than the console (playing Wii games at 1080p, 4x native resolution, 16x AA/AS etc.).
                I'm playing the same version of a game I own on the "same" platform. Where's the issue there?

    These days you don't purchase the game, but the right to play it on a certain platform with conditions. So, no, you can't justify piracy because you, at no point, own the game.

    Even if you did own the game, the differences between the platforms mean it's a different product. It's like having the book and movie versions of the same story. Having own doesn't give you a right to the other.

    Is it bullshit? Sure, but not a lot we can do otherwise unless the game is stupid high profile and has a profit margin the size of the american debt to cover the cost of the portings, media, casings, etc for each platform, it's not feasible to expect the current cost of a game to cover three, preferably four, platforms. Unless you want to buy a combined lisence but then we're back to square one.

    Anyone who tries to justify piracy for this reason is not deserving of the oxygen they're using, which could be put to be use powering cow farts, and I'm sorely disappointed that someone from the games industry would even be tempted by such a reason, especially a someone with a wide public profile like a journalist.

      "These days you don’t purchase the game, but the right to play it on a certain platform with conditions."

      I think that may have been the case for many years, not just these days.

      But you are right and that is what most people don't see. You don't buy the software product, you buy a license to it.

    Its only theft when its to big to download.

    Stupid isps charge so much these days. Some even shape P2P traffic too!

    That said though I normaly just prefer a legit copy as its much simpler and suports developers.

    I don't understand why so many people in these comments are saying it's theft.. It's copyright infringement.
    Just because the copyright holders treat them essentially the same, they're not. If it was theft that would mean the original copy has been stolen and it is no longer there, whereas piracy involves making a copy of the original while leaving it in place.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying piracy is good, but as far as I'm concerned (going from experience when I used to pirate games), most people pirate because they can't afford it, and if they didn't pirate wouldn't get the game at all. So not only is it not really a lost sale, but it gives their game more exposure and therefore potentially more sales from said pirates friend. I'm sure there is a portion of piraters that are just evil nasties and want their game for free, but from what I've seen this is a relatively small portion.

      Picture yourself in a country where a game cost you USD 120 (like my country). I bought 1 game, pirated another, but spent the same money in original games than an American buying 2 or 3 games. I think that there is a grey area with piracy in some scenarios.

      Or look at what I do. I demoed a lot of games downloading pirated copies just to be sure to spent the money on it (keep in mind also that Dollars are really expensive in my country). If the game is not worth it I just don't play it. Recently I pirated Dead Island just to know how it will run in my PC. I was happy with the results, so I bough it. There is this thought that if you download a pirated game you are automatically a criminal... I just don't get it. Like it or not, there is a percentage of people who buy games thanks to piracy.

      Digital copyright infrigement is a sign of our times and it's not stealing. Is not like going to a store and stealing a product. It's more like going to a store, then going home and make an exact copy of a product you saw.

      From Wikipedia: "Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization."

    Theft removes the original, so this is copying. People copy all the time, and have been since the technology existed - Cassette tapes in the 80s and 90s, recording shows to VHS and now HDDs.

    It's nothing new, it's just that the media companies are now getting pissed off that they can no longer charge an arm and a leg for their products, because we're more than happy to find alternatives to paying BS prices.

      You also realize that technically speaking.

      Your only allowed to watch a VCR recording once. which i assume has translated to DVR recordings these days

    Using the articles logic I could buy it on PC for a much cheaper price than pirate it on 360?

    Yep it doesnt work.

    But id like to see them do what they are doing with some blurays at the moment and give you a dvd and digital copy for little extra cost.

    I'll be buying it on PC then picking it up on ps3 pre owned, that will mess with the publishers profit,... if enough of us do that then maybe it will force their hand to offer more with the original copy for maybe a bit more, id buy the licence for to play on another system $20, free is better but maybe the colectors edition can offer it... Pc plus one console

      It's not going to happen because you just end up with what alot of the people done with Portal 2.

      People bought the Ps3 version. Added their Steam copy then traded the Ps3 version back

    Pirating PC versions because you own a console version is stupid because it sends the message to developers to stop making PC games. Not good.
    Be a good PC gamer and import your $40 copy, it gives the devs a reason to keep making great PC games, and it supports the distributors and retailers that don't rip us off.

      That's the other thing.

      For what you would pay local here, you could import both copies for the same price.

      though this article has been pulled of KotakUS and probably only got a run because it will cause arguement traffic, which seems to be what they exist on

    In my opinion, one should act ethically, and respect the work that is required to produce engrossing media. Whether or not you act legally, as long as the developer is supported and their costs are covered, I think you're in the clear.

    Pirating a PC game is almost always unjustifiable, because it -costs- the developer money. They have to work to support your copy of the game, to develop and transmit patches, to provide customer support, to run the forums you're using, etc.

    To be clear: Skyrim (PC) != Skyrim (360) != Skyrim PS3. They are different, albeit externally similar products. Different people worked to produce them, to ensure that they run correctly, and so on. The costs are very different, and that's why I would consider it to be unethical to download one platform's version of the same game, even if you already own it on another.

    what about the other way round, pc version is generally cheaper so if you buy that do you have the right to pirate on your 360?

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now