a weird thought about ethics.

[baratron]

I'm catching up on my newsreading at the moment. Whizzed through uk.people.gothic and uk.net.news.config, and more slowly through uk.transport.london and uk.games.video.playstation. I stopped and posted quite a few messages in both utl and ugvc. I seem to be the token female in both groups - it's really quite amusing. There are a fair number of women programmers and sysadmins (computer geeks), but comparatively few trainspotter or gaming geeks. I'm not sure why.

One of the messages I posted in ugvc is something I'd like comments on from a wide audience. It's too early to point you to it in google groups - I only just posted it - so I'll include the text below:

(Note for the uninitiated - "backups" is the term used by Playstation gamers for unlicensed copies of games - when you put the original into a CD burner and make a gold CD of it).

I just had a strange thought about "backups".

I pretty much only own original games. The "backups" I have are all games that either didn't get a European release at all or weren't available in Europe at the time I got them. I feel quite strongly about only buying original games and supporting the developers, but I have absolutely no problems with owning "backups" when the stupid companies don't bother to grace us with a release.

However, at least half the games I own were bought secondhand. So the developers have only seen the money from the original purchase - my money is just going into the pocket of the seller. So am I wasting my money by buying secondhand originals? Should I just get "backups" if I'm not prepared to pay the price of a new game?

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this.

Comments

[firecat]

If the main ethical point driving your behavior is "supporting the developers," then I think the best thing to do would be to buy a new game, not a secondhand game or a pirated game.