Lets clear up something straight away, I have never been in to piracy of music, computer games or FC. Most especially mass downloadable copying. I have had long arguments with my sister in the past about the wrongs of pirated music. I've spent £000s of pounds on original computer games over the years, and more £000s of pounds on original board games etc (I've never really been into music). However, the Music and computer game industry tend to discredit their own arguments by making out that every copy was a lost sale. You can only 'lose' a sale if you would have made it other wise, it's a fallacy to say that X downloaded a song for free, we would have made money if he didn't get it for free. If he had to pay for it he may never have bought it, it wasn't worth it to him when it had a price.
That is not to say there aren't a lot of copies floating around but in my personal experience, those copies are with people who would not have bought the item anyway, i.e. there is no lost money per se.
You dismiss anecdotal evidence and instead substitute it with outright opinion. Sorry, but that is not terribly useful.
Huh. I didn't dismiss anecdotal evidence, I merely pointed out that that post and that statement by me were anecdotal. where was the dismissal? The conclusions I draw from the evidence I've seen is not the same as the conclusion drawn by the other poster from the evidence he has seen, I did not simply 'dismiss' his evidence, given they are both stated to be anecdotal that is not exactly feasible. The very definition is one of non-scientific observations, or conclusions based on evidence that can't scientifically be shown to actually follow. What I said is not 'outright opinion', it is based on my own actual observations, in the same way as the earlier poster came to conclusions based on his own personal experience. Neither of us could prove the point on the evidence presented, I simply acknowledged that by making it clear I was providing it as anecdote.
Just out of interest, why didn't you jump down the throat of that poster for giving his anecdotal evidence (aka personal opinion), bias towards that view point?
Second, advertising that you are making illegal copies of a games rulebook on that game publishers forum is just a bad idea and in very poor taste. Please do not ever do that again.
What! where did I say I made a copy for any one. You twist my statement then accuse me of making illegal copies as well, if you think discussing things that happen whether we like it or not is bad taste (censoring discussion of such seems a bit of an own goal), then you might want to consider that falsely accusing someone of a criminal offense (on a public forum no less) is really bad taste, and technically illegal in some jurisdictions (or just plain illegal). Just for clarification I have never copied any FC stuff for anyone. Neither do I have any copies myself. I'd suggest either rewording what you said if you meant something else or apologising if you just misread my post.
Third, the whole argument is nonsense. If he doesn't like the game enough to buy the rulebook, he doesn't need one. He can just use yours while he is there. If he does, in fact, like the game enough to want a rulebook, he can buy just the rulebook. It only costs $10 (for the rulebooks from either Klingon Border or Romulan Border), or he can get the whole Reference Rulebook for $15.
Or he could spend the money on things he wants, and we could play them. Ignore the right or wrong for the moment (which is not the same as legal/illegal), we don't play often enough for the rules to sink in with someone who isn't that into FC. Slowing down the limited play sessions with somoeone who doesn't know the rules and therefore is also bad at any tactics was just not working very well. However, once he got a photo copy (via what ever route, and it wasn't me) and digested the rules at home things have gone much better. It wouldn't surprise me if he would happily not play FC and play other stuff that he is more into instead, but as part of the gaming group he plays FC because we want to. If he turned round and said he would prefer to play other stuff it is quite possible we would. That would be my only FC sessions over with.
If getting an opponent means giving him a copy ...
This is a totally specious argument. You do NOT have to copy your rulebook for your opponent. You can either lend him yours, have him buy just the rulebook, or give him a copy of
First Missions. ADB has bent over backwards to make the FC rules completely accessible. There is no justification for "needing" to make copies of the rulebook.
No I don't have to copy my book. I might be tempted to lend it if it was just a brief period of time, but beyond that I cannot dictate to anyone what they or do not do. First missions may be ok if you don't want to know all the rules and work out all the tactics that they open up.
But I would say that the corollary of that is that SVC isn't losing that much money 'cos the people he makes the money off are already buying the product. The people who aren't are probably never going to.
That is a massive, unsupported opinion that has no justification other than your opinion. It is not enough of a reason to support illegal copying or to engage in it yourself.
On its own, yes it is massive unsupported opinion. However, given the statement made:
It's the Gamers like me who do not like depending on Joe Bob to bring his Copy. I like to have them all on my shelf for reference or play ready. These are the people who you make the money off of.
It is not unreasonable to say the corollary is what I said above (and i did prefix with 'I would say'). Debateable of course, massive unsupported opinon?! I read the above as saying basically that those of us who want the game, have bought the game. It seems a reasonable follow on to say what I did in that case. That to a large extent if they haven't bought the game they probably are not going to. If that wasn't what was meant then obvioulsy it might not be such an obvious follow on, and re-reading it I'm not quite sure what it is saying, but I think it still says what I thought.
I have no idea what it is like to find players over your way, I bought the initial couple of klingon boxes (£60) but it took me months to find someone to play against (an existing FC player). After finding someone to play against, and it then being worth me buying more stuff I bought all the other 'attack' products and a few boosters, and even a mini box (£300 give or take). There are several other boosters, and the breifings I am pondering on, but given how infrequently we play I've not yet considered it worth shelling out more (about £120 currently) when I could spend it on games that I might be playing more often. Add on War and peace to that when it arrives.
If the others in the group offered to make a copy for me of anything I didn't have I would refuse. I might borrow it for a read, or look over it whilst playing, but if I wanted it I would buy it. The others FC fans in our group, I believe, are basically the same, they would buy what they want rather than have a copy. On the other hand than they are geograhically better placed and meet much more often so may well just lend item to each other anyway. In other words, as the above quote seemed to be saying, those of whose who want the game already buy it rather than copy it.
For me personally the price isn't an issue (within reason), the issue is I try to avoid spending money on stuff that is not going to be used much (or at all). I have a good number of board games that still have unpunched counters etc from 20 years ago - wasted money.
If our player with a copy didn't have a copy then our group might not be playing FC, speculation of course, but not to far fectched. I would rather play something else as a group than leave someone out.
Cost of him not having that copy = potential lost customer (me).
Ok I'm a very tiny sample, hardly enough to come to any generalised conclusions. And the few hundred dollars may not exactly cause SVC any lost tears.
Those who claim that copying benefits companies ('I like this band so i'll buy the next album myself' type of argument) are quite probably equally as guilty of exagerating their case as the industries arguments against copying. Yes, it is another totally personal opinion, but I sincerely believe that the truth (in commercial terms) lies somewhere in between, some copying leads to increased sales some copying leads to lost sales and that some copying leads to neither. I'm not going to make a guess as to the net affect for any industry though.
And finally, yes, I agree with SVC in his previous post - go out and try to work out properly which is best for his business, not simply take whatever any one here says. However, please don't censor people who may be providing at least some honest facts and anecdotes about what is happening, whether what is happening is liked or not.
