I abstain from buying because I don't think I can pay enough for so many games in good conscience. The games are decent, and the 20 USD I can afford now wouldn't do the games justice.
The whole "experiment" is useless without this option, in my opinion. They're going to see a bunch of people paying 1 cent going to EFF and conclude "what a bunch of cheapskates", when there is a good amount of people who either could buy later (after the offer limit), or refuse to buy that many games hands-down, because they actually *value* those games at 70-80 USD and think it's too much money to spend.
These kind of people won't show up in the statistics.
A lot - and I speak from experience - of prospective games developers get so wrapped up in tweaking their engines that they never actually get around to writing one game, let alone a series. And that's why the Intartubes are littered with the sad corpses of hundreds of open source game engines, some of them rather good, in various states of disrepair and abandonment, and so few really outstanding open source games.
Also, just because you can code, doesn't mean you know how to create the necessary artwork. In my experience, good artists who want to contribute to open source software in general are a rare breed. And even less artists want to help out open source games.
Både Asker og Bærum tingrett og Borgarting lagmannsrett mener at Telenor medvirker til at det skjer ulovlige handlinger via The Pirate Bay, men at denne medvirkningen ikke er rettsstridig.
This is doublethink in my opinion. Simply granting access doesn't make the ISPs responsible. I can't help to feel that the courts should have been way more clear in this matter.
What inevitably happens, is that the media interest groups will lobby to make our ISPs liable for 'granting access' to copyrighted works. Our copyright law 'åndsverksloven' is up for reform/ratification this year. And the Norwegian Data Inspectorate's main spokesperson and director Georg Apenes is leaving his post soon, making this scenario even more likely. Georg Apenes has been extremely vocal regarding our individual rights to privacy since he entered his position in 1989, and the government resents him for it. He has been a barrier for 'progress', and I really doubt whoever replaces him will have even 10% of his integrity. Most probably they will replace him with a government-friendly, industry-friendly puppet.
To all those who think Ubisoft should just let the pirates win... you have no idea how frustrating it is to spend many millions of dollars and several years of our life making a game, and then see statistics from our update servers that 15 to 20 people are playing pirated copies for every legitimately purchased copy.
Have it ever crossed your mind that people who buy games with draconian DRM crack the game they bought? Do the in-house statistics take that into account? I had to crack my version of Splinter Cell : Pandora tomorrow for it to even run.
But after we spend 2+ years with hundreds of people working their ASSES off to make something just to entertain people, we would like them to pay us for it. Is it really so much to ask?
Yes, selling broken software and getting paid for it, is too much to ask. If Ubisoft want money, they should do the *opposite* of what they're doing now. Forget about the pirates, and focus on the consumer and his/her game experience. You know.. the ones that pay for software? Stop thinking about "how much one *could* have earned if no one pirated games". It's a slippery slope.
The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.