Do you see that "then" that you put in there? That means that there are two actions. John and sally went to the market, THEN they went to the beach. That's two actions. You did the same thing as that... except your two actions are "taking money away from taxpayers to use the game" and "charging them for the game." The "then" you put in there, seperates the two actions. Comprende?
_________________ My girlfriend went to London and all I got was this lousy sig.
BUT HOW ARE THEY TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE TAXPAYERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT?? THAT MAKES NO SENSE. You see... we already payed for the development of the game, and we got it on computer. So... since that cost had nothing to do with Ubi-Soft, they are not taking anything from the taxpayers. Yes, the taxpayers PAYED for the game, but Ubi-Soft is not TAKING anything from us.
_________________ My girlfriend went to London and all I got was this lousy sig.
The point is that ubi soft may be acting unethical by charging for something we already paid for. Since we have already paid for it, it might be wrong to charge us again.
And I would no problem with this if the game was in the public domain. Because it would be free for anyone to sell it on the xbox.
However, in signing an exclusive license with the army, ubi gets a free ride at the expense of competition.
Taking something away has nothing to do with it. This is not a real product governed by property rights, it is intellectual property.
So, in short, they are taking money from people buying the game -- people who have already paid for it. Also, they are excluding competition from doing the same thing. Hence a potential moral dilemma.
Anyway, I would like to say that this has been an interesting conversation.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum