Grand Theft Auto VI

Pre-orders are live

Rockstar has now announced pre-order bonuses for GTA VI. If you pre-order any edition, you receive the Vintage Vice City Pack. This includes themed cosmetic items and bonus content inspired by classic Vice City. Reported contents include:

1955 Vapid Stanier sedan
Ocean Beach Garage property
Vice City-themed outfits
Hairstyles
Weapon cosmetics/skins
If you pre-order a digital copy, you also get 1 month of GTA+.

The Ultimate Edition (£99.99 / $99.99) adds extra exclusive content beyond the standard pre-order bonuses, including additional vehicles, weapons, clothing, and story-related premium items for Jason and Lucia.
 
Apparently the entire map has been leaked online by a hacker group. So if you intend to avoid spoilers, beware.
 
Cathal said:
Apparently the entire map has been leaked online by a hacker group. So if you intend to avoid spoilers, beware.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's been juicy.

1787487308748.png1787487246243.png


The best part is he even set up automation to fully leak the whole game for free globally if he ever get's caught.
He needs to manually cancel the leak each day.
If he's ever caught and unable to cancel it, the game is leaked globally.

Honestly, I'm rooting for the leaker.
They named "no physical disks" as one of the reasons behind this.
And I think it's time more people start doing stuff like this to actually really hit these corporations where they feel it.

If buying isn't owning then pirating isn't stealing.
 
OM3G4_247 said:
If buying isn't owning then pirating isn't stealing.
Click to expand...

This is a non sequitur disguised as a clever slogan.

In other words, “I think digital purchases should be permanent” does not logically lead to “therefore piracy isn’t stealing.” That disconnect is what ultimately shows how silly the statement is.

But to nail the point home

“If I buy a coffee, it should stay hot until I finish drinking it. If it doesn’t, walking out without paying isn’t stealing.”
 
AdrianH said:
This is a non sequitur disguised as a clever slogan.

In other words, “I think digital purchases should be permanent” does not logically lead to “therefore piracy isn’t stealing.” That disconnect is what ultimately shows how silly the statement is.

But to nail the point home

“If I buy a coffee, it should stay hot until I finish drinking it. If it doesn’t, walking out without paying isn’t stealing.”
Click to expand...

At least you get to keep that coffee for as long as you'd like.
You can keep it till it has a thick layer of mold on it if you'd like.

That's the point of it.
It used to be as simple as buying that same coffee.
You have the physical item, you get to keep it and play it when you'd like.
Or you can resell your game and moldy coffee as you'd like.
You could even put the cup of coffee in a container, keep it on a shelf and show it to you children one day and tell them how it came from a coffee shop that's long since gone out of business.
But you still have the coffee and you can do with the coffee whatever you'd like.
You can even pass it on to your children.

But for digital games, you don't own them. (At least for the majority of digital stores out there)
I can buy GTA 6, and Rockstar could disable it one day after.
(Pull a full Concord without a refund, and it would be "within their right" to do so)

To use the coffee analogy, this is like buying your coffee, and then after one sip, the waiter comes over, takes your coffee away and tells you "We have revoked your coffee, you only had a license to drink it and we're now withdrawing that license".
At that point, frankly from a moral standpoint, if I walked over and took my cup of coffee back and walked out with it, I would not consider it stealing.
Based on the set standard, I would expect to have access to the coffee I purchased until I'm finished with it.
But according to the license of that coffee shop, you don't own the coffee, you only have a license to sip on it's contents as long as the coffee shop sees fit. Doesn't matter if you finished your coffee or not.
You can't share your coffee, and you can lose it at any time. Nobody owns that coffee that's purchased from that coffee shop, while a different standard has been set by the coffee shop industry up till that point.
If someone offered me the same coffee in a back alley for free, I would also not feel bad taking a free cup of it.
I would have never owned it anyway, I just skipped the fee of having limited access to that coffee. I'm not stealing coffee since I would never own the coffee, I'm skipping the coffee shops idiotic terms and tasting the coffee for free from the guy in the back alley. That's the point of this.
We're not making an argument that the coffee should stay hot, we're making an argument that the physical counterpart used to allow for unlimited access to the product, while the digital counterpart does not. We want to just keep access to our coffee the same way without the coffee shop snatching it from our hands before we're finished drinking it.
You're not stealing the coffee if you find free access to a cup of coffee from the same coffee shop, you're skipping a fee to a license agreement and a version of that coffee that the coffee shop is allowed to snatch from you at any time.

This is why GOG is such a big deal.
You actually own the games you buy there.
It doesn't matter if they are digital. Just like that old moldy cup of coffee, you can even pass it on to your children one day.

... now I want coffee ...
 
Last edited:
@OM3G4_247

That's too long, can't read all of that LOL

But I have more...

“If I buy shoes, I think they should last forever. If they wear out, shoplifting isn’t stealing.”

Or a more generic

“I think X should work a certain way” → “therefore taking X without paying is justified.”
 
AdrianH said:
@OM3G4_247

That's too long, can't read all of that LOL

But I have more...

“If I buy shoes, I think they should last forever. If they wear out, shoplifting isn’t stealing.”

Or a more generic

“I think X should work a certain way” → “therefore taking X without paying is justified.”
Click to expand...

Same argument as with the coffee applies ;)
That's not the argument that's being made.
It's that I want to keep access to my shoes without the retailer taking them away from me before I'm done using them.

Or "A standard has been set for X by the industry for the last 30+ years" → “therefore that standard should be maintained, since buying X is now no longer owning it (and not adhering to that standard), using X without paying for it isn't theft, it's circumventing a BS license and a version of that product that could be taken away at a moment's notice .”
 
Last edited:
OM3G4_247 said:
Same argument as with the coffee applies ;)
That's not the argument that's being made.
It's I want to keep access to my shoes without the retailer taking them away from me before I'm done using them.

Or "A standard has been set for X by the industry" → “therefore that standard should be maintained, since buying X isn't owning it, using X without paying for it isn't theft, it's circumventing a BS license and a version of that product that could be taken away at a moments notice .”
Click to expand...

But if the retailer can take you shoes back, don't by the shoes from the retailer? Its your choice.

Your argument is basically "If the retailer can take the shoes back that I purchased, I wont purchase the shoes but steal them instead.
 
AdrianH said:
But if the retailer can take you shoes back, don't by the shoes from the retailer? Its your choice.

Your argument is basically "If the retailer can take the shoes back that I purchased, I wont purchase the shoes but steal them instead.
Click to expand...

And then what do you do when all the retailers adapt the same approach?
You no longer own your shoes, and at any time they can approach you on the street and quite litterally take the shoes off your feet?

Do you protest that in a language the retailers understand?
Or do you accept it and walk around barefoot?
 
OM3G4_247 said:
And then what do you do when all the retailers adapt the same approach?
You no longer own your shoes, and at any time they can approach you on the street and quite litterally take the shoes off your feet?

Do you protest that in a language the retailers understand?
Or do you accept it and walk around barefoot?
Click to expand...

Make my own shoes because my feet are too soft to walk barefoot LOL
 
AdrianH said:
Make my own shoes because my feet are too soft to walk barefoot LOL
Click to expand...
So in a scenario like that, we should all start making our own shoes and coffee regardless of our skills or resources available to us?
Quite the dystopian future, I think Ida Auken would agree.
Hopefully we still get to own the trash bags we make shoes from :ROFLMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom