Who is jumping ship once they start charging in November?

[Catharsis]

>.> I believe that it isn't stealing (because it isn't). Does that make me an idiot?

No, but it could make you somewhat disingenuous. The argument you used is mostly irrelevant - piracy isn't necessarily stealing but that doesn't make piracy ethical; much in the same way that arson isn't murder, but that doesn't make arson ethical either. Piracy is piracy, and you should be capable of developing an ethical stance on it by its own nature.

Here's an example: If someone writes an original piece of fiction, do you believe he has the right to charge people for his story, or do you believe everyone is entitled to it? Is it within your right to demand that you have the opportunity to read through the story (or part thereof) before you choose to pay for it - even if he doesn't want to agree to these terms and would simply prefer you -not- read his story if you weren't going to pay for it?

If you believe you have this right, then you would think piracy ethical. Should you? That's up to you to decide.

[Dubont]

No, but it could make you somewhat disingenuous. The argument you used is mostly irrelevant - piracy isn't necessarily stealing but that doesn't make piracy ethical; much in the same way that arson isn't murder, but that doesn't make arson ethical either. Piracy is piracy, and you should be capable of developing an ethical stance on it by its own nature.

Here's an example: If someone writes an original piece of fiction, do you believe he has the right to charge people for his story, or do you believe everyone is entitled to it? Is it within your right to demand that you have the opportunity to read through the story (or part thereof) before you choose to pay for it - even if he doesn't want to agree to these terms and would simply prefer you -not- read his story if you weren't going to pay for it?

If you believe you have this right, then you would think piracy ethical. Should you? That's up to you to decide.

Oh yeah, he can charge people to own an actual copy, but I'll take my stand and get a "fake" COPY of the copy. That works for me. If I want the original or an actual copy of the original, I'll put money towards it. Otherwise, I'm ok with a digital copy of the copy.

[TonyMontana]

I havent actually played in roughly a month but I do still follow the game to see if the updates make me want to log back in and try it. 1.19 didnt do it for me and now with the fees starting I guess I will just wait til the game is having its free trial in the 4th quarter of 2012 to give it another shot.

For the most part all this means for me I wont be able to post here once or twice a day. I am happy to see the game getting an overhaul maybe I will want to play it again some day.

[Catharsis]

Oh yeah, he can charge people to own an actual copy, but I'll take my stand and get a "fake" COPY of the copy. That works for me. If I want the original or an actual copy of the original, I'll put money towards it. Otherwise, I'm ok with a digital copy of the copy.

*blinks* We're talking intellectual property here. There's little distinction between "fake" and "real". The issue here is if the original author deserves anything for having come up with the story in the first place. Your apparent stance is that he doesn't and that all he's entitled to charge for is the material nature of the product that he is selling, simply because (if I understand your reasoning correctly) you don't want to pay for it.

Could I ask then what entitles you to his intellectual property without his consent? Let's phrase it this way: If someone hacked into your computer at work, copied all of your project data and sold it to the highest bidder, which consequently put you out of a job, would you mind?

[Dubont]

*blinks* We're talking intellectual property here. There's little distinction between "fake" and "real". The issue here is if the original author deserves anything for having come up with the story in the first place. Your apparent stance is that he doesn't and that all he's entitled to charge for is the material nature of the product that he is selling, simply because (if I understand your reasoning correctly) you don't want to pay for it.

Could I ask then what entitles you to his intellectual property without his consent? Let's phrase it this way: If someone hacked into your computer at work, copied all of your project data and sold it to the highest bidder, which consequently put you out of a job, would you mind?

ah, there's the difference. He's selling the copied work, thereby saying that it is his own. I'm doing no such thing. Also, pirating something such as music is no different than putting a CD into your computer and putting the songs on there (A feature that's been available since the early 90s and was a huge selling point for computers back then).

[Bearforce]

I know I am. I refuse to pay for the game in its current state. As fun as it is, I think I'll just pay for a month whenever they release a new patch to check out the state of the game.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying that the monthly fee is too much. I just can't justify paying for what is essentially a beta test.

iam in the same boat as you are, iam not gonna pay subs for a "unfinished project".

nuff said

[neorei]

i'm paying cause i'm supporting FFXIV to stay alive enough for 2.0

[Xeno]

Well, I'll be leaving for a while, but I'll come back for 2.0 for sure.

[Wolfie]

I'm on the fence. I really can't justify spending money on this game, but at the same time I enjoy being able to easily keep up with its development and progress.

[Betelgeuzah]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm sailing on a boat with nothing but sea in the horizon no matter where you look.

So, since there's no other ship to jump into, I'll stick around. As a free rider of course, I'm not paying a dime.