 Shadowrun shooter |
  |
 Oct 25 2007, 07:10 PM
Post
#26
|
|||||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 197 Joined: 15-June 05 From: Portland, Or. Member No.: 7,447  |
true, microsuck doesn't care what they do to something as inspiring as shadowrun.. as long as they can strip it to it core and sell it to the mouth agape masses that believe that microsuck is God/ or some such nonsense.... |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Oct 25 2007, 09:05 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
It's actually not the flavour text—it's the combination of the card's effects and the means in which the name and flavourtext imply that they occur. First, a word on the Shadowrun card game. You hire Shadowrunners and buy gear for them to have them go on Shadowruns, in which they must work their way through a bunch of challenges and then complete the objective to gain a stated amount of reputation (and sometimes other stuff). A player wins when his or her reputation exceeds a prearranged quantity. You have to explicitly select a group of Shadowrunners from your "safehouse" (they've been played but aren't immediately being used) to go on a Shadowrun, and while they can bail out, in general they can't receive additional assistance while underway. There are cards, called IIRC "stingers", which are like Interrupts from M:tG. You play them whenever, and they do stuff. Other cards must be played during your turn, and they just do stuff, either instantly or continuously. The basic resource is nuyen, and you get 4¥ a turn barring other sources of income. Now, the cards. This is all by memory, so wording is not exact: Block Party: for every 4¥ you pay, add a token to Block Party. While Block Party is in play, no Shadowruns may be attempted. Remove one token at the end of your turn; if there are no tokens remaining on Block Party, discard it. The artwork is of a wild party in the street, with IIRC a Troll with a giant bottle of beer. Green Apple Quicksteps: target Shadowrunner on a Shadowrun immediately returns to their owner's Safehouse. Picture: a man with a very unpleasant look on his face clutching his gut. Flavourtext: You should've gone before we left! Saeder-Krupp: Picture: basic corporate logo. At the beginning of each player's turn, roll a die. If the result is 5 or 6, Saeder-Krupp takes the lowest-valued objective currently visible. If Saeder-Krupp accumulates enough Reputation to exceed the limit, Saeder-Krupp wins the game. Note that the player who plays Saeder-Krupp does not win when Saeder-Krupp wins. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2007, 09:36 PM
Post
#28
|
|||||
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
there WAS an MMORPG in the making called Shadowrun Online http://www.shadowrun-online.com/sro/ . . they had some sweet ideas for the game and were planning on starting out with Seattle(of course) and then do expansion Packs for for things like Denver, Hamburg and other Sprawls and maybe even whole countries . . an established time-line, cyber/bio/magic/nano . . astral space, matrix, meat-space, Rigger-Stuff . . oh how i wish the pages on where one could see what they had planned were still online . . it was awesome . . made by what is today http://www.sixthworldgames.com/ . . now that they god a cease and desist order from microsucks they are planning on making the game more on the traditional cyberpunk part of william gibson . . will probably still be one hell of a good game when it comes out . . and a little correction on my part, they were not actually in alpha but in pre alpha about to enter early alpha state in one or two months . . |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 25 2007, 10:03 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Quite rightly, as Microsoft owns the content, and they were blatantly and knowingly violating copyright. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2007, 10:07 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Except that the very existence of copyright is a blatant and knowing violation of basic moral principals. It is an artificial right created to abrogate a natural right. It is like making a law against breathing the air and then selling selling bottled oxygen for hundreds of dollars per cc. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 25 2007, 10:19 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
The same can be said for quite a few laws on the books, but the fact remains that while the laws are in existence, people are supposed to follow them or suffer the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2007, 10:22 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
actually they were hoping to present microsoft with a good and partly working concept to get their okay . . so it is now forbidden to actually develope something under one name if it ain't even clear if it's ever gonna see the light of day? well, if so . . frag copyrights, wehre's my P2P? . . that concept would render the whole modding/mapping/modeling community and as such a BIG part of the fan-base as illegal . .
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2007, 10:29 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
That's their problem. There were plenty of submissions to Microsoft for the rights to the game, in many and varied stages of production. Each one was met with a firm refusal, with (as far as I know ... at least in the 3 separate replies that I have seen) nothing to mislead people into thinking those rights would be available in the future. ShadowrunOnline was developing their product in an open environment, for all the world to see, using someone else's copyrighted material without prior consent. That doesn't seem to me to be a very viable way to go about endearing yourself, or even making yourself look professional to the copyright owners. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2007, 11:32 PM
Post
#34
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 834 Joined: 30-June 03 Member No.: 4,832 |
Here's another you can look over, managed to keep active for 9 months so far. They claim to have a non-commercial permissions from Microsoft to use Shadowrun Intelectual Properties. http://awakenedmmo.org/ edit: too many acronyms! |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Oct 25 2007, 11:45 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 232 Joined: 7-October 07 Member No.: 13,604 |
That was true of the Halo RTS which neared completion before receiving a cease and desist letter. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 26 2007, 12:05 AM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Please enumerate the natural rights. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 26 2007, 05:29 PM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
Copyright as a concept is there to protect the rights of the creator of a work. So you make an artwork or writing or whatever. Without the copyright protection, anyone could take your work and sell a million copies without your permission or paying you a cent. And you legally wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. Basically, stealing all your hard work. You are claiming that theft is a 'natural right'? On a larger societal scale, Intellectual Property protections like copyright, trademarks, and patents help encourage and drive innovation. Without these protections we revert to a state where all new developments are kept secret by their creators, and tended to die with them. This stunts the development of societies as a whole. The current state of IP law and whether or not it achieves these goals is a different question. -karma |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 26 2007, 05:37 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Defend your assertion that copying is theft.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2007, 05:52 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
To do that, one must assume that the creator of a work has the right to benefit from his or her work.
Someone else copying the work and then distributing it can cut into any benefits the creator might have gained from distributing copies himself. Ergo, stealing the possible benefits the creator might have otherwise gained. -karma |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:05 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i'm not in 100% agreement that 'stealing' one's possible benefits should be counted as theft. i do think that people who work largely in the realm of ideas should legally be allowed to control the distribution of those ideas, because otherwise it's impossible to profit from those ideas. capitalism doesn't work if (among other factors) a creator cannot profit from his creation. this is just as true for ideas as it is for services and physical products. the ability to copy someone else's work is not a natural right, and it is in no way comparable to breathing air.
that said, the existing IP laws, and their current draconic trend, are too far and too much. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:12 PM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
So polluters are stealing from me by destroying potential productive years of my working life? Interesting take. I've always personally felt that the Chicago School of Economics was horse shit myself. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:18 PM
Post
#42
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Define "benefit".
Only if you introduce as a basic assumption that the creation ought to produce profit regardless of how the market values it, which seems antithetical to capitalism. ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:23 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i don't see how i've introduced that assumption at all. if an idea--or a service or a product--is bad, it won't generate a profit because it won't work.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:28 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
If the market does not see value in paying the original creator of an idea for the use or an implementation of that idea, it won't. If the market did see such a value, it would pay the original creator.
Your assumption is that the original creator should get paid for the use or an implementation of that idea, which the market appears to disagree with. Edit: correction, the market is divided on this point. On the one hand, the market supports forcing consumers (whether private or business) to pay for use or an implementation of an idea. On the other, the market supports evading that requirement. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:29 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
Benefit can mean many things. Most commonly it represents monetary profit. It can represent other things as well. Reputation. Goodwill, etc. Perhaps you are right in one sense - the word "theft" can be imprecise. I was referring to the violation of one's rights to potential gain from one's work, to the effective taking without permission of another's possible profits.
mfb did state "among other factors". Regardless, the assumption is that the original creator should have the rights to the POSSIBLE profit or gain from his work, not that a work automatically should be profitable. Even if the market values a work poorly, that value should be the creator's right to claim, not anyone else's. If my work generates zero profit, that zero is mine to claim (in a philosophic sense), not any else's. -karma |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:40 PM
Post
#46
|
|||||||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Why? Unless I missed something, you're petitioning the principle—the creator should have control of his or her creation because the creator should have control of his or her creation.
Say you put out a work. I could potentially purchase floor((amount of money I have)/(cost of work)) copies of your work—assuming I am your total market, that is your possible profit. Do I steal from you by not purchasing your work, or by purchasing fewer copies than I possibly can? If not, how do you determine what "possible profits" are, and if they exist and are gained or lost?
The selectivity of capitalism comes exactly from the inability of certain creators to profit from certain creations.
Absolutely. But why, after you have transferred your work to another, do you retain the ability to dictate its fate in any manner? ~J |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:45 PM
Post
#47
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
that's not capitalism, that's a food chain. in capitalism, a person is supposed to be able to profit from his work, according to the perceived value of the work. in a food chain, the strong take from the weak because the weak are... well, weak. they can't stop the strong. the weak don't profit, they simply get eaten.
that's a moot question, because it assumes that you are the one doing the transferring. if someone comes along and transfers your work without your permission, you need some sort of legal recourse to get it back, or at least its value. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:57 PM
Post
#48
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
And how does that not happen? So long as the creator is a monopoly, which for an easily-copyable product essentially means as long as they don't distribute the product, they can set the price however they like. When they sell a copy, they introduce an alternative supplier into the market, who may compete with them on price. In some cases, the market's valuation of the work will drop to zero. That's how the market works. The market does not have to treat easily-copyable works as fungible, and indeed, some sections of the market do not and choose to find sources that exhibit certain properties (like proximity to the creator). However, in the general case, it does.
If you didn't transfer your work to them, they would have had to still obtain it somehow—most likely by a preexisting crime. Do you have a theoretical example of this happening without the commission of a non-intellectual-property-related crime? ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 26 2007, 06:59 PM
Post
#49
|
|||||||||
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
You are missing the distinction between a work, and the potential gain that distributing that work.
No, because the amount of profit is irrelevant to the argument, only the right to attempt to gain said profit is.
Transferring a copy of a work is not the same as transferring the RIGHTS to that work. They are separate things. -karma |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Oct 26 2007, 07:05 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Why? I've got a dustbin that I bought next to me—do I not have rights to it? If not, why not, and why is it proper that I not have those rights?
And how is one being prevented from attempting to gain profit? ~J |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th July 2025 - 05:30 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.