I guess that is some kind of reasoning I can agree on. But it remains that Abandonware is a highly subjective term. For some people Skyrim might be Abandonware, because it is Steam only.

No one is making it a universal law but rather a code or guideline. In your example however it's legally no difference and morally questionable in both cases but as far as the industry goes it hurts it more if people pirate Darksiders 2 than System Shock 2 and then there's common argument that the pirate in question might not even have the money in the first place so it's not a 100% lost sale.

Bah..Second hand sales are useless for publishers and developers, all it does is feed sites like eBay. Not that I'm against second hand but when it comes to gaming industry especially now that digital sales are taking over it loses its point more and more (as digital distribution will always compete against each other and piracy, price difference will be justified for losing second hand IMHO). If the game is still available at a retail store it's another matter or re-released by suriving publishers.

Saying there is "no difference" is pretty stupid.

This is really friggin' weird - it's like I've somehow accidentally assimilated everyone and they now all share my ethical philosophy on piracy.

By that reasoning, the vast majority of terms that we use in this context are highly subjective.

Hell, even the term 'piracy' is highly elastic. Gamers for the most part consider piracy to be downloading a game for free and illegally that is still being sold. The law considers piracy to be downloading a game for free and illegally that is still protected by copyright. Publishers and developers seem to think that piracy is any situation where gamers buy a game and the publishers don't get a cut (e.g. used games).

The point you made about Skyrim was one I was going to make about Velvet's reasoning - namely that just because it wasn't available digitally, didn't make it abandonware by anyone's definition.

Abandonware may not be a term enshrined in law, but the fact remains that there is a generally consistent understanding of the term, and it is a legitimate English-language term with a dictionary entry (Collins): software that is no longer sold or software by its publisher. The specifics may vary, but there are certain 'must have' factors, such as the game being no longer available for sale.

Some people may consider Skyrim to be abandonware because they don't acknowledge Steam as a 'legitimate' platform, but that's like saying that they don't consider Barack Obama to be president because they don't acknowledge his place of birth to be Hawaii. You can twist and turn a concept around all you want, but forming your own interpretation of it does not make it correct.
Not really. I think given the general understanding of the nature of game licensing here, many people here have always held this particular philosophy when it comes to copyright.

Game Boy and Game Boy Color games, if they remain ESA protected.

And pretty much everything that is protected by the ESA, but only still available second-hand, without any plans for the future re-release(s).

That's a weird train of thought.

Of course did he put effort into it. He paid money to buy a game. And now you're paying money to buy it from him. What's wrong about that? Are you saying that only he that creates an item has the right to sell it? That would suck for the whole department store idea...

I meant most of the comments in this thread are similar to my view concerning morality of the subject - ie; only downloading if the game is discontinued and not available for purchase anywhere outside of auction sites, etc, etc,

Even publishers share this idea most of the time. People involved in abandonia have mentioned communicating with publishers like LucasArts and getting passive permission as long as they host nothing that is currently sold.

But there simply isn't, deal with it. Piracy is piracy, it doesn't matter if you're downloading System SHock os Black Ops 2. You may be morally ok with downloading a copy of System Shock because it is not avaulable anymore, but it doesn't change the fact that it IS piracy.

You didn't even try to prove why i'm wrong, yet you call my argument stupid? Give me break.
This. Saying that people who sell secondhand games "don't deserve money because they didn't make the game" is silly. It's just a lazy argument to justify piracy, really.

No, it is not a weird kind of thought.

I think (with my due interpretation skill fully activated) that some "schmock who just wants to make a cheap buck" reselling the game which I bought a licence for doesn't "deserve" as much credit/money/laudatio as someone upgrading, patching and generally improving the game.

If someone wants to sell me his license of let's just say Syndicate
[subliminal message] Don't play that game by the way, it's to good for you! [/subliminal message] he doesn't deserve the same amount of money as gog.
Obviously gog provides a working DOS-Box configuration, additional Content, rather ugly wallpapers and other goodies not to mention support and some almost friendly almost bickering forum crowd full of obsessed old school gamers.

I get the impression you're not talking about a guy who sells you a boxed copy of Syndicate on ebay. What do you exactly mean about when talking about a guy "that wants to sell you his license of Syndicate"?

Abandonware is when you "need" to pirate a game, Piracy is when you want to pirate a game.

Chex Quest

Anything published by Lucasarts