I don't fileshare because I "can't afford" content, I do it because they refuse to make content available for my platform.
Movies: I like to playback raw video files with a desktop video player. I settle for nothing less. I would gladly pay a few doubloons in exchange for a movie video file download but nobody offers this, (except for GOG that one time with a paltry selection of films).
Games: "Hey we released this new game buuuuut you're going to need to purchase an entire separate computer system we call a 'console' because we refuse to compile the game binary for PC OSes, nor provide the source for you to do so yourself"
I interpret distributors and publishers treating me as a second (or third) class citizen as carte blanche to acquire your content and make the necessary changes to make it work on my environment of choice.
I feel similar about it. if I could buy straight MP4 or mkv files from somewhere, I would. even if you buy it on Apple, Google or whatever digital marketplace you don't really own it if it's still on their servers..
I just want to use my player of choice, and play a locally hosted file. I don't want to deal with the visual compression artifacts or choppy sound that comes with streaming through a poorly coded player, I'd rather run a full bitrate file through VLC on my own rig that's tied into my surround sound system in peace.
You can get the files if you want, they're just very expensive and to the tune of hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars. Also they're typically encrypted and can only be played back on an approved projection system and you have to buy decryption keys every time you want to watch the movie. This is why theaters suck by the way, they have to pay for the movie, the ability to play the movie, the ability to take money in exchange for people seeing the movie, etc.
I know, I'm kinda complaining by illustrating how difficult it is to get official movie files nowadays; especially if you want lossless, master-quality files.
I fileshare because buying is renting nowadays, and I don't want to own content that can be revoked because of an expiring agreement, service shutting down, etc.
I find your take hilarious - that compiling a console game for PC would be trivial (and to support that very different platform) and that devs/publishers simply „refuse“ to do it.
Now, open source is a different topic and I can’t really estimate the effect it would have if it was standard across the industry.
If I went on a tangent about how game makers shackle themselves to vendor lock-in schemes like DirectX, then this little post wouldn't have been quite as fun and digestible.
I don't fileshare, I use usenet, don't wanna have to be constantly seeding isos. I like to rename and move my files onto my server not keep them on my cache drive.
I feel like "I'm making a personal choice to pirate because my deliberately-crafted use-case scenario is not being specifically catered to" is a worse argument than "I can't afford it".
distributors and publishers treating me as a second (or third) class citizen
This is like an F1 racer getting angry at 7-Eleven for not offering fuel that works for his supercar. You're not being treated as a second-class citizen; you've created a situation in which you are above first-class citizens, because you're using what is, these days, niche and specialized hardware that is far outside of the norm, but for some reason you're still shopping at the gas station the rest of us peons go to.
You missed the point. We aren't "shopping" at any gas station. As a consumer, I'm going to consume, whether you wish to sell (not rent) it to me or not. Don't wish to sell? Fine. We will take it anyway.