This comes up a lot in discussions about both piracy and the price of games: the argument goes that games are a luxury item, so there's absolutely no reason to complain about the price. The problem is that, first of all, games are a luxury item, but they're a luxury item of the sort that DVDs and books are, and they're priced high enough that they're more in competition with expensive wines and designer clothes, but more importantly, it is still possible to overpay for a luxury item, something that has been the source of many a joke about the nouveaux riches over the years.

You know why this is? Luxury items have price ranges the same as anything else. Just like $5 would be ridiculous for a loaf of white bread and $20 would be ridiculous for a gallon of milk, $10,000 would be ridiculous even for a high end home theater receiver, and $60 is ridiculous for a videogame. Anything can be overpriced, even luxury items -- especially luxury items -- so let's quit pretending videogames can't be overpriced just because they're not an absolute necessity for daily life.

Daystar Clarion:
I think some games are over priced.

I ultimately value something by the amount of time and enjoyment I got from it.

Monster Hunter? Hundreds of hours of entertainment, well worth the price.

Journey? 2 hours long, but one of the best games I've ever played.

Brink? Fuck man, that's 40 quid I wish I'd never spent.

This is why I read reviews and opinions, so I can make an informed decision.

Sometimes it goes wrong though...

_{I hate you Brink, you suck so much.}

But Brink was ambitious dude, it tried so hard you have to be nice to it.

OT: yeah, I whole heartedly agree. Unfortunately this argument will be met with the same old "It isn't overpriced, they can charge whatever they want and if you can't afford it tough shit will of the market vote with your wallet blah blah blah."

Where the heck did you get the idea that 8-30 hours of entertainment where you are in control isn't worth $60?

I've never regretted a video-game purchase.

LastGreatBlasphemer:
Games are not overpriced. Never have been and never will be.

Game are over funded, which leads abusive business practices and shanking the customer's wallet.

Back when I was a young lad I got the full game for 60 bucks. I wasn't told I could pay 60 bucks and wait two months for more content on the disc and give more money.
I wasn't told that my sixty bucks was only buying half the game.

NOBODY, would give a fuck if Mass Effect were built on the same graphics of KOTOR. Nobody. It would still be just as amazing a game. But these days games are costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make and the best we can hope for from that money is six hours of game play and pretty pretty graphics, and told that we need to pay more than 60 dollars to unlock the full game because the dev's and producers are too fucking greedy.

Games are not to expensive to purchase, they are too expensive to make.

May I ask when you were a young lad? Because when I was a young lad you got the full game for $40, and that was on day one; back then, they dropped quicker and lower than they do today, with bestselling PC games frequently hitting $10 a few years after launch[1]. The only game I remember costing $60 prior to the current gen was the PS1 remake of the first two Lunar games, which were $60 each but were really impressive editions with books, soundtrack CDs, and toys packed in; the equivalent of today's $200 special editions.

By the way, the average cost to make a AAA game is something like $30 million. That sounds like a lot, but your average blockbuster movie is more like $100 million, and those make a profit with a much smaller cost to the end user. The only real factor in the cost of games is what consumers are willing to pay; the publishers were able to give a justification for arbitrarily jacking up the already arbitrary price by $10, so they now cost $60. There's nothing else to the cost, it's completely arbitrary.

I think the luxury item argument, which I totally agree with, is more often used when people approach games as something that they need to have. And not just need to have, but need to have the absolute newest of for not a reasonable price but just one they are willing to pay. They make statements that equate not being able to easily afford the newest $60 AAA release to not being allowed to have any games at all, which is absolutely untrue. Go to your local game store, online store or literally any online digital retailer and you can find multitudes of often good to great games for less than the price of a McDonalds meal.

It is completely true that being able to buy all of the new release titles that you want is something of a luxury. But you don't need to be able to do that to be someone who is playing more great games than you have time for.

None of that invalidates discussions about game prices being too high. As long as the reasoning is realistic (which it often isn't), it's a compelling debate.. but it's in large part something that stands separate from the luxury item topic.

Move to Australia, then you'll have something to bitch about. We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

Scow2:
Where the heck did you get the idea that 8-30 hours of entertainment where you are in control isn't worth $60?

I've never regretted a video-game purchase.

A movie ticket these days ranges from $10 to $20. Now, your first instinct might be that this makes games an even better bargain, for the price of 3.5 Hollywood blockbusters, which will last no longer than 8 hours in total, you can have well over 25 hours of fun.

The problem is there's a difference between AAA quality in film and AAA quality in video games. The acting is going to be much better in film (and there's going to be a lot more of it). The writing is going to be much better in film (most of the time). The music is usually going to much better. And the special effects are going to be incomparably better.

You raise an interesting point about the player being in control, but I would argue that this isn't in and of itself a good thing; it is simply a different thing, and deserves neither a positive nor a negative cost adjustment.

The price range of gaming is so ridiculously wide now that it's difficult to accurately place a definitive average. We have "apps" that cost little to nothing (and are usually worth nothing in hindsight), and AAA giants offering incredible amounts of DLC at gouge-tastic prices.

Or indie games that cost less than a third of the AAA's basic price.
Or MMOs offering the entire spectrum I just described above.

Point being: If you can read this post, there are games that will fit your budget available.
I won't guarantee they will be the games you WANT, but that's the curse of the luxury item.

pure.Wasted:

Scow2:
Where the heck did you get the idea that 8-30 hours of entertainment where you are in control isn't worth $60?

I've never regretted a video-game purchase.

A movie ticket these days ranges from $10 to $20. Now, your first instinct might be that this makes games an even better bargain, for the price of 3.5 Hollywood blockbusters, which will last no longer than 8 hours in total, you can have well over 25 hours of fun.

The problem is there's a difference between AAA quality in film and AAA quality in video games. The acting is going to be much better in film (and there's going to be a lot more of it). The writing is going to be much better in film (most of the time). The music is usually going to much better. And the special effects are going to be incomparably better.

You raise an interesting point about the player being in control, but I would argue that this isn't in and of itself a good thing; it is simply a different thing, and deserves neither a positive nor a negative cost adjustment.

Why are you playing games instead of watching movies?

I don't play games for the acting or writing. I play games for the damn Gameplay. Also, I cannot say the music is ever better than game music. I have almost 300 songs from assorted games on my MP3 player. I have maybe 3 from movies.

I get a hell of a lot more enjoyment out of Donkey Kong Country 2 than I did watching Tarzan or King Kong. Crimson Skies beat the hell out of Indiana Jones, and the best thing Star Wars ever created was Star Wars Battlefront 2.

Furthermore: for one ticket, you get to watch a movie once - ruined by that asshole who ignores all the requests to turn off her cell phone or those who keep getting up to use the bathroom/get drink refills. Also, each time you play a game, the experience is different, even if the "plot" never changes - how you go about interacting makes all the difference.

LastGreatBlasphemer:
NOBODY, would give a fuck if Mass Effect were built on the same graphics of KOTOR. Nobody. It would still be just as amazing a game. But these days games are costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make and the best we can hope for from that money is six hours of game play and pretty pretty graphics, and told that we need to pay more than 60 dollars to unlock the full game because the dev's and producers are too fucking greedy.

I'm calling bullshit on this. Especially now that we've seen how good games can look. And while I'm not normally what one would consider a "Graphics Whore", the improved graphics have also enabled it to have a much higher quality of art than KotoR had. Particularly with the awesome lighting and shininess of the armor!

Yeah I got hollered at a couple of times for stating a very similar opinion not too long ago. Apparently if I'm not willing to use Steam, then I'm just a horrible crybaby who deserves to be penniless because I enjoy console games. That honestly doesn't make any sense and any one who wants to state a similar opinion go peddle your wares elsewhere cause I ain't buying.

Now I don't know the numbers so I generally don't get too upset about games costing 40 to 60 dollars a pop. For all I know, charging 60 dollars is the only way to be able to afford building the next triple A title. What I do get upset about is when publishers and developers then cry that I buy used or look for ways to save money.

I'm all for supporting an artist and I don't buy used often (I honestly prefer a new copy), but when you're taking a large chunk of a week's paycheck for one game...you can't blame me for trying to save a few bucks.

This is one subject I whole-heartedly agree with Jim Sterling on.

I think part of the problem is people feel entitled to too many games at once: If you have a library of dozens of games, you can't give them the time they need to be fully appreciated.

Games should be cheaper, in general, not just to purchase but also to make. I mean lets face it, with digital distribution on the march, you can knock off 10 bucks of the asking price at least, and the production cost? Well i dont really see how they keep throwing more and more cash at Projects these days, sure when the technology got better, the cost had to rise as a result to make use of it, but shouldnt it even out somewhere? We arent doing giant leaps anymore to warrant spending excessively more to create a game? I can understand MMOs, thats alot of content, workhours and so forth, but why this odd race to have the best and prettiest graphics? Dont get me wrong, graphics are important but i think story and narrative are far more important in games than just being visually impressive.

There's a reason older Games are highly regarded and it aint just Graphics. I once told someone to give Terranigma a try, they did and loved it, thats a game from the SNES. And i still consider that one of the best games i ever played even to this day.

So yeah, i dont really get where all the money is being pumped with most games, the cost just gets higher but we rarely get as big a upgrade. Look at Skyrim, where can we go from there? At least i personally cant see much of a upgrade in terms of graphics, or any necessity of it.

Scow2:
Why are you playing games instead of watching movies?

I don't play games for the acting or writing. I play games for the damn Gameplay.

Playing games for gameplay is your prerogative. That is not all they have to offer. Games provide the player with a uniquely personal connection that no other medium can match. A great book will make you feel as if you know a character inside and out. A great game will make you feel like they're your best friend... or your worst enemy.

To use a GOT example... I don't want to kill Joffrey. I want Robb to kill Joffrey. I don't want Miranda to kill the Illusive Man, I want to kill the Illusive Man. For me, the capabilities of this interactive phenomenon are a thousand times more interesting than running and gunning or jumping from platform to platform could ever hope to be... no matter how much fun I'm having.

And as you can imagine, it's pretty difficult to relate to characters with poor writing, poor animations, and poor voice acting.

kman123:
Move to Australia, then you'll have something to bitch about. We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

Grats on having a sub index on TV Tropes for "Everything trying to kill you".

OT: Eh, I just wait for the inevitable price drop. Blew like 200 bucks on 45+ games. I don't think I've personally bought a game for over 10 dollars.

LastGreatBlasphemer:
Games are not overpriced. Never have been and never will be.

I'd love to see you make that remark after buying an average-looking, mediocre shooter. For $100 USD.

kman123:
Move to Australia, then you'll have something to bitch about. We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

You also make twice as much money. And I live in Florida; some asshole imported those 12 foot spiders, and I mean that literally. We've got a naturalized population of Huntsman's spiders, the bastards are everywhere.

If I'm not planning on playing the game on multiplayer I like to wait for the Steam sales. I actually think pricing is getting a lot better for games lately.

Owyn_Merrilin:

kman123:
Move to Australia, then you'll have something to bitch about. We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

You also make twice as much money. And I live in Florida; some asshole imported those 12 foot spiders, and I mean that literally. We've got a naturalized population of Huntsman's spiders, the bastards are everywhere.

Also you should read this.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/04/ed-husic-on-video-game-prices-high-australian-wages-is-a-massive-cop-out/

StriderShinryu:
I think the luxury item argument, which I totally agree with, is more often used when people approach games as something that they need to have. And not just need to have, but need to have the absolute newest of for not a reasonable price but just one they are willing to pay. They make statements that equate not being able to easily afford the newest $60 AAA release to not being allowed to have any games at all, which is absolutely untrue. Go to your local game store, online store or literally any online digital retailer and you can find multitudes of often good to great games for less than the price of a McDonalds meal.

It is completely true that being able to buy all of the new release titles that you want is something of a luxury. But you don't need to be able to do that to be someone who is playing more great games than you have time for.

None of that invalidates discussions about game prices being too high. As long as the reasoning is realistic (which it often isn't), it's a compelling debate.. but it's in large part something that stands separate from the luxury item topic.

This man is correct. Games as luxury items only gets brought up (in my experience at least) when "Why I pirate and I'm totally justified" argument #121 rolls around, namely "I pirate otherwise I can't afford to buy these 10 latest AAA titles".

Everything else in this thread is irrelevant. Whether games are overpriced or not hasn't ever been the motive of that argument (not that it ever stopped it devolving into that). It's always related to some idiot trying to justify piracy by making incredibly dumb claims. As always. It goes like this "Gee, I can't afford to buy Skyrim, MW3, Battlefield 3, New Vegas and Mass Effect 3. How do companies expect me to pay 300$? I am totally allowed to pirate them!" "Dude, you are not forced to play them. Games are luxury items, therefore, not mandatory." "But...but... OVERPRICED! And evil game companies. Yeah, that gives me the right!" And so on.

ResonanceSD:

Owyn_Merrilin:

kman123:
Move to Australia, then you'll have something to bitch about. We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

You also make twice as much money. And I live in Florida; some asshole imported those 12 foot spiders, and I mean that literally. We've got a naturalized population of Huntsman's spiders, the bastards are everywhere.

Also you should read this.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/04/ed-husic-on-video-game-prices-high-australian-wages-is-a-massive-cop-out/

All that tells me is that Australia has a government that actually pays attention to price gouging. The prices are too high all over, and the fact is that in regards to wages, you guys are hurt by paying $120 to pretty much the same level we are by paying $60.

DoPo:

StriderShinryu:
I think the luxury item argument, which I totally agree with, is more often used when people approach games as something that they need to have. And not just need to have, but need to have the absolute newest of for not a reasonable price but just one they are willing to pay. They make statements that equate not being able to easily afford the newest $60 AAA release to not being allowed to have any games at all, which is absolutely untrue. Go to your local game store, online store or literally any online digital retailer and you can find multitudes of often good to great games for less than the price of a McDonalds meal.

It is completely true that being able to buy all of the new release titles that you want is something of a luxury. But you don't need to be able to do that to be someone who is playing more great games than you have time for.

None of that invalidates discussions about game prices being too high. As long as the reasoning is realistic (which it often isn't), it's a compelling debate.. but it's in large part something that stands separate from the luxury item topic.

This man is correct. Games as luxury items only gets brought up (in my experience at least) when "Why I pirate and I'm totally justified" argument #121 rolls around, namely "I pirate otherwise I can't afford to buy these 10 latest AAA titles".

Everything else in this thread is irrelevant. Whether games are overpriced or not hasn't ever been the motive of that argument (not that it ever stopped it devolving into that). It's always related to some idiot trying to justify piracy by making incredibly dumb claims. As always. It goes like this "Gee, I can't afford to buy Skyrim, MW3, Battlefield 3, New Vegas and Mass Effect 3. How do companies expect me to pay 300$? I am totally allowed to pirate them!" "Dude, you are not forced to play them. Games are luxury items, therefore, not mandatory." "But...but... OVERPRICED! And evil game companies. Yeah, that gives me the right!" And so on.

You're mis-characterizing the argument. It's usually something more like "game companies wouldn't have to worry about pirates if they priced their games so people could actually afford them." And it's true; at $60 a pop and with piracy being so easy and essentially consequence free, they're just asking to get pirated. If they dropped it to $20 or so, it wouldn't be anywhere near as big of an issue. It has nothing to do with whether pirates are right to pirate because they can't afford a game or not and everything to do with whether or not they /would/ if they could afford it.

I think people have been voting with their wallets, and that's why we're seeing an increase in $10 and $15 games, and also why developers are always trying to shoehorn multiplayer into the AAA games. Because a multiplayer game is worth the $60 to most people, while a 10 hour solo game is often not.

I think if you don't have the cash to spend $60 or so on a game, you should put more effort into getting paid and less into playing games.

Owyn_Merrilin:
You're mis-characterizing the argument. It's usually something more like "games companies wouldn't have to worry about pirates if they priced their games so people could actually afford them." And it's true; at $60 a pop and with piracy being so easy and essentially consequence free, they're just asking to get pirated. If they dropped it to $20 or so, it wouldn't be anywhere near as big of an issue. It has nothing to do with whether pirates are right to pirate because they can't afford a game or not and everything to do with whether or not they /would/ if they could afford it.

It's still irrelevant. Nobody is forcing you to pay $60. If you wait for a month or so you can get the game for cheaper than that. Paying $60 per game, I agree is a lot, however, paying the full price can be blamed on the people who do it.

Besides, "right pricing" is shown to not work miracles against piracy. There isn't a magic price to stop piracy.reduce the prices by $20 and piracy would continue the same way as before. People would pirate the Humble Indie Bundles and even free games without a second thought. Saying the price of games is too high is completely stupid justification for anything in this regard.

If people would really buy a game, instead of pirate it, of it costs $40 or less, then why not, you know, wait for the inevitable sale? Or buy it second hand? The "games are not affordable" argument in favour of piracy is stupid if it hinges on "games are too much when full price, so I will get it for free instead for the right price." Ultimately, games are a luxury. You do not require them to live a normal life. Same with TV or Star Wars posters. If you had no money and stole some food to survive, that is understandable. If you had no money and stole some Star Wars posters...that's just pathetic.

Scow2:
I think if you don't have the cash to spend $60 or so on a game, you should put more effort into getting paid and less into playing games.

I think if you do have the $60 or so to spend on a game and you don't realize why others do not, you should spend less time with the wealthy and more time with the middle class; if nothing else, it'll help you to better appreciate what you have.

Seriously, this is exactly why the attitude I'm talking about bugs me: it may not be intended this way, but it comes across as someone saying "well I can afford it. If you can't, you must be lazy, so poor you can't afford to put food on the table, or both."

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

^More information on the subject.

DoPo:

Owyn_Merrilin:
You're mis-characterizing the argument. It's usually something more like "games companies wouldn't have to worry about pirates if they priced their games so people could actually afford them." And it's true; at $60 a pop and with piracy being so easy and essentially consequence free, they're just asking to get pirated. If they dropped it to $20 or so, it wouldn't be anywhere near as big of an issue. It has nothing to do with whether pirates are right to pirate because they can't afford a game or not and everything to do with whether or not they /would/ if they could afford it.

It's still irrelevant. Nobody is forcing you to pay $60. If you wait for a month or so you can get the game for cheaper than that. Paying $60 per game, I agree is a lot, however, paying the full price can be blamed on the people who do it.

Besides, "right pricing" is shown to not work miracles against piracy. There isn't a magic price to stop piracy.reduce the prices by $20 and piracy would continue the same way as before. People would pirate the Humble Indie Bundles and even free games without a second thought. Saying the price of games is too high is completely stupid justification for anything in this regard.

If people would really buy a game, instead of pirate it, of it costs $40 or less, then why not, you know, wait for the inevitable sale? Or buy it second hand? The "games are not affordable" argument in favour of piracy is stupid if it hinges on "games are too much when full price, so I will get it for free instead for the right price." Ultimately, games are a luxury. You do not require them to live a normal life. Same with TV or Star Wars posters. If you had no money and stole some food to survive, that is understandable. If you had no money and stole some Star Wars posters...that's just pathetic.

What if you had no money but you looked at a picture of a Star Wars poster on a library computer hooked up to the internet? Because unless it was properly uploaded by Lucasfilm, it's the exact same crime as downloading a videogame. Copyright infringement is something very different from theft, in terms of both degree and kind, and that's another reason why I can't take the "it's a luxury item" argument seriously; sure, stealing a luxury item is bad. Getting it for free because there's a way to make infinite copies? It's not so clear cut. It reminds me of the replicator in Star Trek; if it existed in real life, its creators would get sued into oblivion for ending poverty.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Scow2:
I think if you don't have the cash to spend $60 or so on a game, you should put more effort into getting paid and less into playing games.

I think if you do have the $60 or so to spend on a game and you don't realize why others do not, you should spend less time with the wealthy and more time with the middle class; if nothing else, it'll help you to better appreciate what you have.

Seriously, this is exactly why the attitude I'm talking about bugs me: it may not be intended this way, but it comes across as someone saying "well I can afford it. If you can't, you must be lazy, so poor you can't afford to put food on the table, or both."

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

^More information on the subject.

I'm lower-middle class, not wealthy. The difference is that I don't go blowing my paycheck on games that I can't afford to invest the time or money into.

Scow2:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Scow2:
I think if you don't have the cash to spend $60 or so on a game, you should put more effort into getting paid and less into playing games.

I think if you do have the $60 or so to spend on a game and you don't realize why others do not, you should spend less time with the wealthy and more time with the middle class; if nothing else, it'll help you to better appreciate what you have.

Seriously, this is exactly why the attitude I'm talking about bugs me: it may not be intended this way, but it comes across as someone saying "well I can afford it. If you can't, you must be lazy, so poor you can't afford to put food on the table, or both."

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

^More information on the subject.

I'm lower-middle class, not wealthy. The difference is that I don't go blowing my paycheck on games that I can't afford to invest the time or money into.

So then you don't buy $60 games, then? I'm drawing a blank on how you can be lower middle class and still afford to pay $60 for a videogame, unless its your only hobby or something.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Scow2:

Owyn_Merrilin:

I think if you do have the $60 or so to spend on a game and you don't realize why others do not, you should spend less time with the wealthy and more time with the middle class; if nothing else, it'll help you to better appreciate what you have.

Seriously, this is exactly why the attitude I'm talking about bugs me: it may not be intended this way, but it comes across as someone saying "well I can afford it. If you can't, you must be lazy, so poor you can't afford to put food on the table, or both."

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

^More information on the subject.

I'm lower-middle class, not wealthy. The difference is that I don't go blowing my paycheck on games that I can't afford to invest the time or money into.

So then you don't buy $60 games, then? I'm drawing a blank on how you can be lower middle class and still afford to pay $60 for a videogame, unless its your only hobby or something.

I do. But not very often. I don't feel a need to have to constantly stay "on top" of all the new releases, and being able to extend the life of a game from a few hours to several years greatly improves the value of a game: If I buy a game that doesn't deliver it's full value, I dig that value out of the game and make it worth it. I don't regret any of my few video game purchases.

Scow2:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Scow2:
I'm lower-middle class, not wealthy. The difference is that I don't go blowing my paycheck on games that I can't afford to invest the time or money into.

So then you don't buy $60 games, then? I'm drawing a blank on how you can be lower middle class and still afford to pay $60 for a videogame, unless its your only hobby or something.

I do. But not very often. I don't feel a need to have to constantly stay "on top" of all the new releases, and being able to extend the life of a game from a few hours to several years greatly improves the value of a game: If I buy a game that doesn't deliver it's full value, I dig that value out of the game and make it worth it. I don't regret any of my few video game purchases.

So then the answer is that you can't afford it often and when you do buy it, it's a major purchase, correct? Because if that's the case, it's exactly my point: videogames are priced to be major purchases, despite being ultimately disposable entertainment media. They're in direct competition with DVDs, but cost as much as three DVDs or a single designer T-shirt, which really is a luxury "look at how much money I have" item.

DoPo:
Besides, "right pricing" is shown to not work miracles against piracy. There isn't a magic price to stop piracy.reduce the prices by $20 and piracy would continue the same way as before. People would pirate the Humble Indie Bundles and even free games without a second thought. Saying the price of games is too high is completely stupid justification for anything in this regard.

Who is "people"? Which people are you talking about, exactly? Sounds like you have some statistics to back up what you're saying, so let's see it. In the meantime. :

"Dan Bull, an artist that reached number 9 in the indie top charts thanks in part to the backing of ThePirateBay, also expressed his opposition to the ruling. He said in the press release, "I want to hear why Geoff Taylor is causing the closure of The Promo Bay, a wonderful feature which gives unsigned musicians the exposure that the BPI's affiliates never will. In the same week that The Pirate Bay allowed an unsigned musician to hit the charts, the BPI has had The Pirate Bay blocked - supposedly to protect the interests of artists like me. It is bullshit. We don't need the BPI""

Owyn_Merrilin:
What if you had no money but you looked at a picture of a Star Wars poster on a library computer hooked up to the internet? Because unless it was properly uploaded by Lucasfilm, it's the exact same crime as downloading a videogame. Copyright infringement is something very different from theft, in terms of both degree and kind, and that's another reason why I can't take the "it's a luxury item" argument seriously; sure, stealing a luxury item is bad. Getting it for free because there's a way to make infinite copies? It's not so clear cut. It reminds me of the replicator in Star Trek; if it existed in real life, its creators would get sued into oblivion for ending poverty.

Fuck, I knew this would happen. Note to self, don't use any analogies on the Escapist - ever. Even if they are not misleading, people will delve into the semantics to find any inconsistencies between the subject matter and the analogy. And given that it's an analogy there are always inconsistencies.

No. No. No. No. I will tell it as straight as possible: games are luxury items, in that they are not required or mandatory in any way. Therefore "I cannot afford it" is absolutely wrong as there is nothing that forces you to spend the money or get the game. Saying "I will pirate this game because I cannot afford it" is an inherently stupid claim to make.

I did not try to say that piracy is anything like stealing. Luxury items are just extras you can go without. That was the whole point. If you cannot afford something you can go without...then why not go without it? Getting illegal access of any sort is not justified because you don't need the luxury items in the first place. That's why they are called so.