"Games are a luxury item." So?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Owyn_Merrilin:

Alright, I'm going to say this again: one, it's not theft. Two, the legality doesn't play into it; legal or not, piracy is here to stay, and the publishers are stuck competing with it. Capitalism is nothing if not economic anarchy.

As for EULA's, they're additional terms added on after the contract of sale has already been completed. In most countries, they are completely meaningless; only in the US do they have any teeth. Elsewhere, they're recognized as the unconscionable contracts of adhesion they are

you know what, this is bloody pointless. you are part of the problem here. one of millions of gamers saying 'we can't 100% eliminate piracy, so we might as well just give up completely'. i dont understand how people can complain in one breath that huge budgets are requiring enormous profits and strangling creativity, and then happily endorse piracy if you dont feel like paying. this is hypocrisy on a massive scale. I suspect that you yourself have often pirated titles and have now completely justified it to yourself and wont accept any kind of criticism around the subject (just going on the arguments you've put forward here). Piracy may not be theft (playing to the letter of the law rather than the spirit) but that doesn't make it okay in any sense. pirates are fucking up gaming on a major scale, and the sooner the lot of them are either legitimate consumers or fined out of an internet connection, the better for the wider community. if game developers have to take drastic action AGAINST people who feel with some nebulous definition that they somehow deserve a copy of the latest game for free, then i support that.

Yopaz:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

Alterego-X:

Draech:

Alterego-X:

But that "games are a luxory" is a failed argument, it's basically a "first world problems" fallacy, that ignores all the piracy arguments pro and contra, and relies the idea that we shouldn't even question the current system, as long as it's not a matter of life and death.

It's pretty much like "why do you even care about the legal status of fetuses, when there are children starving in Africa?" or "Why are you so concened about american intenet censorship, when North Korea is killing people for their speech?

No, we don't NEED games. But that doesn't inherently silence every argument about improving the current, imperfect system of content distribution.

That you want to improve the world around you is admirable.

However at some point a complaint isn't valid any more. Case and point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwwWqRV2RsI

When people say "Games are to expensive", I am going to show them a myriad of nearly free games. That just isn't the games they want. They want the ones that a expensive, and they are in return expensive because they want them.

Its not that you want a bag. You want a Prada bag.

I specifically addressed the piracy side of the argument, only. The whole "games are too expensive" complaint would only work if we would assume that games need to be sold for a fixed price of every copy in the first place.

We have entire media industries, that based around methods that let everyone experience any content for $0, and gather revenues other ways, from a fragment of the users. And we have even more theories that could be used to build similar ones.

It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags, but refusing to use this technology, just because that way, poor people could have luxory bags that they "don't deserve".

Financially they dont deserve it, however you know that we dont mean they dont deserve it in other ways. what we mean when we say it is simply that they cant afford it and so have no right to have it, it isnt a comment on their worth or status just the best way of putting things. Yes we can duplicate code an infinite number of times and that is fantastic, however if you adress the issue more practically you realise it will harm the industry. To go along with your analogy, imagine if everyone could have any bag they wanted and they could just take them from a guy who will give them away for free, he has some ads around him which make him money from his visitors viewing them. One problem. He didnt make the bags and the people who did arent getting paid. Why should they continue, how can they continue? They put time and effort, and a lot of cash, into making those bags. Now people are not paying for them. I dont understand what you mean when you say 'It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags' as surely they would be paid from the cash made from selling the bags, where does this miraculous money come from if not there?

kiri2tsubasa:

Dexter111:
Also, games aren't getting cheaper but actually more expensive e.g.: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/05/max-payne-3-and-the-rise-of-the-90-video-game/

You forgot DLC, and not only do swallow it, but they even defend the practices and publishers that are doing it now...

Here is a cliping from a magazine from the early ninety (note, these are US prices).

Call back when you have a clipping from a Walmart circular from the time. The prices in the magazine ads tended to be higher than what people actually paid at the time; stores weren't always so strict about following MSRP.

Toby Kitching:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Alright, I'm going to say this again: one, it's not theft. Two, the legality doesn't play into it; legal or not, piracy is here to stay, and the publishers are stuck competing with it. Capitalism is nothing if not economic anarchy.

As for EULA's, they're additional terms added on after the contract of sale has already been completed. In most countries, they are completely meaningless; only in the US do they have any teeth. Elsewhere, they're recognized as the unconscionable contracts of adhesion they are

you know what, this is bloody pointless. you are part of the problem here. one of millions of gamers saying 'we can't 100% eliminate piracy, so we might as well just give up completely'. i dont understand how people can complain in one breath that huge budgets are requiring enormous profits and strangling creativity, and then happily endorse piracy if you dont feel like paying. this is hypocrisy on a massive scale. I suspect that you yourself have often pirated titles and have now completely justified it to yourself and wont accept any kind of criticism around the subject (just going on the arguments you've put forward here). Piracy may not be theft (playing to the letter of the law rather than the spirit) but that doesn't make it okay in any sense. pirates are fucking up gaming on a major scale, and the sooner the lot of them are either legitimate consumers or fined out of an internet connection, the better for the wider community. if game developers have to take drastic action AGAINST people who feel with some nebulous definition that they somehow deserve a copy of the latest game for free, then i support that.

Actually, I do pay for my games. I just make sure they're either on sale or used -- the latter of which the publishers have been fighting for some time now. The thing about the piracy "debate" is that it's nothing but grandstanding from publishing executives, aimed at the shareholders so they can prove they're doing what they can to increase profits. This is currently taking the form of combatting the used market using piracy as a smokescreen. Think about how Valve does things; they focus on delivering a better service than the pirates, and they make boatloads of money from it. Other publishers focus on fighting a losing battle to make the shareholders happy, and it gets them nothing but angry customers.

Owyn_Merrilin:

kiri2tsubasa:

Dexter111:
Also, games aren't getting cheaper but actually more expensive e.g.: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/05/max-payne-3-and-the-rise-of-the-90-video-game/

You forgot DLC, and not only do swallow it, but they even defend the practices and publishers that are doing it now...

Here is a cliping from a magazine from the early ninety (note, these are US prices).

Call back when you have a clipping from a Walmart circular from the time. The prices in the magazine ads tended to be higher than what people actually paid at the time; stores weren't always so strict about following MSRP.

That is from the Sears Catalog.

kiri2tsubasa:

Owyn_Merrilin:

kiri2tsubasa:

Here is a cliping from a magazine from the early ninety (note, these are US prices).

Call back when you have a clipping from a Walmart circular from the time. The prices in the magazine ads tended to be higher than what people actually paid at the time; stores weren't always so strict about following MSRP.

That is from the Sears Catalog.

Sears also overcharged. I know it's my word against your hard evidence here, but I never knew anyone in the 90's who actually bought games at Sears, specifically because they were expensive. It was more used games, bargain bins, and Walmart.

I'm going to jump into this argument again.

If you can't afford a game, you are NOT entitled to it. It could be that I'm involved in art circles myself, but the "Piracy doesn't hurt sales" argument is complete bullshit, as is the argument that "Artwork should be shared freely". You don't value what you don't pay for.

Not all artists mind the free distribution of their work. Feel free to spread that around freely. Others do, and their desire to control and protect the distribution of their work should be respected. Sure, an artist could financially benfit from low-cost distribution, but they'd rather not make that money if the cost is in the actual value and reputation of the game.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Yopaz:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

Yeah, but there's a massive difference there. When you pay for the movie ticket you only get to watch the movie once. That's usually not more than 2 hours and it only takes one copy. So huge difference. You buy a video game when you pay for the movie ticket you pay for a service.

Owyn_Merrilin:
As for wine, $6 a bottle is cheap. $50 is getting into the good stuff, although it's hardly on the high end of that scale. Unless you're buying it at a restaurant, in which case you're probably right on the $100 mark. But restaurants are notorious about overcharging for alcohol.

Quality of wine and price of wine have little to no relation to each other.

Yopaz:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Yopaz:

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

Yeah, but there's a massive difference there. When you pay for the movie ticket you only get to watch the movie once. That's usually not more than 2 hours and it only takes one copy. So huge difference. You buy a video game when you pay for the movie ticket you pay for a service.

Yet the studios still make a profit at that price, with a relatively small number of people buying a ticket more than once; the vast majority of people only see a movie once in theaters and buy the DVD down the road, or alternatively skip the movie entirely and wait for it to come out on DVD so they can pay the $25 and have it forever. My point here is that movies make money hand over fist despite the fact that you can buy three tickets and a DVD for less than the cost of one videogame. Also, it's nice to see someone here admitting that you own a videogame once you buy it; the publishers like to pretend we're renting access to a service.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Scow2:

Owyn_Merrilin:

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.

Games aren't really a major purchase for me or anyone with a decent job and even a half-brained financial sense.

case in point if you are spending $60 for a T-shirt you are a fucking idiot or rich and if you are rich 60 bucks for hours of entertainment is pocket change.

My opinion is you have right right to bitch about game prices while simultaneously, hand the money over to buy the game whose price you are bitching about. Games cost what they do because that is what consumers are willing to pay that price. If people stopped purchasing games for 60 dollars a pop Publishers will eventually stop charging 60 dollars a game.

Also I find it very humorous that you place Games on par with DVD movies they are not playing the same sport let alone occupying the same planet. All entertainment is not created equal I would rather spend 60 dollars on one game then buy 2 or 3 movie simply because games provide a higher quality entertainment experience and usually longer durations.

Hell comparing games to movies is like comparing books to newspapers sure they both have words that I came read but I am throwing way the paper after I finish my coffee in the morning while the book is going to take a few hours to read depending on length, then I am going to put it on my bookshelves to perhaps read it again. I can't imagine why a paperback book would cost 6-7 dollars while a newspaper only cost 1 dollar I mean they are the "same". after all.

Games are not necessary for your basic survival, i.e. it's a luxury item. Same as soda, candy, movies, comics, books, television, and radio. It doesn't really go further than that. You want a hobby? You pay the price. You wanna collect Warhammer Figures? You go lay down the 60 bucks for the figures. You wanna play Arkham City on your handy dandy PS3? You go lay down whatever the price is for games in your country. Arguments like "I pirate to fight anti-piracy programs" are hilarious to me, because you're fighting it by making the problem worse. It's really not simpler, these things take cash to develop, i.e. by buying video games you're funding the survival of your hobby.

RoBi3.0:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Scow2:
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.

Games aren't really a major purchase for me or anyone with a decent job and even a half-brained financial sense.

case in point if you are spending $60 for a T-shirt you are a fucking idiot or rich and if you are rich 60 bucks for hours of entertainment is pocket change.

My opinion is you have right right to bitch about game prices while simultaneously, hand the money over to buy the game whose price you are bitching about. Games cost what they do because that is what consumers are willing to pay that price. If people stopped purchasing games for 60 dollars a pop Publishers will eventually stop charging 60 dollars a game.

Also I find it very humorous that you place Games on par with DVD movies they are not playing the same sport let alone occupying the same planet. All entertainment is not created equal I would rather spend 60 dollars on one game then buy 2 or 3 movie simply because games provide a higher quality entertainment experience and usually longer durations.

Hell comparing games to movies is like comparing books to newspapers sure they both have words that I came read but I am throwing way the paper after I finish my coffee in the morning while the book is going to take a few hours to read depending on length, then I am going to put it on my bookshelves to perhaps read it again. I can't imagine why a paperback book would cost 6-7 dollars while a newspaper only cost 1 dollar I mean they are the "same". after all.

The old "games take longer to finish than movies" argument, eh? Well I'll be honest. It's an extremely rare game that I get more than six hours of entertainment out of. Most games are padded to get that fabled length, and it doesn't make them more valuable so much make them frustratingly long. I'm comparing a complete entertainment product to a complete entertainment product, not going on dollars per hour, which never plays into people's justifications for the cost of a purchase except, oddly enough, when people are defending the cost of videogames. By the way, comparing a videogame to a movie is less like comparing a book to a newspaper, and more like comparing a movie to a season of a TV show. If you haven't noticed, DVD boxed sets of TV shows have come down in recent years; comparing dollars to hours, season boxed sets are often a better deal than video games these days. And even then, a lot of people would rather have a good movie than a good TV show, because the movie can be a better experience. People pay for the experience, not the amount of time spent on it.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Yopaz:

Owyn_Merrilin:

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

Yeah, but there's a massive difference there. When you pay for the movie ticket you only get to watch the movie once. That's usually not more than 2 hours and it only takes one copy. So huge difference. You buy a video game when you pay for the movie ticket you pay for a service.

Yet the studios still make a profit at that price, with a relatively small number of people buying a ticket more than once; the vast majority of people only see a movie once in theaters and buy the DVD down the road, or alternatively skip the movie entirely and wait for it to come out on DVD so they can pay the $25 and have it forever. My point here is that movies make money hand over fist despite the fact that you can buy three tickets and a DVD for less than the cost of one videogame. Also, it's nice to see someone here admitting that you own a videogame once you buy it; the publishers like to pretend we're renting access to a service.

/facepalm can you really not see how movies make money had over fist while charging less. Let me explain.

First the majority of the ticket prices go directly to to movie studios damn near all the ticket profits for the first few weeks the movie is out. Theaters make the majority of their profits on concession that is why the cost a bunch.

Now a ticket cost roughly 10 dollars or more depending on where you live. You buy a ticket and so does a hundred or so other people and they all watch the movie at the same time you do. A decent movie makes the money it took to make it the first week or so it is in the theaters (I am being nice it should make its money back sooner then that) Once the movie goes to DVD the it takes to buy them is pure profit for the studios if the movie was even half good.

In short the distribution path for movies is drastically different then video games. I would you be willing to pay 10 dollars for the right to play a game 2 hour at a time with 100 other people for the first few months it was out while not actually owning it. Then wait a month or more after it is made unavailable to the public so that when it is put on a disk so you can less for it when you finial get a chance to take it home?

As I have said before it does make a lick of sense to compare games to movies.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Yopaz:

Owyn_Merrilin:

I compare it with DVDs because it's a more comparable product to videogames and also a more favorable price comparison. If you really want to go there, I could be saying that videogames should be $11 each (the cost of a 3D movie ticket.)

Yeah, but there's a massive difference there. When you pay for the movie ticket you only get to watch the movie once. That's usually not more than 2 hours and it only takes one copy. So huge difference. You buy a video game when you pay for the movie ticket you pay for a service.

Yet the studios still make a profit at that price, with a relatively small number of people buying a ticket more than once; the vast majority of people only see a movie once in theaters and buy the DVD down the road, or alternatively skip the movie entirely and wait for it to come out on DVD so they can pay the $25 and have it forever. My point here is that movies make money hand over fist despite the fact that you can buy three tickets and a DVD for less than the cost of one videogame. Also, it's nice to see someone here admitting that you own a videogame once you buy it; the publishers like to pretend we're renting access to a service.

You know I don't completely agree with you, but you make some valid points when I put my mind into your way of thinking. Movies manage profits on 11 on tickets and 25 on DVDs, though games could probably still cost more than movies a reduction in price could most likely be good for both us and the publisher. Valve says that profits always increase when they lower prices on some crazy sale.

Also a side-note on owning games: screw what publisher say. I paid for it I say I own my copy.

Owyn_Merrilin:

RoBi3.0:

Owyn_Merrilin:

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.

Games aren't really a major purchase for me or anyone with a decent job and even a half-brained financial sense.

case in point if you are spending $60 for a T-shirt you are a fucking idiot or rich and if you are rich 60 bucks for hours of entertainment is pocket change.

My opinion is you have right right to bitch about game prices while simultaneously, hand the money over to buy the game whose price you are bitching about. Games cost what they do because that is what consumers are willing to pay that price. If people stopped purchasing games for 60 dollars a pop Publishers will eventually stop charging 60 dollars a game.

Also I find it very humorous that you place Games on par with DVD movies they are not playing the same sport let alone occupying the same planet. All entertainment is not created equal I would rather spend 60 dollars on one game then buy 2 or 3 movie simply because games provide a higher quality entertainment experience and usually longer durations.

Hell comparing games to movies is like comparing books to newspapers sure they both have words that I came read but I am throwing way the paper after I finish my coffee in the morning while the book is going to take a few hours to read depending on length, then I am going to put it on my bookshelves to perhaps read it again. I can't imagine why a paperback book would cost 6-7 dollars while a newspaper only cost 1 dollar I mean they are the "same". after all.

The old "games take longer to finish than movies" argument, eh? Well I'll be honest. It's an extremely rare game that I get more than six hours of entertainment out of. Most games are padded to get that fabled length, and it doesn't make them more valuable so much make them frustratingly long. I'm comparing a complete entertainment product to a complete entertainment product, not going on dollars per hour, which never plays into people's justifications for the cost of a purchase except, oddly enough, when people are defending the cost of videogames. By the way, comparing a videogame to a movie is less like comparing a book to a newspaper, and more like comparing a movie to a season of a TV show. If you haven't noticed, DVD boxed sets of TV shows have come down in recent years; comparing dollars to hours, season boxed sets are often a better deal than video games these days. And even then, a lot of people would rather have a good movie than a good TV show, because the movie can be a better experience. People pay for the experience, not the amount of time spent on it.

Dude I see you busted out the "old games are longer argument" in an effort to make my point lass valid, rebuttal, lawlz.

I said that games provide a higher quality entertainment experience, duration is only a small part of that. Capitalism centers around finding the sweet spot were the person making and selling the item finds maximum amount to money their target market is willing to pay for what they are selling.

Edit: Further let me use some examples to further explain why movies are different then video games.

The Avenger made 207.1 million dollars opening weekend broke tons of records and did fantastic.

Skyrim made 450 million dollars the fist 2 days it was released broke tons of records and generally did fantastic.

At first look that seems like Games should be balling but you have to account for the fact that that for the next few months studios will continue to resale the same experience to individuals that wish to see it more then once and people will see it more then once. I know I am planning on seeing it again. Then the movie studios will resale the same experience to you again when you go buy the DVD.

When Skyrim is brought typically people buy the experience just once the chance to resale the experience to the same individual is practically non-existent.

So that is why movie studios make more while charging sell.

ablac:

Alterego-X:

Draech:

That you want to improve the world around you is admirable.

However at some point a complaint isn't valid any more. Case and point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwwWqRV2RsI

When people say "Games are to expensive", I am going to show them a myriad of nearly free games. That just isn't the games they want. They want the ones that a expensive, and they are in return expensive because they want them.

Its not that you want a bag. You want a Prada bag.

I specifically addressed the piracy side of the argument, only. The whole "games are too expensive" complaint would only work if we would assume that games need to be sold for a fixed price of every copy in the first place.

We have entire media industries, that based around methods that let everyone experience any content for $0, and gather revenues other ways, from a fragment of the users. And we have even more theories that could be used to build similar ones.

It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags, but refusing to use this technology, just because that way, poor people could have luxory bags that they "don't deserve".

Financially they dont deserve it, however you know that we dont mean they dont deserve it in other ways. what we mean when we say it is simply that they cant afford it and so have no right to have it, it isnt a comment on their worth or status just the best way of putting things. Yes we can duplicate code an infinite number of times and that is fantastic, however if you adress the issue more practically you realise it will harm the industry. To go along with your analogy, imagine if everyone could have any bag they wanted and they could just take them from a guy who will give them away for free, he has some ads around him which make him money from his visitors viewing them. One problem. He didnt make the bags and the people who did arent getting paid. Why should they continue, how can they continue? They put time and effort, and a lot of cash, into making those bags. Now people are not paying for them. I dont understand what you mean when you say 'It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags' as surely they would be paid from the cash made from selling the bags, where does this miraculous money come from if not there?

We don't have to IMAGINE what would happen if filesharing of copyrighted content would be legal, because it already is.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

Surprise, surprise! Reality didn't end up like your hypothetical scenario.

Owyn_Merrilin:
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.

Value is in the eye of the beholder. If there are enough people that are willing to buy $20 milk that the company will make more than if they charge $5 for it, then why shouldn't they charge $20? They have no moral or ethical responsibility to provide milk to you for an affordable price.

Luxury items should cost whatever will give he company producing them the most profit.

gizmo2300:
Games are not necessary for your basic survival, i.e. it's a luxury item. Same as soda, candy, movies, comics, books, television, and radio. It doesn't really go further than that. You want a hobby? You pay the price. You wanna collect Warhammer Figures? You go lay down the 60 bucks for the figures. You wanna play Arkham City on your handy dandy PS3? You go lay down whatever the price is for games in your country. Arguments like "I pirate to fight anti-piracy programs" are hilarious to me, because you're fighting it by making the problem worse. It's really not simpler, these things take cash to develop, i.e. by buying video games you're funding the survival of your hobby.

Adult clothes are considered luxary items (at least here in the UK). So according to your argument there would be no reason to complain if T-Shirts were on sale for no less than 100.

While I do think it would be much more proactive to simply stop buying games, I can imagine those of us who are in a less fiscaly sound position would feel bad about having to give up a much loved hobby due to their poor financial situation. Especially when it might only have become unaffordable over the past decade.
Hence they complain.

It's fair to say that complaining will achieve nothing but saying they shouldn't complain is nothing short of snobbery.
"I can afford luxary items so why are you complaining."

Alterego-X:

ablac:

Alterego-X:

I specifically addressed the piracy side of the argument, only. The whole "games are too expensive" complaint would only work if we would assume that games need to be sold for a fixed price of every copy in the first place.

We have entire media industries, that based around methods that let everyone experience any content for $0, and gather revenues other ways, from a fragment of the users. And we have even more theories that could be used to build similar ones.

It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags, but refusing to use this technology, just because that way, poor people could have luxory bags that they "don't deserve".

Financially they dont deserve it, however you know that we dont mean they dont deserve it in other ways. what we mean when we say it is simply that they cant afford it and so have no right to have it, it isnt a comment on their worth or status just the best way of putting things. Yes we can duplicate code an infinite number of times and that is fantastic, however if you adress the issue more practically you realise it will harm the industry. To go along with your analogy, imagine if everyone could have any bag they wanted and they could just take them from a guy who will give them away for free, he has some ads around him which make him money from his visitors viewing them. One problem. He didnt make the bags and the people who did arent getting paid. Why should they continue, how can they continue? They put time and effort, and a lot of cash, into making those bags. Now people are not paying for them. I dont understand what you mean when you say 'It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags' as surely they would be paid from the cash made from selling the bags, where does this miraculous money come from if not there?

We don't have to IMAGINE what would happen if filesharing of copyrighted content would be legal, because it already is.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

Surprise, surprise! Reality didn't end up like your hypothetical scenario.

One study is not proof, especially when it would be unpopular to declare it harmful, the same way pirates flip out when you suggest that they are not justified and arent doing the right thing. I dont want to put my conspiracy hat on but no study is unbiased, if the government conducts a study then it tends to recieve the results it wants, thats what it paid for. Of course pirates love this stuff because they dont have the gall to admit they are freeloading. Pirates piss me off. You caused SOPA, and similar legislation, you cause DRM and you freeload. The latter is not a problem as much, just as long as you keep your trap shut when talking of other gamers because you dont pay (My encounters with pirates have shown me that they seem to be very agrressive to anyone who essentially isnt them and doesnt share their view). If the study is true then thats great, however it does not answer further questions. Because people can pirate do they shrink their media budget? Because they can pirate do people buy what they can with their budget then pirate what they cant afford at the time, rather than save up and pay later as was the case before piracy? These are important questions and they are not answered, without an answer the study proves little. I dont want to fight but I can see this going this way. also for your information whilst the big picture doesnt show it piracy can be a very destructive force, especially in gaming. This really is why I dont appreciate pirates. World of Goo is a fantastic game. It had no DRM was reasonably priced and was innovative as well as beautiful. 90% of its players pirated it. That number is contentious but consistent and I believe it, however it was pirated to at least a very close level. This was not justified. The game was an indie game to boot. Wii and iOS out did the PC by a large margin. Read that again. Thats fact, thats piracy.

Draech:

Is that adjusted for inflation?

We are talking long periods of time now.

Are all the wages adjusted for inflation?
Are the prices adjusted for the growth of the gaming industry over the years?
Are they adjusted for the different business models and realities in the industry nowadays?
That argument is rather pointless and has too many parameters to make any sense.

Draech:
This article is interesting and not the first time I have seen either.

The overall message isn't on the value of a game, but that more money can be made by selling them cheaper in higher numbers. Finding that sweet spot were you earn 6$ twice rather than 10$ once.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/57308/valve-left-4-dead-half

Valve co-founder Gabe Newell announced during a DICE keynote today that last weekend's half-price sale of Left 4 Dead resulted in a 3000% increase in sales of the game, posting overall sales that beat the title's original launch performance.
Newell also mentioned that new Steam customers jumped 1600% over the same weekend, according to G4TV. Retail sales remained constant.
Sales of Team Fortress 2 went up 106% following a free update to the game. Retail wasn't left out in this case, with sales jumping 28%.
The massive Steam holiday sale was also a big win for Valve and its partners. The following holiday sales data was released, showing the sales breakdown organized by price reduction:
X 10% sale = 35% increase in sales (real dollars, not units shipped)
X 25% sale = 245% increase in sales
X 50% sale = 320% increase in sales
X 75% sale = 1470% increase in sales

Surprise, it works for digital books too!
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120504/06511518781/paulo-coelho-ebook-sales-jump-way-up-thanks-to-099-sale.shtml

We recently wrote about Paulo Coelho convincing his publisher, Harper Collins, to run an experiment, in which they offered up nearly all of his ebooks for just $0.99 (the one exception being his most famous book, The Alchemist). In the comments, we had an interesting discussion, in which someone suggested that even dropping the price by 90% would mean it was unlikely that he got 10x more sales to make up the difference. Others pointed to similar experiments -- such as those by Valve, in which dropping prices by large amounts increased sales by much, much larger percentages.

Paulo himself contacted us to share some of the initial results -- pointing out that, according to Amazon, the sales of a bunch of his books increased between about 4,000% and 6,500%. Yes, that's multi-thousands of percent increases. I would think that more than made up for the difference in price...
image

Also as you have noticed, Free2Play games as a market are growing and also making more money than ever, RIOT Games started small but soon grew into a rather huge company:
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/26/league-of-legends-surpasses-15m-registered-players-1-4m-play-da/
And it's not like they're the only ones:
http://www.geek.com/articles/games/dc-universe-online-goes-free-to-play-increases-revenue-700-percent-20111122/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32322/Turbine_Lord_of_the_Rings_Online_Revenues_Tripled_As_FreeToPlay_Game.php
http://nightmaremode.net/2011/08/age-of-conan-unchained-population-and-revenues-increase-after-free-to-play-switch-9236/
http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/03/08/2148224/valve-switching-team-fortress-2-to-free-to-play-increased-revenue-twelvefold

ablac:
Financially they dont deserve it, however you know that we dont mean they dont deserve it in other ways. what we mean when we say it is simply that they cant afford it and so have no right to have it, it isnt a comment on their worth or status just the best way of putting things. Yes we can duplicate code an infinite number of times and that is fantastic, however if you adress the issue more practically you realise it will harm the industry. To go along with your analogy, imagine if everyone could have any bag they wanted and they could just take them from a guy who will give them away for free, he has some ads around him which make him money from his visitors viewing them. One problem. He didnt make the bags and the people who did arent getting paid. Why should they continue, how can they continue? They put time and effort, and a lot of cash, into making those bags. Now people are not paying for them. I dont understand what you mean when you say 'It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags' as surely they would be paid from the cash made from selling the bags, where does this miraculous money come from if not there?

Within the next 20 years, what you call "piracy" will be legalized in most civilized western countries of this world.
There's also already countless studies showing that copyright infringement doesn't have any negative impact on the respective industries whatsoever, not only that but it can even have a positive impact by spreading awareness of a product or making more people buy certain products... some of them have even been commissioned by the copyright industry and they tried to bury them afterwards, I want to see just one that proves the opposite...
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/03/6418.ars
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8337887.stm
http://paidcontent.org/2009/11/02/419-research-p2p-filesharing-no-barrier-to-music-sales/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/swiss-government-study-finds-internet-downloads-increase-sales/
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/movie-industry-bins-report-proving-pirates-are-great-consumers-20110720/
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/anime-piracy-and-streaming-found-to-increase-dvd-sales-in-japan-2011027/
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-piracy-doesnt-affect-us-box-office-returns-study-finds-120210/

And entertainment industries have nothing but grown in the last two decades, what you're hearing is complaining on a very high level, akin to wanting their ivory throne polished with gold dust instead of just silver:
http://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising/

I also seriously would like to punch everyone individually calling games a "luxury" and comparing it to buying prada bags...

ravenshrike:
Quality of wine and price of wine have little to no relation to each other.

There actually is a direct corelation between the quality of a wine and the price.

Yopaz:
[You know I don't completely agree with you, but you make some valid points when I put my mind into your way of thinking. Movies manage profits on 11 on tickets and 25 on DVDs, though games could probably still cost more than movies a reduction in price could most likely be good for both us and the publisher. Valve says that profits always increase when they lower prices on some crazy sale.

Also a side-note on owning games: screw what publisher say. I paid for it I say I own my copy.

Movies are so profitable on $11 tickets and $25 DVDs because of the quantity of people buying them. Its easy to charge less when your audience is thirty times the size. The video game market however is nowhere near the size required to do something like that. Plus their business models are just far to different to compare the two.

By the way the thing about games being more profitable when on sale is a load of corporate voodoo. The more copies of a game a company sells the larger profit percentage they make per game. When a game first comes out all the revenue they get is offset by the production price of the game causing them to have very little profit. Then by the time the game goes on sale they have sold enough to cover the cost of the game so its basically all pure profit.

When they talk about sales going up however that does not mean they actually made any more money. If I reduce the price of a game by 90% I could very well need 20x as many sales just to make the same amount of money.

You have to pay very close attention when companies talk about sales and profit because they will always use which ever once helps mislead the ignorant into thinking they are better off.

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.

Alright, you want to play the "copyright infringement" vs "theft" game? That's fine, but don't omit inconvenient rules as a convoluted justification.

Specifically: Fair Use.

Fair Use:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

1. Hosting or viewing the poster is not commercial unless someone is trying to sell it.
2. The copyrighted work is a film, the 'infringing content' is a poster.
3. How much of the film is depicted in the poster?
4. Will viewing the poster increase or decrease interest in the product?

#4 is actually exactly where the publishers stand on posters and the like. Free marketing. That's why they host desktop backgrounds and avatars for people to use for free. The film is copyrighted for sale. The poster is copyrighted for IP protection (you can't change the title and use it for your movie, etc.; or sell prints of the poster without a license), but not for promotional use.

Addressing it correctly as "copyright infringement" instead of "theft" doesn't make it any less illegal or unethical, and doesn't equate it to using or viewing promotional materials.

OT:

Calling games a "luxury item" does not invalidate complaints about the price. As I recently posted in the Jimquisition, I think the pricing structure does need to change. I only buy a few games new, and wait for others to price drop.

What "luxury item" means to me is, even if I disagree with the price, it doesn't give me the right to consume the content without paying for it.

Captcha: "gray skies".
Backup Captcha: "carbon copy".

Nuke_em_05:

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.

Alright, you want to play the "copyright infringement" vs "theft" game? That's fine, but don't omit inconvenient rules as a convoluted justification.

Specifically: Fair Use.

Fair Use:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

1. Hosting or viewing the poster is not commercial unless someone is trying to sell it.
2. The copyrighted work is a film, the 'infringing content' is a poster.
3. How much of the film is depicted in the poster?
4. Will viewing the poster increase or decrease interest in the product?

#4 is actually exactly where the publishers stand on posters and the like. Free marketing. That's why they host desktop backgrounds and avatars for people to use for free. The film is copyrighted for sale. The poster is copyrighted for IP protection (you can't change the title and use it for your movie, etc.; or sell prints of the poster without a license), but not for promotional use.

Addressing it correctly as "copyright infringement" instead of "theft" doesn't make it any less illegal or unethical, and doesn't equate it to using or viewing promotional materials.

OT:

Calling games a "luxury item" does not invalidate complaints about the price. As I recently posted in the Jimquisition, I think the pricing structure does need to change. I only buy a few games new, and wait for others to price drop.

What "luxury item" means to me is, even if I disagree with the price, it doesn't give me the right to consume the content without paying for it.

Captcha: "gray skies".
Backup Captcha: "carbon copy".

One problem there: the poster itself is copyrighted, and it's the copyright on the poster that I was referring to. So many of the people who are gung ho about ending piracy don't realize that they "pirate" things every day of their lives.

Glad to see you agree on the fact that luxury items can be overpriced for what they are, though.

Only mispurchase in gaming for me ws BlOps 1 (as it should be called now, stupid activision) and considering that I still got 14 hours in MP, it's only 4 bucks wasted per hour, I've seen movies I didn't like for about the same.

But still Games are expensive, but also totally worth the money

Dexter111:
Within the next 20 years, what you call "piracy" will be legalized in most civilized western countries of this world.

That's awfully optimistic.
Personally, I don't think they will ever nix Copyright Laws in my lifetime.
Not as long as the media industry giants retain such strong influence in Washington DC.

Atmos Duality:

Dexter111:
Within the next 20 years, what you call "piracy" will be legalized in most civilized western countries of this world.

That's awfully optimistic.
Personally, I don't think they will ever nix Copyright Laws in my lifetime.
Not as long as the media industry giants retain such strong influence in Washington DC.

Calling the US civilized is, unfortunately, generous. We're the most industry friendly, consumer un-friendly country in the developed world. Not to mention one of the few left period that allows for the death penalty, and we have people dying because they can't afford healthcare, and a laundry list of other problems. It's fair to assume that we're in the few that won't see reason if not squarely in the "uncivilized" category.

Das Boot:

ravenshrike:
Quality of wine and price of wine have little to no relation to each other.

There actually is a direct corelation between the quality of a wine and the price.

Yopaz:
[You know I don't completely agree with you, but you make some valid points when I put my mind into your way of thinking. Movies manage profits on 11 on tickets and 25 on DVDs, though games could probably still cost more than movies a reduction in price could most likely be good for both us and the publisher. Valve says that profits always increase when they lower prices on some crazy sale.

Also a side-note on owning games: screw what publisher say. I paid for it I say I own my copy.

Movies are so profitable on $11 tickets and $25 DVDs because of the quantity of people buying them. Its easy to charge less when your audience is thirty times the size. The video game market however is nowhere near the size required to do something like that. Plus their business models are just far to different to compare the two.

By the way the thing about games being more profitable when on sale is a load of corporate voodoo. The more copies of a game a company sells the larger profit percentage they make per game. When a game first comes out all the revenue they get is offset by the production price of the game causing them to have very little profit. Then by the time the game goes on sale they have sold enough to cover the cost of the game so its basically all pure profit.

When they talk about sales going up however that does not mean they actually made any more money. If I reduce the price of a game by 90% I could very well need 20x as many sales just to make the same amount of money.

You have to pay very close attention when companies talk about sales and profit because they will always use which ever once helps mislead the ignorant into thinking they are better off.

You might notice that I said that some game publishers could benefit from lowering prices. Do you know what the word "could" means?

ablac:
One study is not proof, especially when it would be unpopular to declare it harmful, the same way pirates flip out when you suggest that they are not justified and arent doing the right thing. I dont want to put my conspiracy hat on but no study is unbiased, if the government conducts a study then it tends to recieve the results it wants, thats what it paid for.

Yeah, the swiss government was afraid of pirates writing mean things about them on gaming forums, so they rather choose to deny the fact that legalized piracy is killing their country's media industry. Sounds legit.

One study is still more proof than random hypothetical theories about how surely EVERYONE would pirate, if they could. Even if you don't believe the details of the study, you can't miss the general fact that Switzerland, the Netherlands, and similar countries, are still having their media industries.

In the end, everyone already sees piracy as a feasible tool, except some digital illiterates who think that it is highly dangerous, and some people with twisted morality that is based around whatever happens to be allowed by the law is OK, everything else is immoral.

But the majority of American (and European) Internet users are paying for digital content, because they choose to. You can blieve that it is moral to pay all the time, or choose to pay only most of the time, or rarely, and some choose not to ever pay.

And yet the industry exists.

ablac:

Of course pirates love this stuff because they dont have the gall to admit they are freeloading.

I personally agree that piracy is freeloading, and I also know pirates who do.

I just don't think that freeloading is wrong. In fact, I think that freeloading is great. A million people paying for a game and ten million freeloading on it, is better than only a million paying customers knowing it.

And this is a rather conservative example, not even taking into account the freeloaders who will grow fond of the game and buying a copy.

ablac:

World of Goo is a fantastic game. It had no DRM was reasonably priced and was innovative as well as beautiful. 90% of its players pirated it. That number is contentious but consistent and I believe it, however it was pirated to at least a very close level.

Also, World of Goo was a huge success, that turned it's creators into multimillionaires. Sure, it was 90% pirated, but so is every other game, including the bad ones, the good ones, the blockbusters, and the indies. It tells absolutely nothing about how much the creators were hurt if at all.

The fact that pro-copyright people keep bringing up this one financially successful game as an example of the horrors of piracy, is a great indicator of how they aren't really concerned about the fate of starving artists, cancelled game projects, and a failing industry, they are just scared about the idea that gaming doesn't have to be a priviledge, that the overall public enjoy gaming for free, and artists can still make money.

Atmos Duality:

Dexter111:
Within the next 20 years, what you call "piracy" will be legalized in most civilized western countries of this world.

That's awfully optimistic.
Personally, I don't think they will ever nix Copyright Laws in my lifetime.
Not as long as the media industry giants retain such strong influence in Washington DC.

Well the US will likely be the strongest bastion of IPR-law, there's no denying that.
But locally, the Pirate Party moves into the fourth state parliament later this week, with results of about 9% each time and they are polling at about 13% federal. All over Europe they're getting their first small positions and victories.
You also likely saw what the SOPA/PIPA and even more importantly ACTA protests did this year alone, it produced a huge crack in their policy agenda, even in the US after 30 successive years of unimpended "successful" IPR laws: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/04241517766/how-much-is-enough-weve-passed-15-anti-piracy-laws-last-30-years.shtml


The ACTA protests brought hundreds of thousands of people out to the streets all across Europe: http://torrentfreak.com/massive-street-protests-wage-war-on-acta-anti-piracy-treaty-120211/ and it's (likely) dead now as a result of that.

Also, at that point in time today's "net generation" will be about 30-60, a lot of the dinosaurs dead and you got to remember that just 20 years ago the first "Web Browser" was invented called "Mosaic" (later named Netscape) and the entire Internet thing as we know it today started. Technology grows at such an almost exponential rate about now that by that point (even long before that) the flow of information will likely be uncontrollable.
The way I see it, by that point either copying/sharing will have to be legalized in a non-commercial capacity or we are all living in totalitarian police states worse than the Iran or Lybia, and I really don't like the second option.

Although the US is trying its best to make that happen:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
https://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_william

Yopaz:

You might notice that I said that some game publishers could benefit from lowering prices. Do you know what the word "could" means?

You will notice that on a general level I disagree. Your statement right there is completely meaningless. You might as well say that publishers could mabey you know benefit from publishing games or something.

Oh yea I forgot to mention its also useless and has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Das Boot:

Yopaz:

You might notice that I said that some game publishers could benefit from lowering prices. Do you know what the word "could" means?

You will notice that on a general level I disagree. Your statement right there is completely meaningless. You might as well say that publishers could mabey you know benefit from publishing games or something.

Oh yea I forgot to mention its also useless and has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Well, the fact that it's been shown that sales often increase profit margins by a lot should mean something to you, but honestly though games are expensive to make. I don't have any problems paying the price of games today, I have nothing against a publisher earning tons of cash. I am simply saying that the one I was discussing with, the person whom I was telling that games were expensive because they didn't have the same sweet deals as movies get thus they have a harder time to cover their expenses. You are basically telling me the same thing that I was saying myself a few posts ago. However I can see that he actually got a point even though I don't completely agree with it. Maybe game publishers can increase profits, maybe not. Valve certainly got enough evidence to suggest that they can do that. However you probably know more than Valve does about the game industry.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Calling the US civilized is, unfortunately, generous. We're the most industry friendly, consumer un-friendly country in the developed world. Not to mention one of the few left period that allows for the death penalty, and we have people dying because they can't afford healthcare, and a laundry list of other problems. It's fair to assume that we're in the few that won't see reason if not squarely in the "uncivilized" category.

I'll attest first-hand that most of its citizens are uncultured and spoiled (present company included). But not all of us are stupid either; some of us see potential for progress where others only see potential for personal profit.

They're a paranoid, greedy lot. Speaking of...

Dexter111:

The way I see it, by that point either copying/sharing will have to be legalized in a non-commercial capacity or we are all living in totalitarian police states worse than what the Iran or Lybia, and I really don't like the second option.

Although the US is trying its best to make that happen:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
https://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_william

...representing the paranoid and greedy, there's the United States Government.
"Security through fear" is a paradox in practice, no matter what the intentions.

ASIDE: Today's Captcha is "Sod's Law".
I do tire of filling out captchas for every other post.

Yopaz:

Well, the fact that it's been shown that sales often increase profit margins by a lot should mean something to you, but honestly though games are expensive to make.

Pardon me for butting in, but what the two of you are looking for is called the "Marginal Cost".
It's the point where the Supply and Demand curves intersect, and revenue is maximized (not profit, revenue).

Revenue does not account for costs; which vary entirely on the side of Supply.
Whether Supply is trying to justify higher prices by claiming higher costs is irrelevant, since Demand will weed out those that cost too much. Either they have to bring their costs down, or they will fail.

I don't put much stock in the "cost of production is rising!" arguments, since Supply dictates how much they want to spend on production. If they stopped hyper-focusing on the most superficial elements of their games, their costs would go down.

Dexter111:
[quote="Draech" post="9.374224.14494003"]

I also seriously would like to punch everyone individually calling games a "luxury" and comparing it to buying prada bags...

I always always bugger up snipping quotes so if this comes out wrong then I may remove it or try tp edit it to fit. Dexter I dont want to get into a long protracted argument, we do this all the time and your just no fun. You know in your heart of hearts that what you are sayiong simply isnt true. You dont strike me as an idiot, you do to much research for that, yet you are on the wrong side of sense. Games are a luxury by the way, I dont see how you cant accept that. If you plan on throwing the economic term in my face like you do to everyone who uses the correct describtion I would just like to remind you it doesnt make you look smarter, especially when you are talking to people who know when and when not the term is suitable for use. You are not the only one knowlegable of economics, dont act so high and mighty about it. one more thing. That mans questions were fair and your response was poor and dodged around the question.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Nuke_em_05:

One problem there: the poster itself is copyrighted, and it's the copyright on the poster that I was referring to. So many of the people who are gung ho about ending piracy don't realize that they "pirate" things every day of their lives.

Glad to see you agree on the fact that luxury items can be overpriced for what they are, though.

I did address that:

The poster is copyrighted for IP protection (you can't change the title and use it for your movie, etc.; or sell prints of the poster without a license), but not for promotional use.

It is part of point 1 of fair use: the purpose and character of the use. As well as point 2: the nature of the copyrighted work. The purpose, character, and nature of promotional material, like a poster, is to be viewed and shared. That is the exact intent for which it was created. You can't photoshop it a little and promote your own video with it, and you can't sell prints of it without a license, because that does undermine the nature of the poster.

So many of the people who are gung ho about piracy being copyright infringement and therefore "just like sharing a poster or having an avatar" ignore the fact that copyright law has already made a distinction for this type of use.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked