"Games are a luxury item." So?

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

Owyn_Merrilin:

Nearly everyone plays videogames, too. They just can't afford the $60 releases so they stick to casual games and the very rare AAA game -- usually the latest CoD, FIFA, or Madden release, with an occasional copy of Guitar Hero or Wii Sports thrown into the mix. Games have a short tail because the industry promotes them in a short term blitz and makes sure they're hard to get after that blitz is over. Very few games can be found new for more than a year or so after launch, meanwhile catalog films are being released and re-released every day, going back to the 20's. The market is there, the publishers are just too boneheaded to take advantage of it, too afraid of dropping the $60 price and having to make it up in volume.

I dont know where you are going where you cant find games more then a year old. Games only get hard to find halfway through the next console generation.


Dropping the price and having to make it up in volume is extremely hard. If you were previosuly making $30 profit off of each game sale and you reduced the price by $10 you now need your sales to increase by 33% just to break even. Now you have to figure out if a $10 price drop is enough to convince an extra 500,000 people to buy your game or not.

As for the rest; you're really not helping yourself. You sound like you got an extremely well paying job, and that's great for you, but not all jobs -- not even all college degree requiring jobs -- earn as much as you do. Considering the kind of things you're implying you do for entertainment, you sound relatively wealthy, upper middle class at the lowest -- and then only because "upper middle class" was redefined about a decade ago to mean "rich but not rich enough that politicians can't trumpet members of that demographic as average joes, much to the annoyance of actual average joes." You don't have to be in the 1% to be wealthy; the top 25-30% will do quite nicely.

I am really really not upper middle class. If I was single yes I might be considered upper middle class but I am not. I have a girlfriend with two kids and a job that requires me to wear a suit and tie. Do you know how expensive suits and dress shirts are? Now those are insanely priced.

Owyn_Merrilin:
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.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

BlakBladz:

Owyn_Merrilin:
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.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

ResonanceSD:

BlakBladz:

Owyn_Merrilin:
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.

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

And I'd love to live somewhere where minimum wage is double where it is here. We've had that little argument to death. Besides, as Jim Sterling noted a couple of weeks ago, better does not mean good. We pay less than you do, but we still pay too much.

If games aren't necessary for daily life, doesn't that make them worth less than food?

The entire video game industry is a luxury. I don't see why I should worry about people playing games without paying, when games are a luxury item, and it's not like stealing food from a starving boy or anything like that. Video games are a luxury item, and video game companies are in a luxury industry. People think that because it is a luxury item people shouldn't have a right to enjoy it unless they have a luxurious amount of money. But what of the people making money out of a luxury industry? Does anyone deserve any kind of privilege to begin with(unless they did something really horrible or really good)? In some situations, stealing food is worse than stealing luxury items.

Then there's the fact piracy isn't really stealing anyway. It may be illegal, but that doesn't make it stealing. Piracy doesn't even so much as lessen buying rates, it increases them. Piracy is using information without the consent of someone with a copyright on that information. And it is arguable whether they have the right to say who has the right to use that information since they're selling it and their intention is to distribute it to begin with. And having it doesn't endanger their personal security or anything like that.

Owyn_Merrilin:

ResonanceSD:

BlakBladz:

HAHAHAHAHA....$120 for some games in Australia! $60 is a sale!

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

And I'd love to live somewhere where minimum wage is double where it is here. We've had that little argument to death. Besides, as Jim Sterling noted a couple of weeks ago, better does not mean good. We pay less than you do, but we still pay too much.

1) Move. Our unemployment rate is 4.9%

2) If you guys pay too much, and you complain about it, how are we meant to react?

DoPo:

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.

I was going to make a long-winded post to explain that nothing the OP has said has changed the fact that games are luxury items and can be priced whatever they are without being "overpriced", but this genius has pretty much said everything that is on my mind.

You don't think games are overpriced. You just don't like the idea of spending a a third of what your console is worth for a single game, and I get that, but saying they're overpriced is idiotic.

"Overpriced" by strict definition is product that is priced more than a reasonable compensated amount (high end Macs are guilty of this, low end 13" MBPs are not, for example). Paying $100 extra for a Sony Vaio soley because it's a Sony is the definition of overpriced. All games that come out these days are $60. It's not because they're overpriced, it's because that is currently the maximum acceptable price that gamers are willing to pay.

We're not in the age of $20-$30 games anymore. As much as you might be brainwashed into thinking that Steam pricing is the way all game prices work, that's not the case.

Deal with it.

LilithSlave:
If games aren't necessary for daily life, doesn't that make them worth less than food?

Comparing video games to food is like comparing your left earbud to a pair of oxygen tanks. It makes no sense, please don't bother trying to make it seem so. Games are not necessary for life in the same way that Reeses Peanut Butter Cups are not necessary for life, but you wouldn't compare the price of a video game with that of a Peanut Butter Cup, would you? No? Then let it the fuck go.

Then there's the fact piracy isn't really stealing anyway. It may be illegal, but that doesn't make it stealing. Piracy doesn't even so much as lessen buying rates, it increases them. Piracy is using information without the consent of someone with a copyright on that information. And it is arguable whether they have the right to say who has the right to use that information since they're selling it and their intention is to distribute it to begin with. And having it doesn't endanger their personal security or anything like that.

This sort of reasoning is so idiotic. I don't understand how you don't warnings for basically promoting piracy.

"torrenting a game and cracking it" is not "using information". It's experiencing entertainment that was meant to be paid for. I get the idea of paying for something to compensate someone who created it is a concept that is completely beyond you, but seriously? Dumbing down all piracy to "using information"? Because applications that provide tools and utilities and services are "information" and video games that are meant to entertain in an interactive way are "information". Apologize for piracy some more, why don't you.

It is not arguable to say who has what right to do with their information personally created content. Why? Well, again, as we've hashed this out before, this may be a fucking revelation for you, but it's because they created it.

Their intention is not to distribute it, it is to sell it. Such a distinction is obviously too fucking inconvenient for you.

Whether or not it endangers anyone's personal security is absolute non sequitur and just further confirms how far you'll go to make excuses for, condone, or otherwise apologize piracy. It's getting really, really sad...

If anyone thinks games aren't overpriced, come to australia, arkham city is still 100 bucks on steam, and last I saw Aussie dollars are worth more then american.

$60 dollars is rediculous. They do it to make more money cause they are greedy bastards and thats that.

Look at a game like League of Legends that is completely free except for champion skins, completely playable in it's free model, and made so people with money don't have an unfair advantage, yet they still make Millions on millions.

Make a game free, make it good free, spend as much money as you need to make a good product, and people will pay just to keep you going, thats why most MMO's are going the F2P model.

Though admittedly some of them are doing F2P even worst then their monthly subscriptions.

Don't worry, if you make them into luxury items we will just pirate them. Not that the competition won't put you out of business before too long.

ResonanceSD:

Owyn_Merrilin:

ResonanceSD:

Lol I know right? I want to live somewhere where $60 is a normal price for a new game.

And I'd love to live somewhere where minimum wage is double where it is here. We've had that little argument to death. Besides, as Jim Sterling noted a couple of weeks ago, better does not mean good. We pay less than you do, but we still pay too much.

1) Move. Our unemployment rate is 4.9%

2) If you guys pay too much, and you complain about it, how are we meant to react?

I've always loved the whole Aussie minimum wage is double ours argument, that works only when things cost the same.. For most things we pay double the American standard.

Though on the note of games being cheaper in the past I have a genesis game with the cover price of $149 brand new, no collectors edition or anything.

him over there:
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."

Wellp, looks like Sober Thal doesn't need to post on this thread, then! His opinion's already established, and just on the 3rd post!

But seriously though, Steam Summer sales.

racrevel:

ResonanceSD:

Owyn_Merrilin:

And I'd love to live somewhere where minimum wage is double where it is here. We've had that little argument to death. Besides, as Jim Sterling noted a couple of weeks ago, better does not mean good. We pay less than you do, but we still pay too much.

1) Move. Our unemployment rate is 4.9%

2) If you guys pay too much, and you complain about it, how are we meant to react?

I've always loved the whole Aussie minimum wage is double ours argument, that works only when things cost the same.. For most things we pay double the American standard.

Though on the note of games being cheaper in the past I have a genesis game with the cover price of $149 brand new, no collectors edition or anything.

I love the whole "Aussies pay twice as much as we do for everything" argument that only works when people earn the same. See why this doesn't work? It's a wash, $120 hurts you guys about as much as $60 does us. And there were a couple of genesis games that were up around $100 in the U.S., too. They had large ROM chips, additional processors, or both on board; cartridge based games could cost a fortune to make.

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

Having read this, I feel like you have made a personal attack on my intelligence. Brink wasn't just terrible, it was also unoriginal.

Anyway, if a game gives you at least 12 hours of entertainment, you've already beaten out going to a movie theatre. As long as a game can provide 12 solid hours, I feel that my money is well spent.

LiquidSolstice:
This sort of reasoning is so idiotic. I don't understand how you don't warnings for basically promoting piracy.

You know who you remind me of? All those guys who say marijuana is baaaaad and should be illegal. Except it's not enough for you that piracy needs to be illegal, we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, either. Stop your civil discourse, everybody. Quit it! Copyright is flawless!

Have you stopped to consider that some pirates might be ethically opposed to copyright in many of the law's contemporary forms, and are taking advantage of emerging technologies to sabotage the unethical status quo with the only means available to them that might actually yield results? Just curious.

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.

Well, you know, you're also in complete control of your garbage. That's also entertainment that puts you in control. How about running the shower? That's also something you can control. Isn't that quality entertainment?

xdiesp:
Don't worry, if you make them into luxury items we will just pirate them. Not that the competition won't put you out of business before too long.

The point is that games are already a luxury item, e.g. something you don't need and can 100% live without, thus "I can't afford the game, so I pirated it" /is not a moral justification for the act/.

pure.Wasted:
Have you stopped to consider that some pirates might be ethically opposed to copyright in many of the law's contemporary forms, and are taking advantage of emerging technologies to sabotage the unethical status quo with the only means available to them that might actually yield results? Just curious.

Have you stopped to consider that breaking a law is probably the single, least effective means of protesting the law? That it, in fact, HURTS the case far more than it helps by sending the message that people are more than willing to break any law that can be passed, thus they have no choice but to strengthen the laws to hurt the people they can hit?

The_Critic:
Look at a game like League of Legends that is completely free except for champion skins, completely playable in it's free model, and made so people with money don't have an unfair advantage, yet they still make Millions on millions.

They make money by gouging on micro-transactions, from all the people who go "Hey, people with money don't have an unfair advantage so I have no reason not to spend money!" Plus, after making the game, the only thing they have to spend money on are staff wages and server maintenance so overhead costs are low.

I think 60 dollars for a video game is pretty overpriced myself. I rarely pay it, I wait for price drops or sales on Steam.
Although I used to pay even more for SNES games back in the day and the price now is mostly the same, so I think it is a bit unfair to say the prices are too high. I don't think I'd have a problem dropping 60 dollars on a game if I knew the publisher wasn't going to try and gouge me later with day 1 DLC, collectors editions, more DLC, locked content, DRM, etc.
I find that shit WAY more annoying than 60 dollar price tags.
Oh and I guess on topic, I don't think the whole "Games are a luxury item, first world problems, blah blah blah" holds any weight. If I felt I was being screwed over by price in any other "luxury", I would still feel its garbage. It is partly why I don't go to the movies anymore.

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.

I'd complain about that but we managed to get Xenoblade Chronicles, Pandora's Tower and The Last Story with no effort on our part. I think it's fair enough.

Buretsu:
Have you stopped to consider that breaking a law is probably the single, least effective means of protesting the law?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of revolution. Say... French revolution? American revolution? Bolshevik revolution? That's basically how it works. People break the law, the law is powerless to fight back, and eventually we get a new law.

I have absolutely zero faith in anybody's ability to convince the POTUS and Congress to pass a copyright-defeating law that enables and encourages piracy. Not because I don't believe in the righteousness of the cause... but because that's not how western democracy works.

The only way for the pirates to win this battle is to make piracy so mainstream over such a prolonged period of time, that A) it stops seeming so outlandish when your best friend, your sister, and your dad are all doing it, B) artists begin to realize that they have a lot to gain by making their work more accessible, rather than going strictly through the traditional Capitalist approach, and C) the industries can't afford to wait long enough for the law to get savvy enough to do away with pirates and are forced to meet the pirates halfway, or otherwise find some way to adapt.

That is the only way this fight ends well for the pirates. Not through passing bills or legislations. That's simply not going to happen, no matter how right they are, no matter how wrong the government is, no matter what.

That it, in fact, HURTS the case far more than it helps by sending the message that people are more than willing to break any law that can be passed, thus they have no choice but to strengthen the laws to hurt the people they can hit?

Strengthen the laws? We saw how that worked out with ACTA and SOPA. It wasn't just pirates that rallied against these things, it was everyone (because these laws did threaten everyone). Jefferson said, "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." "Innocent" people aren't willing to give up the freedom of the internet, even if piracy is the cost of that freedom. And I won't lie, for the pirates that's a good thing, and it stops exactly what you're saying from happening.

As for sending the wrong message... back to ACTA and SOPA for a second again. Not sure how familiar with it you are, but when it was being passed in Eastern Europe (Poland and Ukraine, specifically), the hacker community got together and took down numerous government websites to demonstrate their opposition. That doesn't say "people are more than willing to break the law" to anyone with a brain; it says people are more than CAPABLE of breaking the law ANYTIME THEY CHOOSE... but they CHOOSE NOT TO. Because most laws are constitutional, and are worth holding up. So maybe the one time they do do it, there are ethical considerations. Maybe we should pay attention.

And again, the hackers opposing ACTA acted as illegally as pirates do. You would say their actions are unconstitutional and unhelpful (Ukraine actually backed out of ACTA when this happened, and the stink in Poland made everybody the world over stop and take notice, too, so I'd argue that it helped quite a bit), but I'd say that the Internet is one of the greatest achievements of mankind, something we can truly be proud of, and I don't trust some idiot in Congress, or a hundred idiots in Congress, who have to listen to idiotic callers from Middle Of Nowhere, Georgia, to know what's best for the Internet. I don't trust them to touch it, I don't trust them to peek into its wires and circuits and tubes, I don't trust them to talk about it. As far as I'm concerned, they ought to pretend it doesn't exist, until they all die out and are replaced by our generation, which grew up with the Internet and understands A LITTLE of the Internet's value to humanity.

pure.Wasted:

Buretsu:
Have you stopped to consider that breaking a law is probably the single, least effective means of protesting the law?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of revolution. Say... French revolution? American revolution? Bolshevik revolution? That's basically how it works. People break the law, the law is powerless to fight back, and eventually we get a new law.

I have absolutely zero faith in anybody's ability to convince the POTUS and Congress to pass a copyright-defeating law that enables and encourages piracy. Not because I don't believe in the righteousness of the cause... but because that's not how western democracy works.

The only way for the pirates to win this battle is to make piracy so mainstream over such a prolonged period of time, that A) it stops seeming so outlandish when your best friend, your sister, and your dad are all doing it, B) artists begin to realize that they have a lot to gain by making their work more accessible, rather than going strictly through the traditional Capitalist approach, and C) the industries can't afford to wait long enough for the law to get savvy enough to do away with pirates and are forced to meet the pirates halfway, or otherwise find some way to adapt.

That is the only way this fight ends well for the pirates. Not through passing bills or legislations. That's simply not going to happen, no matter how right they are, no matter how wrong the government is, no matter what.

That it, in fact, HURTS the case far more than it helps by sending the message that people are more than willing to break any law that can be passed, thus they have no choice but to strengthen the laws to hurt the people they can hit?

Strengthen the laws? We saw how that worked out with ACTA and SOPA. It wasn't just pirates that rallied against these things, it was everyone (because these laws did threaten everyone). Jefferson said, "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." "Innocent" people aren't willing to give up the freedom of the internet, even if piracy is the cost of that freedom. And I won't lie, for the pirates that's a good thing, and it stops exactly what you're saying from happening.

As for sending the wrong message... back to ACTA and SOPA for a second again. Not sure how familiar with it you are, but when it was being passed in Eastern Europe (Poland and Ukraine, specifically), the hacker community got together and took down numerous government websites to demonstrate their opposition. That doesn't say "people are more than willing to break the law" to anyone with a brain; it says people are more than CAPABLE of breaking the law ANYTIME THEY CHOOSE... but they CHOOSE NOT TO. Because most laws are constitutional, and are worth holding up. So maybe the one time they do do it, there are ethical considerations. Maybe we should pay attention.

And again, the hackers opposing ACTA acted as illegally as pirates do. You would say their actions are unconstitutional and unhelpful (Ukraine actually backed out of ACTA when this happened, and the stink in Poland made everybody the world over stop and take notice, too, so I'd argue that it helped quite a bit), but I'd say that the Internet is one of the greatest achievements of mankind, something we can truly be proud of, and I don't trust some idiot in Congress, or a hundred idiots in Congress, who have to listen to idiotic callers from Middle Of Nowhere, Georgia, to know what's best for the Internet. I don't trust them to touch it, I don't trust them to peek into its wires and circuits and tubes, I don't trust them to talk about it. As far as I'm concerned, they ought to pretend it doesn't exist, until they all die out and are replaced by our generation, which grew up with the Internet and understands A LITTLE of the Internet's value to humanity.

Not only is this full of truth, but we can take it one step further: ever hear of the civil rights movement? It was pretty much entirely based on people publicly breaking the law. It wasn't a complete overthrow of the government, but it still involved people brazenly violating the law in order to prove their point. It really doesn't matter what law we're talking about; when it's that firmly entrenched, breaking it often is the first step to getting it changed.

Owyn_Merrilin:

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.

Plenty of studios that release fullprice games go under all the time.

Games are bloody expensive, they need their money back.

pure.Wasted:

Buretsu:
Have you stopped to consider that breaking a law is probably the single, least effective means of protesting the law?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of revolution. Say... French revolution? American revolution? Bolshevik revolution? That's basically how it works. People break the law, the law is powerless to fight back, and eventually we get a new law.

Except the fight's not for new laws, it's for a removal of all laws in the name of misguided freedom.

I have absolutely zero faith in anybody's ability to convince the POTUS and Congress to pass a copyright-defeating law that enables and encourages piracy. Not because I don't believe in the righteousness of the cause... but because that's not how western democracy works.

Wait, how is piracy, in ANY WAY, righteous? It's the stealing of other people's ideas, and the rejection of any sort of due compensation. "Oh, you spent millions of dollars making a game/movie/musical piece/etc. for my entertainment? Here, let me show you how much this means to me by not compensating you in the slightest!"

I'd say that the Internet is one of the greatest achievements of mankind, something we can truly be proud of,

Oh, I don't doubt there aren't some lofty goals involved with the internet. But, as always is the case, those goals are so caked over in bullshit it's hard to see them anymore. Instead of a place for the free exchange of ideas, information and opinions, it's a place for the stealing of other's ideas and information, and the shouting down of anyone with a dissenting opinion to yours.

As far as I'm concerned, they ought to pretend it doesn't exist, until they all die out and are replaced by our generation, which grew up with the Internet and understands A LITTLE of the Internet's value to humanity.

At which point humanity is screwed.

Scow2:
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.

So I should 100% games then? My point is that if I don't enjoy something don't force me to scarf it all down. 'Fully Appreciating' is subjective. I just want to play Left 4 Dead for the campaigns, for example, and as such don't care about multiplayer VS modes. My full appreciation of Call of Duty is never to play it and instead play Duke 3D to remember when games were awesome.

Once again, its fucking subjective, and you can't demonize people over subjective things unless theres a objective underlying premise.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it is a Luxury Item, but like all it has a certain time where it drops in price or is sold second hand. I'm not very rich [middle class] and as such can only truly afford games when Steam offers a sale or if its a ten dollar budget title.

As I said before, Games aren't overpriced, their over-funded. It shouldn't take Millions to make something other then a MMO, it should take a few tens of thousands of dollars sure, but not millions. Unless, of course, your making a engine which is a different beast.

Buretsu:
Except the fight's not for new laws, it's for a removal of all laws in the name of misguided freedom.

"Put down those pitchforks, you thousands of uneducated peasants, you! We rule over you for your own good! Where would you be without us? You would have anarchy! Chaos! No law!"

Or not, you know. You think the world will stop spinning if we do away with copyright? I think the world worked just fine before we invented it. In some ways, it worked better. I think with some counseling, we'll manage to get over it.

Wait, how is piracy, in ANY WAY, righteous? It's the stealing of other people's ideas, and the rejection of any sort of due compensation. "Oh, you spent millions of dollars making a game/movie/musical piece/etc. for my entertainment? Here, let me show you how much this means to me by not compensating you in the slightest!"

Oh, the number of things to address in this small paragraph.

1. It's not the stealing of anything. I could not possibly be more against stealing if I tried. The power of piracy - the power of the Internet - is in sharing. "Knowledge is power." Right now, our society privatizes knowledge. Academic papers are so well hidden that even those vaguely interested in them have to go out of their way to first find them, then PAY for them, simply to read about new developments in literature, philosophy, biology, physics, chemistry, you name it! And then we're surprised that the average American is capable of spouting off meanspirited, moronic drivel like this. Not because she's evil, but because she wasn't exposed to the knowledge and culture that you and I have been exposed to.

2. Ideas cannot be stolen. They don't exist. More often than not, they're just words, and nobody should ever have a patent on words. The belief that you somehow "own" an idea is a moronic concept that influential people (read: the church) introduced in the 16th century to make sure their influence wouldn't disappear with the invention of the printing press. The idea of "citing your sources," something every college and university will teach you to do in order to "respect others' ideas," falls apart the moment you look it square in the eyes. Every single idea you've ever had has its origin somewhere else. All of them. When I write a revolutionary analysis of Lucifer in Paradise Lost, that analysis is going to be based on a thousand different points that I read elsewhere. Maybe I read a critique of Doctor Faustus that presented Mephistopheles in a new light, and I just took the same approach, applied it to Lucifer, and bam! There's my "revolutionary reading." Completely stolen. That's how our brain works, yet we're supposed to draw an arbitrary line and say this kind of stealing of ideas is okay, because it's subtle and no one noticed how I did it, but this one's not, because it's less subtle. This isn't about awarding fellow scholars respect, and it never was, or else we'd be citing every sentence that came out of our mouths. It's about looking after your own skin and making sure you get as wealthy as you possibly can, regardless of the merit of your ideas, or their originality. It's not as though pirates are the only ones who infringe copyright law, after all. The same corporations that uphold it when it's convenient are more than happy to overlook it when it's convenient. Look at what's going on now with Microsoft in Germany. It's a laughing stock.

3. You assume that pirates have no interest in seeing their beloved industries grow, and the creators they respect get what they deserve. This... is... wrong. (Don't believe me? Feel free to supply some statistics that support your cause. I recently had a showdown on this very subject, on this very forum, so I'm more than game.) You also assume that the only way for creators to be rewarded is through an archaic model of payment wherein the publisher, aka the middleman who deserves ALMOST NOTHING but gets ALMOST EVERYTHING, sets an unnegotiable price. You know, the same publisher who isn't the creator, but ends up with the copyright. Who are we rewarding, again?

Oh, I don't doubt there aren't some lofty goals involved with the internet. But, as always is the case, those goals are so caked over in bullshit it's hard to see them anymore. Instead of a place for the free exchange of ideas, information and opinions, it's a place for the stealing of other's ideas and information, and the shouting down of anyone with a dissenting opinion to yours.

Shouting down? I don't know, we seem to be having a fairly civil conversation, you and I. I see only people attempting to come to a consensus through fact and reason.

Games are a luxury item because you don't need them. It's not like food or medical care but entertainment and like it or not, game companies have to make money, if you think you could do it for cheaper then start up a studio, that is how capitalism is meant to work. I do acknowledged though that games are also art and having such high prices for games that go beyond returning your investment is kinda... douche. You are essentially saying that you are too poor to visit this art gallery, please go away you lower class peasants. Though I don't know that many people who pirate a game to study it from an artistic or critical perspective. It is mostly because they want to go in the art gallery to put Groucho Marx masks on the statues and to draw penises all over the paintings. Though I also hold the opinion that piracy when people actually can't afford it (like children who get $5 a week and will spend it all on games and not because they would prefer to go to the movies or whatever) is beneficial to the industry as that child can make better choices on which game to buy in future and what games they like, companies are not losing sales because that kid actually cant buy the thing and is not just saying that they wouldn't anyway.

Have any of you heard of supply and demand? Games cost $60 at launch because that's what the market is generally willing to pay. If people thought that was too much for a game then the "standard" price would eventually lower (although a lot of games drop to $20-30 within six months lately). Yeah, there are a lot of other factors (which I'm sure one of you will try to lecture me about), but at the end of the day the price you see on the store shelf boils down to that basic concept. You're over thinking it and trying to make it more complicated then it is.

As far as Piracy goes: I'll generally pirate PC exclusive games that are either Single Player only or Single Player with multiplayer that I'm not interested in. Why? Because I want it, but not enough to pay for it. Yup, that's the only reason. Feel free to call me the plague of gaming and even make the argument I'm the reason games cost so much, but I really couldn't care less. There is no real justification to piracy other then selfishness and greed, so the only appropriate respond is, "Deal with it."

^he's not with me.

I've never seen him before in my life, I swear!

pure.Wasted:

LiquidSolstice:
This sort of reasoning is so idiotic. I don't understand how you don't warnings for basically promoting piracy.

You know who you remind me of? All those guys who say marijuana is baaaaad and should be illegal. Except it's not enough for you that piracy needs to be illegal, we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it, either. Stop your civil discourse, everybody. Quit it! Copyright is flawless!

Have you stopped to consider that some pirates might be ethically opposed to copyright in many of the law's contemporary forms, and are taking advantage of emerging technologies to sabotage the unethical status quo with the only means available to them that might actually yield results? Just curious.

Step 1: Get off your soapbox.
Step 2: Think about why I'd say "I don't understand why you don't get warnings"
Step 3: Make the logical connection that perhaps this isn't the first time quoted user has said something like this
Step 4: Realize you don't know the full context and maybe you should think about that before rushing to said user's aid.

Easy enough, right?

Bleh. I don't even want to keep going in this thread.

The only thing threads like these do for me is relieve me; I'm so incredibly glad that gamers don't run this country.

LiquidSolstice:
Step 1: Get off your soapbox.
Step 2: Think about why I'd say "I don't understand why you don't get warnings"
Step 3: Make the logical connection that perhaps this isn't the first time quoted user has said something like this
Step 4: Realize you don't know the full context and maybe you should think about that before rushing to said user's aid.

Easy enough, right?

Considering that the user you were talking to isn't exactly the only one disagreeing with you, here, you've got to admit that reading "I don't understand why you don't get warnings" as "I don't understand why any of you don't get warnings" was a pretty easy mistake to make.

But "get off my soapbox?" Why, I-- like it here, just fine. Great view. :)

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.

MY GOD. I found someone who likes monster hunter! =3

And I agree that some game are overpriced - but they are easily matched by the games that are under-priced. I tend to pick up old games for my PC - like L4D2 or Bastion - in the Steam sales, and the price to the amount of fun you get out of them is a ridiculous ratio. People rarely complain about movies, where you get about 2 hours of entertainment for 5-10, and I got L4D2 for about the same and spent 20 hours of awesome time on it in the first week.

Games are only over priced if you don't get the value from them, it is completely personal and subjective.

Example of cost versus hours played in the game:

Paying top sterling for a total war game, I always get 100's of hours of gameplay, well worth the costs.

Paying top sterling for Call of Duty black ops, not worth it. I didn't complete the SP and I've clocked less than 17hours of total play.

Games are also luxury items; no one needs these things to survive therefore it is pointless to demand that they be 20 etc.

mjcabooseblu:

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

Having read this, I feel like you have made a personal attack on my intelligence. Brink wasn't just terrible, it was also unoriginal.

Anyway, if a game gives you at least 12 hours of entertainment, you've already beaten out going to a movie theatre. As long as a game can provide 12 solid hours, I feel that my money is well spent.

It was supposed to be a light hearted sarcasm, note the extremely hyperbolic "you have to be nice to it."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked