Jump to content

Economics of Game Prices


JackKieser
 Share

Recommended Posts

I worry more about the practices of pharmaceutical companies more than the practices of those in the video game industry.

Wants < Needs

Playing Final Fantasy XXIV-3 < Living

You have a choice in whether or not you play a video game. Some people don't have a choice in taking medication. I know that's a bit off topic but really want to drive a point across to whatshisface, because I don't really get the outrage at the game companies making a profit by selling games cheaper than ever.

Yes. Cheaper than ever.

I remember when my mom dropped 70-80$ PER Mortal Kombat game. I can get about 4 PSP games for that price. Maybe more during the right sales.

But seriously go fight the good fight against drug companies or something. >>;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 372
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jack. What about schools? You went to one (at least, according to your own posts here). Schools charge a lot of money these days for letting people have the luxury of additional education. It's not required they have this education, nor is it necessarily beneficial to the students to have it. In fact, many students of post-secondary education have a hard time making a living with their majors and end up having to take work that is unrelated to their education.

Schools in turn reap large amount of money from them every year, and use it to pay their staffs, renovate buildings, invest in equipment, but still post what is pretty much just profit. They may bank it for later, or use it to throw themselves a nice party at the end of the year.

Now, since you went to one of these schools (or even several times, it seems), and you had to pay those fees in some way, how comes you aren't also against higher tuition fees? I'd say schooling matters more than a personal hobby. You have even claimed that many of the people in this very discussion need to be more educated in these matters. If these schools didn't charge so much, wouldn't we all be better off? Not to mention all those immigrant workers you like to use as examples. They could get better educations without having to rely on scholarships. It seems pretty much a win-win for everyone.

So why bother with the prices of a pastime when education has similar problems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking about a different thing than I am, as is Zircon below you (so, Zircon, I'm addressing you both here). You're talking about game price as a function of worth, which is valid, and in which case 15$ a month may very well be a perfectly reasonable amount to pay (I don't think so, but that's my opinion). What I'M talking about is cost relative to expense, which is MUCH more important to an educated consumer because it lets them know if they are being taken advantage of at all.

...

Now, is it illogical to be upset about the amount I paid for my potatoes, even though they were the cheapest potatoes in my town? Wouldn't it be in my best interest, as a consumer, to complain and to attempt to force the potato company to charge me less for potatoes? And wouldn't it be illogical, to say the least, for me to not only argue that I shouldn't complain, or that I have no right to complain, but illogical (in terms of what's best for ME, the consumer) to say that the company is free to charge me MORE?

If a consumer doesn't like the price of a specific product, there are the following options in a (generally) free market economy like ours:

1. Look for the same product being sold cheaper elsewhere (eg. one store has the same product for $10 less, I'll buy it there.)

2. Look for a product that is interchangeable or similar (eg. chocolate ice cream is more expensive than vanilla, and I like both, so I'll get vanilla.)

3. Don't buy anything at all (eg. this product and products like it are not worth the money.)

You're overcomplicating things. The consumer does not care about profit margins, business models, etc. It's totally irrelevant. A poorly-run company could offer a product at an unreasonable price while losing tons of money per sale. A well-run company could offer a product at an insanely low price with huge margins. All the consumer cares about is how much they want that product; how much they are willing to pay.

If you, for whatever reason, believe that the cost of a game is too high, then don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, there is no need to complain, or write letters, or anything else. The drop in demand (= drop in sales) will be readily apparent to the company who will drop their prices accordingly. This is how economic works. You "speak with your wallet". To go back to your potato example, you don't need to write a letter to "force" the potato company to sell you cheaper potatoes. You just don't buy their potatoes.

ANY system of commerce runs into this at some point, even one without currency. Roll the clock back 50,000 years (or whatever.) I have in my possession 3 shiny rocks. You have 10 logs, and want my 3 shiny rocks. I say that you have to give me 5 logs for 1 shiny rock. You complain, saying that it's not a fair trade, that it is very easy for me to get shiny rocks, while it is very hard for you to get logs. However, I don't care, as long as all the villagers are coming to me and trading in THEIR logs. Because the fact is, even if they know I'm not being "fair", they really want my shiny rocks, and they are willing to pay.

Now if NOBODY were willing to pay the exchange rate of 5 logs:1 rock, I would lower my rate until people were willing to part with their logs. But they don't have to say a word to me to do that. They "speak with their logs" :<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pitch a fit". NOW who's being hyperbolic? I'm not "pitching a fit", I'm giving a perfectly valid argument as to why consumers should WANT game prices down. They are, historically and with inflation, low. They are HIGH within the context of our current economic climate. I don't CARE how pricy games were 20 years ago, because that's not relevant to why a consumer NOW would have a valid reason to want producers to charge less.

What's crazy is that my argument isn't even an argument to emotion, which would be SO easy to do (consumers want cheaper games because they want cheaper games). It's a mathematical one (they want cheaper games because the producers can afford to make them cheaper).

I don't get the hate.

EDIT@The Damned: Um... this isn't a thread about schools? You guys keep asking me "why aren't you complaining about the cost of 'X'?", as if X is the current topic title. Simply, the Damned, schools should cost less, too, but in a different way: I disagree with the concept of a for-profit school. There are philosophical reasons for that I won't get into in this thread.

EDIT@Zircon: I think that's just one of my disagreements with capitalism in general (it doesn't account for consumer protection inherently, which I think should be a given; I think that consumer protection is as important as human rights protections, if we want to give corporations as much legal power as we do), but especially with copyright law. Right now, if I want to buy ME, I have to go to EA; no one else can produce ME discs at a lower cost than EA and thus there is no competition to lower prices. There is in a larger sense (game v game) but not in a product by product sense. That's why copyright is so destructive; two people selling potatoes are selling a directly comparable product. How do I compare two games and their relative worth? They are works of art; the HAVE no real value. It's apples v oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's crazy is that my argument isn't even an argument to emotion, which would be SO easy to do (consumers want cheaper games because they want cheaper games). It's a mathematical one (they want cheaper games because the producers can afford to make them cheaper).

Your argument is an appeal to wealth, actually, by definition. You want the rich people to give their money to the poor people because... well, they're rich, and you want the money yourself.

That's a faulty argument, in itself, not a valid one.

That's not to even bring up the other five faults I brought up earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is an appeal to wealth, actually, by definition. You want the rich people to give their money to the poor people because... well, they're rich, and you want the money yourself.

That's a faulty argument, in itself, not a valid one.

No, that's really not my argument. It's that if I'm to take economists at face value, the way you get to what the "best" price for something is has to do with people having a choice at where to buy their product. But, consumers DON'T actually have that choice. Example:

I want to play WoW. Blizzard has the best servers with the least bugs. They charge 15$ a month.

A private server has a few bugs. They charge 5$ a month.

Another private server is bug-FILLED. They are free.

I have choices. Right now, it's illegal for the last two private servers to exist at all, because of copyright law. They COULD provide a competing service to Blizzard, and give me a REAL choice as to where I get A product (singular): Blizzard, or one of the two private servers... but that's illegal.

Knowing this, publishers charge more for games, KNOWING that consumers only have the choice to get an entirely different game. This actually works in their favor, believe it or not, because I don't just want a game... I want THAT game. And I have to pay THAT price for THAT game.

Consumers should know this, and should take WHATEVER steps necessary to either change the dynamic (reform copyright law) or change the price (not buy it)... which is exactly what Zircon said, BTW (just don't buy it if you don't like it).

As to how this relates to piracy... well, consumers now AREN'T buying stuff... they're just pirating it.

That's not to even bring up the other five faults I brought up earlier.

Yeah, fast moving thread. That and I'm dodging back and forth between posting and helping my girlfriend with her homework (she had a... REALLY bad day, like, unbelievably bad, so I'm doing what I can), which is making it harder to respond to everything. All I can say is I'll get to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT@The Damned: Um... this isn't a thread about schools? You guys keep asking me "why aren't you complaining about the cost of 'X'?", as if X is the current topic title. Simply, the Damned, schools should cost less, too, but in a different way: I disagree with the concept of a for-profit school. There are philosophical reasons for that I won't get into in this thread.

No, I mean, why are you spending all this effort on game prices. Why. You're not going to do shit about it from here, if at all.

It just seems like you're wasting your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Gario, I'll do this fast:

RED HERRING - I didn't mean "overarching argument", I meant MY argument. My arguments, up until that point. I'm sorry if I introduced a new topic without realizing it, but I was responding to earlier posts.

INCOMPLETE COMPARISON / DISREGARDING THE PREMISE - Um... that's because I was agreeing with MaxFrost (that MMOs are cost effective if you only buy that game and have the time to play it consistently). I wasn't dodging, I just hadn't disagreed yet. I didn't feel it necessary to make a comparision when agreeing with someone.

PSYCHOLOGIST'S FALLACY - I'm arguing from the point of the consumer, while everyone else is arguing from the point of the company; I thought the company's side was pretty well covered, so there's really no point in covering it again myself. That's everyone else's job in this thread, apparently; I'm, like, the only one for consumer protection.

NIRVANA FALLACY - That's a BS fallacy; just because we have it good doesn't mean we can't want it to be better. It goes both ways. Even if we do, in fact, have it just so awesomely right now, it's somehow wrong to want it to be better than it already is?

FALSE ATTRIBUTION - This, I'll agree with you on. I am generalizing there (I think that's the word you were looking for) to illustrate a point. It's an inductive argument, also, not a fallacy; generalizing inductive arguments can be structurally strong AND logically cogent. Generalizations, in and of themselves, are not fallacies. You can read up on it more here.

*whew* Hope this doesn't double-post...

EDIT: Damnit, it double-posted. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing this, publishers charge more for games, KNOWING that consumers only have the choice to get an entirely different game. This actually works in their favor, believe it or not, because I don't just want a game... I want THAT game. And I have to pay THAT price for THAT game.

You don't need that game. This point has been made repeatedly. Video games are a luxury, and as such, those who can not afford them should not be able to play them, regardless of the price. That takes priority over anything you're trying to accomplish.

And that statement makes you sound a lot like a

And do you know the reason why it seems everyone else is ganging up on you? It's not just the point you're making; it's the fact that you're apparently 'never wrong'. You refuse to stop, even once, and admit someone else was right. You refuse to learn, claiming that you have superior knowledge, and everything we throw at you is meaningless. As long as you keep up that attitude, this reaction will continue. No-one, and I mean no-one, can possibly present a debate without making flaws. A truly intelligent person will be willing to admit they are wrong, and learn from the experience. Those who refuse to admit they can learn are truly the foolish ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need that game. This point has been made repeatedly. Video games are a luxury, and as such, those who can not afford them should not be able to play them, regardless of the price. That takes priority over anything you're trying to accomplish.

And that statement makes you sound a lot like a

(Emphasis added)

Well, why not? It's an infinite resource, isn't it? That's the argument FOR piracy: that copyright law and the social construct that artists HAVE to get paid for their work is actually invalid. Did anyone read that thread I linked to about copyright law? Here, let me quote the Constitution for you:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Where it says "useful arts"? The use of the word "arts" there is an old term, like how smithing used to be considered an "art". It doesn't actually MEAN "artwork" like painting or singing. See? If we hadn't changed copyright law, NO game company (nor any of you musicians) would be guaranteed ANY payment for your art, and digital piracy would be completely legal (except if a game had, like, revolutionary programming in it, or geth-like AI routines, but that'd have to be PROVEN to Congress before a copyright would be issued, and even then it would only last 2-5 years and couldn't be renewed).

So... who wants to go up against the Founders? :P

Um... Kenogu? You do realize that no one else here has admitted that any of MY points were valid (not RIGHT or CORRECT or TRUE, just VALID structurally). So... what exactly? Are you blaming me for doing exactly what you guys are doing (save maybe a few people)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Note, I edited my last post while you were posting; it's important that you read it.)

This is where you are deeply wrong. Explain how a resource being infinite somehow entitles people to receive it freely. The resource may be infinite, but the supplementary resources required to 'craft' it are not. And therefore, this holds no water.

And in terms of the second half of your post... I'm at a loss to how it's supposed to tie together. You make two very contradictory statements, as far as I can tell.

In terms of you not admitting you're wrong: guess what. Your attitude is what started this mess. OCR has ganged up on you because you had a cocky 'know-it-all' attitude. Are we gonna back down? No!

I've seen many small debates from many here. And guess what? When they're debating with each other, they are reasonable, and are easily willing to change their position when shown to be wrong. It may take a bit of doing, but that's what debate is about, isn't it?

You, on the other hand, intrude on the site, flood several topics with arguments that mark you as someone who refuses to learn. Good luck getting civil, earnest responses back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Note, I edited my last post while you were posting; it's important that you read it.)

I read it.

This is where you are deeply wrong. Explain how a resource being infinite somehow entitles people to receive it freely. The resource may be infinite, but the supplementary resources required to 'craft' it are not. And therefore, this holds no water.

Easy: air. Air is an infinite resource, isn't it? And IT'S free. Remember: all of economics relies on supply and demand. Well, what happens when something has an infinite supply? It's price reduces to 0, which is the converse of if the supply of an item is only 1 (the price is infinite, and thus the item is "priceless", like an original Van Gogh).

So, it takes money to make the game? Ok, that's fine, but it doesn't take money to copy or distribute it. So, that doesn't mean that copying it is wrong; that means the pay structure and how the devs get money is wrong, which is why copyright law wasn't intended for art, only for science and for tangible objects... which is obvious if you read the original wording.

When cloth buttons were invented, the button makers guild demanded that cloth buttons be made illegal because they weren't getting payed the way they used to. Well, digital media producers are acting the same way: now that we don't need them to copy the data for us, they're up in arms about how they get paid, and instead of changing the dynamic (like how artists release albums for free and take donations), they just outlaw whatever makes them obsolete.

Again, read that thread I linked to.

And in terms of the second half of your post... I'm at a loss to how it's supposed to tie together. You make two very contradictory statements, as far as I can tell.

Wait, second half? Can you quote me, so I know which part you're talking about?

EDIT@Your last edit:

So, basically, "you were wrong first, so that makes YOU wrong, but not US"? You can do what I supposedly do, and it's ok because I was "mean to you" first? How does THAT make sense? You do realize that I don't want ANYONE to "back down", dude. I want counter-argument. I just don't want people calling me a fuckstick, and I don't want people to say my supposed "meanness" somehow invalidates my argument. Come on, now; don't turn into the Damned on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the pace of the thread and the lack of response. I was curious what your response would be, though - glad you pulled through.

Ok, Gario, I'll do this fast:

RED HERRING - I didn't mean "overarching argument", I meant MY argument. My arguments, up until that point. I'm sorry if I introduced a new topic without realizing it, but I was responding to earlier posts.

I give you that (I believe I even added that in the post). Nonetheless, that's how your post is read, considering placement and context.

INCOMPLETE COMPARISON / DISREGARDING THE PREMISE - Um... that's because I was agreeing with MaxFrost (that MMOs are cost effective if you only buy that game and have the time to play it consistently). I wasn't dodging, I just hadn't disagreed yet. I didn't feel it necessary to make a comparision when agreeing with someone.

They're not the same thing, so separate the two. Incomplete comparison is referring to the fact that you're simply saying 'It's pretty good' without a baseline, so continuing an argument from that point is confusing at best and hopeless at worst.

Disregarding the premise refers to the fact that you're changing what MaxFrost was saying earlier, essentially disconnecting the argument from his altogether. Perhaps that was your intention, but now it has nothing to do with the previous eight posts (in relative to when that post was made).

PSYCHOLOGIST'S FALLACY - I'm arguing from the point of the consumer, while everyone else is arguing from the point of the company; I thought the company's side was pretty well covered, so there's really no point in covering it again myself. That's everyone else's job in this thread, apparently; I'm, like, the only one for consumer protection.

You did it again. You're assuming that your point of view is the point of view of the consumer. That is obviously not true, based on the response you've gotten here. The position you hold is neither the company's position nor the consumer's. Your position is an opinion of what the consumer might benefit from. There is a very large difference that's skewing the rest of the argument.

NIRVANA FALLACY - That's a BS fallacy; just because we have it good doesn't mean we can't want it to be better. It goes both ways. Even if we do, in fact, have it just so awesomely right now, it's somehow wrong to want it to be better than it already is?

That's not the fallacy. I worded it incorrectly, my mistake. Here it is from Wikipedia - they word it much better than I do.

"The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem."

The problem is that your 'perfect solution' is proven to be impossible not only by theory but also by reason, logic and empirical evidence. Because the status quo isn't your ideal you're saying that it's 'bad' when your alternative is impossible.

FALSE ATTRIBUTION - This, I'll agree with you on. I am generalizing there (I think that's the word you were looking for) to illustrate a point. It's an inductive argument, also, not a fallacy; generalizing inductive arguments can be structurally strong AND logically cogent. Generalizations, in and of themselves, are not fallacies. You can read up on it more here.

Mmm, now I honestly wouldn't mind that except every time you attack someone on making an assumption you're trying to strike down their inductive reasoning on that very same ground. Inductions are in fact fallacies when applied to a deductive argument (which is what you've demanded in this thread) - you've pretty much attacked everyone here based on that fallacy. I'm afraid you set the rules, here, so you're no exception to them. No inductions.

And no, I purposely did not chose the word 'generalization' because you need a sample to make a generalization. There is no reasonable sample for you to draw from, so for all intents and purposes you are making that bit up.

Now go take care of your poor girlfriend. She sounds like she needs your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ponder this:

games now drop to near bargain-bin level prices faster than any other generation. this is not a reflection of quality, because even AAA games drop in price 3-5 months out, regardless of its sales (FF13) or perceived quality (... ... FF13).

this is the market at work. learn to love it and quitcher bitching.

the only thing that stays high is nintendo, because nintendo is kind of a prick about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing air to data is irrelevant. Stop tossing straw men. Air is already available, despite the existence of humanity. Video games and other electronic data are available because of it. Apples to Oranges, good sir.

I was referring to your second quote onward, up through "wanna go up against the Founders?".

Distribution does take money. CDs have to be made for physical copies. Online services can require payment for having your game hosted on their system. Bandwidth for online distribution costs, as well. Not free. Not free at all.

And I'm not saying we can't learn; I'm saying that, as long as you behave like this, no-one's going to change their mind. Would you shrug and surrender if an attacker came at you? No, you'd defend your position. When any one member of a debate behaves in a manner like that which you exhibit, no-one learns anything. We're not going to suddenly change our minds (as you've previously noted you have no intention of doing). But anyone else reading this tone will also ignore it as banter, and learn nothing from it, since clearly you have no intention of learning yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the pace of the thread and the lack of response. I was curious what your response would be, though - glad you pulled through.

Yeah, well, luckily it's slowing down a bit; I'm glad I could respond, too. Sorry it was so succinct. :P

I give you that (I believe I even added that in the post). Nonetheless, that's how your post is read, considering placement and context.

Understood. That's what I figured when I read your criticism.

They're not the same thing, so separate the two. Incomplete comparison is referring to the fact that you're simply saying 'It's pretty good' without a baseline, so continuing an argument from that point is confusing at best and hopeless at worst.

Oh, I see what you're saying now. Ok, that makes sense. Yeah, baselines would be nice... but that's capitalism's fault, not mine. :P You know, I've actually spent considerable time to trying to write down formulas that allow me to fairly calculate an object or service's worth, so that two different objects or services could not only be compared fairly, but so that a fair, constant value of "profit" could be figured into the equation, a kind of neo-capitalism that assumes profit is ok and tries to handle it as fairly as possible.

It's a fun exercise.

Disregarding the premise refers to the fact that you're changing what MaxFrost was saying earlier, essentially disconnecting the argument from his altogether. Perhaps that was your intention, but now it has nothing to do with the previous eight posts (in relative to when that post was made).

I don't think I was intending to disconnect, but I'm not really getting the criticism here, either. We're getting a little off-topic, but I think it's fair to say you could elaborate / explain this one a bit more; I'd let it post if I was a mod.

You did it again. You're assuming that your point of view is the point of view of the consumer. That is obviously not true, based on the response you've gotten here. The position you hold is neither the company's position nor the consumer's. Your position is an opinion of what the consumer might benefit from. There is a very large difference that's skewing the rest of the argument.

OOOOOOOOOOhh, I see what you're saying. I get it now. So, can I ask a question? I get that not all consumers view value the same, but do all consumers want to pay as close to 0 for a product or service as possible? Generally speaking, not personally. Because, that's all I've been trying to argue about consumers so far: that they want, or should want, to pay as little as possible for something.

That's not the fallacy. I worded it incorrectly, my mistake. Here it is from Wikipedia - they word it much better than I do.

"The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem."

The problem is that your 'perfect solution' is proven to be impossible not only by theory but also by reason, logic and empirical evidence. Because the status quo isn't your ideal you're saying that it's 'bad' when your alternative is impossible.

Ok, a few things. One: the OCRemix post you linked to is one of my posts, so I think it's a mislink; I doubt you're trying to say I provided empirical evidence against myself in that post. :P

Two: that game theory article looks interesting. I'm going to have to go read that; thanks for the link. ^_^

Three: About the "perfect solution": when did I say it was perfect? I just said it was better. It still has flaws, namely that people are paying for digital media at all. Lowering prices may not benefit publishers AS MUCH, but they still get SOME benefit, more than a fair amount, AND it benefits consumers more, too. Sure, they take a hit for us to do better, but that's not unreasonable, unless you think grandma paying less for her vital medication because our labor gets taxed is a bad thing.

Mmm, now I honestly wouldn't mind that except every time you attack someone on making an assumption you're trying to strike down their inductive reasoning on that very same ground. Inductions are in fact fallacies when applied to a deductive argument (which is what you've demanded in this thread) - you've pretty much attacked everyone here based on that fallacy. I'm afraid you set the rules, here, so you're no exception to them. No inductions.

Inductions are, by definition, NEVER fallacies, actually. I'm studying the particulars of inductive reasoning in logic right now, so I can assure you with 100% certainty that they aren't. They can either be strong or weak, though, and that has to do with the inductive link between premises / conclusion. Unfortunately, that's a bit of a gray area, by design. Generalizations CAN be used, but when used against a deductive argument, and the two are mutually exclusive, the deductive argument wins by default (assuming validity and all true premises). Generalizations have their place, but they are DEFINITELY inferior to deductive reasoning.

That being said, as I said in my previous post, I did generalize there, and I do admit that and concede your point in relation to THAT argument.

A

nd no, I purposely did not chose the word 'generalization' because you need a sample to make a generalization. There is no reasonable sample for you to draw from, so for all intents and purposes you are making that bit up.

I am making an assumption here that most people don't follow market statistics. Don't have proof, but I think it's a reasonable claim.

Now go take care of your poor girlfriend. She sounds like she needs your help.

Yeah, cutting response short; crisis came up. Be back later, maybe, if not tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy: air. Air is an infinite resource, isn't it? And IT'S free.

Sure, it's free when I want to breathe it, but if my car's tires are starting to sag a little...

You could try to make the argument that you're paying for the air to be compressed, but any way you look at it, the end product there is, well, air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it takes money to make the game? Ok, that's fine, but it doesn't take money to copy or distribute it.

It does, actually. You're talking about digital distribution, right? Bandwidth and servers cost money. All that hardware and electricity, system upkeep, analysis and tracking, etc. Steam's online store isn't a couple of guys sending you files over AIM, y'know. It's a pretty involved operation.

When cloth buttons were invented, the button makers guild demanded that cloth buttons be made illegal because they weren't getting payed the way they used to. Well, digital media producers are acting the same way: now that we don't need them to copy the data for us, they're up in arms about how they get paid, and instead of changing the dynamic (like how artists release albums for free and take donations), they just outlaw whatever makes them obsolete.

Artists that release albums for free and take donations are hobbyists, not professionals. You can't live comfortably solely on the income that comes from people who deign to grace you with their money.

And anyway, who's outlawing anything? Are you talking about anti-piracy stuff like DMCA? Because at it's core, the DMCA is just that: an anti-piracy law. And piracy is wrong. The problem with the DMCA is not that it's an anti-piracy law, it's that it's so poorly written that it can be abused by copyright holders to curtail Fair Use (like making personal copies of media).

Your button maker analogy doesn't make any sense here. Button makers were trying to outlaw competition. What exactly are digital media companies trying to outlaw? Digital distribution? They love digital distribution, because it cuts out the middle-man. I'm pretty sure that the one thing that all digital media companies are trying to fight against is people getting their product without paying for it. How is that bad?

I work really hard on my video game, why should I give it away? Why can't I charge what I want for it? That's my right, as a creator. That's my right, as a creator. An artist owns his work, and an artist has the right to be compensated for his work on his own terms. I don't really care what the Founding Fathers have to say on that matter.

If you don't want to spend what I'm charging, skip it. Go without it. Find an alternative. That's your right, as the consumer.

But don't pirate it. Don't take it without paying for it, saying it's too expensive. Don't tell the government that they should make a law that says I can't charge that much for my game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...