Economics of Game Prices

[Gario]

OH OH, you're back? Awesome. I thought you left, for a second there.

If game prices weren't so high, the problem wouldn't be as bad. It'd still exist, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that high prices don't affect piracy rates. After all, how many people claim to pirate movies because theater tickets are 12-15$ a show?

Here's a thought on that - maybe the people who claim this are liars? Perhaps, I dunno, people want to steal something then back their act up retrospectively so they don't suffer cognitive dissonance?

[Schwaltzvald]

Nah, more like this.

along with a good dose of this

I can't wait for him to go beyond XSTmusic's postings.

[Gario]

I can't wait for him to go beyond XSTmusic's postings.

I don't see that happening. XSTmusic's posts were pretty magical, and difficult to top.

[JackKieser]

Well, Gario, it's possible, but remember: assumptions are dangerous. If people SAY that's the reason, we have no choice but to assume they are telling the truth until we have FACT to back it up. For instance, if you ask someone why he pirated a movie and his answer was "because movie tickets are too expensive"... but he has a theater in his town, and the tickets are 5$ for a night showing, we have probably cause to think he's lying (unless he's also, like, making barely enough to live, but that's an extreme case). Unless we have that probable cause, though, we have no choice but to take people at face value when formulating our premises; remember, "innocent until proven guilty", and we can't charge someone with lying before we have the evidence.

I'm sure there are people who do what you say; I'm not doubting their existance. But, times ARE tough, the economy IS wrecked, and worker wages ARE at a low point, only gaining a .5% increase in full time 4th quarter wages since 2009; it's not really hard to think that people ARE struggling to pay for things. Sure, you can argue that if they can't afford it, don't buy it... but then, that's exactly what they're doing, and the technology of digital media allows for people who can't afford to still have at no cost to anyone (no, "lost sales" is a bullshit term).

Anyway, I just finished cleaning the house (woohoo!), so I'm off to play a little DA:O. Feel free to counter-argue; I'll respond when I get back.

Oh, and the Damned... neener, neener, neener... See, I can do it, too. If I recall, I'm still waiting for some responses from you. You know, outside of witty .gifs.

[Nekofrog]

If game prices weren't so high, the problem wouldn't be as bad.

Yes it would. People will justify anything.

After all, how many people claim to pirate movies because theater tickets are 12-15$ a show?

Irrelevant.

[JackKieser]

Lol, Nekofrog. That's such a weak argument. Well, technically not even that... If you tried giving an argument like that in a debate, you'd be laughed out of the forum. A conclusion, with. No premise. Try again, my friend, and I'll respond.

[Malaki-LEGEND.sys]

That there are still pirates on the PC when Steam is available and makes most games dirt cheap at one point or another proves any argument that "PIRACY EXISTS BECOZ HIGH PRICEZ" to be total bullshit.

Basically this.

But I pirate in a lot of cases so who am I to talk.

I pirate old shit, but I also can't talk.

Also,

You made my night by posting this.

[The Damned]

Yeah, where the fuck is XSTmusic? He should have been here by now. I have this bag of snacks ready for his post. And any follow up posts that he may make.

Part of it is a bag of lightly salted ripple chips, with sour cream for dipping. Mmmmm, sour cream...

I wonder how Jacko here feels about Blizzard and World of Warcraft. They aren't publishers (derpaderp) but they do charge for the core game, the expansion packs, as well as a monthly fee for playing. Same goes for SquareEnix and their Final Fantasy online games. Or for that matter, every pay-for-play MMO game.

And what about X-Box Live and PSN? Same kind of deal there: pay for service or don't get all this stuff, like multiplayer and updates, DLC, etc.

What's your feelings on that?

[JackKieser]

I wonder how Jacko here feels about Blizzard and World of Warcraft. They aren't publishers (derpaderp) but they do charge for the core game, the expansion packs, as well as a monthly fee for playing. Same goes for SquareEnix and their Final Fantasy online games. Or for that matter, every pay-for-play MMO game.

Personally, I don't play MMOs because of the pay structure; I'll decide to play Old Republic solely on the basis of whether it has a subscription or not.

I'll directly reference Blizzard here, because WoW is simply the end-all-be-all of MMOs; yes, there are others, but come on... it's WoW. PCWorld reported back in November that Blizzard (not Activizion, but Blizzard) made over $745 million in third quarter revenue in 2010. This was, in part, due to the release of SCII (which brought up early estimates fomr only $600 million to a paltry $700 million), but as usual, the main reason for the profits was due to WoW sales from membership fees (probably up because of the impending release of Cataclysm). Blizzard is doing fine: they don't need to charge what they do for subscriptions. Even if they lower the price per month to 3$, that's 3$ times 12 mil. subscribers times 12 months: $432 million a year. That's. Too. Much. Money.

Simply, Blizzard's draconian pay structure makes them FAR more in profit that it takes to maintain the game world and servers. They are, without a doubt, the most profitable dev firms on the planet. EVERY SINGLE SUBSCRIBER to WoW is being bent over a table and fucked repeatedly with WoW's subscription fees.

...and that game forms the basis for almost every paid MMO out there. Hell yeah, I disagree with it.

And what about X-Box Live and PSN? Same kind of deal there: pay for service or don't get all this stuff, like multiplayer and updates, DLC, etc.

First of all, PSN is free. PSN+ is not. So, I'm fine with PSN. As far as Microsoft is concerned, simply copypasta my above statements about Blizzard and WoW: Microsoft has more money than god, and they have the balls to say that they HAVE to raise the Live subscription fee because, oh no, now we have ESPN access, shit's getting REAL. Bull. M$ is making so much money off of console sales, Kinect (now), and subscriptions, aside from game sales, that they really don't need to charge what they do: hell, even by fourth quarter 2010, they had somehow tripled profits, despite a decrease in revenue. How the hell does that work?

What's your feelings on that?

Read above, plox.

[RDX]

I'm an atheist, simply, because atheism is the default position in the universe. You don't DISPROVE something, you PROVE it, and theists of any kind haven't presented sufficient empirical evidence to prove the existence of a god of any kind. Just wanted to point that out, since apparently all it takes is someone saying, "You're not logically sound" for it to be true on the internet, as opposed to illustrating WHY with valid deductions.

Tangential, I know, but I wanted to clarify that.

what about voodoo and all that stuff.

[JackKieser]

what about voodoo and all that stuff.

What ABOUT voodoo? Last time I checked, it didn't have any science backing it up, either. Until it does, it's just as BS as anything else.

[Kenogu Labz]

Jack, your basic premise has repeatedly been 'Making a large profit is bad'. This makes no sense and is undermining your entire argument.

Just because a corporation makes a large profit does not make it evil, overbearing, or unfit to exist. All these subscribers you speak of don't have to pay. It's their choice; they believe that fee is worth being paid for the content they receive. You can not decide that for them. One of the natural controls of the free market is that if people aren't willing to pay for a service or product, either the price must drop, or the product must be removed from the market, thanks to competition.

[JackKieser]

Jack, your basic premise has repeatedly been 'Making a large profit is bad'. This makes no sense and is undermining your entire argument.

Making a large profit is, in and of itself, not bad, and was never my premise (my premise was that making profit at the expense of others is bad). What makes it bad right now is how its done (at the expense of others: to make a profit, you have to force someone to pay more than cost) and how it's a priority.

You know when Blizzard can make $745 million in a quarter? When world hunger is eradicated, when AIDS is cured, when homelessness is no longer an issue, when cancer is defeated, when we have clean, efficient energy sources, when the economy isn't in shambles, and when the environment isn't fucked.

THEN, make your profit. By all means. But until then, you're literally saying, "my company and the fact that I want to have 2 or 3 houses with 5 cars at each is more important than stopping blood wars over resources in Africa, scientific research, exploring the universe, and a hundred other things that benefit not just me, but all of humanity." And, that's people being dicks. Straight up. There is very little true evil in the world... but there are a lot of assholes who would rather drive 3 of the same car than solve humanity's real issues.

And, I take issue with that, as a human.

Just because a corporation makes a large profit does not make it evil, overbearing, or unfit to exist. All these subscribers you speak of don't have to pay. It's their choice; they believe that fee is worth being paid for the content they receive. You can not decide that for them.

No, I can't. But, if more people REALLY knew what was going on, they'd be pissed and want it to change, too. The people playing WoW find those subscription fees totally reasonable. The problem is, they aren't reasonable by a long shot, and if people really knew the obscenity of how much Blizzard was making, I'm sure they'd come to the (perfectly valid) conclusion that they are getting fucked, and maybe they wouldn't pay. Maybe they would. Who can say?

Doesn't mean it's the most efficient way to run the world, though.

[Gario]

Well, Gario, it's possible, but remember: assumptions are dangerous. If people SAY that's the reason, we have no choice but to assume they are telling the truth until we have FACT to back it up. For instance, if you ask someone why he pirated a movie and his answer was "because movie tickets are too expensive"... but he has a theater in his town, and the tickets are 5$ for a night showing, we have probably cause to think he's lying (unless he's also, like, making barely enough to live, but that's an extreme case). Unless we have that probable cause, though, we have no choice but to take people at face value when formulating our premises; remember, "innocent until proven guilty", and we can't charge someone with lying before we have the evidence.

If game prices weren't so high, the problem wouldn't be as bad. It'd still exist, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that high prices don't affect piracy rates. After all, how many people claim to pirate movies because theater tickets are 12-15$ a show?

So explain that one to me. If my argument is invalid, then so is yours, based on the same logic. It'd be hard pressed to prove that high prices do affect piracy rates, just as it's hard to prove that they don't.

Hey look, we have a case of negative proof from you, thus technically making your original argument invalid. However, I'll pretend that your argument has some weight and counter it anyway (technically, your argument is dead in the water, but I want to have some fun with it). My position shows that there are alternative explanations that are proven to exist (lookie here) that undermine your original assumption (e.g. people claim high prices cause piracy). My position exists not to show that I'm right, but to show that your creating a slippery slope that doesn't look at the alternatives.

Enough meta-logic, though - what makes you say that my theory isn't possible, and your theory is the ONLY possible explanation for the phenomena? You'll need to provide reasoning that your explanation is the only correct one if you want your argument that 'Lower prices = less piracy' is true. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up for cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

As a philosophy major I'm sure you know what that means, eh?

I'm sure there are people who do what you say; I'm not doubting their existance. But, times ARE tough, the economy IS wrecked, and worker wages ARE at a low point, only gaining a .5% increase in full time 4th quarter wages since 2009; it's not really hard to think that people ARE struggling to pay for things.

That line of argument is only valid for necessities, not for vanities.

Sure, you can argue that if they can't afford it, don't buy it... but then, that's exactly what they're doing, and the technology of digital media allows for people who can't afford to still have at no cost to anyone (no, "lost sales" is a bullshit term).

Um, no, that's not what you're doing when you pirate copies. If you didn't have the product and yet showed interest in it then the company has incentive to fix the problem. If you don't buy the product and yet have it somehow then what's the point in fixing the problem? The product is out, so why would the company cater to pirate's demands (which is the WHOLE POINT of the consumer's power to not buy)? Great, now we're undermining the entire premise of capitalism, and not in a way that helps the consumer, either (not in the long run, at least).

Oh, and the Damned... neener, neener, neener... See, I can do it, too. If I recall, I'm still waiting for some responses from you. You know, outside of witty .gifs.

He stopped responding to you when you decided to throw his arguments away without cause.

Originally posted by The Damned

Yeah, where the fuck is XSTmusic? He should have been here by now. I have this bag of snacks ready for his post. And any follow up posts that he may make.

He was banned for openly admitting that he was a troll. So I'm guessing this site has a sort of DADT policy against trolls.

[RDX]

What ABOUT voodoo? Last time I checked, it didn't have any science backing it up, either. Until it does, it's just as BS as anything else.

i dont know how to respond to this

dont worry, i dont do voodoo.

[JackKieser]

So explain that one to me. If my argument is invalid, then so is yours, based on the same logic. It'd be hard pressed to prove that high prices do affect piracy rates, just as it's hard to prove that they don't. Hey look, we have a case of negative proof from you, thus technically making your original argument invalid.

By polling, chief. Again, people have been asked this before, and the usual answer is "it's expensive". Even Sephfire said this in his video: people cite the cost of games as a reason they pirate... which kind of means that prices affect piracy rates. Remember: unless we have PROOF to think they're lying, they must be telling the truth. All it takes is ONE instance of someone truly pirating because of cost for the piracy rate to be affected, mind you.

However, I'll pretend that your argument has some weight and counter it anyway (technically, your argument is dead in the water, but I want to have some fun with it) My position shows that there are alternative explanations that are proven to exist (lookie here) that undermine your original assumption (e.g. people claim high prices cause piracy). My position exists not to show that I'm right, but to show that your creating a slippery slope that doesn't look at the alternatives.

AGAIN, you keep saying that I'm asserting that high prices CAUSE piracy. THEY. DON'T. Stop saying that like it's MY argument, because it's not. They AFFECT piracy rates. That's it.

The reason piracy exists is because intellectual property is an oxymoron, and because digital media is, by definition, an infinite resource. Jesus Christ, you guys don't read.

Enough meta-logic, though - what makes you say that my theory isn't possible, and your theory is the ONLY possible explanation for the phenomena? You'll need to provide reasoning that your explanation is the only correct one if you want your argument that 'Lower prices = less piracy' is true. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up for cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

As a philosophy major I'm sure you know what that means, eh?

No, but correlation does furtively glance in that direction, mouthing "look over there", if you'll allow me to paraphrase Randall Munroe. Again, you keep making assumptions. My argument (that prices affect piracy rates) is already proven as soon as people state that the high price of a digital good is the reason it was pirated. That's it. Bam, proven. Even so, I never said that my argument was the only valid one, just that it's MORE valid that yours... which is what, actually? I never asked that. What do YOU think affects piracy rates? Because to the extent of my knowledge, multiple things can affect piracy rates, so if you have some other premise, it probably isn't even mutually exclusive with mine.

The only reason I have beef with your counterpoints so far is because you're not even reading my conclusions properly. Well, that and because your premise requires more assumption than mine, and I tend to favor Occam's Razor.

That line of argument is only valid for necessities, not for vanities.

Why is that? People want things, so they get them. They can't afford digital media, so they steal it. I didn't say it was right, just that it was a reason. Theft is still wrong, but that doesn't mean you can't have a REASON for stealing, and that includes stealing vanity items.

Um, no, that's not what you're doing when you pirate copies. If you didn't have the product and yet showed interest in it then the company has incentive to fix the problem. If you don't buy the product and yet have it somehow then what's the point in fixing the problem? The product is out, so why would the company cater to pirate's demands (which is the WHOLE POINT of not buying a product)?

I think you misunderstood me. You said, if you don't have the money for something don't buy it. What I meant by responding was to say that people AREN'T buying what they don't think they can afford... they are stealing what they feel they can't afford. But, due to how digital media is an infinite resource, people are figuring out, slowly but surely, that the selling of an intangible is kind of stupid; it's like selling air. Unless you think people should have to go to air utility companies in the same way they go to a power or water company, at it's most base, selling digital data is really dumb, for all of the supply / demand reasons I gave before.

He stopped responding to you when you decided to throw his arguments away without cause.

I had plenty of cause. I always broke his "arguments" down, even his ones about Pokemon DLC. I addressed him, point by point, just like anyone else... and he responded with lots of bashing because I called him stupid for buying into Madden and mishandling his buying power. Ok, so he has plenty of right to be mad at me for calling him a name over the internet, but that doesn't mean my points were wrong (that Madden is a mishandled property and that Pokemon should be redesigned with a DLC system in place).

Instead of him countering my perfectly valid and sound points, he just went "baawwwwwww" in the corner and posted .gifs. Fine; obviously there are better people for me to discuss this with.

[Kenogu Labz]

I'd say your advice, Jack, applies not just to corporations, but anyone that makes more than they need to live on. But that's a deeper flaw in our selfish culture, not just these businesses. And it's the big reason capitalism doesn't work as well as it should.

However, like most systems we flawed humans make, it's far better than the alternatives. (Busy with homework, copping out on further clarification)

[Charlie's Angel]

i dont know how to respond to this

dont worry, i dont do voodoo.

Why respond at all? He's just like millions of other trolls jacking off to the fact he can command everyone's attention doing nothing more than being the crowned king asshole. Nobody works this hard or spends this much time to prove a point to someone they don't know on the internet unless they get a really sick satisfaction out of doing it.

[JackKieser]

Why respond at all? He's just like millions of other trolls jacking off to the fact he can command everyone's attention doing nothing more than being the crowned king asshole. Nobody works this hard or spends this much time to prove a point to someone they don't know on the internet unless they get a really sick satisfaction out of doing it.

Wait, which point are you saying is wrong? The game prices one, or the "religions don't have scientific evidence" one? Because one I can respond to, and one I should really stop responding to (in this thread, at least; I'd be happy to take it to PM or another thread).

[zircon]

OK, enough is enough. This isn't an economic debate. JackKieser isn't even talking economics, but rather the morality of capitalism itself, which is a different topic and belongs in PPR if anything. I'm hesitant to move it yet again but honestly all of you are just banging your head against a wall because you're failing to see the fundamental disagreement that is making intelligent debate impossible.

But on the topics of games and piracy, since that was basically the origin of this to begin with: people heavily pirated the first and second Humble Indie Bundle, both of which could be purchased for literally 1 penny, the lowest possible price imaginable (and at that price, the developers involved were taking a loss simply due to cost of transaction/bandwidth alone.) We're talking a minimum of 25% piracy rate, and these are games that the gaming community at large widely-praised, being sold at the lowest possible price point.

This invalidates your argument that developers can realistically combat piracy by lowering prices. Keeping in mind that no developer can realistically charge 1 penny, or even $1 and expect to recoup the costs of even the transaction, much less the production of the game, substantial piracy will inevitably exist simply because some people are lazy, immoral assholes.

[Bleck]

people pirate games because they do not want to pay for them I think it is high time that people began to accept that

[Level 99]

people pirate games because they do not want to pay for them I think it is high time that people began to accept that

The rent is to damn high.

Piracy is bad, but people do it. Its part of the system. Deal with it.

[Charlie's Angel]

Wait, which point are you saying is wrong? The game prices one, or the "religions don't have scientific evidence" one? Because one I can respond to, and one I should really stop responding to (in this thread, at least; I'd be happy to take it to PM or another thread).

How about just stopping altogether?

[JackKieser]

OK, enough is enough. This isn't an economic debate. JackKieser isn't even talking economics, but rather the morality of capitalism itself, which is a different topic and belongs in PPR if anything. I'm hesitant to move it yet again but honestly all of you are just banging your head against a wall because you're failing to see the fundamental disagreement that is making intelligent debate impossible.

But on the topics of games and piracy, since that was basically the origin of this to begin with: people heavily pirated the first and second Humble Indie Bundle, both of which could be purchased for literally 1 penny, the lowest possible price imaginable (and at that price, the developers involved were taking a loss simply due to cost of transaction/bandwidth alone.) We're talking a minimum of 25% piracy rate, and these are games that the gaming community at large widely-praised, being sold at the lowest possible price point.

So? It was pirated; piracy will happen. That's a given. But, the guys who put out the HIB understood that, and even though a lot of people didn't pay for their games, a metric shit ton DID. They made money. Dare I say, they made enough money to comfortably live off their product for at least as long as it took them to make the games in the first place, which is really all you can (and should) ask for. They'd have made more if they didn't, quite nobly, give so much of it to charity.

Hell, I don't know HOW many times I've personally paid for things I liked over the internet not because I HAD to, but because I WANTED to.

This invalidates your argument that developers can realistically combat piracy by lowering prices.

Well, that's because it wasn't my argument. There's NOTHING developers can do to realistically (by that, I assume you mean totally) combat piracy. Piracy already won. It will NEVER lose. You cannot beat digital pirates... the tech is on THEIR side, and always will be, unless you fundamentally change the way the computer is designed, on a physical level.

Keeping in mind that no developer can realistically charge 1 penny, or even $1 and expect to recoup the costs of even the transaction, much less the production of the game, substantial piracy will inevitably exist simply because some people are lazy, immoral assholes.

Sure, it will. But, the fact that companies let an inevitable war that they cannot win affect how much they will charge for a game or how they handle content distribution shows not only how out of touch they are, but WHY they are losing SO badly.

It's just like Sephfire said: they have to provide a better product more efficiently and effectively than pirates. The one flaw with digital data is that it's easy to lose forever: one power surge, and my drive is fried. A physical disc doesn't have that problem. But, they are SO stuck on charging out the ass for physical discs that they are blind to the better alternative. After all, why not sell both? Sell me a digital version of ME2 for 10$, or a disc version for 40$? If they're so worried about how much GS is marking them up, stop selling games to GameStop. Last time I checked, they have the right to refuse service to anyone... at least, that's what MY EULAs tell me.

[zircon]

people pirate games because they do not want to pay for them I think it is high time that people began to accept that

That's not really true though. Again, look at the Humble Indie Bundle. Minimum 25% piracy rate and the game cost 1 cent as a digital download.