"Games are a luxury item." So?

[ResonanceSD]

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

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

Also you should read this.

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

 

[DoPo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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

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

Also you should read this.

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

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

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

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

 

[Scow2]

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

 

[DoPo]

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

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

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

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

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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

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

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

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

^More information on the subject.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Scow2]

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

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

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

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

^More information on the subject.

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

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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

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

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

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

^More information on the subject.

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

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

 

[Scow2]

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

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

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

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

^More information on the subject.

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

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

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

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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

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

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

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

^More information on the subject.

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

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

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

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

 

[pure.Wasted]

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

Who is "people"? Which people are you talking about, exactly? Sounds like you have some statistics to back up what you're saying, so let's see it. In the meantime. [http://www.zeropaid.com/news/100870/uk-pirate-bay-block-ruling-blasted-by-uk-pirate-party-org-artist/] :

"Dan Bull, an artist that reached number 9 in the indie top charts thanks in part to the backing of ThePirateBay, also expressed his opposition to the ruling. He said in the press release, ?I want to hear why Geoff Taylor is causing the closure of The Promo Bay, a wonderful feature which gives unsigned musicians the exposure that the BPI?s affiliates never will. In the same week that The Pirate Bay allowed an unsigned musician to hit the charts, the BPI has had The Pirate Bay blocked ? supposedly to protect the interests of artists like me. It is bullshit. We don?t need the BPI?"

 

[DoPo]

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.

 

[pure.Wasted]

Saying "I will pirate this game because I cannot afford it" is an inherently stupid claim to make.

It might be inherently unethical (a dubious claim) but it is hardly stupid to want something you don't need for survival. It's the policy the civilized world has been running on for well over a hundred years, now. So unless you're turning this into a statement against corporate consumerist culture, which I doubt very much, but would eagerly listen to, you should take better care in choosing your words.

 

[DoPo]

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

Who is "people"? Which people are you talking about, exactly? Sounds like you have some statistics on hand to back up what you're saying, so let's see it./quote]

I literally facepalmed. You mean to say that the HIB piracy is news to you [http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/05/26/reflections-on-the-humble-indie-bundle-piracy/]? There you go. HIBs are pirated. You know, something that I thought was well known.

 

[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.

The thing is, your argument still stands on a physical object model; let's turn it on its head. If you can get a luxury item for free, without taking it from anyone else, why could you morally be required not to? The replicator analogy stands; if it were invented today, its creators would be sued into oblivion for ending poverty, because that would mean the people running all of the manufacturing plants it replaced would be out of business. Granted, they wouldn't exactly be badly off since money would no longer be a bar to getting anything you wanted, but they wouldn't care because in the short term, they would make less money. That is exactly what's going on right now, except instead of physical items, it's software and information.