"Games are a luxury item." So?

[DoPo]

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.

Wanting is one thing. But I regard using illegal means to get them, with the excuse that you somehow need them, to be stupid. It is because you don't need them part that makes "I must have that" stupid. I stand by my words. Nobody is forcing you to play a game or watch a movie or whatever. So, since you're not actually hard pressed to get those, actually acting as if you are is moronic behaviour.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

games are a luxury item, but they're a luxury item of the sort that DVDs and books are, and they're priced high enough that they're more in competition with expensive wines and designer clothes

Um... no. The minimum any designer clothes go for is 100 bucks. Whereas new games go from 20 to 80 new. Collector editions do not count. As for expensive wine, anything under 100 is considered if not cheap, certainly not expensive.

Alright, not designer clothing, but whatever you call those $50 T-shirts you buy at stores that run entirely on being trendy. As for wine, $6 a bottle is cheap. $50 is getting into the good stuff, although it's hardly on the high end of that scale. Unless you're buying it at a restaurant, in which case you're probably right on the $100 mark. But restaurants are notorious about overcharging for alcohol.

 

[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 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.

How do you know that the people who downloaded these games for free aren't the same ones who, upon realizing how good the games are, went and paid for them? You don't.

How do you know that those who got the game for free didn't end up helping the publishers make a profit by spreading word-of-mouth advertisement to their friends, co-forumers, and so on? You don't.

How do you know that the game wouldn't have been pirated a thousand times more were it not for the "pay what you want" model? For all you know, every single person who ended up paying for the game would have otherwise pirated it. Sure, it's ridiculous to believe that everyone would have pirated it otherwise, just like it's ridiculous to believe that the 25% are the only ones who would have either way.

If you'd run this argument by a first year logic professor, you'd get a fat red zero all over your paper. This article provides zero useable information; no trends over time, no polls (however biased those may be) for those who purchased vs. those who paid nothing; just a bunch of meaningless numbers that act on any confirmation bias people already have going into the debate.

 

[DoPo]

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.

Yes, it's possible to get and distribute unlimited amounts of essentially the same thing. That doesn't mean it's allowed. I didn't bring morality into it - you did. I'm saying it's illegal - no arguing there, I hope. So, since it's illegal, why do you have to do it still? There are lots and lots of implications and reasons why people want it to be illegal. Some of them are valid, others less so. But the fact still stands - it's 1. illegal 2. not required for you to have that. I don't need child pornography at all but should I got acquire some because I can? Yes, a bit of an extreme example but the point is, if I can do something, must I do it?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

Yes, it's possible to get and distribute unlimited amounts of essentially the same thing. That doesn't mean it's allowed. I didn't bring morality into it - you did. I'm saying it's illegal - no arguing there, I hope. So, since it's illegal, why do you have to do it still? There are lots and lots of implications and reasons why people want it to be illegal. Some of them are valid, others less so. But the fact still stands - it's 1. illegal 2. not required for you to have that. I don't need child pornography at all but should I got acquire some because I can? Yes, a bit of an extreme example but the point is, if I can do something, must I do it?

I'd say it's arguable as to whether downloading games should be illegal, and it's inarguable that western intellectual property law is all kinds of screwed up at the moment. You do know that there's some countries where child porn is legal, right? According to your argument, it would be perfectly alright to take a trip to such a country if you wanted to watch some kiddy porn. The law isn't always worthy of being put up on a pedestal.

 

[Skoldpadda]

Wise men say, only fools run empires without luxuries... King

 

[pilouuuu]

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 think when you say that games are luxury items you are underestimating their value as a cultural phenomenom. When games are finally accepted as an art form it won't be ethycal to prevent people from playing relevant games just because they don't have the money. You surely can live without books or music, but you would suffer from a cultural poverty for doing so and if games were respected as they should the same would apply for them.

Captcha: Talkin' about Purina Dog Chow! That's funny and surprising. I chose: yummy

 

[Mariakko]

This might just be the exchange rate talking here but $60 sounds wonderful as opposed to $120-130 for all new released games.

 

[suitepee7]

they can be overpriced, but they just aren't... £40 for a new game (UK obviously) is reasonable in my eyes, if i know the game will be amazing (i would have happily laid down that for skyrim or ME3, but i got them on pc so no need ^-^

 

[The Funslinger]

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...

[sub]I hate you Brink, you suck so much.[/sub]

My buddy got Brink out of a bargain bin for six quid.

I still feel sorry for him.

 

[The Funslinger]

This might just be the exchange rate talking here but $60 sounds wonderful as opposed to $120-130 for all new released games.

Surely that can't be American dollars you're on about. $60 American is normal. I'm British and we pay around £30-40 for new releases.

 

[veloper]

Games sell for $50-60, because some people will buy it at that price.
Later the price drops, because some people are willing to wait and then buy it at the lower price.
Later again another price drop, etc.

What people are willing to spend is the most important factor in the price, because games are luxury items. Normal people don't get desperate when they lack games, opposed to say, lacking food.

Newly released games may be too expensive for the TS, but the popular titles always sell at that price, so the pricing is actually right, even if the current business model as a whole is screwed.

 

[Mariakko]

This might just be the exchange rate talking here but $60 sounds wonderful as opposed to $120-130 for all new released games.

Surely that can't be American dollars you're on about. $60 American is normal. I'm British and we pay around £30-40 for new releases.

It's New Zealand dollars.

 

[The Funslinger]

This might just be the exchange rate talking here but $60 sounds wonderful as opposed to $120-130 for all new released games.

Surely that can't be American dollars you're on about. $60 American is normal. I'm British and we pay around £30-40 for new releases.

It's New Zealand dollars.

Fair enough.

"Hey, Jimmy, you're a millionaire!"

"Woohoo!"

"In New Zealand currency..."

"Fuck..."

 

[Fullmetalfox]

I've had this discussion with a friend of mine lately and he pulled the "luxury item" argument on me too. To which I replied that despite being luxury items, that doesn't automatically mean that only a small group of people should be able to afford them. As it is right now, if two games that you want come out in the same month, that's 120 dollars/euros. That's a lot of money!

Yes, you do get a lot more entertainment from a videogame when you compare the to a movie or even from a season of a good TV series. But if that's how luxury items should get priced, then an average surfboard should cost over 10.000 dollars since it provides you with infinitely more entertainment than a videogame ever could. You can see how that kind of thinking is flawed.

Videogames are too expensive, and that is hurting not only the gamer, its hurting the industry. Every time a new IP comes out and it doesn't sell as much as a publisher hopes it does, you can point to the price tag and say "Thats why". As it stands, because of the 60$ price tag, every new purchase you make is a risk, even if you are well informed. Being well informed minimizes that risk, but it does not eliminate it.

Moreover, I believe that games would sell more if they were priced at 40 dollars, which is in my opinion a reasonable price to ask for a AAA game. This would make it easier on the gamer, it would help new IPs sell (which would be wonderful in a industry plagued by sequels), and it would draw in new costumers. I've heard people say that they don't wanna get into videogames because they are way too expensive and who can blame them?! It might seam strange to you, but I totally understand because its the exact same reason I don't get into golfing.

I've been a gamer since I was a small child, and I have to be honest with you, if it wasn't for game sales and price cuts, I wouldn't own half the library I do right now. I can't afford every game I want on day one. I can't support all my favorite franchises with a day one purchase, and that's on them. In the end nobody benefits, I don't get to play their games as soon as I'd wish. And since I already waited a few months for a 50% price drop, I'm gonna wait a few more for a 75% price drop. They wont see my money on day one, and when their game undersells they will go on to blame piracy (as if pirates actually purchased games lol) or the used games market (which only exists because games are too expensive to begin with).

You see publishers complaining all the time about used games stealing their sales but they don't care about why people are buying used in the first place. And they'd rather lose sales instead of lowering the cost of their product. Lets be honest. Who here would trade in games if they were to cost somewhere between 30 and 40 dollars? Unless its a real shit game you absolutely must get rid of?

Also, Day one DLC can fuck off. Not to long ago, if a game wasn't finished it would be delayed until it was. This practice of start printing the game before its finished and then charging extra for content that should have been on the disk is disgusting and raises the true cost of a videogame by 10 dollars.

Lower your prices and make gamers happier, get more costumers and destroy the used games "problem".

Logic.