The problem with applying this "games are a luxory, you don't need them" argument to piracy, is that it isn't answering the original problems.
Very few pirates argue that they have some god-given right to pirate any content. And none claim that they would die without pirating them. Therefore, replying with "yeah, but you don't need them" doesn't really answer anything.
There are some logical arguements against piracy, such as the problem of funding games without obligatory paymentfor copies, and there are some compelling replies to these, such as statistics that show no loss of sales in counties where file sharing was legalized, and suggestions of alternate business models that don't depend on paying for the content's copies. To that, anti-piacy people might reply that even if we COULD restructure things, freeloaders don't deserve to get anything, and pro-piracy people might reply that we NEED to change, since the Internet makes automatic copying more and more easy and an integral part of life, we have to adapt to it, that's a higher priority than making sure that life sucks for freeloaders. Etc, etc, etc.
But that "games are a luxory" is a failed argument, it's basically a "first world problems" fallacy, that ignores all the piracy arguments pro and contra, and relies the idea that we shouldn't even question the current system, as long as it's not a matter of life and death.
It's pretty much like "why do you even care about the legal status of fetuses, when there are children starving in Africa?" or "Why are you so concened about american intenet censorship, when North Korea is killing people for their speech?
No, we don't NEED games. But that doesn't inherently silence every argument about improving the current, imperfect system of content distribution.
