"Games are a luxury item." So?

[hermes]

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. The main problem with the rebuke of "games are luxury items" is not that they are overpriced (which, to be fair, is only valid on a case by case basis), but that people justify piracy or used games as "I can't pay for it full price, but I want to play it! I will pay whatever I see fit (or nothing) to play it, because I have to".

Games are luxury items because you don't need it for your life. If you can't buy the latest Call of Duty, its not a big deal.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

less than 1 hour of gameplay per $5 I spent -> Really not worth it, get my money back
less than 3 hrs per $5 spent -> Not worth it, but I won't be demanding compensation
less than 5 hrs per $5 spent -> The game wasted enough time for what I paid for it
less than 8 hrs per $5 spent -> The game was definitely worth it's price tag
more than 10 hrs per $5 spent -> I got an amazing deal on this game

You judge the value of a product based on how much of your time it "wasted?" Maybe try looking at from the perspective of "How much did I enjoy this product?"

This mentality some people have of time spent equaling worth really pisses me off.

 

[WindKnight]

If you don't like the price? don't buy it. if you must rush out and buy the game NOW you'll pay a premium price for it, just like any early adopter of technology.

I generally wait for the price to fall or else buy the game second hand, simply because I can't afford or justify paying a lot of money for computer games. When I see it at the price I feel I can afford, I buy it. If I don't see it at the price I like, I leave it.

Games ARE a luxury, not a necessity. You do not need to game to live, so if you don't like the price, do without. Pirating is just being selfish, however you doll it up.

 

[omega 616]

snip

What really makes me laugh is you are from America, the place where you are ripped off the least for games ... go ask an Australian how much a game is, if I remember correctly it is about $100.

So next time your thinking "game prices are too damn high" your next thought should be "but not as damn high as other places".

I'm not from the US but I hate this damn attitude. "People have it worse than you so shut the hell up"

Yeah, it's called perspective!

Instead of being "woe is me, I have it so fucking hard!", try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes.

Plus this shit is first world problems.

Alright, here's your perspective: you make twice as much as Americans, and pay twice as much for everything. In the grand scheme of things, you guys are getting screwed over to exactly the same degree we are, not to double the degree like that "Australia, Americans have it easy hurr durr" argument implies.

"You make twice as much as Americans" by "you" do you mean me, who is from the UK?

Anyway, min wage in the UK for a 21 year old is £6.08 or something like that, a game is about £40 ... transfer that with the current exchange rates to Australian dollars min. wage should be $9.63 and games would cost $63.40.

Does it cost $37 per game to ship to Aus? Don't think so.

Wait, you're in the UK? Then you have even less reason to complain. 40 pounds effectively /is/ $60. And no, I know the Aussies are getting gouged. But we are too, and it hurts our pocket books to exactly the same degree as theirs does. Claiming that $120 AUS hurts the Aussies more than $60 US hurts Americans is just silly. You can't do a 1:1 comparison like that.

Edit: By the way, minimum wage in the US is $7.25 an hour. I'm not sure what that is in AUS, but I know their dollar is slightly stronger than the US dollar, so even in the UK you guys are doing slightly better than we are, if your minimum wage actually does work out to $9.63 AUS.

Are you serious? They get ripped off more than you but it sucks an equal amount for you both? Are you really trying to make that argument? That is like saying "yeah, I know they have to walk 5 miles to drink dirty water but my coke is flat and warm! It;s an equal amount of sucking for us both!"

Here is a website for you "xe.com."

Game prices: £40 = $64 USD
Your min wage $7.35 USD (then you guys tip constantly) = £4.48 = $7.11 AUD
UK min wage£6.08 = $9.65 AUD

So by the looks of it Americans get 0.34 cents more per hour (+ plus any tips they get) so they can buy games that are cheaper ....

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

There is one aspect of piracy related to this topic that I have never ever understood, and also have never ever been given a satisfactory answer by anyone.

I won't bandy about the exact semantics of what the word 'steal' means, because that is an almost textbook definition of following the letter instead of the spirit of the law in order to find loopholes, and I won't argue that they do or do not cost too much.

My argument is thus. We live in a society that assigns material value to things. This loaf of bread is worth that much, this loaf of bread is worth a little bit more. This movie is a classic by a good director with major releases all over the world, thus it is worth this much, this movie was shot on someone's iPhone and shown on YouTube, thus it is worth that much.

The one constant is that these things have value, otherwise buying online from iTunes or Amazon download would be free. If the thing did not have any value beyond that of the physical item, it would not cost money.

So here's the question. You agree that stealing is bad and against the law because there is a physical object that should cost a sum of money, and you are taking the entire product, disk, content and all, for nothing. However, when the disk is not involved, and you are simply taking the content for nothing at all, this is completely okay.

Why?

Why is taking something that is still ascribed value (the content of the game/movie) and not paying for it alright? Do you honestly believe that movies and books and videogames and music have no value beyond that of the physical object which brings them to you? Because if so then you are an idiot.

 

[Toby Kitching]

Yes, the developers make less money when people pirate their games. That's why they need to start charging less and exploring alternative revenue options. The fact of the matter is piracy is here to stay. Whether the devs like it or not, they are competing with free. It's a competition they can win, but not when they pretend they're the only way to get their product.

No, we can't just absolve ourselves as a community of responsibility like that. If, for example, a developer intends to release a game with freemium content, there will be a vicious backlash if anybody gains an advantage at all through paying: it all has to be cosmetic. I imagine that works with miniscule budgets, but that would spell the end of AAA games. On the other hand, the clever diablo III system is great, but legal reasons have already prevented it from being instated in some countries, so that is impossible.

The overwhelming impression I'm getting here is that gamers in general are very happy to dole out criticisms and advice to corporations, but are utterly unwilling to take any action on on our end. this isn't good enough at all. if people can't afford to buy a game, the solution is not to steal it and start complaining. the solution, i'm afraid, is to not buy the game. hell, i've not got any kind of stable job. I've had to pass over a hell of a lot of eagerly anticipated releases because the financial noose was a tad tight. I'm not complaining about it, though; we live in a capitalist society after all, and we just have to take the good with the bad.

Shirking all responsibility onto the developers has caused such brilliant trends as DRM, Freemium gameplay and copy-paste but safe CoD knockoffs. Software pirates just have to grow up a bit and recognise that they are a problem, not their own solution.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

What really makes me laugh is you are from America, the place where you are ripped off the least for games ... go ask an Australian how much a game is, if I remember correctly it is about $100.

So next time your thinking "game prices are too damn high" your next thought should be "but not as damn high as other places".

I'm not from the US but I hate this damn attitude. "People have it worse than you so shut the hell up"

Yeah, it's called perspective!

Instead of being "woe is me, I have it so fucking hard!", try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes.

Plus this shit is first world problems.

Alright, here's your perspective: you make twice as much as Americans, and pay twice as much for everything. In the grand scheme of things, you guys are getting screwed over to exactly the same degree we are, not to double the degree like that "Australia, Americans have it easy hurr durr" argument implies.

"You make twice as much as Americans" by "you" do you mean me, who is from the UK?

Anyway, min wage in the UK for a 21 year old is £6.08 or something like that, a game is about £40 ... transfer that with the current exchange rates to Australian dollars min. wage should be $9.63 and games would cost $63.40.

Does it cost $37 per game to ship to Aus? Don't think so.

Wait, you're in the UK? Then you have even less reason to complain. 40 pounds effectively /is/ $60. And no, I know the Aussies are getting gouged. But we are too, and it hurts our pocket books to exactly the same degree as theirs does. Claiming that $120 AUS hurts the Aussies more than $60 US hurts Americans is just silly. You can't do a 1:1 comparison like that.

Edit: By the way, minimum wage in the US is $7.25 an hour. I'm not sure what that is in AUS, but I know their dollar is slightly stronger than the US dollar, so even in the UK you guys are doing slightly better than we are, if your minimum wage actually does work out to $9.63 AUS.

Are you serious? They get ripped off more than you but it sucks an equal amount for you both? Are you really trying to make that argument? That is like saying "yeah, I know they have to walk 5 miles to drink dirty water but my coke is flat and warm! It;s an equal amount of sucking for us both!"

Here is a website for you "xe.com."

Game prices: £40 = $64 USD
Your min wage $7.35 USD (then you guys tip constantly) = £4.48 = $7.11 AUD
UK min wage£6.08 = $9.65 AUD

So by the looks of it Americans get 0.34 cents more per hour (+ plus any tips they get) so they can buy games that are cheaper ....

Actually, minimum wage in industries where tipping is possible is more like $2 an hour; the rest of "minimum wage" is expected to be made up in tips. For most minimum wage workers, there's no such thing as tipping. And yes, they're arbitrarily charged more money, but they have more money, so they can afford it just as well as we can the amount we're charged. The prices are arbitrary everywhere; they have nothing to do with the cost of production, and everything to do with what the publishers can get away with. That's just as true in the US as it is in Australia.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Yes, the developers make less money when people pirate their games. That's why they need to start charging less and exploring alternative revenue options. The fact of the matter is piracy is here to stay. Whether the devs like it or not, they are competing with free. It's a competition they can win, but not when they pretend they're the only way to get their product.

No, we can't just absolve ourselves as a community of responsibility like that. If, for example, a developer intends to release a game with freemium content, there will be a vicious backlash if anybody gains an advantage at all through paying: it all has to be cosmetic. I imagine that works with miniscule budgets, but that would spell the end of AAA games. On the other hand, the clever diablo III system is great, but legal reasons have already prevented it from being instated in some countries, so that is impossible.

The overwhelming impression I'm getting here is that gamers in general are very happy to dole out criticisms and advice to corporations, but are utterly unwilling to take any action on on our end. this isn't good enough at all. if people can't afford to buy a game, the solution is not to steal it and start complaining. the solution, i'm afraid, is to not buy the game. hell, i've not got any kind of stable job. I've had to pass over a hell of a lot of eagerly anticipated releases because the financial noose was a tad tight. I'm not complaining about it, though; we live in a capitalist society after all, and we just have to take the good with the bad.

Shirking all responsibility onto the developers has caused such brilliant trends as DRM, Freemium gameplay and copy-paste but safe CoD knockoffs. Software pirates just have to grow up a bit and recognise that they are a problem, not their own solution.

This is capitalism. The only responsibility of consumers is to get the best product for the least money. The only responsibility of producers is to give the least product for the most money. We're supposed to meet somewhere in the middle, but the reality is that the producers have most of the power, and we often don't. That's why the business model you mentioned is illegal in some countries; it's exploitative of the consumer, unfairly so. If, however, they were to make it free to play but keep everything else the same, they'd still have a license to print money without screwing anyone over because, you know, there's no implied ownership there. You may not know this, but EULAs tacked on after purchase are BS, and most countries aside from the US recognize this.

 

[Yopaz]

Games are not overpriced. Never have been and never will be.

Game are over funded, which leads abusive business practices and shanking the customer's wallet.

Back when I was a young lad I got the full game for 60 bucks. I wasn't told I could pay 60 bucks and wait two months for more content on the disc and give more money.
I wasn't told that my sixty bucks was only buying half the game.

NOBODY, would give a fuck if Mass Effect were built on the same graphics of KOTOR. Nobody. It would still be just as amazing a game. But these days games are costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make and the best we can hope for from that money is six hours of game play and pretty pretty graphics, and told that we need to pay more than 60 dollars to unlock the full game because the dev's and producers are too fucking greedy.

Games are not to expensive to purchase, they are too expensive to make.

May I ask when you were a young lad? Because when I was a young lad you got the full game for $40, and that was on day one; back then, they dropped quicker and lower than they do today, with bestselling PC games frequently hitting $10 a few years after launch[footnote]Console games bottomed out at $15 to $20, theoretically thanks to licensing fees.[/footnote]. The only game I remember costing $60 prior to the current gen was the PS1 remake of the first two Lunar games, which were $60 each but were really impressive editions with books, soundtrack CDs, and toys packed in; the equivalent of today's $200 special editions.

By the way, the average cost to make a AAA game is something like $30 million. That sounds like a lot, but your average blockbuster movie is more like $100 million, and those make a profit with a much smaller cost to the end user. The only real factor in the cost of games is what consumers are willing to pay; the publishers were able to give a justification for arbitrarily jacking up the already arbitrary price by $10, so they now cost $60. There's nothing else to the cost, it's completely arbitrary.

OK, never, ever compare games and movies if you want to make it sound like you know something about the economy around games and movies. You know what games never get that movies do get?

Deals with network companies to get the right to show it on TV. Million dollar deals. Several of them. There are groups who pay several millions for one movie. SSeveral TV channels pay for this, DVD sales is just a small portion of it. I doubt there is anyone who has ever had to pay that much in order to play a video game.

 

[Toby Kitching]

This is capitalism. The only responsibility of consumers is to get the best product for the least money. The only responsibility of producers is to give the least product for the most money. We're supposed to meet somewhere in the middle, but the reality is that the producers have most of the power, and we often don't. That's why the business model you mentioned is illegal in some countries; it's exploitative of the consumer, unfairly so. If, however, they were to make it free to play but keep everything else the same, they'd still have a license to print money without screwing anyone over because, you know, there's no implied ownership there. You may not know this, but EULAs tacked on after purchase are BS, and most countries aside from the US recognize this.

Firstly, I'm in two minds about EULAs. on the one hand, it pisses me off when people complain about a EULA being restrictive and then subsequently agree to and break it. agree to something if you agree. otherwise, bugger off. On the other hand, i was angry as hell with the initial EULA for origin. I actually wrote an inadvertantly sweary email to EA about it, and i can see why the whole 'no class action lawsuits' thing worries people. For reference, I actually live in the UK. AFAIK, EULAs have been held up in law courts and are considered binding, but I am totally open to being corrected on that.

Back to the topic in hand. You are saying that it is the responsibility of consumers to get the best for the least. that's true, but it only holds up when consumers remain within legal bounds. otherwise what you have is anarchy. By that logic, it is my responsibility as a capitalist to at least try to steal my shopping rather than paying for it.

Complaining about producers having power is stupid. the market value is not set by some shadowy cabal of people desperately trying to prevent people from playing video games; it's set by a combination of production overheads and what people are willing to pay. stealing is not the way to respond to feeling screwed over. I hate this phrase, but you have to vote with your wallet in this scenario. if you cant afford something of this nature, you are NOT entitled to have it anyway. in no way is this how the world works. you just have to accept that you cant get the release the VERY SECOND it comes out, do a bit of shopping around, buy second hand or give it a year or so for the price to come down. hell, there are a lot of good games that are being sold for nothing at all years after release. there are steam sales, and seasonal 'fire sales' in game stores. there are no excuses for piracy beyond a petty sense of entitlement.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This is capitalism. The only responsibility of consumers is to get the best product for the least money. The only responsibility of producers is to give the least product for the most money. We're supposed to meet somewhere in the middle, but the reality is that the producers have most of the power, and we often don't. That's why the business model you mentioned is illegal in some countries; it's exploitative of the consumer, unfairly so. If, however, they were to make it free to play but keep everything else the same, they'd still have a license to print money without screwing anyone over because, you know, there's no implied ownership there. You may not know this, but EULAs tacked on after purchase are BS, and most countries aside from the US recognize this.

Firstly, I'm in two minds about EULAs. on the one hand, it pisses me off when people complain about a EULA being restrictive and then subsequently agree to and break it. agree to something if you agree. otherwise, bugger off. On the other hand, i was angry as hell with the initial EULA for origin. I actually wrote an inadvertantly sweary email to EA about it, and i can see why the whole 'no class action lawsuits' thing worries people. For reference, I actually live in the UK. AFAIK, EULAs have been held up in law courts and are considered binding, but I am totally open to being corrected on that.

Back to the topic in hand. You are saying that it is the responsibility of consumers to get the best for the least. that's true, but it only holds up when consumers remain within legal bounds. otherwise what you have is anarchy. By that logic, it is my responsibility as a capitalist to at least try to steal my shopping rather than paying for it.

Complaining about producers having power is stupid. the market value is not set by some shadowy cabal of people desperately trying to prevent people from playing video games; it's set by a combination of production overheads and what people are willing to pay. stealing is not the way to respond to feeling screwed over. I hate this phrase, but you have to vote with your wallet in this scenario. if you cant afford something of this nature, you are NOT entitled to have it anyway. in no way is this how the world works. you just have to accept that you cant get the release the VERY SECOND it comes out, do a bit of shopping around, buy second hand or give it a year or so for the price to come down. hell, there are a lot of good games that are being sold for nothing at all years after release. there are steam sales, and seasonal 'fire sales' in game stores. there are no excuses for piracy beyond a petty sense of entitlement.

Alright, I'm going to say this again: one, it's not theft. Two, the legality doesn't play into it; legal or not, piracy is here to stay, and the publishers are stuck competing with it. Capitalism is nothing if not economic anarchy.

As for EULA's, they're additional terms added on after the contract of sale has already been completed. In most countries, they are completely meaningless; only in the US do they have any teeth. Elsewhere, they're recognized as the unconscionable contracts of adhesion they are.

Games are not overpriced. Never have been and never will be.

Game are over funded, which leads abusive business practices and shanking the customer's wallet.

Back when I was a young lad I got the full game for 60 bucks. I wasn't told I could pay 60 bucks and wait two months for more content on the disc and give more money.
I wasn't told that my sixty bucks was only buying half the game.

NOBODY, would give a fuck if Mass Effect were built on the same graphics of KOTOR. Nobody. It would still be just as amazing a game. But these days games are costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make and the best we can hope for from that money is six hours of game play and pretty pretty graphics, and told that we need to pay more than 60 dollars to unlock the full game because the dev's and producers are too fucking greedy.

Games are not to expensive to purchase, they are too expensive to make.

May I ask when you were a young lad? Because when I was a young lad you got the full game for $40, and that was on day one; back then, they dropped quicker and lower than they do today, with bestselling PC games frequently hitting $10 a few years after launch[footnote]Console games bottomed out at $15 to $20, theoretically thanks to licensing fees.[/footnote]. The only game I remember costing $60 prior to the current gen was the PS1 remake of the first two Lunar games, which were $60 each but were really impressive editions with books, soundtrack CDs, and toys packed in; the equivalent of today's $200 special editions.

By the way, the average cost to make a AAA game is something like $30 million. That sounds like a lot, but your average blockbuster movie is more like $100 million, and those make a profit with a much smaller cost to the end user. The only real factor in the cost of games is what consumers are willing to pay; the publishers were able to give a justification for arbitrarily jacking up the already arbitrary price by $10, so they now cost $60. There's nothing else to the cost, it's completely arbitrary.

OK, never, ever compare games and movies if you want to make it sound like you know something about the economy around games and movies. You know what games never get that movies do get?

Deals with network companies to get the right to show it on TV. Million dollar deals. Several of them. There are groups who pay several millions for one movie. SSeveral TV channels pay for this, DVD sales is just a small portion of it. I doubt there is anyone who has ever had to pay that much in order to play a video game.

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

 

[willsham45]

Basically I think this is the problem you can go out and buy GTA or Elder Scrolls and have hours of game-play at your finger tips for £30-£40 which is great value for money and then you can go out and spend that exact same price for duke nukum and get less gameplay with a lot less polish.
But all this only applies to NEW games.
If you can wait before you know it that £40 game will soon go for £20 or £15 either though the game being second hand or being replaced by newer stock. By that point you will probably have heard more about the game and should know if it is worth while or not.

 

[Yopaz]

Those aren't the main source of revenue for movies and you know it. Movies make their money back on ticket sales and, if they're unlucky, DVD sales. The rest of it is just gravy, the way a port of an older game to a newer system is. Or do you not consider the umpteen ports of Chrono Trigger and the first few Final Fantasy games to be an additional revenue stream, completely on top of the money they made the first time around?

OK, so you know that their main source of income isn't from DVD sales yet you still compare expenses and prices with video games? Really? I don't see anything more to say. Not all companies make ports. My point was that games don't get the deals that movies get. All their money comes from sales. They port the game? Well, they still need to sell the game in order to make money. Was there a point you were trying to make or something?

 

[ablac]

Luxuries can be over-priced and anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. I think what people mean when they complain is that the game either isnt worth that amount of money or it is priced to exploit the consumers, such as activision trying to bump up the price of call of duty games because it can get away with it, ironically they arent worth the £40 they are sold at so they're at fault twice over. With the piracy thing its pretty simple. You dont need games, they are entertainment and thus not necessary to survival, therefore you cannot justify taking them in the same way you could justify stealing food to feed yourself/family. Although the piracy debate is so destitute it isnt worth thinking about.