Submitted by konrad_arflane - March 4, 2008 at 4:38 am -050090.184.146.187
@kurisu:
I know what poaching is. My point is that a lot of the time, when people hunted on the king's land, they didn't do so to "stick it to the Man", they did so because they were hungry, or starving even. I don't think having to pay people to enjoy the entertainment they created compares to not getting enough to eat.
@Zippy:
I'm not completely certain try-before-you-buy is covered by fair use (even if perhaps it should be). You're not, AFAIK, entitled to see trailers for a movie before you buy a ticket (yes, movie trailers are everywhere, but they don't have to be), much less walk out of the movie theatre 15 minutes into the movie and demand your money back.
And as for pricing: Yes, games are too expensive. However, in a free society, it is the right of the owner of some property or other to set the price he wants for it. In a face-to-face situation, a prospective buyer can then haggle. But in a mass market, if you want to buy, you pay the price. If you think it's too expensive, you don't buy. It's as simple as that.
This is particularly relevant for games, IMO. If you don't want to pay full price for a game, you can wait six months, and you will most likely be able to get it for around half-price. This is the principled approach to overpricing. It is also, just possibly, a more effective approach than pirating.
Products like games, where the physical production cost of the individual unit are minuscule compared to the development costs, cost what they cost because that's what people are willing to pay. It is certainly possible that the collective managements of all the major publishers are stupid enough not to realize that they'd make more money (due to increased sales) if they lowered prices, but I wouldn't bet on it. If they know nothing else, these guys know money. IOW, if people consistently waited for games to drop in price before shelling out, the publishers would more than likely get the hint. Unlike piracy, they wouldn't really have any other course of option than following the market, unless they like having their games collecting dust on store shelves.
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:13pm GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
Posted 07/23/08 at 08:05pm LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:07pm gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:15pm Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:07pm GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:32pm Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:31pm Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:04pm Freyar: I demand to see this letter! (Not that I have any grounds to demand on.)
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:53pm gamepolitics: JT called me a "sock puppet" in an e-mail to Hal Halpin... i gave him 24 hours to retract it, LOL
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:46pm Haggard: Might want to take a look at what Anthony Horowitz wrote about GTA IV in the Telegraph, article seems to have been taken down
Posted 07/23/08 at 01:05pm Silencets: Beutiful. I always did wonder about Jacko Wacko
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:24am Matriculated: So Jack (an anti-gay activist) PAYED for gay porn
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:22am Matriculated: [i]...and purchased membership.[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:21am Matriculated: [i] few months later, as part of his ongoing campaign against Kent, Thompson followed links to gay porn on Kent's website[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:40am sortableturnip: Jack's at it again: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/07/jack_thompson_faces_permanent.php
Posted 07/22/08 at 11:22pm PHOENIXZERO: Ugh, that CNBC program "Play to Win" is it? Is on again...
Posted 07/22/08 at 09:34pm ZippyDSM: todayin zippy land:after spending 8 hours working on my AC unit yesterday it finally died today. theres go 300$ I don't have...tin trailers are ovens in the summer >>
Posted 07/22/08 at 09:17pm Cheater87: http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/132121.20080723.Saints-Row-2-uncensored-in-Australia/
I know what poaching is. My point is that a lot of the time, when people hunted on the king's land, they didn't do so to "stick it to the Man", they did so because they were hungry, or starving even. I don't think having to pay people to enjoy the entertainment they created compares to not getting enough to eat.
@Zippy:
I'm not completely certain try-before-you-buy is covered by fair use (even if perhaps it should be). You're not, AFAIK, entitled to see trailers for a movie before you buy a ticket (yes, movie trailers are everywhere, but they don't have to be), much less walk out of the movie theatre 15 minutes into the movie and demand your money back.
And as for pricing: Yes, games are too expensive. However, in a free society, it is the right of the owner of some property or other to set the price he wants for it. In a face-to-face situation, a prospective buyer can then haggle. But in a mass market, if you want to buy, you pay the price. If you think it's too expensive, you don't buy. It's as simple as that.
This is particularly relevant for games, IMO. If you don't want to pay full price for a game, you can wait six months, and you will most likely be able to get it for around half-price. This is the principled approach to overpricing. It is also, just possibly, a more effective approach than pirating.
Products like games, where the physical production cost of the individual unit are minuscule compared to the development costs, cost what they cost because that's what people are willing to pay. It is certainly possible that the collective managements of all the major publishers are stupid enough not to realize that they'd make more money (due to increased sales) if they lowered prices, but I wouldn't bet on it. If they know nothing else, these guys know money. IOW, if people consistently waited for games to drop in price before shelling out, the publishers would more than likely get the hint. Unlike piracy, they wouldn't really have any other course of option than following the market, unless they like having their games collecting dust on store shelves.