If the only reason to pay for game is to support developer, isn't that donation?

If the only reason to pay for game is to support developer, isn't that donation?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/6txs6
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes. So donate.

Yup.

no you fucking retard, it's to pay for a product that they put up for sale.
shit thread kill yourself

but you can get it for free? why would you pay for it?

Because you want to.

No, a donation would give all the money to the developer, no middle man jew. therefore better

Donation in truth implies no work is being done. The proper word would be tip.

Working was done, and deserved to be rewarded. If you liked the game anyway.

...

Bottled water.

unless the product was free in the first place, it's not free.
piracy doesn't delete the pricetag from existence for everybody.
you pay to receive a product. acquiring it by other means is a whole different can of worms.

Bottles aint free :^)

most developers don't take donations, and when they do its a bad sign

...

That's not accurate. A donation doesn't imply that, non-profit organizations do lots of work, charitable or otherwise, and are supported by donations. many scholarships are funded by donations as well as museums and public works of art.

Calling it a tip is inaccurate, as the devs themselves haven't actually provided a service. the tip would be the cut Steam or whatever other delivery system takes.

The work devs do is more like an artist working in residence than anything else. Their livelihood and work costs are covered by public donation to foundations, as their work is released to the public either as public art or to private institutions that make them freely accessible to the public - just like the dev's games


Are you retarded?

It's about two hours walk down to the nearest river. You best believe water is fucking free. Also this:

In any event, paying for water is fucking stupid.

I'm confused as to why you of all people would be unsure of what is and what isn't a donation

And even you're still paying for the convenience of not traveling 2 hours and back with a couple jugs of water.

There's zero cost to pirating [most] games, even in many cases, even negative cost - with less intrusive DRM and less trouble with mods. Multiplayer games are the obvious exception.

I doubt bottled water sales are very high in communities with immediate, easy access to clean, free water.

...

Your fault for living in an urban hellhole. You people traded the convenience of being able to live a healthy life for the chance to have high-rises and office jobs.

archive.is/6txs6
lol

Why? to support developers? isn't that donation?


Me?

But why don't they?

I dunno, user, it depends on the person. I can't tell you why you want to do something.

nevermind. Shitty 2hu joke

Well shit. North Jersey isn't as uncontaminated as I thought it was

If the devs offered donations, people might clue into the fact it's their own choice whether or not to 'tip' them for the game. It's better for them to keep pretending they're actually selling something then make donations open and easy.

For example, theyd get a lot more sales from pirates if they had a pay what you want system, but then they'd lose the cucked steamkid audience who never considered they weren't buying a fixed price product, which is ultimately much more of the market. They'd do better to just dodge the subject of donations altogether and keep pretending they're entitled to the players' money.

because it's kinda like making a kickstarter, more and more people view it as asking for a hand out before the product is delivered

Reminder that this is purposeful so you have to buy the jew water filled with salt and other additives.

yes

No because funding comes from publishers, not consumers, purchasing a game creates a sale which shows publishers that they can trust the developer to continue to create a marketable product. See what happens when consumers fund the development of product based on promises?
The problem stems from publishers thinking they are creators and acting on the whims of increasing temporary shareholder value rather than aiming for long term sustainable profit.

However since $0.00 is the new /baph/ meme I guess the answer is: ,'^]=

But doesn't mean they are lying and misleading to their own fans and supporters? just for money? isn't that scam?

What the fuck are you getting at, already?

Yes.

I seriously hope nobody actually drinks gatorade if they don't want diabetes.

If they are lying, then why support? why give donation?

what happened to akari's eyes? she looks scary

So that they can continue to make games that are good.
Pirating everything, and then buying the game if it's good to vote with your wallet.

Devs are paid by publishers. The money they live on is a frontloaded cost before the game is ever released. This is why publishers exist. Revenue after the game is released mostly goes to publishers, which is why it doesn't really matter if you ever buy games. Publishers are a dime a dozen, simple moneymen taking out loans and managing cash flows. Their input on the creative process can only ever be negative and they are easily replaced.

If you want to change this model, you'd be talking about a Patreon or Kickstarter styled scheme where users directly preorder games that don't exist. The need to house and feed creators while they create doesn't go away if you cut out publishers. No one creates anything of value when they don't know where their next meal is coming from.

Only faggots who've never moved out of their parents' house and thus never paid municipal fees can think tap water is not paid for.

Don't

...

...

You're paying for more than just water. You're paying for the purification, the desinfection and the filtering of lake/river water. You're paying for the pumps pumping that shit possibly for tens of kilometers. You're paying for the maintenance of the water towers, which provide the actual pressure in your tap. You're paying for the maintenance of the fucking water pipes. You're paying for the convenience of being able to have water in your house directly, provided to you by your city's/town's municipal branch. This is what you pay for - for the convenience of not having to go/drive to the nearest river or lake with a bunch of empty buckets and then boiling the water yourself to desinfect it.

nigger quit acting dense

Water is basically free in the civilized world.

Yes, I was talking about the newer models of independent development. With crowdfunding, the customer has essentially replaced the publisher's role, taking on the risk of investment, but with no stake in future returns or promise of delivery. It's a mistake to think that this eliminates the "producer meddling" and market pandering, because the competitive crowdufunding process itself is a test of the market.

But OP has a point, there's a fundamental deception at play. Any game put up for sale is nothing more than a request for donation. Pitching it as a product for sale is false advertising.

Nobody is entitled to money for a worthless product just because they spent a lot of time designing it. If you like videogames, you would still take it upon yourself to help incentivoze their development - but thst isn't a justification for a destructive and exploitative deception played on consumers, backed by distorted (and unenforced) interpretation of copyright laws, and at the expense of our arguable right & obvious net good to the free access to media and culture.

It's inexcusable. The industry will always find a way to survive and monetize, exploiting the consumer, especially for indie devs, is not justified and shouldnt be supported.

So your point? The reason why I pay for my Japanese games is so that more of it gets made. I can easily pirate or become a nigger and buy used.

But if I don't fund degeneracy who will?

He's trying to provide moral justifications for pirating, instead of being the sensible pirate and going "because I don't want to pay for this shit/because fuck you". Nobody gives a shit about why you pirate here, so don't try to justify it, it's a waste of a post count.

The relationship between Holla Forums and money regarding video games is complex.
After many years observing anons here i've reached the following conclusion, this is what Holla Forums ultimately wants:

1-Games should only cater to Holla Forums as their main audience, nobody else, ever.

2-Games shouldn't become too big else they're normalfag shit, or too small, else they're hipster shit.

3-Games should have no story.

4-Framerate should always be 60+, for any genre.

5-Graphics don't matter unless the game is on PC, then it must be a new groundbreaking benchmark of visual spectacle, else it's shit.

6-All games should be free, forever, if you pay for a video game you're a complete cuck, regardless if you like the game or not.

7-All devs are SJW cucks, even devs of games you played and liked.

More like so you have to buy water filters

Top kek

most goy just buy the shitty filters that add as much crap as they filter

Why there are people repl
Oh fuck

t. 2011 "oldfag"

nailed your ass huh?

You pay for it every time you pay your taxes.

1-What's wrong with wanting more games to be made that you'll like?
2-Games being popular isn't really a problem. And small shit isn't a problem. it's just that a lot of popular shit happens to be awful, and a lot of obscure shit happens to be awful. It has nothing to do with being popular or obscure, that's just incidental.
3.Depends on the game. I think gameplay should be the priority, and the story should be told through the gameplay instead of through cut scenes, but story isn't a bad thing, and can make good games great, but a good story can't make a bad game good.
4.As long as it runs well it doesn't matter too much. As long as the framerate being slow isn't intrusive into immersion.
5.Graphics matter only to the point that it adds to the game. REALISM doesn't matter, but artstyle does. As long as you can easily tell what everything is and all the information needed is communicated through the visuals it's fine.
6-I'd say pirate all games to try, then pay for games that are good and new, in order to encourage companies to make more games like that one.
7.Not all are, just a lot.

So you mean vote with your wallet is code word for donation?

Care to explain, or are you telling me to drink lead?

...

I guess so.
Jesus, you're a pretty cute smug little anime girl, I might have to hold your hand and pat your head

...

That isn't a victory for you.
If the TPP gets passed everyone gets fucked over.

Yes, but I won't be going to prison.

...

No it isn't. Fuck off gook.

If you enjoy something you are indebted. Payment should go to more of what you like, which can be through the artist.

Animu isn't what you like, you like to degrade and then assume as if that will make you superior. Unfuck yourself you have none to blame for your state but yourself and others like you who hae done the same to you.

Stay away from media designed to lack beauty. Get away from those who reward you for selling your soul.

What are you a shill? "Buyfags" are being fed an industry generated line about an ethical duty to spurn the free market and the nature of digital "goods" Through charitable support of an industry selling products of no real value. It's a complete ideological shift with far reaching consequences on the market.

Yes, the pirate's motivations are first and foremost in his self-interest, but that in itself is a defense of free market principles, which is what the pirate represents. The question of who is in the ethical right is completely pertinent to the issue as even the most casual analysis would land you on the side of the pirate without any doubt. It is incredibly obvious how twisted and insincere the moralfags' supposed ethical duty is, nothing more than attempt from a dying industry to capture the last dollars it can through deception and extortion. The pirate doesn't need to make any justifications for his actions, for he is doing God's work already.

You don't have a duty to buy games. You have a duty to pirate and dismantle the faulty paradigm of "buying" games. The only ones complicit in the destruction of the industry, and the only ones who have to justify themselves, are buyfags.

Is this a real post? Or some sort of copypasta?

...

All copypasta started life as a real post. I might fix the typos and save it for later use

I wonder who is behind this entire thread.

What happened with publishers is downright criminal.
Back in the golden years of gaming, you had a ton of different publishers scrambling for studios hoping that one of them would launch them into the big time.
Then EA came along and fused devs with publishers to create the worst company on earth.

Naturaly I want to play the game I like. Why would I play the game that doesn't appeal to me?

Yes. Balance is a sign of competent developer.

It may have one, but it's not important.

Absolutely.

PC is the only relevant platform anyway, might as well use its resources.

There should be a donation button, but that's about it.

That's not true at all.

Yes, in a perfect world videogames would be donateware, sadly videogames get jew'd out by big publishers and corporations that only see videogames as a means for profit.

Also there's no guarantee you will donate to the dev if you enjoyed their videogame.

Video games take time to make and time is money so it's only fair they're compensated for their loss of time, unless it's the creators wish for the game to be free, you should feel a moral obligation to support the developer if you enjoy said game.
If you don't pay for a game that you enjoy and can afford, you're nothing short of a sociopath.

I agree, but most people buy games they don't even enjoy that they haven't even tried before, and they call everyone that wants to try a game before they buy it evil.

Which I agree is stupid.

I save all of the artwork and files I like from online and keep them stored on a computer with no internet connection, no wireless connections, and a password that I have written down nowhere.

What about you?

Hardly the case outside of indies.
Most of the time devs are merely contracted and paid in advance miserable salaries at that.

Look at all these retards falling for the bait. We had this same exact thread two fucking days ago. OP, I know people probably don't have capitalism in your third world shithole, but here it fucking works. While you're reading up on that, how about you go learn how to speak English? Maybe with some education you can get a fucking job!

Well devs stop getting jobs if their games don't sell, you pay them indirectly.

You're still not paying the devs but the publisher 95% of the time though.
Worst of it all is how most of the time you're funding sequels that butcher the series these days because everything is getting casualized and turned into shit, let's not even mention how japanese games and localization goes where the real devs don't see a fucking cent anyway and the industry being so fucking shit Holla Forums has to look up to indies and kikestarter projects.

No it isn't. If you spend 1,000 hours designing a cheap lamp, it will still only sell for $20 at BB&B. It's the value of the good that's relevant, not the time spent making it.

It's your own problem for somehow thinking you would randomly profit off investing in developing a digital good you're already well aware will be freely available and worth nothing. People aren't obligated to give you money just be they feel bad about your utter stupidity in that regard.

The creator doesn't have any say in this. It's not his fucking choice. No matter what he does, thinks, believes or wishes for, the game will be free.

It's much, much easier to argue that people have a right to the free access of information and culture. It's in the fucking UN Declaration of Human Rights.

There is no right saying that the state should help businesses extort the people into renting their arbitrary licenses to access freely available information aka "buying a game" by threat of lawsuits using nonsense lobbyist distortions of copyright law.

The moral obligation lies on the industry to stop being such greedy fucking kikes, not in the people to enable them.

You're paying the retailer, who gives money to the logistics and publisher. The dev studio sees maybe $6-20 per game sold

> It's the perceived value of the good that's relevant

FTFY
See: Any AAA game, Beats by Dre, etc.

I don't think you've ever made anything in your life.

The value of a product is not just measured by the things it is composed of. In fact, value is nonexistent except for the willingness of the consumer to purchase at such a value and the producer to prevent the sale at a lower price. I will not buy a $10 bottle of water, the producer loses sales because of this. They are either forced to swallow the loss or lower their price, if they cannot cover the lower price- they go broke.

...

I just see buying as a form of voting. Me buying a game is saying I want more of this or more like this. However never pre-order fucking anything you don't know if it will be shit until it's out. Always research before you buy and don't buy shit just because it's the flavor of the month.

I do and I follow what I believe. Though I don't have anything against fleecing retards through a little scamming, but I don't deny it either. Fuck off


That's right. More specifically, the consumer's perceived value. That's why it's so important devs defend their fragile narrative of moral obligations and all their hard work and inherent entitlement, etc. As long as consumers believe piracy is not an option and the dev's snake oil licenses are actually necessary, they can continue shilling their worthless goods.

But the moment they wake up, the whole scheme falls apart.

And your beliefs are juvenile and have no basis in reality. If you want to see your beliefs in action, take a look at Breeding Season.

GOOD GOYIM KEEP TRYING THAT TAP WATERS IT'S SAFE
WHAT ARE YOU, SOME CONSPIRACY RETARD?

That's a funny thing to say when I'm discussing economics, and you're discussing vague moral compensations

I haven't been paying attention to it. The project fell apart due to team drama or something?

When the fuck did I ever say anything about a moral duty? Pirate everything if you like, I don't give a shit. You've already got enough people to argue with by the looks of it.

Basic gist of it is the artist fucked off with all the assets because the contract was so poorly-written that he could actually do that whenever he wanted.

Support the developer and the publisher.

The fact that they split up is irrelevant, the point in that case is that there was no incentive to deliver a finished product, so progress was rarely made, three years and they have next to nothing to show for it.
Which you clearly have no understanding of. Are you aware that food and shelter cost money? How would a game developer support themselves if nobody paid for games? And do you honestly think many people would pay for games if given the choice?
I sure the fuck wouldn't choose to make a game if nobody paid for them.

Also if games were all free, you'd just see more low-effort freemium games.

Patreon for video games, movies, or anything else that you are supposed to make and finish make no sense. The way Patreon is structured incentivizes the developer to just take as long as possible. Then just put out tiny updates every once in a while to keep people from thinking you ceased development. The only way I can see Patreon working out is for a game that is multiplayer only and the Patreon money is just for adding new content to the game while keeping the actual game either free or a solid one-time price.

Are you retarded?

Games should be available to buy or pirate, but be good enough that you feel obligated to pay for it or not if it's shit

I don't support Kikestarter for funding digital products. It's a clear abuse of the platform and completely irresponsible on the donators part.

Look, see, you're talking moral obligations and not economic reality. As a consumer, I don't have any duty to feed other people. You can say I might as a good christian, or a member of the white race or a nation or some community, I should help my fellow man, but it doesn't have to do with the realities of the market. Charity is not an obligation, and if I was going to do it, I don't see why I'd choose to give charity to the poor entitled SFcuck game devs rather than the actually needy.

If they were worried about food and shelter, they shouldn't have spent their time building a digital good that they've no ability to sell. As I said, I'm not obligated to support their stupid mistakes. Normally in a free market, poorly run companies fail, freeing up the resources for more efficient companies to make use of. They don't get subsidized by idiot redditors.

At this point you'll say, but what about the games? Game will still be made. Extortion and false advertising isn't the only possible way to monetize digital goods, other industries have been through the same process and multiple alternative models already have a successful place in videogame's history.

It's possible, but the counter argument is the very high quality output of the historical freeware scene. Almost all the classics of indie development in the internet era are free ware: Aurora, Dwarf Fortress, La-Mulana, etc. I don't any from the early access/kickstarter era that can stand up to them.

The idea is that if the entire community releases their work FOSS, it makes the barrier of entry lower, as the resources are already available, thus allowing for an explosion of game development with its proportional share of inspired gems.

Instead, today, we have greedy devs hoarding everything they do for fear of not being able to scam as many children if they give anything away, thus forcing every single person to independently model all the same chairs and doorknobs, write the same modules, etc. making the game development take far longer and cost far more than it would've otherwise.

They can do that when they've made a game I want to buy.
If they wanted the money up front, they should've gotten a publisher.

No I quite clearly switched to economics, as you said that's what you were talking about, since you clearly lack a moral compass anyways.
Only indie ones. I'd rather not have this happen as there's lots of non-indie games that I enjoy. In your world, many of my favourite games would not have been made.

That's why I'm saying they shouldn't be free, unless the creator chooses it to be.

...

Don't be retarded user, it's a product you're buying.


Not really, since it's ultimately up to the publisher if they get jobs or not.

No you didn't. You're just talking about morality in regards to money. Why would a consumer owe them any money? They haven't made anything of real value and aren't providing any service.

And you can keep talking about your perfect morals, but you haven't provided any defense for why they're right. Your moral compass is a lot more fucked up if you'd rather give charity to entitled upper middle class SF cuck gamedevs than oppressed starving nigerian autists


kek

Video games are products, user.

You're right, we should be donating to the true heroes: the crackers, uploaders and seeders.


Really? Then why aren't they for sale?

I've never seen a video game you couldn't buy.

Well, you're wrong. Disk or steam, you're paying for a service: rent to the license that says your access to the software associated with the game is not infringing on any copyright

. There is no product, there is no game for sale and the only service provided is immunity from the company's own threat of state action.

I'm still able to play my PS2/3 games and watch my movies whenever I want, so I don't know what you're getting at.

Video games are for sale. There are physical copies of games still for sale.

Okay? You're able to do that regardless if you paid for it in a store. The "game" they're selling isn't anything more than your right to do it without being sued. The rent, fyi, is usually "indefinite" and not just a few years or something - it can still be retracted just like Steam purchases, but it's implausible.


Well, with a physical product, you're also getting a physical disk/cartridge and manual. That's the product, but the game itself, i.e. the files on the disk, is digital so can't actually be sold as a product unless you're purchasing the copyrights.

This is old news. It's not new to digital era, it just made it more the hollow nature of consumer software industries more evident.

No. I realize you're intentionally obfuscating common sense about the economics of buying a product. You pay for a game because people are allowed to make something and then ask for money in exchange for owning it or having access to it. Not that I disapprove of piracy, but it completely circumvents the creator and distributes their product regardless of how they feel about it.

Honestly I don't think piracy is a big deal regardless of how morally acceptable one thinks it is. But, if you never buy games and complain that games are shitty now or some equivalent you're complaining about what a system that you are choosing to not have input on is doing. I'm not saying you can't, but it's like voting. If you complain about how an election turns out and you didn't vote you're a cunt. It's the same with complaining about what developers are doing if you don't buy video games.

With more recent games though it's more like getting the key to unlock the game in relation to DUNVO or whatever it's called.

No. You buy a game so you can share it with others who can't buy it or don't want to buy it.

People are legally allowed to do it, that doesn't mean it's right. All they're selling is the right to use the freely accessible files without being sued by them. It's extortion. They're making money through threats.

Piracy doesn't do this, the free flow of information does this. The creator can have any opinion he wants, it will never matter.

Most pirates don't abstain 100%, so your point is moot and imo buyfags have are in the moral wrong, not pirates. You're placing developer entitlement over the unhindered access to information by the public. Do you really believe the former is the greater good?


Isn't that still charity?

Not really. You're not sharing something that's really needed, like food for the hungry, or shelter for the homeless. Piracy is just common, every day sharing, but with copying. Torrenting Sony Vegas or whatever is similar to borrowing your neighbours power-tools, but you also get the power-tools yourself.

...

I've honestly not heard this point of view before. When I buy something I'm not doing so because of a perceived threat or the literal access I'm looking at someone offering me something, like a licence to use the code of a game, and asking myself if it is worth the money they are asking for. If I feel it is I buy it if I feel it isn't I don't.

I understand what you're saying, but piracy is defined as information "flowing freely" in a particular way. At least if you're talking about a video game as a collection of information or the access to them as said information otherwise I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I realize this and I'm talking about a minority of pirates. So, yes in most cases it is moot.

It's interesting that you feel that video games fall under information in the way you describe it. Did you know some libraries carry video games now? That's a way citizens have access to that information for free without destroying the concept of supply and demand. I think honestly the morality of the whole situation is pretty subjective and defines on how you want draw the line on what information the public legally should have access too. Video games I think pretty clearly are not vital information in anyway shape or form and I don't see a problem with selling that. If for instance someone was trying monetize basic information about how the human body function I'd have a problem with that, but entertainment I don't see that being a problem. Except in principle and that is a very arbitrarily extreme principle.

You're being disingenuous. That's obviously not all you're considering when the files are freely available online. It's a given that the game itself is not worth money, without a doubt. It might have something to actually offer like a nice case and manual, but then we're talking about an actual product.

For normalfags, it does come down to piracy being perceived as not worth the risk compared to the asking price, aka extortion, or them just not being informed about piracy. For everyone else, it's about donation (voting with your wallet, supporting good games, etc) or contrived morals and whatever else buyfags tell themselves

Nothing destroyed the concept of supply and demand. It was never applicable here without constructing an artificial market based on corrupt government interventions ie license selling. That's all I'm getting at. Information wants to be free, it will always naturally leak; there is no finite supply to create a digital vidya market and it's only possible through legal absurdities.

Why is it different if it's shared in a library, by the way? What if the library was online, like project gutenberg? It'd probably look something like archive.org + home of the underdogs, which is exactly what unhindered digital media looks like.

I don't think it needs to be technical information to be a good. There's a reason civilizations across history and civilization have provided libraries to the public that included as much literature as it did science. Paintings, music, films, games, literature all deserve to be archived and shared. We have one of the greatest advancements in access to culture in human history at our fingertips, and it's held back only by short-sighted greed of a few bad actors and the mass of cucks who support it.

Thank you ever so much for that questionmarked anime girl

Open an EULA sometime, newfag. You're purchasing a service, rent for a license. That's it, that's your game.

The files are thrown on the CD for convenience but it doesn't make a difference to EA if you got them on TPB, the only thing they're peddling is your right to not be sued for using them.

Sharing information is cheap, but the quality and content of information is what makes it valuable. Saying that because it's easy to "reproduce"/share/access/whatever doesn't mean it is worthless. Information is easy to access, but so is misinformation and disinformation. Likewise, you can get a shit game, a good game, or malware.
Anti piracy laws are necessary to allow incentive when creating "information/digital" products. Otherwise, there would be no economical reason for producing such music,vidya, digital art.
Paying for vidya should mean you want similar quality "information", which is why cod and popular crap keeps getting shoveled out.
Pirates logically pirate because it is cheaper, but should be discouraged from legal repercussions, but even the chances of that happening are negligible. Piracy has been noted to have some benefits because they provide things publishers and devs don't, like demoing and no costs obviously. This might in turn lead to word of mouth where it otherwise wouldn't. Yadda yadda,

I'd write more but I'm on a phone. Anyways,You buy games to incentivize devs/publishers to make things that sell. It's more relevant to smaller companies since the larger ones get by just by marketing at idiots.

Money might be irrelevant to devs that mainly want art cred, since they respond to positive attention, but they shouldn't/won't be followed by businessmen unless they know little about the industry.

...

user, you don't have hydrus?

Hydrus?
Does anyone know why the text box doesn't show up when I quote a post?

Industries adapt, user. They don't need to have the government step in to survive. If there's demand for games, they'l be made. If they cost money to make, they'll be monetized.

>>>/hydrus/ !

Something must've fucked up on Holla Forums. Maybe reboot your computer or just reopen your browser. For some reason at home I can't hover view images.

I don't understand

I'm just going to ignore you telling me how I think. I shouldn't have to point out how bad of an argument that is.

Is it? Clearly I'm sitting here saying that at least to me even the access to a licence for a video game has monetary value.

To be fair "destroy" is an extreme wording, but surely making every video game free would turn it into something entirely different.

Okay, I don't disagree with that. Nor do I think piracy should or can be stopped.

The library had to legally acquire access to the thing in question or it was legally accessible to everyone to begin with. It doesn't use piracy to get it's material is another way to say it.

I actually entirely agree. Cultural information is important. But, I don't think it goes so far that it should just be free with no questions asked.

What is so wrong with someone wanting to get paid for something they created? That's the only thing that I'm defending. Is that if someone makes something no matter how someone interacts with it the creator should be allowed to sell it in most cases. Consumers are important, but your position screws over creators in many ways. Yes some creators and publishers are awful and deserve it, but I'd rather the rules be fair to everyone than privilege consumers because some sellers are being slimy about the business of it all.

What sort of economic system are you proposing by the way? I'm curious, because I understand that providing those things for free is a legitimate idea. I just want to know what kind of system in a less specific sense you're into. Like is "information" the only thing that should be free to everyone? Do you have a political ideal you're super into?

These threads are cancer. Kill yourself 2hu fag.

"Economical reasons" being the key phrase, user.
Artists and enthusiasts may be attracted by fame or the art itself, but businessmen aren't.

The laws exists because consumers are suppose to exchange money for the thing being sold or acquire it by means deemed legal.
The govt is "stepping in" as much a making murder/stealing illegal is "stepping in" the security business.

Yes, looks you're going to ignore the points made too. Let me repeat them

What value is that? Is it perhaps
or something other value you've chosen to withhold for whatever precious reason?

Another way to say it is not make it illegal in the first place.

It's wrong to think you're entitled to money without providing value, even if put sweat & tears into it. It's wrong to think you still own of something that's been released freely to the public beyond claim to authorship. It's very wrong to limit people's free access to information to force out that money you felt entitled to.

It's called the free market. If you mean how it'd look in the context of games, you can just look to other industries who've gone through the same. This user puts it nicely
Game development isn't going to go away, and creators aren't going to starve as long as there is demand. The only thing that will ever crash the industry is the lack of demand, like in 1981.

One example of possible monetization might be a return to thoughtful physical goodies, big manuals and artbooks and OST CDs. Do you understand the difference between this and Steam? Here, they're actually giving you something in return for your money. The horror

Why do you feel you are entitled to information?
Access to certain information isn't free. ISPs have to maintain networks and power them, or are you using your neighbor's wifi? Education costs money to make sure people keep paying it on, to (hopefully) make sure what is being taught is accurate and to incentivize research. Information is easy to copy and reproduce, but some information is more valuable than others and might take resources to reach or make.

You talking about the free market but don't seem to know anything about economics. Demand isn't solely everything. If everyone wants something but aren't willing to give something in return, then there is little reason to make it.
Information isn't tangible, but it is not worthless.

Yes, it will still keep on existing and being made, but for different reasons if not money. And money has value for some people for them to invest their time in making games and art.

To make sure people keep passing it on*

All the other ones are fair, but here's the problem. You only think they should be free because of your "contrived morals" or "whatever piratefags tell themselves." It's a trap really because no matter what I say you'll just call it contrived morality and pat yourself on the back. Or do you honestly believe that a set of moral codes, principles, or laws can be objectively correct?

I pay for games because I want to influence the market with my purchases, but more so because I respect the creator's wishes on how they want their creation to be available. I don't think they should just have control of what they've made taken away from them because some guy decided it doesn't have value.

But, that's the whole point of selling things. If they don't provide value I don't buy it. In many cases if the value the creator has assigned to something I higher than my perceived value of it I also won't buy it. Isn't that a free market? Something is provided and the consumer decides whether or not it's worth the value it's offered at? If anything making things arbitrarily free is in contradiction with a free market. So, is taking away the control of the creator to choose whether or not something is free.

It's wrong to take away the creator's ability to choose whether or not what they create is free to the public.

I never said it was.

You're whole argument seems to be "the way video games are sold now they have no value to me, so they objectively have no value to anyone." If that was the case the system would have had no demand and adapted into something else.

Nah, those things are completely worthless and have no value, because I said so. And because they're such a waste of money to make companies should be morally obligated to sell games with those extras at a discount for adding wasteful things with no value.

See, I can decide the value of things too and tell you their objectively true.

Yes, your arbitrary distinction of what "has value."

Well now I'm just shocked.

Well, the thing is, I'm not relying on any morals to defend it, just basic economics. Moralfags are suggesting their morals justify intervention in the free market and the seemingly arbitrary elimination of available options. They need to actually provide a defense for why that's a good idea.

I didn't decide anything. It's just how the world is. It's not my fault. I don't think you should give them control just because you, or the government, or the lobbyists distorting copyright law far beyond its original intentions, decided they should have it, though.

The only value provided is the license they're selling, which is nothing more than a promise not to sue you. That's not a free market, the entire market relies on extorting you with a threat of state action.

They have the option. They can release it publicly, or hold it privately. No one is "taking it away" if they choose to release it publicly, it's simply what happens. It's just how the world is. I'm sorry, it's not my fault. If you release software to the public, it's going to be in the public domain.

If I haven't suggested that. I gave you multiple reasons why they do have value to consumers. I've just pointed out some of those are exploitative, relying on either extortion or an uninformed customer. You still haven't told me what monetary value they have to you beyond those reasons.

Value is what worth the consumers perceive. If you think it's worthless, but others disagree and buy it at a price, then it isn't. Sorry.


Shit b8 m8

These are things that you literally do not understand. As in they have definitions and meanings that you are showing you clearly do not understand or are not familiar with.

Except that's not entirely true. A large part of your argument seems to be video games in their current state should be available because the public is entitled to all information, and they are entitled to it because you think that providing that information is morally the correct thing to do.

See, this is what I mean. You actually think that your subjective opinion is "the way the world works."

So, I don't get to decide but you do? Why is that?

That is literally the free market. Someone is offering a service for a price. There is value and it's up to every person who sees it to decide what that specific value is. Not you.

This is different from the state taking action against someone stealing any other good or service because?

You've lost me here. I thought we we're talking about forcing creators to release their creation for free. I have no idea with public domain or concepts like death of the author.

You are literally saying that if all consumers do not agree with you they are either being extorted or are uninformed. You have left no room for people to simply not evaluate value the way you do, because you think that your analysis of value is correct objectively. That is not only wrong, but impossible.

Nothing has intrinsic value. In a selling space the creator gets to decide the value and the market gets to say if that value is "correct."

That's literally what I am saying about the steam service, and every dispute of your evaluation of something being "worthless" or "not having value." But, you're too dense and lacking in self-awareness to realize that.

That guy's making a much better argument than I am honestly.

No, that's just my argument if you did have to engage on ethical terms. I'm fairly confident moralfags are easily understood to not be in the right with any normal moral standard when you consider the big picture. But it's a separate argument

I understand that economics, and law for that matter, are subjective fields, but the question of what actors are capable of can be engaged with fairly objectively. i.e. there aren't even existing measures to 'control' what you've made. At best you can sue to stop some derivations, egregious claims to authorship and unlicensed used - you can't control or often even influence its spread, reception or parody. Control has never existed for authors of digital work.

Because I'm not deciding anything. I'm arguing the default, how things already are; stripped of ethical claims of what they should be. The only judgement claim is made on the behalf of favoring non-intervention and only criticism of the existing structure is on current copyright law and the industry's self-framing (ie as OP suggests, the false advertising that you're "buying games" and not either donating or purchasing licenses to not be sued)

It's as far from it as is possible. The free market is one with little or no government intervention. This market only exists through government enforcement.

Terrible analogy, do you know what extortion means? Obtaining money through violence or threat. Police threatening to use their exclusive powers granted by the state to jail or shoot you if you don't pay them bribe money is extortion. EA threatening to use their exclusive powers granted by the state to jail or sue you if you don't pay bribe money is extortion.

What I mean is, no matter what you say or do, in general, if you release a digital game to the public, it'll be spread across the internet. No one is forcing the creator to release it for free, it's just what happens. No one is forcing the creator to release at all, also, and no one has the power to force the internet to not spread the game, either. You can argue if it's right or wrong, but those are the facts.

I never gave disagreement with me as a reason for why they're extorted or uninformed.

That's not a response to the question. You've been saying this whole discussion you do have some reasons to attribute monetary worth to games, but for some reason keep refusing to admit what they are. It's not even that relevant to the discussion but I'm curious to know if I'm actually missing something other than the 4 reasons I listed.

And there is arguably intrinsic value in the sense of use value. The use value of buying a game is its license to save you from a lawsuit. The market value, what customers are willing to pay, is usually much more than the use value itself.

I don't think so. He doesn't seem worth engaging with. Rambling and inarticulate with poorly thought out arguments - the first is a false equivalency and the second was already addressed ITT - I don't think a discussion with him will go anywhere, if he even is serious.

I'm really confused on you're position for some reason. Are you just arguing for the free market or is there something else in there too. I think I'm also mixing up what you're saying should be and what you're saying is already functionally, but not legally the case in terms of video games being free.

In the literally sense I think EA threatening physical violence is a bit of stretch. It's only really a threat if get one of their games illegally. There's not repercussion for just not doing business with them. Except that you don't get the game I suppose, but I don't think it's wrong for a publisher or creator to want to, at least in terms of whats reasonably enforceable, control the way their service is available.

I agree. That is inevitable. On the other hand like I said in cases where it is reasonable the person who released the thing in question should have some recourse in certain situations. Not in modifications or transformative stuff of course, but in cases it's literally someone putting up something that normally requires the consumer to pay for free. Current copyright laws disgust me. It's in that very specific case were I feel they should have a recourse. Not that piracy should be impossible or that it is even reasonable to prevent or stop realistically.

No, it isn't but it's an explanation of why I have trouble answering that question. I can tell you all day why I think there's value there, but I'm not sure if there's real stable monetary value in a video game.

Could you elaborate on this? If you were trying to get me to answer this question I must of missed it. What do you mean "what they are?"

Some of what you're saying I actually understand and agree with to some degree. I don't think I'm going to stop being a buyfag anytime soon, but the perspective is interesting.

I'm surprised user. Here, have some tits

Was going to be sign up two years ago. Had to came out as last trick of obongo and now is coming out as first bullshit of carrot tan.
Stop spreading lies

Sure, that's why we send cod box to the nigglets in Africa instead of actual books right?
I've never saw a commie with shittiest opinion in my life

And if they get a publisher you don't get the game you want to pay for.
Is a egg and chicken bullshit here

No. Purchasing a game creates the whole legal contract and gives you certain rights and duties. A donation doesn't have the same connotation or legal/moral status for both parties.

Don't. She hates that.

Who is this chimp princess? Google gives me nothing.

The DOOM engine was once used as a cheap 3D modeller for a time because actual 3D modelling software cost thousands.

...

I'm a "buyfag" but I haven't bought a mainstream game in years.

#notallbuyfags

Oh and whether you buy or pirate Fallout 4 you're creating mindspace and add to the marketing hype regardless.

Hell even the threads here on Holla Forums have contributed to the game's success.

Trump is anti-TPP.

So what this seems to all come down to is try before you buy, if you like the game and can afford to, buy it so that the people who made the game can keep making good games, and so that the publisher can see where people are spending their money and be influenced by that, and that you're paying for the service that the game makers provided when they made the game, not the actual game itself.

It's not the only reason. The other reason is not invoke the wraths of Johnny Law and Johnny Corporation.