All of the "well I paid for it later/bargain bin/whatever" gladhanding is just nonsense. Yeah people do it but if they were doing it in anywhere near the numbers suggested by forum bullshit then we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

Going back to the social contract, what we have in place is very simple: someone makes and prices a product. Consumer decides to pay price and obtain the product. If not, the only ethical choices are to negotiate the price or abstain. That is the only equitable solution for both parties. But you seem to think the other party doesn't matter and you get to invent your own rules. Again, you can do that, but it's unethical.

This also doesn't seem particularly fair to those who fork over the $60 upfront cost versus those who download it for free. Those who pay are supporting (financially) those who don't.

If you were ethical, you'd simply wait then buy and enjoy the game after it has hit a price you can live with. The fact that you want to enjoy the game but pick your own arbitrary price is a just a rationalization for unethical behavior on your part.

For what it's worth I'd agree that often corporations are "greedy" in the sense that they focus on short term profits at the expense of a stronger long term view (which tends to benefit both companies and customers, in the long term).

Receiving a product for free is greed in it's purest form. While I don't think of myself as a greedy person I do recognize that when I download a game because I don't feel like waiting for it to come out in 2 months with DRM tacked on, that's for my own benefit. Should the industry change? Maybe.

1) Without being Jerykk's conscience or somehow tapped into his subconscious, I can't definitively say that personal greed is not Jeryyk's motivating factor, true. Conversely, I also can't say I know for a fact that it is. I know myself fairly well, however, and I can say that while Jeryyk and I are certainly no strangers to disagreement on a variety of things, I agree with him (mostly) on the point that pirates have a secondary benefit to the industry. I know greed is not what drives me.

Having a difference of opinion on something of this scale is not something you can sidestep with "well we're all unique snowflakes", especially when that opinion is grounded in nothing but personal greed and a need to justify your own actions.

None of that is a response to the points I brought up that defeat your entire argument. Falling back on "well its my opinion!" is a crutch not worthy of those with intelligence. Everyone has an opinion, informed opinions are a different matter.

That thought assumes that the inability to sell games you purchased would hinder you from more buying more games, which I am not willing to stipulate.

I am sure it would effect new game sales to some degree, but enough to compare to the money lost in Gamestop through their massive used sales initiative? I doubt it.

These people do not care, just like pirates do not care. It is the same mentality.

1) Buying a used copy of game provides developers and publishers with exactly $0.

I didn't ignore it, I just don't understand it. Please explain to me how pirating a game and then buying it for $30 is different from not pirating it and buying it for $30. The end result is exactly the same.

You need to realize that arguing ethics isn't going to sway me at all. You need to argue logic.

Given publishers' public denouncement of used sales and their concerted efforts to quell them, I'd say that no, the upstream cash flows from the used market don't overcome cannibalization of new game sales.

I think they would much rather be making money on $50 games, rather than having consumers wait until they are on sale for $5.

If you can get away with it, the law really doesn't apply to you. Again, laws are nothing without enforcement.

In your case, the developers lost a potential sale because you were unwilling to take a risk and instead presumed to know the exact worth of a game you've never played. In my case, I tried a game I wasn't sure about, liked it and then rewarded the developers appropriately.

I don't think you want to permit yourself to accept the logical conclusion that a pirate paying $30 for game is exactly the same as a non-pirate paying $30 for a game.

Nope. Ethics are completely subjective and laws are completely arbitrary. The act of piracy itself has no inherent moral value to me. What matters to me are the end results. If piracy helps me make better purchases and in turn reward better developers, that's all I care about.

In the end, your argument is basically this: You don't like the idea that people can use a product before paying for it. That's it. It doesn't matter how much you pay or whether developers see a penny of it. All that matters is whether or not you play a game before buying it. Waiting for a game to go on sale for $5 is perfectly ethical, even if the enjoyment you derive from that game is worth $50. It's perfectly okay, though, because it's legal and if it's legal, it must be right.

He is correct in the fact that a used sale and a pirated game are the same thing. If your focus is on supporting the PC as a gaming platform, as is mine, then you avoid both.

Probably the same reason you try to refute my logic. We both have strong opinions and if people say something we disagree with, we explain why.

Fixed, variable and overhead costs have nothing to do with absolute numbers. It's about the nature of the costs.

Overhead costs are portions of costs associated with the company as a whole which are assigned to a particular product (i.e. administration and general business costs).

Fixed costs are costs assigned to a particular product regardless of units produced (i.e. programmer salaries).

Variable costs are costs assigned incurred on a per unit basis (i.e. packaging & distribution).

Video games are mostly fixed costs and overhead costs, with a small variable component.

He's not correct. A used game sale provides a stream of cash to either retailers or individuals, which in turn helps feed the primary market. Piracy doesn't have any cash flow.

He's not correct. A used game sale provides a stream of cash to either retailers or individuals, which in turn helps feed the primary market. Piracy doesn't have any cash flow.

Jerykk, I noticed you completely ignored the very first part of my post regarding variable support costs and games in the marketplace. That right there is a key difference between waiting and buying a game, versus obtaining a pirated copy, then buying it later.

Unless you want to break the law and be unethical.

Actually, it depends on whether upstream cash flows from the used market overcomes cannibilization of new game sales.

Not necessarily. I imagine they are making money on $5 games on Steam (distribution costs being minimal), otherwise there would be little point in having all those sales.

IOW, you don't get to go out and simply disregard any law you don't like.

Or if you don't believe me, go commit a burglary, then try to argue the law doesn't apply to you.

I am abstaining until the price drops. If the price doesn't drop, I don't buy the game.

The difference is again, I am making an ethical trade off as per the social contract (i.e. not playing the game) and you are not.

I don't think you want to permit yourself to do that.

By illegally downloading it.

I would say that over 95% of the time I am satisfied with my purchase.

And you just have to be unethical and violate the law in the process. And you still don't see a problem here?

The only reason Jeykk is wrong is because the same piracy that allows him access to what he calls demos is used by the majority as a way to avoid payment altogether.

He is correct in the fact that a used sale and a pirated game are the same thing. If your focus is on supporting the PC as a gaming platform, as is mine, then you avoid both.

But what about everybody in-between?

If you buy used games, there is no profit.

If you only buy games once they're really cheap, there's usually no profit.

They are inherently arbitrary.

Wouldn't it be more ethical to buy the game at the original asked price?

We decide on how much we value the product and then we pay that much to the creator.

I don't see any difference.

I decide by playing the game myself.

Your approach has a high margin of error.

There is no margin of error in my approach. I know exactly how I feel about any game before I buy it. It is the very definition of informed purchase.

People who pirate a game are essentially piggybacking on the finances of those who pay for the game. This also doesn't seem particularly fair to those who fork over the $60 upfront cost versus those who download it for free.

You claimed that "Laws themselves are arbitrary rules". They are not arbitrary in principle.

Going back to the social contract, what we have in place is very simple: someone makes and prices a product. Consumer decides to pay price and obtain the product. If not, the only ethical choices are to negotiate the price or abstain.

This is the difference between waiting for a price drop versus downloading the game now. I choose to abstain from purchasing a game at price $X. As a consequence, I do not play the game. You, on the other hand, want to have your cake and eat it to. You think the rules don't apply to you, but you want what the developers are creating anyway. If you were ethical, you'd simply wait then buy and enjoy the game after it has hit a price you can live with. The fact that you want to enjoy the game but pick your own arbitrary price is a just a rationalization for unethical behavior on your part.

Alright, Jerykk. How about you give me a new car today, and I'll pay you next year when the new models come in and the price drops in half. Does that sound fair? For the argument we'll assume you have an inifinite supply of cars.

You assume every pirate chooses the method for demonstration purposes when the main draw of piracy is free goods and everything else is secondary.

I don't know why you constantly try to legitimize your habit, it's almost like listening to a drug addict rationalize.

If they had true large fixed overhead costs, you wouldn't see some games with a 1-3 million dollar budget and others with a 40 million dollar budget.