Bummer, I missed out on this thread. Funny though because I was involved in pretty much the same discussion on another forum recently. I think Sepharo pretty much has it right. Amillenialist, of course, has it wrong as usual.

What Sepharo said.

Oh hell, I'll elaborate anyway.

If everything is "moral," then nothing is moral. If everyone's moral code is equally valid, then no behavior can be condemned as "immoral."

I think you just hit the nail on the head (albeit unintentionally). If morality were absolute, people couldn't have differing morals and life would be much simpler. We wouldn't need police or religion and there would be no war.

Alas, morality is not absolute which is why conflict exists. The Germans and the Japanese believed they were doing the right thing during WW2. Were they? In their minds, yes. In the minds of everyone else, no. Thankfully, this isn't a popularity contest so the majority opinion doesn't really matter. Morality is simply a set of rules by which you live your life. Just because someone has a different set of rules than you doesn't make them inherently immoral or amoral.

This comment was edited on May 20, 2010, 23:30.

Cultural relativism is an interesting concept with the motivation to preserve particularly under-developed tribes from being influenced by modern society. The problem is tends to look at those people as inferior lab-rats that shouldn't be educated nor civilized.

Amillennialist wrote on May 20, 2010, 03:54:

You do realize that morality is purely subjective, right?

Moral relativism is inherently self-contradictory and therefore false. If everything is "moral," then nothing is moral. If everyone's moral code is equally valid, then no behavior can be condemned as "immoral."

I don't think you know what relative means. In a culture that practices "honor killings" not performing that "duty" would be immoral although most cultures would consider "honor killing" immoral.

Morality is relative between cultures and subjectively interpreted by individuals.

You do realize that morality is purely subjective, right?

Moral relativism is inherently self-contradictory and therefore false. If everything is "moral," then nothing is moral. If everyone's moral code is equally valid, then no behavior can be condemned as "immoral."

And that means that the serial killer, the terrorist, the rapist, and the pedophile are just as "moral" as you are.

If you disagree, then you're claiming "that your own sense of morality is somehow absolute and universal." Some might call that "a bit pretentious."

Can someone take the product of your labor at a price less than you're willing to sell it? Would that not be theft (or slavery)? Is stealing from you "moral"?

Yeah that's pretty much accurate Bob except reverse preorders and initial month sales. Preorders on large AAA titles are the exception.

I imagine the publisher makes the most on pre-orders (non-refundable), then a bit more when a game is released full price, then it trickles into a small and slow cash flow by occasional sales.

"MORAL" IS PAYING THE AMOUNT THE OWNER OF THE MERCHANDISE IS ASKING BEFORE USING THE MERCHANDISE.

You do realize that morality is purely subjective, right? If you look it up in the dictionary, I'm pretty sure you won't find your definition. To claim that your own sense of morality is somehow absolute and universal seems a bit pretentious. Don't worry, I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it, for the reasons I've mentioned.

That said, it's rather humorous that you can't actually refute any of my specific points and instead insist on repeating the same shallow proclamation over and over (in all caps, no less). I'm sorry but those big letters won't close the numerous holes in your logic.

Here's a question that you will hopefully answer instead of regurgitating the same statement over and over. Why do you consider what you do to be moral? A moral act is typically viewed as an act of altruism, is it not? One in which you consider the repercussions of your own actions upon other parties. Most people would consider it immoral to steal candy from a baby. Why? Because it will make the baby cry and crying babies are sad babies. Making people sad for your own benefit is considered immoral.

So who are the parties involved in this particular moral dilemma? Publishers, developers and consumers. Publishers and developers want you to pre-order games at full price (collector's editions if possible). They determine their development and marketing budgets based on expected sales at these prices. If a game sells well at full price within a month, publishers and developers are happy. Publishers are more likely to sign more projects with developers and developers are more likely to see actual profit from the game they made. A moral consumer would always want the developers to benefit from their purchase. However, for this to happen, the purchase needs to be made at the original asking price. If the consumer waits five months and buys the game for $20, the developer will not benefit. Only the consumer will benefit because he saved $30. Therefore, a moral consumer would always buy games at full price and pre-order whenever possible.

You are not a moral consumer. I am not a moral consumer. We are intelligent consumers. Our motives are not completely altruistic but they aren't completely selfish either. We are both willing to pay what we believe a game is worth. The difference is that I form my belief based on the experience of playing the game, whereas you form your belief based on reviews, word of mouth, trailers, etc. In the end, none of that matters to publishers or developers. The only things that matter to them are: 1) If you buy the game. 2) When you buy the game. 3) How much you pay for the game.

Hey psycho!
Take a cheel peel.


logical ~ legal ~ moral

It's a Venn diagram.

Dude. Your argument that paying the most necessary equates to "moral" just proves that you're a sociopath.

Christ, you're going to make me go all shift key on you. Again. Because it's the only way to get through your skull.

"MORAL" IS PAYING THE AMOUNT THE OWNER OF THE MERCHANDISE IS ASKING BEFORE USING THE MERCHANDISE. IT ISN'T PAYING THE MAXIMUM ASKED, IT'S REFRAINING FROM BENEFIT UNTIL YOU GIVE ONE IN RETURN. THE PRICE WILL FALL, SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL THEN. YOU NEEDN'T PAY THE MOST ASKED. BUT YOU NEED TO PAY WHAT IS CURRENTLY ASKED.

My god. Have you ever been clinically diagnosed? It's amazing. I'm genuinely afraid for you.

Even if certain retailers knock the price down early (aka a sale), it's still not screwing over publishers and devs, as the retailers are cutting THEIR share, not the PUB/DEV share.

If retailers lower their prices, it's usually because the games are not selling well. If games aren't selling well, retailers won't buy more from the publisher. In addition, publishers have repeatedly stated that the first month of sales is the most important. The first month of sales can mean the difference between a studio signing a new project and going out of business.

So, if you truly want to be a moral consumer, you should pre-order all games. Otherwise you're just being cheap and selfish.

And the publishers and developers said that when? I missed the post that Blue put up about them saying that, or is that just you saying that on their behalf since they are so confused and thinking that it's you, the PC gaming pirate, that is hurting them.

Do you really need publishers to publicly announce that they want you to pay for their games at full price? If logic alone isn't sufficient for you, look at all the pre-order incentives publishers are whipping up. Publishers very obviously want you to pay full price and buy games as soon as they're available.

In the eyes of publishers and developers, you are screwing them over.

And the publishers and developers said that when? I missed the post that Blue put up about them saying that, or is that just you saying that on their behalf since they are so confused and thinking that it's you, the PC gaming pirate, that is hurting them. (like Mike Capps is saying in a published articule?)

Cos I'd say it's you (people like you) that is forcing these companies to put the online activations and DRM that is so wildly popular in their games, so thanks heaps for that, I love those moments of having to online activate my games.

Even if certain retailers knock the price down early (aka a sale), it's still not screwing over publishers and devs, as the retailers are cutting THEIR share, not the PUB/DEV share. How amazingly dense are you?


Again, you're a sociopath. You care only about yourself and are willing to piss on the rights of anyone else for your own needs. Sociopath. For the love of god I hope you're not allowed around small children.

Yes, which is why the price miraculously drops in every single retailer at the exact same time.

Froogle

You were saying?

In any case, my point remains untouched. The MSRP for most games is $50. The game's budget was formed around this price and with expectations that the game would sell a certain amount of units within a certain amount of time. If you wait five months and buy the game for $20 instead of $50, you are not paying the original asking price. In the eyes of publishers and developers, you are screwing them over.

Back in those days you'd find bargain bins of majorly discounted products they were trying to unload. When's the last time you saw that?

NewEgg Bargain Bin

Amazon bargain bin

Gogamer bargain bin

This comment was edited on May 18, 2010, 17:11.

Yes, which is why the price miraculously drops in every single retailer at the exact same time. It isn't that the publisher dropped the price, it's that retailers all share some great hivemind like in Avatar and have instant access to the same knowledge and make the same decisions...


Riiiiigghht. So you also think, then, that the retailer pays the same for every game regardless of whether it's $20 or $50.


Not only are you a sociopath but an ill-advised one. Price drops were once retailer based, when retailers purchased lots of games. Back in those days you'd find bargain bins of majorly discounted products they were trying to unload. When's the last time you saw that? Pricing is vastly more organized now. When Fallout 3 drops to $29.99 that decision is by Bethesda, not GameStop or Target.

"Right" is paying someone that owns something what they're asking for it or not taking it at all.

The asking price for most games is $50. When prices drop, that's a decision on behalf of the retailer, not the developers. If you aren't paying $50, you aren't paying the asking price of the developers.

"Right" is paying someone that owns something what they're asking for it or not taking it at all.


Sorry you're too warped to understand this. I never realized what a sociopath you are.

Because it's illegal.

I think we've established that legality doesn't really concern me.

And boosting the dl/seeding stats helping doom your favorite hobby?

As I've mentioned countless times before, I don't use torrents.

While I openly admit it's different, as it isn't a physical good (which is why I go nuts when people compare used cars to used games), you're still taking $50 of value and paying only $20.

Hold on there. Why is the value $50? If that's the case, shouldn't you be buying all games at full price? Or is value dictated solely by how recently the game was released? That's pretty strange logic, as it apparently discounts quality entirely. I've purchased 10-year-old games for full price because I've felt the experience was worth full price.

Games are worth less for two reasons: 1) they've aged and are no longer as cutting edge or innovative and 2) the demand has lessened.

So you establish a game's value based on how pretty it looks and how popular it is? By that logic, shouldn't you be pre-ordering every new CoD, Halo and GoW game?

Your hardware/car analogy is flawed. Hardware quality is determined by objective measures of performance and features. A 2011 Ferrari has more performance and features than a 1972 station wagon. A 5970 is faster than an X850. If you want to play games that require Shader Model 3, you'll need a newer videocard. A 5-year-old videocard has less value because it has less performance and less features. It can't even play some games. Hardware also degrades with use. A car with 500,000 miles on it will not perform as well as a car with 0 miles on it and will require a lot more maintenance.

The quality of a game experience, on the other hand, is not measured by objective considerations. A game might have crappy graphics but that won't stop me from enjoying it more than a game with slick graphics. The Penumbra games have low budgets and can't match the production values of AAA horror games like RE5, Dead Space, Silent Hill, etc. However, I loved the Penumbra games so much that I bought them all three times, while I only spent $20 on Dead Space. The value I derive from any game is based solely on my personal enjoyment of that game.

If you wait until the price is where you think it will be and then purchase it you're doing nothing wrong.

I guess that depends on your definition of "wrong." The game's budget was based around specific sales expectations. If the game's MSRP is $50, that's what the publisher and developer expected the game to sell for. If you buy a game for $20 instead of $50, aren't you essentially screwing them? Sure, it might make yourself feel better if you aren't breaking any laws but the end result is the same: you aren't paying the original asking price of the game but you're getting the exact same product as the people who paid full price. Can you really consider this "right"?

If you buy a game for $20 five months after release, you are ripping off the developer, make no mistake about it. In order to see a profit and sign new projects, developers need you to buy their games at full price and as soon as possible.

This comment was edited on May 18, 2010, 16:28.

Who really cares how he lives his life? Frankly he's not that interesting of a poster, he's a fairly one dimensional narcissist who is feeding off the attention you're giving him. Stick him on ignore and move on or deal with the fact that people out there don't share your morals. I used to waste pages arguing with him like you do but it's not worth the time or effort, he's beyond the realm of reason. It sucks that people can game society and the "system" in general but it's also human nature. He will keep pirating games and don't kid yourself, if the PC platform died tomorrow he'd just do it on the consoles too. He feels like a little digital rebel and that's what is important to him. So can we move on or has the thread reached critical mass and you're all just wanking at this point?

Why is the value of playing the game $50 when it comes out and $20 several months later? Why is the buyer ripping off the developer in a few months instead of the developer ripping off the buyer now? This is the heart of the whole issue.

He's NEVER ripping the dev off if he's paying the asking price at the time that he plays the game.

If you feel the asking price is too high don't pay it. But don't play it, either. You, as the consumer, are not allowed to name your own price in this situation. Like most situations. You can wait until the owner of the good lowers the price.

Most things are worth less as they get older, particularly technology. Games are worth less for two reasons: 1) they've aged and are no longer as cutting edge or innovative and 2) the demand has lessened.
If you walk into Best Buy and look at LCD TVs you'll see that older models are selling for less than when they came out. Walk onto a car lot and see that older models are selling for less than they came out. Walk into Best Buy again and see that older DVDs are selling for less than when they came out. Go to Newegg and see that older video cards are selling for less than when they came out. Go to Microsoft and see that older versions of Windows are selling for less than when they came out (if they're sold at all.)

You can't simply say "well, the price will fall, but I want it now, so I'm taking it. IOU money when your asking price is where I value it" and not be a giant, arrogant, flaming dickhead.


If you wait until the price is where you think it will be and then purchase it you're doing nothing wrong. You're actually showing self-restraint. Something many people seem to lack. That or self-awareness. With Jerykk it seems to be both.