True. From consumer's standpoint, however, it's functionally identical for one to borrow that Library Edition or to download a PDF of the text. Each additional reading of that expensive edition still yields no additional revenue.faefrost said:One flaw with your "Devil's Advocacy". Libraries do not simply loan out and recirculate retail books. They buy "Library Editions". Essentially they are paying well above market value for the single book, in order to purchase a "multi user" license. So a &12.99 retail hardcover may cost a library $50. This is why the lost book fees at libraries are so expensive. And yes, before anyone jumps all over me, there are some exceptions to this licensing for libraries. Typically involving out of print items and some types of periodicals.
Plus, some libraries even carry games, and I don't believe those are "library edition" games.
Libraries are free, though, whereas subscriptions to streaming services are not.faefrost said:In a gaming medium the equivalent to traditional Libraries will be Streaming Services. Things like Playstation Now (I think it's called?) or any "Netflix Like" service for gaming where you pay a flat subscription price to access a catalog of games. The games streamed by that service are purchased and licensed specifically for multi users.
I don't agree with this at all.Mutant1988 said:Quite. It's the choice of the end user what to do with their copy. But I meant that as a practical statement in regards to the retail exploitation of the used market to line the pockets of retailers rather than creators.
If the copies weren't limited, there would be no second hand market.
Even if there were enough copies of a game for everyone on earth, the price would stay the same, because the retailers and publishers would keep it high. And as long as the price is high, people will buy second-hand, because the primary reason for doing so is price.
One might see that as a good thing. If second-hand copies weren't available, publishers would make sure even digital editions cost even more than they do now.Mutant1988 said:My point, if I had one, is that the concept of resale does not apply the same way to digital. And without the physical distribution factor, there shouldn't be any obstacle to make everything available for all, in their own marketplace at adjusted prices.
But there is, because it still needs to compete with retail and it's used market. The digital market is limited by the pricing and terms of the retail market.
Oh, definitely. That said, it's not only the poverty-stricken who can't readily afford games. Even if you're relatively well off, it's difficult to lose £40 or even £50 if you want to play a game.Mutant1988 said:Mind, I think that the matter of poverty needs to be addressed at a societal level, to ensure that people shouldn't "need" to pirate their entertainment. That justification should simply not hold any water in a first world country. It's really sad that it does.
No worries.Mutant1988 said:Yes, I know. I have a bad habit of phrasing my posts in an accusational manner. I apologize for that, for what that's worth and will try to stop doing so.
Well, I agree there. Piracy is hardly a moral stance. It's just one of convenience.Mutant1988 said:I think it's important to consider that you do not have a right to have it, at all times. To ask yourself - Could I really not pay for this?
I'm all for everyone playing as many games as possible, but I'm also against the notion of people getting things for nothing (Which might sound ironic, considering that I have an ideology which leans towards socialism).
I don't want people to make excuses for why they pirate, period.
If you think you have a good reason, keep it to yourself. Because trying to paint piracy as the solution to problems is insanity.
Out of interest, what do you feel about instances in which the artist actually wants you to pirate their work? A high-profile example is MC Lars. Also, sorry about the delay.