"Games are a luxury item." So?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The thing is, your argument still stands on a physical object model; let's turn it on its head. If you can get a luxury item for free, without taking it from anyone else, why could you morally be required not to? The replicator analogy stands; if it were invented today, its creators would be sued into oblivion for ending poverty, because that would mean the people running all of the manufacturing plants it replaced would be out of business. Granted, they wouldn't exactly be badly off since money would no longer be a bar to getting anything you wanted, but they wouldn't care because in the short term, they would make less money. That is exactly what's going on right now, except instead of physical items, it's software and information.

Yes, it's possible to get and distribute unlimited amounts of essentially the same thing. That doesn't mean it's allowed. I didn't bring morality into it - you did. I'm saying it's illegal - no arguing there, I hope. So, since it's illegal, why do you have to do it still? There are lots and lots of implications and reasons why people want it to be illegal. Some of them are valid, others less so. But the fact still stands - it's 1. illegal 2. not required for you to have that. I don't need child pornography at all but should I got acquire some because I can? Yes, a bit of an extreme example but the point is, if I can do something, must I do it?

I'd say it's arguable as to whether downloading games should be illegal, and it's inarguable that western intellectual property law is all kinds of screwed up at the moment. You do know that there's some countries where child porn is legal, right? According to your argument, it would be perfectly alright to take a trip to such a country if you wanted to watch some kiddy porn. The law isn't always worthy of being put up on a pedestal.

 

[Skoldpadda]

Wise men say, only fools run empires without luxuries... King

 

[pilouuuu]

What if you had no money but you looked at a picture of a Star Wars poster on a library computer hooked up to the internet? Because unless it was properly uploaded by Lucasfilm, it's the exact same crime as downloading a videogame. Copyright infringement is something very different from theft, in terms of both degree and kind, and that's another reason why I can't take the "it's a luxury item" argument seriously; sure, stealing a luxury item is bad. Getting it for free because there's a way to make infinite copies? It's not so clear cut. It reminds me of the replicator in Star Trek; if it existed in real life, its creators would get sued into oblivion for ending poverty.

Fuck, I knew this would happen. Note to self, don't use any analogies on the Escapist - ever. Even if they are not misleading, people will delve into the semantics to find any inconsistencies between the subject matter and the analogy. And given that it's an analogy there are always inconsistencies.

No. No. No. No. I will tell it as straight as possible: games are luxury items, in that they are not required or mandatory in any way. Therefore "I cannot afford it" is absolutely wrong as there is nothing that forces you to spend the money or get the game. Saying "I will pirate this game because I cannot afford it" is an inherently stupid claim to make.

I did not try to say that piracy is anything like stealing. Luxury items are just extras you can go without. That was the whole point. If you cannot afford something you can go without...then why not go without it? Getting illegal access of any sort is not justified because you don't need the luxury items in the first place. That's why they are called so.

I think when you say that games are luxury items you are underestimating their value as a cultural phenomenom. When games are finally accepted as an art form it won't be ethycal to prevent people from playing relevant games just because they don't have the money. You surely can live without books or music, but you would suffer from a cultural poverty for doing so and if games were respected as they should the same would apply for them.

Captcha: Talkin' about Purina Dog Chow! That's funny and surprising. I chose: yummy

 

[Mariakko]

This might just be the exchange rate talking here but $60 sounds wonderful as opposed to $120-130 for all new released games.

 

[suitepee7]

they can be overpriced, but they just aren't... £40 for a new game (UK obviously) is reasonable in my eyes, if i know the game will be amazing (i would have happily laid down that for skyrim or ME3, but i got them on pc so no need ^-^

 

[The Funslinger]

I think some games are over priced.

I ultimately value something by the amount of time and enjoyment I got from it.

Monster Hunter? Hundreds of hours of entertainment, well worth the price.

Journey? 2 hours long, but one of the best games I've ever played.

Brink? Fuck man, that's 40 quid I wish I'd never spent.

This is why I read reviews and opinions, so I can make an informed decision.

Sometimes it goes wrong though...

[sub]I hate you Brink, you suck so much.[/sub]

My buddy got Brink out of a bargain bin for six quid.

I still feel sorry for him.

 

[The Funslinger]

This might just be the exchange rate talking here but $60 sounds wonderful as opposed to $120-130 for all new released games.

Surely that can't be American dollars you're on about. $60 American is normal. I'm British and we pay around £30-40 for new releases.

 

[veloper]

Games sell for $50-60, because some people will buy it at that price.
Later the price drops, because some people are willing to wait and then buy it at the lower price.
Later again another price drop, etc.

What people are willing to spend is the most important factor in the price, because games are luxury items. Normal people don't get desperate when they lack games, opposed to say, lacking food.

Newly released games may be too expensive for the TS, but the popular titles always sell at that price, so the pricing is actually right, even if the current business model as a whole is screwed.

 

[Mariakko]

This might just be the exchange rate talking here but $60 sounds wonderful as opposed to $120-130 for all new released games.

Surely that can't be American dollars you're on about. $60 American is normal. I'm British and we pay around £30-40 for new releases.

It's New Zealand dollars.

 

[The Funslinger]

This might just be the exchange rate talking here but $60 sounds wonderful as opposed to $120-130 for all new released games.

Surely that can't be American dollars you're on about. $60 American is normal. I'm British and we pay around £30-40 for new releases.

It's New Zealand dollars.

Fair enough.

"Hey, Jimmy, you're a millionaire!"

"Woohoo!"

"In New Zealand currency..."

"Fuck..."

 

[Fullmetalfox]

I've had this discussion with a friend of mine lately and he pulled the "luxury item" argument on me too. To which I replied that despite being luxury items, that doesn't automatically mean that only a small group of people should be able to afford them. As it is right now, if two games that you want come out in the same month, that's 120 dollars/euros. That's a lot of money!

Yes, you do get a lot more entertainment from a videogame when you compare the to a movie or even from a season of a good TV series. But if that's how luxury items should get priced, then an average surfboard should cost over 10.000 dollars since it provides you with infinitely more entertainment than a videogame ever could. You can see how that kind of thinking is flawed.

Videogames are too expensive, and that is hurting not only the gamer, its hurting the industry. Every time a new IP comes out and it doesn't sell as much as a publisher hopes it does, you can point to the price tag and say "Thats why". As it stands, because of the 60$ price tag, every new purchase you make is a risk, even if you are well informed. Being well informed minimizes that risk, but it does not eliminate it.

Moreover, I believe that games would sell more if they were priced at 40 dollars, which is in my opinion a reasonable price to ask for a AAA game. This would make it easier on the gamer, it would help new IPs sell (which would be wonderful in a industry plagued by sequels), and it would draw in new costumers. I've heard people say that they don't wanna get into videogames because they are way too expensive and who can blame them?! It might seam strange to you, but I totally understand because its the exact same reason I don't get into golfing.

I've been a gamer since I was a small child, and I have to be honest with you, if it wasn't for game sales and price cuts, I wouldn't own half the library I do right now. I can't afford every game I want on day one. I can't support all my favorite franchises with a day one purchase, and that's on them. In the end nobody benefits, I don't get to play their games as soon as I'd wish. And since I already waited a few months for a 50% price drop, I'm gonna wait a few more for a 75% price drop. They wont see my money on day one, and when their game undersells they will go on to blame piracy (as if pirates actually purchased games lol) or the used games market (which only exists because games are too expensive to begin with).

You see publishers complaining all the time about used games stealing their sales but they don't care about why people are buying used in the first place. And they'd rather lose sales instead of lowering the cost of their product. Lets be honest. Who here would trade in games if they were to cost somewhere between 30 and 40 dollars? Unless its a real shit game you absolutely must get rid of?

Also, Day one DLC can fuck off. Not to long ago, if a game wasn't finished it would be delayed until it was. This practice of start printing the game before its finished and then charging extra for content that should have been on the disk is disgusting and raises the true cost of a videogame by 10 dollars.

Lower your prices and make gamers happier, get more costumers and destroy the used games "problem".

Logic.

 

[Beryl77]

I agree with you mostly. "It's a luxury item" always seems like a cheap argument to me.
I think that games are too pricey in my country. Thank the Gaben for Steam where the prices are more reasonable, especially on a sale.
I know of only one retail store which has the same prices as Steam, in all the other stores the games cost more. Needless to say that when I buy a retail game, I always buy it there.

 

[Smooth Operator]

It's an argument made by people with too much money, which shoots them right out of any price discussion, if price does not affect you then your opinion is meaningless.

Everything has it's value/price ratio that should always be considered and more importantly compared to others before purchasing.

 

[devilofthemist]

well if you think they're too expensive, just don't buy them
"oh this solid gold xbox is too expensive, they should make it cheaper so i can buy it"

or just rent them, like azuras wrath, i wouldn't actually buy the game, because it is too short, but renting is a different story

 

[jklinders]

I'll bite.

In a perfect world, pricing would be set by a few conditions. Cost of production, size of market, availability of market methods of distribution and cost of distribution. There is more but you get the drift. In general if a producer thinks it's a fair price and the consumer pays that price then the price is fair. If no one buys it then no one wins. So whether we like it or not the free market does a pretty splendid job of price control.

What we have in games is a relatively small market (compared to say movies) fragmented among several different platforms (PC, x-box et al) and afflicted in no small part to an ease of copying that in real world terms probably does hurt the bottom line of the business. While I could stream The Avengers to my computer, my computer is not well optimized for viewing it. I would rather go to a movie. There is no such restriction on game piracy. Like it or not we have to add piracy to the formula for games as it does cost some money. How much money is a debate I will not get into. I'll leave that to the flamers.

I have seen a rumbling here and there that the publishers want to charge more at release but know they can't because there is little way a consumer would pay it. So like it or not the market pricing model is working to keep the price down. But this is also why we are seeing more Day one DLC and in some cases on disk DLC. It's a way to drive the price up after purchase. Of course the free market applies here too. Choose to buy it or not.

At the end of the day, much like the bottle of wine in you example (I'll not bite on the bottle of milk analogy, analogy does not allow for ridiculousness like that) if the buyer pays the price, then it's fair. If not, then the price will come down until the buyer pays. Then, it's fair. Pretty simple really. Let's not forget that games are more expensive to make than ever though and they have not gone up in price at all in in 20 years. They may even be cheaper when inflation is factored in.

Daystar Clarion hit the nail on the head in his first post as well. Really, it's what you think it's worth...much like any luxury item. That's why I don't get worked up over it.

 

[370999]

I'm a tad confused OP. the argument that they are a luxury good is used as a response to piracy, i.e you don't need games to live. If you think games are over priced then don't but them till they go on a sale. As there is no real rule as to when something is over priced, it's more of a consensus that emerges that the market will pay at most X amount.

 

[jklinders]

It's an argument made by people with too much money, which shoots them right out of any price discussion, if price does not affect you then your opinion is meaningless.

Everything has it's value/price ratio that should always be considered and more importantly compared to others before purchasing.

Hilarious

I feel that the fact games are a luxury item is fully part of the debate, gaming is my primary hobby and I am as poor as a church mouse. But apparently I have too much money. It really is laughable.

 

[Astoria]

$60 is not over priced for a game, that's about right to me. $100+, now that's overpriced for a game. Hell even $80 would be nice but because Australia's so far away they can add pretty much whatever they want on top of the price due to 'shipping costs'.

OT: You definitely do have a point with the whole 'being a luxury item doesn't mean you can over charge' thing. Sadly though, gaming companies are like any other and will try to make as much money as they possibly can.

Move to Australia, then you'll have something to ***** about. We have to pay twice as much while fighting off 6 foot tall spiders on our way to the store.

You also make twice as much money.

And pay twice as much for food, petrol, houses, electricity ect and that's set to get even worse soon. It's not like we're living lives of luxury down here.

 

[pilouuuu]

What if you had no money but you looked at a picture of a Star Wars poster on a library computer hooked up to the internet? Because unless it was properly uploaded by Lucasfilm, it's the exact same crime as downloading a videogame. Copyright infringement is something very different from theft, in terms of both degree and kind, and that's another reason why I can't take the "it's a luxury item" argument seriously; sure, stealing a luxury item is bad. Getting it for free because there's a way to make infinite copies? It's not so clear cut. It reminds me of the replicator in Star Trek; if it existed in real life, its creators would get sued into oblivion for ending poverty.

Fuck, I knew this would happen. Note to self, don't use any analogies on the Escapist - ever. Even if they are not misleading, people will delve into the semantics to find any inconsistencies between the subject matter and the analogy. And given that it's an analogy there are always inconsistencies.

No. No. No. No. I will tell it as straight as possible: games are luxury items, in that they are not required or mandatory in any way. Therefore "I cannot afford it" is absolutely wrong as there is nothing that forces you to spend the money or get the game. Saying "I will pirate this game because I cannot afford it" is an inherently stupid claim to make.

I did not try to say that piracy is anything like stealing. Luxury items are just extras you can go without. That was the whole point. If you cannot afford something you can go without...then why not go without it? Getting illegal access of any sort is not justified because you don't need the luxury items in the first place. That's why they are called so.

I think when you say that games are luxury items you are underestimating their value as a cultural phenomenom. When games are finally accepted as an art form it won't be ethycal to prevent people from playing relevant games just because they don't have the money. You surely can live without books or music, but you would suffer from a cultural poverty for doing so and if games were respected as they should the same would apply for them.

Captcha: Talkin' about Purina Dog Chow! That's funny and surprising. I chose: yummy

Books and music have budgets. Even the guy with the guitar on the street corner has to eat. Games have a lot great costs than music and books. If you want the medium to stay then you have to pay for it. You will still have bedroom programmers who will make games on an amateur lvl, but our real artists of any medium lived doing devoted a 100% to their given medium. Not just on their off days.

Yes, but there must be an alternative like libraries for books.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Hilarious

I feel that the fact games are a luxury item is fully part of the debate, gaming is my primary hobby and I am as poor as a church mouse. But apparently I have too much money. It really is laughable.

The hilarious part would be you completely missed what I was saying, maybe I should extend my statement, people who don't read also can't be part of the discussion.