"Games are a luxury item." So?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

What really makes me laugh is you are from America, the place where you are ripped off the least for games ... go ask an Australian how much a game is, if I remember correctly it is about $100.

So next time your thinking "game prices are too damn high" your next thought should be "but not as damn high as other places".

I'm not from the US but I hate this damn attitude. "People have it worse than you so shut the hell up"

Yeah, it's called perspective!

Instead of being "woe is me, I have it so fucking hard!", try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes.

Plus this shit is first world problems.

Alright, here's your perspective: you make twice as much as Americans, and pay twice as much for everything. In the grand scheme of things, you guys are getting screwed over to exactly the same degree we are, not to double the degree like that "Australia, Americans have it easy hurr durr" argument implies.

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.

What you are saying here, when it gets boiled down, is that it is absolutely wrong to steal something if it's difficult, but it's more ambiguous if it's easy. this is my main problem with software pirates: they seem to think that they are completely justified in stealing things because there is no way to get caught. the equivalent would be if you walked into a shop, took a disc off the shelf, went home and burned a copy and then put the original disk back.

Actually, what I'm saying is when there's no such thing as scarcity, there's no real moral reason for something not to be free. It's like complaining that someone is "stealing" sunlight when they walk outside; it's everywhere in infinite amounts. Logically, it's worthless on a monetary scale.

Edit: More to the point, a part of the legal definition of theft is "with the intent to permanently deprive the owner." As in, it's bad because it deprives someone of the thing you're stealing, not because you got it for free. When you copy something, you deprive nobody of the use of their copy. We're in a post scarcity world when it comes to software. It's time software developers figure out how to make money in that world, the way Valve and the various free to play devs have done, instead of trying to prop up an obsolete business model. Because whether they like it or not, whether it's legal or not, they are now and forever will be competing with free. Free is possible to compete with, but it's not something you do by making things difficult and expensive for your paying customer, while it's easy and free for the pirates.

 

[Jonbahamut]

All I can do is refer you to some people who know far more about this than I: http://www.edge-online.com/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive

 

[Alterego-X]

But that "games are a luxory" is a failed argument, it's basically a "first world problems" fallacy, that ignores all the piracy arguments pro and contra, and relies the idea that we shouldn't even question the current system, as long as it's not a matter of life and death.

It's pretty much like "why do you even care about the legal status of fetuses, when there are children starving in Africa?" or "Why are you so concened about american intenet censorship, when North Korea is killing people for their speech?

No, we don't NEED games. But that doesn't inherently silence every argument about improving the current, imperfect system of content distribution.

That you want to improve the world around you is admirable.

However at some point a complaint isn't valid any more. Case and point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwwWqRV2RsI

When people say "Games are to expensive", I am going to show them a myriad of nearly free games. That just isn't the games they want. They want the ones that a expensive, and they are in return expensive because they want them.

Its not that you want a bag. You want a Prada bag.

I specifically addressed the piracy side of the argument, only. The whole "games are too expensive" complaint would only work if we would assume that games need to be sold for a fixed price of every copy in the first place.

We have entire media industries, that based around methods that let everyone experience any content for $0, and gather revenues other ways, from a fragment of the users. And we have even more theories that could be used to build similar ones.

It's not like wanting a Prada bag, it's like having the technology of giving any kind of bag to anyone for free, while still being able to financially support the designers of even more bags, but refusing to use this technology, just because that way, poor people could have luxory bags that they "don't deserve".

 

[omega 616]

snip

What really makes me laugh is you are from America, the place where you are ripped off the least for games ... go ask an Australian how much a game is, if I remember correctly it is about $100.

So next time your thinking "game prices are too damn high" your next thought should be "but not as damn high as other places".

I'm not from the US but I hate this damn attitude. "People have it worse than you so shut the hell up"

Yeah, it's called perspective!

Instead of being "woe is me, I have it so fucking hard!", try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes.

Plus this shit is first world problems.

Alright, here's your perspective: you make twice as much as Americans, and pay twice as much for everything. In the grand scheme of things, you guys are getting screwed over to exactly the same degree we are, not to double the degree like that "Australia, Americans have it easy hurr durr" argument implies.

"You make twice as much as Americans" by "you" do you mean me, who is from the UK?

Anyway, min wage in the UK for a 21 year old is £6.08 or something like that, a game is about £40 ... transfer that with the current exchange rates to Australian dollars min. wage should be $9.63 and games would cost $63.40.

Does it cost $37 per game to ship to Aus? Don't think so.

 

[Substitute Troll]

This comes up a lot in discussions about both piracy and the price of games: the argument goes that games are a luxury item, so there's absolutely no reason to complain about the price. The problem is that, first of all, games are a luxury item, but they're a luxury item of the sort that DVDs and books are, and they're priced high enough that they're more in competition with expensive wines and designer clothes, but more importantly, it is still possible to overpay for a luxury item, something that has been the source of many a joke about the nouveaux riches over the years.

You know why this is? Luxury items have price ranges the same as anything else. Just like $5 would be ridiculous for a loaf of white bread and $20 would be ridiculous for a gallon of milk, $10,000 would be ridiculous even for a high end home theater receiver, and $60 is ridiculous for a videogame. Anything can be overpriced, even luxury items -- especially luxury items -- so let's quit pretending videogames can't be overpriced just because they're not an absolute necessity for daily life.

No no no, you've got it all mixed up. That's not what we're getting at. What we're saying is that because games are luxury items, it's not right to get ahold of them without paying. If you're starving for food because they've overpriced it to a ridiculous point, I think it's okay to steal food. But "stealing" video games is never okay if your only justification is "it's too overpriced".

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

What really makes me laugh is you are from America, the place where you are ripped off the least for games ... go ask an Australian how much a game is, if I remember correctly it is about $100.

So next time your thinking "game prices are too damn high" your next thought should be "but not as damn high as other places".

I'm not from the US but I hate this damn attitude. "People have it worse than you so shut the hell up"

Yeah, it's called perspective!

Instead of being "woe is me, I have it so fucking hard!", try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes.

Plus this shit is first world problems.

Alright, here's your perspective: you make twice as much as Americans, and pay twice as much for everything. In the grand scheme of things, you guys are getting screwed over to exactly the same degree we are, not to double the degree like that "Australia, Americans have it easy hurr durr" argument implies.

"You make twice as much as Americans" by "you" do you mean me, who is from the UK?

Anyway, min wage in the UK for a 21 year old is £6.08 or something like that, a game is about £40 ... transfer that with the current exchange rates to Australian dollars min. wage should be $9.63 and games would cost $63.40.

Does it cost $37 per game to ship to Aus? Don't think so.

Wait, you're in the UK? Then you have even less reason to complain. 40 pounds effectively /is/ $60. And no, I know the Aussies are getting gouged. But we are too, and it hurts our pocket books to exactly the same degree as theirs does. Claiming that $120 AUS hurts the Aussies more than $60 US hurts Americans is just silly. You can't do a 1:1 comparison like that.

Edit: By the way, minimum wage in the US is $7.25 an hour. I'm not sure what that is in AUS, but I know their dollar is slightly stronger than the US dollar, so even in the UK you guys are doing slightly better than we are, if your minimum wage actually does work out to $9.63 AUS.

 

[Toby Kitching]

Actually, what I'm saying is when there's no such thing as scarcity, there's no real moral reason for something not to be free. It's like complaining that someone is "stealing" sunlight when they walk outside; it's everywhere in infinite amounts. Logically, it's worthless on a monetary scale.

Edit: More to the point, a part of the legal definition of theft is "with the intent to permanently deprive the owner." As in, it's bad because it deprives someone of the thing you're stealing, not because you got it for free. When you copy something, you deprive nobody of the use of their copy. We're in a post scarcity world when it comes to software. It's time software developers figure out how to make money in that world, the way Valve and the various free to play devs have done, instead of trying to prop up an obsolete business model. Because whether they like it or not, whether it's legal or not, they are now and forever will be competing with free. Free is possible to compete with, but it's not something you do by making things difficult and expensive for your paying customer, while it's easy and free for the pirates.

What? the only way that strawman holds up would be if someone was putting work into MAKING the sunlight.. Think of it another way. when you get it for free, you are depriving the people who actually put years of their lives into designing, building, publicising etc. the game of money because you dont feel like paying. if it was food for your starving children or something, then i'd have a bit more sympathy, but much as I love games they are not a neccesary part of life, so there are NO grounds for complaining about having to pay for them.

Just put yourself in the developers shoes. Drop the 'I'm entitled to all these free games' shit and think about how you would feel if you spent 2 or 3 years developing a new game from scratch, put it out on the market and then found that everyone was just downloading it for free. if you think you would feel annoyed at this state of affairs, then stop bloody pirating. if you dont think you would feel annoyed, then stop lying to yourself.

 

[Alterego-X]

To leave the bill at the guys who want/can pay is not going to get you enough money to make the product that you are allowing everyone to enjoy. It seems like a nice idea, but doesn't work in reality.

Then you need a reality check.

This is exactly how the anime industry works, for example. Late night TV brodcasting of the full series for everyone, that the publishing studio even PAYS FOR, (essentially like if it would be advertisement), and then getting profit from selling ridiculously expensive DVD/Blu-ray disks to a few thousand fans.

Granted, anime are somehow cheaper than blockbuster games. But you know You know what else costs millions of dollars to make and it's audience isn't forced to pay? Live action TV series, and other TV shows, with ad revenue.

These are just some examples. I could also mention crowdsourcing, that already gathers millions now that semi-obscure groups are starting to use it, that can only pull a few 10 thousand backers. Once the big names start using it, a few hundred thousand or million fans, they can start blockbuster budget games as well, with no urgent need to get extra profits from later players, since the game is already funded, and the next one can also be crowdsourced.

For bonus points, even now, countries that legalize piracy report no measurable losses for artists : http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114537-File-sharing-Remains-Legal-In-Switzerland

 

[Daffy F]

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]

I've got to agree with you on this, I think prices are totally relative.

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

I'm such a fanboy of this series, I just love the games so much. I have probably spent £150 on this series (£100 on my PSP and Monster hunter Freedom 2, £20 on Monster hunter freedom unite, and around £30 on getting Monster hunter portable 3rd shipped from Japan) and I can honestly say I don't regret spending a single penny of it. Let's run down:
£80 for the PSP on which to play the games
£20 for Monster Hunter Freedom 2 - The first game from the series I played, I was instantly addicted. I've clocked at least 850 hours on this one alone.
£20 for Monster Hunter Freedom Unite - Essentially an expansion to MHF2, I imported my save and played for another 220 hours (racking up an impressive 1070+ hours on one save profile)
Roughly £30 for Monster Hunter Portable 3rd - Even though it's in Japanese I am very happy with this purchase, and have clocked an additional 350 hours on this since I got it (absolutely awesome game by the way).
In total, close to 1500 hours of awesome gameplay and fun for just over £150. That's not bad.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Actually, what I'm saying is when there's no such thing as scarcity, there's no real moral reason for something not to be free. It's like complaining that someone is "stealing" sunlight when they walk outside; it's everywhere in infinite amounts. Logically, it's worthless on a monetary scale.

Edit: More to the point, a part of the legal definition of theft is "with the intent to permanently deprive the owner." As in, it's bad because it deprives someone of the thing you're stealing, not because you got it for free. When you copy something, you deprive nobody of the use of their copy. We're in a post scarcity world when it comes to software. It's time software developers figure out how to make money in that world, the way Valve and the various free to play devs have done, instead of trying to prop up an obsolete business model. Because whether they like it or not, whether it's legal or not, they are now and forever will be competing with free. Free is possible to compete with, but it's not something you do by making things difficult and expensive for your paying customer, while it's easy and free for the pirates.

What? the only way that strawman holds up would be if someone was putting work into MAKING the sunlight.. Think of it another way. when you get it for free, you are depriving the people who actually put years of their lives into designing, building, publicising etc. the game of money because you dont feel like paying. if it was food for your starving children or something, then i'd have a bit more sympathy, but much as I love games they are not a neccesary part of life, so there are NO grounds for complaining about having to pay for them.

Just put yourself in the developers shoes. Drop the 'I'm entitled to all these free games' shit and think about how you would feel if you spent 2 or 3 years developing a new game from scratch, put it out on the market and then found that everyone was just downloading it for free. if you think you would feel annoyed at this state of affairs, then stop bloody pirating. if you dont think you would feel annoyed, then stop lying to yourself.

Yes, the developers make less money when people pirate their games. That's why they need to start charging less and exploring alternative revenue options. The fact of the matter is piracy is here to stay. Whether the devs like it or not, they are competing with free. It's a competition they can win, but not when they pretend they're the only way to get their product.

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

Simple equivalence to tell me if my money was worth it.

less than 1 hour of gameplay per $5 I spent -> Really not worth it, get my money back
less than 3 hrs per $5 spent -> Not worth it, but I won't be demanding compensation
less than 5 hrs per $5 spent -> The game wasted enough time for what I paid for it
less than 8 hrs per $5 spent -> The game was definitely worth it's price tag
more than 10 hrs per $5 spent -> I got an amazing deal on this game

That said I also play PC games where I mainly buy off Steam so I usually will never pay $60 for a game. I don't have a lot of games for my PS3 because of the price tag, but the ones I do are generally worth it.

That said, said $60 price tag is sometimes not unreasonable if you ever look at a cost breakdown for the distribution of a game, the markup could stand to be a little less though. Game devs and publishers do have to make money after all, keep in mind a dev gets no royalties off their games until they've paid the publishing costs, if a game costs $8 million to make, the devs make no money off the game until they've sold $8 million dollars worth of copies. That said, they got paid an agreed salary either way.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I always laugh my ass off when someone says they can't afford video games. Unless you live in literal poverty, you can save for a fucking video game. If you can afford a console or PC to play them on, you can manage to put aside a couple of bucks a week.

Water is wet.

Lower-middle class people think they have a hard life.

Lazy assholes gonna be lazy assholes.

Pirates gonna be pirate (and be lazy assholes).

 

[hermes]

I think the luxury item argument, which I totally agree with, is more often used when people approach games as something that they need to have. And not just need to have, but need to have the absolute newest of for not a reasonable price but just one they are willing to pay. They make statements that equate not being able to easily afford the newest $60 AAA release to not being allowed to have any games at all, which is absolutely untrue. Go to your local game store, online store or literally any online digital retailer and you can find multitudes of often good to great games for less than the price of a McDonalds meal.

It is completely true that being able to buy all of the new release titles that you want is something of a luxury. But you don't need to be able to do that to be someone who is playing more great games than you have time for.

None of that invalidates discussions about game prices being too high. As long as the reasoning is realistic (which it often isn't), it's a compelling debate.. but it's in large part something that stands separate from the luxury item topic.

This. The main problem with the rebuke of "games are luxury items" is not that they are overpriced (which, to be fair, is only valid on a case by case basis), but that people justify piracy or used games as "I can't pay for it full price, but I want to play it! I will pay whatever I see fit (or nothing) to play it, because I have to".

Games are luxury items because you don't need it for your life. If you can't buy the latest Call of Duty, its not a big deal.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

less than 1 hour of gameplay per $5 I spent -> Really not worth it, get my money back
less than 3 hrs per $5 spent -> Not worth it, but I won't be demanding compensation
less than 5 hrs per $5 spent -> The game wasted enough time for what I paid for it
less than 8 hrs per $5 spent -> The game was definitely worth it's price tag
more than 10 hrs per $5 spent -> I got an amazing deal on this game

You judge the value of a product based on how much of your time it "wasted?" Maybe try looking at from the perspective of "How much did I enjoy this product?"

This mentality some people have of time spent equaling worth really pisses me off.

 

[WindKnight]

If you don't like the price? don't buy it. if you must rush out and buy the game NOW you'll pay a premium price for it, just like any early adopter of technology.

I generally wait for the price to fall or else buy the game second hand, simply because I can't afford or justify paying a lot of money for computer games. When I see it at the price I feel I can afford, I buy it. If I don't see it at the price I like, I leave it.

Games ARE a luxury, not a necessity. You do not need to game to live, so if you don't like the price, do without. Pirating is just being selfish, however you doll it up.

 

[omega 616]

snip

What really makes me laugh is you are from America, the place where you are ripped off the least for games ... go ask an Australian how much a game is, if I remember correctly it is about $100.

So next time your thinking "game prices are too damn high" your next thought should be "but not as damn high as other places".

I'm not from the US but I hate this damn attitude. "People have it worse than you so shut the hell up"

Yeah, it's called perspective!

Instead of being "woe is me, I have it so fucking hard!", try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes.

Plus this shit is first world problems.

Alright, here's your perspective: you make twice as much as Americans, and pay twice as much for everything. In the grand scheme of things, you guys are getting screwed over to exactly the same degree we are, not to double the degree like that "Australia, Americans have it easy hurr durr" argument implies.

"You make twice as much as Americans" by "you" do you mean me, who is from the UK?

Anyway, min wage in the UK for a 21 year old is £6.08 or something like that, a game is about £40 ... transfer that with the current exchange rates to Australian dollars min. wage should be $9.63 and games would cost $63.40.

Does it cost $37 per game to ship to Aus? Don't think so.

Wait, you're in the UK? Then you have even less reason to complain. 40 pounds effectively /is/ $60. And no, I know the Aussies are getting gouged. But we are too, and it hurts our pocket books to exactly the same degree as theirs does. Claiming that $120 AUS hurts the Aussies more than $60 US hurts Americans is just silly. You can't do a 1:1 comparison like that.

Edit: By the way, minimum wage in the US is $7.25 an hour. I'm not sure what that is in AUS, but I know their dollar is slightly stronger than the US dollar, so even in the UK you guys are doing slightly better than we are, if your minimum wage actually does work out to $9.63 AUS.

Are you serious? They get ripped off more than you but it sucks an equal amount for you both? Are you really trying to make that argument? That is like saying "yeah, I know they have to walk 5 miles to drink dirty water but my coke is flat and warm! It;s an equal amount of sucking for us both!"

Here is a website for you "xe.com."

Game prices: £40 = $64 USD
Your min wage $7.35 USD (then you guys tip constantly) = £4.48 = $7.11 AUD
UK min wage£6.08 = $9.65 AUD

So by the looks of it Americans get 0.34 cents more per hour (+ plus any tips they get) so they can buy games that are cheaper ....

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

There is one aspect of piracy related to this topic that I have never ever understood, and also have never ever been given a satisfactory answer by anyone.

I won't bandy about the exact semantics of what the word 'steal' means, because that is an almost textbook definition of following the letter instead of the spirit of the law in order to find loopholes, and I won't argue that they do or do not cost too much.

My argument is thus. We live in a society that assigns material value to things. This loaf of bread is worth that much, this loaf of bread is worth a little bit more. This movie is a classic by a good director with major releases all over the world, thus it is worth this much, this movie was shot on someone's iPhone and shown on YouTube, thus it is worth that much.

The one constant is that these things have value, otherwise buying online from iTunes or Amazon download would be free. If the thing did not have any value beyond that of the physical item, it would not cost money.

So here's the question. You agree that stealing is bad and against the law because there is a physical object that should cost a sum of money, and you are taking the entire product, disk, content and all, for nothing. However, when the disk is not involved, and you are simply taking the content for nothing at all, this is completely okay.

Why?

Why is taking something that is still ascribed value (the content of the game/movie) and not paying for it alright? Do you honestly believe that movies and books and videogames and music have no value beyond that of the physical object which brings them to you? Because if so then you are an idiot.

 

[Toby Kitching]

Yes, the developers make less money when people pirate their games. That's why they need to start charging less and exploring alternative revenue options. The fact of the matter is piracy is here to stay. Whether the devs like it or not, they are competing with free. It's a competition they can win, but not when they pretend they're the only way to get their product.

No, we can't just absolve ourselves as a community of responsibility like that. If, for example, a developer intends to release a game with freemium content, there will be a vicious backlash if anybody gains an advantage at all through paying: it all has to be cosmetic. I imagine that works with miniscule budgets, but that would spell the end of AAA games. On the other hand, the clever diablo III system is great, but legal reasons have already prevented it from being instated in some countries, so that is impossible.

The overwhelming impression I'm getting here is that gamers in general are very happy to dole out criticisms and advice to corporations, but are utterly unwilling to take any action on on our end. this isn't good enough at all. if people can't afford to buy a game, the solution is not to steal it and start complaining. the solution, i'm afraid, is to not buy the game. hell, i've not got any kind of stable job. I've had to pass over a hell of a lot of eagerly anticipated releases because the financial noose was a tad tight. I'm not complaining about it, though; we live in a capitalist society after all, and we just have to take the good with the bad.

Shirking all responsibility onto the developers has caused such brilliant trends as DRM, Freemium gameplay and copy-paste but safe CoD knockoffs. Software pirates just have to grow up a bit and recognise that they are a problem, not their own solution.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

What really makes me laugh is you are from America, the place where you are ripped off the least for games ... go ask an Australian how much a game is, if I remember correctly it is about $100.

So next time your thinking "game prices are too damn high" your next thought should be "but not as damn high as other places".

I'm not from the US but I hate this damn attitude. "People have it worse than you so shut the hell up"

Yeah, it's called perspective!

Instead of being "woe is me, I have it so fucking hard!", try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes.

Plus this shit is first world problems.

Alright, here's your perspective: you make twice as much as Americans, and pay twice as much for everything. In the grand scheme of things, you guys are getting screwed over to exactly the same degree we are, not to double the degree like that "Australia, Americans have it easy hurr durr" argument implies.

"You make twice as much as Americans" by "you" do you mean me, who is from the UK?

Anyway, min wage in the UK for a 21 year old is £6.08 or something like that, a game is about £40 ... transfer that with the current exchange rates to Australian dollars min. wage should be $9.63 and games would cost $63.40.

Does it cost $37 per game to ship to Aus? Don't think so.

Wait, you're in the UK? Then you have even less reason to complain. 40 pounds effectively /is/ $60. And no, I know the Aussies are getting gouged. But we are too, and it hurts our pocket books to exactly the same degree as theirs does. Claiming that $120 AUS hurts the Aussies more than $60 US hurts Americans is just silly. You can't do a 1:1 comparison like that.

Edit: By the way, minimum wage in the US is $7.25 an hour. I'm not sure what that is in AUS, but I know their dollar is slightly stronger than the US dollar, so even in the UK you guys are doing slightly better than we are, if your minimum wage actually does work out to $9.63 AUS.

Are you serious? They get ripped off more than you but it sucks an equal amount for you both? Are you really trying to make that argument? That is like saying "yeah, I know they have to walk 5 miles to drink dirty water but my coke is flat and warm! It;s an equal amount of sucking for us both!"

Here is a website for you "xe.com."

Game prices: £40 = $64 USD
Your min wage $7.35 USD (then you guys tip constantly) = £4.48 = $7.11 AUD
UK min wage£6.08 = $9.65 AUD

So by the looks of it Americans get 0.34 cents more per hour (+ plus any tips they get) so they can buy games that are cheaper ....

Actually, minimum wage in industries where tipping is possible is more like $2 an hour; the rest of "minimum wage" is expected to be made up in tips. For most minimum wage workers, there's no such thing as tipping. And yes, they're arbitrarily charged more money, but they have more money, so they can afford it just as well as we can the amount we're charged. The prices are arbitrary everywhere; they have nothing to do with the cost of production, and everything to do with what the publishers can get away with. That's just as true in the US as it is in Australia.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Yes, the developers make less money when people pirate their games. That's why they need to start charging less and exploring alternative revenue options. The fact of the matter is piracy is here to stay. Whether the devs like it or not, they are competing with free. It's a competition they can win, but not when they pretend they're the only way to get their product.

No, we can't just absolve ourselves as a community of responsibility like that. If, for example, a developer intends to release a game with freemium content, there will be a vicious backlash if anybody gains an advantage at all through paying: it all has to be cosmetic. I imagine that works with miniscule budgets, but that would spell the end of AAA games. On the other hand, the clever diablo III system is great, but legal reasons have already prevented it from being instated in some countries, so that is impossible.

The overwhelming impression I'm getting here is that gamers in general are very happy to dole out criticisms and advice to corporations, but are utterly unwilling to take any action on on our end. this isn't good enough at all. if people can't afford to buy a game, the solution is not to steal it and start complaining. the solution, i'm afraid, is to not buy the game. hell, i've not got any kind of stable job. I've had to pass over a hell of a lot of eagerly anticipated releases because the financial noose was a tad tight. I'm not complaining about it, though; we live in a capitalist society after all, and we just have to take the good with the bad.

Shirking all responsibility onto the developers has caused such brilliant trends as DRM, Freemium gameplay and copy-paste but safe CoD knockoffs. Software pirates just have to grow up a bit and recognise that they are a problem, not their own solution.

This is capitalism. The only responsibility of consumers is to get the best product for the least money. The only responsibility of producers is to give the least product for the most money. We're supposed to meet somewhere in the middle, but the reality is that the producers have most of the power, and we often don't. That's why the business model you mentioned is illegal in some countries; it's exploitative of the consumer, unfairly so. If, however, they were to make it free to play but keep everything else the same, they'd still have a license to print money without screwing anyone over because, you know, there's no implied ownership there. You may not know this, but EULAs tacked on after purchase are BS, and most countries aside from the US recognize this.