Jimquisition: Companies Exist To Make Money

[The Deadpool]

Companies existing to make money is hardly a hail Mary argument and certainly justifies nothing but the heart of the matter is this. The choice to buy or not is on the consumer's side. Full stop with a period at the end. Whenever I hear someone bitching about this or that company's business practices I always say the same thing. "If you don't like what they're doing don't buy their shit." 9/10 times they are like "But I have to." No, no you don't have to. It's your wallet, it's your choice and if you don't like it don't buy it. It's easier to ***** about it though.

So human trafficking is okay because they make money? Drug empires are okay because they make money? Child labor is okay because they make money?

No, most of the business practices of game industries aren't THAT bad. But the point is that "this is profitable" or "consumers are stupid enough to pay for this" has never been an ethical nor legal excuse for accepting a business practices. Why should the game industry be any different?

 

[The Deadpool]

Basically, because companies exist to make money, they're free to try whatever they want (within the realm of what's legal) to accomplish that end.

I think you have been missing Jim's arguments against the industry.

He's is not saying what they do IS illegal. He's saying what they're doing is IMMORAL. And some of it SHOULD be illegal.

Trying to sway public opinion to MAKE this illegal, or at unprofitable is the goal here.

 

[jklinders]

Companies existing to make money is hardly a hail Mary argument and certainly justifies nothing but the heart of the matter is this. The choice to buy or not is on the consumer's side. Full stop with a period at the end. Whenever I hear someone bitching about this or that company's business practices I always say the same thing. "If you don't like what they're doing don't buy their shit." 9/10 times they are like "But I have to." No, no you don't have to. It's your wallet, it's your choice and if you don't like it don't buy it. It's easier to ***** about it though.

So human trafficking is okay because they make money? Drug empires are okay because they make money? Child labor is okay because they make money?

No, most of the business practices of game industries aren't THAT bad. But the point is that "this is profitable" or "consumers are stupid enough to pay for this" has never been an ethical nor legal excuse for accepting a business practices. Why should the game industry be any different?

We are not talking about drug trafficking or human trafficking. We are talking about video games. Do try to keep up and pay attention in class M'kay? You are knocking down the same strawmen that Jim was and calling yourself a genius. You are not a genius, you are not even original.

If you can't stay on topic, you can at least attempt to avoid insulting my intelligence by blathering on about this irrelevant stuff.

 

[Ukomba]

Basically, because companies exist to make money, they're free to try whatever they want (within the realm of what's legal) to accomplish that end.

I think you have been missing Jim's arguments against the industry.

He's is not saying what they do IS illegal. He's saying what they're doing is IMMORAL. And some of it SHOULD be illegal.

Trying to sway public opinion to MAKE this illegal, or at unprofitable is the goal here.

Immoral? Please, do tell, what have they done that is 'immoral' or a practice that should be made against the law?

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

You misunderstood the analogy. Jim wasn't saying "What EA does is akin to human trafficking." He was saying that "your unwillingness to accept human trafficking as a reasonable business model proves that 'making money' is NOT an excuse for any and all behavior."

The idea is, if you want to argue that EA's business practices aren't bad ENOUGH to demand the level of complaint Jim, or whoever your opposition in said argument is, is dishing out, then DO THAT. Don't simply say "Well, they're doing this to make money, and making money is their job." and leave it at that because THAT argument is empty and vapid.

Making money isn't an excuse for bad behavior. THAT was the point of the analogy.

The difference is that it's not inherently "bad", I would say it borders along the lines of "mischievous" and "experimental". "Bad" is still something which negatively affects people in some profound way, more importantly in a way that can't be avoided. Like a drink driver who knocks over an old lady, now that's bad because the old lady didn't even have a choice.

Lets take EA for example, this is what they are indirectly doing: "Our strategy is to charge more money for less content - is this your cup of tea?"
The answer will reflect in sales/feedback/reviews and they will take their next step accordingly.

Can someone please explain to me how this is BAD? And I mean bad enough to make people scream and yell about it, comparing it to far more horrific examples of what is truly bad? It is bold, it is experimental, it is bordering on mischievous. It's nothing more than a phase, a phase which consumers have full control over when it comes to determining how long it lasts.

 

[walruss]

It's the job of the company to use whatever means is possible to increase its profit margins. It's the job of the consumer to only buy things that are worthwhile to them. When the two meet, the company is going to charge the most it possibly can, and the consumer is going to get the lowest price he possibly can. This model is broken in a lot of places (necessities, for instance), but the one place it works perfectly is in luxury goods like video games. This is because nobody HAS to buy video games, so consumers have a lot of bargaining power.

Maybe we should consider, you know, using that instead of complaining that companies aren't doing our negotiating for us. Unless you believe that EA has some moral imperative to give you video games in the manner to which you're accustomed. In which case you need to consider whether you maybe have a bit of an entitlement issue.

 

[theultimateend]

The argument is more complex than just "companies exist to make money"

It also means that companies need to make money, if a practice is deemed unprofitable they will of course try to steer away from it, they might not be correct in their assessment, but then it's up to the consumer to buy the product or not

The argument isn't about someone having to like or even accept why a company does what it do, but it is to make someone understand why they do it

That's the rational argument but I've literally never seen that be "the argument."

100% of the time its a mob of people defending literally anything and acting like businesses not don't don't need to have moral compasses but they SHOULDN'T have them.

That capitalism is above the health and safety of all people.

You won't catch people saying "companies exist to make money" in response to a complaint and then seeing them follow it up with anything short of objectivism.

I've been on the Jim side of this for most of my life, basically a business exists to profit but they should be expected to create the maximum amount of profit with the minimum level of negative impact.

I realize "negative impact" is a vague term but you get the heart of the message.

Similarly any business willing to endanger for maximum profits should be held to damages equal to its profits. So if you flood an entire gulf with oil you should lose your business. That's the danger of doing something extremely dangerous for extreme profits, you get hit with extreme repercussions.

As it stands most extreme businesses get hit with fines equal to a few weeks or months of income. Hardly enough to care.

Immoral? Please, do tell, what have they done that is 'immoral' or a practice that should be made against the law?

I would consider the step by step back peddling of what people get for what they buy is wrong. Looking at the customer as a hurdle to profits instead of a market to be satisfied is wrong.

Morality is inherently subjective, but I would say that in general when your business is in making markets instead of satisfying them you are probably doing something wrong. Is it as wrong as killing a child? No obviously not. But its destructive, you end up with more money without any improvement to the system your business exists in.

Basically any profits gained without improvements to a market are negative gains. Again subjective but you can see companies all over the place raking in record profits without adding anything. Comcast gives terrible service and rakes in massive margins, oil companies, banks, the list goes on.

All these companies do give 'something' back, usually small things, the convenience of depositing a check by phone is nice for instance. But the giving back versus the intake is so disproportionate that in the end it hurts everyone.

Not just the people who don't like it, but the people who (for whatever reason) defend it. It hurts them in ways that they are not aware of or it will eventually hurt them when it crosses that thin line between "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable".

In business the slippery slope is less a cliche and more of a history repeating truth. Give any industry enough rope and they'll hang you with it.

Lakes on fire, vegetables choking on toxic waste, dead zones, mercury in fresh water and fish, and the list goes on. The gaming industry might seem trivial in contrast but that attitude and the ever stricter grip on profits is something that shouldn't be acceptable anywhere.

But in the end I just wrote most of this to butter myself because your question is obviously written in a way that exclaims proudly "I've made up my mind. So give me fuel to flame you." There wasn't even an attempt to veil the condescension :/...

It's the job of the company to use whatever means is possible to increase its profit margins. It's the job of the consumer to only buy things that are worthwhile to them.

In a perfect world with a perfect distribution of information this would work. However that world doesn't exist so this world view won't work.

When the two meet, the company is going to charge the most it possibly can, and the consumer is going to get the lowest price he possibly can.

Originally this view was put forth by Publilius Syrus. "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."

Except over thousands of years we've gotten a very detailed understanding of psychology and how to manipulate people. You can easily put people in a situation that makes them feel compelled to spend more money than they otherwise would have in a fair situation.

What is a fair situation? Tough to say, everything down to how aisles are laid out, the colors of packaging, the word choice and location, all these things are part of the goal of manipulating people.

I would say a fair situation is any situation where people find a market and they satisfy it. Any situation where you create a market to satisfy is likely unfair and involves manipulation. But that's a personal belief.

Basically when Syrus wrote that the message seemed to be more that "you can't charge people more than they are willing to pay" and not "Charge everything you possibly can and milk them till they get some sense about them!"

It also probably didn't take into consideration preying on children for profits.

This model is broken in a lot of places (necessities, for instance), but the one place it works perfectly is in luxury goods like video games. This is because nobody HAS to buy video games, so consumers have a lot of bargaining power.

This system works terribly in luxury goods and everywhere else. When a company that does things you don't like gets large enough they can start buying up companies you DO like.

Suddenly it doesn't matter if you have an opinion because all your alternatives are gone. You can name just about every single non-nintendo company that I liked in my childhood.

You know what they all have in common? EA bought them and destroyed them. Did I have any say in that matter? No. This is where that model breaks down.

Maybe we should consider, you know, using that instead of complaining that companies aren't doing our negotiating for us. Unless you believe that EA has some moral imperative to give you video games in the manner to which you're accustomed. In which case you need to consider whether you maybe have a bit of an entitlement issue.

So basically your argument is "businesses are entitled to do whatever they want and if you have any problems with that you are a child."

Classy.

Anywho, I'd suggest going back to the drawing board. Once you can invent a system where every company I enjoy can't simply vanish tomorrow into the maw of some entity that basically controls the market I'll be on board.

 

[aelreth]

Companies exist to make a return on investment of the time that was put in to create that savings.

Humans want EVERYTHING and they want it for FREE.

There exists an alternative medium for making games outside of the publisher model, I would suggest that everyone either use it or create an alternative model. The current model is kickstarter.

If you find that a companies margins are to high, find a group of people that are willing to invest and incorporate an entity that will exist at smaller margins.

 

[malestrithe]

I used to argue that Corporations exist to make a profit. Not anymore. I now say corporations will do as much as the consumers let them. EA does a lot of things you do not like because consumers let them get away with it.

Funnily enough, Nintendo often releases the same every year, but that does not even register with users. Yes, they are not releasing increasing amounts of DLC with every game, but they are releasing the same game over and over again. I thought that was the main gripe with Call of Duty?

In regards to EA, I think the last games I bought from the company were Deathspank trilogy and that was a few years ago. Since then, they have not made games I'm interested in playing anymore.

Capcom has stopped putting On Disc DLC on their games after Resident Evil 6. It worked with Dragon's Dogma, but it blew up in their face with Street Fighter X Tekken. They were worried that it was the DLC that made people want to avoid it. I say it's because they did not bother to make it playable to anyone who is not a hardcore fighting gamer, but that's neither here not there.

 

[theultimateend]

Companies exist to make a return on investment of the time that was put in to create that savings.

Humans want EVERYTHING and they want it for FREE.

There exists an alternative medium for making games outside of the publisher model, I would suggest that everyone either use it or create an alternative model. The current model is kickstarter.

If you find that a companies margins are to high, find a group of people that are willing to invest and incorporate an entity that will exist at smaller margins.

While I think you are wrong in the beginning I would agree that it is inevitable that publishers will die.

The best I can figure is we'll see Publishers doing what Politicians are currently doing to the internet. They'll start trying to pass laws and change the rules to make it difficult for this "new thing" to thrive.

When a new system that is difficult to control becomes a threat the natural response of most major companies is to get extremely litigious. Be it farming, internet, gaming, television, or whatever else.

Funnily enough, Nintendo often releases the same every year, but that does not even register with users. Yes, they are not releasing increasing amounts of DLC with every game, but they are releasing the same game over and over again. I thought that was the main gripe with Call of Duty?

I think the reason people don't complain about Nintendo is because the Genres they are satisfying are not really touched on by anyone else.

How many alternatives to Pokemon are there?

I know for me I started becoming critical of Nintendo after Super Mario Galaxy 2. It was like nothing but happy times for me until that game and its been "the same feel" ever since.

Zelda actually has considerable changes with each game. Much more than any FPS series but I think part of that is because you can't really mix up "people" too much and still keep true to reality in shooting games that are trying to push reality as their selling point.

What other game are you thinking of? I'm sure its obvious and I missed it but for the most part most Nintendo games I've purchased have been markedly different than their predecessors.

Metroid Prime series compared to the previous Metroid games comes to mind. The Wii Donkey Kong is considerably changed from its past kin. Zelda has unfortunately changed a lot and I'd argue not for the better.

Mario seems to be the thing that really jumps out at me as Carbon Copy Town now . Which is a shame because it had a solid run of improvements.

Mario 1 lead into the wonder of Mario 3 which lead into even more impressive Super Mario World. Which then lead into the astounding Mario 64 and then Sunshine (VERY hard game to me) and then Galaxy.

In the middle you even had various fun spin offs like Luigi's mansion, Super Mario RPG, various Mario Sports games. Heck even Pokemon had a ton of different spin offs. Snap being my favorite and the Mystery Dungeon series being way better than most people probably know.

 

[saintdane05]

I didn't know you were into scat, Jim...

 

[nightazday]

I think you are misunderstanding those people when you say that they think that what they are doing is a good cause. It's not that what they are doing is moral as it is morality is not a factor in this. That businesses are not really human so we shouldn't really put it on human standards. Like a predator or a robot, if a lion killed someone you probably wouldn't blame the lion because "hey that's its nature" likewise if a company does something amoral not many will fault it because "hey its in a companies nature to get money by any means, it has to supply its investors somehow."

You and Moviebob say that people are not judging companies by the standards of good people but that's the point, companies are inherently amoral. Only used for the necessity of the economy and their investors and no real artistic and moral purpose.

Or at least that's how I interpret it.

 

[aelreth]

Companies exist to make a return on investment of the time that was put in to create that savings.

Humans want EVERYTHING and they want it for FREE.

There exists an alternative medium for making games outside of the publisher model, I would suggest that everyone either use it or create an alternative model. The current model is kickstarter.

If you find that a companies margins are to high, find a group of people that are willing to invest and incorporate an entity that will exist at smaller margins.

While I think you are wrong in the beginning I would agree that it is inevitable that publishers will die.

The best I can figure is we'll see Publishers doing what Politicians are currently doing to the internet. They'll start trying to pass laws and change the rules to make it difficult for this "new thing" to thrive.

When a new system that is difficult to control becomes a threat the natural response of most major companies is to get extremely litigious. Be it farming, internet, gaming, television, or whatever else.

Beginning? Please clarify.

 

[theultimateend]

I think you are misunderstanding those people when you say that they think that what they are doing is a good cause. It's not that what they are doing is moral as it is morality is not a factor in this. That businesses are not really human so we shouldn't really put it on human standards. Like a predator or a robot, if a lion killed someone you probably wouldn't blame the lion because "hey that's its nature" likewise if a company does something amoral not many will fault it because "hey its in a companies nature to get money by any means, it has to supply its investors somehow."

You and Moviebob say that people are not judging companies by the standards of good people but that's the point, companies are inherently amoral. Only used for the necessity of the economy and their investors and no real artistic and moral purpose.

Or at least that's how I interpret it.

Lion's aren't run by people. That was a terrible example.

Business are run by people and should be held to human standards.

Objectivism is a terrible world view. Even Rand became depressed after she thought it was the truth.

The idea that companies are supposed to be (and inevitably will be) amoral leads to situations like "The Jungle". If you haven't read that book I highly recommend it.

We MUST hold businesses to the same standards as we hold one another, period.

EDIT: I just re-read your post and now think you were just trying to explain the viewpoint not support it. I'll keep what I originally wrote but wanted to clarify that I think I misunderstood you . My apologies.

Companies exist to make a return on investment of the time that was put in to create that savings.

Beginning? Please clarify.

Sorry I used the wrong word. What I meant was that that isn't what companies are doing. Getting any ROI and even a reasonable ROI is understandable. But when your margin is hundreds of percent (the case with some businesses) there is a problem.

Basically a lot of money is removed from the market without any of it going towards anything worthwhile. Capitalism feeds off a generous exchange of revenue between businesses and people. If businesses pull out much more than they put in the imbalance results in most of the problems you see in the world economy right now.

Basically companies SHOULD make money (otherwise they wouldn't exist) but the ferocity with which they make money is the issue. You COULD turn a huge profit by using child labor in Thailand to make your products.

You really really shouldn't.

But if your only working off "what is and isn't legal when returning on investment" then really why not?

People can't let the law be the only qualifier for business when the laws are basically being written by businesses . However I'm digressing WAY too hard.

So yeah my point was just that I don't think that businesses doing what you said in the beginning is the problem, its the lengths they'll go to do that which is.

...I still don't know why I used the word "wrong". Honestly, that was a slip on my part.

 

[MatsVS]

People don't seem to understand that even though a company has the RIGHT to utilize predatory business practices, doesn't mean they SHOULD. Good video.

 

[Something Amyss]

Glad you got to this one Jim, I've always hated this strawman argument. I've never understood how so many people will defend bullshit business practices with this weak defense. "Capitalism is about making money." Well, no, not really. Capitalism is about offering the best service for a competitive price. Not "How badly can we gouge users for the least amount of effort?"

It's especially bad when you see the pro-capitalists posting long laments in threads about THQ going bankrupt. Or even when EA closes down a studio. Because the former, to me, is capitalism done right: bad game company makes bad games, bad game company makes bad decisions, bad game company go away. The latter is the end result of the kind of sociopathy these "pro-capitalists" are generally arguing, since cutting weight appears to be a big part of this "capitalist" ideal.

 

[The Deadpool]

We are not talking about drug trafficking or human trafficking. We are talking about video games. Do try to keep up and pay attention in class M'kay? You are knocking down the same strawmen

No, most of the business practices of game industries aren't THAT bad. But the point is that "this is profitable" or "consumers are stupid enough to pay for this" has never been an ethical nor legal excuse for accepting a business practices. Why should the game industry be any different?

Do try and keep up. I responded to your post BEFORE YOU POSTED IT....

Immoral? Please, do tell, what have they done that is 'immoral' or a practice that should be made against the law?

That is the crux of the argument in like... Every other video he has done in the past few months?

And hey, it's okay if you think their practices are ethical. But the argument here, today, is that wanting to making money ISN'T AN EXCUSE. You may excuse it in DIFFERENT ways if you'd like, but giving them a motive isn't going to change a damned thing.

The difference is that it's not inherently "bad",

NOTHING is "inherently" bad. It's all subjective.

And we can argue the ethical details of large game company's practices. Hell, that's what Jim HAS been doing.

The argument in THIS video is that giving them a MOTIVE does not absolve them of their guilt. Yes, you can defend them in OTHER ways, but saying "they did it to make money" isn't a valid argument.

THAT is the point of this video. Which ultimately a LOT of people have missed.

 

[The Deadpool]

Maybe we should consider, you know, using that instead of complaining that companies aren't doing our negotiating for us.

But complaining IS part of the negotiation. Public perception is important to companies...

 

[aelreth]

Sorry I used the wrong word. What I meant was that that isn't what companies are doing. Getting any ROI and even a reasonable ROI is understandable. But when your margin is hundreds of percent (the case with some businesses) there is a problem.

Basically a lot of money is removed from the market without any of it going towards anything worthwhile. Capitalism feeds off a generous exchange of revenue between businesses and people. If businesses pull out much more than they put in the imbalance results in most of the problems you see in the world economy right now.

Basically companies SHOULD make money (otherwise they wouldn't exist) but the ferocity with which they make money is the issue. You COULD turn a huge profit by using child labor in Thailand to make your products.

You really really shouldn't.

But if your only working off "what is and isn't legal when returning on investment" then really why not?

People can't let the law be the only qualifier for business when the laws are basically being written by businesses . However I'm digressing WAY too hard.

So yeah my point was just that I don't think that businesses doing what you said in the beginning is the problem, its the lengths they'll go to do that which is.

...I still don't know why I used the word "wrong". Honestly, that was a slip on my part.

The publishers are providing the capital (vast sums of savings) to developers (that provide the capital) for those employees needed to create these large games, and thus they need a return based on the time and risk. That money that is being given to those developers is actually debt, owed to the bond & stock holders.

Perhaps debt is the true problem.

The riskier the loan shouldn't the interest rate be much higher?

 

[Entitled]

It's not even a "true" argument. Companies exist for whatever fucking reason their owner deems they should exist for.

Well, the problem is that most publicly traded companies don't have any tangible owner. They are owned by hundreds or thousands of people, many of them not even knowing exactly what stocks they are holding at the moment,just buying and selling based on automated market analysis, with the expectation that their value will increase.

There is literally no one in EA who could decide that right now they have an important goal than profit maximalization. If any CEO would try to claim that, they would get fired by the Board of Directors.


While Oculus is ruled by Palmer Luckey, and Valve is owned by Gabe Newell (and even Nintendo's stocks are mostly held by a single family), EA, Activision and Ubisoft are just automated machines designed solely to increase their own value.