Jimquisition: Companies Exist To Make Money
- Thread starter dragongit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I feel like this argument exists because of the standard irrational internet argument feedback loop:
Company A does something intrinsically stupid (e.g. $70 DLC for a stately monocle) -> Internet calls them out on it (and is justified in doing so) -> Company B does something similar, but not quite as stupid (e.g. $5 for a hat) -> Internet overreacts -> Someone (games journalist or respected games authority figure on Twitter) calls them out on it, saying "Yes, it's nice that you're outraged that you won't get this hat just for being alive, but Company B is just trying to make money. No one is making you buy that hat." -> Company C does something that is debatably stupid (e.g. the decision to put DLC advertisements in Dragon Age as NPC conversations) -> Internet argues, but all arguments in favor are "Well, they're just trying to make money!"
As far as I can tell, this is pretty much par for the course. We could probably solve this whole issue by actually saying things like "I agree that Company [X] is being a greedy asshole, but Game [Y] is still a worthwhile purchase because [insert the game's merits here]." If you bought the game because you like it, you don't have to defend the company who is trying to squeeze every penny out of you (there's a good chance they aren't the ones who actually MADE the game). Hell, it makes a certain amount of sense to buy the game, then complain your butt off to the company about their predatory practices. Of course, if they ignore all complaints, it makes even more sense to stop giving them money, but that's just my opinion (and what I'd be most likely to do in that case. If your game isn't fun because you try to gouge money out of me, your future games will also probably not be very fun, either).
Company A does something intrinsically stupid (e.g. $70 DLC for a stately monocle) -> Internet calls them out on it (and is justified in doing so) -> Company B does something similar, but not quite as stupid (e.g. $5 for a hat) -> Internet overreacts -> Someone (games journalist or respected games authority figure on Twitter) calls them out on it, saying "Yes, it's nice that you're outraged that you won't get this hat just for being alive, but Company B is just trying to make money. No one is making you buy that hat." -> Company C does something that is debatably stupid (e.g. the decision to put DLC advertisements in Dragon Age as NPC conversations) -> Internet argues, but all arguments in favor are "Well, they're just trying to make money!"
As far as I can tell, this is pretty much par for the course. We could probably solve this whole issue by actually saying things like "I agree that Company [X] is being a greedy asshole, but Game [Y] is still a worthwhile purchase because [insert the game's merits here]." If you bought the game because you like it, you don't have to defend the company who is trying to squeeze every penny out of you (there's a good chance they aren't the ones who actually MADE the game). Hell, it makes a certain amount of sense to buy the game, then complain your butt off to the company about their predatory practices. Of course, if they ignore all complaints, it makes even more sense to stop giving them money, but that's just my opinion (and what I'd be most likely to do in that case. If your game isn't fun because you try to gouge money out of me, your future games will also probably not be very fun, either).
A lot of the business practices are stupid and, in some cases, self destructive, but they can do what ever they want with their game. I don't think 'False Start' painted by Jasper John is worth 80 million dollars but I would never think to go rant about it on the internet. I think that Kick Starter Open Source Death Star is dumb and is just being done so some people can make money but I'm not being force to give money to them.
You know what I do when I think a game is too expensive or is doing Bull S*** dlc packages? I don't buy it. At least I don't buy it right away. I just wait for the price to come down, or for a steam sale, or for them to do a 'Game of the Year' edition that has all the dlc stuff bundled with it (That's how I bought both batman games).
So ya, kind of whiny. Give me, Give me, free, free, free.
You know what I do when I think a game is too expensive or is doing Bull S*** dlc packages? I don't buy it. At least I don't buy it right away. I just wait for the price to come down, or for a steam sale, or for them to do a 'Game of the Year' edition that has all the dlc stuff bundled with it (That's how I bought both batman games).
So ya, kind of whiny. Give me, Give me, free, free, free.
But companies do exist to make money, and as long as it stays within the bounds of the law they have a right to do any scummy business practices they want to. It's our job as consumers to not take part in the bullshit, because when we do, it doesn't happen anymore. If a company realizes that something is losing them money they will stop doing that thing.
Hey Jim, could you please explain how your examples/analogies are even vaguely relevant to what gaming companies are doing? (I expand further on my question below the quote.)
3) You didn't give the man a choice, you didn't ask him whether he wanted a knife in the dick or not. You simply did it, implying force.
2) You severely harmed a human being. This is a very negative thing.
So your analogy, while extreme, wasn't even vaguely on the right track. Neither were Jim's terrorism, drugs and human trafficking analogies. They are devastatingly harmful, they are forced, they break the biggest of laws. How were they relevant in any fucking way?
While they're not exactly saving starving babies with their profits, companies aren't HARMING anyone either. They may be harming gaming as a whole but that is an extremely subtle and difficult-to-measure issue, because a lot of companies are doing really great stuff as well. The extreme analogies which imply forceful harm, destruction or lives, etc 100% of the time don't goddamn apply.
You don't live under their fucking iron-fisted rule, EA is not your abusive alcohol-drinking dad and you are not 10 years old. You have options - either don't bother with the product, or boycott the company and all it's products, or buy the product and give negative feedback. All 3 options are effective to varying degrees.
Companies make money because people GIVE them money. Do I feel it's right to abuse that power? No. But do I feel it's harming mankind and the companies should be HATED for it? Fuck no! They are only taking hints from the consumer, and the overwhelming hint companies like EA/Activision have received is that consumers will willingly spend money on anything if it is marketed heavily enough. Consumers willingly give money for poor DLC practices, consumers willingly spend money on DRM-infested games. They are simply testing what they can get away with, how far they can push the boundaries. But I repeat, they are not forcing you to buy their shit, they are not mass-murdering fellow human beings.
Companies will alter their practices according to how consumers react (sales, reviews, feedback, etc). It's that simple. No need to over-complicate it or use dumb analogies.
1) You stabbed a man in the dick - you broke the law, here come the assault charges.The Grim Ace said:
3) You didn't give the man a choice, you didn't ask him whether he wanted a knife in the dick or not. You simply did it, implying force.
2) You severely harmed a human being. This is a very negative thing.
So your analogy, while extreme, wasn't even vaguely on the right track. Neither were Jim's terrorism, drugs and human trafficking analogies. They are devastatingly harmful, they are forced, they break the biggest of laws. How were they relevant in any fucking way?
While they're not exactly saving starving babies with their profits, companies aren't HARMING anyone either. They may be harming gaming as a whole but that is an extremely subtle and difficult-to-measure issue, because a lot of companies are doing really great stuff as well. The extreme analogies which imply forceful harm, destruction or lives, etc 100% of the time don't goddamn apply.
You don't live under their fucking iron-fisted rule, EA is not your abusive alcohol-drinking dad and you are not 10 years old. You have options - either don't bother with the product, or boycott the company and all it's products, or buy the product and give negative feedback. All 3 options are effective to varying degrees.
Companies make money because people GIVE them money. Do I feel it's right to abuse that power? No. But do I feel it's harming mankind and the companies should be HATED for it? Fuck no! They are only taking hints from the consumer, and the overwhelming hint companies like EA/Activision have received is that consumers will willingly spend money on anything if it is marketed heavily enough. Consumers willingly give money for poor DLC practices, consumers willingly spend money on DRM-infested games. They are simply testing what they can get away with, how far they can push the boundaries. But I repeat, they are not forcing you to buy their shit, they are not mass-murdering fellow human beings.
Companies will alter their practices according to how consumers react (sales, reviews, feedback, etc). It's that simple. No need to over-complicate it or use dumb analogies.
Yes!
(To the refutation of "companies exist to make money". To the Dead Space scatological fanfic, not so much.)
I've done this before, but again (short form)- game companies shouldn't exist to make money; game companies should exist to make games. If they do that well, we should reward them with tons of money so they can continue to pay their people and make more games, but ideally, they should be able to make games even if there's a chance they won't make money; to try out niche markets, innovate, and take risks. That's what moves both the medium and the industry forward, and if they can't do that, well... we end up with a bunch of dead developers, and a handful of big players who make almost nothing but franchises and sequels loaded to the neck with every form of nickel-gouging DRM the marketing department can come up with.
Fortunately, we're way too enlightened to allow such a thing to happen, let alone turn a blind eye and make excuses for it...
(To the refutation of "companies exist to make money". To the Dead Space scatological fanfic, not so much.)
I've done this before, but again (short form)- game companies shouldn't exist to make money; game companies should exist to make games. If they do that well, we should reward them with tons of money so they can continue to pay their people and make more games, but ideally, they should be able to make games even if there's a chance they won't make money; to try out niche markets, innovate, and take risks. That's what moves both the medium and the industry forward, and if they can't do that, well... we end up with a bunch of dead developers, and a handful of big players who make almost nothing but franchises and sequels loaded to the neck with every form of nickel-gouging DRM the marketing department can come up with.
Fortunately, we're way too enlightened to allow such a thing to happen, let alone turn a blind eye and make excuses for it...
As an Economist, Companies aren't made to make money. Company are made to supply the demand. And if you have a money system often time profit does come in money form. Taking sysmatics out of the picture I doubt the gaming companies will do any different until there is a colapse in the gaming market, or at least, a mass migration in realization of the demand that they don't want 'Ea' (or other company)'s balls in thier mouth and find someone who will treat us nice with a product as good or better or even slightly worse than the product we now get with balls in our mouth.
But it would have to be at least 50% move or a 30% move with riots at E3 and other gaming convetions with reps of the companies haraassed and maybe assaulted. I'm sorry to be sinic.
But it would have to be at least 50% move or a 30% move with riots at E3 and other gaming convetions with reps of the companies haraassed and maybe assaulted. I'm sorry to be sinic.
I think you're missing the point of the "companies exist to make money" argument. It's not that we should bend over and accept whatever they do, it's that they're free to try whatever they think will make them more money, and we get to decide whether to put up with it.
Allow me to rephrase it into how it actually works, rather than the clumsy "exists to make money" wording:
EA is not in the business of making video games. Honda is not in the business of making cars. Sony is not in the business of making electronic devices. Every company on the face of the planet is in the same business: to make money. Everyone is in the business of making money, it's just the method that varies. EA makes their money by creating and selling games and game content.
Because they are in the business of making money, they get to try new ways to use their resources to achieve that end. DLC was the second such post-purchase effort that came about, after subscription play. The first time it was used, it was a gamble. Would people accept it? Turns out the answer was yes. And now post-launch DLC is almost expected from games.
The thing is though, the companies don't have any power whatsoever when it comes to people paying for DLC, wherever it's located - the consumer has all of the power. All that has to happen for a particular business practice to go away is for the people who buy the games to vote with their wallets, and not buy something they think is unreasonable. If people had rejected DLC the first time it happened, there wouldn't have been a second time.
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. It's up to the players to decide to support those efforts or not. If you want EA to stop doing the stuff you don't agree with, then gather like-minded people together with you and don't pay for it. It's not the company's fault that they're able to get away with stuff like that; it's the players' fault for letting them do it.
Allow me to rephrase it into how it actually works, rather than the clumsy "exists to make money" wording:
EA is not in the business of making video games. Honda is not in the business of making cars. Sony is not in the business of making electronic devices. Every company on the face of the planet is in the same business: to make money. Everyone is in the business of making money, it's just the method that varies. EA makes their money by creating and selling games and game content.
Because they are in the business of making money, they get to try new ways to use their resources to achieve that end. DLC was the second such post-purchase effort that came about, after subscription play. The first time it was used, it was a gamble. Would people accept it? Turns out the answer was yes. And now post-launch DLC is almost expected from games.
The thing is though, the companies don't have any power whatsoever when it comes to people paying for DLC, wherever it's located - the consumer has all of the power. All that has to happen for a particular business practice to go away is for the people who buy the games to vote with their wallets, and not buy something they think is unreasonable. If people had rejected DLC the first time it happened, there wouldn't have been a second time.
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. It's up to the players to decide to support those efforts or not. If you want EA to stop doing the stuff you don't agree with, then gather like-minded people together with you and don't pay for it. It's not the company's fault that they're able to get away with stuff like that; it's the players' fault for letting them do it.
I always thought it was a convenient way of having Solidus and Raiden already know each other. The same way that Solid and Liquid had a past.IronMit said:
I do like your theory better though!
I think implicit in the 'Companies exist to make money' argument, when presented by a thoughtful individual, is that their fist order mandate is to increase the value of themselves for their investors.Jimothy Sterling said:
One of the reasons Valve can be Valve and do things their way is that they are (extremely uncommon for a company of their size) privately owned. Their decisions are not subject to review at shareholder meetings and there is very little noise the signal of their executive process.
I think a big root of some of the customer issue / customer service complaints that crop up are the result of the publishers existing in a completely isolated corporate bubble from their developers and retailers, each entity interacting via a toxic mix of rent-seeking and friction...
The free market in this case is not producing optimal productivity, in most cases, because the big money interests and investors that put white collar power players like Kotick or Riccitiello at the helm are establishing relatively effective executive decision makers who would be fine for a company like John Deer Motor, but don't really UNDERSTAND what they're trying to sell as anything other than 'entertainment media products' and think on how to push every angle to monetize them.
Gabe Newell, by contrast, IS / or at least was a gamer. I don't love or hate the man (G.N.) but he understands his business from a perspective "old money" doesn't comprehend. It can be seen in how he structured his company in it's incorperation to it's ongoing success. It's not an accident Valve does so well.
---
One final aside: I know people complain "when's halflife 3 coming", but compare Valve's slow and unreliable development vs Success against Activison and EA's "annual iteration" dev/sale cycle that's running studios, franchises and customers into the ground.
Companies exist to make money.
Consumers exist to demand quality.
That's the heart of the capitalist ideal.
Consumers exist to demand quality.
That's the heart of the capitalist ideal.
A company exists to make money, and so long as you continue to give them money you are implicitly approving of anything that company does to further that goal.
On-disc DLC doesn't exist because EA put it there. It exists because people continue to buy it. If it didn't succeed in making money, then it would have stopped.
Try it like this: when you read in the news that someone's pet Bengal tiger mauled their 2-year-old, what do you think? "Why would you have a pet Bengal tiger? Why would you let your kid near it? These parents are irresponsible!" You don't think "how could the tiger be so cruel?" because it's a tiger. Tigers do that.
So when a company does something you don't like to make money, you don't complain about the company because it's a company. Companies do that. The question is "why would you continue to do business with a company that sells incomplete products at unreasonable prices?"
On-disc DLC doesn't exist because EA put it there. It exists because people continue to buy it. If it didn't succeed in making money, then it would have stopped.
Try it like this: when you read in the news that someone's pet Bengal tiger mauled their 2-year-old, what do you think? "Why would you have a pet Bengal tiger? Why would you let your kid near it? These parents are irresponsible!" You don't think "how could the tiger be so cruel?" because it's a tiger. Tigers do that.
So when a company does something you don't like to make money, you don't complain about the company because it's a company. Companies do that. The question is "why would you continue to do business with a company that sells incomplete products at unreasonable prices?"
Stuff about MGS2IronMit said:
Yeah I got that Raiden was one of the child soldiers and had the highest kill ratio. It's just that they didn't really provide much info on Solidus' past and what the war was all about(the librarian war?).
The whole game was a big simulation on MGS1 and it seemed like the Patriots spent like decades setting up the events of 1 and 2 so they can see if the population can be controlled. Was pretty cool how the game started to glitch when the system was starting to fall- giving you false death screens.
And I thought they only made the proxy wars after MGS2 since all they were doing in the past was managing the economy and information of the United States.
MGS is one big mind fuck after another.
The whole game was a big simulation on MGS1 and it seemed like the Patriots spent like decades setting up the events of 1 and 2 so they can see if the population can be controlled. Was pretty cool how the game started to glitch when the system was starting to fall- giving you false death screens.
And I thought they only made the proxy wars after MGS2 since all they were doing in the past was managing the economy and information of the United States.
MGS is one big mind fuck after another.
Oh, this again.
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.
These guys will not change their tune until they stop making money on the current song. So stop buying from them and see if anything changes.
Don't like Ubisoft's always on DRM? Stop buying from them. DOS bombing their servers won't get the message across. That just makes them think they are right to hate you. Not getting money will get it across though. Don't like microtransactions? Don't use them. Don't worry about what everyone else is doing. You can't control that shit. Just stop feeding it yourself. I am on a dedicated boycott of a few companies. I might have from time to time been tempted to cave in and get their shit but until they actually earn the right to my money they won't see a thin dime of it.
At the end of the day no one owes anybody anything in this formula. They don't owe you anymore than they offer as part of the sale, you don't owe them your loyalty. When someone buys something from EA and bitches about being charged for DLC I liken it to someone who goes to a market and knowingly buys a shit sandwich. Then they later complain about it tasting like shit. Well guess what, you knew what the sandwich was when you bought it. Fair trade.
tl:dr Vote with your wallets folks, at the end of the day that's the only language they will understand.
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.
These guys will not change their tune until they stop making money on the current song. So stop buying from them and see if anything changes.
Don't like Ubisoft's always on DRM? Stop buying from them. DOS bombing their servers won't get the message across. That just makes them think they are right to hate you. Not getting money will get it across though. Don't like microtransactions? Don't use them. Don't worry about what everyone else is doing. You can't control that shit. Just stop feeding it yourself. I am on a dedicated boycott of a few companies. I might have from time to time been tempted to cave in and get their shit but until they actually earn the right to my money they won't see a thin dime of it.
At the end of the day no one owes anybody anything in this formula. They don't owe you anymore than they offer as part of the sale, you don't owe them your loyalty. When someone buys something from EA and bitches about being charged for DLC I liken it to someone who goes to a market and knowingly buys a shit sandwich. Then they later complain about it tasting like shit. Well guess what, you knew what the sandwich was when you bought it. Fair trade.
tl:dr Vote with your wallets folks, at the end of the day that's the only language they will understand.
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."Aaron Sylvester said:
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.
I don't get it. Companies exist to make money. At least publishers do, every one who works in the industry has told me the highest goal in making a game is to make a profit so they can keep making games. They cost more because making games is FUCKING hard and FUCKING expensive. Nobody said it was right or fair but it is the cause of bad business practice. Nobody ever said it was right and if they did there quite stupid. So what purpose does this episode serve?
But the argument here isn't "Is this successful?" but "Are these ethical business practices?"sadmac said:
Unethical business practices are successful ALL THE TIME.