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.Jennacide said: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?"
jklinders said: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
Do try and keep up. I responded to your post BEFORE YOU POSTED IT....The Deadpool said: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?
That is the crux of the argument in like... Every other video he has done in the past few months?Ukomba said:Immoral? Please, do tell, what have they done that is 'immoral' or a practice that should be made against the law?
NOTHING is "inherently" bad. It's all subjective.Aaron Sylvester said:The difference is that it's not inherently "bad",
But complaining IS part of the negotiation. Public perception is important to companies...walruss said:Maybe we should consider, you know, using that instead of complaining that companies aren't doing our negotiating for us.
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.theultimateend said: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.
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.Dexter111 said:It's not even a "true" argument. Companies exist for whatever fucking reason their owner deems they should exist for.
Right, but that's not my point. My point isn't that people think they are entitled to EA games. My point is that people think they are entitled to luxury products at all. You literally don't have to play video games. You can read a book, or watch television, or board games, or a million other hobbies. Unlike with food, shelter, etc, the market should not be forced to provide you with ways to entertain yourself, and they certainly shouldn't be forced to do so according to some faux-moral code of how to distribute their products.theultimateend said:Suddenly it doesn't matter if you have an opinion because all your alternatives are gone.
I agree, but a lot of the people I see complaining, and even Jim in this case, seem to think that we should throw a hissy fit, and then the company owes it to us to get its act together. We tell the company what they're doing wrong, and we tell the consuming public what the company is doing wrong, sure. But then we back that up by making purchases based on how we want companies to act.The Deadpool said:But complaining IS part of the negotiation. Public perception is important to companies...walruss said:Maybe we should consider, you know, using that instead of complaining that companies aren't doing our negotiating for us.
I suppose the main difference there is that TF2 is no less enjoyable if you don't buy items. The trade system is really enjoyable to use, even though you know Valve are the ones who are really winning. But try playing ME3 multiplayer (when it works) without purchasing item packs.scw55 said:I agree.
I believe in ethical business practise for the consumers and manufacturers.
Yes, by being a dick you may make a lot of money now. But by being not-a-dick you ensure income for the future, long term. For some reason (which is strange), human beings like people who are not dicks. And tend to hate dicks.
It's funny. Steam used to get a lot of slack for Hats. And stupid keys to unlock chests. Now they're eclipsed by everyone else.
If it's doing nothing but amorally servicing itself by sucking everything else dry, why should we keep it around? Companies are created by people to serve people (thus the moral judgement), and as long as they do it well and cause no harm, there's no problem. Clearly, the customers who defend them care more about the service they receive than the cost they pay; everyone has their own personal line.nightazday said: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.
The Deadpool said:jklinders said: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 strawmenDo try and keep up. I responded to your post BEFORE YOU POSTED IT....The Deadpool said: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?
That is the crux of the argument in like... Every other video he has done in the past few months?Ukomba said:Immoral? Please, do tell, what have they done that is 'immoral' or a practice that should be made against the law?
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.
NOTHING is "inherently" bad. It's all subjective.Aaron Sylvester said:The difference is that it's not inherently "bad",
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.
Ryan Hughes said:Actually, the idea that companies exist to make money is relatively new. Adam Smith would have found the notion horrifying, as he would likely have said that companies exist to further moral sentiments and examples. In fact, in America you used to have to prove that your company benefited its community at large or they would revoke your incorporation.
Beginning in the 1800's, the idea the companies exist to make money began, but it really did not begin to take hold until the post-war era, reaching its zenith in the Regan era.
No, if that's the case, the people using "companies exist to make money" are missing the point of "companies exist to make money." People use it as a "you are not allowed to complain so shut the fuck up" button and nothing more. It's as dumb as "If you don't like it, don't buy it". No shit, Sherlock! I already knew that. Doesn't mean I don't have the right to complain about it, and telling people that they can't complain about it because they should just not buy it if they dislike the practice is completely stupid. Everyone who thinks like that needs to sit down this video and watch it until the message sinks in: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6187-Why-Boycotts-Fail-Where-Whining-Tantrums-WinDiMono said: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.
Another excellent way of putting it.theultimateend said: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.
Agreed. There's a massive difference between EA buying up companies like Westwood and Pandemic, running them into the ground, and then dissolving them into nothing while continuing with their own existence to do it to another company later, and THQ running itself into the ground and no longer existing because of it.Zachary Amaranth said: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.Jennacide said: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?"