Jimquisition: Companies Exist To Make Money

Fiairflair

Polymath
Oct 16, 2012
94
0
0
walruss said:
The Deadpool said:
walruss said:
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...
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.
Perhaps, but that isn't so much a reflection on commentators like Jim than it is on their audience. Unfortunately it is the audience that must spend differently if anything is to change. And right now they won't. For a lot of gamers the "byzantine anti-piracy and pay systems" (great line btw) is outweighed by their desire to experience a new game. It isn't so much that they like how publishers treat them, but rather that things aren't so bad they will stop buying the product.

I suspect that in deciding what to put into his video Jim thought it best to address the largest obstacle to change: gamers who say companies can do what they want without looking closely at the deal they are being offered.
And he did: "You may be happy to buy DLC that was already sold to you because it was on the disc. You may think getting less content at higher prices is acceptable... That's fine... But at least understand that just because you're cool with it doesn't mean everyone should be..."
 

Phlakes

Elite Member
Mar 25, 2010
4,282
0
41
It makes sense when you're not looking at the small, specific group of people that use the phrase in the exact way you described.

i.e. when you're not defaulting to the exaggerated, unrelenting anti-corporation side of the argument.
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
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.
they're HATS

they are for the purpose of BEING ON HEADS

we're talking about exploitation and you're angry at the hats in a now free to play game
 

aelreth

New member
Dec 26, 2012
209
0
0
walruss said:
The Deadpool said:
walruss said:
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...
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.
Then we as consumers should begin directly speaking to the developers with our wallets, the publisher will happily cannibalize it's adopted child developers to survive.
 

Stryc9

Elite Member
Nov 12, 2008
1,294
0
41
[sarcasm]But Jim, corporations are people and you want to deny them their human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness through making huge piles of cash by any means! You're starting to sound like some sort of filthy socialist, 99%-er that hates America and the free market![/sarcasm]
 

The Material Sheep

New member
Nov 12, 2009
339
0
0
Corporations exist to make money. This is a fact. They don't owe anyone anything. However we don't owe them anything either and if they put out stupid things like on disc dlc, drm, and other terrible terrible ideas. We have just as much right to tell those fuck heads to give us a better deal and not give them any money.

Principle is a big part of this though. You have to follow up action with words. Wish more people would.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Therumancer said:
....A whole lot of opinionated crap.....
Oh god,
I'm sorry dude but you seem to be spewing out complete ignorance there. Blantant, rabid, ignorant stereotyping, from what you "get" from studio walkthroughs.
First off, this walkthroughs normally show the more light hearted areas of a company simply because it is more likely to entertain an audience. But Dev companies often have several different components all in charge of different areas of the production, not always as clearly portrayable. (also, I'd love it if you could point me to those really efficient lawyers you speak of, becaus I don't really know any)

Sure, people in game dev seem laid back, but this mainly responds to the fact that they love doing what they are doing, and not about them not working hard enough. One of the most complex and highly demanding fields of computing today is gaming and real time visualization and it requires some extremely specialized knowledge. The production process is far from what you are describing, and I am inclned to believe that you are just saying this without actually knowing what any of it entails. First of, Different areas of a company work at different times, artists are often very active at the start of a project when doing concept design, and other artists pick up 3d and texturing later in the development cycle. There are several different specialties of graphic arts required for the complete production of a game. Some of them will temain through the whole process, while others will only be required for specific situations, NOT ALL ARTISTS CAN DO ALL ART.

Similarly, an AI programmer will likely only become really active later in the game production cycle when basic gameplay dynamics have been defined. While an engine programmer will actually be busiest before the actual production is started. But these are just a few, through the production dozens of specific programmers might be needed for different areas of the game.

Then you are forgetting the sheer volume of content games have today, Levels all have to be designed, each set piece must be produced as a unique structure. Acting, Music, Sound, UI, Lighting, Gameplay Systems, Architecture, Writing, Network, all of these have specialists that iterate towards producing the exact result that the director and publisher expect.

Also, as many other people, you are falling into a profound ignorant fallacy, which is that working more is better... When in fact working BETTER does MORE. Looking busy does not equal producing better work.
As a programmer myself, I can tell you that a programmer that types furiously and restlessly, may be very good when properly directed, but it is far more important to plan ahead and solve the system problems elegantly and thoughtfully, since a single slip can come back later in the development process and destroy hundreds of hours of work.
Often 3000 lines of code are not the answer, and believe it or not, when you are typing furiously, it is hard to see the bigger picture and easier to fuck up.
In my indie team, I had a "very good" programmer, that was busy all the time, typing thousands and thousands of lines of code, seemingly complex as hell. But it all fell apart when we found a bug: I went in to revise it, I realized that it was all trash Thousands upon thousands of cryptic trash. I had to re-think everything, recode thousands of lines into 20 lines that did the same, faster and better, but that realization took time. Efficiency is priceless.
But efficiency actually implies doing the same work in less time, not the other way around. Complaining about the inefficiency of the process when you don't really understand the necessary steps is plain ignorant.

Underestimating the importance of pre-planning, prototyping, iteration, refactoring, bug fixing, and optimisation is one of the worst mistakes in companies, and it shows lack of experience and profound short-sightedness that ends up killing and driving projects over budget.

The other point that you are shamelessly ignoring is that a lot of publishers use more than half the budget of a game in publicity, PR and Press coverage, Market research and simply Publisher's cut.
Just so you get an idea, in a market as small and independent as the app store, apple takes away 30% of all profit, and a publisher takes an extra 30-40% on top of that, meaning that the developer gets less than half the money that is paid for the game.

Many bigger publishers fund the production of a game by a limited amount, without actually taking into account the profit to be made from the game, and only if a profit margin is reached, the development team receives a certain percentage as bonus. But it is not as if the developer can demand a higher pay from the publisher. They just present a budget that the publisher approves (or normally cuts), to begin production.
In fact it is well known that most positions in game companies are not the best paid in their field either, A Programmer can make MUCH more money, working on banking administration systems than game physics engines, shaders, or AI, even though it is a lot easier. And an artist can probably have a much more reliable work in fields of marketing, publicity or editorial design.

I really encourage you to learn about game development from more than the occasional "inside x game studio" documentary, before you make such thoughtless comments.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
So bottom line is : it's ok to make money, but it has to be for something people want to buy without feeling like they're being shit on.
And what THE FUCK were those animals in the video?! Jesus, Jim, how do you find such High Octane Nightmare Fuel?!
 

XelaisPWN

New member
Jun 8, 2009
57
0
0
Companies exist to make money.

So stop giving them money.

If you can't handle that (e.g. you can't help but spend $60 on Mass Effect 3 even though Origin [insert everything bad here]) then it's probably not that big of a deal.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
cerebus23 said:
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.

wow what are they teaching in school nowdays?

i think rockafeller, andrew carnegie and a number of other of business titans, whos sole purpose in life was money over anything, a consequence of which many of our nations infrastructure was built, would like to have a word with you.

that fact that the word monopoly was over and one with decades before regan was even born and i find the notion that somehow the regan era is now seen as the height of greed is good.

study some history.
I have, quite a bit more than you it seems. The reason the Regan era is seen as the era of "Greed is Good," is largely because of Michael Milken, who said those very words in an address at the Dow Jones a few years before his arrest. Also, because of the deregulation of the financial sector begun with Nixon and the undermining of the Bretton Woods system, and continued by Regan and Jesse Helms.

Also, are you talking about the same Rockefellers who murdered their own employees at the Ludlow Massacre in Colorado in 1914? Because if you are, then you are literally holding up murderers as paragons of American progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Companies do exist to make money. As a human construct, that is it's sole purpose, it's singular reason for being. Attempting to deliver a crippling broadside speaking about about the presumed moral shortcomings of this construct are folly simply because the only moral standard inherent to a company is to make money. This is the fundamental problem with attempting to personify a fundamentally inhuman structure like a company: good or bad cannot actually apply. If one actually wants to unironically judge the relative worth of such a thing, it must be on the basis of if it efficiently and effectively fulfills it's purpose.

This places a company in an interesting position. You can judge the actions of the people who work at the company by a moral standard, certainly but it all becomes very nebulous very quickly. Who precisely, for example, was responsible for a man in my camp in Dragon Age constantly asking for more money? Since it becomes impossible to track this down for a consumer (and in many cases difficult for anyone in the company in question to determine with any certainty) we project the presumed morale shortcoming into the corporation itself.

That said, it does offer a fairly unique relationship. If you accept that a company exists to make money and actions that further that end are morally correct, it stands to reason you have an easy solution to this moral conundrum. If a company takes an action that you believe to be immoral, simply do not give them money. By supporting a company that engages in a practice you do not agree with, you torpedo any argument you might otherwise have about the presumed rights and wrongs of the world. If you insist on applying a moral framework to an idea so nebulous as the corporation, to support a company that you believe does wrong goes beyond hypocrisy. You become a collaborator, a traitor, the very agent that allows the action you despise to happen. By contrast, if you refuse to buy a product from a company that has taken an action you find despicable, you have achieved the seemingly impossible: you've made the action the company took that offended less moral by undermining the effort of said company to make money.

Don't voice a strongly worded condemnation of a shady practice and then turn around and buy a product. A half measure achieves less than nothing. This is not an industry that produces things you need. There is no sophie's choice to make here. Morality of a corporation is determined by the consumer's willingness to give said corporation money.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
Companies do exist to make money. As a human construct, that is it's sole purpose, it's singular reason for being. Attempting to deliver a crippling broadside speaking about about the presumed moral shortcomings of this construct are folly simply because the only moral standard inherent to a company is to make money. This is the fundamental problem with attempting to personify a fundamentally inhuman structure like a company: good or bad cannot actually apply. If one actually wants to unironically judge the relative worth of such a thing, it must be on the basis of if it efficiently and effectively fulfills it's purpose.

This places a company in an interesting position. You can judge the actions of the people who work at the company by a moral standard, certainly but it all becomes very nebulous very quickly. Who precisely, for example, was responsible for a man in my camp in Dragon Age constantly asking for more money? Since it becomes impossible to track this down for a consumer (and in many cases difficult for anyone in the company in question to determine with any certainty) we project the presumed morale shortcoming into the corporation itself.

That said, it does offer a fairly unique relationship. If you accept that a company exists to make money and actions that further that end are morally correct, it stands to reason you have an easy solution to this moral conundrum. If a company takes an action that you believe to be immoral, simply do not give them money. By supporting a company that engages in a practice you do not agree with, you torpedo any argument you might otherwise have about the presumed rights and wrongs of the world. If you insist on applying a moral framework to an idea so nebulous as the corporation, to support a company that you believe does wrong goes beyond hypocrisy. You become a collaborator, a traitor, the very agent that allows the action you despise to happen. By contrast, if you refuse to buy a product from a company that has taken an action you find despicable, you have achieved the seemingly impossible: you've made the action the company took that offended less moral by undermining the effort of said company to make money.

Don't voice a strongly worded condemnation of a shady practice and then turn around and buy a product. A half measure achieves less than nothing.
In a way, I see your point. But as I stated earlier, many of the people seen as the founders of capitalism (in as much as such a vast structure could be narrowed down) like Adam Smith would be horrified by the very notion that anything could exist solely for making money. Adam Smith wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" before he wrote "Wealth of Nations," and simply assumed that the foundations of moral sentiments would exist as the primary basis for action in his laissez faire economic system that he envisioned. This system should be separated from the laissez faire proposed by Milton Freedman, though, as Freedman's system makes no account for moral basis for actions.
 

aelreth

New member
Dec 26, 2012
209
0
0
Ryan Hughes said:
Eclectic Dreck said:
Companies do exist to make money. As a human construct, that is it's sole purpose, it's singular reason for being. Attempting to deliver a crippling broadside speaking about about the presumed moral shortcomings of this construct are folly simply because the only moral standard inherent to a company is to make money. This is the fundamental problem with attempting to personify a fundamentally inhuman structure like a company: good or bad cannot actually apply. If one actually wants to unironically judge the relative worth of such a thing, it must be on the basis of if it efficiently and effectively fulfills it's purpose.

This places a company in an interesting position. You can judge the actions of the people who work at the company by a moral standard, certainly but it all becomes very nebulous very quickly. Who precisely, for example, was responsible for a man in my camp in Dragon Age constantly asking for more money? Since it becomes impossible to track this down for a consumer (and in many cases difficult for anyone in the company in question to determine with any certainty) we project the presumed morale shortcoming into the corporation itself.

That said, it does offer a fairly unique relationship. If you accept that a company exists to make money and actions that further that end are morally correct, it stands to reason you have an easy solution to this moral conundrum. If a company takes an action that you believe to be immoral, simply do not give them money. By supporting a company that engages in a practice you do not agree with, you torpedo any argument you might otherwise have about the presumed rights and wrongs of the world. If you insist on applying a moral framework to an idea so nebulous as the corporation, to support a company that you believe does wrong goes beyond hypocrisy. You become a collaborator, a traitor, the very agent that allows the action you despise to happen. By contrast, if you refuse to buy a product from a company that has taken an action you find despicable, you have achieved the seemingly impossible: you've made the action the company took that offended less moral by undermining the effort of said company to make money.

Don't voice a strongly worded condemnation of a shady practice and then turn around and buy a product. A half measure achieves less than nothing.
In a way, I see your point. But as I stated earlier, many of the people seen as the founders of capitalism (in as much as such a vast structure could be narrowed down) like Adam Smith would be horrified by the very notion that anything could exist solely for making money. Adam Smith wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" before he wrote "Wealth of Nations," and simply assumed that the foundations of moral sentiments would exist as the primary basis for action in his laissez faire economic system that he envisioned. This system should be separated from the laissez faire proposed by Milton Freedman, though, as Freedman's system makes no account for moral basis for actions.
The bretton woods situation was created because the the politicians & the american people were unwilling to give up their welfare state. Whatever we have now has been described by Bastiat.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Ryan Hughes said:
In a way, I see your point. But as I stated earlier, many of the people seen as the founders of capitalism (in as much as such a vast structure could be narrowed down) like Adam Smith would be horrified by the very notion that anything could exist solely for making money. Adam Smith wrote "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" before he wrote "Wealth of Nations," and simply assumed that the foundations of moral sentiments would exist as the primary basis for action in his laissez faire economic system that he envisioned. This system should be separated from the laissez faire proposed by Milton Freedman, though, as Freedman's system makes no account for moral basis for actions.
That's the catch - when you deal with people, there are all sorts of moral considerations to make. But a company, in spite of the fact exists with many of the same rights as a person, is not a person. It is a construct designed to a particular end - the efficient acquisition of money. Like other constructs, to attempt to judge the morality of the thing is impossible to achieve without sounding very silly.

For example, a hammer is just such a construct. It serves to apply high impulse force to a small area to, for example, drive a nail. But it's purpose is not to drive the "correct" nail, or drive a nail in the "correct" way or indeed even to drive a nail. It's purpose is simply to apply force. A "good" hammer allows for the efficient and precise application of sufficient force, a bad hammer does not. A sledge hammer used to smash a window in a riot does not become a bad hammer; a reasonable person directs the moral outrage to the person swinging the hammer.

But, in our very particular case, we decry the evils we see and yet we buy the products anyhow. They aren't things we need by any common use of the word. These are trivial things we want for petty amusement. If the company exists to make money and they are selling a thing we fundamentally do not actually need, why are we so eager to cry foul and then giving them our money anyhow thus allowing the company to fulfill it's fundamental purpose? Does that sound like the sort of action that results in a change? Does that moral condemnation really seem to have any teeth?

That reason alone is sufficient cause to consider a company as a money making construct above all else. Because it gives you, the consumer, the ability to do something besides wring your hands.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
aelreth said:
The bretton woods situation was created because the the politicians & the american people were unwilling to give up their welfare state. Whatever we have now has been described by Bastiat.
Bretton Woods was created to prevent capital flight from re-emerging economies that were wrecked during WWII. It placed very few restrictions on the trade of goods, but heavy restrictions on the trade of capital and currencies, in order to make sure that the countries that were ravaged by the war were not bled dry of what little resources they had left, and it and the Marshal Plan were massive successes that led to growth not just for Germany, Japan, France, Belgium, etc, but also for the US. Simply put, these two together may be the greatest economic successes in human history.
 

plainlake

New member
Jan 20, 2010
110
0
0
This video is relevant to bronies. It seems like the majority will take bullets for Hasbro no matter what they do to them. And that is another thing, these large companies does not need your protection, they have accumulated enough wealth and power to do that themselves.
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
weirdguy said:
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.
they're HATS

they are for the purpose of BEING ON HEADS

we're talking about exploitation and you're angry at the hats in a now free to play game

At no point did I say I was angry. Thank you for putting words in my mouth so-to-speak :)

In fact, Jim talked about exploitation. You aren't.
 

level27smartass

New member
Jun 23, 2012
31
0
0
cerebus23 said:
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.

wow what are they teaching in school nowdays?

i think rockafeller, andrew carnegie and a number of other of business titans, whos sole purpose in life was money over anything, a consequence of which many of our nations infrastructure was built, would like to have a word with you.

that fact that the word monopoly was over and one with decades before regan was even born and i find the notion that somehow the regan era is now seen as the height of greed is good.

study some history.
Do you even socioeconomic studies? In all sincerity Rockefeller, Carnegie and all the other minds of guild-ed age did way more evil than good. I kid you not these men had a private army to break strikes, kill union bosses, and frame-workers, you probably know them as the Pinkerton Detective Agency. A privatized police force bought and payed for by those you idolize. In 1914 a strike broke out in the Ludlow, Colorado the coal miners there where sick of working for days at time with underground and with fresh air. The miners went out to build a tent encampment outside the company land(before you ask these people where homeless to begin with even though they where working. Colorado Fuel & Iron Company camp guards(Pinkerton trained) and the US National Guard torched the encampment 1,600 people mostly women and children and begin to open fire with machine guns. 18 people died 11 of them children. This was just one strike broke by Rockefeller's goons
 

T_ConX

New member
Mar 8, 2010
456
0
0
Companies do this because it works. Enough people buy this crap, be it overpriced DLC, on-disc DLC, or yearly rehashes, to justify the practice. The most anyone can do to stop this trend is to not buy into it.

I'm still waiting for the version of Mass Effect 3 that comes with the full game, and doesn't require me to drop an extra $30 on content that was cut from the first release so it could be sold separately. Sorry ass-hats, but I'm under NO obligation to buy this game, so until you get your act together, I'll be buying what I like to call 'FINISHED PRODUCT'!