Jimquisition: Companies Exist To Make Money

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Aaron Sylvester said:
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.)

The Grim Ace said:
I always did find the "they only exist to make money" argument crazy. I mean, if I went over and stabbed a man in the dick and he asked me why I did it, he wouldn't accept, "hey, I exist to stab people in the dick," as a reason. That might be an extreme analogy but when I'm spending sixty dollars on a game and only getting fifteen hours of content, my wallet feels terribly abused.
1) You stabbed a man in the dick - you broke the law, here come the assault charges.
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.
You sir, said exactly what I wanted to say, thanks for saving me time. I just shook my head and laughed as I heard Jim make those analogies.

People in this thread have said that a company's main purpose is to provide a service/product not just make money. What people seem to forget is that companies don't have to provide the service/product in the way people want or charge only what the people want to pay. People more and more forget that they can walk away and find another company if others aren't providing what they want.

I know it is kind of hard for some people to understand, but such battles are the type that are won by retreating. The can't do the so called "bad" things to people if there aren't enough people to do them to.
 

aelreth

New member
Dec 26, 2012
209
0
0
Ryan Hughes said:
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.
My bad, Mr Hughes. I stand corrected. I keep getting mixed up between that and closing the gold window.
 

Lonewolfm16

New member
Feb 27, 2012
518
0
0
I feel you have somewhat misrepresented the general argument. "companies exist to make money" is only the first part of the arguement, at least in all the forms I have heard it given. The next part generally goes "you can't expect them to do anything else, such is the structure of capitalism. The only way to voice descent to a company and have them actually care is to make it so the business practices you disagree with fail to make the comany money. Don't like a games business practices? Don't buy it. Encourage others to do the same. But sitting here whining, as if you have any right to content, solves nothing. You only have right to what content the publisher offers to sell you. If you don't think a game is worth it without the DLC being free? Don't buy the game. Still like the game enough to buy it, even though on-disk DLC exists? Buy the game but not the DLC. Find the game worth the price as well as the DLC? Buy both. Thats how economics work."
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
While I agree with Jim on the first part. I find him just repeating himself here, and his argument and comparisons are very weak. C'mon Jim, you got to be ahead of the game.

Lonewolfm16 said:
I feel you have somewhat misrepresented the general argument. "companies exist to make money" is only the first part of the arguement, at least in all the forms I have heard it given. The next part generally goes "you can't expect them to do anything else, such is the structure of capitalism. The only way to voice descent to a company and have them actually care is to make it so the business practices you disagree with fail to make the comany money. Don't like a games business practices? Don't buy it. Encourage others to do the same. But sitting here whining, as if you have any right to content, solves nothing. You only have right to what content the publisher offers to sell you. If you don't think a game is worth it without the DLC being free? Don't buy the game. Still like the game enough to buy it, even though on-disk DLC exists? Buy the game but not the DLC. Find the game worth the price as well as the DLC? Buy both. Thats how economics work."
You don't help by saying every one whines about it, they can voice their complaints, and if you don't like it, you can ignore it. Saying "you can't help them do any thing else" doesn't really make sense, especially after telling us the strategy is not to buy. There are many different ways to 'reach people', giving them a bad name is possibly stopping them from doing any thing worse for all we know.

You don't think many people have avoided these certain games and tried to encourage others? I think there just happens to be so many people in the world now that it has more chance of selling. I don't have proof of that, but I reckon it's a fair assumption.

Also, what I find interesting is that you're okay if the game doesn't make enough money if people don't buy it, to stop what they do. That's an 'if' though. With no one saying any thing, they could try many other annoying strategy's, or kill the series itself (which I think EA just did).

I reckon people expressing themselves the best way they can (not whining) opens the door for criticisms, and could actually help these companies before they fuck up. I know there is always idiots, but that shouldn't stop all complaints.
 

sadmac

New member
Sep 18, 2011
18
0
0
The Deadpool said:
sadmac said:
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.
But the argument here isn't "Is this successful?" but "Are these ethical business practices?"

Unethical business practices are successful ALL THE TIME.
These practices only affect exchange with the consumer. Ethicality is a question of the exchange continuing to be voluntary (or euvoluntary if you would like a higher bar).

Check the sidebar here for a good breakdown of the criteria:

http://euvoluntaryexchange.blogspot.com/
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
It's always been a concept people have gotten backwards. It's like saying a kids goes to school for good grades thus we should forgive cheating as they are just being industrious toward them achieving the end goal. In truth, the kids are there to learn the material and the grades are supposed to measure if they did or not. Companies have the same issue: they exist to produce a good or service that the public wants at the best price and quality, and making money is supposed to be the benchmark to say they are the good company offering value to the customer. The sentiment "companies exist to make money" ignores this and assumes that there is few actions that are wrong in the endeavor. I don't go to work for shits and giggles. I go to make money myself, but few would look at me positively if I did so by taking office supplies to the pawn shop or blackmailing my boss. An employee is told to be more valuable to make more money while a company is somehow allowed to do the opposite. They'll try and convince themselves that isn't what they're doing, or that they have no choice, or worst of all, that they are guaranteed a certain profit margin, and that's when we really need to quit humoring the idea.

It's a sign of the power balance shifting away from the customer. Mergers and conglomerates have made real competition a thing of the past so companies have less fear of people voting with their wallet. The gaming industry has also abused a lot of goodwill and have become reliant on nerd devotion to brands and characters to keep them in business as they take actions they'd never take if they really felt a threat by it. Or maybe that's starting to be past tense. I feel great schadenfreude watching Capcom fail to meet expectations of their big titles lately. THQ will be missed, but as series got bought by others, we have less to worry about bankruptcy costing us franchises. Square Enix seeming to fail on every level? No problem because Atlus and Xseed exist with far less bullshit. Yeah it's slow, but it could have an effect. It's sad it comes to this. Voting with the wallet may be effective, but it's also a painful process of lost capital, lost reputation, lost jobs, and lost time for companies that feel they have to see how far they can push customers before they break away in the name of making a quick buck. It's even more painful as they try to instead of meeting customer demands, try and put limits to their ability to go elsewhere. I mean, yeah they don't owe us anything, but the lengths they can go to avoid giving the customer any voice or alternative is a sign they'd rob us blind if they weren't afraid of the jail time.
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
Like Jim said, there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. After all, you need money to buy clothes, food, pay bills, mortgages, taxes, etc... It's HOW you make the money that's the problem. And it really does aggravate me that some people just lay back and accept it.

Oh, and the fact that he played Rayman Origins clips in the video... it's clear he wanted to mention Ubisoft's recent dick move in the video. Probably didn't have time to, though.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Publishers have existed solely on the good will and loyalty gamers developed from the more fair minded developers of the 90's and early 00's they purchased, ran into the dirt and left for dead.

In the past:
"You're willing to buy our game? Here's a little free DLC for your loyalty while we work on the expansion."

Now:
"You're willing to buy 'our' game? Then you'll be willing to buy a little DLC too, then content we hold back to sell you on release day, then individual items sold in our online stores, and you'll be willing to put up with our removal of dedicated servers so we can take away multiplayer when the sequel comes out at the expense of number of total players... All because of your loyalty... and if you don't like it, you can fuck off."

Now gamers are getting very very bitter, more than in the past.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
Nurb said:
Publishers have existed solely on the good will and loyalty gamers developed from the more fair minded developers of the 90's and early 00's they purchased, ran into the dirt and left for dead.

In the past:
"You're willing to buy our game? Here's a little free DLC for your loyalty while we work on the expansion."

Now:
"You're willing to buy 'our' game? Then you'll be willing to buy a little DLC too, then content we hold back to sell you on release day, then individual items sold in our online stores, and you'll be willing to put up with our removal of dedicated servers so we can take away multiplayer when the sequel comes out at the expense of number of total players... All because of your loyalty... and if you don't like it, you can fuck off."

Now gamers are getting very very bitter, more than in the past.
It was such a beautiful thing. I remember when I first bought Red Alert 2 and they already had free map packs to download. Later they made a page on their main site so people can put up their own maps and missions. There was too much for me to go through! Literally. And that was when I didn't have any responsibilites. You could play them all online with friends too, and even though some people found ways to cheat, not many people cared because it was still so exciting to get all these new maps.

*sad* Also, there was time I didn't have internet, it lasted about a month, *big smile* but it didn't mean shit when none of the games had DRM and I could use LAN in so many places.
 

Fiairflair

Polymath
Oct 16, 2012
94
0
0
Akalabeth said:
Fuck using Valve as a positive example.

They were the first company who REQUIRED me to install some shit middle man portal on my machine, first company who sold me a game off a shelf in a store that WAS NOT a full working game because the last 5-8% of it had to be downloaded online, one of the first companies that REQUIRED an internet connection to run your game, even if it was only a one time thing.

The fact that they have sales and all sorts of other nonsense doesn't excuse the fact that the core of what they do is draconian and entirely in their interests, not mine.


If that's the best positive example you can give then this a shitty industry we deal with.
Each of those hassles has with it a benefit. You had to install Steam for an on-disc game, but now you have the most user friendly digital distribution platform around. You had to download some manner of patch/DLC/what-have-you, but now the games you buy can be patched with the click of a button. You had to validate your product, but now nobody can take your product from you and you can re-download it on any new computer you get, meaning you can never misplace it or damage it.
The rest is a bonus. You have direct access to system and product support staff if anything goes wrong. You have access to routine markdowns on games that are frequently to the tune of 75%. You even have access to Valve's free-to-play games. If you're in any doubt of how decently Valve treat their customers I can only recommend that you take a look at what EAOrigin tries to pull on you.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,885
2,235
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I think I would prefer the title "Dead Space 4: Everybody Poops."

That's not trademarked is it?
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
at first i was like oh im so going to argue, and thne you say just what i wanted to say.
Damn you Jim, you always know the right thing to say.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
this feels kind of like a strawman..I dont think when somone says "they exist to make money" the think thats the end of that..theres more too that side of the argument
 

Not Matt

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2011
555
0
21
The tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
Fiairflair said:
Akalabeth said:
Fuck using Valve as a positive example.

They were the first company who REQUIRED me to install some shit middle man portal on my machine, first company who sold me a game off a shelf in a store that WAS NOT a full working game because the last 5-8% of it had to be downloaded online, one of the first companies that REQUIRED an internet connection to run your game, even if it was only a one time thing.

The fact that they have sales and all sorts of other nonsense doesn't excuse the fact that the core of what they do is draconian and entirely in their interests, not mine.


If that's the best positive example you can give then this a shitty industry we deal with.
Each of those hassles has with it a benefit. You had to install Steam for an on-disc game, but now you have the most user friendly digital distribution platform around. You had to download some manner of patch/DLC/what-have-you, but now the games you buy can be patched with the click of a button. You had to validate your product, but now nobody can take your product from you and you can re-download it on any new computer you get, meaning you can never misplace it or damage it.
The rest is a bonus. You have direct access to system and product support staff if anything goes wrong. You have access to routine markdowns on games that are frequently to the tune of 75%. You even have access to Valve's free-to-play games. If you're in any doubt of how decently Valve treat their customers I can only recommend that you take a look at what EAOrigin tries to pull on you.
Just want to play an interrupt on this.

But an iron fist that is wrapped in velvet might feel all nice and cool to the touch, but it is still an iron fist. And that fist whether it is covered with velvet or not, will still bust your asshole wide open and leave it a raw and ragged mess. I remember a time when consumers could buy a game on the day of its release and fully expect the game to work straight out of the box without first needing game fixing patches or an online verification system that treats every paying consumer as a criminal. I remember when they sold legitimate expansions that were actually worth paying for, instead of scatter-shot DLC that has been either carved out of the original product, or tacked on as an afterthought.

Steam might contain the least shit of the shit sandwiches I'm expected to pick from, but no matter how thinly you spread it over bread it is and it will remain shit on a sandwich. In the last fifteen years technology has been used more and more often not to make our lives better as should be the case, but to make it just that little bit shittier often at the bequest of who stands to profit from it.

But here you are trying to convince someone that the dick meat sandwich they're complaining about isn't nearly as bad as big Billy Bob's dick meat sandwich. For me personally, that fact more than anything else captures just how far gamers have fallen when they stop complaining about what is the least worst option.
 

Tinybear

New member
Aug 27, 2010
74
0
0
The best parallel I know of to explain Jim's point is when latin-america learned that if you burn the forests, you can use the ashes as fertilizer and it'll be the best farmland in existence, for a couple of years, then it'll be depleted and be useless for several years afterwards. Strangely enough, that backfired a bit, having burned down tons of lush forests just to be able to farm for a few years.

Right now, the video game companies are squeezing the life out of the industry by trying to maximize profits any way possible.
 

Fiairflair

Polymath
Oct 16, 2012
94
0
0
Akalabeth said:
Fiairflair said:
Akalabeth said:
Fuck using Valve as a positive example.

They were the first company who REQUIRED me to install some shit middle man portal on my machine, first company who sold me a game off a shelf in a store that WAS NOT a full working game because the last 5-8% of it had to be downloaded online, one of the first companies that REQUIRED an internet connection to run your game, even if it was only a one time thing.

The fact that they have sales and all sorts of other nonsense doesn't excuse the fact that the core of what they do is draconian and entirely in their interests, not mine.


If that's the best positive example you can give then this a shitty industry we deal with.
Each of those hassles has with it a benefit. You had to install Steam for an on-disc game, but now you have the most user friendly digital distribution platform around. You had to download some manner of patch/DLC/what-have-you, but now the games you buy can be patched with the click of a button. You had to validate your product, but now nobody can take your product from you and you can re-download it on any new computer you get, meaning you can never misplace it or damage it.
The rest is a bonus. You have direct access to system and product support staff if anything goes wrong. You have access to routine markdowns on games that are frequently to the tune of 75%. You even have access to Valve's free-to-play games. If you're in any doubt of how decently Valve treat their customers I can only recommend that you take a look at what EAOrigin tries to pull on you.
I'm sorry, but any service that REQUIRES I use it is not friendly, it's invasive. Steam is invasive. Origin is invasive.

This is not a console, this is a PC. I should NEVER be required to install a program to run as a middle man for a product I purchased in a brick and mortar store.

And the most friendly distribution service around is not Steam, it's GOG.com. Why? Because GOG.com does not require a client.

And no sales, no anything else changes the above facts. I do not accept an invasive program, because of a sale. I just shop somewhere else. I haven't used steam in about 2 years, and with the fact I'm doing more console gaming and the fact that GOG.com is offering more independent games like FTL I doubt I'll ever use Steam again.
I can't see a difference between buying a game restricted to one console and buying a game restricted to one PC gaming platform. A store bought game is no more intrusive for insisting that you have free software from Valve than it would be for insisting that you have expensive hardware from Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo. In one case a computer is also needed. In the other a television is also needed.

I judge the deal I get by the quality of the product or service I receive. Valve's products are various, high quality and cheap. Valve's service is comprehensive, secure, easy to use and well staffed for providing assistance. GOG.com is good also, and you rightly called my out on trying to redeem Steam by saying it isn't Origin. But that doesn't make Valve any worse an example of a good gaming company.
 

Fiairflair

Polymath
Oct 16, 2012
94
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
Fiairflair said:
Akalabeth said:
Fuck using Valve as a positive example.

They were the first company who REQUIRED me to install some shit middle man portal on my machine, first company who sold me a game off a shelf in a store that WAS NOT a full working game because the last 5-8% of it had to be downloaded online, one of the first companies that REQUIRED an internet connection to run your game, even if it was only a one time thing.

The fact that they have sales and all sorts of other nonsense doesn't excuse the fact that the core of what they do is draconian and entirely in their interests, not mine.


If that's the best positive example you can give then this a shitty industry we deal with.
Each of those hassles has with it a benefit. You had to install Steam for an on-disc game, but now you have the most user friendly digital distribution platform around. You had to download some manner of patch/DLC/what-have-you, but now the games you buy can be patched with the click of a button. You had to validate your product, but now nobody can take your product from you and you can re-download it on any new computer you get, meaning you can never misplace it or damage it.
The rest is a bonus. You have direct access to system and product support staff if anything goes wrong. You have access to routine markdowns on games that are frequently to the tune of 75%. You even have access to Valve's free-to-play games. If you're in any doubt of how decently Valve treat their customers I can only recommend that you take a look at what EAOrigin tries to pull on you.
Just want to play an interrupt on this.

But an iron fist that is wrapped in velvet might feel all nice and cool to the touch, but it is still an iron fist. And that fist whether it is covered with velvet or not, will still bust your asshole wide open and leave it a raw and ragged mess. I remember a time when consumers could buy a game on the day of its release and fully expect the game to work straight out of the box without first needing game fixing patches or an online verification system that treats every paying consumer as a criminal. I remember when they sold legitimate expansions that were actually worth paying for, instead of scatter-shot DLC that has been either carved out of the original product, or tacked on as an afterthought.

Steam might contain the least shit of the shit sandwiches I'm expected to pick from, but no matter how thinly you spread it over bread it is and it will remain shit on a sandwich. In the last fifteen years technology has been used more and more often not to make our lives better as should be the case, but to make it just that little bit shittier often at the bequest of who stands to profit from it.

But here you are trying to convince someone that the dick meat sandwich they're complaining about isn't nearly as bad as big Billy Bob's dick meat sandwich. For me personally, that fact more than anything else captures just how far gamers have fallen when they stop complaining about what is the least worst option.
The 'good old days' of gaming you speak of had other issues. For example, Super Nintendo and N64 games were great; almost instant loading times, games pretty much always worked, et cetera. But the electrical contacts in the cartridges were prone to damage (causing a blank screen) and there was only so much one could fit on them. Earlier discs were the same. I strongly believe that graphics aren't everything, but they do allow greater storytelling. As games get bigger, problems get bigger. Patches have been a reality for a long time and digital distribution isn't the reason they are needed. Rather, it is the antidote and Steam is a brand of cure from the top shelf. Also, validating a game is perfectly reasonable provided it is quick and easy and it has benefits to the consumer which I mentioned before.

You're analogy takes Akalabeth's reference to intrusiveness to a new level, but I'd ask you whether the products and services of Steam are really as bad as a velvet iron fist. I reckon Steam on PC is more than alright and I'm keenly awaiting the chance to get my hands on a Steam Box as well.