Aardvaarkman said:
I didn't ignore it - I just took it as read. I was using "free" as a shorthand for "free of monetary cost" - and "ad-supported" as the cost paid.
I absolutely agree that the time spent watching an ad has value. That's why I said that it was seen as an economic benefit to release it this way rather than charge money directly.
Well, as long as we're on the same page about that.
Ah, you see, that statement was rather tongue-in-cheek.
I reduced it to a "simple" solution because of all the whining and hand-wringing over things like piracy and ad-blocking. If ad-blocking is so damaging, then why don't they just move to a non-advertising model? That would eliminate the ad-blocking problem altogether.
Because they make (or think they will make) more money with advertising (even with the existence of ad-blocking) than they would by selling with an up-front cost or subscription. If you can still make enough money despite ad-blocking, without even having to "sell" your product, then it seems that ad-blocking not that bad of a problem to have.
This is why I think attacking ad blocking is a short-sighted attempt to mask much deeper problems.
Forgive me for not catching that; I've been a bit too literal minded as of late.
(I blame the hours and hours of equations I've had to derive)
I think I'll address this further down, just to keep this as short as I can.
Smilomaniac said:
I've done a search, but I can't find anything on public performances specifically and that seems to be the defining factor on this topic.
Note that I'm not dismissing the relevance or trying to be snarky, but the tragedy of commons seems to be strictly linked to anything that directly benefits people in more tangible ways than subjective entertainment.
As much as I'd prefer a better source than wikipedia, try these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem (related directly to Public Performance, which is identical to a Public Good; sorry for the confusion)
For the sake of argument, I can easily go along with the premise that entertainment is a benefit to society since it has obvious positive effects which make people more productive or less inclined to create chaos, but I would like to see it be mentioned specifically for this discussion. If you could link it
I guess the point here is, whether or not users have any responsibility moral or otherwise vs. sites like this one being responsible for taking the losses into account and thereby giving actual permission to circumvent advertisement or seeking alternative methods.
It's an ugly moral dilemma, because the nature of Ad-Blockers is similar in nature to piracy; when you eliminate moral incentives, you also eliminate regular economic incentive.
Granted, it's not quite as extreme as piracy, since there are many more non-profit content producers than non-profit game developers, but the concept still applies since they're both Information Goods.
Akin to that of how piracy, by economic mechanics, competes with equivalent goods on the market by generating an irrational amount of supply (infinite supply at low to no cost). Most Pirated games are functionally identical to their original counterparts, just as the Jimquisition is still the same whether or not an ad plays prior to it.
Tragedy of the Commons is a good theory to explain that, based on motivational behavior.
People want X, and will pay the lowest cost to obtain X.
But what happens when X disappears because the person/firm that creates X has no incentive to continue?
That's the real problem.
In fact, I've noticed some folks even taking serious offense to Jim just for having the audacity to try and charge some cost to view his show. I know that it's easy to adopt a mercenary "Not my problem, I'll just watch something else." attitude, but that's exactly the Tragedy of the Commons in practice.
But it must also count for less now that we have more ways of circumventing advertisement now. Downloadable podcasts, selective viewing, ad-blocking, TIVO recording and so on. The only place where I'm forced to watch advertisement is actually in the cinema and they're losing more and more customers as the years go by (and I've almost completely stopped going there, the exception being if someone else pays).
It encourages the debate of whether or not it's an acceptable strategy to force on people (and then require that they don't circumvent it), right? At least from an economical perspective, if not a moral or ethical one.
Well, there's all manner of things one can force onto a market; most of the relevant things being costs to the consumer.
But keep in mind that the advertising model and pre-pay model are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, costs from each model can be added directly to one another if implemented in that manner.
To demonstrate, I'll use Cable TV.
When Cable TV was new, it was advertised as a paid-for alternative to public access network TV.
Namely, that because you paid for the channels (and thus, the shows) it had no advertisements.
This model proved so popular, that the producers became emboldened, and raised the costs on the consumer to meet the increased demand; both in the form of rates (charging per channel instead of a group of channels, and later, pay-per-view) and eventually, they added in the cost of advertisements.
So in the end, Cable TV went full circle, because producers realized that they could get away with charging for
selection over convenience; even if it defeated the original point of Cable TV!
Another, more recent example of additive costs in gaming would be The Elder Scrolls Online.
They are so confident in their game, they're charging an up front base installment cost, a monthly subscription, and it has microtransactions on top of THAT. (effectively all three gaming monetary systems in one package. Yikes!)
As much as we hate it, raising costs to meet demand is a
regular, normal function of economics; the supply and demand curves change over time. Of course, there's only so much abuse that a market will take before it revolts. Sometimes that revolt can occur quite rapidly...speaking of.
Presumably it will cause an angry knee-jerk response from advertisers at some point like we've seen with DRM and anti-piracy organisations, which will then mellow out just as quickly and lead to alternative methods (like patreon or kickstarter).
That's kinda how this works: Popular systems ebb and flow with trends. Why are game companies suddenly shoving social media functions into every cranny of gaming? Because of "viral marketing" and exposure. Even if the additions add no function to the game save to annoy you.
Going back to market revolts, remember Cable TV? Well it enjoyed success for so long that its pricing scheme bloated; so much that when internet streaming sites opened up, people flocked to the new, cheaper alternative in droves.
It's such a fitting irony how high Cable TV prices indirectly spurred Cable Internet sales because people wanted a better connection to stream cheaper and more varied content.
Given enough time, any business model can and will be exploited. That's the nature of the market, and why economics assumes Greed as a primary motivator.
So, what will follow internet streaming services?
Who knows?
Maybe we'll see blending of mediums with Augmented Reality and TV.
Or maybe old cable TV channel producers will step up their game and offer better shows, both online and on the old tubes.
Or maybe the major media market will do something that grossly oversteps its boundaries and experience a crash in response (think SOPA, but potentially bigger), thus creating a surge in book sales and traditional literature.
Squintsalot said:
Smilomaniac said:
Squintsalot said:
(snipped for less clutter)
Wow. That's brutal honesty for you and I can't tell you how much I appreciate reading a post like that, in what seems like a fucking ocean of hypothetical and useless posts that permeate this site.
Brutal honesty's my middle name.
"Brutally ignorant" is more accurate. Or perhaps "brutally pretentious".
"Your financial status is not my responsibility because we have no relationship."
Maybe I should start using that line day to day; I'm sure it will save me a lot of money.
"Hey, we have no real relationship, so I'm just going to take your TV. Hey, don't complain to me, I'm not responsible for your financial future."
