Kollega said:
On topic, I think Radiohead did this, but it is an interesting idea. I'll see how it works with this.
World of Goo Holds a "Pay What You Want" Sale
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
On topic, I think Radiohead did this, but it is an interesting idea. I'll see how it works with this.
In my humble opinion that is just insulting to the people who made the game. As a training animator these things take a ton of time to make. Please be more respectful and give them more than that.dragonburner said:
So what you're saying is that copyrights are bullshit? Of course prices are controlled by them. Without them they could create their game and I could go in and spend 20 minutes changing menus and names and sell it for half of what they are because copyright doesn't exist. It's not like they are being unreasonable. If they were they would have jacked the price, which they have more than enough power to do, and not asked you to "pay what you want." I really don't get what you are bitching about here. Your argument is not irrelevant in all aspects of life, but it is here. I think you are just trying to sound smart by throwing out some random fact and saying "LOOK AT ME".CrystalShadow said:
Eh. You're entitled to think whatever you like about what I'm saying, just so long as you don't radically misinterpret it.obisean said:
This is a promotion on their part, but I only bothering to mention this because the results for their business in running this promotion are more or less equivalent to what happens if copyright doesn't exist. - 'pay what you want' is equivalent to saying 'pay us what you think our game is worth when we ignore our own legal rights'.
I'm not saying copyright is wrong, I'm saying this promotion is equivalent to the economic effect of copyright not existing in the first place.
Incedentally, the reason copyright is necessary is because of the rest of the economy.
Mixing products that essentially amount to 'unlimited' resources with ones derived from 'limited resources' means the 'unlimited' ones have no value relative to the others.
This is an obvious problem if you expect people to be able to say, buy food, or anything else that's actually essential to life.
It's easy to demonstrate the effect of 'product value' when copyright doesn't apply with a famous work of art; Say, for instance, the Mona Lisa.
A painting of that nature is quite valuable, primarily because it is unique.
What happens though, when you make a forgery? Does that change the value of the original? Not really, because you can generally tell them apart. But, if the forgery is a good one, it may still be quite valuable in it's own right, because making a good forgery is quite hard.
But now compare this to a print, or photograph; Compared to making the original, taking a picture or creating a print is quite easy. As such, you can easily flood the market with them, and thus, they have relatively little value.
Case in point:
The value of the mona lisa itself is around $500,000,000 - http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/003555.html
Meanwhile, you can get a print for £4.99 (about $10) - http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Mona-Lisa-Posters_i847738_.htm
Given this information, what exactly do you expect the value of something to be when it costs next to nothing to copy?
This is the fundamental dilemma of intellectual property, though of course, it only matters because people have to make a living.
We've created some pretty nasty laws with the sole intent of artificially allowing people to make a living off of something which wouldn't otherwise be possible.
Ironically, this amounts to a form of social welfare, because you are allowing people to 'pay' you for something with inherent value, with something which has an entirely abstract value.
I'm being a bit of a jerk pointing that out, but it does amuse me how arbitrary people can be about things sometimes.
What is the difference between paying someone to do nothing at all, and paying them to do something which essentially has no value relative to what you are giving them?
Anyway, without copyright laws, I'd be in a lot of trouble, but if you want to see what a world without them would likely result in, open source software demonstrates the answer.
People still manage to make money from that, but it isn't based on selling the end product.
All in all, I commend them for taking such a risky stance (even if only temporarily), and really, I'm curious what the average payment they get would be, and how much of that is down to 'guilt', compared to any consideration of what 1 copy of the game is technically worth.
That is a flawed example. In that case, you're not paying for a duplicate Mona Lisa: you're paying for a shoddy knock-off.CrystalShadow said:
It's the equivalent of paying full price for a DVD of Star Wars Episode III compared to paying only a dollar for a copy of The Backstroke Of The West. [http://winterson.com/2005/06/episode-iii-backstroke-of-west.html]
EDIT: Besides, even if you could just make duplicate Mona Lisas out of thin air, you'd still have needed Da Vinci to paint the damn thing first: and wouldn't he deserve some serious schwag for his accomplishment?
Agreed. To be completely honest, and feel free to hold me in contempt if you want, but I'll probably take this chance to just get it for free. I have a reason for that - I would buy it properly for the UK equivalent of $20, whatever that is in pounds, but I simply can't afford it, since I have to scrimp and save every penny possible to live at university while I try to find a part time job. Otherwise I'd be happy to pay the full price, but if I can then I'll probably just get it for free this week or not bother at all.Kollega said:
Sorry 2DBoy, I would pay for it, honestly, but I just can't afford it at the moment. Good luck with any future projects though guys
Actually, no. Opinions are what they are but saying that World of Goo is overhyped and overpriced is borderline outrageous. It's a fantastic game and a bargain at the price.harhol said:
Interesting question. I like to think that most people will pay for the game because it's the right thing to do, and because, inherent or not, there is value to what they're getting. But if guilt is what it takes, then so be it.CrystalShadow said:
Well, yes. It's not a perfect copy, but the difference in quality alone doesn't account for a price difference of one being 50 million times more valuable than the other!scotth266 said:
The thing is, if you have perfect copies, and can make extras for free, then without legal protection, a valid source to get a new copy is anyone that already has a copy. This means as a buyer, the more people already have copies, the more options you have in getting one.
Competition among sellers lowers prices, which inevitably causes all the value to collapse.
Thus, in an attempt to compensate the original creator, we use laws to essentially create a monopoly, by saying that no-one other than the original creator is allowed to sell/give out copies.
The other part... Gets to perhaps the biggest irony of this example; Copyright law didn't exist in Da Vinci's time...
Ergo, he probably didn't get all that much money for painting the Mona Lisa...
The concept of an art patron is basically a wealthy person that supports an artist out of appreciation for their art.
Thus, in those times, an artist's income would have basically been a combination of donations, from people willing to support you just for the sake of it, and commissions, where somebody pays you to create something specific.
I hope so... But despite all that I've said here, which might sound like some strange form of idealism, World of Goo was also released without any form of copy protection. (I've even seen this mentioned as a sales point on a copy on sale in a shop.)Malygris said:Interesting question. I like to think that most people will pay for the game because it's the right thing to do, and because, inherent or not, there is value to what they're getting. But if guilt is what it takes, then so be it.CrystalShadow said:
That's admirable, but it's clear doing the right thing isn't high on most people's agenda when you hear piracy rates for a game like World of Goo are about 90%...
That in itself suggests only 1 in 10 people care enough to pay for it even when what they're doing is technically illegal...
Disappointing, really...
I get what you're saying but... It's a recession and I wouldn't have bought it otherwise. I mean, it isn't the greatest game ever and it is normally 20 bucks.Frank_Sinatra_ said:
I tried the demo and enjoyed it, but I couldn't justify dropping $20 on another game, especially when I didn't know how long I would enjoy it for (I tend to get bored of games quickly).
However, I'm more than willing to drop $5 on a game. Even if it only lasts an hour, that's still more entertainment than I could get doing anything else.
Note: they appear to have extended the sale. It's now on until Oct 25th. Grab it while you can!
And don't forget, even though you could buy it for 1 cent, it's worth more than that. Pay what you think it's worth and what you can afford and hopefully companies will continue to test this model of payment. Pay them nothing and they'll never do it again. Think of it as a collection plate.
However, I'm more than willing to drop $5 on a game. Even if it only lasts an hour, that's still more entertainment than I could get doing anything else.
Note: they appear to have extended the sale. It's now on until Oct 25th. Grab it while you can!
And don't forget, even though you could buy it for 1 cent, it's worth more than that. Pay what you think it's worth and what you can afford and hopefully companies will continue to test this model of payment. Pay them nothing and they'll never do it again. Think of it as a collection plate.
This game doesn't really interest me at all to be honest.
That said this is one of the smartest marketing ploys ever. I as a gamer was so proud and thunderstuck of this ploy that I almost paid $50 dollars for it.
Here is the thing, games generally have unreasonably high price points these days. And lowering the price over time so 5 dollars or less is unheard of. So people just pirate non must have games.
This is a way for the company to capture sales that they otherwise would not have had.
That said this is one of the smartest marketing ploys ever. I as a gamer was so proud and thunderstuck of this ploy that I almost paid $50 dollars for it.
Here is the thing, games generally have unreasonably high price points these days. And lowering the price over time so 5 dollars or less is unheard of. So people just pirate non must have games.
This is a way for the company to capture sales that they otherwise would not have had.