I'm going to get right to the point: video game developers owe us nothing.
The word "capitalism" is getting used a lot in this conversation, often by people who, in its use, are revealing their ignorance of its meaning. Whenever one makes a purchase in a capitalist system, a voluntary agreement is being made. One party has something to offer, so does the other, an exchange is made, and each one walks away with something worth more to them (at the point of sale) than they gave up. That's how it works.
If you buy a game for $60, then complain that it's not worth $60 because of an online pass, then you are a hypocrite. When you paid the $60, you were stating in unclear terms that you thought it was worth it. You can regret the decision later, sure. But not retroactively.
Are online passes "bad for the industry?" Maybe; I'm not sure what that means exactly. Will they make games -which would otherwise be worthwhile- into purchases that aren't worth it? Definitely, for some people. Is anyone moved by complaints by industry giants about needing to pay for this or that with extra fees? Not many, I think. But all of this is totally irrelevant.
They've got something to offer, and we can take it or leave it. We can take it and say it was a stretch. We can leave it and complain the product was ruined by fees. What we can't do without being complete assholes is demand a product from an industry which owes us nothing, and take a self-righteous tone as we insolently whine when that exact product isn't delivered to us just how we like it for the price we require.
I can hear some of you saying it now: "but they owe us their existence!" No. We've all made purchases, and those exchanges are complete. It's over. They owed us the games we bought, and we got them. You aren't buying a vested interest in the future of the gaming industry when you buy a game. Those are called stocks, and when Jim complains about online passes ruining the industry, he sounds more like a stockholder should than a gamer should.
Jim, you're a smart guy, and a great writer and speaker. But you don't get it.
|
innocuousremark's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
Do I get it? Huh? Do I?
http://www.destructoid.com/talking-to-women-about-videogames-i-m-not-a-real-gamer--213289.phtml
We don’t owe developers anything either. Why should I have content I paid for held hostage until I prove to the developer that I bought the game new like a good little boy?
The people who live in jungles, who are supposed to be 'primitive' seem the most advanced. The live peacefully free of fantasy and material possessions, all working together instead of trying to one up each other.
Imagine if everyone acted like that? We wouldn't have people starving on the streets, people dying to the cheer of others and most importantly? We wouldn't have nickle and dime DLC and Online Passes!
Not if you are given one choice. Choice includes the freedom to choose. If everyone adopts a shitty business practice, with no other alternative, then it's not quite voluntary. Only if you really squeeze the definition in a literal sense, that then you could just buy no games at all.
But that's not a realistic expectation at all. Nor is quite a great slogan for publishers to brandy about: "Don't buy our game then!"
Little counter productive, innit?
But not really.
Capitalism doesn't legitimize monopolies like that. Nowhere would you find such thinking in the words of Smith or Ricardo.
If every publisher adopts an online pass, then that is not voluntary.
The buying of a game is voluntary. The buying of a game with an online pass is not voluntary.
No?
Ok
LMFAO!
Except it still does.
@ManWithNoName: Best. Comeback. Evar.
@Handy: Correct. We can complain all we like, and justly so in some cases. What we can't do is act like we are owed the games we want.
Producers do in fact make products for other people, based on what they want. Why would they make products no one wants? And to sit there and say: "Producers do what they like, and if you don't like it, tough!" is such an ass backwards view of consumer economics. Do you think a Publisher says to himself: "I'm going to drop millions of dollars to develop a game, and if no one wants it, tough shit!"?
All economic actions are motivated and rewarded by what other people want.
And trust me, I can already tell why you wrote it, given its poorly veiled passive aggressive jabs. Not to mention you missed the point of the article entirely: You paid money for a disc and don't get all the content you own. And publishers are trying to make money off of a product they already made money off of, despite doing no additional work.
What Revuhlooshun said.