| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jazriel
Canada404 Posts
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote:Capitalism is inherently democratic, but it differs from (or is identical to, depending upon your level of cynicism) our definition of democracy in one key way: the rich get more votes than the poor. Capitalism is inherently Objective. Big difference. As for your analogy of the rich having more weight, that doesn't make any sense. | ||
|
omgbnetsux
United States3749 Posts
CAPITALISMMMM | ||
|
DJEtterStyle
United States2766 Posts
On November 06 2009 09:31 Jazriel wrote: Capitalism is inherently Objective. Big difference. As for your analogy of the rich having more weight, that doesn't make any sense. Are you serious? You can't see how people who spend more money get more of a say in what products are produced, hence more "votes"? You can debate semantics if you want, but wow. The democratic idea stems from the fact that we all consume, so we all get a vote. Hence, we all get a say in what's produced. | ||
|
omgbnetsux
United States3749 Posts
On November 06 2009 09:47 DJEtterStyle wrote: Are you serious? You can't see how people who spend more money get more of a say in what products are produced, hence more "votes"? You can debate semantics if you want, but wow. Hence why the male 18-30 HEY WE SPEND MONEY ON BEER, BOOBS, AND HUGEEEE TVS WOOO audience is so desirable. | ||
|
Burned Toast
Canada2040 Posts
| ||
|
Taku
Canada2036 Posts
| ||
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
| ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
On November 06 2009 10:56 Taku wrote: A pirated game != Lost sale. That's the one problem I have with anti-piracy people since they almost always make that assumption. Yeah I wonder what that obscure thing called a copyright is all about. If I pirated some design of a popular (patented) TV, it's all perfectly okay since they're not losing any money! Am I right? | ||
|
rel
Guam3521 Posts
 | ||
|
Cube
Canada777 Posts
however: 1. your crystal pepsi analogy seems flawed, crystal pepsi is a product that you buy multiple times depending on your level of satisfaction with the product (you run out of it). while when you buy a game you buy it once, and it never runs out (barring subscription based services like WoW, for these i think the pepsi model is a very good one). i suppose you could say that future titles by the same developer are like the extra bottles of crystal pepsi one might buy, but that would only be true if each bottle promised to be better and more to your liking than the last, and each bottle held an infinite amount of pepsi. what this means is that if crystal pepsi were a game, everyone who liked (therefore bought) it would have an infinite supply even after it went off the market, missing only the potential taste upgrades of future bottles. these people would therefore not be very butthurt at all, seeing as their favourite drink still existed and would never cease to exist, the only source of unhappiness would be the lack of intangible "taste upgrades" to the same drink. 2. this is more of an aside, but the games industry seems to be facing a similar crisis to the industry that licenses japanses anime for sale in canada and the united states. ever wonder why anime dvds cost 5-10 times as much as dvds of an american tv show like the simpsons (per episode)? well, no TV networks want to take a risk by paying as much for an "untested" anime title as for a "proven" show like faimly guy or star trek. as a result most of the revenue generated by liscensing an anime show is generated by dvd sales, however, like games, most anime is easy to pirate, so in the end a company pays to generate and distribute a product that almost nobody buys, and when they do buy the product it is often out of charity (which is a very bad buisness model). we see now the same thing happening with the PC gaming industry, anybody who wants a new title can just pirate it, and while a few people buy legitimate copies , some of them buy out of charity. the bottom line is that you can't sell a product that nobody wants to pay for. however people still want the product. for these things to sell, the developers have to make the consumer WANT to buy their product as opposed to pirating it. what does this entail? well, i have no idea, if i did i would be rich and famous and someone else would be writing this post for me. the point i'm trying (eventually) to make is that the market is changing, developers have to adapt. 3. any minority, if vocal enough, can come across as the majority. the people you see bitching about minor details of a forthcoming release title are NOT, no matter how many of them there may seem to be, the majority. they are a minority, a very vocal minority, yes, but a minority nonetheless. people who are satisfied with a product rarely spend hours telling everyone how great this or that feature is, they express their satisfaction by playing the game. people who are dissatisfied are the ones you see on the forums complaining about this or that. i have no statistics to prove this but i hope you can see my point. the majority of "PC Gamers" do not bitch and complain about entitlement. thats all from me for now, feel free to delete my post if it seems out of place. | ||
|
Goatlust
Australia131 Posts
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote: The following is my open letter to people who still call themselves PC gamers. Dear Oblivious, Infinity Ward, Valve, and Blizzard, among the many other developers, are companies that create games in order to pay the salaries of their employees. The do not owe you anything. Stopped reading here. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On November 06 2009 11:31 Cloud wrote: Yeah I wonder what that obscure thing called a copyright is all about. If I pirated some design of a popular (patented) TV, it's all perfectly okay since they're not losing any money! Am I right? Not the same thing, please don't pretend it is. A vast majority of people who pirate games wouldn't have bought them in the first place. Yes yes copyright...the thing that stifles innovation like no other thing in existence. I know it has a place and is needed but damn if the international copyright laws aren't the most annoying thing to ever happen. As for what the OP said... well I guess you're right. I was much like this with WoW when they turned it into the shitfest it currently is but the difference was I payed 15 dollars a month for a product that got progressively worse and worse and worse. I honestly believe that a good MMO can never be casual as it destroys the entire integrity of the game... turns out at least with WoW I was right. When anyone can get anything it's pointless to play the game. Thank god I quit. | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
On November 06 2009 11:43 Jayme wrote: Not the same thing, please don't pretend it is. A vast majority of people who pirate games wouldn't have bought them in the first place. Because the vast majority of people prefer not spending money? Do you really think any pirate has enough "principles" to spend money on something he actually wants but can get it for free? The "wouldn't have bought it anyway" is the most hypocrite line ever. How much of the shit in your computer is pirated? At least 80% of your music? 50% of your games? Such bullshit statement. How about you try the demos on your PC weekly magazines or the music samples instead? And what isn't the same thing? Just because robbing a TV design is not just 2 clicks away like robbing a copy of a game, it doesn't place them in different moral grounds and the guy who pirated the game can make a profit for himself, which is money that should have gone to the rightful owner. Yes yes copyright...the thing that stifles innovation like no other thing in existence. I know it has a place and is needed but damn if the international copyright laws aren't the most annoying thing to ever happen. Hey if I made a book or wrote a song, I wouldn't want some random jackass earning his keep with it. A lack of copyright had Mozart dying in a ditch while some jackass prince was passing Mozart's work as his own. | ||
|
A3iL3r0n
United States2196 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote: Capitalism is inherently democratic, but it differs from (or is identical to, depending upon your level of cynicism) our definition of democracy in one key way: the rich get more votes than the poor. So it's democratic, except it isn't. That's brilliant. Fact is, capitalism is inherently undemocratic. What you've described as a "capitalist democracy" is known as a plutocracy. It's a style of governance where your level of power or ability to affect things is a reflection of your relative wealth. You really have to twist your personal definition of democracy to see it as synonymous with plutocracy. For example, corporations are by their nature authoritarian top-down power structures and are deeply undemocratic. This is an uncontroversial observation. When was the last time a corporate workforce that lacked unionization managed to affect how their business operated? It's a rare thing even when a union is involved. Boycotts and "buycotts" (what you're calling a consumer's "vote") are strategies for disrupting plutocratic organizations and represent an incredibly thin democratic element-- i.e. it's only democratic inasmuch as you're a member of a company's target audience, you can afford the product/service, and you can live without the product/service should you choose to go without. Moreover, boycotts and buycotts are blunt instruments. Knowing that a product doesn't sell won't tell a company anything useful. It barely answers the question "should we discontinue the product?" There are still tons of questions that go unanswered: Is the product overpriced? Is the product offensive? Is the product dangerous? Was the product advertised properly? Does the product lack usability that a competing product possesses? Is the product simply un-cool? and so on. Clearly, you're tired of PC Gamers bitching about every little thing, but that doesn't mean you should ask them to speak with their wallet! First, if you're not in the gaming industry, you should probably stfu. Second, if you are in the gaming industry, instigating boycotts for principled reasons is the last thing you should be doing. In fact, you should go out of your way to provoke the whining you're complaining about here. It's free market research. Take advantage of it. Oh, and don't pollute the definition of democracy to make your thesis sound more noble. Really gets on my nerves. | ||
|
DJEtterStyle
United States2766 Posts
On November 06 2009 12:54 Tadzio wrote: So it's democratic, except it isn't. That's brilliant. Fact is, capitalism is inherently undemocratic. What you've described as a "capitalist democracy" is known as a plutocracy. It's a style of governance where your level of power or ability to affect things is a reflection of your relative wealth. You really have to twist your personal definition of democracy to see it as synonymous with plutocracy. For example, corporations are by their nature authoritarian top-down power structures and are deeply undemocratic. This is an uncontroversial observation. When was the last time a corporate workforce that lacked unionization managed to affect how their business operated? It's a rare thing even when a union is involved. Boycotts and "buycotts" (what you're calling a consumer's "vote") are strategies for disrupting plutocratic organizations and represent an incredibly thin democratic element-- i.e. it's only democratic inasmuch as you're a member of a company's target audience, you can afford the product/service, and you can live without the product/service should you choose to go without. Moreover, boycotts and buycotts are blunt instruments. Knowing that a product doesn't sell won't tell a company anything useful. It barely answers the question "should we discontinue the product?" There are still tons of questions that go unanswered: Is the product overpriced? Is the product offensive? Is the product dangerous? Was the product advertised properly? Does the product lack usability that a competing product possesses? Is the product simply un-cool? and so on. Clearly, you're tired of PC Gamers bitching about every little thing, but that doesn't mean you should ask them to speak with their wallet! First, if you're not in the gaming industry, you should probably stfu. Second, if you are in the gaming industry, instigating boycotts for principled reasons is the last thing you should be doing. In fact, you should go out of your way to provoke the whining you're complaining about here. It's free market research. Take advantage of it. Oh, and don't pollute the definition of democracy to make your thesis sound more noble. Really gets on my nerves. And whoosh you've missed the point entirely. First you argue semantics, then you go off on an irrelevant tangent about employees' historical inability to effect change within a corporation, then you talk about boycotts despite me advocating nothing more than consumers acting in their own self interest, then you say that, because I'm not working in the industry, I have no right to comment on its state, and finally you come full circle by again arguing semantics and ignoring my entire post. Bravo, sir. I wish I could say I was impressed. In a way, I guess I am. I've gotten some great feedback in this thread -- really, I have, and I appreciate those posters who took the time to read my post and reply with thoughtful comments -- but this isn't it. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
The concept of a democracy is that ALL votes are equal and that each person gets an equal amount of political power. The reality in a capitalistic nation like the US of A is anything but that. Ever heard of political donations and war chests and pouring funds into winning a state? US politics are a plutocracy and have been since the inception of the nation. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On November 06 2009 13:19 DJEtterStyle wrote: And whoosh you've missed the point entirely. First you argue semantics, then you go off on an irrelevant tangent about employees' historical inability to effect change within a corporation, then you talk about boycotts despite me advocating nothing more than consumers acting in their own self interest, then you say that, because I'm not working in the industry, I have no right to comment on its state, and finally you come full circle by again arguing semantics and ignoring my entire post. Bravo, sir. I wish I could say I was impressed. In a way, I guess I am. I've gotten some great feedback in this thread -- really, I have, and I appreciate those posters who took the time to read my post and reply with thoughtful comments -- but this isn't it. If I understood your point correctly, it could be summarized as: "Stop bitching. If you don't like it, don't get it. And remember, buy (don't steal) what you like. That's democracy!" In fact, it isn't democracy, so semantics in this case is relevant. The tangent on corporate employees underlined one of the major differences between democracy and plutocracy, so in fact it is relevant. "Voting" with your wallet is the key component to boycotting/buycotting, so discussing that is also relevant. Telling you to stfu if you don't work in the industry was ironic. Though I probably should've suggested that you refuse to pay your internet service provider since they give you access to PC Gamer's whiny screeds. That would've been more on point. | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
