| Akvod said:
Really... I don't get the flipping of logic. You're not obligated to buy the product. You don't have the right to say "Where is my share?". You lose nothing when a firm sets a price too high. The day before and after the release of a game, you lost nothing. You're only unrightfully taking something from somebody else, their labor, their sweat, their dignity as a man, by making them a slave. Just wait for a price cut, or a shift of Supply. Then you'll get your money's worth. The firms are not obligated to give you a game, nor give you a game you want. You have the right to rationally decide (is this worth it for me, or do I pass), so some fucking crying that you're only taking back something rightfully yours is bullshit. |
You can't "take" a digital copy of a game. You can experience a game without paying for it. Don't forget these professionals get payed salary and maybe have stock options or bonuses based on how well a game sells. The main thing piracy directly affects in the video game industry is job security, and even that is a loose relationship. I would argue in capitalist societies that companies do have an obligation to produce attractive products at reasonable prices. Equally, any economy relies the movement of goods, the use of services, and the transfer of money: people are obligated to buy products. Overpricing and lack of value hinder a healthy relationship between producer and consumer. If you give a person a reason to want something they cannot obtain conveniently, they'll think of another way of getting that something.
I'll give you a good example: before Netflix and popular streaming services I used to watch all of my television and movies from torrented downloads. Torrents were simply the most convenient way possible to get what I wanted when I wanted it. Netflix and other streaming services have actually made it immensely more convenient and they are either free (with reasonable ads) or reasonably priced. The formula: attractive product, reasonable prices, added value.
