vlad321 said:
wfz said:
You're not drawing proper parallels here, I think. You're comparing the present value of the car to the past and over-all value of a gaming product. Cars honestly do have just as much value to them as games do.
If the only point of a car is to get from point A to point B, why do people pay excess amounts for fancy cars with awesome stereo systems and kickass engines? I guarantee you it's for entertainment and enhanced enjoyment while driving. And that enjoyment can no longer be obtained when you sell the car, just like you can no longer play your game and be entertained by it when you sell it. However, the past experiences for both stay.
By your logic, you're acting as if games can't continue to entertain you throughout the years and only give a short spurt of entertainment before their entertainment value is magically consumed and disappeared. If I sell Star Fox 64, I can no longer enjoy the game and play it. But that game still had a lot of entertainment left for me had I kept it!
Ah why am I even bothering..
|
Did you watch the Ferrari Enzo review on Top Gear? Do you remember what the owner left in after the review was done? Point is that for the general population the car is used to get to work. Otherwise automatic transmission wouldn't be so damn prevalent in the US. Not to mention a car is such a hilariously cherry-picked object. Want to look at furniture? Other objects such as clocks? What about silverware? You said it best, why do you even bother with such a poor argument?
When you have beaten Star Fox, you have used up a huge chunk of its value. There is a significant difference between "This is the first time I played this" against "this is my 20th time through it." Not to mention the fact that the next person who has the "First playthrough" experience after you sell the game gets a sginificant value for which the creator sees nothing.
|
Whoa bro, don't get so defensive. The reason I went with the car example was because that's the one you were singling out and talking about in your reply before my post.
Do you feel that Art (pictures, paintings, etc) shouldn't be able to be sold from person to person? Only pieces that are made and sold by the original creator? Movies and music as well? What else falls under your idea? I'm just curious. I definitely see the angle you're coming from, but I disagree with it in the end. There's really not much to do in arguing about it so I'm not really interested in doing so.
