sorry but a 50ms better ping isn't going to change a game of Starcraft at all...........

Heck, most RTS games transmit user interaction at 10 to 4 per second...

So now explain me how your 8ms ping make thing any better when the game doesn't interpret more than 4 to 10 user interactions per second anyway...

Now here's where I have to call bullshit.  Earlier you gave examples of games that were more than worth the money:  "I spent $80 for D2 LoD, and I spent hundreds of hours on it, many many hundreds. $70 for Starcraft and Warcraft 2 and 3 and I spent hundreds of hours out of them. UT2004 set me back only $50.Don't even get me started on the value of Civ 4.  FInally, while I have spent around $750 on WoW, I have 250 days of /played. That's 6,000 hours.

"Why should I pay $60 for MW2 which is a re-tread of a game, and is utter shit when it comes to features? Same goes for jsut about any shooter that has come out since 2005, except for Metro 2033 which had some amazing new features, and Portal."

But now I'm supposed to believe that SC2 isn't going to measure up?  If you spend hundreds and hundreds of hours on a game (a precedent set by SC1), then you are the biggest fucking crybaby liar in the world if you are seriously going to try to convince me that you can't put up $60 for it.  LAN or no LAN, playtime tells the tale. 

And in any case, where do you get off being "disappointed" by low piracy levels EVER? 

zYou obviosuly don't know shit about gaming then, because 50ms is the difference between making a successful amazing micro and getting your units killed. Also alright, 8-10 user interactoins a minute, that's still 10-13 ping, most definitely not 50, or worse, 100.

But you don't seem to know how RTS games work Vlad. 50ms doesn't make any difference at all. You don't need that ultra fast feedback for every move in RTS's like you need in shooters for the next move (shot) to be accurate. Only a rookie would wait for the feedback from every click in an RTS. A good player always has the next few clicks/commands already decided at every given moment and he executes them totally independent of the reaction/lag on the screen.

You also obviously have never seen a starcraft game being played, when it comes to things done quickly and feedback from it there is plentyof need for it:

If you are playing just macro the ping doesn't matter much at all until you hit the 100s, but if you want to win in micro you need just as good ping as you do in UT.

zYou obviosuly don't know shit about gaming then, because 50ms is the difference between making a successful amazing micro and getting your units killed. Also alright, 8-10 user interactoins a minute, that's still 10-13 ping, most definitely not 50, or worse, 100.

PS : The best korean SC players micro at the rate of around 210-240 interactions/minute, that's about 1 interaction every 270 ms in average..........

You can't "take" a digital copy of a game.

Yes you can. IP is the right to exclusively produce or reproduce a software, music, etc. You have no right, the people who put it up online have no right. Lenders have a right, because they got permission from the creators. Second hand sales have a right, because while they have no right to reproduce the product, they can do as they please with their copy.

Don't forget these professionals get payed salary and maybe have stock options or bonuses based on how well a game sells.

So?

I would argue in capitalist societies that companies do have an obligation to produce attractive products at reasonable prices.

No in a capitalist society, you have choices. If there is a crappy product, that means that you choose the better product, and the crappy company fails. It's fucking ironic that people are saying "Man, this game fucking blows. Therefore, I shall take it". If the game blows, then don't fucking pirate it. It blows right?

Equally, any economy relies the movement of goods, the use of services, and the transfer of money: people are obligated to buy products.

There are other things an economy relies on, but the main thing is the establishment of property rights. Civil government is needed to enforce this.

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.

There is no such thing as "overpricing". There is only unprofitble, and price fixing/oligopolies/monopolies. If the price is above the equilibrium level, it will naturally fall. If it is below, it will rise. If the price is too high, then don't buy it. This is my point in my last point. This sense of entitlement. I think that diamonds are overpriced. For me personally at least. I have no interest in those fucking glittery rocks. But my mom doesn't. She loves that shit, and she's willing to pay for it. I'm at the very bottom of the Marginal Benefit (I get very little utitlity from the diamond), and my mother is at the center or above of that curve. The level of a price and the true value of the product varies from each person. There can be no overpricing.

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.

You were on the bottom half of the marginal benefit curve. Yet, you got to enjoy the fruits of the movie makers without having to pay for it, because you got it for free.

Netflix and other streaming services have actually made it immensely more convenient and they are either free (with reasonable ads) or reasonably priced.

There was a theoretical "price" of torrenting. That price can be measured by the opportunity cost of torrenting (risk of getting caught, hard drive space, the time it takes to download a movie, the bad quality, etc).

The price of the Netflix was cheaper, you went for that one.

... so your point is that you simply ignore property rights for your own benefit.