I think those that consider would rather have two games at $30 are not necessarily a demographic that would buy the game at $60 in the first place.
If I go to buy a game, I know what I want before I go. Usually it is a new release. I may pick up a used title if its cheap enough if I hadn't bought it at release I probably didn't want it that much. I would certainly never pay full price for it new so it isn't a lost sale to the publisher. At least this way I get to try their product and maybe buy the next one when it's released.
Other people won't buy new no matter what. Strangling the used market isn't going to magically make those people start buying games at $60 a pop. I suspect most of them simply won't buy at all.
I think it depends on what the publisher determines the cost to be.
If a game is crap and doesn't sell, Gamestop doesn't want to pay the same cost as a AAA blockbuster title because they can't sell it at the same price. To move the shitty titles at all they have to cut prices below what the publisher wants.
Publishers over-value a lot of what they produce. They produce a lot of crappy titles and expect to rake in the same price per unit as Call of Duty or other successful titles.
Sell it at a loss??? Games I buy always cost $60! How is that selling at a loss??
The new titles sell cheaper is when they are terrible games people won't buy at that price. In those cases the publisher should be happy to sell units at any price. Gamestop probably wants to recoup anything, even at a loss, to get those stinkers off the shelves.
You can't publish a weak product and expect to get top dollar!
They also ignore the fact that games that are good/have demand sell used for very little discount. Theres not much incentive to buy those used. I (and many others) prefer new in those cases.
"spending time and energy attempting to prevent piracy will only leave you tired and frustrated."
Also money. I've always wondered how much gets spent on anti-piracy. With all the lawyers, internet investigators, lobbying, and some of the outrageous salaries at the MPAA/RIAA (why do they get paid so much?) I wonder if it wouldn't just be cheaper to worry less about the pirates and save your cash. All that expense doesn't seem terribly effective anyway.
They would have far less DMCA notices if copyright holders would relax a little and not get in an uproar over 30 second clips of Spongebob or whatever (which are probably fair use anyway). Just sit back and enjoy the free publicity.
Save the DMCA for things like full episodes and things that truly infringe your copyright.
Re: It's merely that Swartsel doesn't care for the prediction.
Mike didn't exaggerate anything. Swartsel did. I don't see anyplace in what Roettger said that condones piracy.
Roettger doesn't need to SUGGEST that infringing content is a substitute good because, to many people, it IS a substitute. Whether he feels this is right or wrong is irrelevant and isn't stated in his article. Downloading movies, etc. on the internet is easy to do and a lot of people don't feel bad about it. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself. The large number of people sharing illegal files backs this up. If you don't think many people would find this a tempting alternative in an uncertain economy then you are naive.
Bottom line- Roettger is telling it like it is. Labeling that as intellectual dishonesty is not only disingenuous but its a self-destructive attitude to have. Roettger and others are pointing out exactly why piracy is looking more attractive. Don't you think it would be more profitable to take in some of the well reasoned points being made and take some proactive steps to change some of the things that make consumers consider piracy in the first place?
It's because most small business owners have very little to no knowledge of copyright law or music licensing. They are focused on the hundreds of other problems associated with running a restaurant. They think that they can simply turn on the radio or play a CD. And why not? The radio is freely broadcast and they bought the CD.
When someone comes to them asking for thousands because the played the radio it sounds absurd to them.
My father owned a restaurant when I was growing up. I think about how he would have reacted if someone had walked in and demanded he pay a license like that. I think he would tell them how crazy that sounds and then physically throw them out the door.
Are you just making up hypothetical scenarios to scare people?
The tech isn't dangerous, it is how it is used. That applies to many techs.
This implementation only suggests people YOU ALREADY KNOW. If you can't remember who that is they won't (or shouldn't) be in your friend list.
There are certainly ways facial recognition could be used to erode privacy. If Facebook ever implements one of them I'll be right there with you storming their gates. This use of the tech however, isn't any more risk than what you already assume by having a Facebook account at all.
Our privacy is being taken away by lots of things. Heck, with Facebook you give it away willingly. The addition of this feature doesn't make Facebook any less private.