As a consumer, I can attest to that (the more sales part anyway). $60 is a lot to pay for something that only has entertainment value, particularly when you consider the risk involved in buying something you aren't completely sure you'll like. (OK, sometimes you can try before you buy, but that usually means kicking that kid off the Xbox at Best Buy...)
I usually buy at $20, which means I either wait until the game hits the bargain rack or I buy it used (which is quicker for me, but no additional profit for the company). If the game was released at $40, it would be easier for me to spend that little bit extra for that game I really wanted, and it would drop to my price sooner.
So... if your Senator happens to be on the Senate Intelligence Committee now would be the time to call, email, tweet, fax, carrier pigeon, etc...
Seeing as how we're regulars on TechDirt and all, wouldn't it be easier to lodge our complaints by just talking into the nearest smoke alarm or light fixture?
We disagree on the idea of ownership. Righthaven does not have the right to make binding decisions regarding the copyright; the "original" (that is, real) owners of the copyright can override that decision. Righthaven does not make royalty money off of the copyright; the "original" (again, real) owners do. Righthaven cannot sell or transfer the copyright, or even prevent it being taken back at any time. Nothing they have meets the definition of ownership.
It's not like buying a house. It's more like leasing a baseball batt to a thug so they can beat my enemies with it.
I do that too. Or you could REALLY screw with them and buy the game used from GameStop. Then you're doing your part to encourage a healthy secondary market...
It was possible for people to make a living from their work before copyright, too. It exists in it's current form to allow content holders (note I didn't say content creators) to sue others if they feel like they're not making enough money.
I could write the Anonymous Coward's Big Book of Circular Arguments and copyright it all to hell and back, but I wouldn't make any money, because no one wants to buy it.
Honestly, I've never bought a $60 game, I just don't think they are worth that much to me. I feel stupid from a budget perspective, because I HAVE bought 3 or more games at once when they drop to $20 each... I spend just as much on games, I just feel I'm getting more value. And I've never once cared about how much it cost to make or even how expensive it "feels" when I play...
I would say that from the company's perspective, it can't ignore the fixed cost of creating the game. If it costs millions of dollars, that's just that much off their bottom line.
The solution, of course, is not to build a million dollar game, but a cheaper game that is actually good. Then sell it for a more nominal amount that causes as little pain as possible to consumers.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by cj7wilson.
Re: Re: Re: Don't Prostitutes Compete with Free?
...at least, not anymore.
Re: Re: Don't Prostitutes Compete with Free?
...and by "bought any cows" I mean the colloquial phrase for getting married, and not the more literal interpretation.
Re: Don't Prostitutes Compete with Free?
Anyone who says they compete with free obviously hasn't bought any cows lately.
Re: Re:
As a consumer, I can attest to that (the more sales part anyway). $60 is a lot to pay for something that only has entertainment value, particularly when you consider the risk involved in buying something you aren't completely sure you'll like. (OK, sometimes you can try before you buy, but that usually means kicking that kid off the Xbox at Best Buy...)
I usually buy at $20, which means I either wait until the game hits the bargain rack or I buy it used (which is quicker for me, but no additional profit for the company). If the game was released at $40, it would be easier for me to spend that little bit extra for that game I really wanted, and it would drop to my price sooner.
too much work
Seeing as how we're regulars on TechDirt and all, wouldn't it be easier to lodge our complaints by just talking into the nearest smoke alarm or light fixture?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We disagree on the idea of ownership. Righthaven does not have the right to make binding decisions regarding the copyright; the "original" (that is, real) owners of the copyright can override that decision. Righthaven does not make royalty money off of the copyright; the "original" (again, real) owners do. Righthaven cannot sell or transfer the copyright, or even prevent it being taken back at any time. Nothing they have meets the definition of ownership.
It's not like buying a house. It's more like leasing a baseball batt to a thug so they can beat my enemies with it.
Re: Re: Mike Masnick Action Figure
Maybe a Masnick Stress Squeezer doll to provide catharsis for the angry ACs out there...
Re: Buy From The Bargain Bin
I do that too. Or you could REALLY screw with them and buy the game used from GameStop. Then you're doing your part to encourage a healthy secondary market...
Re: Re:
I'm tempted to do just that. Seems to me that the revenue would go to TechDirt, and would come from BSA...
Re: Asinine.
It was possible for people to make a living from their work before copyright, too. It exists in it's current form to allow content holders (note I didn't say content creators) to sue others if they feel like they're not making enough money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright protection != making money.
I could write the Anonymous Coward's Big Book of Circular Arguments and copyright it all to hell and back, but I wouldn't make any money, because no one wants to buy it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems to me both arguments (harmful vs. harmless) fail to make a case FOR copyright... bad vs. ineffective, right?
Re: make pirating not as attractive
Jason Alexander.
Re: Gross vs Net
I don't think that information (net profit, or cost of goods sold) is readily available from the company, at least on a game-by-game level.
not quite related, but is anyone else seeing a BSA banner ad at the top of the page?
Someone isn't doing a good job targeting their audience appropriately... :)
Re: Re: I'd agree with that
my wallet and my wife both... :)
Re: I'd agree with that
Honestly, I've never bought a $60 game, I just don't think they are worth that much to me. I feel stupid from a budget perspective, because I HAVE bought 3 or more games at once when they drop to $20 each... I spend just as much on games, I just feel I'm getting more value. And I've never once cared about how much it cost to make or even how expensive it "feels" when I play...
Re: And with a marginal cost of zero...
First post, not a shill or troll...
I would say that from the company's perspective, it can't ignore the fixed cost of creating the game. If it costs millions of dollars, that's just that much off their bottom line.
The solution, of course, is not to build a million dollar game, but a cheaper game that is actually good. Then sell it for a more nominal amount that causes as little pain as possible to consumers.