Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » My trouble with the Law.
My trouble with the Law.
« previous page 123
...
6
7
8 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 2nd at 8:57pm 2006

? quoting Addicted to Morphine

Am I wrong in thinking that you lose money (you can seperate actual from potential if you'd like) when you lose the manufactured product before its sold?

Yes and no. You do lose money, but you do not actually lose anything in doing so.

Its true that you have lost the initiative of having those 500 disks hit the shelves but with the payment of the insurance, and I would hope that the coverage is more than up to the loss, the only real item you have lost is.... TIME.

The time the product would have been on the shelves trying to be sold. Now, if the check from the insurance is enough to cover ALL the loss, and the check arrives sooner than the approximate selling time for the 500 disks at the market you have actually come out ahead.

You see, you are narrowing your viewpoint to what would happen to YOU if bad luck were to cost you 500 disks. YOU being inexperienced in marketing are assuming that you lost 500 disks. YOU lost nothing. YOU are still thinking loss=loss.

Did that clear it up?





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Thu Mar 2nd at 9:16pm 2006

It's clear to me now that you're not limiting yourself to the bounds of the hypothetical situation by thinking very real world and introducing other factors like insurance. I thought we were just debating the types of situations Nickelplate and I set up. I mean -- we never mentioned insurance but if you want to introduce that into the hypothetical situation, then yes its very clear to me how you would come out ahead with insurance. You would get paid for the disks without actually putting any on the market. You get paid without slackening the demand for your product... which is something any company would like.




Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by ReNo on Thu Mar 2nd at 9:32pm 2006

I just look at it in the sense that if people buy used / pirated copies, then the potential market - the number of people that would potentially buy the game from the store shelves - is being reduced. The chance of the game breaking even or makign a profit is severely hampered if the number of people interested in the game is cut away by them obtaining it through other means.

Losing 500 copies in a fire isn't really the same effect whatsoever, because of the fact that the value of the product isn't the physical objects themselves but in the demand for the game. Copies burning in a fire aren't reducing the demand, but people buying pirated/used copies ARE reducing the demand.

In this way, 10000 potential customers estimated by the developers/publishers could easily only see 5000 sales, because the other 5000, who wanted the game and would buy it normally, obtained second hand or pirated copies. The demand was estimated successfully, the game might have been exceptional, but the game didn't meet sales expectations and so the publisher doesn't work with those developers anymore. Not a terrible thing to happen in all cases - maybe the developers held the rights to whatever IP they were working on and have good relations/opportunities with other publishers - but it CAN and DOES spell doom for a great number of them.

Also, are you saying that they should just raise the price of the products in order to accomodate for lack of income due to pirated/used copies, or were you being specific to the "burnt up copies" example? If the former then that is a ridiculous solution that will only make the situation worse. Game prices are already high, and is one of the prime reasons why piracy and used copies are so prominant. Increasing prices will decrease legitimate sales.



Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Thu Mar 2nd at 9:35pm 2006

? quoting ReNo
I just look at it in the sense that if people buy used / pirated copies, then the potential market - the number of people that would potentially buy the game from the store shelves - is being reduced. The chance of the game breaking even or makign a profit is severely hampered if the number of people interested in the game is cut away by them obtaining it through other means.


This was the point I was trying to illustrate with my little piracy versus resale example.




Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 2nd at 9:44pm 2006

Yeah well. I am beginning to see that IT may be my fault we are miscommunicating.

The problem I am having is, there are to many scenarios in play now.

Is piracy the same as loss due to fire? Nope. Even I see that.

Is piracy causing loss? Yeah it is but, is the loss incurred exceeding the profit value presently in effect? I think not.

My reasons are simple. The initial cost of a game is (this much)..

The sales, once it reaches (this much) means they are breaking even.

Once it exceeds (this much) then its PROFIT.

I feel that the real issue isn't piracy but how much money there is on the other side of (this much) -----> profit.

Sadly, I cannot keep up with which discussion we are currently on and am woefully confused.

And Morph. In my description of the hypothetical insurance... Thats part of the equation, I didn't include it. YOU failed to. Thats the differences in how I view the theory.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by fishy on Thu Mar 2nd at 9:49pm 2006

i'd wager that a lot of half-life's popularity derived from the fact that you could easily get a cd key without buying it. this inflated popularity wen't how far in making hl2, with it's mediocre gameplay, into a top seller?

/stands clear...




i eat paint



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by ReNo on Thu Mar 2nd at 9:54pm 2006

But you can't insure against losses incured from piracy (I don't imagine anyway!), so I don't really see how that hypothetical scenario has any bearing on the discussion of used/pirated games?

Orph, are you saying that it's okay to buy used/pirated copies once the game has broken even? Or are you saying that the companies make enough on legal sales to overcome the pirated/used copies?

Fishy - I doubt you could ever answer that question. I also think that HL1's popularity was more down to the critical reception it recieved from the press, word of mouth, the ease of editing it, and the wealth of support/mods available. That and Counter Strike. I'm sure there were a lot of people who got into it because it was free, but I'd also wager that a great deal of those people would have bought it legally had it not been easy to get for free. With CS being such a hit, and CS:S coming bundled with HL2, it was a sure fire hit from the start.



Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 2nd at 10:04pm 2006

? quoting ReNo

Orph, are you saying that it's okay to buy used/pirated copies once the game has broken even? Or are you saying that the companies make enough on legal sales to overcome the pirated/used copies?

.

No. What I am saying is that there would be less of an issue if the profit margin was bigger.

In other words, there seems to be only a problem with piracy, because it decreases only that portion.

Realistically speaking. A company cannot continue if they do not at least break even. Some companies would fail even if there was NO PIRACY at all. Bankruptcy isn't a new concept.

Anyway. I think the issue is, they aren't making as much money as they WISH, not making money.

and, the insurance comment only pertained to the shipping loss. NOT piracy of course.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Thu Mar 2nd at 10:24pm 2006

? quoting Orpheus
And Morph. In my description of the hypothetical insurance... Thats part of the equation, I didn't include it. YOU failed to. Thats the differences in how I view the theory.


No offense, but I think you failed to keep insurance out of the hypothetical situation. No one else mentioned it in all the posts, only you. Why complicate a simple hypothetical situation? The reason we make simple analogies is to prove a point, not paint a picture of reality.

Edit:
? quoting Orpheus

Anyway. I think the issue is, they aren't making as much money as they WISH, not making money.



And I think they're entitled to every penny that get stolen by software piracy.




Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 2nd at 10:31pm 2006

? quoting Addicted to Morphine

Why complicate a simple hypothetical situation? The reason we make simple analogies is to prove a point, not paint a picture of reality.

I cannot believe you actually typed that out loud.

and

I agree with your edit, only problem is that piracy is not easy to calculate since, the people doing it aren't really going to perk right up and say "Hey over here. I stole your game"





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Thu Mar 2nd at 10:32pm 2006

? quoting Orpheus
I cannot believe you actually typed that out loud.



Feel free to explain why you think it's a stupid comment, I think it's a valid point.




Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 2nd at 10:42pm 2006

? quoting Addicted to Morphine


Feel free to explain why you think it's a stupid comment, I think it's a valid point.

No, thats OK. I am still flabbergasted that you posted it in public.

Obviously you felt it prudent. I am within my rights to decline commenting further on it.

I feel the best course would be a moment of reflection. Mostly on your part but, on mine as well.

If I have caused you to post such a reply, I have obviously done something badly.

/me bows out.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Thu Mar 2nd at 10:46pm 2006

My point is during a debate one's counter-point can't simply be something like "wow I can't believe you said something that stupid" and then use the <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif"> smiley to back yourself up.

If you think I said something stupid, validate your comment with actual thought and substance to your reply, otherwise it's just being offensive and definitely not constructive in the least.




Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Bewbies on Thu Mar 2nd at 11:07pm 2006

I'm now wanted in the state of arizona for a speeding ticket. I'm such a rebel.





Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Nickelplate on Fri Mar 3rd at 12:02am 2006

? quoting fishy
i'd wager that a lot of half-life's popularity derived from the fact that you could easily get a cd key without buying it. this inflated popularity wen't how far in making hl2, with it's mediocre gameplay, into a top seller?

/stands clear...

Quoted for Emphasis.

Orph, it does kinda seem like this:
I can't beleive you're so stupid.
What? why?
Because, well, nevermind, I'll just leave it at that.
I don't think you KNOW why.
Oh I know why I'm just so amazed that you are so stupid. See? there's my proof, the roll-eyes-smiley proves it...
Uh... okay.




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Fri Mar 3rd at 12:14am 2006

? quoting fishy
i'd wager that a lot of half-life's popularity derived from the fact that you could easily get a cd key without buying it. this inflated popularity wen't how far in making hl2, with it's mediocre gameplay, into a top seller?

/stands clear...



I heard about Half-Life through magazines and friends. In fact, he gave me the game because he thought it sucked ("You don't even start with a weapon!") and I played it just enough to get hooked, then I went out and bought my own copy.

I'm sure the cd key generators were a factor, but I still think the glowing reviews and word of mouth shouldn't be ignored.




Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Mar 3rd at 12:20am 2006

What I cannot understand is, neither one of you has even considered that "I" was the one pissed off. Both of you are talking as if I pissed someone else off.

Consider this:

? quote:
Why complicate a simple hypothetical situation? The reason we make simple analogies is to prove a point, not paint a picture of reality.

Now understand. We have been talking hypothetically about REAL WORLD EVENTS. Only the scenarios were actually fictional.

I read the quote and you know what I saw?

"Orph, whats your f**king problem? We are talking and damned if you don't screw it up with realism.

Well, we were not talking about a video game "Whats my theft"

Jeez guys. Stop for a moment and realize. When I bow out, its because I need to asses if I screwed up badly enough to warrant being told to shut up.

Don't fool yourselves. Thats exactly how I read the quote.

My question to you is two fold.

Why did neither of you realize I was upset and why can someone not use realism to illustrate a real problem?

Now.. I need to take a breather because.. I just do.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Crono on Fri Mar 3rd at 12:44am 2006

Well, because it's all hypothetical ... even companies claim to "lost revenue" is hypothetical, since it's based on the concept "If they didn't get a pirate/used copy they would have bought a retail copy ..." It's an assumption that you make out of situation. You can't really debate this type of situation without hypotheticals ... it'd get too complicated and then it would become an ARGUMENT and not a debate. Or a "I'm right, you're wrong situation", which isn't what this is, everyone is expressing their views on the isolated subject, since, honestly, something like insurance is negligeble. Here's an example:

It's now easier to pirate something. Before everything was digital (DVDs, CDs, Games on Discs, etc) and everyone had a computer, if you pirated something it was either bootlegged (filmed in the theater and sold on the street ... literally) or it was actual copies that got ripped off from the loading bay during shipping, or something like that. But now, one person has to take one copy. That's it. I don't know if people have noticed this, but the source of most piracy comes from people who work for those companies taking copies of the product a month, or so, before the actual release, putting it up online, or something like that.

Something like that would be a far better argument than "insurance pay offs". Also, why would what morphine said piss you off anyway? It's a valid point. I'm just confused why whenever there's a discussion, Orph, you get so heated about it. Shrug it off: someone doesn't agree with you, woopdie doo. And to be honest, the way you say things is far more ... enfuriating, than anything Morph, nickle, or myself, has said to you (unless I'm messing with or something).

Anyway, if you want to make it more realistic then this debate will spin out of control and be rediculous. That's why you ignore certain things, you keep it to a hypothetical situation that the only problem is in fact the end users failure to buy brand new copies. Disregarding whether or not they'd buy it anyway, or any other factors. Otherwise people wouldn't have a leg to stand on and you'd need a market analasys to prove any point to shed some light on the situation. In any other case, You're just slinging s**t to sling s**t, there's no reason to brind moot points into the debate.

Also, this post is unedited, because I'm running late. DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY!!! <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">


Blame it on Microsoft, God does.



Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Addicted to Morphine on Fri Mar 3rd at 12:44am 2006

? quoting Orpheus

Why did neither of you realize I was upset and why can someone not use realism to illustrate a real problem?



I had no idea you were actually pissed. Nothing in your posts indicated you were losing your cool, until this one right above.

And Orph, I don't know what to tell you if you see "Orph, whats your f**king problem? We are talking and damned if you don't screw it up with realism." when all I wrote was "Why complicate a simple hypothetical situation? The reason we make simple analogies is to prove a point, not paint a picture of reality."

I feel bad that you took my comment to be harsh and disrespectful, but I'd say most people would agree that's not what I said or even meant. I think we can just chalk this up as an example of why conversations online can be so hard without the face to face element and move on. Besides, we've had worse arguments when you were UD. <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_lol.gif">

As for your second question, I think you can either attempt to cover all the bases of a complicated reality or you can talk about a simplified analogy. I think this conversation shows that it can get confusing when you mix the two.




Quote
 Re: My trouble with the Law.
Posted by Nickelplate on Fri Mar 3rd at 2:14am 2006

? quoting Orpheus
Why did neither of you realize I was upset and why can someone not use realism to illustrate a real problem?

I couldn't hear the tone of your voice because you forgot to color your text.




I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com




« previous page 123
...
6
7
8 next page »
Post Reply