This is the core of it, but there's a very simple reality concerning any sort of sale that will never change:
It's up to the consumer to decide the value of something for themselves and whether or not they want to spend money on it.
That's the ultimate consideration that determines whether something will or will not sell. No one can "force" a consumer to buy a game they don't want to buy. No one can be "manipulated" to do anything if they're making educated purchases. Value cannot be "dictated" from the outside. In the end, if people do not want something, they will place very little value on it, and no one will purchase it. Conversely, if something is viewed as valuable, then it will sell, even if it holds no practical value.
Yeppers. A customer may be naive to pay up front for an unrealized product. They arguably shouldn't have to worry about getting boned from all directions in the first place though. I view these as two separate issues. On the one hand you got companies trying to bone customers from all directions. On the other you got customers falling right into it. The latter doesn't exist unless the former does. Thus, the former is the root cause.
I don't consider pre-orders, early access, etc. as exploitative. I do consider offering pre-orders, raking in money, slapping mission acomplished on it and deliberately dragging feet instead of providing a quality product as exploitative. For clarification, by exploitative I mean the most negative connotation of the word (abusive is probably a better word).
I would disagree with the notion this second one is inherent to Capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system, nothing more or less. It's not inherently "bad". It only becomes inherently "bad" when people choose to wield it as such. Most systems employed by people have a similar issue (system is designed fine, then some dipshit gets a bright idea to abuse it).
Yeppers again. The irony is the customers hold all the power when it comes to a lot of entertainment.
Unfortunately, modern day one universally has to assume anything being sold has a catch to make educated purchases. It's on sale. What's wrong with it? It's a 2 for 1. Which one is broke? It's 50% off. Then why is the base price twice as much? We spent more money on marketing the product instead of building it. Alert, alert, red flag detected.
This the concept of how it can be used for exploitation, exactly. That's exactly it.
Where the argument here begins to break down is the focus on "retribution, punishment, or justice". While I fully agree with you that there should be laws and such in place for it -- we can dream on. It's not going to happen for one very, easy reason:
Capitalism is not illegal. Nor will it become illegal. Nor is it possible to make it illegal and sustain it. People will only innovate if they can better their situation. If someone takes away their returns (profits), whether monetary or otherwise, innovation will cease and economy with stagnate. And people should be rewarded for their work and creativity!
So...where do we draw the line? Where is the magical marker that sets the absolute, universal threshold that determines when capitalism has become hostile exploitation? What are the consequences? (This is what governments all over the world try to manage now, and always have. But there's no one answer. Yes, I believe that many policies could be far more strict, but even if they were, it would not solve the issue. Nothing will, until our societies no longer requires competitive economy to function.)
Thus, the reality, regardless of how everyone feels about it, is that it's up to each consumer to decide how to spend their money. If we take a risk, knowingly and willingly, and it doesn't go our way, then we our responsible for our choices, not other people. If we choose not to engage in risky purchases, then we'll likely have to go without some of the things we want. So, it's give and take, either way.
Sadly, As Hegel said, the only thing we learned from history is nothing.
The discussion come to deeper area now. There is two important point.
1. Fairness. "retribution, punishment, or justice" are trinity of fairness, so why it's fair, or not?
2. Economy, which I have degree. Does what happened here is all about capitalism? Do we have to keep working like this to bring economy function?
Look, if this is a battle, people are individual person who have right to dominate their poket, corps are powerful organization which have money, clever brain and information. It's a dissymmetric competition, which means it's not only bearly fair, but also hard to see which side have the advantage clearly.
The truth is, corps, as a ensemble at macroscopic view, have the advantage. Because people need to spend their money, otherwise why they earn it? So the point is how they spent their money? Basicly, there have two ways, investment and consumption, if you plus net export, which means sale more goods to foreigner, you can build the troika for economic growth. This means your money must be used at investment or consumption, save it at bank, investment for interest, buy a car, consumption.
The key is ratio. Let's invite the theory which win the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics, about what make people poor. Generally speaking, more investment, more money, and, more consumption, more poor. People should invest, which not only means the fund, but also including keep himself healthy and wise. The more healthy you are, the less ill you get, it will save a lot. The more knowledge and skill you learn, the more salary you get, it will creat value either.
But what corps want? Consumption. The more food you eat, the more game you buy, you cost your value, to bring happiness. So the ratio is important, it's not everyone can endure the totall investment life, but the totall consumption life will consume your future, unless your father give you a family fund which means a investment he left to you.
And corps, they want to take them all. Because they compete inside, if the consumption ratio is stable, it's a bloody zero-sum game, which means they will try their best including dirty jobs to win this game, otherwise they will die. One of the dirty job is increase the ratio as bigger as it can, give them more room to breath.
Then, the hunt begins. Market management is one of the most important way to do it. Remember you always spend all your money, the question is where, the best choice is spent it on investment, but corps try their best to change your mind. It's a one-side hunt, which most of the people even can't realized.
So who have the advantage?
Cheat, which is normally at dirty jobs, is unfair but, just normally.
To criticize the prey that their fault cause the failure at such race is dangerous. It's easily to become the law of the jungle, which weak is sin.
Before I sleep, last issue about economy function.
The economy function sadly not base on the competition, but the destruction and substitution of existing economy.
Competition is a way to make the destruction reasonable, raw but effective, loser die means old economy destructed, winner get all means more effective economy build.
Economy is the sum of human value, so the function must force people become more valuable, make more product. I promise it's painful, very painful.
For example, the farmer creat less then the worker, so at early capitalism, British break the Enclosure, which dismissed endless farmer, force them to became worker, learn the skills they didn't need to. The former farmer who couldn't made it had only one fate, dead.
Remember I said learn skill is an investment, right?
That's means if we really want to bump the economy, we should spent the time and money we play the game into learning.
So, do we have to keep working like this to bring economy function?
Exactly not.
Another Hegel's word, what exists is reasonable. The reasonable here means have a reason, whatever right or wrong, fair or unfair. Weak is not sin, we people weak so we build the goverment, then it build the law. The nation is the biggest corp which should win just like Lincoln said, of the people, by the people, for the people. If it's not, welcome to CP.
I never pre-order anything (except cars), so... This has never been an issue, regardless, people are going to keep blindly trusting whatever garbage X corporation or person says and buy it regardless of common sense.
Only reason CDPR's "deceit" worked was because they thought a corporation was their friend and was interested in something more than profit; people seem to think companies are charities or non-profit organisations which is extremely sad.
I never pre-order anything (except cars), so... This has never been an issue, regardless, people are going to keep blindly trusting whatever garbage X corporation or person says and buy it regardless of common sense.
Only reason CDPR's "deceit" worked was because they thought a corporation was their friend and was interested in something more than profit; people seem to think companies are charities or non-profit organisations which is extremely sad.
There are gaming companies whose interested in something called profit is reasonable( see Capcom, Naughty Dog, Io interactive, Square Enix Games, Rockstar, Nintendo). They release working, good products on regular bases.
The problem is when the interested in profit and greed is so unchecked that you get things EA, Activision, Bethesda and now CDPR did, releasing unfinished, broken, unoptimized products while tying to hide this, after huge market campaign of how you will release something really next gen, "breathtaking".
There are gaming companies whose interested in something called profit is reasonable( see Capcom, Naughty Dog, Io interactive, Square Enix Games, Rockstar, Nintendo). They release working, good products on regular bases.
The problem is when the interested in profit and greed is so unchecked that you get things EA, Activision, Bethesda and now CDPR did, releasing unfinished, broken, unoptimized products while tying to hide this, after huge market campaign of how you will release something really next gen, "breathtaking".
All those you mentioned have questionable track records, not a single one of those has ever been a user-centric company EVER. SE selling rehashes of franchises and outright questionable stuff (All The Bravest from SE, which is indefensible), Rockstar making GTA V a seemingly endless money printer, Nintendo with its borderline zealot-like attitude towards their IP, etc.
All companies are made for profit, no single company on this planet is built with the idea of being the friend of consumers; profit is the sole reason they are founded, no more, no less. Once people see companies for what they are and learn to NOT have a fanatical devotion to ANY of them the more the market shall adapt to be less predatory.
cp77 was the first game i've preordered in a very long time. hopefully the memory of doing so will be enough to discourage me from repeating the practice
on the plus side, seeing that they've yet to fix this pile of manure, has only served to reinforce that sentiment
I generally only pre-order games I know I'm going to buy anyway. I trust IGN and it's gamer magazine ilk just about as much as I trust a politician. If they're not taking money from whoever is bribing them, they're trying to kiss their ass, or they're trying to be the exact opposite and be edge lords and hate on a game even if it's good. So "reliable reviewer" doesn't really exist.
But there are only a handful of games that fit the bill of "going to buy anyway". Generally they come from companies I highly respect who have put out quality games, and only quality games in the past.
Between Bioware and CDPR, I'm about done with that practice though.
The one thing we learned about CD projekt Red is never pre-order games. Can I get a witness? Please folks never pre order games. So these anti-consumer practices can stop.
All those you mentioned have questionable track records, not a single one of those has ever been a user-centric company EVER. SE selling rehashes of franchises and outright questionable stuff (All The Bravest from SE, which is indefensible), Rockstar making GTA V a seemingly endless money printer, Nintendo with its borderline zealot-like attitude towards their IP, etc.
All companies are made for profit, no single company on this planet is built with the idea of being the friend of consumers; profit is the sole reason they are founded, no more, no less. Once people see companies for what they are and learn to NOT have a fanatical devotion to ANY of them the more the market shall adapt to be less predatory.
Careful now. I did not said they are user friendly.
I clearly said "There are gaming companies whose interested in something called profit is reasonable" which means their greed all though clearly visible is somewhat tolerable.
They did not released an unfinished, broken, unoptimized product at the levels of Cyberpunk 2077. GTA 5 is a very good game. Same with Nintendo games and SE, Capcom, Naughty Dog, Io interactive. They work, are fairly optimized, finished.
Can we really compare GTA Vice City, San Andreas, 4, 5, RDR 1,2, Last of US 1,2 Uncharted Series, Resident Evil 2,3 Remake, 4-7, Dragon's Dogma, Street Fighter series, Devil May Cry series Super Mario series, The Legend of Zelda series, Tomb Raider series, Kingdome Hearts series, Life Is Strange series, Final Fantasy series with this mediocre, unfinished, broken, unoptimized release from CDPR?
They did not false advertised and tried to hide the real product in such dishonest manner as CDPR.
There is one level of greed and there this disgusting level of greed that cannot be tolerable.
They didn't come and brag we are not greedy, we are the good guy: "Worry not. When thinking CP2077, think nothing less than TW3 — huge single player, open world, story-driven RPG. No hidden catch, you get what you pay for — no bullshit, just honest gaming like with Wild Hunt. We leave greed to others"
Preorder should not be encouraged. It promotes laziness from developers and release of unfinished products.
The honest practice would be releasing demos.
Do you think they would have sold 12 million copies if there were demo of the game and not preorders?
All companies are made for profit, no single company on this planet is built with the idea of being the friend of consumers; profit is the sole reason they are founded, no more, no less. Once people see companies for what they are and learn to NOT have a fanatical devotion to ANY of them the more the market shall adapt to be less predatory.
The world is cruel bro.
The popular economy theory told you market can fix the problem itself, but the shit is almost every great economist have to develop a theory about why market can't.
There is a spectrum about how you trust market self-fix.
Which means academically, trust it thoroughly is extreme.
IMO, once companies realized dirty money is easy money, especially now there is almost not even one game company is not evil, they actually make a dirty field that every company can release their claws.
It happened in my country several years ago, they have proved that you can do the dirtiest shit since every company is evil, player have no choice because AAA game can't be worked out by independent producers. The leader of all AAA company have their own clique, and they will rule the market in that little table.
And we are the biggest market of global gaming.
To the companies, if there have something must be fixed, it will be the behavior player complain the game is shitty and refuse to buy it.
What the most cruel is, we have excellent skill to fix the problem. There will have many players complain about the game shitty and buy it again and again and again.
If you think there have no economy rule and market theory, it actually reasonable. The basic economy model shows that the price of goods, which also generally direct ratio with quality, have a balence to the purchasing intention, which means you can't be too good or too evil, the best choice is evil at the edge of your customer's limit. If your goods have no customer complained, that's means you should up your price or low your quality to earn superprofit. Yes you will lose some customers, but you will earn more money in the end. The point is, edge of your customer's limit, is a general standard, many player will curse instead of complain, most of the players will suffered and complain all day all night. I'm talking the shit happened in last 20 years, and our evil companes were becaming more and more powerful, now they are at the top of global, the different way of the companies you mentioned, they are not good first then evil, they are evil at first and prove that's the most powerful bussiness mod.
The dark future of whole world is very close.
BTW, not every company are made for profit, it's true at my country. But they can't touch the gaming field, there is another problem. At their field such as healthcare, they do their jobs well.
The one thing we learned about CD projekt Red is never pre-order games. Can I get a witness? Please folks never pre order games. So these anti-consumer practices can stop.
The world is cruel bro.
The popular economy theory told you market can fix the problem itself, but the shit is almost every great economist have to develop a theory about why market can't.
There is a spectrum about how you trust market self-fix.
[...]
What you mentioned makes a LOT of assumptions, the most glaring one is the idea of "evil". How can you say that a corporation is inherently evil if the definition of evil per-se is not definite nor absolute. For example, you may assume X person is evil because it decides to save 4 people by letting 1 die; for some he may be amoral. cruel, etc. for others it might be logical or even compassionate. You cannot base an idea of a corporation based on extremely relative views of good and evil. The world is rarely made of pure evil or pure good.
Only reason dirty money is so readily available is overregulation and overburden on some aspects of the economy and too much freedom on other aspects; there must be a balance between free market and government regulation. Whilst I do agree that some people shall exploit loopholes to gain an advantage no matter what, it is also true that some exploit said loopholes because sometimes market overregulation creates an environment of oppressive limitation that goes beyond rational motive.
Main issue is that the nanny-states in many countries remove the factor of personal responsibility from individuals by over-catering to their needs and wishes without making them realise they have responsibility for their own actions in the world. People nowadays bitch, complain, bark loud, etc. yet they never show any sign of self-restraint; a marketing campaign must ALWAYS be taken with scepticism and never be trusting of any third party because they say their product is the next best thing of the century. If people didn't blindly trust nor wanted immediate gratification for everything the market would adapt else the economy would just freeze in certain sectors.
Also lol... I thought it was an axiom when I mentioned corporations excluding charities and non-profit organisations; ALL others are made for profit.
They did not released an unfinished, broken, unoptimized product at the levels of Cyberpunk 2077. GTA 5 is a very good game. Same with Nintendo games and SE, Capcom, Naughty Dog, Io interactive. They work, are fairly optimized, finished.
Can we really compare GTA Vice City, San Andreas, 4, 5, RDR 1,2, Last of US 1,2 Uncharted Series, Resident Evil 2,3 Remake, 4-7, Dragon's Dogma, Street Fighter series, Devil May Cry series Super Mario series, The Legend of Zelda series, Tomb Raider series, Kingdome Hearts series, Life Is Strange series, Final Fantasy series with this mediocre, unfinished, broken, unoptimized release from CDPR?
Capcom has a track record of releasing horrible shit, nowadays it has kind of redeemed itself a bit.
RDR2 was a broken mess in PC.
Street Fighter is a cash grab, same with GTA Online... I mean, CDPR is trash atm, but do not say that neither of the ones you have mentioned has never released unfinished trash, with Nintendo is worse as it has released hardware with defects many times.
What you mentioned makes a LOT of assumptions, the most glaring one is the idea of "evil". How can you say that a corporation is inherently evil if the definition of evil per-se is not definite nor absolute. For example, you may assume X person is evil because it decides to save 4 people by letting 1 die; for some he may be amoral. cruel, etc. for others it might be logical or even compassionate. You cannot base an idea of a corporation based on extremely relative views of good and evil. The world is rarely made of pure evil or pure good.
Only reason dirty money is so readily available is overregulation and overburden on some aspects of the economy and too much freedom on other aspects; there must be a balance between free market and government regulation. Whilst I do agree that some people shall exploit loopholes to gain an advantage no matter what, it is also true that some exploit said loopholes because sometimes market overregulation creates an environment of oppressive limitation that goes beyond rational motive.
Main issue is that the nanny-states in many countries remove the factor of personal responsibility from individuals by over-catering to their needs and wishes without making them realise they have responsibility for their own actions in the world. People nowadays bitch, complain, bark loud, etc. yet they never show any sign of self-restraint; a marketing campaign must ALWAYS be taken with scepticism and never be trusting of any third party because they say their product is the next best thing of the century. If people didn't blindly trust nor wanted immediate gratification for everything the market would adapt else the economy would just freeze in certain sectors.
Also lol... I thought it was an axiom when I mentioned corporations excluding charities and non-profit organisations; ALL others are made for profit.
There are no assumptions, what I said is the history, it happened whatever you like or not.
Evil is a word to make it easy to understand, not official but not assumption either.
Companies can cheat and lie, and this part is the weakest. The weakness of human nature is pretty powerful.
People are lazy, weak, stupid, impulsive, etc, so many weakness they can use, there always one fits you because the perfect human is not exist. So the gap between rich and poor are growing.
It's a war that one fight thousands, even millions if the company are counted one side.
Scepticism is week because to most people, they have to trust something to live.
You can't ask others to live in doubt.
BTW, I did not count in charities and non-profit organisations. Hard to understand right? Not non-profit but non-profit, the key is, not made for.
The one thing we learned about CD projekt Red is never pre-order games. Can I get a witness? Please folks never pre order games. So these anti-consumer practices can stop.
Personally I get the pre-ordering when the game is close to release ( I preordered a few days before release so i could preload it ) , pre-ordering months or even years before release shouldn't even be allowed imho, unless the whole project is crowdfunded, which is not the case.
There are no assumptions, what I said is the history, it happened whatever you like or not.
Evil is a word to make it easy to understand, not official but not assumption either.
Companies can cheat and lie, and this part is the weakest. The weakness of human nature is pretty powerful.
People are lazy, weak, stupid, impulsive, etc, so many weakness they can use, there always one fits you because the perfect human is not exist. So the gap between rich and poor are growing.
It's a war that one fight thousands, even millions if the company are counted one side.
Scepticism is week because to most people, they have to trust something to live.
You can't ask others to live in doubt.
BTW, I did not count in charities and non-profit organisations. Hard to understand right? Not non-profit but non-profit, the key is, not made for.
It is an assumption. Cheating and lying is not inherently bad; that is an obvious fallacy. And I am not sure how history correlates with the definition of evil? If anything it proves how relative it is as the moral relativism of some cultures is evident which furthers my point of "good" and "evil" to be extremely relative terms.
If someone lies to a thief to save someone, then what? The lie is bad because it is a lie per se? If you cheat your way up in a corrupt and unfair strata that is arbitrarily preventing you from moving forward, is it bad? Stuff is far more complex than giving arbitrary criteria like saying "X is bad no matter what" which is completely absurd.
You put an extremely simplistic view of the wealth gap; the gap is governmental, corporate and social as a whole, the rich are not the only ones at fault here. If you knew a bit of economy you would know that for a balance to exist, no force should have overwhelming regulation of another, else the other force shall be forced to adapt to not be strangled under overpowering regulation.
Seriously, do not look for overly-simplistic assumptions that do not even correlate to the very same stuff you are mentioning as evidence (history to prove evil).
