Why do g*mers expect me to pay a price above 0 for something with an infinite supply regardless of price?

because there'd be no supply at all without compensation

AH SHIT

Based zoomer dabbing on economist jews

Infinite supply --> 0 price

There isnt an infinite supply you moron. The law of supply and demand is not broken. At any given time there are a finite number of copies of your game.

But there's only one game retard. Supply would here mean all similar games (in fact, it would require all games made to be the exact same to work) made by other companies.
Are you 15 ?

Idiot

Exactly
Exactly, which is why a person or group should get paid to make a game, not get paid to have already made a game because they aren't providing a product, they're providing a service
Dumbasses
Or are you 2 decades away from y2k in the wrong direction?
How so?
Seriously

the only thing with infinite supply here is your stupidity op

Attached: 1575804077893.png (742x742, 326K)

Attached: DB41A202-92B5-40AF-9954-832CAFA24BFF.png (640x1136, 713K)

Let's say I'm paying them for the service they provided, then. The fact that it takes place before, during or after that is completely accidental and dependant on the concrete agreement between the parties.

This.
OP is a massive retard.

you don't.

Attached: pirate chad.jpg (872x850, 457K)

You are the walking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Supply is not # of units the company has. Demand is not # of units people buy.
The supply curve is essentially the cost if producing the product. Video games have a very high initial cost to create, but very low costs to reproduce (just the money from server upkeep, if downloaded). So for video games, the price is there because of the initial cost to create it. This is not unique at all to video games, anything with high initial infrastructure cost like manufacturing is similar, it's just even more exaggerated in video games, e-books and movies.
(Now usually, products get priced based on how expensive the product was to make and how much they project their demand to be. This is common in indie steam games and used games, but in the new AAA market, there's a lot of pressure to keep the price at $60 because of the elasticity of the market)

Tl;dr OP is a fucking moron who thinks his retarded ass outsmarted professional economists

Attached: b07111eb856b55243a7df3c1be4eec51.jpg (400x394, 31K)

If there's a concrete agreement between you and whoever is making the game then when it takes place isn't accidental, but that's completely irrelevant, what I'm saying is that still thinking of games as a product to bought and sold like traditional products is going about things completely wrong and only embracing an incompatible system
Video games are not similar to manufacturing, creating a factory doesn't allow you to will products out of the void with nothing but time and effort
Once you have created a video game, you could give every single person on Earth with a computer that game at zero additional cost to you, just because the video game market is still behaving like a traditional market doesn't mean that it should be doing that, it's only doing that because no one who is able to change the market is willing to since they are scared of disrupting things

I never understood what in the world does this graph represent.
What are "p" and "s" supposed to be?

>zero additional cost to you
There's always an opportunity cost. The time spent creating the download link, the amount of GB the original uses in your servers, etc. It can all be used in some other fashion.

k so lets say i pay a dev to make a game, how am i supposed to get the money to pay the devs if know one buys the """"""service""""""" they made.

And just like that paycucks, liberals and wannabe economists were BTFO once again

you are absolutely retarded
the axis is literally quantity
there is no infinite quantity of video games anywhere in the world

>What is labour

What is labor?

not him but games (data) can be copied at any given time, free of charge and without taking away from the original copy
making them effectively infinite

>paypigs quote OP
>paypigs don't know how to sage

>There's always an opportunity cost. The time spent creating the download link
Exactly, that's why they should be paid to create the game, not paid to have already created the game
>the amount of GB the original uses in your servers
That's negligible, when people pirate games they don't download straight from the creator's source, they download from the copies of others, the very same system could be used for that if it ever did become a problem, but unless you were churning out games at absolutely inhuman speeds or had the worst optimized pieces of shit to ever plague a computer then a single terabyte would be more than enough to just store one master copy of every game you intended to distribute
You're looking at it from an investing point of view (if I managed to decrypt that), in that scenario you should instead act as a marketer to get people to fund this game and take a cut of the funds raised by the people who want whatever game it is that's promising to be made and give the rest to the devs as their payment to create said game, more or less
This guy shouldn't even have to state this to you considering that it's already been said before in this very thread

so you want everything to be a kickstarter, a system that has proven to be disastrous at times with things like mighty no 9. you would rather have people donate to a project before they even know if the game theyre donating too will be good or not? oh and i bet youd be the person to not donate to fucking anything and just reap the rewards of not having to pay for a game. this system is incredibly selfish and flawed.

How does supply and demand work for any license? e.g. The license to make star wars hats.

>Exactly, that's why they should be paid to create the game, not paid to have already created the game

go ahead and pay Blizzard/Ubisoft/Valve to make a game for you then

Attached: download.jpg (300x168, 8K)

It might be negligible for you but that's not necessarily so. And I'm not even considering other costs such as server upkeep/maintenance. The fact is that all those are limited resources that might be used in alternative ways, so without some sort of incentive there's literally no reason to not find some other, more profitable way to use them.

and the retard op has stopped posting because he realized hes just a cybernigger who wants everyone to pay for his welfare games.

That's exactly the problem, shitty kickstarters on sites where accountability is a completely alien concept have completely scared everyone away from them, there needs to be a solid system for prefunding of a game to work and for devs to actually be punished for failing to follow through on their promises like you'd expect from any service in real life, just because things are currently broken with an ultimately better system doesn't mean that the system itself is should be disregarded, and as much as I'd like to have not done so I have kickstarted plenty of games which is part of why I know now not to do so again until a better way of doing so is created like I already said
The problem with big companies like them is that video games are nothing but another investment, the only thing they care about is getting more money out than they put in and at as high an increase as they can possibly get, they have other sources of income and as such would just be incentivized only to create games with constant upkeep costs and other random in-games ways of getting people to spend money, i.e. lootboxes, though when dealing with big companies in gaming it becomes less about how to fix things related to video games/ the video game economy and more about how much fixing corporations and their greed are in need of
Like is said in , a game with actual upkeep costs would naturally have regular costs to compensate that upkeep because it wouldn't make sense for it to be any other way, but considering how cheap storage is now and how it's only going to get cheaper I really do think it can be considered negligible, if someone can't even afford $50 for storage space on their pc then they probably can't even afford a pc to create games on in the first place

there are fucking punishments in regular game devving already. they get defunded or shut down by publishers for being shit devs. kickstarter and crowd funding will always be a fucking crapshoot because donations are just that, donations. also trying to crowdfund games with budgets being made nowadays would have goals upwards of 100 millions dollars. you have to factor in marketing as well with game time which can have a significant impact on your budget. the end result would still be most people needing to donate at least 40 or so dollars to even reach the goals games need nowadays but instead of paying for a finished product like we have now, people are paying for absolutely nothing and a hope the game will be good. you cant count on whales to make up for the insane goals.

TSK, HEAR THIS NIG.
SERVERS
AREN'T
FREE
ALSO
THE
DEMAND

It's almost as though supply and demand breaks down when you stop using theoretical economics 101 examples and start using real-world examples.

Good will and investment in a company you trust/appreciate. This is really the actual reason any white person is buying videogames today. We all know how to pirate, we can all pirate if we wanted to.

But we don't all pirate, do we? Of course not, or games wouldn't keep being made for us.

If the server that has the game breaks.
You can still dowload it? No.
Then it isn't infinite

>I am entitled to free games

Attached: meme magic.jpg (540x402, 52K)

also i want the good devs to keep making more good games and sequels to the games i like. i dont pirate. i do research into games i know i will or will not like. also steam has that 2 hour refund thing. if i dont like it, im not gonna bother pirating it. if i do like it, im gonna support that dev.

To make a game you need electricity and a computer.
Are electricity and computers infinite?
No, they aren't, you moron.

I'm an economist and yes

I would say modern economics isn't much different from astrology 5000 years ago. There are some things you can be totally certain will happen, like the moon 'rising' every night, or the constellation of Orion showing up at the same time every year. Just like the supply demand curve and inflation are fairly simple and predictable.

But then you see a comet in the sky, what the fuck? And one of the stars in orion suddenly got as bright as the moon, how does that happen?? Why the fuck did the DOW jump up 5% today when coronavirus is about to eviscerate the world economy? Who the fuck knows.

Modern technology lets us see, predict, and understand cosmology better today than 5k years ago, but we're primitive as fuck when it comes to economics, and frankly that's because our modern society is essentially a neofeudal slave pen full of taxpayers and debtors providing massive amounts of wealth to an upper caste of grifters; businessmen, NGO's, government contractors, insurers, banks, and so forth. The economy functions as it does because if we understood it better and designed our government and economy better, it wouldn't be so easy to exploit and extract wealth from the general public the way its done right now.

Remember that for a long time, the US had zero taxation of the public. You didn't have your wages garnished, you didn't have consumption taxes. Government expenditure was covered entirely by movement of goods into and out of the country, and that kept government control on a tight leash. You can't run a modern day surveillance mafia/criminal enterprise with so little cash.

Im studiying it and no, it isn't.
Keynesianism is the problem.

You clearly misunderstand. Supply rises as price increases because there is more incentive to sell it. Demand decreases as quantity increases because there is less scarcity. Your OP is assuming supply dictates cost and demand dictates quantity. If the price was 0 then the supply would be 0

>meme magic.jpg
Don't you ever post daniel lopez again

There is nothing wrong with the current gamedev business model.

People make multimillion dollar fortunes with the current business model in spite of piracy. Possibly even the piracy just helps them.

It's very clear that whatever effect piracy has, it's not preventing people from making money. People still buy videogames. The only thing piracy seems to have a deleterious effect for are BAD videogames. The kind that you hear is garbage so you don't buy it, you pirate it and yes, it is in fact garbage.

A key thing I've noticed personally is that when I pirate Game A, if I liked Game A, I almost always just buy Game A2 instead of pirating it. Likewise when I buy Game B, and I fucking hate it, and Game B2 comes out, I don't buy it - usually I don't even pirate it.

Basically: Make a good game and you will make money.

Wallstreet beancounters don't like this, because they want to just spend 300 million and get 1.5 billion back like a magic slot machine that prints money for them. Real world doesn't work that way, no matter how much they hate having to actually try.

No empirical science provides absolute certainty, not even physics. A discipline is scientific as long as its practitioners apply the scientific method. Otherwise we're just drawing arbitrary lines over what is essentially a continuum.

They are if you still live with your parents and have no idea what bills are.

So, OP is a retard

Attached: chadzuya.jpg (322x335, 72K)

that doesn't refute his argument tho

buy A as well. you liked it and want more to be made. i say buy what you liked. show support for the dev who gave you the enjoyment you found with the game. getting enjoyment from a work and not compensating the people who made that happen is just selfish. pirating the first then buying the second seems backwards to me personally. going all in on the sequel despite not knowing if it will offer the same enjoyment you found in A but pirating A, the game you did find enjoyment in seems off to me.

>infinite supply
>Something can't be inifinite is it has a limit
Also, read Menger and the theory of subjective value for fuck sakes.

What I'm basically saying the punishment for failing to follow through on a kickstarter game should be is just forcibly refunding the money from the devs to the funders, which, as to my knowledge, there isn't really any way of doing
And very few games have development costs even anywhere near that high, though a lot of the ones that do are either because they're mmos that need to have huge worlds that don't run out of content on week one or they're super awesome advanced ultra realistic never before seen blow your mind shit your pants incredibly graphically stunning games basically built just for that gimmick of good graphics, big companies will probably still do both just cause that's their existence but everyone else will have to show that they actually have something interesting and worth creating, and bigger doesn't mean better, devs will have to come up with actual innovative things to make them be worth giving money to rather than just blowing loads of cash of making a massive world with really high definition textures or really any of the other shit that devs pad their games with, whether it be an oversized world or an overly long grind, and like said, good will and trust need to be built in a dev team and then they can work on bigger projects when they have actually given people a reason to believe that they will put that money to good use and make something worthwhile
See If the road to your grocery store gets a giant fucking sinkhole in it does it stop existing?
No you retard, your line to something stopping doesn't mean that the thing it leads to has stopped
You create one copy of a game and then you never have to create another copy of that game ever again, you can give copies to literally anyone who wants to have them, again, for absolutely no additional cost to you
They are infinite dipshit
Well he's pirating A in the first place because he doesn't know if he'll like it

You're really a dumbass, if something can have a limit THEN isn't infinite.

once made the game is in fact infinite in supply, that is his argument.

>A and B are finite
>you need A and B to create C
>"lol C is infinite tho"

Attached: 1564179967535.png (254x252, 44K)

no it isn't, the server doesn't magically exist forever

needing finite resources to make infinite resources don't make them stop being infinite my man

It's close enough that the real costs involved approach $0

It's what we call a limit in math

IT'S NEITHER.
If the disk drive fuck ups, you lose all everything.
It isn't infinite.
And read Menger, keynesian.

>the sum of two finite things is an infinite one

Attached: 1571800943894.jpg (543x376, 29K)

>infinite things*
fixec

don't buy it and don't play it, piracy is dead and no one gives a fuck about your poorfag opinion

Attached: nrtnd.jpg (876x450, 88K)

not him but you are being really autistic about semantics, yes there is a limited amount of hard drive space in the world, the fact that you'd eventually reach a limit on hard drive space making it technically finite doesn't mean it isn't infinite in the sense that more copies can be made from nothing for no effort.
Do you think "supply is incredibly high and will exceed demand at any price" is any less of an argument than "literally infinite"?

in this case? yes, as OP explained already

Go ahead, enter torrentleech and download them, no one is stopping you...

Attached: Capturevasvsa.jpg (1187x1073, 139K)

>from nothing
oh shit Yea Forums we got wizards who can copy video games without using any electricity or power. how do they do it?

First of all, thanks for saying that I'm right, because it isn't infinite.
Second, quantity DOESN'T ALWAYS have an impact on price, there's something called demand, if someone wants to pay a DRM game for $60 they'll pay it.
Read Menger, keynesians.

How many cents did it cost you to copy one of those videogames?

>b-but wat if u dele ted da 1st file wit out makin copy
>b-but wat if all existin files stoped existin
it is effectively infinite, semantics-kun.

Unless buying a video game means they'll pay my power bill for the month, this is completely unrelated and you are retarded.

>Shows two games that have not released yet.
Yeah you're retarded.

Attached: 1582855774871.png (1000x1000, 470K)

Why are you censoring a normal word? This isn't fucking twitter user.

Cont.
Since he has already played A he sees no reason to buy A, then, because the devs of A gave him an enjoyable game, he now trusts that they will also do so for A2, so he buys it, in a system where devs rely more on getting paid to create games rather than having already created games the situation plays out as follows: user comes across a game online that he thinks is interesting, he then plays it and finds it to be an enjoyable experience he sees that the devs are hoping to create A2 and since he appreciates the work that they put in to making A and trusts that they will deliver a similarly satisfying experience in A2 he pays them to further fund their creation of A2, and all of that is without ever having to risk legal trouble
>inb4 lmao dumbass doesnt know how to pirate safely
See and and also maybe But other people still have the game so you could easily get it back, and don't try to say that every single drive where the game was stored would somehow magically break all at once
Alright now you're just being a shitter
I really hope you don't think OP is the same guy as

Just because artificial scarcity and retards exist doesn't mean I have to respect them as a concept and play by their rules.

No, it's not, if I break a disk drive, you can't have the code again, no matter how hard you try.
If something has a limit THEN IT ISN'T INFINITE YOU MORONS.

update me when they are cracked, I'll wait seated

>thanks for saying that I'm right, because it isn't infinite
we are talking about a effective infinity, not a literal one.

Ok faggot, then don't play videogames and be ignorant in another place.
If something has a limit it isn't inifite.
If I break all disk drives in the world you can't have an infinite quantity of videogames.

see: it is effectively infinite

wow, the talk really changed, and again, read menger, keynesians.
Saying infinite and a lot are two complently different things.

>Ummm, literally nothing is infinite because there's only so many molecules in the universe, so I win bye bye :)
Do you expect to convince literally anyone of anything like this? You've given up arguing in good faith and are basically just trying to troll at this point.

op, simple question. you want free games for everyone and suggest a method of crowdfunding. who do you think will be funding the games? why would change a functioning system of an already finished product that can be reviewed before being purchased for a system that relies of donations and hope that the game being made is good and suits their taste. how in the world is that system any better?

>the talk really changed
it was obviously implied for anyone that isn't retarded, but autism got the best of you.
>read menger
>omg like read a book
not an argument, if anything related to his work is pertinent to this discussion then post it yourself.

doom 4 was cracked d+0 and remake 2 was cracked d+6 and both had denuvo so I don't know why you think anything's changed

user, when you make a game, there is a cost to making the game.

People need paid to code the game.
People need paid to model the enviroments you complain are just "padding".
People need to design the narrative of the game.
Money needs spent to distribute the game.
Lots of shit needs done to make a game.

If your brainlet self comes in going "but the game can be distributed infinitely for free" (spoiler alert: No it can't, either by centrally hosted servers or torrents that you don't even seed, which cost money to run.) then you are a dumbass.

If you disagree, go download Godot (godotengine.org/) and Blender (blender.org/) and make a game. When you finish your game (if) then feel free to release it for free.

Put your welfare money where your mouth is or shut up.

OP, you forgot about the other chart.

Attached: cost supply curve.jpg (495x369, 29K)

you arent buying A to play it again, you are buying A because you felt like the experience you enjoyed was worth it and want to support the devs who made it. if you pirate the first game and never pay for it, then if the second game never comes out, you got all that enjoyment from the developer for free and didnt support them at all. you are basically supporting the idea of preorders which is once again a shitty form of crowdfunding. i have no idea why you are so obsessed with paying for a product that hasnt even been finished over paying for a game that has been finished and been reviewed by multiple sources

Clarification, lots of things need done that create the game. That costs money. That means giving it away for free is utterly fucking stupid.

I don't think you understand anything at all being said here. Your IQ is literally too low to follow along with this thread.

For others:
It does not matter how much you spend making a game. You are not guaranteed nor entitled to make money from it.

Making software in an environment where software can be easily copied and distributed with a single copy sold, does not make any business sense. By all metrics this is a business plan that ought to fail. Somehow it actually works in real life though, and that's because real life isn't perfectly rational / people aren't all sociopaths pinching pennies.

If you don't like that people can pirate your software, there are solutions:
1. Don't produce software
2. Sell your first copy up front for the full cost + profit you want
3. Get patronage from others to produce software they want
4. Provide your software as a service rather than a discrete package
5. Probably a bunch of other ways

I explain it here Subjective theory of value explains this dumb shit:
> the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor necessary to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of his desired ends.

>costs have an impact
BEGONE!

If I ever make games that's exactly what I intend to do, I'll release them for free while asking people to consider paying me if they appreciate my work and want to see me continue to make games
But as I haven't made any games yet I'll have to just stick to talking mostly about what-ifs

People have done this, you don't make any money by asking for donations

Instead, just sell it at a fair price, no need to give it away unless that's your life philosophy or something

noooo cowboy gta is uncracked bros how will we ever recover

Attached: 1582563935194.png (785x1000, 264K)

Yes.

Attached: 7.gif (500x269, 1.71M)

Buddy, don't do that...
Most people want things free, some will pay, that's the minority.
But like I said here:Maybe someone will pay.

>piracy is dead

Attached: 1581544265098.gif (187x155, 2.28M)

Resume of the thread.
Yea Forums doesn't know shit about economy.

Attached: 1578952348661.jpg (1026x1024, 141K)

>spend months making a game and offer it for free in hopes someone is nice
user, theres a difference between being optimistic and being downright retarded. game developing is a full time job for these people. they live there life hoping someone is nice. they have bills to pay. if you game dev as a hobby then sure.

they cant live their life hoping*

>game developing is a full time job for these people. they live there life hoping someone is nice.
It's true, this is what they do. It's kind of retarded when you think about it, but they still make money so everything works out.

>What I'm basically saying the punishment for failing to follow through on a kickstarter game should be is just forcibly refunding the money from the devs to the funders
This is fucking bananas if you're not baiting rn. Off the top of my head, here's a inexhaustive of logistical problems with this:
>Who gets to decide whether they "failed to follow through"?
>What happens if the devs already spent the money?
>What happens if half of the funders are pleased and half are not?
>What if a company finds out during development that their original ideas were off the mark and they need to change the direction of the project?
The rules of supply and demand are at work perfectly in the space of video games. Sure, it's cheap to make a copy of a finished game, but I want to emphasize CHEAP, not FREE. There is an enormous gap between those two things. It still costs labor to make a game, and labor needs to be paid for. Selling a finished product is the most reasonable compromise for all involved parties. The consumers aren't left with a murky understanding of what they're buying, the developers get paid hourly/salary for their labor, and the publishers get to run away with the money in the case of success. Making good games is incentivized across the board this way*. The consumers will try to spend their money on the best games, so the publishers will try to only fund projects and developers that will result in good games. The developers will try to make a good game to establish credibility for future funding. Any other system you can devise in your armchair will satisfy incentives less effectively. Sure, there are plenty of problems with it, but those problems aren't related to video game development. They are the problems inherent in capital.
*I'm defining "good" as "having a high sales to development cost ratio" here. Obviously if you are defining "good" from an artistic viewpoint, good games are not incentivized.

basado

this is nothing, you should see /biz/
t. actual economist

sometimes there's a way to get it for free ;)

Kinda
but it gets you rich as fuck if you specialize in the right thing so who cares

No one expects anything from you, that's why you demand attention when pirating videogames instead of just playing them. stop making this thread

this shit is funny man.
No matter your ideology, nobody says that only quantity determines the price

The problem with economics is that it actively breaks the laws of mathematics to create economic models, which then somehow work but not really

>Everyone stops paying for videogames
>Vidya market goes the way of Blockbuster.
>B-But it's infinite!
>G-Games don't c-cost anything, r-right?
>It's free, there's infinite supply of the code!
I like having games around, so I don't mind paying for the ones I really do want to support, or developers that I want to support.
You're either a brainlet, or trolling.

Attached: 1577131176685.gif (280x302, 3.75M)

OP is a Brainlet.

>Your IQ is literally too low to follow along with this thread.

You think "give away things that cost money for free" is a viable business model. You have no standing to say others are stupid.

>You are not guaranteed nor entitled to make money from it.

Why are you entitled to get it for free?

>Don't produce software

How much stuff do you use daily would not exist if anyone followed this logic.

>Sell your first copy up front for the full cost + profit you want

Nobody with an IQ above room temperature (not you) would ever subsidise however many other users for free, when the cost for a video game to be produced is very expensive.

>Get patronage from others to produce software they want

Okay, and then I only give it to those people that paid me for it. Now what do you do if you want it?

>Provide your software as a service rather than a discrete package

This is actually a viable solution. Except it isn't, because people still pirate subscription services.

More importantly, you ignored my entire point, that distributing the game is still going to cost money, you brainlet^2

>No it can't, either by centrally hosted servers or torrents that you don't even seed, which cost money to run.
>No it can't, either by centrally hosted servers or torrents that you don't even seed, which cost money to run.
>No it can't, either by centrally hosted servers or torrents that you don't even seed, which cost money to run.

(because the servers require money to keep running, and torrents require computers to seed the files)

You have an ego and nothing to back that ego up.

Thats right paypigs. Keep paying so us piratechads dont have to.

Attached: 567567576.jpg (561x960, 84K)

How do I get a job above 40k/yr, the national average is 70k. What do i do?

>op literally wants kickstarters, crowdfunding and games as a service and people are siding with him

Attached: 1574495686705.gif (480x292, 1.99M)

They need to mandate economic classes in High School holy shit.

If you could create a mathematical model of literally the entire economy, then you would be able to accurately predict things 100% of the time. The problem is that an economy has so many moving parts that a model accurate enough is completely unfeasible. Even modelling one small town would take the work of more people than that town contains. Approximation is necessary, and approximation will always result in errors. In no way does that block application of the scientific method. Your post has this underlying implication that if something isn't a perfect set of deductions from certain axioms, it's not scientific. That belays a complete ignorance to the scientific method and the nature of reality.

get a better resume and get a degree in literally anything. preferably one that gives you lots of career options

the national average is like 23k

I don't really think game developing should be a full time job for pretty much anyone really, I think they should put their skills towards something more stable and not reliant on the whims of people or companies, it's not as is full time game devs nowadays have any notion of job stability, I actually think removing the idea that game development should be a full time job would be a good thing as they would do things more directly useful to themselves, the people around them, and their community at large with video game creation being something that they might end up blowing up in if they make a hit
>Who gets to decide whether they "failed to follow through"?
Each individual person if they decide things aren't progressing in a way that they like or a legal team if need be
>What happens if the devs already spent the money?
If they spent it strictly on things in relation to the creation of the game then there is a certain level limited liability, i.e. no having their house or car sold to make up for it
But if they spent it on random personal stuff then they face full liability to pay back every cent of every person who wants a refund
>What happens if half of the funders are pleased and half are not?
Then they can take their money back if they feel too irked about it
>What if a company finds out during development that their original ideas were off the mark and they need to change the direction of the project?
Then they have to give good reasoning as to why a change needs to be made
>*I'm defining "good" as "having a high sales to development cost ratio" here.
Of course you are
People like you are why things have gotten so shit, or at the very least why they have as fast as they have
>Everyone stops paying for videogames
>The only gamedevs are now people who have a passion for it and aren't doing it as a glorified office job
>Vidya now stop being same mass produced garbage
>B-but the economics!
>I-it lacks monetary sense!

What's wrong with that?
And my highschool did have a mandatory economics class

Idiot

Be born in to a wealthy family. Alternatively, both work really stupid hard on increasing your income and also have a long series of lucky breaks. If you can't fulfill either of those conditions, you're fucked.

I live in america and the national average is 63k.
What's a good degree that can be applicable everywhere that won't
lock me into a competitive market like programming
cost me out the ass and require a masters to be hireable
will be applicable to any position above 50k/yr

Where do you work? Im an economics graduate turned CPA because I couldnt find work.

Finance user here:
Because demand is based off abstracts as well as sheer quantity, there's a concept called elasticity for example which is how much you'll tolerate bullshit before you opt for the next best thing by going to a competitor.

Games have a perceived value that pushes them above quantity and are fairly inelastic, thus explaining the difference. Supply and Demand charts only work in a perfect market to begin with mind you.

So, what I'm saying is you posted something dumb, thinking you sounded smart.
Good job OP.

STOP WITH KEYNESIANISM, MENGER ALL THE WAY BABY

>support muh devs
>the devs barely gets any of the profits most of the time and only gets paid a salary anyways regardless of how it sells
so basically you are a cuck with a financial domination fetish. what a corporate cocksucker

op some of the greatest games ever made filled with passion were by devs who worked full time. removing their income does only damage. you are way too optimistic about game dev passion. unless your fine with games taking 30 years to come out because people have to balance their real jobs with game devving.

Are you even really apart of the group if you don't participate in the success of the event? That's like sitting on the bench the entire game, and wanting to hold the trophy first.

It's not a criticism to say
>Hehe, beta! You pay for things you want to support! You take part in the community you care about! I'm not saying pay for every game you play, but if there's one you really enjoy and consider a stellar time and would like to see future installments, or continued support, you should feel okay giving up some shekels.
>I don't really think game developing should be a full time job for pretty much anyone really
I don't think being a director, musician, artist, performer, or anyone who likes to create entertainment for people should be a full time job for pretty much anyone really durrhurr.
Thanks for being so stupid in your first statement, that I didn't have to read that whole thing.

Attached: 1571717995487.jpg (473x473, 20K)

so the devs getting no money at all is better?

The devs already got paid by their boss regardless of the sale hence buying more games won't increase their salary. Unless it's a small indie company then maybe, but they already knew the risk & reward for doing an indie game was low unless it goes viral.

>op
Not op
But I suppose I am forgetting that not everyone has 8 hours of free time where they aren't working or sleeping due to not having any familial obligations
What I should've said is "I don't really think anyone should aim to be a full time game developer specifically"
If someone has the opportunity to make a full time job out of doing something that they enjoy, regardless of what that is, they should almost certainly do it
But I do think it's foolish to throw away financial security to chase your dreams, especially when you can work towards those dreams as a side project in the beginning

This is hilarious. If you're baiting, kudos. If you're being sincere, then you should go read some books and stop talking like you know anything.
>as they would do things more directly useful to themselves, the people around them, and their community at large
Video games are far from the only industry to be doing things that are economically inefficient because it's profitable. This problem stems from the fundamental structure of our economy and has nothing to do with video games.
>Each individual person if they decide things aren't progressing
>But if they spent it on random personal stuff
>Then they can take their money back
So developers are supposed to crowdfund their money, not spend any of it for fear of having their possessions revoked, and constantly live in a state of not knowing how much of that money they'll actually get to keep? Do you not see all the space this system is creating for corruption and abuse? How creatively stifled the development will be? A final product almost never comes out looking like its original vision, and that's one of the major problems with Kickstarter projects (although that's a tangent I don't really want to dive in to).
>Of course you are
>People like you are why things have gotten so shit, or at the very least why they have as fast as they have
I'm defining "good" that way because that's the only sensible way to define it when we're talking about economics. I made a point to specify that I'm using that definition and delineate it from an artistic perspective for exactly that reason. Also, I'm very curious what you mean by "people like me". Please, describe me.

>I live in america and the national average is 63k.
The average is dragged up heavily by 1%'ers making 50 million USD per year

Please learn some math for your own sake

>So developers are supposed to crowdfund their money, not spend any of it for fear of having their possessions revoked, and constantly live in a state of not knowing how much of that money they'll actually get to keep?

Look dude, these people CHOSE this business model. They KNOW people can pirate their shit and there is nothing they can do about it. What does acting like entitled dipshits get them? Your sanctimonious holier-than-thou grandstanding doesn't change fucking reality. Either you develop software and sell it knowing people can pirate that shit and you don't care, or you shut the fuck up and use a different business model.

What kind of dumbfuck goes into a business model he hates and then complains when he gets burned? Holy shit the amount of idiocy required by someone who thinks like you is off the charts.

live with being wrong

>I don't really think anyone should aim to be a full time game developer specifically
Here we go again, you said the damn near the same thing you just said, and the best explanation you give is
>But I do think it's foolish to throw away financial security to chase your dreams, especially when you can work towards those dreams as a side project in the beginning
You can work out being a game developer as a hobby, now, can you?
No, you can paint as a hobby, you can do stand-up comedy as a hobby, you can sing, as a hobby.
You -very- rarely get self-taught people, with no schooling developing even an indie game as a hobby and just something to do on their free time
You're on a Yea Forums thread talking about how you think developers need a second job. I don't understand that sentiment at all. Throw away any game you have that isn't made by uneducated, unschooled, indie developers then. You fight against the things you like. Idungeddit.

Attached: 1567201749478.jpg (1813x2111, 912K)

op no one chose your dipshit model. you made this thread offering dumber than stupid ideas to fix a system that is fine. fuck off

lmao nigga the $63k number is a household income

that's TWO people

jesus fucking christ the retards on this place

Because you don't understand what "Supply" in this context actually is.

"Supply" isn't the actual number of copies of the game, at least not in totality.
"Supply" refers to the talent and man-hours required to *make* the game, for if there was no money for the developers to begin with, there would be no developers.

Which then of course completely invalidates the piracy is gay argument

these people make money regardless of piracy, there's no sense complaining about it, especially given that your business model is chosen despite knowing full well piracy is possible in that business model and anyone actually buying your software is, rationally, a dumbfuck throwing away money.

The very fact that software makes remarkable profits while piracy exists, outright disproves that piracy is a problem.

Only ~20% of americans make >60k USD per year

you are 100% completely wrong about the average income being this high in the US

>you should go read some books
Like?
>Video games are far from the only industry to be doing things that are economically inefficient because it's profitable. This problem stems from the fundamental structure of our economy and has nothing to do with video games.
Yes, and?
>So developers are supposed to crowdfund their money,
Sort of
>not spend any of it for fear of having their possessions revoked, and constantly live in a state of not knowing how much of that money they'll actually get to keep?
No, as the people who paid the devs money to create a game they should naturally be expected to follow it's development, that way people can't put money in to something really early, ignore it until release, and then freak out if they decide only then that it's not what they wanted when they should've done so sooner or spoken up about it, and there would be a window of time where if they didn't request their refund soon enough after launch then they would no longer be eligible to get their money back
>Also, I'm very curious what you mean by "people like me". Please, describe me.
High sales = high quality
You say the current system incentivizes the creation of good games and then say a good game is just one that sells well, which is just absurd and means that you'd have to be in line with popularities of games
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
Here's your top 50 best games of all time list bro
>You live in a society and yet you wish to change said society, how curious
I never no schooling or that they had to be self taught, but even so, saying that creating video games can't be a hobby is just insane, that's like saying carpentry, automotive mechanics, or baking can't be hobbies
While I do agree for the most part, don't you think that if piracy just stopped being illegal that it would actually cause some turbulence?

Literally doesn't change anything in my original post.

>these people make money regardless of piracy
They do not.
You're assuming that there would be money to give to begin with, but if they didn't sell, then there wouldn't be.

The supply is limited by intellectual property laws, so it is not infinite.

That's true. This is why I have to pay more than $0 when I pirate videogames.

>Like?
Capital, The Prince, The Art of War
These are a good jumping off point for understanding how human nature interacts with large political and economic systems.
>Yes, and?
Your whole point about devs devoting their time to more worthwhile pursuits is completely bunk and functions only as a red herring. We live under capitalism, so we have to do things that make sense within capitalism. This will be the case until we no longer live under capitalism.
>the people who paid the devs money to create a game they should naturally be expected to follow it's development [...]
The hilarious thing here is that you think you've found some genius, alternative way to do things when really what you're describing is essentially the current developer-publisher-consumer model.
>You say the current system incentivizes the creation of good games and then say a good game is just one that sells well
Dude, I specifically made a point to state that I was operating under a definition of "good" that makes sense when talking economics and not one that makes sense when talking artistically. When talking economics, you have to view good and bad from an economic lens. You're not btfo-ing me here. Here's a quote from my own goddamn post:
>Obviously if you are defining "good" from an artistic viewpoint, good games are not incentivized.

>a normal word
Describing yourself as a gamer is a crime against humanity.

>what you're describing is essentially the current developer-publisher-consumer model.
Do you really think the average person who purchases video games follows the development cycle, and that's only counting when they are even able to
>Dude, I specifically made a point to state that I was operating under a definition of "good" that makes sense when talking economics and not one that makes sense when talking artistically. When talking economics, you have to view good and bad from an economic lens.
That's exactly the problem. Viewing video games as just another way to make money, like gambling, playing the stock market, investing in cryptocurrencies, starting a business, becoming a landlord, etc. that's exactly why traditional art itself has become one giant scam for the rich to retain their power, and the more people like you get into positions of power with influence over video games the more video games become dominated by corporate interests whose sole goal is to increase their monetary gains
Quite ironic coming from a guy who thinks our system is broken because of capitalism and who's first recommended book to me is Das Kapital

>We live under capitalism, so we have to do things that make sense within capitalism. This will be the case until we no longer live under capitalism.
The modding community, indies, and pretty much anything good and free made under societies with excessive wealth to allow people to pursue personal interests (hint: Not communism) would disagree with you historically.