Back when CD's first came out they were $14-16 and people paid those prices. They still pay those prices.

Same with VHS/DVD's which were always $19.99 for a newer release and then falling as things got older.

The biggest downward influence in pricing for mainstream stuff is Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart FORCES producers to have a certain price point or they don't stock it and since Wal-Mart is the blue whale in the fishtank they can do that.

But even Wal-Mart charges what the market will bear whether it's a 3 for 1 $10 deal or a $20 for one new release.

Piracy is a scapegoat for high prices. Adobe products are heavily pirated but they were ALWAYS ultra expensive. Photoshop back in 1995 (when it was still an enormous program space wise) was still an incredibly expensive program, iirc $500.00-$600.00. Piracy hasn't changed the price at all. Adobe charges that because their business model calls for a small number of niche users who need the program using it for business.

My father uses a professional tax program for work. It's about $1200 but he also gets full service and support if there is a glitch or a form is wrong (and I could tell you a story about that... stupid NJ IRS...). Now this company is obviously successful because we get it every year but it operates on a business model that caters to its market and doesn't care about broke hackers who can't pay nor would pay... They also don't treat you like you're a pirate ever... My parents work at various places and have this program installed on their home computer. They can call up anytime anywhere and just ask their question no fuss no muss.

Games have always been $50 which is what they are today. Stardock puts out their games at a lower initial price probably because they are operating off a different business model than most of the big boys.

I'd be surprised if they succeeded. Pirates would find illicit connections, if they really had to and cared.

If games only cost $20, would all the people who complain they are too expensive actually buy them? Or would they continue to pay the competitive price of $0?

I'll admit. Lowering prices would increase sales. But only so many people are willing to buy a game anyway, so lowering prices gives diminishing returns. More demand would lower prices because you can just sell more $20 copies of a game that costs 10 million to make. But the fact would be that you can make money doing that. So, someone besides EA, like Stardock, would do it. The price war would lower all prices. The alternative is collusion, which is illegal. Stardock can sell games for so little because EA doesn't care if they lose a few sales to a small company. A small publisher is just a thorn in the side. If people only bought Stardock games because they are better and cheaper, then EA would lower prices to compete. (Edit: you should actually only buy Stardock stuff if you want prices to go down.)

As it is, EA makes a different product. They make huge investment games like SPORE and MASS EFFECT (which included 300 novels worth of scripting). People will pay more because arguably they are getting more. If people decided that the $10,000,000 projects weren't good enough to justify the investment, then EA would make smaller games... and they would make as many as you could buy.

I usually buy pretty much small games any more. I'm considering replacing MechWarrior 4 if I can't find it. And getting Mercs, Black Knight, and Vengeance, since the only one I can find is Black Knight, which is an expansion.

Last game I bought was EV Nova. Before that, as I can remember, SoaSE, and I'm planning to get Cortex Command. That's about eighty dollars total, maybe ninety, that EA or any big company who likes beating the consumer to death with DRM and whatnot will not be getting.

(I feel obliged to apologize in advance to Frogboy, who's name was taken in vain during this post - It is worth mentioning that I know, A) that the way I phrased this almost certainly doesn't reflect the actual IP ownership of the Galactic Civilizations Franchise and you didn't make the rules - {G}. No insult intended.)

Nice Theory - There is a logical extension upon that:
Why should *anyone's* family not benefit from their parents work for lifetime+70 years?

I will grant that it is fair for Frogboy's Children to benefit for 70 years after death, if it's fair for me to be paid for the work my father does for 70 years after he dies? I mean, he works for homeland security - surely *that* is more important than a game (No matter how cool)?

And therein lies the problem - My Father . . . has been paid for his work. YES!, if he's doing it right, Americans will be benefiting from the procedures he's put in place long after he's passed away - but thems the breaks - it is *still* not right that I should get money from the work he did for a generation (three and a half actually, a generation typically being considered as a twenty year period) after he passes away (Hopefully a long time from now).

And I'm okay with that. I benefit from what other peoples fathers have done, and they benefit from my father and we are all just one big happy fleet . . . er, wrong quote . . . but we all share one culture and build stuff together. If I receive an inheritance from the estate - that's my share.

But, by the same token, it would be nice if, in twenty years, I could take ideas from Galactic Civilizations II, notice that they never made a GC III - and make *my* game, based on this work. I'm never going to get to do that, because although Frogboy's kids will benefit from my dads work *and* his work (as they should) I only get to benefit from my dads works, and that won't be any special compensation, only the general benefit that everyone gets from a competnent man having done his job well.

Unless Frogboy actively releases the work to Public Domain or GPL status, Galactic Civilizations remains the sole property of him and his heirs until sometime in the 2100's

And *that* is my objection to the length of copyright. There is a volatility in the nature of ideas and art that merits a special protection, a way to ensure that artists can make money on their work that can be passed along to their heirs. But - once that money has been made . . . that volatile nature of intellectual work no longer merits special protection. There is no 'special' reason that Disney, or EA, or Frogboy should have a monopoly on that work past that point.

Jonnan

What an amusing thread.  Some of the arguments used to rationalize theft are unbelievable. What kind of bubble are some people living in?

Certainly for Arists (etc) where it can take that long for "recognition" to occur, its a real problem, many an artist has not reached "the big time" in terms of reputation until after their death. To a lesser extent, although similar, that can happen in the music world etc.

In regard to original innovation in non artist areas, where you quantify "when the money has been made"? Is it 20 years after an operating system has been developed yet the world is still benefiting from the innovation, is it - say - 30 years after version1? is it 40 years after version99? At what point do you define "the money has been made"? The company that made the product is still in existence, they are still developing or making parts of the product, the public is still buying the product.

An inventor or original entrepreneur with a very successful product expands and builds a company to develop that product. The Company benefits from the original idea or invention. At what point is that Company be designated as "having made the money"?

When has the money been made? Give a clear definition that can be applied to non artist work.


That's plain silly, as good a job as he no doubt does, he didnt invent homeland security. That crazy logic means anything and everything on the planet should be free.


You really need to re read that, it makes no sense, honestly, genuinely, I have no idea what you are trying to say.


So define what that point is - when is "when the money has been made"? Disney makes a ton of money re releasing old movies and cartoons they had made 50 or more years ago - they made them - why should they release the copy write to someone else? Its nonsense.

You want to use someone's creation, you pay for it - get used to it, its not going to change in this or any other Millenium.

Regards
Zy

I dont know - it beggars belief.

One things for sure, with the number that appear to be living inside it, I'd love the copy write on that Bubble

Mind you I guess they would claim squatters rights ..... dang!

Regards
Zy

Disagree. If Stardock charged $100 for GC2, it would get pirated more, the people who would pay $50 but not $100 , and would be willing to pirate, would pirate.

That's a small amount though, and we did effectively pay either $70 or $100 for GC2.

Fact is competition determines the price point, and the suitability of replacement goods. Games are an elastic market.

My whole issue is I flat-out don't trust corporations or the government to make fair legislation on IP issues. There are plenty of goods and services underrepresented in the free market, and that's due to these asinine politics. (anime being the big example- anime fans would pay for subs released before fansub groups, the issue is the business models can't support that, and since IP theft is a tort not a crime, damages cannot be proven- therefore it is low risk)

That's my other big issue- what companies ask for in damages for IP theft are unreasonable compared to the damage of the IP theft- especially on the non-distribution side. Most IP cases from the RIAA should go to a small claims court, not a US Federal District Court.

Uhm you didn't really want to use Disney as an example did you?  Or did you just not think it though?  Disney does nothing but use others ideas and in a lot of case pays absolutely nothing for it and has made and still makes millions.  So why is Disney allowed to make millions of others works?  If Disney is profiting from others works why can't I or others make a derivative of their works and make money from it?

You can. Weird Al Yankovic makes a living modifying other peoples songs, he's hardly the only parody specialist.

The Grimm's are dead, they've been that way for a fair bit of time. Disney can't steal their ideas anymore than a car company steals the idea of the wheel from whoever invented it. Even if they take works from living people and modify them, a story loosely based off another and written from scratch is an impossible standard for intellectual property theft.

Yes I do, and I did. Thought it through plenty, so has the Law.

Its simple, if someone believes they stole their original idea, that they either copywrited or held the patent, they sue under the relevant law. If they lost the legal case, tough, thats the way life goes. If they never registered the idea under the relevant legislation in the first place, then they have no claim.

If you believe you have an idea which they contest is not yours, take them to court, end of story.

Regards
Zy

First of all Disney is not making a parody.  Copyright has a specific clause for paroday and parody only. In fact Disney is not even changing or reinterpriting the source material in most cases.  Plus parody is not the same as using the content for your own profit, and it is definitely not seen the same by the law which is what we are talking about. 

Second did I even specifically state the Gimm brother fairy tales, as those are not even the the worst of their infringments, take for instance Tarzan, Peter Pan, there are others but that should be sufficient if you care to even look.  Plus the point being discussed was the length of copyright and when is long enough?  It was being said that if it is still profitable then the authors family should still have the copyright.  That specifically is what I am not agreeing with cause if that is how we are going to judge then the Grimm Brothers descendents should be making a hell of a lot of money.

Third you are flat out wrong, you can not take a part of someones idea when it comes to copyright and make it your own.  That is called a derivative work and is specifically dealt with in copyright law, and yes it is against the law.

So again explain to me why it is ok for Disney and not others?  Just goes to show how broken copyright is and if you are big enough you can stomp on the little guy.

 

Ok, so we agree that copywrite exists, and that the principle of original works should upheld, and due fees paid. Meanwhile, at that point its down to enforcement, that is a matter for the courts to decide, not amateur lawyers like you and I.


I'll also say again, it is not ok. Take them to court with the relevant evidence and they will get stepped on. If no case is brought, dont expect a lot to happen .... meanwhile, everything else is pure supposition and allegation, and means ziltch.

Regards
Zy

Really so you are saying that if no one challenges you then you are doing nothing wrong?  I thought we all just got done saying its wrong whether anyone catches you are not.  Interesting.  Also you are wrong in regard to the US copyright in the US copyright is granted to anyone the minute they record their idea in anyway.  You do not have to register it!  Plus I am glad you think that it is that easy to take a large corporation to court over copyright, I take it you have done that before?  Maybe you should ask the creators of Winnie the Pooh how taking Disney to court faired?

Not to go off topic but as good as the US legal system is, more often than not the guy with the most money wins.  I that is ok with you then why isn't the guy that can steal without getting caught any worse?