173 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyssistr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

The thing is DLCs are not sold in a free market,

Yes they are.  This is a fundamental misuse of what the term free market means and implies. 

Lyssistr wrote...

you don't need to read marxism to see that.

True.

Lyssistr wrote...

DLC has nothing to do with capitalism, it's more about a monopoly on the distribution channel, and that's why I refuse to pay for it.

That is almost like saying bacon has nothing to do with pigs. Capitalism leads to monopolies, and state intervention - in mixed economies such as most of those in the West - regulate and prevent monopolies.  Video game DLC by a single seller does not represent the concept of a monopoly at all, unless - in this example - Bioware had a vast market share and could leverage their dominance by undercutting the price of competitors' DLC, thus driving them out of business.

Lyssistr wrote...

The thing is that unless it's a free market, I know I'm not paying a fair price, I'm paying for a manipulated price

That's not what the free market is.  And the concept of a "fair price" is subjective and determined by the consumer.  You have determined that DLC is offered at an unfair price and have withheld your purchase.  That is the role of the consumer in the free market.

No, there is a single seller, that's not a free market, just log to a virtual trading platform for e.g.  stocks and you'll see not everybody sells at the same price for the same product, in amazon.com and ebay the same thing happens.

 You don't get a fair buy-price when there is only one seller. The fair price is not subjective at all, it's the price of a product in a so-called "efficient" market, real world free markets are as close as you can get to this.
 

[Lyssistr]

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vulee94 wrote...
Marxists like RPG's too...

Then they should be using their keen economic minds to explain DLC using the labor theory of value!

DLCs, where there is only one distribution channel, owned by the DLC producer and price is fixed by the only distributor instead of being determined through free market mechanics is the most marxist thing in today's gaming.

If that's the most Marxist thing in today's gaming, then it must be because there's not much Marxism in gaming today. Because that is not Marxist at all.

The thing is that unless it's a free market, I know I'm not paying a fair price, I'm paying for a manipulated price

Yeah, you're probably right. But that still has nothing to do with Marxism.

 the point I was trying to make is that capitalism has nothing to do with how DLC is being sold today. I haven't read marxism nor do I intend to do so in the future, I'm not interested in reading more about a failed model. My point was that the way DLC is sold has absolutely nothing to do with free markets capitalism or capitalism for short.

[Funkcase]

Shouldn't this be in the off topic section?

[Shepard Lives]

OH GOD NOT ANOTHER ONE OF THESE THREADS

[Mustikos]

Ex_Everest wrote...

Nefario wrote...

Ex_Everest wrote...

Nefario wrote...
No... I'd say a state of affairs can be more or less in line with Marx's theory. For instance Leninism is an adulterated form of Marxism (less Marxist than Marxism), but is still more Marxist than, say, Stalinism.

Fair enough; but if it's not in line at all, as the case might be in certain capitalist systems, then the comparison doesn't really apply, no?

I agree. The state of affairs regarding DLC originally described has nothing to do with Marxism. But, y'know, saying "that's not very Marxist at all" seemed more polite than "you have no clue what you're talking about".

If that's the truth, so be it. Many people should start learning that they're capable of prejudiced opinions, general mistakes, and that criticism based on objective reasoning is something to be welcomed. The truth hurts sometimes, softening the blow can equate to misinforming.

I hate to use a cliche but "the the world would be a better place" if people would think more like that. Just look at these forms "whatever game/console I have is automaticly better then what you have" .  I really hate when people use the word "is" to state there opinion as a fact and then don't even bother to try and explain it.  "this movie is crappy!".. :crickets: Then after a longe pause of slience you ask "and?"  "and what?!" /faceplam.  

Nobody seems to make mistakes anymores, after all its always and I mean always somebody elses falut... <_<

Modifié par Mustikos, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:48 .

[Ex_Everest]

Lyssistr wrote...
I haven't read marxism nor do I intend to do so in the future, I'm not interested in reading more about a failed model.

Do you mean that it's an inherentely flawed model? How do you know that if you don't know what it is (i.e. haven't read up on it)? Otherwise, I don't know if the outcome of a single, short-lived USSR political system is enough to qualify such a judgement. (There has only been a single succesful implementation of marxism in an organized government to date, correct?)

Modifié par Ex_Everest, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:52 .

[upsettingshorts]

Ex_Everest wrote...

Do you mean that it's an inherentely flawed model? How do you know that if you don't know what it is (i.e. haven't read up on it)? Otherwise, I don't know if the outcome of a single, short-lived USSR political system is enough to qualify such a judgement. (There has only been one example of marxism, correct?)

My Marxist and anarcho-liberal friend would say it actually hasn't been fully implemented before.  He's also more or less resigned to the fact that its mostly incorrect association with the Stalinist USSR will lead to most people making the same kind of assumptions present in this thread.

He'd also argue, rather strenuously, that capitalism is a failed model.  One we're just all used to.

I'm not conversant enough in economics to really have a strong opinion.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:55 .

[Nefario]

Lyssistr wrote...

 the point I was trying to make is that capitalism has nothing to do with how DLC is being sold today. I haven't read marxism nor do I intend to do so in the future, I'm not interested in reading more about a failed model. My point was that the way DLC is sold has absolutely nothing to do with free markets capitalism or capitalism for short.

That may have been the point you were trying to make, but you weren't getting it across very well.

If you were to read some of Karl's work, you might learn that Marxism is not a "failed model" as it is not a model at all, but a political theory.

[addiction21]

I... I need coffee. Yup coffee.

[upsettingshorts]

Funkcase wrote...

Shouldn't this be in the off topic section?

shepard_lives wrote...

OH GOD NOT ANOTHER ONE OF THESE THREADS

This thread was doomed when it was just a glint in OP's eye.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:58 .

[Nefario]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Funkcase wrote...

Shouldn't this be in the off topic section?

shepard_lives wrote...

OH GOD NOT ANOTHER ONE OF THESE THREADS

This thread was doomed when it was just a glint in OP's eye.

Troll eyes don't glint. If they did, they'd be plucked out and placed in the troll's treasure pockets.

[Ex_Everest]

Mustikos wrote...

I hate to use a cliche but "the the world would be a better place" if people would think more like that. Just look at these forms "whatever game/console I have is automaticly better then what you have" .  I really hate when people use the word "is" to state there opinion as a fact and then don't even bother to try and explain it.  "this movie is crappy!".. :crickets: Then after a longe pause of slience you ask "and?"  "and what?!" /faceplam.  

Nobody seems to make mistakes anymores, after all its always and I mean always somebody elses falut... <_<

As far as I can understand, it would be a better place. And it's not that nobody makes mistakes anymore, it's in a person's nature to use excuses or justifications for mistakes, as it makes the admission less painful, so I imagine people have been doing it for a while.

I myself, am not so quick to disregard raw emotional intuition, however, since (as far as I can understand) emotions provide us with generally beneficial (to ourselves that is) advice, as a result of long term (genetic), or short term (experience based) evolution, so there's some credit to people feeling a certain way-if enough feel so, chances are, there's something there, but if we want to advance to the next level, we need to discard emotions from non-art-related decisions.

So, yes, I agree, and thank you for not indulging in proud complacency.

Modifié par Ex_Everest, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:08 .

[Lyssistr]

Ex_Everest wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
I haven't read marxism nor do I intend to do so in the future, I'm not interested in reading more about a failed model.

Do you mean that it's an inherentely flawed model? How do you know that if you don't know what it is (i.e. haven't read up on it)? Otherwise, I don't know if the outcome of a single, short-lived USSR political system is enough to qualify such a judgement. (There has only been one example of marxism, correct?)

 There are many cases where socialism failed, not just in ussr and cuba. There have been other socialist societies, in fact before marx, like R. Owen's "new harmony", they all failed, bad strategy is bad strategy.

[Lyssistr]

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

 the point I was trying to make is that capitalism has nothing to do with how DLC is being sold today. I haven't read marxism nor do I intend to do so in the future, I'm not interested in reading more about a failed model. My point was that the way DLC is sold has absolutely nothing to do with free markets capitalism or capitalism for short.

That may have been the point you were trying to make, but you weren't getting it across very well.

If you were to read some of Karl's work, you might learn that Marxism is not a "failed model" as it is not a model at all, but a political theory.

where did it worked out? ok, we can keep chatting this forever but fact is socialism hasn't been proven to work anywhere on this planet. You don't need to read Marx to see that.

[Ex_Everest]

Lyssistr wrote...

Ex_Everest wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
I haven't read marxism nor do I intend to do so in the future, I'm not interested in reading more about a failed model.

Do you mean that it's an inherentely flawed model? How do you know that if you don't know what it is (i.e. haven't read up on it)? Otherwise, I don't know if the outcome of a single, short-lived USSR political system is enough to qualify such a judgement. (There has only been one example of marxism, correct?)

 There are many cases where socialism failed, not just in ussr and cuba. There have been other socialist societies, in fact before marx, like R. Owen's "new harmony", they all failed, bad strategy is bad strategy.

I think you assume that all of the environmental factors (culture, economy, class distribution, etc) stay static-a bad strategy in one situation could work in another envrionment (and that's beside the fact that socialism and marxism are at slight odds to each other. Not as much as capitalism, per se, but different things nonetheless, no?)

[Lyssistr]

Ex_Everest wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Ex_Everest wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
I haven't read marxism nor do I intend to do so in the future, I'm not interested in reading more about a failed model.

Do you mean that it's an inherentely flawed model? How do you know that if you don't know what it is (i.e. haven't read up on it)? Otherwise, I don't know if the outcome of a single, short-lived USSR political system is enough to qualify such a judgement. (There has only been one example of marxism, correct?)

 There are many cases where socialism failed, not just in ussr and cuba. There have been other socialist societies, in fact before marx, like R. Owen's "new harmony", they all failed, bad strategy is bad strategy.

I think you assume that all of the environmental factors (culture, economy, class distribution, etc) stay static-a bad strategy in one situation could work in another envrionment (and that's beside the fact that socialism and marxism are at slight odds to each other. Not as much as capitalism, per se, but different things nonetheless, no?)

 obviously Owen's society, was before Marx so I guess the pro Marxists would say it's not Marxist, the thing is central planning has not worked out well in all of its forms.

[Nefario]

Lyssistr wrote...

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

 the point I was trying to make is that capitalism has nothing to do with how DLC is being sold today. I haven't read marxism nor do I intend to do so in the future, I'm not interested in reading more about a failed model. My point was that the way DLC is sold has absolutely nothing to do with free markets capitalism or capitalism for short.

That may have been the point you were trying to make, but you weren't getting it across very well.

If you were to read some of Karl's work, you might learn that Marxism is not a "failed model" as it is not a model at all, but a political theory.

where did it worked out? ok, we can keep chatting this forever but fact is socialism hasn't been proven to work anywhere on this planet. You don't need to read Marx to see that.

You didn't understand what was said. Marx's writings don't constitute a political model. They're historical and economic analysis, and have an element that's more predictive than normative. It never "worked out" anywhere because it was never implemented anywhere, nor would I agree that it is something that could be implemented (rather, it could be observed).
"Socialism" exists in varying degrees in most (if not all) modern societies. Marxism exists in none.
You don't need to read Marx to make generalizations about what you think socialism is, but you do need to read him to talk about Marxism and expect people to take you seriously.

[DarthCaine]

I see only 2 (good) RPGs on that list seeing as how most of those games are brainless repetitive hack n slash games with (almost) no story

Modifié par DarthCaine, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:13 .

[Lyssistr]

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

 the point I was trying to make is that capitalism has nothing to do with how DLC is being sold today. I haven't read marxism nor do I intend to do so in the future, I'm not interested in reading more about a failed model. My point was that the way DLC is sold has absolutely nothing to do with free markets capitalism or capitalism for short.

That may have been the point you were trying to make, but you weren't getting it across very well.

If you were to read some of Karl's work, you might learn that Marxism is not a "failed model" as it is not a model at all, but a political theory.

where did it worked out? ok, we can keep chatting this forever but fact is socialism hasn't been proven to work anywhere on this planet. You don't need to read Marx to see that.

You didn't understand what was said. Marx's writings don't constitute a political model. They're historical and economic analysis, and have an element that's more predictive than normative. It never "worked out" anywhere because it was never implemented anywhere, nor would I agree that it is something that could be implemented (rather, it could be observed).
"Socialism" exists in varying degrees in most (if not all) modern societies. Marxism exists in none.
You don't need to read Marx to make generalizations about what you think socialism is, but you do need to read him to talk about Marxism and expect people to take you seriously.

 If you want to be taken seriously, on the other hand, instead of saying that socialism exists in various degrees, have to acknowledge that in the western world, central planning is kept to a minimum, especially after the 80s. 

 Unless your opinion is that Marxism is not a form of central planning, which would be totally opposite to what's taught at any university course, I really don't see what you're trying to say.

 Sure defendants are willing to resurrect dead theories, thank god the real world has made intelligent choices and tbh I don't see much point in this. You like marxism, good for you. You think it could work out and that besides no working example of central planning this one would work out, again good for you. The thing is the verdict says otherwise but by all means your political beliefs are your own business.

[Ex_Everest]

Lyssistr wrote...

 obviously Owen's society, was before Marx so I guess the pro Marxists would say it's not Marxist, the thing is central planning has not worked out well in all of its forms.

...I suppose that's a fair observation to make...I'm hardly qualified to make any definitive judgements about the historical implementation of various socialist regimes though. Having said that, I'm sure that it's within the realm of possibility to have a central planning system that's more passive than usual, lessening the impact of the bureaucratic inefficiency.

[nightcobra]

why is this thread still open? maybe the devs are getting a kick out of reading all this:lol:

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Ex_Everest]

Lyssistr wrote...
 You think it could work out and that besides no working example of central planning this one would work out, again good for you. The thing is the verdict says otherwise but by all means your political beliefs are your own business.

I think we have an empiricist in our midst! Grab your pitchforks!

Modifié par Ex_Everest, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:26 .

[Lyssistr]

Ex_Everest wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

 obviously Owen's society, was before Marx so I guess the pro Marxists would say it's not Marxist, the thing is central planning has not worked out well in all of its forms.

...I suppose that's a fair observation to make...I'm hardly qualified to make any definitive judgements about the historical implementation of various socialist regimes though. Having said that, I'm sure that it's within the realm of possibility to have a central planning system that's more passive than usual, lessening the impact of the bureaucratic inefficiency.

 Practice however has shown otherwise, there where other socialist societies, they also failed, I could mention more examples if I were to dig my notes from that undergrad course I took quite a few years back. I just mentioned Owen because it was the example I had on the top of my head. Besides practical examples, I also object to the very principles of central planning.

[fchopin]

Morrigans God son wrote...

I'm mainly excited about the Witcher 2! Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Gears of war 3, Need for speed hot persuit, Gothic 4, Diablo 3. =D
There are so many good games coming out. I'll pass on DA2 it doesn't appeal to me, I'll save my pennys for other games. I have a long list.

I pre-ordered Gothic 4 and then changed my mind after playing the demo.
 
The combat is for 12 year old kids, i expected combat like Risen but it was so easy that i could not believe it.


If game companies don’t want my money what can i do.

[Lyssistr]

Ex_Everest wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
 You think it could work out and that besides no working example of central planning this one would work out, again good for you. The thing is the verdict says otherwise but by all means your political beliefs are your own business.

I think we have an empiricist in our midst! Grab your pitchforks!

well if what actually happened is not good enough, here's what an economist once said,

Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here

 failed models are failed models