Works too if you want to annoy your little brother. Guaranteed.
I don't want to take this thread political, but that is quite a naive statement. That's like saying since there is no law against it, developers are free to create an AO rated game on another system. While it's true no police officers will knock on their doors the fact is no developer has any chance of getting it published, law or not. It is 100% legal in North America to create an AO game but we still don't have any even though there would be a huge demand for them.
Actually, its very logical. Violence doesn't destroy a retailer's reputation, smut does.
Interestingly in the UK the violence usually earns an 18 rating, stuff like Gears of War for example got an 18 only rating from the BBFC.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this debate has shown up a couple of times here. Americans are relatively desensitized to violence, but we don't like exposing our children to sex. Also remember that there have been some notable incidents where vulger imagery in games has hurt retailers, and console manufacturers. Despite suing to keep the game from being released, Atari still took alot of flak because of Custer's revenge. Also, retailers got boycotted for carrying primal rage because the Genesis version included the golden shower fatality.
I never made any such statement, nor did I imply agreement or disagreement with my example. What I said was your choices can be restricted by government law or market forces and the end results are the same, whether we are talking about no AO games, un-erasable files or no porno in theatres. Again, I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, simply that it is.
[quote] Are you honestly going to say that Nintendo is crushing your inalienable human rights by focusing on family-oriented games?? Yeah, that's reality. I'm not questioning your economics degree, but your use of common sense here is pretty lacking. Nothing personal, man. I like your posts, usually follow your game recommendations, and have generally agreed with you in the past, but to say that a company is restricting your rights by choosing what they publish is fantasy. [/quote]
I never once used the term 'human rights' and this has nothing to do with restricting my 'freedom' in the legal sense (although that is another long discussion). Gaming companies are certainly permitted to allow only E rated games on their system and if they all band together, there is nothing we can do other than stop buying games completely. All I'm saying is that most people I debated with over the years with easily understand how choices are limited by government laws but are blind to the fact that if an industry bands together to limit a choice, that still ends in the same result. While freedom on paper is an important thing, what I'm most concerned is freedom in real everyday life. Yes, you could theoretically argue that a new gaming company could start up but there is a huge barrier to entry in this industry due to the high production and start-up costs.
I would also like to add that having a degree doesn't make me knowledgeable on this subject but having a degree AND spending years in the trenches and seeing how theory doesn't match the real world does. Thanks to some rough experiences I've seen economics from both sides of the fence and as a see it, that gives me a unique perspective.
Oh, and thanks for the kind words about my gaming recommendations. A was starting to wonder if anyone read them because of the lack of feedback I was receiving.
[quote] Corporations are not exempt from freedom. It's an entity made up of human beings and therefore gets the same rights as individual citizens do.[/quote]
Corporations actually have MORE rights than citizens and while they are legally 'persons', this is something I strongly disagree with. As I see it, this is part of the reason why the world economy is in such a mess and I could spend hours showing you this but not here.
[quote] If Nintendo doesn't want AO games on their console that's their right as a company to tailor their games to the demographic they are targeting, just as it's their right to take a risk with 3DS un-erasable save data and mandatory firmware updates. If you forced them to publish AO games against their will, you are strangling their free will. Period. Yes, that is freedom and yes, that is how the free market works.
Again, I think you are mis-interpreting what I am saying here. If the Canadian and American governments passed a law banning all new video games in North America for a year and required firmware updates to enforce this, it would still have the same result as if Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft banded together and agreed to not sell any new games for the same time period and simultaneously released a mandatory firmware update independently of each other. In your eyes, the former is a act that restricts freedom but the second is a free market act. I have to strongly disagree with you and don't see how this is a case of comparing apples and oranges.
I'm certainly interested in hearing where my points are lacking. Writing is definitely not my strong point. I hope everyone in the forum can see how this is very relevant to the gaming industry in addition to the economy in general.
This was not meant to be insulting in any way; I was just pointing out that after hundreds of hours of online discussions, Americans generally tend to have tunnel vision about alternative economic models and what 'communism' and 'socialism' are. I simply see this argument over and over again from Americans and only from Americans, almost like it's a programmed response. That's why I said I'm 100% certain of you being from the USA. Again, not an insult, just an observation.
[quote] How could a person living under communist China or socialist Sweden know the "every-day" of free market if they don't experience it? If you actually have real world experience with the free market, it's probably through the United States, anyway, and even that isn't a true free market. Anything less is so restricted by regulation that it can barely qualify.[/quote]
I'm not going to comment further because this is not a political forum but again, I've heard this exact statement said a hundred times before and it's a very black and white way of viewing things and not at all how the world really works. I thought the same thing until I actually saw other systems (especially the American one) for myself.
No, they don't. Corporations (which are government created entities, not agents of free enterprise) are legally mandated to pursue profit for shareholders above all else. They are not in the business of appealing to consumers although usually (but not always) the best way to do that is by making consumers happy.
[quote] If there truly was mass appeal for AO games like you are suggesting, one of the Big 3 would have started it years ago. You think there's mass appeal there, but there isn't a big enough trade-off. Consumers would be so turned-off at the prospect of pornographic video games, that many consumers would never purchase hardware or software from that company again. I'm in that category. I'd never let my kids play a Microsoft game again if they were pumping out AO games left and right; I'd be afraid of what they would let slip into even their regular M games. And, as you so graciously pointed out, I live in one of the two largest demographics for video game purchase. It could potentially ruin a company and they go out of business.[/quote]
I know that my examples are taken to a laughable extreme, but my point from before still stands. One thing to keep in mind: you seem to believe in the magic of the marketplace but what about my car insurance? Even with a perfect 10 year driving record, I still pay $1200 a year solely because of something I have no control over (gender). There are plenty of insurance companies here but they all have the same policies and roughly the same rates even without government meddling (although insurance is far from an ideal free market). According to free market theory, companies should be tripping over each other to give me a better deal. Why wouldn't just one lower their rate to attract low risk, high profit drivers like me? Since I have to drive for work, it's not really much of a choice even in a free market. I found out the answer to that question and it was far from a pleasant realization.
[quote] A government would NEVER go out of business for any single piece of legislation. Additionally, they don't have to think about alienating or disenfranchising a consumer. That consumer has to pay taxes (the equivalent of revenue from sales for a corporation) no matter what. You can't pick and choose what product (outcome of taxes) you pay. If I don't want to pay taxes to bail out GM, so what? If I miss that payment, I go to jail. If I stop purchasing Nintendo games and enough people follow my lead, Nintendo's stock goes into a tailspin and they either recover by trying to appeal to consumer's NEW whims or they perish. That you can't see this is puzzling. And that you compare the power of a corporation to the power of a government (even a "small" example like the power of censorship) is without reason. A government is never required to appeal to the masses (see - United States legislation, recent history of) but for a corporation, it could be a death kneel to ignore its customers.[/quote]
It would go too far off the mandate of this forum to give a lengthy reply but let me point out you have again completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. Free markets are as plentiful as unicorns and the real world works a lot differently than your textbook example. Let me just say I was aggressively pursuing a job in marketing for a while and got to see how free our choices really are.
[quote] Lastly, you suggest that if ALL video game publishers decided to effectively "ban" AO video games by not publishing them it would be the same as governmental restriction. Again, this makes sense until you put it into perspective. If there is absolutely NO interest in AO games, then yes, restriction would seem similar whether or not it came from the Big 3 or a specific government. But, if there was a large enough appeal, one of those companies would realize they are losing money and create an outlet for them.[/quote]
That is an assumption that is not always accurate. Again, a few years ago I would have agreed with you but a few radicalizing experiences I had at a previous job showed me the 'invisible hand' doesn't always exist. Apologizes for being so vague but it's not something I can spell out in such a small space like this forum.
[quote]In the real world, Sega did this in the late 80's. Nintendo of America had a strict "no violence, no religious imagery" stance at that time, but Sega did not. Thus, Sega became the cool, mature gaming company, while Nintendo was more of a family market. Governments don't have to think about such things. They just ban something and the discussion's over. Honestly, I don't see how you can't comprehend this point. The bottom line is, in a truly "free" society, if there are enough that demand a product, a company will provide a service. A government with enough power, however, will restrict and require as it sees fit and NOT as the citizen sees fit.[/quote]
Please see above. Again, sorry I can't go into more detail but it would stray too far away from the topic at hand.
On the surface I agree with you but without getting into too much detail, the very concept of a corporation in the first place IS an unfair playing field.
I always appreciate an opposing view. I hope you didn't take anything I said personally but I would like to think you can appreciate it's not a black and white issue.... well, except for Final Fantasy VII being the most overrated game of all time!