The post on the gaming forum is about the price of video games and how it is affected by the competition between consumers and producers.
The author is arguing that both consumers and producers are always trying to maximize their outcome, which means getting the best deal possible. For consumers, this means paying the lowest price possible, and for producers, this means charging the highest price possible.
The author then goes on to say that the price of video games is generally deflationary, meaning that prices have been falling over time, even when you account for inflation. This is because the gaming market is very competitive, with many different companies producing games. This competition forces companies to keep their prices low in order to attract customers.
The author then contrasts the gaming market with the GPU market, which is an example of an uncompetitive market. There are only a few companies that produce GPUs, and this lack of competition allows them to charge higher prices.
The author then concludes by saying that "greed" does not explain why the price of video games is falling. Greed is simply the desire to maximize one's outcome, and both consumers and producers are greedy. Instead, the author argues that the price of video games is falling because of the competitive nature of the market.
To break down the post in more detail:
- "Cope and seethe because I'm correct." This is a common phrase used online to taunt someone who disagrees with you. The author is using it here to say that they are confident that they are right about their argument.
- "Both sides will always seek to maximize their outcome." This is the author's main argument. They are saying that both consumers and producers are always trying to get the best deal possible.
- "I will always seek to pay the lowest price possible, producers of goods will always charge the max they can." This is an example of the author's argument in practice. Consumers want to pay the lowest price possible, and producers want to charge the highest price possible.
- "Depending on market conditions that price might be closer to the consumer's prefered price (which is $0) or the producer's preferred price." This is the author's way of saying that the price of goods and services is determined by the market. If the market is very competitive, then the price will be closer to what consumers want to pay. If the market is not competitive, then the price will be closer to what producers want to charge.
- "Since gaming is a very competitive market, the prices have generally been deflationary and haven't even kept up with inflation." This is the author's evidence to support their argument that the price of video games is falling. They are saying that the gaming market is very competitive, and this competition has been driving prices down.
- "The GPU market on the other hand is a good example of what an uncompetitive market can look like." This is the author's contrasting example. They are saying that the GPU market is not competitive, and this lack of competition has allowed companies to charge higher prices.
- "Greed doesn't explain anything because we are all outcome maximizing all the time, therefore it cannot explain changes in price." This is the author's conclusion. They are saying that "greed" does not explain why the price of video games is falling, because both consumers and producers are greedy. Instead, the author argues that the price of video games is falling because of the competitive nature of the market.
Overall, the post is making a valid point about the economics of the gaming market. The author is correct that both consumers and producers are always trying to maximize their outcome, and that this competition drives prices down.
![[Sigma]](/data/avatars/m/701/701747.jpg?1685439978){kind=avatar}
