Support NeoGAF

[Guilty_AI]

- Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917)

off to the gulag now

 

[Tams]

I pay full price for Nintendo games. Willingly.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

I've read the op twice and I'm still not comprehending what they're trying to communicate. Could someone explain it like I'm 5?

Edit Asked Google Bard to break it down:

This summary is almost correct, except the last sentence. The competition between customers and producers doesn't keep prices down, the competition among producers does. You should've ask the AI what a good rebuttal is. GPT4:

Here's a potential rebuttal to the forum post:

---

While I understand the fundamental economic principle you're referencing—that both producers and consumers act in their own self-interest—it's an oversimplification to equate corporate and consumer behaviors in the manner you've described.

1. Nature and Scale: First, there's a significant difference in the nature and scale of the two behaviors. Corporations typically have much more influence and power in determining prices, especially in markets with limited competition. An individual consumer, on the other hand, typically has little to no power to influence the price of a good or service. So, even though both may act in their own interest, the scope and impact of their actions are very different.
2. Greed vs. Necessity: There's also a difference between trying to maximize profits and trying to get the best value for your money. For many consumers, looking for the best deal is not a matter of "greed" but of necessity. Many people have tight budgets and need to make every dollar count. In contrast, a corporation maximizing its price may not be doing so out of necessity but rather a desire for increased profits and shareholder returns.
3. Ethical Considerations: Just because both sides have self-interest doesn't mean both sides' actions are ethically equivalent. A company that charges exorbitant prices for life-saving medication, for instance, is not on the same moral ground as a patient trying to find the medication at the lowest cost possible.
4. Market Dynamics: The gaming and GPU markets you mentioned have different dynamics. While it's true that intense competition can lead to consumer-friendly prices, it's not a guarantee. Other factors—like barriers to entry, patents, and marketing strategies—can influence price points irrespective of consumer demand.
5. Role of Regulations and Interventions: Markets are not always perfect. Sometimes government intervention is necessary to ensure competition or to protect consumers. For instance, antitrust laws exist to prevent monopolistic practices and ensure fair competition. If everyone was merely "outcome maximizing," without any regulation, it could lead to situations that are detrimental to consumers or the market as a whole.
6. Value of "Greed" as a Term: While I agree that simply shouting "greed" doesn't provide a nuanced understanding, it can be a useful term to highlight certain behaviors, especially when they seem excessively self-serving. Dismissing the term entirely removes an important critique in our economic discourse.

In conclusion, while self-interest is a driving factor for both corporations and consumers, equating the two without recognizing the nuances, scale, and implications oversimplifies the complex dynamics of our economic system.

Not a strong rebuttal in my opinion but it's got more substance than any other post on here. I think points 1-5 don't apply to a highly competitive luxury market. Point 6 is meaningless and I disagree with it. Calling something "greed" over outcome maximization adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and is just supposed to stoke the flames.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

I will always seek to pay the lowest price possible

False consensus effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

You're aware that's not the saying, right?

Yes, yes I am. It still applies. If you’re being paid to play a game - whether as some kind of social media rewards scheme or as an employee - you are effectively a product. Someone is gaining value from you that exceeds the amout you are being paid.

 

[tamago84]

people like OP actually exist?

 

[unlurkified]

“Cope and seeeeethe mortals!” Name should be ‘Dimp the Imp.’

Just definitionally, being frugal is just not the same thing as being greedy. C’mon now.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

Cope and seethe because I'm correct. Both sides will always seek to maximize their outcome. I will always seek to pay the lowest price possible, producers of goods will always charge the max they can. Depending on market conditions that price might be closer to the consumer's prefered price (which is $0) or the producer's preferred price. Since gaming is a very competitive market, the prices have generally been deflationary and haven't even kept up with inflation. The GPU market on the other hand is a good example of what an uncompetitive market can look like.

"Greed" doesn't explain anything because we are all outcome maximizing all the time, therefore it cannot explain changes in price.

Corporations aren't people, there's no comparison.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

Mods delete please, double post.

 

[DanielG165]

I don’t think mega corporations doing everything in their power to make as much money as humanly possible, and using consumers as the most reliable way of doing so is at all comparable to said consumers trying to save money to simply… Live.

That’s not coping and seething. That’s just the actual REAL world we live in.

 

[bender]

TIL: Being thrifty is greedy.

 

[Zoloft]

Sure, 2 sides of the same coin.

consumer greed​

most retarded combination of 2 words.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

consumer greed​

most retarded combination of 2 words.

Lol I get the point though.

 

[Skifi28]

I always spent as little as possible on games so I have enough money to last me the month. I'm greedy like that.

 

[majorgamer10]

Why are we simping when every game strives to be a Casino?

 

[Toots]

This summary is almost correct, except the last sentence. The competition between customers and producers doesn't keep prices down, the competition among producers does. You should've ask the AI what a good rebuttal is. GPT4:



Not a strong rebuttal in my opinion but it's got more substance than any other post on here. I think points 1-5 don't apply to a highly competitive luxury market. Point 6 is meaningless and I disagree with it. Calling something "greed" over outcome maximization adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and is just supposed to stoke the flames.

I remember when in France we started calling the cleaners "surface technician".
As if by magic, the job started to be highly valued and the people doing it were seen as some of the most productive citizen in the country.
OF course it didn't happened that way and this was just a ploy for the bourgeois to not feel as bad because they were hiring surface technicians now so it wasn't as bad as hiring cleaners.
Ask yourself why you don't like the word greed and instead prefer to call it "outcome maximization", you greedy cunt.

 

[KungFucius]

Cope and seethe because I'm correct. Both sides will always seek to maximize their outcome. I will always seek to pay the lowest price possible, producers of goods will always charge the max they can. Depending on market conditions that price might be closer to the consumer's prefered price (which is $0) or the producer's preferred price. Since gaming is a very competitive market, the prices have generally been deflationary and haven't even kept up with inflation. The GPU market on the other hand is a good example of what an uncompetitive market can look like.

"Greed" doesn't explain anything because we are all outcome maximizing all the time, therefore it cannot explain changes in price.

So piracy is OK then. Got it.

 

[FunkMiller]

TIL: Being thrifty is greedy.

I’m absolutely delighted a four page thread can exist about an OP that gets a simple, easy to understand word wrong.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

So piracy is OK then. Got it.

If Evilore wanted to make bank with this place, he should implement a low IQ member tier because holy shit what happened to this forum

 

[Madserb2023]

Absolutely true. Both consumers and our corporate overloads are of the same species and are subject to the same flaws. This is what Marx never understood. Capitalism is a contnious battle of greed but it works because it will force a balance. If you increase your price too much, people won't buy it. Not perfect but it plays into human flaws. For Socialist societies to work you need to eradicate these flaws otherwise that greed will still manifest but now those individuals will have complete control over a centrally planned system.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

Best example is before the current genertion of consoles was shown, 95% of the people said the consoles CAN NOT be more than $400 if they want to sell. So people want new tech but the price for a console has to stay the same for decades. Its amazing what developers are able to do with the HW we got.

YET....iPhone 6, 10 years ago cost $600 and now its over a $1000 and it will sell millions just like any other year. Everything else is allowed to get pricier but consoles, have to stay at a price point from 20+ years ago while wanting 60fps, RT, unlimited storage etc.