Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
i think entertainment is essential.

I don't own a television, so I guess I will need one of those. It shouldn't be a big deal because the government is paying for it, and the government has all the money it wants. It has it's own mint after all. Oh, well, TV isn't entertaining me any more. I think I need new computer. You wanna help me out here? It's gonna have to be a good one though, because I want to be able to play Doom3 all those other cool games.

I don't think entertainment is essential, but because you do, does this mean that I should have to pay for you to be entertained?

Quote: Original post by smr

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
i think entertainment is essential.

I don't own a television, so I guess I will need one of those. It shouldn't be a big deal because the government is paying for it, and the government has all the money it wants. It has it's own mint after all. Oh, well, TV isn't entertaining me any more. I think I need new computer. You wanna help me out here? It's gonna have to be a good one though, because I want to be able to play Doom3 all those other cool games.

Slippery slope fallacy. There is not enough capital for everyone to get the best computer that exists. However, there is enough capital for everyone to get a cheap computer. Sure, they might not be able to play Doom3 on it, but so what? 'Entertainment' is essential for quality of life, not Doom3 in particular.

In the UK we have a National Health Service. Medicines and operations that are considered essential for an individual patient's life, and quality of life, are available for free. One patient may get surgery for free if it is judged that such surgery is essential for the patient's physical and mental well-being. For another patient, the same kind of surgery may be considered to be purely cosmetic, and therefore not available for free.

The point is that just because a general class of products or services are available for free -- healthcare, food, accomodation, entertainment -- that does not automatically mean that everyone gets whatever they want from that class -- cosmetic surgery, 11-course meals prepared by their own chef, riverside mansion with full staff, a personal television studio for making whatever shows they wish to see -- but instead that they get what is deemed essential to their physical and mental well-being.

Quote:
I don't think entertainment is essential, but because you do, does this mean that I should have to pay for you to be entertained?

But what's essential? Is something 'essential' if it necessary forlife? Is quality of life essential?

Some people don't think healthcare is essential. A bit of prayer is all you need to cure all your ills. And if you die despite that, it's just the judgment of a higher power.

Some people don't think accomodation is essential. If you don't have a home, you can sleep in a park somewhere. If it's cold, you can beg for enough money to get into a night shelter.

Some people don't think clothing is essential. You can always find old clothes in bins or rubbish dumps. Sure it smells a bit, and is probably infested with parasites. But it's not essential that you be able to interact with other human beings without them gagging, right?

And of course, you get the usual kind of doublethink whereby people believe that basic healthcare, hygiene facilities, food and water are essential to maintain life, but that, when referring to people who can't afford those things, it apparently isn't essential. For these people, a little honesty is required -- admit that you would rather the disadvantaged died of curable illnesses, exposure and malnutrition than have to pay more taxes.

I would like to make a slightly cheap comment:

the poster: Obscure has a stake in this idea Never happening. obscure's opperations would be out of business if such a concept took off.

Though it is possible our team might end up using a consultancy group or individual.

If piracy were a crime, we would all be in jail.

Almost everyone has surely taped something from tv, back in the old days people recorded songs from the raido on to tapes.

Personally, I believe that as long as something isn't being pirated then sold for money, it's ok. Theres still a majority of people out there who will buy the real version of something over those who will pirate it. If you irate a movie, you don't get all the extras you would if you bought the DVD. pirate a game, you usually don't get to play the game online. Pirating things is more of a big version demo for something more then it is stealing. Think about it, all stores now require that the returning of games be in a UNOPENED package. Well I'll be damned if I'm going to spend 50 dollars on a game that seemed cool while i was reading about it, but turned out to run at 10 FPS on my pc, and the gameplay sucked, and then I can't return it. I'd rather download the game, see if its fun, then say "Well that was fun, the multiplayer must be awsome, I'll go buy the game for that cd key!"

But it will never work the way we want it to, where piracy is legal. This is America, we are corporate based, and if someone gets ripped off even 1 copy of the item they are selling, they are gonna be pissed.

-Limb

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
Obscure has a stake in this idea Never happening. obscure's opperations would be out of business if such a concept took off.

As would nearly every current gaming company in existence big or small and it would squash the dreams of those who want to hit it big with thier next great idea.

Government funding of games is a bad idea. Eventually they would all be government propaganda. Hmmm...I'm going to write my senator with a wonderful idea I had. We ban all non-government supported games, then only allow our 'special' games to be downloaded for free on the net. We could even allow only our big contributors and local constituents to make games (for a share of the tax dollars). Wow, I see this working out well.

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
I would like to make a slightly cheap comment:

the poster: Obscure has a stake in this idea Never happening. obscure's opperations would be out of business if such a concept took off.

Though it is possible our team might end up using a consultancy group or individual.

Actually the opposite is true. By killing off the publishers and replace them with a government quango you would dramatically increase the amount of red tape & paper work etc. Developers would need even more help.

Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
Obscure has a stake in this idea Never happening. obscure's opperations would be out of business if such a concept took off.

As would nearly every current gaming company in existence big or small and it would squash the dreams of those who want to hit it big with thier next great idea.

Government funding of games is a bad idea. Eventually they would all be government propaganda. Hmmm...I'm going to write my senator with a wonderful idea I had. We ban all non-government supported games, then only allow our 'special' games to be downloaded for free on the net. We could even allow only our big contributors and local constituents to make games (for a share of the tax dollars). Wow, I see this working out well.

Yawn. YASSF. (Yet Another Slippery Slope Fallacy)

Quote: Original post by Obscure

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
I would like to make a slightly cheap comment:

the poster: Obscure has a stake in this idea Never happening. obscure's opperations would be out of business if such a concept took off.

Though it is possible our team might end up using a consultancy group or individual.

Actually the opposite is true. By killing off the publishers and replace them with a government quango you would dramatically increase the amount of red tape & paper work etc. Developers would need even more help.

to me that seems like poppycock.

orgs like yours exist on the presence of corporate red tape and hoops developers must jump through.

the system I propose would strip away the entire publishing industry and distribution networks - a vast simplification. A system for the 21st century internet society.

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
to me that seems like poppycock.

orgs like yours exist on the presence of corporate red tape and hoops developers must jump through.

the system I propose would strip away the entire publishing industry and distribution networks - a vast simplification. A system for the 21st century internet society.

ROFL - yea right, the government would just leave a large bag of cash outside the treasury marked "video game makers only - please help yourself".

Unlike you I actually know something about government grants. I am working with developers who have managed to find some (very small) grants, and the form filling and red tape makes publisher pitching look like a walk in the park.

Do some research - go and look at the applications process for things like lottery grants etc. Sure, in your ideal world the process you envisage would be simple, but outside of dreamland governments don't work that way.

In this case, I would have to say that imposing a "game tax" to decriminalize software piracy would not only be detrimental to the game industry as a whole, but would set up a dangerous precedent for other industries(like the music and motion picture entertainment industry) which stand to lose much more than the game industry due to piracy. There will always exist the groups that want something-for-nothing. It is our job as responsible members of the marketplace not to indulge those groups.

James R. DiGiovanna (dba Crystal Paradigm)