Quote: Original post by Obscure
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.

all that you have done here is say basically anything the government does is inefficent. a belief without any real merit. and then you lamely go dismissing it as dreamland because - well i dont know why really.

I dont think this is as a dreamland idea - it is technically feasible and probably simple. no more complicated than a sort of state run fileplanet.com

in the past there was no such thing as an all prevent network like we have today. we should use this infrastructure sensibly. And lets consider costs. if we nullified the publisher from the equation music might rightfully be 10% the cost or less (the raised tax less vastly than the populations current expendature on the medium)?

---

since brainstorming this idea I am wondering if there is a technical flaw? people may tend to download everything they can with bandwidth the only limit- in this way a proper score of what is actually popular may not occur - the reward from tax cake split too blandly.

instead perhaps, users of the state run fileplanetesque system might be asked to rate a randomly selected sample of their previous downloads. people who Really Enjoyed That Game will want to see more and so will vote highly for such and such.

here the technical problem is ensuring identity. - but perhaps a certain amount of subversion of the system is tollerable. as currently industry people are claiming VAST amounts of subversion £ wise.

---
this system is cheaper.

again i remind you guys that this sort of system in any of its variations that I suggest removes the publisher middleman (and Obscures company) from central importance. It is basically beyond the scope of artists and developers to distribute their work to the masses unless they go through the middleman (which can be thought of a little bit like legal maffia (they add a cost to the product for access to their distribution channels)).

there would still be publisher style orgs though - basically giving out venture capital and taking reward from the system appropriate to the risk they ventured and agreed on. but in general - the system is far more accessible democratically to start ups. and this is what we want surely?

Piracy can't be solved by any of these suggestions. In the beginning people used to copy games because:

A. It was easy (especially on the CBM 64)
B. Certain games weren't available in their area.
C. People had to "Trade" in order to get a copy to begin with.

Nowadays people (seems to) copy because:

A. It is even easier
B. Internet (with all that it offers)
C. Some strange notion of coolness.
D. Got to have it (I wonder how many suffer from this one? )

I can't help but thinking that Valve is on to something (with steam) and that maybe, just maybe, the publishers are in for a very hard time unless they adopt their new way of doing business. Certainly (because it is still in its infancy) it has the potential of making it much much harder to pirate software.

This idea will not work because it does not actually solve the problem, and adds greater complexity.It is also, in my opinion, based on a flawed concept.

What you are saying, is because so many people are stealing, we should find a way to legalize it. That is just like having a "snack" tax, because so many people shoplift snack food. Sure, they wouldn't be "stealing" the snaks anymore, but is the problem truley solved?

First of all, there will still be those people that will pirate just because it is simpler. Why download a huge game, when your friend already downloaded it, and can burn it onto a cd for you. In fact, there may be more people justifying pirating because it is "free" anyways.

On the same note, not everyone has acess to a high speed internet connection, and even many of those who do will not want to spend hours downloading a game. And this is only the begining of the introduced complexities.

Obviously there must be a way to identify a person, or else the same person can download the same game multiple times and the cost of the game would be charged the general public multiple times. Also you would have to guard against multiple accounts for the same person. I also doubt very much that "mom" will want to spend the time and effort filling out forms, and downloading a game for her son. In the current system, she goes into gamestop, ask for the game, pays and it is done.

It would also ruin giving PC games as gifts. . . you can't wrap a download.

And this says nothing about the cost of actually downloading a game, and maintaining stable servers that could handle such a large load.

It is important to remember that even though we are living in the "technology age" people in general are not really that tech savy. I mean, how many people still have trouble programming their VCR? :D

One final thing I wanted to say here: I for one do not buy that many games, music, or movies. If you look at my collection, it is fairly small, and most of it were gifts! I am sure I am not the only one like this, and I don't realy think a system that forces me to pay the same as the guy down the street who has the lates computer system and all the lastests game, with that high tech stereo system and 50 CD changer with the hundreds of CDs to match. . . These extremes do exists, and so what you want is for me to support this other guy's expensive entertainment habits.

>>First of all, there will still be those people that will pirate just because it is simpler. Why download a huge game, when your friend already downloaded it, and can burn it onto a cd for you. In fact, there may be more people justifying pirating because it is "free" anyways.<<

you say this is one of the reasons why this is a problem - but I dont see why it is a problem - piracy is legal. alls that matters is that a roughly accurate an appropriate reward be generated - allocation of reward from pool money is based on proportion of downloads/happiness with download.

>>Obviously there must be a way to identify a person, or else the same person can download the same game multiple times and the cost of the game would be charged the general public multiple times. Also you would have to guard against multiple accounts for the same person. I also doubt very much that "mom" will want to spend the time and effort filling out forms, and downloading a game for her son. In the current system, she goes into gamestop, ask for the game, pays and it is done.<<

this is obvious. we might be happy to ignore minor subversions of the system - currently vast subversion is claimed in the present system.

>>
One final thing I wanted to say here: I for one do not buy that many games, music, or movies. If you look at my collection, it is fairly small, and most of it were gifts! I am sure I am not the only one like this, and I don't realy think a system that forces me to pay the same as the guy down the street who has the lates computer system and all the lastests game, with that high tech stereo system and 50 CD changer with the hundreds of CDs to match. . . These extremes do exists, and so what you want is for me to support this other guy's expensive entertainment habits.<<

your sacrifice may benefit society in tremendous ways - be happy and proud..

Quote: Original post by ForeverStarlight
What you are saying, is because so many people are stealing, we should find a way to legalize it. That is just like having a "snack" tax, because so many people shoplift snack food. Sure, they wouldn't be "stealing" the snaks anymore, but is the problem truley solved?

First, if my answer seems strange it may be becase I don't exactly know whom you are talking to?.

I am not suggesting a tax as you put it, steam is about purchasing a game online, downloading it and play it. Not that you disagreed with that I just wanted to make it clearer for those who happen to be ignorant of Steam. It is not a way to legalize copying since you are not copying from someone else, you are buying the right to play a game using a serial number and an account. I didn't suggest it will be solved, I do think it will be much harder though.

Quote: Original post by ForeverStarlight
.....

I think that I will take a somewhat negative position here and say that retail store games are going to be less important in the future. I can really see a future for online markets over the traditional ways of buying games.

Turning everything over to government is a fairly socialist notion, and one that Americans are, by doctrine, opposed to. Government is always large, fairly slow-moving and almost inherently inefficient. This wouldn't solve anything.

Besides, being proto-Capitalists, we're also classic laissez-faire economists. Leave the market to work it out. If piracy is a big problem, then maybe the product and the distribution mechanisms have to adapt to the consumer patterns. Rather than charging an up-front purchase price for product, charge a back-end fee for use of product - this is the basis of the many subscription service attempts, and sooner or later one of them is bound to stick.

The reality is that we're in a transition period, unsure of what the next stage will be and lacking the infrastructure to implement an ideal system just yet.

@kindfluffysteve:
I think I can objectively assert that socialism is a failure. Capitalism isn't quite a resounding success, but it has done the best job of the systems we've (man, collectively) been able to develop over our history at proportional distribution of wealth. Capitalism needs a socialist safety net, but it does not need essential socialist mechanisms.

Translating to the specifics of our conversation, there is no room for socialist approaches in entertainment markets outside of grants for the arts. While quality of life is unquantifiable and the contribution of various elements to quality of life cannot be precisely measured, it is obvious, self-evident and intuitive that medical services, food, shelter and clothing respectively contribute more to quality of life than entertainment.

Given that we are willing to allocate only for a socialist safety net, then, the portion of resources available does not cover entertainment production initiatives, though it will cover a limited amount of entertainment purchasing.

In short, your idea Sucks™

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Turning everything over to government is a fairly socialist notion, and one that Americans are, by doctrine, opposed to. Government is always large, fairly slow-moving and almost inherently inefficient. This wouldn't solve anything.

not necessarily. Government controls the royal mint - citizens then use sterling to buy and sill bits and bobs. and all is well. The state is very good at setting standards. the state is then wise to let people get on with it.

large scale systems and organisations are more efficient in public control - this is a persistant pattern across basically every single large scale thing. We could discuss this further - perhaps in the lounge.

But in the same way, i see my proposed system as Infrastructure that then lets people get on with it.

besides the system doesnt have to be run by the state -for example: the British National Lottery is operated under licence from the state.

Quote: Besides, being proto-Capitalists, we're also classic laissez-faire economists. Leave the market to work it out. If piracy is a big problem, then maybe the product and the distribution mechanisms have to adapt to the consumer patterns. Rather than charging an up-front purchase price for product, charge a back-end fee for use of product - this is the basis of the many subscription service attempts, and sooner or later one of them is bound to stick.

well that is a problem for you guys. Laissez-faire is inefficient. to uphold and believe in it is crazy.

Quote:
@kindfluffysteve:
I think I can objectively assert that socialism is a failure. Capitalism isn't quite a resounding success, but it has done the best job of the systems we've (man, collectively) been able to develop over our history at proportional distribution of wealth. Capitalism needs a socialist safety net, but it does not need essential socialist mechanisms.

wrong, the most wealthy per capita western nations are more to the left of the wests centrists.

Quote: In short, your idea Sucks™

you Suck™.

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve
all that you have done here is say basically anything the government does is inefficent. a belief without any real merit. and then you lamely go dismissing it as dreamland because - well i dont know why really.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying... you don't really know.

I didn't say "anything the government does is inefficent". I stated that the process currently gone through to get real grants is more complex than pitching a publisher. And I dismissed your concept as dreamland specifically because you haven't bothered to actually research how complex it is to get money out of the government. - In short you don't know what your talking about and simply trying to rubbish me because I do, won't work.

If you want to discuss the process of grants do some actual research, otherwise you are just talking more hot air.

Quote: Original post by kindfluffysteve

wrong, the most wealthy per capita western nations are more to the left of the wests centrists.

And the USA is the ranked fourth in the world on this standard. Not too shabby for a right wing country (it's even fourth if you include the East).

Of course any current game developer would not want this as most of them earn roughly twice the average per capita income of an American worker. BTW, World Bank says the average American has the third best purchasing power (fourth in raw income) of the natives of any country in 2004.