Why do we pay for music?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Wow we haven't had to break her out in ages!

OK preemptive strike:

Thanks, I'm all better now....

[malave7567]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

@Sideways&Smiling

You sir need to take a step back.

If you noticed I said "I think bloodborne should be free :P"

Obviously I do not think bloodborne should be free, and was a tongue in cheek comment.

I do feel bloodborne has 0 replay value though. The game is great fun and I've spent hours on it; but once you beat it, i don't see why you would pick it up again.

this article sums it up pretty well: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco...at-bloodborne/

I think some of us just need to agree to disagree on this.

I've played certain single player games at least 3-5 times and enjoyed each playthrough. Do I do that 3-5 in a row in the same week/month? No (well, with short games, yes sometimes lol). But the same story can be enjoyable to go through again, sure with a different class or weapon if possible in the game. That article you linked seems to suggest that the author is just not that type of gamer, and it sounds like you are not either. I, however, would enjoy a replay of a great game later down the line, noticing little things like details in the game world I may not have noticed before.

Example, I've played "Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past" at least 10 times. Why do I go back to it? It's just a fun game to me and a great change of pace sometimes. I beat it three times when it first came out, setting arbitrary challenges for myself. The last one was, don't upgrade armor at all, don't fully upgrade sword, no bottles, no heart containers aside from the boss drops, lol.

I've played through Chrono Trigger enough times to unlock all the endings, on two different systems (SNES and when it was re-released to Nintendo DS). Shoot, Bioshock was thrown out as an example, and I've played that twice through on the PC and once on console. It was still a ton of fun to me.

[bcj]

The music industry goes much farther back than sound recording.
Sheet music was sold to nearly everyone who had a piano in the front parlor.
Copyright law applies to all creative endeavors for a reason.

Oh. We're on to beepy-boopy electronic games now.
Urgh. Nevermind.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by bcj

Oh. We're on to beepy-boopy electronic games now.
Urgh. Nevermind.

Yea, keep up @bcj we move fast around...hey look Moose Girl....

[WhiteFRS69]

i pay 7.99 a month
Google Play Music all access

i can download specific music i like straight to my device so i can play it back offline and not streaming it constantly, and can access my music on up to 10 devices

if i want an album, two clicks and its mine

been doing this since Google Play all access came out about 2 years ago, have almost 8K songs in my library just for the hell of it




movies on the other hand.... thats a different store

[tahdizzle]

Mutually exclusive was probably a bad description.
Correlation does not imply causation was what I really meant.

Because something does not have replay value, does not mean it is not entertaining.

As far as replay goes, I don't think playing a game that is 25 years old 10 times as a game that you have "replayed" frequently.

Replay value is what makes games like COD such huge sellers. I used to manage a gamestop and games like Bloodborne are the games that I would tell Joe Schmoe to reserve to get my numbers up, but to my friends and regular customers I'd tell them to just wait a week and buy it used.
Beat the game, and return in in 7 days to get your money back. Essentially Free.

People that insist other people aren't "real gamers" or "have no idea what they are talking about" are the Joe Schmoe guys who live in their parents basement and take the bait everytime a game like Bloodborne is released.
These type of people put me at the top of the list for reservation and subscription numbers in my district many times over.

Bloodborne is a good game, but only a minority will play this game more than once. Of the ones who play it more than once, only a minority will play it again.

If I still managed a Gamestop, I would not tell my regular customers and friends to reserve or buy this game new.

Its worth playing, but I don't think its worth keeping.

[Sideways&Smiling]

Originally Posted by malave7567

I think some of us just need to agree to disagree on this.

I've played certain single player games at least 3-5 times and enjoyed each playthrough. Do I do that 3-5 in a row in the same week/month? No (well, with short games, yes sometimes lol). But the same story can be enjoyable to go through again, sure with a different class or weapon if possible in the game. That article you linked seems to suggest that the author is just not that type of gamer, and it sounds like you are not either. I, however, would enjoy a replay of a great game later down the line, noticing little things like details in the game world I may not have noticed before.

Example, I've played "Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past" at least 10 times. Why do I go back to it? It's just a fun game to me and a great change of pace sometimes. I beat it three times when it first came out, setting arbitrary challenges for myself. The last one was, don't upgrade armor at all, don't fully upgrade sword, no bottles, no heart containers aside from the boss drops, lol.

I've played through Chrono Trigger enough times to unlock all the endings, on two different systems (SNES and when it was re-released to Nintendo DS). Shoot, Bioshock was thrown out as an example, and I've played that twice through on the PC and once on console. It was still a ton of fun to me.

Speaking of Chrono Trigger, that and Chrono Cross have some of the best videogame music in history!

[Special_K]

I both steal and pay for music all depending on the artist/producer. I bought Ronald Jenkees album off his website, because he is a self-produced funny fool with mad musical prowess. But I have no qualms with stealing mainstream hoo-ha.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Special_K

I both steal and pay for music all depending on the artist/producer. I bought Ronald Jenkees album off his website, because he is a self-produced funny fool with mad musical prowess. But I have no qualms with stealing mainstream hoo-ha.

Nice rationalization....still wrong...but nice.

It's one thing to say you don't like "mainstream hoo-ha" and prefer self-produced so you only listen to and buy self-produced, I can respect that.

What you are really saying is "I'll buy from those I like and steal from everyone else, so if Ronald Jenkees ever gets a big contract I'll start stealing from him too 'cause he's got mad skills but sold out".

[Poodles]

Originally Posted by Jyn

The people that support the "free for all" mentality probably support the SBD turbokit and knock off wheels.

Idiotic comparison is idiotic. SBD turbo kit is obviously a direct copy (down to having the logos poorly ground off) while "knock off" wheels are never exact copies because of manufacturing differences and even the big names have "stolen" designs from each other.

I could go farther into this, because in reality torrents and other free download sources and their effect on the markets and products are counter intuitive to what you'd expect. Every download doesn't equal a lost sale as sales trends show this isn't the case. In fact, most people that download wouldn't have even bought the product to begin with. When this comes to products like books or music, it actually brings in more fans of that product and sales go up. Free downloads of the first book in a series leads to massive increases of sales of the other books in said series for example. Same happens with music as well (though CD sales are still dropping because it's a dying medium and has nothing to do with people pirating and more with the proliferation of mp3s).

In this day and age where demos of software aren't commonplace like it used to be, many people will download to essentially demo the software.

Cost comes into the equation as well as Louis CK proved with his $5 DRM free download of his show. Could it be easily torrented? Yep, but for the cost, people bought it instead to the tune of $1million in just ten days. Steam also proves this theory with their sales.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My unplayed Steam inventory is hopelessly long thanks to their rock bottom sales combined with the occasional pickup on Humble Bundle. The good news is that gives me an excuse NOT to buy the latest and greatest as soon as it comes out so I rarely pay more than $10 for a game.

Yep, my backlog is quite large as well. Makes me feel like a hoarder

[Special_K]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Nice rationalization....still wrong...but nice.

It's one thing to say you don't like "mainstream hoo-ha" and prefer self-produced so you only listen to and by self-produced, I can respect that.

What you are really saying is "I'll buy from those I like and steal from everyone else, so if Ronald Jenkees ever gets a big contract I'll start stealing from him too 'cause he's got mad skills but sold out".

Never claimed to be right. Just how I do... And for me, it's less about the artist selling out than not wanting to pay into shady labels. If *insert popular artist* puts out an album under their own power/distribution, then I am inclined to buy it. But if it's produced by *insert mega record label* and the artist gets two cents on the dollar. Then nah... I understand that half the world makes money off the talents of the other half, but I like to see my dollars going to the creators.

... Also I'm pretty positive that Ronald Jenkees couldn't possibly sell out. haha

[Jyn]

Originally Posted by Poodles

Idiotic comparison is idiotic. SBD turbo kit is obviously a direct copy (down to having the logos poorly ground off) while "knock off" wheels are never exact copies because of manufacturing differences and even the big names have "stolen" designs from each other.

I could go farther into this, because in reality torrents and other free download sources and their effect on the markets and products are counter intuitive to what you'd expect. Every download doesn't equal a lost sale as sales trends show this isn't the case. In fact, most people that download wouldn't have even bought the product to begin with. When this comes to products like books or music, it actually brings in more fans of that product and sales go up. Free downloads of the first book in a series leads to massive increases of sales of the other books in said series for example. Same happens with music as well (though CD sales are still dropping because it's a dying medium and has nothing to do with people pirating and more with the proliferation of mp3s).

In this day and age where demos of software aren't commonplace like it used to be, many people will download to essentially demo the software.

Whether intentional or not, completely missed the point. But please, do go "further into this" with credible sources instead of the typical theorycrafting that most people that support downloading normally result to.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Special_K

And for me, it's less about the artist selling out than not wanting to pay into shady labels. If *insert popular artist* puts out an album under their own power/distribution, then I am inclined to buy it. But if it's produced by *insert mega record label* and the artist gets two cents on the dollar. Then nah... I understand that half the world makes money off the talents of the other half, but I like to see my dollars going to the creators...

Again, I'm right with you up to the point where you rationalize that makes it OK for you to take someone else's work without due compensation.

I understand your point but bottom line, the artists agreed to the $0.02 on the dollar when they signed with the label so they are getting what they agreed to, for whatever their reason was for doing it. What you are doing is preventing them from earning their living since they are counting on your $0.02 because, for whatever reason, they had to go the label route.

Shady label or not, the artist isn't going to earn anything off your "free" download, whether they should have gotten the full cut, or the portion of the cut they agreed to with the shady label.

In the end, I'm OK with you doing what you are doing and I can't say I've never "borrowed" someone else's LP or tape back in the day and copied it, or shared a CD from a friend (technically all legal activities under the fair use doctrines but in the end the same result).

The difference is I never tried to convince myself I was doing something noble in the process.

[Special_K]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Again, I'm right with you up to the point where you rationalize that makes it OK for you to take someone else's work without due compensation.

I understand your point but bottom line, the artists agreed to the $0.02 on the dollar when they signed with the label so they are getting what they agreed to, for whatever their reason was for doing it. What you are doing is preventing them from earning their living since they are counting on your $0.02 because, for whatever reason, they had to go the label route.

Shady label or not, the artist isn't going to earn anything off your "free" download, whether they should have gotten the full cut, or the portion of the cut they agreed to with the shady label.

In the end, I'm OK with you doing what you are doing and I can't say I've never "borrowed" someone else's LP or tape back in the day and copied it, or shared a CD from a friend (technically all legal activities under the fair use doctrines but in the end the same result).

The difference is I never tried to convince myself I was doing something noble in the process.

And I'm with you right up until you say that I'm convincing myself I'm doing something noble. They day I call myself noble is the day Leonardo DiCaprio wins an Oscar and Tupac once again roams the earth. Like speeding and jaywalking, I know I'm doing something illegal and have no qualms with it. There are plenty of things that keep me up at night, but Pirating the high seas isn't one of them.

You remember those anti-piracy commercials?