Do You Think A Price Crash Is Coming?

[Schizophretard]

Except that they did all the work to get a successful product people want and they should be able to profit from it, if you take away this simple principle then innovation I am afraid would be lost as no one wants to pay the R&D to just be copied the next day.

Again we can argue on how long such right should last, but that is a different topic altogether.

Not having a monopoly doesn't equate to not making a profit. I think something you are overlooking is that the business model of paying for that R&D and the price they are willing to pay for it is because of intellectual property laws and therefore if they didn't exist there would be different business models that would be chosen so that they don't feel screwed by being copied. Here are a few examples I can think of but in an actual free market they could probably come up with much more clever models:

 

1. A bike company could pay for the R&D, keep the new bikes a trade secret, already have deals with retail stores for the bike with non-discourse agreements and that they would only sell their version of the bike for a period of time, and then the other bike companies learn about the bike at the same time the general public does when they show up in the stores. This would give them a head start because the other bike companies would have to get the bike to copy after it is already for sale, set up their factories to make them, and then start selling them at other retail stores that don't have the exclusive deals with the original creators. They would also have to sell them cheaper than the original to be competitive which would also lower the price of the original but not as low as the copies because the public would view the originals as the name brand and the copies as the generic brand. Which brings me to the next one.

 

2. Just being viewed as the name brand is enough to sell your product for more than your competitors. For an example, I always buy the generic brand of medicine because when I read the ingredients they are identical to the name brand. But the name brand is still right there on the shelves right next to the generic brand with it clearly marked with a higher price and people still buy them because they equate the name brand with higher quality even though the generic brand has the same "ROM" in the "cart". My wife is like this with Coach purses. It doesn't even matter if I found a perfect replica and proved to her that it was constructed exactly the same with the same materials. She would still equate it with being a cheap knock-off generic brand. I mean, Hell, people go by name brand with just white T-shirts and underwear.

 

3. This is kind of an addition to #1. If company A is getting some of their pie of the profits lost to company B for making a generic brand of their bike then when company B creates a new bike then company A can do the same thing back by making a generic brand of company B's new bike. In other words, both companies are reaping the benefits of the R&D of both bikes because they are making both bikes and therefore through competition they are forcing each other to pay for the others R&D.

 

4. Instead of bike companies paying for their own R&D there could be separate companies that do the R&D that makes deals with all of the bike companies to crowd source their R&D and then after these companies get paid they give the designs to the bike companies.

 

5. Since there would be no intellectual property laws the bike companies wouldn't have to spend all kinds of money on patent attorneys, court fees, settlements, not having to deal with patent trolls, etc. and therefore all this money could go towards paying for R&D.

 

6. Since this would cause much more fierce competition the bike companies would have to be more creative and innovative to get their competition's customers. Maybe one bike company would have an online site to customize the bikes with different paint jobs and accessories, maybe one bike company would offer longer warranties, maybe one bike company would accept their competitors' old bikes as trade ins to get their new bike cheaper, etc. In other words, it would likely cause them to be more innovative and creative because it would be harder to compete when you aren't granted a monopoly.

 

7. Company A and B can merge together to better compete with company C.

 

8. Sell your bike in more markets than your competitor that is copying you is. I hear the Chinese have a very high demand for bikes.

 

9. All of the other business models that the bike companies would come up with in a free market that I haven't thought of but as long as there is a demand for bikes people will figure them out.

 

 

In short, a monopoly isn't the only possible business model to make a profit.

[Andromeda Stardust]

With all due respect Shizophretard, R&D is expensive. If there were no patents and every time a company innovated with a superior product, copycats with zero innovation would copy it. The copycats have a cheaper product, despite they still have to manufacture the tooling, there is zero spent on research and development, and the original brand is paying for both. Maybe the original bicycle brand will retain a few customers based on goodwill, but not enough to support research for better bikes. So essentially the sheer variety of bikes wouldn't exist, and we'd all be using 1950s era single speed steel heavy frame fat tire bikes. Electra bicycle company now makes some gorgeous cruisers inspired by retro design, but they are using modern tech such as lightweight aluminum alloy, hub transmissions, and a front disc or hub brake for stopping safely in case the chain or coaster brake fails. Also copycats tend to cheat when it comes to quality, using inferior components. Buy a Walmart bike and ride it out the store, you best bring some tools with you because chances are you'll need to "fix" something by the time you get home as it might as well have been assembled by trained apes.

 

Medicine is in serious need of reform, but as it stands, the high price for prescription drugs pays for medical research into developing new drugs and treatments. Sure you can buy a 16 blister pack of Bayer Aspirin or a 500-pill bottle if the store brand for the same price. I would question a customer's reason for buying the blister pack instead of the generic bottle, but maybe they don't want 500 pills? Maybe the coating on the Baye tablets is easier to swallow? Maybe there's a placebo effect and they believe the Bayer is more effective or safer somehow, or maybe the fact the money they spend goes into new research. Medicine has come a long way. The days of leeches and bloodletting are fortunately long behind us.

[phoenixdownita]

...

In short, a monopoly isn't the only possible business model to make a profit.

A monopoly on an item of one?

A monopoly is when you control the complete supply of a sector, in videogames you can make a game in the same genre and compete, you just can't copy it as is.

 

Copyright laws are exactly that, laws that regulate who can make copies (that is new instances).

 

We can argue 'till the cows come home, in the current system we can't copy until we are given the rights explicitly or implicitly which can be granted for free if the owner so wishes, doesn't have to entail money. But bear with me, the rights are not in perpetuity either, unless so stated.

 

To quickly argue a few points:

 

6: anything that A does can be done by B by simply copying it, no more competitive advantage per se.

7: and we go back to your dreaded monopoly, once there's only one company it does as it pleases.

8: you can't enter the chinese market without a chinese partner that owns 51% of the venture, btw I wouldn't invoke China in a discussion about free market

 

I am sure there are other viable options for how the human commerce system works, eliminate currency altogether comes to mind, but oversimplifying does not help.

I take the OpenSource movement as a good example of something that kind of work, but only really speeds up once someone dumps serious money in it and that is usually a commercial entity and usually it will try to protect his work from copy to whatever extent it can. Even the OpenSource code comes with a license that states explicitly what you can do (copyleft etc....) so yeah it's pretty obvious you just can't copy at will.

 

In a world where there are no copyrights, so anyone can copy anything and do as it pleases, we need more changes, I am not saying it can't be done, just that we will go there painfully and slowly as we did for any other human endeavor in which exclusivity is/was an advantage. As humasn we tend to hang on to anything that gives as an advantage for as long as we can and by any means. Not everyone is like that, but that's is how our parents, grandparents etc.... shaped the society we are in (at least in the western world). I don't like it, it just is (at least for now).

[Andromeda Stardust]

There are certain instances when I feel bad about playing a rom to a degree. I played Secret of Mana from a rom when I could have bought it digitally for about $8, which would be significantly less than the cart version. However, for games under 10 bucks, which is a lot of them, I don't feel bad because I'd buy the physical cart used, and that'd give the companies no money anyways.

I thought flashcarts would save me a ton of money, but honestly it's a way of testing games before I buy them. I've avoided a number of "turds" by playing them on a flashcart first. I have also hunted down many games because I enjoyed playing the ROM and wanted a real copy.

 

And yes, I support modern consoles and buy Virtual Console versions of my favorite games when possible, even if that means "double dipping" with cross buy. But I also respect that modern games are a different flavor and many find a superior experience with retro titles. I have zero interest in any offering on the current Sony/MS consoles, and if it weren't for Nintendo making great games, I wouldn't be gaming on modern consoles at all.

[phoenixdownita]

Would you mind be more specific with at least one example in which making new copies is obviously OK?

I mean outside of OpenSource where the rights are granted with a license to do so as long as some conditions are met.

Only other example I know is public domain, but individuals do not get to decide what goes into it obviously.

 

The fact that we decide that 30Y is long enough it's arbitrary as well, some people may feel 5Y is enough for them to be playing copies, some would argue 1Y (after the novelty wears off etc...etc...)

 

One last thing regarding Health Care Business, I even despise the words, there's no Health Care Business, there are only sick people that needs to be cured. There should be no business in Health Care only care, and if that means it needs to be run by the state via taxes so be it, I see no difference than paying taxes to maintain the police, or the fire dept etc.... many countries work like that and if it wasn't for the greed of man that tries to pocket resources that are not his, they would work much better indeed.

[Schizophretard]

A monopoly on an item of one?

A monopoly is when you control the complete supply of a sector, in videogames you can make a game in the same genre and compete, you just can't copy it as is.

 

Copyright laws are exactly that, laws that regulate who can make copies (that is new instances).

Definition:

 

noun, plural monopolies.

1.

exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2.

an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3.

the exclusive possession or control of something.

4.

something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5.

a company or group that has such control.

6.

the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

7.

(initial capital letter) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.

 

Synonyms for monopoly:

 

noun something held, owned exclusively

 

cartel holding ownership patent trust consortium copyright corner oligopoly pool proprietorship syndicate possessorship

By definition copyrights and patents are government granted monopolies. The arguments in this thread for them creating incentives by making more profits is the "control that makes possible the manipulation of prices" part of the definition because the arguments are for giving them the ability to have higher prices than a free market would determine.

 

We can argue 'till the cows come home, in the current system we can't copy until we are given the rights explicitly or implicitly which can be granted for free if the owner so wishes, doesn't have to entail money. But bear with me, the rights are not in perpetuity either, unless so stated.

 

To quickly argue a few points:

 

6: anything that A does can be done by B by simply copying it, no more competitive advantage per se.

That assumes that the companies are equal in their resources, money, assets, supply chains, etc. B may not be able to copy everything A does and A may not be able to copy everything B does. Free to and able to aren't the same thing.

 

7: and we go back to your dreaded monopoly, once there's only one company it does as it pleases.

Agreed but different kinds of monopolies. This kind is voluntarily created in a free market and a new company is free to compete to end the monopoly. Copyright and patent monopolies are created by initiating force against the public at the end of the government's guns.

 

8: you can't enter the chinese market without a chinese partner that owns 51% of the venture, btw I wouldn't invoke China in a discussion about free market

I don't see why not. Neither China or the USA are free markets. I'm using free markets in the literal laissez-faire sense and not in the free market in name only sense.

 

I am sure there are other viable options for how the human commerce system works, eliminate currency altogether comes to mind, but oversimplifying does not help.

I take the OpenSource movement as a good example of something that kind of work, but only really speeds up once someone dumps serious money in it and that is usually a commercial entity and usually it will try to protect his work from copy to whatever extent it can. Even the OpenSource code comes with a license that states explicitly what you can do (copyleft etc....) so yeah it's pretty obvious you just can't copy at will.

The Open Source movement is basically just a rebranding of the Free Software movement which was dedicated to freedom with software. And the point of these copyleft licenses was to provide these 4 freedoms:

 

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

 

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

 

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

 

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

So, it is about copying at will. The only major differences I see between free software and copyrights being abolished is that they wouldn't need to create copyleft licenses to have the freedom to do all of this but they would lose the ability to require source code to be included. In other words, without copyright anyone would be free to copy, study, modify, and redistribute all software but they may be limited in some of their abilities to do so because the programmer of the software would also be free to say,"Nah, I think I will keep the source code as a trade secret." Anyway, this is my favorite license: http://www.wtfpl.net/

 

In a world where there are no copyrights, so anyone can copy anything and do as it pleases, we need more changes, I am not saying it can't be done, just that we will go there painfully and slowly as we did for any other human endeavor in which exclusivity is/was an advantage. As humasn we tend to hang on to anything that gives as an advantage for as long as we can and by any means. Not everyone is like that, but that's is how our parents, grandparents etc.... shaped the society we are in (at least in the western world). I don't like it, it just is (at least for now).

I would agree that it would be painful and slow on the political side of things but I think society adjusting to it would be pretty easy. I think of it like this:

 

When the Constitution was written the population of the country was only around 2,500,000, the Industrial Revolution just recently started, and people traveled by horse. Copyrights and patents were shorter than today but I think it is clear why they had to be in years at all(If I'm playing devil's advocate that these actually are needed to create incentives). If you wrote a book back then imagine what that would have been like. You wouldn't have the conveniences of today to write the book, once you have the book written you make a deal with a publisher that would print out copies on their old fashion printing presses, then the copies would have to travel the country by horse, and finally the most possible copies you could sell would be from the literate people that can afford and like books out of a population of 2,500,000. Or imagine that you are a playwright or musician. People would have to come across the country by horse to see your plays or hear your music or you would have to go on tour by horse. Or imagine that you were an inventor trying to spread your invention across this horse back riding country.

 

All of those would have been major challenges but they aren't challenges today. So, why have copyright and patent terms went up instead of down when today we can achieve more than what they did faster and more efficiently and therefore already get the same benefits they got with these extra "incentives" very quickly? Today an author could have their book in book stores all over this country of 300 and something million people, in online stores, sold with digital downloads, etc. Today instead of plays we have movies and can show them in theaters across the country and already reach an audience greater than the old playwright could before the movies even reach DVD. A similar thing with musicians' music albums. Today an invention could be sold in stores across the country and online and do better than an inventor could at the beginning of this country at the end of that inventor's patent term before the invention from today starts to get copied. So, I think the terms should have got shorter or not even exist at all because even if the founding fathers were right that these extra incentives were needed if they didn't exist today then creators would still be surpassing what they once did even after being granted these extra incentives.

[phoenixdownita]

<sarcasm>

Naaaaaahhh!!!

 

How should we call this utopian society you are painting: wait .... I know .... schizophrenia

(sorry I had it for a few days now)

</sarcasm>

 

Until SHARING and CONSERVATION of resources is the governing principle of our lives it won't work. And we are a few wars and planetary disasters away from it. Live long and prosper ..... if you can.

 

Oh and when resources are limited there's no possible free market, by definition because controlling access to said resources controls their price in the end.

[Professor Gull]

Will Nintendo's move to do a flashback affect game prices? And go.....

[ataridave]

While I certainly hope that there is a price crash with Sega Genesis and SNES games, it doesn't look like it's going happen anytime soon. I checked eBay for Super Castlevania IV, and, cartridge-only, it's going for $44.00. That's up from $33.00 about a year ago. And that's not a rare game.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skippy B. Coyote]

Will Nintendo's move to do a flashback affect game prices? And go.....

I'm very curious about this as well. My gut instinct says that the NES Mini will lead to prices for the included games dropping, since there will be a new and easy plug-and-play solution on the market for people to enjoy these old games with no hassle or fuss. However, exposing new audiences to the NES by way of the NES Mini could lead to a good number of those people deciding that they want to graduate to the real original system and start collecting NES games; and that new demand for original NES cartridges would surely increase prices.

 

So it could really go either way. The NES Mini could satisfy casual demand for NES games and lower original cartridge prices, or it could lead to a price increase by turning more people on to the NES.

[cybercylon]

While I certainly hope that there is a price crash with Sega Genesis and SNES games, it doesn't look like it's going happen anytime soon. I checked eBay for Super Castlevania IV, and, cartridge-only, it's going for $44.00. That's up from $33.00 about a year ago. And that's not a rare game.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Actually, $44 would be cheap for Castlevania IV around here. I don't think that price will hold up in the long run though. If I want to really play that game again, the VC version will do just fine.

 

It doesn't have to be rare to be expensive anymore. It is as expensive as the market allows. As long as someone is willing to pay $44, that is the price it will be. As has been mentioned, as that group that were kids then have gotten older and have real jobs, it is easy for some to justify that price to go back and relive their memories. The crash happens when those same people realize that they don't want a bunch of old carts anymore, but with all things Nintendo, we won't be there for awhile yet.

 

As for things that were good, but had a low print run, I don't expect those to go down anytime soon.

 

Genesis stuff around here have never approached SNES and NES levels.

[cybercylon]

I'm very curious about this as well. My gut instinct says that the NES Mini will lead to prices for the included dropping, since there will be a new and easy plug-and-play solution on the market for people to enjoy these old games with no hassle or fuss. However, exposing new audiences to the NES by way of the NES Mini could lead to a good number of those people deciding that they want to graduate to the real original system and start collecting NES games; and that new demand for original NES cartridges would surely increase prices.

 

So it could really go either way. The NES Mini could satisfy casual demand for NES games and lower original cartridge prices, or it could lead to a price increase by turning more people on to the NES.

Saw the list of games. Not too shabby if one does not have those already.

 

Wonder what hardware will be driving it?

[Andromeda Stardust]

Will Nintendo's move to do a flashback affect game prices? And go.....

Only the 637 games not included in this bundle!

[Schizophretard]

<sarcasm>

Naaaaaahhh!!!

 

How should we call this utopian society you are painting: wait .... I know .... schizophrenia

(sorry I had it for a few days now)

</sarcasm>

 

Until SHARING and CONSERVATION of resources is the governing principle of our lives it won't work. And we are a few wars and planetary disasters away from it. Live long and prosper ..... if you can.

 

Oh and when resources are limited there's no possible free market, by definition because controlling access to said resources controls their price in the end.

I'm confused because sharing resources as a governing principle of our lives(I'm assuming universally) sounds more like communism than free market capitalism. And what definition of a free market doesn't have people controlling resources?

[Professor Gull]

I just have to mention on more thing as its been happening a lot this summer it seems. My buddies and I have scoured the local garage sales and snagged up quite a few excellent deals. For one I think some people do not know the "value" of what they have and 2 it does see strange to find as much as we have around here. Every trip brings up a system or a stack of games be it Genesis,NES, 3DO,SNES ,Xbox, PS1 and crap even a Sega Saturn. Some was priced out of ebay but the majority was just stamped with a number on a box and there you go.

 

So where I am going with this is with more baby boomers and older folks just dumping stuff as I have been seeing quite a bit of will that new influx into the market prove to possibly drive some prices down?

[cybercylon]

I just have to mention on more thing as its been happening a lot this summer it seems. My buddies and I have scoured the local garage sales and snagged up quite a few excellent deals. For one I think some people do not know the "value" of what they have and 2 it does see strange to find as much as we have around here. Every trip brings up a system or a stack of games be it Genesis,NES, 3DO,SNES ,Xbox, PS1 and crap even a Sega Saturn. Some was priced out of ebay but the majority was just stamped with a number on a box and there you go.

 

So where I am going with this is with more baby boomers and older folks just dumping stuff as I have been seeing quite a bit of will that new influx into the market prove to possibly drive some prices down?

 

It can depend on the demographics I guess. Our area is more mobile with people coming and going, and the baby boomer generation predates most of the neighborhoods (heck... a good chunk of Gen X). So, mostly I just see baby cloths, toys, dishes, old furniture. I did miss out on an N64 cache many years ago up the street. Family had no idea that I was into these things, so SumGuy (or SumGal) got it instead.

[homerhomer]

Crash? No, but prices are going to dip. I think a lot of people considering buying a NES or Sega Genesis are just going to buy a plug-play call it good. Or just play the digital versions. Especially with the prices the way they are. In the last 2 years I have been pretty much priced out of the market.