The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
OXM September Featured Demo - BEAUTIFUL KATAMARI!
Posts
Let's not play semantics, "mmkay?"
I don't think we need to go into an indepth discussion of the varying levels of propriety of behavior here, it is needless to say that, really, nothing is black and white.
All I was saying is that if you're going to do it, you shouldn't rationalize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. You should recognize what bounds you may be overstepping, and if you still do it anyway, well, good for you.
But in the case of a magazine just being bought for a demo disk, the consumer doesn't care about the content and thus will never even see the print ads.
The advertisers know this, though. The thing is, advertisers aren't looking at the "best" sales months of the magazine when deciding to advertise there, they're looking at overall sales. An occasional spike one month because of a particular demo doesn't stop them from seeing where sales are most months, and basing their decisions on that.
Plus, even if people just buy the mag for the demo disc, many of them end up reading it anyway, because now that they have it, they might as well take a look at it. Afterwards they might bitch about the quality, and swear never to buy it again, but they still saw the ads.
Why would it be? They own the rights to do whatever they want with the demo, and no one NEEDS to play it, so they aren't forcing you to buy anything.
I can see the line of reasoning that might argue it's immoral, but that would ultimately lead towards an argument that capitalism in and of itself is wrong.
Companies have the rights to decide what to do with what they own, and customers have the rights to decide whether or not they want what a company is offering. Just because Microsoft has decided to start giving away some of their demos (no one seems to remember that before this generation console demos were NEVER given out as freely as they are now) doesn't mean that we are entitled to have them. Demos are not "owed" to us. If you feel like a company is asking you to spend too much money for something, then the answer is to not spend the money. If you're willing to spend the money anyway, that just means that the price that the company set ISN'T too high.
Only if you live in a black and white world. See, you can hate elements of capitalism and the nonsensical ideals of an unrestrictive "free market" without arguing that capitalism in and of itself is wrong.
And considering that you made the "black and white" argument earlier - in that the issue isn't black and white - you should know this.
So, yeah, I think it's pretty immoral to restrict the market artificially, however I think it's just one particular evil of capitalism, not that capitalism is evil.
Next? Or are you planning on giving up on this very tired and pointless subject?
This is a game not done by the original creator, right? But it's hard to screw up the concept, and all they really did was jack up the graphics so I can roll more things?
Because I am so getting a 360, if only because this way my girlfriend will also play it.
Oh, also. Do they finally have co-op levels that consist of actually going through the levels? The arena thing was so boring in the first 2.
Edit: Actually, if the price is too high the answer is to set up a UK account. Also, what Drez said.
How is it an artificial restricition of the market? A particular product isn't a market in and of itself, otherwise every single product would be an anti-trust violation. A company has the right to decide how to make their product available, and to bundle things inorder to incentivise purchases. As long as they are not doing it with necessities (ie, making you pay more for things you NEED) there really isn't any solid grounds for calling it immoral there, without dealing with the immorality of capitalism to a larger extent. Sure, you might pick out a piece of the system, but you're still going to end up debating something like rights ownership or the morality of incentivization in and of itself.
Consumers don't have an inherent right to be provided for free with luxury items. If you want to say that you don't like how they're not giving you the demo, that's fine, you're entitled, just like I'm entitled to state my piece in oppossition. If you're going to accuse them of "immoral" behavior, though, you ought to know, beforehand, what behavior of theirs transgresses against what morality.
The original developer left the series after number 2, to go make playgrounds, I believe.
He made a beautiful thing, sure, but from what I've read about him he's kind of a dick, and believed that they should never make another Katamari because then it wouldn't be unique. As long as they can make the new games fun, the "uniqueness" really shouldn't matter, IMO.
Also, number 2 DID have real co-op, not just the arenas. I spent a while on that with my old roommate. Maybe you just missed it.
I... I must have just assumed since....
Agh! I need to call my girlfriend!
I don't remember if it was limited in which levels (although I am pretty sure it wasn't) but I can tell you definitively tht AT LEAST the snow level had full co-op.
The snowball level was the only one where the players could push different katamaris. In every other level, each player controlled a side of the same katamari, which from my experience meant that one player constantly held forward while the other steered.
I'm not going to end up debating anything because, again, I don't care. I have my sense of morals and I don't really expect or care anyone else to act in line with them. I, however, will act and rationalize actions in line with my own moral code. I am merely letting you know, since you seemed interested, that I find artificial exclusivity immoral, in large part, and I find actions taken to circumvent artificial exclusivity not only not immoral but also actively moral. I'm not really going to explain my entire holistic philosophy behind this here because this is G&T, not D&D, but this all started because you said I shouldn't have any illusions about whether or not my philosophy or my behavior was "magically okay."
I'm telling you that I don't have any illusions about it, but my behavior and philosophy most certainly are "okay," at least in my own esteem, and my own esteem is that only perception I really care about here. And I think a lot of other people in this thread feel the same way.
And exercising ownership rights in this, particular way is immoral. Do I need to keep repeating this point for you, or do you get my message now? To me "oh, well he has the legal right to do something" doesn't give "him" de facto moral authority to act on said rights.
katamaris, motherfucker, do you roll them?
360 Gamertag: Baronskatenbass Steam: BaronVonSnakPak HgL: AnsonLuap
that's cool. I WOULD like to hear your reasons, as long as you don't mind me trying to discuss them with you. :P
But, seriously, I MUTHA FUCKIN' roll Katamaris in my sleep. Man, the King of All Cosmos be seeing my Katamaris, and he be like "Whoa". Remember how he went on a bender, and destroyed the universe? That was cuz he got depressed over how awesome my Katamaris are compared to his.
I am the Katamaster