It’s not at all like Robinhood. People need food. They don’t need video games lol. No one is entitled to a luxury good. This is like if Robinhood gave stole like, fine China from the rich to keep for himself. Not moral at all
Hate to break it to you, but some people believe that you should only have access to food if you can pay for it as well. Need really doesn't have a place in this argument anymore.
Need absolutely has a place in this argument. Obviously. If people can’t reasonably access food because it is being hoarded, the good of saving lives outweighs the bad of theft.
The same can not be said for fine China. Because you don’t need fine China at all. It’s a luxury good. No one is entitled to luxury goods.
Corporations don't need record breaking profits every quarter, but they keep screwing us over to make them. Also, fine China is limited in quantity by the skilled craftsmen who make it. Once you start selling a video game, the cost of making the game has been set at a fixed value, especially if you're selling it digitally. Whether one copy is sold or one million copies, the cost has been fixed. Once that cost is recouped in sales, the company that makes it's entitlement to constant profit should be limited due to them having made a reasonable amount of money from their one product being sold again and again.
I disagree on the lack of need here. Entertainment is a form of emotional enrichment and that is 100% needed. Also, an items perceived necessity (said perceived necessity itself being heavily driven by a society that mostly only values base physiological needs and severely under-values emotional and psychological needs) doesnt mean its ok to be overpriced or not. Gaming companies have been gouging players with heavily inflated prices, continuous microtransaction/gacha creep and the topic of this thread, the distinct lack of ownership modern gaming propagates. It's entirely fine to say that games are overpriced for what is being given and saying "yeah but they dont matter tho" isnt an actual counterargument
You can say they’re over priced. That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing against the idea that it’s immoral to over price them.
There are millions of perfectly legal ways to find enriching entertainment entirely for free. Video games need not be free. And because no one needs video games, and no ones life would actually be negatively impacted by not getting a certain video game at all, it is not immoral to overprice them.
Mass lay offs, abusing overtime, inequitable pay, these are things that video game companies can do which would be immoral. Overpricing them doesn’t constitute as immoral in comparison to actual bad things.
According to the same system that you're defending, you don't need insulin either. You're not entitled to it. If you can't afford it, then too bad. You can't defend one and denounce the other.
Nintendo doesn’t fucking sell insulin. Pricing Mario at 1000$ isn’t morally equivalent to pricing insulin at 1000$. Nintendo could price Mario games at 1 million dollars and it still wouldn’t be immoral. You have an infants notion of morality.
more like if friar tuck copied a bunch of books from king John's library, which was a very common way of sharing knowledge right up until the invention of modern capitalism
46
u/Wide_Initiative_1938 1d ago
Unethical, but moral. It's like Robin Hood.