that has nothing to do with games. the value of a game comes from enjoying it, not from trading it away. it can be scarce or abundant. wouldn’t change a thing. the analogy doesn’t work.
If you’re the guy that developed a game, you only get so much enjoyment from playing it - and most of your enjoyment from selling 1,000 copies of it to feed your crippling addiction to novelty PEZ dispensers (and paying rent).
On that note, if an indie developer tries to popularize his niche “aardvark slapping game” by selling it for 10 cents a copy, he might quickly flood the entire limited base of consumers that wants to simulate slapping aardvarks, and only makes $100 in the process. By destroying his game’s scarcity, even though he discovered an eager niche, he can no longer sell copies at his original price of $5 each - enough to pay rent for the month. That’s how scarcity of a game can be valuable.
You’re talking about a product. I’m talking about art. You’re arguing that free games have no value. I’m arguing that they do and price has no bearing on the value of an art piece.
I’m arguing no such thing. Artists can, but don’t always, choose to be generous with the product they make, just like bakers sometimes give extra loaves to homeless people. Would it be true to say that free food has no value? In either case it’s an act of generosity. Bakers and artists can both choose to set whatever valuation/price they want on their work, and can adjust if their chosen price point doesn’t make enough sales for their goals. It so happens many artists already have enough money, and simply want people to enjoy their work, or spread their name. The vast majority of artists don’t have enough money, hence the sardonic meme of the starving artist.
that has nothing to do with games. the value of a game comes from enjoying it, not from trading it away. it can be scarce or abundant. wouldn’t change a thing. the analogy doesn’t work.
If you’re the guy that developed a game, you only get so much enjoyment from playing it - and most of your enjoyment from selling 1,000 copies of it to feed your crippling addiction to novelty PEZ dispensers (and paying rent).
On that note, if an indie developer tries to popularize his niche “aardvark slapping game” by selling it for 10 cents a copy, he might quickly flood the entire limited base of consumers that wants to simulate slapping aardvarks, and only makes $100 in the process. By destroying his game’s scarcity, even though he discovered an eager niche, he can no longer sell copies at his original price of $5 each - enough to pay rent for the month. That’s how scarcity of a game can be valuable.
You’re talking about a product. I’m talking about art. You’re arguing that free games have no value. I’m arguing that they do and price has no bearing on the value of an art piece.
I’m arguing no such thing. Artists can, but don’t always, choose to be generous with the product they make, just like bakers sometimes give extra loaves to homeless people. Would it be true to say that free food has no value? In either case it’s an act of generosity. Bakers and artists can both choose to set whatever valuation/price they want on their work, and can adjust if their chosen price point doesn’t make enough sales for their goals. It so happens many artists already have enough money, and simply want people to enjoy their work, or spread their name. The vast majority of artists don’t have enough money, hence the sardonic meme of the starving artist.