Kiwis ban virtual drugs
Pages
| Author | Topic: Kiwis ban virtual drugs |
|---|---|
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, November 8 2005 17:52
Profile
Homepage
Salmon was being sarcastic. Do I mean corporations not including words because they won't sell? Well, partially- not just words, but I suppose you get the idea. And maybe it's not even that they won't sell, but rather that they'd be sued or have laws crammed down their throats from the "children-defending" censors. Of course, sometimes I think that it might be GOOD- Just looking at how badly corporations massacre "art", I would likely be twice as repulsed by what they could do with genetalia and more brutal murders. On the other hand, the game of the torturer still lurks in my mind. . . -------------------- 私のバラドですそしてころしたいいらればころす Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Tuesday, November 8 2005 18:07
Profile
Homepage
Dude, I know Salmon was being sarcastic. He said me calling Drew a "genius" added merit, I apologised for it. So let's look at that torturer game. You say it's killed by "censorship". Assume that no one is going to sue Wal-Mart for stocking it, and they know that. If they don't stock it, because they think it would be too dark to sell well, would you consider that to be "corporate censorship"? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, November 8 2005 18:13
Profile
Some stuff sells, but not as well as other stuff. Since corporate law dictates that stockholder profit is a prime directive, it is rational (only in the strictest sense) to create *products* without adherence to morals of any kind. That is why there are regulations and limits on permissible products and uses. *The game of torture would not be profitable because it would be attacked by the religious majority and the unfair publicity would make corporate managers pee their collective pants. The net result is as TM says. No risk-taking and a lot of coat-tail grabbing.* Amphetimine is a highly profitable product, and has legitimate uses, but the illegitimate use has caused a cottage industry to spring up. In this case it is not the product that is bad, but the illicit demand that is bad. Not sure why that was important, other than there hasn't been mention of meth for a few weeks. *this message sponsored by krebs biochemicals* *this message has been edited courtesy of walmart* *this message reedited courtesy of the system* [ Tuesday, November 08, 2005 18:30: Message edited by: Jumpin' Salmon ] Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, November 8 2005 18:26
Profile
Homepage
I would indeed. Just as the primary factor in buying pizzas is which pizza companies are in people's minds, so too do games rely on shelf space to get sold. If Walmart denies a game the shelf space it needs, then it's imposing its tastes on the people. But okay- what if the people actually don't like it? Well, I seriously doubt that there wouldn't be at least a FEW buyers- if not only those who simply try it- but if it's a flop, then maybe the people who take it off of the shelves aren't censoring directly. But what they put back onto the shelves isn't any better. Okay, so for them to only put decent things on the shelves might be a catch-22 of corporations deciding tastes for people, but: 1. When a retail outlet puts stuff that isn't market-oriented crap on the shelves, it's being responsible, which is a risk that would basically be the antonym to what being corporate means. (Why, for instance, are staticians hired to calculate the profits of every action a corporation does? Introducing an "x-factor" would basically be a foil to that line of thinking.) 2. Mass-marketing started the fire, and cannot claim a moral high ground while still fueling it. We don't live in a world where people are treated to art of any medium on a regular basis. What we get instead is repetative and trite genres in our "music", boobs for the sake of subjugating females on the television, and harry potter. (Don't forget to toss in chauvinist views on sex and romance, as well as a protestant work ethic.) Believe it or not, the same people who started this epidemic (or at least those in the same positions who serve to reap the same benefits with the same actions) are the same people who continue the epidemic and claim that the epidemic cannot be cured. Will people become more enriched and less archetypical if corporations instantly let people loose from their filth? Maybe, maybe not. But it's a good place to start. -------------------- 私のバラドですそしてころしたいいらればころす Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Tuesday, November 8 2005 18:57
Profile
Homepage
See, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Publicity isn't free. You can put up a site on the web and distribute your game online (as a certain small game company we all know does), but if you want a high profile, you need to pay. Big title games can get Wal-Mart to sell them, because they sell well and Wal-Mart gets a cut of it. It's just indirect advertising. You want your dark game to get high publicity, you can buy a bunch of TV ads or something and do it wihout Wal-Mart. Alternatively, make the game cheaply so you don't need big returns to make it worthwhile. Or are you arguing that publicity should be freely and equally available to everyone? -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, November 8 2005 19:20
Profile
Homepage
A thought: if a product is good enough, it'll generate word-of-mouth publicity on its own. If it's not, it doesn't deserve it. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Tuesday, November 8 2005 19:36
Profile
Homepage
quote:That would be kinda interesting, actually. Though it would mess with my livelihood. :P But then, what do you do with the Wal-Marts? Are they obliged to stock everything? How do you decide who gets the eye-level shelf? Or do you ban retail altogether? [ Tuesday, November 08, 2005 19:38: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, November 8 2005 19:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:I don't think TM would entirely disapprove of that idea. After all, retailers aren't actually producing anything. :P [ Tuesday, November 08, 2005 19:51: Message edited by: Explode Thuryl Now ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, November 8 2005 23:02
Profile
In an ideal world, retail would not exist. The closest thing we'd have to it would be McDonalds: more light manufacture than anything. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, November 9 2005 00:13
Profile
Creating consumer desire for a product which is not especially impressive in itself is itself creating a product. Having money and not wanting any of the things you could buy with it is actually an undesirable state for most people. So we are happy to pay for the advantage of wanting a product we can buy. The production of consumer desire is thus just as much production as mining coal or rolling steel. Just as one can complain that an economy produces lousy material goods, one could complain that its marketing sector produces lousy desires. That is, I would argue that the problem is not mass marketing, but bad mass marketing. And the most effective countermeasure ought to be the competition of superior products. Offer people better desires, and they will beat a path to your door. Hmmm. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, November 9 2005 00:25
Profile
Homepage
quote:See, this is an attitude I don't understand. If one already has everything one wants, isn't it more sensible to work fewer hours or save up for an earlier retirement rather than searching for new things to buy? If one really enjoys working, well, one can always donate to a charity or something, but actively wanting to become dissatisfied with new aspects of one's life so that one can buy new things to address that dissatisfaction seems rather perverse. [ Wednesday, November 09, 2005 00:27: Message edited by: Explode Thuryl Now ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, November 9 2005 01:37
Profile
Homepage
quote:Agreed. But for some reason, consumerism is rampant. Why? Is it because people are perverted? [ Wednesday, November 09, 2005 01:38: Message edited by: NaNoWriMo ] -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, November 9 2005 03:43
Profile
Yes, if Thuryl is right in calling this attitude perversion. However we think about it, I think it's a fact that most people feel this way. It is not so much that contentment is elusive, as that we are not content with contentment. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, November 9 2005 04:41
Profile
Homepage
I suppose, then, that either I'm unusually resistant to suggestion or I'm excessively frugal. It just seems to me that given a choice between a non-essential object and the amount of money it costs, most of the time I'd rather have the money. Given the choice between a brand new $1000 refrigerator and $1000 in cash, assuming you already have a refrigerator that works well enough, you'd take the cash, right? So why spend $1000 on that same refrigerator when you see it in a store? There's almost always going to be something better you can buy with the same amount of money later on. (I'm also the sort of person who doesn't mind receiving cash as a gift and finds the idea of gift vouchers silly, which I'm reliably informed makes me weird, so it does seem likely that I'm not a typical member of the population with respect to purchasing habits.) [ Wednesday, November 09, 2005 04:42: Message edited by: Explode Thuryl Now ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Wednesday, November 9 2005 10:55
Profile
Homepage
I'm like Thuryl. I'm very much content with contentment. I'd rather work in a low-paying job I enjoy and go without a $20, 000 car and all the rest rather than chase money. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Wednesday, November 9 2005 13:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:Why wouldn't retail exist in a perfect world? Ordering everything directly from the manufacturer would be a real pain. -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net - Don't follow this link Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1993
|
written Wednesday, November 9 2005 14:38
Profile
In an ideal world, monopolized retail would not exist. Retail - serving the distribution - is unavoidable. But it should not be misused, inflate the price and reduce the quality. -------------------- ^ö^ I was a cannibal for twenty-five years. For the rest I have been a vegetarian. George Bernard Shaw Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, November 10 2005 01:30
Profile
Well, I'm pretty vague on how old everyone is here, since it doesn't matter, so this may not apply at all to Salmon or Thuryl. But a lot of people are content with their material lot as students, or in other whippersnapper roles in life, where $1000 can represent several years worth of savings. Quite a lot of these people, however, then move quite abruptly into real jobs. Even at modest 'starting' salaries, this represents a staggering influx of cash, which keeps on coming in every month! Heck, even a graduate student stipend, which is hardly in the 'real job' category, is a whole level above having to subsist all year on what you earned in a lousy student's summer job. When you actually do have significant disposable income, and reasonably solid prospects for it to continue, you start to wonder what would really be the point in just letting it pile up as digits on your ATM slips. And you're happy to develop your own tastes and preferences as a consumer. In effect, this is microeconomic monetarism at work. Having even a modest amount more money circulating in your own personal economy can effect a radical transformation from stagnation to consumption-driven boom. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, November 10 2005 04:53
Profile
Homepage
Actually, although I can save the equivalent of several 100$ monthly from my apprenticeship (after buying food, clothes, etc), I have yet to make any substantial purchase. Not even things I used to really want - new video games, fast computers, such things. So apparently actually having money has the opposite effect on me. Since I can buy it if I really want to, I don't feel the need to buy it right now. Ironically, I suppose the greatest part of my online purchases via Paypal have been donations. ^_^ [ Thursday, November 10, 2005 04:54: Message edited by: NaNoWriMo ] -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, November 10 2005 05:04
Profile
Homepage
I'm actively averse to shopping even when it's for things I can afford and really need. I suppose it's a social phobia of sorts. It doesn't seem likely that additional money on its own will remedy this. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, November 10 2005 06:00
Profile
Hey, cheapness is good and responsible - and far better than going into debt. Just be sure that you at least have you savings in an actual savings account or similar interest-earning device - there's no sense in letting inflation devalue your savings! Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, November 10 2005 08:30
Profile
With most of my income pre-spent on home improvement projects, my only frivolity is the money I set aside for gas costs on next years tuna fishing trips. When it costs $300 to fill up the boat, it is good to plan ahead. My opinion of retailism, marketing, and value added desire is that those things are great for people with free time. It sounds great to be able to play x-box for 3 hours straight, and maybe I'll do that some day. But right now I can't watch tv for more than 30 minutes without getting restless about some project that is only half done (or half thought out). So in the end, all that marketing is pointless for me. It may be a commentary on society however that all these desire-driven products are inherently reliant on free time availability. I would think that an employer would be less than understanding if productivity dropped due to game-playing, which would translate into more free time and less income. *this message sponsored by ryobi* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Thursday, November 10 2005 08:54
Profile
quote:I can take that even further - what about the production of leisure? You can offer yourself carelessness, freedom and stress reduction. This is valuable to most people. The product doesn't have to be a fetish blessed with a brand name worthy of worship according to the corporate propaganda. Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, November 10 2005 11:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:That did sorta happen to me, but I didn't go on a spending spree. Once I'd amassed a substantial amount I kinda looked at it and wondered why I was working if I wasn't spending it. So I quit my job, and did volunteer work instead. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |