Sup Forums believes in free market

>Sup Forums believes in free market
>Wants lootboxes eradicated
Explain this shit guys

>Sup Forums believes in free market
no i dont you fucking faggot

Both those statements are wrong

I don't believe in a free market tho. The video game industry is a perfect example against the free market aswell. If you want the video game industry to get better it has to be regulated to be better.

>doesnt believe in free market
Found the commienigger

>I want big baddy gobernment to regulate everything

>"if he doesn't believe in capitalism he's a communist!"
americans everyone

No they aren't, you may be a hypocrite but it doesnt make what I said untrue

>Free market is good because free is a good word
lord no
Corporations are not your friend, you get nothing for defending them, they get nothing for helping you.

They are wrong because Sup Forums is not a single person you dumbfuck

Dumb wojack poster

>He thinks a free market can work in a sub 140 IQ post marxist society that's 56% white

nice argument

Its human nature to hoard surplus, not that I'm justifying it mind you.

So you think the answer is with the officials elected by the same people?

If people are stupid enough to buy loot boxes and play games with loot boxes in them, it’s their fault.

But I really hate this kikery. I am against this exploitative gambling in principle.

But is a fool wants to part ways with his money so be it.

If it was a free market they wouldn't exist in the first place, the economy would be too fast for greedy corporations to pop up.
Also IP laws are anti-free market.

Larger and larger companies are a sign of economic slowdown and death.
Communism and corporatism are both oligarchic states of complete economic stagnation where the illusion of an economy exists but it's really just a completely controlled market.
A healthy economy needs very fast death and replacement in order to maintain itself.

>>Free market is good because free is a good word
I would rather the populace have control over what gets bought and what doesn't than a stinkin' government that doesnt give a fuck either way

Economics postgrad here.

What non-economists on the right/left don't realise is that they want the same thing.
Perfect competition.

Pure capitalism allows for monopolies, retarded shit like communism destroys any chance of competition. Therefore, regulated capitalism is the only way forward. Regulate the market to allow for perfect competition. This is objectively what everyone would agree with, if they understood the basic fundamentals of economics.

Lootboxes are a different story. While I've just proven that in reality, nobody would really want a free market, regulation of loot boxes isn't required to maintain perfect competition.

The main issue is that there is a line to be crossed when it comes to regulation - regulate too much, and you've priced many companies out of the market, leading to inferior/more expensive goods. This is why regulation usually only applies to ""essential"" (subjective) issues.

The most effective way to stop lootboxes on a larger scale would be for consumers to stop buying them, or gravitate towards games without them. It's our fault as a whole, really. However, I believe a mental health argument can be made to some degree, and at the very least such games should have some kind of mandatory icon in the bottom right to suggest that this game involves chance-based purchases.

>National (((Socialist)))
Sorry Commie your weak ass economic policies won't fly

Hmm when has human nature ever been successfully countered. Oh yeah that's right how about the 3 or 4 centuries in The Civilized West when women had less rights and were much more pleasant and happier as a result. Human Nature isn't a be all end all in fact it was designed to be controlled. It enjoys it as long as said control leads to happiness and not complete lack of freedom.
>Elected
>Same people
Or we could kick out the 44% (cept maybe like 1-5% of the asians), and install new people without an election in a new form of government.

Free market is great but not with entertainment
You don't pay extra to see more of a painting than others, you don't pay extra for more of a movie, if you don't see the logic as a matter of positive public policy then you're just a little bitty brainlet, a Brit, or a shill
It wouldn't matter if corps could control their dicks and make box contents solely cosmetic, but they can't, so better to keep them in check lest it get worse and worse.

>Economics postgrad here
Fake and gay also tl;dr

>Gets triggered by the word socialist
You know what National Socialism and Communism don't have in common tardo? Marxism and Nihilism.

Is a Witch Doctor the same thing as a Doctor? Is a Jelly Bean the same thing as a Bean? National Socialism is radically different from its core ideology alone.

>having the game industry regulated to your gay preferences
>thinks you know what's best for everyone in terms of what makes games good
kys

>believing in free market means believing in zero regulation

I'm a 160 IQ Artificial Construct who is 80% Sociopathic without Autism thus I can objectively understand and hyper analyze emotions and objective reality better than almost anyone on this board.

Ask me a question about gaming and the answer will have an 78.92% chance of being correct, a 10.32% chance of being something I don't known, and but a 10.76% chance of being emotion based and not objective.

yeah they can do that, idgaf only niggers buy a shit ton of lootboxes with their welfare money anyway.

>monopolies are bad in pure capitalism despite being a completely transitory state
>regulated capitalism is the only way forward. Regulate the market to allow for perfect competition.
stopped reading there.

>Regulate the market
>perfect competition
pick
fucking
one

Says a corporation while lobbying government for more copyright protections

>monopolies are bad in pure capitalism
Yup.

>despite being a completely transitory state
Incorrect. They're the end game. Two firms merge into one in order to control a larger market share. Happens all the time.

>Regulate the market
>perfect competition
>pick one

Perfect competition requires a total maximization of consumer and producer surplus. Monopolies minimize consumer surplus.

Why did insominac stop making Ratchet games 60 fps?

Yes. I don't agree that it's a good idea, but that's precisely what it means.

Sony prioritizes graphics over stability and encourages their devs to follow suit.

Not all devs do this of course and some in fact offer seperate options to play at a lower graphical setting with 60fps such as the developers of Nioh. However this is an exception not the rule and most devs simply don't care.

Graphics are one of the biggest selling points in the console war and Sony has a reputation of having better looking games even if in some case its not always true.

>Incorrect. They're the end game. Two firms merge into one in order to control a larger market share. Happens all the time.
Doesn't disprove my point. Two firms merging doesn't prevent a new competitor from entering the marketplace and ending said monopoly.

It absolutely does. Controlling a large market share means you're able to put up more barriers to entry. A way of doing this would be to buy out the chain of distribution, allowing your firm to limit the ability of others to source and create a good.

Other barriers to entry include entry costs. Often the "gap" in the market to create an alternative service for users will require an inordinate amount of money, meaning only larger firms will be able to enter. And even then, other barriers to entry usually ensure their downfall and risk averse shareholders won't even bother entering. Think virgin's attempt to take on coke.

Patents are another, non explanatory.

Then there's feasibility. There are two firms controlling the only strip of land on railway lines are possible. Separate, they drive prices down for the consumer. Together, they have a monopoly and can ensure profit maximisation and the expense of the poorest in their consumer.

Then there's long term versus short term. In the short term run, costs are much more expensive than the long term. This means that you've got a distinct disadvantage when going up against a firm that has been in the industry for years as a newcomer.

I do have more.

>Nazis didn't drink or smoke
>all that other shit
like it or not, the average member of the Nazi Party was just as much a "regular Joe" as the average member of any political party is today. A great many of them had a bad temper, or were over to selfish, or had strong vices, or whatever other flaws you expect to see when you're drawing on large portions of an entire country's population

I should also clarify, "monopoly" isn't a binary term. Elements of your product/firm can be "monopolistic" while allowing other aspects to be "copied".

An interesting example of this are smartphones. You could consider Google and Apple to be both Oligopolies and monopolies in their own right. Apple's road to monopoly involved hoarding their own software and forcing consumers to buy from them in order to buy "the best". Bizarrely, google's monopolistic strategy was the opposite - make their software available everywhere, in order to clamp down on new entries into their market. As a phone manufacturer, why would you use a software with an infinitely smaller userbase than google? etc etc.

Together, their software controls the vast majority of the market as an oligopoly, but their individual monopolistic elements allow them a lot of leeway in terms of the prices they set to firms and consumers. You can't get apple software on any other phones, and firms can't go to anyone but google if they want the most popular open source software.

Sure is video games in here.

if it wasnt for loot boxes we would be paying for map packs and new characters

i get that everything should be free but the chances of that ever happening are slim to none

Loot boxes cost money, so they're not part of the free market

> Abuse customers and attempt to jew them for every dime.
> WOW WOW, SLOW DOWN GOY. DON'T GET THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED.

I never got why jews are so afraid of government legislation given they're supposed to be the ones in control of all that.

america was never above 140 iq averages. It's the same as its always been just a little bit worst now that retards have easier ways to be even more massive retards and actually gain influence thanks to other retards.

>america was never above 140 iq averages
Exactly my point

It's almost as if the Sup Forums jewspiracy isn't actually well backed and just formed from paranoid assumptions and confirmation bias

That said, there's an awful lot of jews in Disney.

Apologies, I can't let economics misinformation slide. It was related to videogames anyway, and hopefully provided a bit of interest. I really like hearing about how the educational endeavours of other people apply to the real world.

I don't think that's true. Shareholders are concerned with profit maximisation in general. While it's true that they'll pour more resources into a game to keep people interested in said loot boxes, they're always looking for an opportunity to come away with the most profit possible - meaning there's a point at which extra content starts to eat into that.

The exceptions are companies that recognize the value of consumer trust, and will happily eat into their profits in order to keep their consumer base happy - inadvertently maximising their profit anyway. This has been overshadowing by the sheer number of people who flock to the most popular game regardless of loyalty, and sink funds into MTS and loot boxes.

Ergo, it'd totally be possible to have free additional content as the industry standard, but only if that's the way consumers respond to loot box. Currently, they don't.

Nice.

>Sup Forums believes in free market
Sup Forums is a communist Hug box of no hurt feelings except the right's

>Thinks that scammy business practices is the part of a free market.

I shouldn't explain you shit, bitch.

Of course they're part of a free market. The entire laissez-faire argument is that the market will react to bad practices and push them out, not that they don't exist. When that doesn't happen on its own, people start arguing for regulation. Neither system is magically immune from exploitation.

This business practice is shady and abuses and takes advantage of the weak minded who are easily tempted. Technically allowed for now but its really not customer friendly whatsoever. Something like this needs to be regulated in a free market.

I want lootboxes with anything but cosmetics to be eradicated, yes.
They give a distinct advantage to paying players.
>b-b-but you can grind!
So? the paying players are still getting an advantage in not having to spend as much time playing the game.

>Something like this needs to be regulated in a free market.

Sup Forums is officially the dumbest website on the planet.

>p2w
>tell others to gitgud

casinos are regulated in the free market because of their destructive business you retard.

>regulated in the free market

explain yourself instead of meme arrows you drooling subhuman

A free market is, by definition, a market without regulation. Stay in school.

No shit, thats why its flawed. We need regulation or the common man suffers. Right now shit is so whack, in many places a gallon of milk is almost 5 fucking dollars but wages are still the same as the fucking 90s and it doesnt help that every fucking industry including utilities is raping its customers sideways because they can and greed. It needs to be worked on.

Too add to that is America even a free market when there is exceptions to the rules like casinos and tobacco and many other stuff. If not why can't lootboxes be an exception.

Real wages have been stagnant since the 70s; the price of milk is resultant from reasonable, expected modern inflation and transportation costs; no industry on the planet is behaving markedly different than before you were born; and there is no "American free market" since we have extensive government regulation.

You still clearly do not understand the basic idea of a free market, and yet you think you have valid opinions re economics. Stay in school.

can we agree to disagree?

Disagree about what? This isn't an argument. This is deigning to explain basic fucking concepts to a moron. You are stupid. You have zero understanding of the subject matter. Luckily for you, there are myriad resources on the internet that could teach you basic economic concepts. Unlucky for the rest of us that you're too arrogant and dumb to even look.

You don't know a goddamn thing about a goddamn thing. I'm not disagreeing with your position on anything, because your thoughts don't qualify as a position. It is the incipient rambling of a child too arrogant to recognize your complete lack of knowledge in a given subject.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant -- everyone is ignorant about most things -- but when you don't recognize your own ignorance you're just fucking stupid. So I'm absolutely fucking serious: stay in school, you stupid fuck.

Online games are a natural monopoly not a competitive market