{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/7/2013 5:19:51 PM
5
You should have programmed in some exception handling, because when I came across your first argument it threw an error.
Video games do experience relative depreciation. Call of Duty 4's MP becomes less valuable once Call of Duty 5 rolls around.
English
-
You missed this part: [quote]Sure you can get tired of games; sure you can abandon old games for newer, shinier, sexier games. But does that make the old game lose actual (not subjective/emotional) value? All games will experience the point when they are no longer the cutting edge in technology, when they are no longer mainstream, and the playerbase dwindles into tiny cult followings. But does the passage of time make the experience of the game measurably lower in quality compared to its quality on release? I say no. You say no every time you fire up an old game instead of a new one.[/quote] I did warn it was going to be a long read. Reading everything is important.
-
Edited by Trollheim: 6/7/2013 5:33:05 PMThe actual value of a game is its subjective value. If it subjectively loses value, it loses actual value.
-
The actual value of the game is the cost of the resources put into creating the game, identical to any movie or TV show.
-
No. Value is relative to everything else and dictated by demand.
-
Value is also dictated by supply. For example, there is only one Robert Downey Jr. who does a brilliant job at playing Tony Stark/Iron Man. The man was born for the role. But there is only one of him. Supply is low, demand is high, he gets a massive payout. A artist who wants to devote his life to painting must be able to sell his paintings for a price that will ensure he can have food, clothing, and shelter (along with any other things he may want from life) while he creates his next piece. It's not merely the cost of the canvas and the paint and brushes, but for the time and effort of the artist himself. He is a resource who requires a certain investment (paying his living expenses) to make sure he has the opportunity to make a return on that investment (selling his paintings). You can't arbitrarily write off half the economic equation. That's not how the world works.
