To a degree this belongs over at my Gaming Corner but I'll write a post over there that's more related to gaming later. In this case my rant is more about people so I'll Ramble here on the Path. Recently I picked up Total War: Warhammer on Steam (I'll leave the game details and such to the Game Corner Post later) and having been a fan of the Total War series for a while and a long time fan of the Games Workshop tabletop games I had been looking forward to this incarnation of the series. I was happy with the game play but I noticed a concerted effort on the part of players to stack the ratings for the game negative.
The complaint by the people throwing negative reviews up like they were candy, however, wasn't because the game was buggy, or that it was a bad game in any real fashion. Rather the complaint was about the DLC. Now, I've been gaming a long time and I've seen this change over the years. In general it's a good thing, yes I think there are some companies that take the DLC stuff too far, and I often think stuff is over priced for what it is, but I understand a fundamental aspect of the seller/buyer relationship. If I don't like the price, I don't buy.
One of the DLC for the game is a blood and gore pack, to add ... you guessed it ... blood and gore to the battles of the game. It is priced at $2.99. Now it's more than I'm going to pay for it, but then again I don't have a burning desire to see blood and gore in the game. It's a strategy game, not an action game, most of the time I'm zoomed out at a level to give me a birds eye view of the battle field paying attention to multiple enemy units and managing my own. I don't care about the fine details of the fight, that's largely irrelevant. I can see if the unit is doing well, or dying pathetically with the information already given from the game.
In reading over the reviews (on the main game) a person was giving a negative review to the over all game because of the greed of the developers in charging for this option that should have been included free in the base game. In his complaint he said that he had already bought the Blood and Gore DLC but wanted to express his displeasure that they were so greedy and didn't include it.
Here is where the title of the post comes from. Businesses price their products at a point that they believe people will pay the price. In this case this reviewer has proven them right, he bought the DLC (as did a lot of other players) showing the company that people are willing to pay extra for that content. As a developer if you are shown that people are willing to pay extra for something, why on earth would you not charge for it.
He can get on forums, post reviews, and tell the company as many ways as he likes that 'charging for this is unacceptable' but if he backs that up by buying the product they are not going to change what they are doing, there is no reason to.
Now if he had said everything that he said but had not bought the product, and refused to pay extra for the content that he claims should be part of the base game, and enough other people did the same, then the developers would have learned that the market is not willing to pay extra for that extra content and either they include it in the next game (and likely make it a free DLC) or they don't offer it at all on the next game if it increases development costs significantly.
The lesson is 'Don't piss and moan about the price of something but then pay the price anyway.' Either a product or service is worth the price to you and you pay it and obtain the product or service offered, or it isn't and you shouldn't pay the price. The seller can not FORCE you to buy it, yes they can not lower their price, but you still have the option to not pay it. In most cases they will eventually lower the price or offer the item at a discount for a limited time (aka put it on sale) and you can decide if you want it at that reduced price or not.
Like voting (see the previous ramble) buying an item tells the seller that your are willing to pay THAT amount for THAT product (or service) ... because that is what you just did. You can grumble and complain all you want, but at the end of the day YOU were willing to pay that price.
I know that when I buy games when they release that I'm going to pay more for that game than I would if I waited to buy the game later. The games that I choose to do that on are the games that I am willing to pay that premium to have the game sooner rather than wait to get it later. If I buy DLC for a game it is because the DLC adds something that I want in the game, if I don't feel that it is something that the game needs, or if I think the price for what the DLC adds is too high ... I don't buy it. It really is that simple.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Friday, July 22, 2016
The Third Party Dilemma
Okay ... I think it is obvious at this point that the system we have has begun to melt down. Trump got the nomination not because he got most of the Republican primary voters to vote for him, but because he had so much competition early on that he could 'win' with 30% and then by the end everyone had pretty much given up. He didn't start getting over 40% of the Republican primary votes until after the field dropped to 3 AND voter turn out dropped to 10-12% of registered Republicans.
Had the Republican primary been 3 from the start I think The Donald would have been hard pressed to win and to be honest I don't think he would have gotten in. He got in because with that many candidates he could win early on due to name recognition alone. In the end Trump ended up with the delegates needed to secure the nomination despite having much lower than 50% approval among Republican voters. They don't want him, but they got him because he won enough delegates and no one else did.
Hillary, on the other hand, only had a couple of opponents early, and Bernie really turned out to be a thorn in her side. In the end their in fighting (not directly as opponents, but more their supporters) have left the Democratic party as deeply divided as the Republican party at the moment. The Democrat system of Super Delegates is doing exactly what it was always designed to do ... protect the party from the will of the people.
In that regard they have the opposite problem of the Republicans their system is putting forward a candidate that a large portion, even a majority, of the party voters consider unqualified for the position because the 'insiders' are supporting the candidate that the PARTY wants rather than the candidate that the PEOPLE want.
So we have a situation here I don't have the actual numbers but my recollection of the last time I looked Republicans and Democrats each had roughly 35% of the voter and 30% were independent. This is why both parties are always heavily trying to sway the independent vote to their side. Now if we say half of the Democrats don't like Hillary (will call that 17% of the over all voters) and the same with Republicans. Independents are a little harder but in general they don't like either Hillary or Trump either.
That gives us 18% of voters still liking Hillary, and about 18% liking Trump ... let's assume that there are some independents that like them too and make it 25% / 25% for the two of them. That leaves 50% of voters out there in limbo. You would think that this would be the prime opportunity for one or more of the other parties to make a move. There is, after all, a significant portion of the voting public that doesn't like either of the two options from the 'Big 2'.
And really it is. I think it's high time that we picked up a 3rd or even 4th 'major' party in this country. Competition is good, it is the force that drives improvement, creates discussion and leads change. The 'Big 2' haven't had any significant competition in ages, they have stagnated in the echo chambers with their supporters, entrenched in their ideals and opposed to change.
But here is the dilemma, those 3rd parties can't get votes without being seen as risking one of the hated 'Big 2' candidates getting elected. So Republicans that detest Trump might consider a Gary Johnson (Libertarian) ticket, but voting for Johnson means Trump looses a vote and that is one vote less that Hillary needs to win. Likewise a Bernie Sanders supporter that doesn't like Hillary may consider a Jill Stein (Green) ticket, but voting Stein means potentially seeing Trump win.
As a result the disgruntled Republican and Democrat voters are, more likely, going to vote for a candidate that they dislike out of fear of one they dislike more ... so now we're at something akin to 42% Rep / 42% Dem and 16% third party split between Libertarian and Green parties and in the end the map doesn't look much different than it would normally and people will continue with the 'Third Parties aren't viable' line that we hear every election.
The Media and Election system don't help matters. The media spends next to no time covering 3rd party candidates (because they 'aren't contenders') and the Election system puts major road blocks to any party other than Republican and Democrat getting on the ballot at all. Meaning those candidates have to struggle to even get listed, and if they don't get listed in all 50 states the chances of them winning (or even showing in any significant %) is slim to none.
Can a Hillary or Trump hurt this country ... yes, and I'm positive that if either one of them is elected the effects will be significant. But in the end that's WHY I'm voting 3rd party ... maybe it means Hillary gets elected ... maybe it means Trump does. I no longer care in either case, I have reached a point where I can no longer hold my nose and vote for a pile of garbage because the other pile of garbage is slightly more smelly.
That kind of thing is what got us where we are in politics today, and it is never going to get us out of it. Because if I vote for Trump I'm telling the system that I want a loose cannon, say anything, huckster. And you know what we'll get next election cycle if Trump gets a large % of votes? More loose cannon, say anything hucksters ... because that is what we will have told the system that we want. There is no way to say 'I am casting this vote against Hillery and her corruption' or 'I'm casting this vote because I think we need a business minded President, but I am concerned about Trump's rhetoric.' all the system sees is that X% of people AGREE with Trump ... if X% is high enough then the logical conclusion is that if you want those votes you need to BE LIKE Trump.
I fully expect that one of the 'Big 2' will ultimately get elected .... but I'll be damned if my vote is going to help them get to that point. Rather I would like my vote to try and lift up the Libertarian party in the hopes that maybe if we can get that % up high enough to be noticed maybe ... if nothing else ... one (or both) of the 'Big 2' will be forced to go 'Hmmmm, maybe we need to change something .... '
Had the Republican primary been 3 from the start I think The Donald would have been hard pressed to win and to be honest I don't think he would have gotten in. He got in because with that many candidates he could win early on due to name recognition alone. In the end Trump ended up with the delegates needed to secure the nomination despite having much lower than 50% approval among Republican voters. They don't want him, but they got him because he won enough delegates and no one else did.
Hillary, on the other hand, only had a couple of opponents early, and Bernie really turned out to be a thorn in her side. In the end their in fighting (not directly as opponents, but more their supporters) have left the Democratic party as deeply divided as the Republican party at the moment. The Democrat system of Super Delegates is doing exactly what it was always designed to do ... protect the party from the will of the people.
In that regard they have the opposite problem of the Republicans their system is putting forward a candidate that a large portion, even a majority, of the party voters consider unqualified for the position because the 'insiders' are supporting the candidate that the PARTY wants rather than the candidate that the PEOPLE want.
So we have a situation here I don't have the actual numbers but my recollection of the last time I looked Republicans and Democrats each had roughly 35% of the voter and 30% were independent. This is why both parties are always heavily trying to sway the independent vote to their side. Now if we say half of the Democrats don't like Hillary (will call that 17% of the over all voters) and the same with Republicans. Independents are a little harder but in general they don't like either Hillary or Trump either.
That gives us 18% of voters still liking Hillary, and about 18% liking Trump ... let's assume that there are some independents that like them too and make it 25% / 25% for the two of them. That leaves 50% of voters out there in limbo. You would think that this would be the prime opportunity for one or more of the other parties to make a move. There is, after all, a significant portion of the voting public that doesn't like either of the two options from the 'Big 2'.
And really it is. I think it's high time that we picked up a 3rd or even 4th 'major' party in this country. Competition is good, it is the force that drives improvement, creates discussion and leads change. The 'Big 2' haven't had any significant competition in ages, they have stagnated in the echo chambers with their supporters, entrenched in their ideals and opposed to change.
But here is the dilemma, those 3rd parties can't get votes without being seen as risking one of the hated 'Big 2' candidates getting elected. So Republicans that detest Trump might consider a Gary Johnson (Libertarian) ticket, but voting for Johnson means Trump looses a vote and that is one vote less that Hillary needs to win. Likewise a Bernie Sanders supporter that doesn't like Hillary may consider a Jill Stein (Green) ticket, but voting Stein means potentially seeing Trump win.
As a result the disgruntled Republican and Democrat voters are, more likely, going to vote for a candidate that they dislike out of fear of one they dislike more ... so now we're at something akin to 42% Rep / 42% Dem and 16% third party split between Libertarian and Green parties and in the end the map doesn't look much different than it would normally and people will continue with the 'Third Parties aren't viable' line that we hear every election.
The Media and Election system don't help matters. The media spends next to no time covering 3rd party candidates (because they 'aren't contenders') and the Election system puts major road blocks to any party other than Republican and Democrat getting on the ballot at all. Meaning those candidates have to struggle to even get listed, and if they don't get listed in all 50 states the chances of them winning (or even showing in any significant %) is slim to none.
Can a Hillary or Trump hurt this country ... yes, and I'm positive that if either one of them is elected the effects will be significant. But in the end that's WHY I'm voting 3rd party ... maybe it means Hillary gets elected ... maybe it means Trump does. I no longer care in either case, I have reached a point where I can no longer hold my nose and vote for a pile of garbage because the other pile of garbage is slightly more smelly.
That kind of thing is what got us where we are in politics today, and it is never going to get us out of it. Because if I vote for Trump I'm telling the system that I want a loose cannon, say anything, huckster. And you know what we'll get next election cycle if Trump gets a large % of votes? More loose cannon, say anything hucksters ... because that is what we will have told the system that we want. There is no way to say 'I am casting this vote against Hillery and her corruption' or 'I'm casting this vote because I think we need a business minded President, but I am concerned about Trump's rhetoric.' all the system sees is that X% of people AGREE with Trump ... if X% is high enough then the logical conclusion is that if you want those votes you need to BE LIKE Trump.
I fully expect that one of the 'Big 2' will ultimately get elected .... but I'll be damned if my vote is going to help them get to that point. Rather I would like my vote to try and lift up the Libertarian party in the hopes that maybe if we can get that % up high enough to be noticed maybe ... if nothing else ... one (or both) of the 'Big 2' will be forced to go 'Hmmmm, maybe we need to change something .... '
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
