According to a new report by the Josephson Institute of Ethics, cheating, stealing and lying by high school students have continued their alarming, decade-long upward spiral. A survey of 12,000 high school students showed that students admitting they cheated on an exam at least once in the past year jumped from 61% in 1992 to 74% in 2002; the number who stole something from a store within the past 12 months rose from 31% to 38%, while the percentage who say they lied to their teachers and parents also increased substantially. (See below for a summary of findings.) http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/Survey2002/surve y2002-pressrelease.htm
Maybe they're learning something from big business?
Just for the record, my test result was "Left-libertarian" but in my own view, I consider myself to be a Rational Anarchist in the R. A. Heinlein style
I believe I addressed this when I said, "Most of those that do, [enjoy stealing] haven't grown up yet."
As for the rhetorical neo-conservative comment, it was simply due to the fact that I often hear conservative minded, and or affluent, people blatantly state that people are innate thieves who will steal if given the opportunity to do so. They often do this to justify increasing penalties, hence the prefix, neo.
It is a factual untrue belief. In fact, people are generally more honest than not.
Duh, first off, nobody really wins when there's a war.
Second off, I don't recall "winning" anything.
Third, it's debatable. Many believe that the USSR was simply an obsolete organization that became irrelevant and costly and was subsequently discarded.
Fourth, what does that have to do with it?
Fifth, you're a republican, aren't you?
However, if it really makes you feel better to be on the winning side of something, why, go for it I always say.
Actually, I was speaking of the US laws, largely since acts like DMCA are at the forefront of the attack on, and explotation of, the public domain.
It is in the United States of America that the DMCA, one of the gravest threats to individual freedoms, was recently passed into law. Doesn't anyone find this incredibly disturbing and ironic?
OMG, not again. It's just I've heard that old invalid argument too many times before. It is simply typical neo-con rhetoric. Let me explain, once more, why.
You are assuming that it costs nothing when a person steals. This is false. Period. Think about it, every time you steal something, do you feel good?
Very, very few people actually "enjoy" stealing. Most of those that do, haven't grown up yet.
It costs to steal. It costs self image, it costs self respect and it cost fear, guilt, time and effort. TANSTAFL.
Therefore, if products were priced "affordably", few would steal. It would simply be cheaper not to. Hence my point that the responsibility for the whole "piracy" issue rests largely with executives who establish the price points for their products. If they weren't gouging us, there'd be little, if any, profit in "piracy". It's greed all right, it's just not all some kid's fault.
Indeed, most of these games are developed by affluent adults seeking money and they are played by kids looking for fun. It's a recipe for "piracy".
By the way, had you considered perhaps that after playing a game, many people simply decide it wouldn't be worth the price to own?
I often won't buy shrunk-wrap unreturnable software because I'm simply unsure that I'll actually get any enjoyment or use out of it. At fifty bucks a pop and up for this stuff, I always really have to agonize as to whether or not to commit. Is this a very good sales experience? Hardly, in fact, I so dislike buying commercial software retail, I rarely, if ever, do so anymore. Like many people, I simply go online, read users reviews and look for a demo version I can use for a month. If I'm still using the software and it's worth the price too me, I don't hesitate to pay.
ps. I liked Q3A enough that even though there's a complete free playable online demo, I own three copies. (Win32 client, server and Loki Linux version). By the way, thanks Carmack, great engines!
"copy protection is a necessary part of the publishing process"
Yah, and remember the dark ages, when only the church could copy? Well if corporations get their way, it'll be dark again soon. Thanks Abbie!
"We have to live with it, and I don't think it is going away."
No Abbie, I don't have to live with it because I never buy copy protected software. Period. Sorry, but it's a religious thing with me.
"but let's face it, publishers aren't stupid"
Yes, yes they are, and evil and greedy too. First off, they corrupt copyright so that it no longer does what the founding fathers intended. Then they use it to abuse the market in order to force consumers to pay excessive prices for poor quality games.
In my humble opinion, piracy is a direct and inevitable outcome strictly due to the lack of fairness in the intellectual property issue.
Corporations have perverted the process and most people are simply taking the most economical route to get what they want
From where I sit, all of this is because companies will not produce products as inexpensively as possible. Indeed, these companies would earn more if they simply lowered the price to a point were far more people could easily afford to buy their products. As it is, most software is simply not affordable unless you are fairly affluent. So yes, they, the software publishers, are stupid, and what's worse, they're incompetent and abusive.
Oh, by the way, if Apple hadn't gotten greedy and used a proprietary format, this wouldn't even be an issue. So Apple shares some of the responsibility here, even if some people refuse to acknowledge it.
Personally, I'm just so tired of watch big corporations acting in an irresponsible and manipulative fashion. What's even worse, in my opinion, is all of the overly affluent people who rush to justify obvious and abusive corporate behaviour.
Actually, however, in this case it was kinda of worth it just to see two pigs wrestling in the mud. However, it got boring real quick.
I thought competition was a good thing! Oh, and if Apple is such a great company with such great products, why do people feel such a fanatical need to constantly defend them, eh? I say, let Apple stand on it's own reputation, for whatever that's worth.
Actually, I like a lot that Apple does, but there's a lot that I don't like either. For what it's worth, I wouldn't trust either of these two meglomanical corporations to put my needs ahead of thier own, ever. So, I'm certainly not surprised by all this.
My best advice, however, is when two rhinos fight, don't get caught in the middle.
Once again, the threat of litigation is being used to censor information. It was inevitable, since power corrupts.
Google is simply starting down the wide and easy road of excess affluence and absolute corruption. Of course, executives and lawyers are just flocking to the money. If Brin and Page were really smart, they'd be running like hell. I really feel sorry for them.
I just wish we actually had capitalism rather than just a facade masking an non-democratic and evil plutocracy.
This just comes across as another logical fallacy. I never said everyone who doesn't buy is going to "steal" anything. Most people simply do without or seek less expensive alternatives. Therefore, my points in no way validate "piracy". Also, to characterize the unlicensed use of software as piracy or theft is clearly arguable.
Again it appears that you're not addressing the actual issue which is, at what price would TG make the most ROI. Is it to keep the price high and make it difficult to circumvent the process, as they are doing with the watermarks, or, is it to lower the price and therefore increase sales?
My point is that they would generate far greater profits by lowering the price than they will ever see by pursuing a copy protection strategy. Many other companies have gone down this road only to dicover that copy protection is, in the end, both unpopular and unprofitable.
If they were paid fairly, they would be able to afford to buy more things. That they can't afford to, hardly means they all must be stealing. Poverty, that's when you don't have things, it's not an indicator that someone is a thief. Oh, except, perhaps, in your mind.
Actually, this was a discussion about why people can't afford to pay, therefore they don't buy. It was never suggested that stealing was therefore justified. You are simply trying to misdirect the argument, rather than address the issue of maximizing the return on an investment by setting an effective price point.
Like so many, you simply either can't, or choose not to, deal with the actual issues that are involved here. Rather, you fall back on erroneous beliefs intended to keep you from having to critically examine your own assumptions. These are the very same assumptions you seem to need to rely on to justify your philosophy. GIGO.
By categorizing piracy as theft, you simply fail to understand the actual issues, which, once again, makes it utterly pointless discussing this any further with you. A closed mind simply cannot take part in an open discussion.
IMHO, you obviously didn't bother to either read or consider what I said, did you? Go on, keep on spouting those same old lame neo-con justifications, I'm sure it helps you feel real good about yourself, doesn't it?
BTW, sure, TG is free to set whatever price they like. If most people can't afford it and TG doesn't make as much as they could have, well they're free to do that as well.
In truth, you and TG's management are obviously privileged and it's often difficult for privileged people to appreciate the difficulties faced by those who aren't born into an affluent society.
Furthermore, after looking at your example, I know you can't or won't be able to understand my point, so, therefore, there really isn't any point in discussing it any further is there?
Go on, live an unexamined life, somehow I get the feeling you really couldn't handle it any other way.
BTW, I really feel for you. It's just a real shame you can't appreciate the irony of the situation.
You haven't traveled much I assume? In most places in the world, hardware can be had at prices relative to the local economy.
Picture this, you live in a developing nation, i.e. China, India, etc. You purchase a relatively new computer by saving up one month's wages. Then you visit a US (or other first world website) and they want two months wages for a three month subscription.
How many people are going to buy in, eh?
I'm so tired of overpaid managers overlooking the fact we live in a "global" economy. If you want to sell to a local market, advertise in the local classifieds. If you put up a website, don't be surprised if someone from around the world pays you a visit.
WTF is up with first worlders, are they blind to issues like wage disparity? It's all just self-justification, from my perspective.
Go on, buy some more overpriced goods produced by underpriced wage slaves. From my perspective, it seems obvious you don't care just so long as you're living high on the hog.
Yes, I know you can't buy it, that's because you're in the mainstream. Personally, I haven't had to buy a book for sometime now. I almost always find what I need on the Web, Usenet or IRC.
The Internet is communication. If a website isn't a revolution in publishing, I doubt that anything would satisfy your definition of revolutionary.
BTW, most e-books are simply way overpriced and often freely available on alt.binaries.e-books or any P2P network.
Publishers aren't really selling you information, they are selling you the vehicle to said information. How can they compete with a free and open medium when they themsevles use a closed, expensive and ineffective one?
Imagine if you could go to O'Reilly's site and for $5 per year, read all their books. You'd be much better informed, they'd have many more readers / subscribers and the cost of serving web pages would still allow for profits. Nope, nothing new here kids, move along. (sigh)
The medium is the message. ~ Marshall McLuhan
Re:The funny thing is you have it backwards
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 1
Sheesh... ever wonder why corporations are so top heavy?
Like there's no croynism, nepotism or patronism in corporate America. Oh, and well we're at it, I've never seen a senior executive or manager work as hard as I have, despite earning much more.
I just got tired of watching the good jobs go to my overpaid boss's friends. Tell me that doesn't happen.
Yes, I do understand. However, I feel you actually do not. Yes, there is more than just the cost of the CD, which is why I suggested $5 would be a reasonable price. In fact, I'm not suggesting the publisher should forgo profits, rather, they would generate more profits if the price was lower, but they sold many more copies. They are costing themselves sales and profits and, at the same time, denying many the opportunity to legitimately purchase their products.
As the former owner of a bookstore, I personally watched as high paid executives at publishing houses priced books so high, we actually saw a steady decline in numbers of sales. However, the high prices made it appear, at first, as if the publisher, and the store, were actually making more money. After some time however, the sales fell off to such a point that many publishers were forced to higher cheaper writers and spend less on development. As the quality of the product suffered and the prices remained high, our sales, and profits, fell even further. We discussed this with them many, many times but in the end, I watched them gut their business and mine. The last straw came when they ended up selling all their heavily discounted new and crappy titles on their website for the same prices as they would sell them to me as a retailer, thereby devastating my sales. Thanks Prentice Hall.
I'd also suggest that despite prices being the same or higher, many products, and services, are not as good as they used to be. Mass market, i.e. Que, MSP etc., computer books are a perfect example of this.
Furthermore, in the case of downloads, how much does it actually cost to serve files. Why should I pay software companies the same price I'd pay for a retail package?
Lastly, just where do you think these multimillion dollar salaries come from? Do these executives really contribute that much that they truly deserve such extremely high levels of compensation. I don't think so. In fact, I think they're taking advantage of us.
Why is it when someone shoplifts it's bad, but when someone steals the entire shop, it's ok?
Well, that's the new America, I guess. Personally, I feel like I've been sold down the river.
If they lowered the price, many more would buy, many less would "pirate". This whole pirate thing is just such corporate crap. I try software, what I end up using, I eventual buy into, just like most people. If software sold for five bucks, who would bother to "pirate" it. This whole pirate thing is just marketing. They're trying to convince you that a fifty cent CD is worth fifty bucks, which it ain't. See?
Furthermore, you think some kid in Bangladesh can afford fifty US for a game? rotflmao But you watch, those companies will sell their warez anywhere, even if it means lowering the price. So really, what's it actually worth?
Simple economics of scale. They don't sell many because the price is excessive. Period.
Typical overpaid executives just shoving the blame for their greed and incompetence upon others.
Slashdot Mirror
How about some facts then:
e y2002-pressrelease.htm
According to a new report by the Josephson Institute of Ethics, cheating, stealing and lying by high school students have continued their alarming, decade-long upward spiral. A survey of 12,000 high school students showed that students admitting they cheated on an exam at least once in the past year jumped from 61% in 1992 to 74% in 2002; the number who stole something from a store within the past 12 months rose from 31% to 38%, while the percentage who say they lied to their teachers and parents also increased substantially. (See below for a summary of findings.)
http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/Survey2002/surv
Maybe they're learning something from big business?
By the way, how do you know your not a neo-con. Have you tested yourself?
h tml
Here take the test. Post the results if you dare. By the way, I'm relying on your "honesty".
Are You a Neocon?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.
Just for the record, my test result was "Left-libertarian" but in my own view, I consider myself to be a Rational Anarchist in the R. A. Heinlein style
Actually, in my personal experience, I'd go as far as to say that people are generally far more honest than not.
I believe I addressed this when I said, "Most of those that do, [enjoy stealing] haven't grown up yet."
As for the rhetorical neo-conservative comment, it was simply due to the fact that I often hear conservative minded, and or affluent, people blatantly state that people are innate thieves who will steal if given the opportunity to do so. They often do this to justify increasing penalties, hence the prefix, neo.
It is a factual untrue belief. In fact, people are generally more honest than not.
Duh, first off, nobody really wins when there's a war.
Second off, I don't recall "winning" anything.
Third, it's debatable. Many believe that the USSR was simply an obsolete organization that became irrelevant and costly and was subsequently discarded.
Fourth, what does that have to do with it?
Fifth, you're a republican, aren't you?
However, if it really makes you feel better to be on the winning side of something, why, go for it I always say.
Actually, I was speaking of the US laws, largely since acts like DMCA are at the forefront of the attack on, and explotation of, the public domain.
It is in the United States of America that the DMCA, one of the gravest threats to individual freedoms, was recently passed into law. Doesn't anyone find this incredibly disturbing and ironic?
OMG, not again. It's just I've heard that old invalid argument too many times before. It is simply typical neo-con rhetoric. Let me explain, once more, why.
You are assuming that it costs nothing when a person steals. This is false. Period. Think about it, every time you steal something, do you feel good?
Very, very few people actually "enjoy" stealing. Most of those that do, haven't grown up yet.
It costs to steal. It costs self image, it costs self respect and it cost fear, guilt, time and effort. TANSTAFL.
Therefore, if products were priced "affordably", few would steal. It would simply be cheaper not to. Hence my point that the responsibility for the whole "piracy" issue rests largely with executives who establish the price points for their products. If they weren't gouging us, there'd be little, if any, profit in "piracy". It's greed all right, it's just not all some kid's fault.
Indeed, most of these games are developed by affluent adults seeking money and they are played by kids looking for fun. It's a recipe for "piracy".
By the way, had you considered perhaps that after playing a game, many people simply decide it wouldn't be worth the price to own?
I often won't buy shrunk-wrap unreturnable software because I'm simply unsure that I'll actually get any enjoyment or use out of it. At fifty bucks a pop and up for this stuff, I always really have to agonize as to whether or not to commit. Is this a very good sales experience? Hardly, in fact, I so dislike buying commercial software retail, I rarely, if ever, do so anymore. Like many people, I simply go online, read users reviews and look for a demo version I can use for a month. If I'm still using the software and it's worth the price too me, I don't hesitate to pay.
ps. I liked Q3A enough that even though there's a complete free playable online demo, I own three copies. (Win32 client, server and Loki Linux version). By the way, thanks Carmack, great engines!
"copy protection is a necessary part of the publishing process"
Yah, and remember the dark ages, when only the church could copy? Well if corporations get their way, it'll be dark again soon. Thanks Abbie!
"We have to live with it, and I don't think it is going away."
No Abbie, I don't have to live with it because I never buy copy protected software. Period. Sorry, but it's a religious thing with me.
"but let's face it, publishers aren't stupid"
Yes, yes they are, and evil and greedy too. First off, they corrupt copyright so that it no longer does what the founding fathers intended. Then they use it to abuse the market in order to force consumers to pay excessive prices for poor quality games.
In my humble opinion, piracy is a direct and inevitable outcome strictly due to the lack of fairness in the intellectual property issue.
Corporations have perverted the process and most people are simply taking the most economical route to get what they want
From where I sit, all of this is because companies will not produce products as inexpensively as possible. Indeed, these companies would earn more if they simply lowered the price to a point were far more people could easily afford to buy their products. As it is, most software is simply not affordable unless you are fairly affluent. So yes, they, the software publishers, are stupid, and what's worse, they're incompetent and abusive.
Ontario announces multimillion dollar plan to build precooked fish factory.
Sure, like Steve Jobs can't afford it. Sigh
Oh, by the way, if Apple hadn't gotten greedy and used a proprietary format, this wouldn't even be an issue. So Apple shares some of the responsibility here, even if some people refuse to acknowledge it.
Personally, I'm just so tired of watch big corporations acting in an irresponsible and manipulative fashion. What's even worse, in my opinion, is all of the overly affluent people who rush to justify obvious and abusive corporate behaviour.
Actually, however, in this case it was kinda of worth it just to see two pigs wrestling in the mud. However, it got boring real quick.
I thought competition was a good thing! Oh, and if Apple is such a great company with such great products, why do people feel such a fanatical need to constantly defend them, eh? I say, let Apple stand on it's own reputation, for whatever that's worth.
Actually, I like a lot that Apple does, but there's a lot that I don't like either. For what it's worth, I wouldn't trust either of these two meglomanical corporations to put my needs ahead of thier own, ever. So, I'm certainly not surprised by all this.
My best advice, however, is when two rhinos fight, don't get caught in the middle.
Once again, the threat of litigation is being used to censor information. It was inevitable, since power corrupts.
Google is simply starting down the wide and easy road of excess affluence and absolute corruption. Of course, executives and lawyers are just flocking to the money. If Brin and Page were really smart, they'd be running like hell. I really feel sorry for them.
I just wish we actually had capitalism rather than just a facade masking an non-democratic and evil plutocracy.
proof that money is root of MS
evil lurks in the hearts of men and only MS really knows
power corrupts, and absolute power is MS
This just comes across as another logical fallacy. I never said everyone who doesn't buy is going to "steal" anything. Most people simply do without or seek less expensive alternatives. Therefore, my points in no way validate "piracy". Also, to characterize the unlicensed use of software as piracy or theft is clearly arguable.
Again it appears that you're not addressing the actual issue which is, at what price would TG make the most ROI. Is it to keep the price high and make it difficult to circumvent the process, as they are doing with the watermarks, or, is it to lower the price and therefore increase sales?
My point is that they would generate far greater profits by lowering the price than they will ever see by pursuing a copy protection strategy. Many other companies have gone down this road only to dicover that copy protection is, in the end, both unpopular and unprofitable.
My recommendation. Install both AdAware and Spybot, then install HiJack This:
http://www.spywareinfo.com/~merijn/downloads.html
Problem solved.
Sigh. More right wing rhethoric.
e m.html
If they were paid fairly, they would be able to afford to buy more things. That they can't afford to, hardly means they all must be stealing. Poverty, that's when you don't have things, it's not an indicator that someone is a thief. Oh, except, perhaps, in your mind.
Actually, this was a discussion about why people can't afford to pay, therefore they don't buy. It was never suggested that stealing was therefore justified. You are simply trying to misdirect the argument, rather than address the issue of maximizing the return on an investment by setting an effective price point.
Like so many, you simply either can't, or choose not to, deal with the actual issues that are involved here. Rather, you fall back on erroneous beliefs intended to keep you from having to critically examine your own assumptions. These are the very same assumptions you seem to need to rely on to justify your philosophy. GIGO.
By categorizing piracy as theft, you simply fail to understand the actual issues, which, once again, makes it utterly pointless discussing this any further with you. A closed mind simply cannot take part in an open discussion.
By the way, your use of insults speaks volumes about you. It's a common rhethorical device called "Ad Hominem".
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-homin
IMHO, you obviously didn't bother to either read or consider what I said, did you? Go on, keep on spouting those same old lame neo-con justifications, I'm sure it helps you feel real good about yourself, doesn't it?
BTW, sure, TG is free to set whatever price they like. If most people can't afford it and TG doesn't make as much as they could have, well they're free to do that as well.
In truth, you and TG's management are obviously privileged and it's often difficult for privileged people to appreciate the difficulties faced by those who aren't born into an affluent society.
Furthermore, after looking at your example, I know you can't or won't be able to understand my point, so, therefore, there really isn't any point in discussing it any further is there?
Go on, live an unexamined life, somehow I get the feeling you really couldn't handle it any other way.
BTW, I really feel for you. It's just a real shame you can't appreciate the irony of the situation.
You haven't traveled much I assume? In most places in the world, hardware can be had at prices relative to the local economy.
Picture this, you live in a developing nation, i.e. China, India, etc. You purchase a relatively new computer by saving up one month's wages. Then you visit a US (or other first world website) and they want two months wages for a three month subscription.
How many people are going to buy in, eh?
I'm so tired of overpaid managers overlooking the fact we live in a "global" economy. If you want to sell to a local market, advertise in the local classifieds. If you put up a website, don't be surprised if someone from around the world pays you a visit.
WTF is up with first worlders, are they blind to issues like wage disparity? It's all just self-justification, from my perspective.
produced by underpaid wage slaves ~ sry
Well, if we paid them fairly, they could.
Go on, buy some more overpriced goods produced by underpriced wage slaves. From my perspective, it seems obvious you don't care just so long as you're living high on the hog.
Yes, I know you can't buy it, that's because you're in the mainstream. Personally, I haven't had to buy a book for sometime now. I almost always find what I need on the Web, Usenet or IRC.
The Internet is communication. If a website isn't a revolution in publishing, I doubt that anything would satisfy your definition of revolutionary.
BTW, most e-books are simply way overpriced and often freely available on alt.binaries.e-books or any P2P network.
Publishers aren't really selling you information, they are selling you the vehicle to said information. How can they compete with a free and open medium when they themsevles use a closed, expensive and ineffective one?
Imagine if you could go to O'Reilly's site and for $5 per year, read all their books. You'd be much better informed, they'd have many more readers / subscribers and the cost of serving web pages would still allow for profits. Nope, nothing new here kids, move along. (sigh)
The medium is the message. ~ Marshall McLuhan
Sheesh ... ever wonder why corporations are so top heavy?
Like there's no croynism, nepotism or patronism in corporate America. Oh, and well we're at it, I've never seen a senior executive or manager work as hard as I have, despite earning much more.
I just got tired of watching the good jobs go to my overpaid boss's friends. Tell me that doesn't happen.
The word is "apologist". Don't be one.
Yes, I do understand. However, I feel you actually do not. Yes, there is more than just the cost of the CD, which is why I suggested $5 would be a reasonable price. In fact, I'm not suggesting the publisher should forgo profits, rather, they would generate more profits if the price was lower, but they sold many more copies. They are costing themselves sales and profits and, at the same time, denying many the opportunity to legitimately purchase their products.
As the former owner of a bookstore, I personally watched as high paid executives at publishing houses priced books so high, we actually saw a steady decline in numbers of sales. However, the high prices made it appear, at first, as if the publisher, and the store, were actually making more money. After some time however, the sales fell off to such a point that many publishers were forced to higher cheaper writers and spend less on development. As the quality of the product suffered and the prices remained high, our sales, and profits, fell even further. We discussed this with them many, many times but in the end, I watched them gut their business and mine. The last straw came when they ended up selling all their heavily discounted new and crappy titles on their website for the same prices as they would sell them to me as a retailer, thereby devastating my sales. Thanks Prentice Hall.
I'd also suggest that despite prices being the same or higher, many products, and services, are not as good as they used to be. Mass market, i.e. Que, MSP etc., computer books are a perfect example of this.
Furthermore, in the case of downloads, how much does it actually cost to serve files. Why should I pay software companies the same price I'd pay for a retail package?
Lastly, just where do you think these multimillion dollar salaries come from? Do these executives really contribute that much that they truly deserve such extremely high levels of compensation. I don't think so. In fact, I think they're taking advantage of us.
Why is it when someone shoplifts it's bad, but when someone steals the entire shop, it's ok?
Well, that's the new America, I guess. Personally, I feel like I've been sold down the river.
Actually, yes it is. $60 per year makes it unaffordable to some 93% of the people on this planet. See?
If they lowered the price, many more would buy, many less would "pirate". This whole pirate thing is just such corporate crap. I try software, what I end up using, I eventual buy into, just like most people. If software sold for five bucks, who would bother to "pirate" it. This whole pirate thing is just marketing. They're trying to convince you that a fifty cent CD is worth fifty bucks, which it ain't. See?
Furthermore, you think some kid in Bangladesh can afford fifty US for a game? rotflmao But you watch, those companies will sell their warez anywhere, even if it means lowering the price. So really, what's it actually worth?
Simple economics of scale. They don't sell many because the price is excessive. Period.
Typical overpaid executives just shoving the blame for their greed and incompetence upon others.