unsupportive gamers

So I have been hearing that the used game market is not exactly positive, the practice is stopping money from reaching developers.

Warez of course means no money goes anywhere...

The following is hypothetical, made up, make believe, fictitious, false, the product of an over-active imagination, untrue, and otherwise superfluously and redundantly prefaced and disclaimed... repeatedly, I cannot stress this enough.

Two gamers, both with portables and multiple consoles, playing equally on all of their machines.

One person purchases 90% of their games used and only 10% new, on all systems they use for gaming. Perhaps less than 10% new.

Another person who plays fewer games over all, acquires their pc and DS games less than scrupulously through the internet, however they purchase all of their console games new.

Both of these gamers are on a budget, but are interested in having their money support the creation of new videogames.

Who is doing better right now, how could both of these gamers do better in supporting the video game industry.

I think it's time game developers start supporting themselves.

Gaming industry is one of the industry that is supported by their fans heavily. Just look at what fanboys do.

PC game was largely built on fan mods, console games are largely built on player community, etc.

Gamers are supporting gaming industry plenty. It's the company's turn now.

Eh, it's not that simple. Used games and piracy shouldn't be major issues. Some people will use other industries to validate the purchase of second-hand products and pirated products, but I believe that this isn't a cogent comparison to make. There is little relationship between the music industry in the 70's and the video game, music, and film (entertainment) industries of the present. It's a complex issue, because so many gamers feel as if advertising is an affront to the medium; if publishers and developers had more license to pursue advertising revenue, neither used games sales or piracy would be of concern in the developed world (the issue is entirely different in, say, Brazil or Iran).

The only viable solution that ensures that used game sales remain available and that pirates remain relatively safe is in-game advertising, online distributions such as Steam, and paid services like Xbox Live.The nature of the industry is changing, and advertising needs to become an option for publishers if the mercurial growth is to continue. Likewise, used game sales are more harmful for the industry as a whole; the only positive consequence is growth for specific retailers, not the industry. Regardless of what the board of directors for Gamestop says, they are not a legitimate part of the video game industry; they are a retailer that can be replaced with little negative impact for the industry. Even so, I like Gamestop. I also don't mind piracy. Piracy in and of itself has become a vilified "bogeyman" in the various entertainment industries; in our industry specifically, over 60% of piracy either occurs in developing nations (in which the standards of the developed world are inadequate), or concerns titles for "legacy" platforms. While the issue of PC gaming piracy is certainly another issue that needs to be addressed, it does not lend much credence to a similar position on console-related piracy. Furthermore, piracy on the DS and PC platforms are exaggerated by various businessmen, pundits, and journalists in the industry. Even with the relative ease of PC and DS piracy (compared to, say, PS2 piracy), it's existence in the three major markets is marginal.

So which one has negatively affected the industry more? Neither of them, but if you held a gun to my head and made me choose, I would say the used video game gamer. For the record, I am an avid used video game gamer.

Meh I don't care if some people don't like it if I rent games. Some developers I just choose not to support or I don't think a game is worth the price, so I rent those games instead of buying them. Sue me. :P

I think it's time game developers start supporting themselves.

Gaming industry is one of the industry that is supported by their fans heavily. Just look at what fanboys do.

PC game was largely built on fan mods, console games are largely built on player community, etc.

Gamers are supporting gaming industry plenty. It's the company's turn now.

TriangleHard

How would that work? Don't the developers make money off the sales of their games? What are they supposed to do? Stop paying their employees?

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

I think it's time game developers start supporting themselves.

Gaming industry is one of the industry that is supported by their fans heavily. Just look at what fanboys do.

PC game was largely built on fan mods, console games are largely built on player community, etc.

Gamers are supporting gaming industry plenty. It's the company's turn now.

How would that work? Don't the developers make money off the sales of their games? What are they supposed to do? Stop paying their employees?

YourChaosIsntMe: a very thoughtful reply. I agree that DLC and supply methods like those pioneered by steam, and others are posed to address money flow problems. I do not want to see advertizing that is not appropriate in context. that is i do not want advertisements that brake continuity. it would be okay with me if along with the "Axbro Cleaner" in Fallout 3 came Tide and Ajax...

While not all videogames are artistically made, i believe that many game aspire to be a realization that captures something significant in the human experience and is undeniably art.

that said, i appreciate a culture that shuns compromises for advertisements, and facilitates insdustry standards that in some small ways ease of creation of art

I dissagree with whoever said that used sales are positive because gamers who sell games may in turn buy new games. in my mind the determining factor for used game gamers is whether a copy is availiable used. so in the model the gamer who buys 10% or less games new, only buys the game new when he picks them up at launch.

well I don't see a problem with renting you know not all games are worth $50-$60 yet worth playing for a bit so go rent the game.Stange13

Really only 10% of games purchased are new? Is this something you made up to make a point or is this a real figure. I would say I purchase around 50% each, with popular titles you are only saving at best $10 used. To me this isnt worth it i would much rather splurge for the new title without having to worry about a possible return or missing manual or something along those lines. I just dont fell that 10% can be accurate.Stange13

I do not want to see advertizing that is not appropriate in context. that is i do not want advertisements that brake continuity. it would be okay with me if along with the "Axbro Cleaner" in Fallout 3 came Tide and Ajax...While not all videogames are artistically made, i believe that many game aspire to be a realization that captures something significant in the human experience and is undeniably artganjalo

Your example of Fallout is what I imagine for in-game advertising in highly commercial non-sports titles. Metal Gear is also another franchise that can adapt to in-game advertising (oh...wait...). Hideo Kojima's work is undeniably art, and rather than simply advertising a product, he has integrated it into his art, which was simply ingenious. Themes which utilize a real world construct could easily use advertising to immerse players further in the experience, whether it be a Coca Cola sign in Arabic in the next CoD, or your example of cleaning products.

Even though if used games market is harming the industry?? Is there any argument to say its illegal??? For example, if I buy a new game, I already paid its price, so that means its MINE now, I can do whatever I want, I can play it periodically, smash it, lend it, burn it, put it in the closet and never play it. So why do they think they (developers, or anyone for that matter) have the right to tell me what to and/or what not to do with my property??? Besides, if I sell it, im giving it up, I mean, I wont be having it anymore to play it the times I want. So I dont see any "injustice" here either.

Even though if used games market is harming the industry?? Is there any argument to say its illegal??? For example, if I buy a new game, I already paid its price, so that means its MINE now, I can do whatever I want, I can play it periodically, smash it, lend it, burn it, put it in the closet and never play it. So why do they think they (developers, or anyone for that matter) have the right to tell me what to and/or what not to do with my property??? Besides, if I sell it, im giving it up, I mean, I wont be having it anymore to play it the times I want. So I dont see any "injustice" here either.

Freezing_Knight

If all used games sales happened in pawn shops (which are not chain retailsers) i doubt this would have the same potential to affect the industry, if only because pawnshops are seedy and little kids are not allowed in.

Don't buy used cars- that'll get the auto industry on the right foot:roll: . If there is a game I really like or think I'll like I will buy it new, but I'd be damned if I spend $60 on a game like Blacksite Area 51. Really most games aren't worth the money, and most likely the only developers who are complaining are the ones who continues to put out garbage games.

[QUOTE="ganjalo"][QUOTE="Joshy485"]I support game developers if the game is good. otherwise I just buy used.muthsera666

Arguing this poinnt suggests that should one purchase a used game and find it to be a "good game" they would then return that used copy to purchase it new. i don't think any of us believe this is a realistic scenario

When i think of what makes a good game a lot of attributes come to mind and a good game could have many different permutations of these qualities... but the words "fun" and "diverting" are kind of deal-breakers. at least "fun" is. i guess i "diverting" is just not a quality I seek out in games, more like what i look for in a screensaver. and if a game is fun AND diverting, surely isn't that a good game? Diverting... so a new game is a movie you buy a ticket to, and a used game is a street performer you give some spare change? idk, i am being a jerk about it i guess... but i would be willing to bet that most people have thought of their used games as good games, independently of acknowledging that they were purchased used. ganjalo

Think of it this way. Look at the number of games I have. 120+. If I paid full price for them, I would be out thousands. As it is, the average cost for each on eis around $8. I haven't encountered any games that I have gotten $50 worth of fun out of, other than perhaps Morrowind.

Think of it this way. Look at the number of games I have. 120+. If I paid full price for them, I would be out thousands. As it is, the average cost for each on eis around $8. I haven't encountered any games that I have gotten $50 worth of fun out of, other than perhaps Morrowind.

muthsera666

I am not condemning you for buying used games, do what you have to when you are on a budget. some people even shop at walmart :P i am just interested in how the practice has been justified, and why people feel it needs to be justified.

Yep Muthsera666 is right about that. Honestly I have been gaming for age, have around +500 of games at moment, few games turn out to be worth the full price...well at least in this gen they don't, previous gen prices use to be a little more decent and most of the games use to be worth replay.stike22

so if you are acknowledging that many of your +500 games are not winners, and that buying them used prevents developers from earning money, and developers cheeping out on games produces loser titles... where do we go from here?

Imagine a person who is an avid movie goer. they see everything in the theater, but they always go with their friend who buys a ticket and then lets them in through the fire exit. but you know, most movies suck now days anyways. if you are not going to acquire something in the most responsible way, just acknowledge that it is the best choice for you, dont simply denounce the very product you were so eager to get. would it be more responsible for us to all eat organic locally grown tomatoes? yes. because this is not an option for all of us do we simply argue that tomatoes arent that good anyways?

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]

Think of it this way. Look at the number of games I have. 120+. If I paid full price for them, I would be out thousands. As it is, the average cost for each on eis around $8. I haven't encountered any games that I have gotten $50 worth of fun out of, other than perhaps Morrowind.

ganjalo

I am not condemning you for buying used games, do what you have to when you are on a budget. some people even shop at walmart :P i am just interested in how the practice has been justified, and why people feel it needs to be justified.

so are you not researching your games? or are you not taking advantage of the demo features of the xbox and PS3? what compels you to acquire so many games? do you play them all? counting back to my NES days but excluding portables, i think i have only had ~200 in all...

so if you are acknowledging that many of your +500 games are not winners, and that buying them used prevents developers from earning money, and developers cheeping out on games produces loser titles... where do we go from here?

Imagine a person who is an avid movie goer. they see everything in the theater, but they always go with their friend who buys a ticket and then lets them in through the fire exit. but you know, most movies suck now days anyways. if you are not going to acquire something in the most responsible way, just acknowledge that it is the best choice for you, dont simply denounce the very product you were so eager to get. would it be more responsible for us to all eat organic locally grown tomatoes? yes. because this is not an option for all of us do we simply argue that tomatoes arent that good anyways?

ganjalo

1. I research most of my games, but generally I like anything that gets above a 5 on GameSpot.

2. I don't have a 360 or a PS3, and even if I did, I don't have broadband access (other than college computer LAN which doesn't like consoles).

3. I have every intention to play all of my games, and I have played most of them to so degree. It's the same reason I own thousands of books.

4. I don't understand your where do we go from here question.

5. Well, letting someone into the movie without paying for it would be stealing. Buying a product bought from the original vendor through another vendor is called the market.

6. Saying that some games are worth $60 is not denouncing them, merely stating that there haven't been many games that have been worth that much to me.

7. Why would it be more responsible to eat locally grown tomatos? Don't those who are exporting them need to eat as well as us?

[QUOTE="ganjalo"]

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]

Think of it this way. Look at the number of games I have. 120+. If I paid full price for them, I would be out thousands. As it is, the average cost for each on eis around $8. I haven't encountered any games that I have gotten $50 worth of fun out of, other than perhaps Morrowind.

muthsera666

I am not condemning you for buying used games, do what you have to when you are on a budget. some people even shop at walmart :P i am just interested in how the practice has been justified, and why people feel it needs to be justified.

So 20hrs of entertainment is worth about as much as 7 candy bars?ganjalo

1. I research most of my games, but generally I like anything that gets above a 5 on GameSpot.

2. I don't have a 360 or a PS3, and even if I did, I don't have broadband access (other than college computer LAN which doesn't like consoles).

3. I have every intention to play all of my games, and I have played most of them to so degree. It's the same reason I own thousands of books.

4. I don't understand your where do we go from here question.

5. Well, letting someone into the movie without paying for it would be stealing. Buying a product bought from the original vendor through another vendor is called the market.

6. Saying that some games are worth $60 is not denouncing them, merely stating that there haven't been many games that have been worth that much to me.

7. Why would it be more responsible to eat locally grown tomatos? Don't those who are exporting them need to eat as well as us?

muthsera666

1. I find in general that games scoring 7.5 are barely tolerable to and the majority of games i play through to the end score 9 or above. but that is just me.

4. as i stated in my response to another person, i am interested in where ever this conversation goes. the OP was about used games vs warez and instead of attacking warez people have jumped to defend used tames.

5. it is not a perfect analogy but surely you can see how this practice in some ways illustrates a situation where creative talents are not getting compensated as a result of consumer practices.

6. you are entitled to that opinion.

7. wow, where do i begin? I'll do the second part first and the first part last. Imported produce usually has to do with food that is out of season, so that is really not part of the equation though i question the economic and social reprecussions in the us and forign countries where industrialized farms have replaced local busineses, and even whole economies. that issue aside supporting local agriculture and local buisineses is responsibile becuase though many cannot offer the same prices as large scale producers, supporting local buisinesses keeps your money in your community. I do not know wher you live, but no matter where that is i am sure that it would/has negatively effected you if your community becomes economically depressed. if local buisenesses flurish then then property values go up. in general supporting local buisenesses is investing in your own quality of life. this is all not to mention the fact that locally grown food is picked ripe instead of ripening in transport, and has a lot more flavor.

videogame companies pull in millions of dollars in profit every year. i think they are well enough supported. the only game developers that suffer are the ones who make bad games. and well if your gonna charge me $60 for a pile of junk game then i think you should go out of business.

[QUOTE="ganjalo"]So 20hrs of entertainment is worth about as much as 7 candy bars?muthsera666

do you not buy them because you do not like them, or because they are not worth it, becuase is seems you feel both these ways about at least some of your games.

okay... 7 tacos, or 7 greeting cards, or 7 packs of gum, or 7 travel sized packs of tissue, or 7 cans beans, or 7 12 packs of no.2 pencils, or 7 any of a hundred different things that cost $1

7. wow, where do i begin? I'll do the second part first and the first part last. Imported produce usually has to do with food that is out of season, so that is really not part of the equation though i question the economic and social reprecussions in the us and forign countries where industrialized farms have replaced local busineses, and even whole economies. that issue aside supporting local agriculture and local buisineses is responsibile becuase though many cannot offer the same prices as large scale producers, supporting local buisinesses keeps your money in your community. I do not know wher you live, but no matter where that is i am sure that it would/has negatively effected you if your community becomes economically depressed. if local buisenesses flurish then then property values go up. in general supporting local buisenesses is investing in your own quality of life. this is all not to mention the fact that locally grown food is picked ripe instead of ripening in transport, and has a lot more flavor.

ganjalo

Anyway, I think you're expecting too much from this thread.

[QUOTE="ganjalo"]7. wow, where do i begin? I'll do the second part first and the first part last. Imported produce usually has to do with food that is out of season, so that is really not part of the equation though i question the economic and social reprecussions in the us and forign countries where industrialized farms have replaced local busineses, and even whole economies. that issue aside supporting local agriculture and local buisineses is responsibile becuase though many cannot offer the same prices as large scale producers, supporting local buisinesses keeps your money in your community. I do not know wher you live, but no matter where that is i am sure that it would/has negatively effected you if your community becomes economically depressed. if local buisenesses flurish then then property values go up. in general supporting local buisenesses is investing in your own quality of life. this is all not to mention the fact that locally grown food is picked ripe instead of ripening in transport, and has a lot more flavor.

YourChaosIsntMe

Anyway, I think you're expecting too much from this thread.

ganjalo

My concern is not for those who are being harmed now, it is for their children, and their children's children. Those who are being harmed are inevitably in a very stressful situation, but life isn't fair. The quality of life for rural America will continue to degrade until rural America accepts big business - Wal-Mart and ConAgra. Individuals in developing and under-developed nations that have eschewed isolationism have enjoyed an increase in their quality life, though negative consequences still exist. An example of a negative consequence, ironically, are those Amazon natives that once farmed the Amazon basin whom are now being forced off their land by subsidiaries of ConAgra. This consequence is both sociological and environmental, as those natives once used sustainable cultivation methods, while the new farmers, unfettered by typical regulations that exist in developed nations, are using slash-and-burn tactics which decimate the arable land. High yield in the short-term, destructive in the long-term.

In essence, the best solution is for private farms to become subsidiaries of multinational agribusiness firms, retain the majority of their workforce, continue to use sustainable cultivation methods, and embrace the nature of importing and exporting products (which goes without saying for a subsidiary of a major firm). In general, for any industry that you can think of, the idea of "buy local" or "buy U.S." does not make economic sense, and only makes sociological sense for the small minority, and only in the short-term.

[QUOTE="ganjalo"]YourChaosIsntMe

My concern is not for those who are being harmed now, it is for their children, and their children's children. Those who are being harmed are inevitably in a very stressful situation, but life isn't fair. The quality of life for rural America will continue to degrade until rural America accepts big business - Wal-Mart and ConAgra. Individuals in developing and under-developed nations that have eschewed isolationism have enjoyed an increase in their quality life, though negative consequences still exist. An example of a negative consequence, ironically, are those Amazon natives that once farmed the Amazon basin whom are now being forced off their land by subsidiaries of ConAgra. This consequence is both sociological and environmental, as those natives once used sustainable cultivation methods, while the new farmers, unfettered by typical regulations that exist in developed nations, are using slash-and-burn tactics which decimate the arable land. High yield in the short-term, destructive in the long-term.

In essence, the best solution is for private farms to become subsidiaries of multinational agribusiness firms, retain the majority of their workforce, continue to use sustainable cultivation methods, and embrace the nature of importing and exporting products (which goes without saying for a subsidiary of a major firm). In general, for any industry that you can think of, the idea of "buy local" or "buy U.S." does not make economic sense, and only makes sociological sense for the small minority, and only in the short-term.

ganjalo

First, your information on ConAgra is skewed by over-zealous rhetoric and propaganda. They support local communities simply by acquiring privately owned farms. Again, they offer competitive wages, which exceed the base pay for privately owned farms. These employees go home and spend their income, often spending it at locally-owned businesses. Explain, in general terms, how you make a distinction between the effects of Blockbuster vs. Mom and Pop, ConAgra vs Mom and Pop, and Alde vs Mom and Pop. The employment opportunities still exist. Based upon your premises, I'm supposed to be concerned because a private business owner is now making 60,000 a year as management instead of, say, 150,000 a year (considering operating costs, etc). This benefits society at large; a few thousand disgruntled middle Americans be damned. You could argue against the mechanization of the agriculture industry, but then you would be arguing against competitiveness in the global market, even private owners must do this (and thus lay off employees).

Now you're going down a slippery-slope. This sentence, "are you arguing against providing quality educations in rural communities," confuses me. I think you misunderstood me. I was simply stating that in other developed nations, the agriculture industry is not considered to be as important nationally or locally as it is in the U.S. Few developed nations produce as much of their own produce as we do. It seems as if you interpreted my statement as a values-based opinion, and responded in kind. I was not commentating on the level of intelligence in rural communities, a right to education, or the existence of some skill or trade. It is an inarguable fact that during industrialization and post-industrialization, the agriculture industry becomes less relevant as the society becomes urban. America is different, of course. Agriculture is still relevant, and instead of simply urbanizing, we've also created suburban sprawl - as have many other countries.

There is literally no major benefit to "local production" for anyone (other than individuals who once owned farms, retail stores, etc). Alas, most private farms export their produce overseas, or at least a portion of it, because of the exchange rate (which is fostering an increased demand for U.S. products in foreign markets). Again, the concepts of "main street" and "locally grown" are mere hyperbole; an emotional appeal. Ideas that aren't necessarily legitimate, but become legitimate through misinformed opinions, political posturing, and the nature of human culture. Most people in the Midwest that disavow "big business" do so on vague moral principles. The negative consequences are often exaggerated and are sometimes completely fictitious, at least in the context of the Midwest U.S.

I had more...a lot more, actually, but I've already rambled enough (I could have written an entire research paper with that what I've written in this thread, hahahaha). In closing, keep in mind that this is not "utopic" in any way. A utopian idea implies impossibility. Our economic system benefits many, many, many people. The issue is progress. How to incorporate those who feel they have been or have been marginalized by globalization? How do we make NAFTA work without marginalizing Mexicans, Canadians, and Americans? How do we compel China to reconsider it's import tariffs? The simple fact is that as circumstances and factors change, so too do the solutions. Continually arguing for the old model, the anachronistic model, is not an option for anyone but those who are emotionally involved. My primary interest has always been the well-being of other people. It is why I was an Anarchist, and why I am now majoring in Economics. Solutions don't come from sloganeering or protests, they come from actively participating - and hopefully ending up with a Washington "think tank," WTO, or IMF, contributing to the development of new policies to augment the developing model - the model that has been developing since the arrival of the Dutch East India Tea Company hundreds of years ago. You mistake rational objectivity with callous indifference.

Consider this in light of your statement about "..less harm to the people of the world." What would occur if economies, as a whole, began to operate on a national level. What then for the billions of people on this planet that rely on American, Canadian, European, Chinese, and Japanese firms for their income and their quality of life? Something that many people don't yet understand, in part because of how society operates and the judgments and assumptions that people make (and their general refusal to adopt new ideas rapidly), is that humane globalized capitalism is not only a viable option, but the only option in the long term.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="ganjalo"]So 20hrs of entertainment is worth about as much as 7 candy bars?ganjalo

do you not buy them because you do not like them, or because they are not worth it, becuase is seems you feel both these ways about at least some of your games.

okay... 7 tacos, or 7 greeting cards, or 7 packs of gum, or 7 travel sized packs of tissue, or 7 cans beans, or 7 12 packs of no.2 pencils, or 7 any of a hundred different things that cost $1

So, your question is that if I'm willing to pay $7 for an item necessary for my survival, I should be willing to pay more for a video game? That doesn't make any sense.

Im confused here...Am I getting this straight across that the gaming industry hate us buyers renting games?

If it is then they can go get to-but I will do what I want. They should start supoorting themselves!Developers

cant always rely on the fans to give them their bargain. They need to be supportive toward themselves as well

as again refering to the renting onf the games that have to be checked by the game developers for permission.

YourChaosIsntMe

So it sounds like you have gone through some major identity changes since you were 16, I guess that you are still feeling conflicted with some of the changes based on your bringing up so many issues that I never even said a word about like national economies, mechanical combine harvesting and such. "Utopia" actually means "nowhere," not "impossible." When I said Utopic I was not implying that your ideal global economy was impossible, but that it does not exist and that the path we are on is not the right choice towards achieving those ideals.

Suburban Sprawl is actually rooted in WWII when GIs, black and white, returned from the war and had considerable amounts of money which they did not have available before thanks to their war time salaries and conservation at home during the war effort. Black people started moving to nicer neighborhoods and white people started moving out of those neighborhoods. The result is greater populations living closer to rural areas and commuting to urban areas for work. This practice has had at least as many negative impacts as it has had positives. This did not come to be as a compromise between agricultural and urban communities

I do not believe you completed your thought about the slippery slope. From Wikipedia: "In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] In broader, especially recent, pragmatic usage, the term slippery slope argument alternately refers to a non-fallacious argument that such undesirable events are rendered more probable. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B." You did not say what the first decision was or in what direction the following decisions would lead. It is not important anyways because the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It is unreasonable to suggest that because we make one choice today we must inevitably make another choice tomorrow. If it were true then we wouldn't really have a 'choice' tomorrow, would we?

I am done. I was done the moment you suggested that we might "hope" to have an interest like the WTO. WTO, WTF! I am guessing you did not like The Yes Men? One last bit about Conagra though:

ConAgra

My information on conagra is skewed? The only thing I said was that they are an evil faceless company. How were you able to interpret the information that my opinion was based on?

The negative effects of large scale agribusiness are in no way fictitious, especially concerning those using GMO's like Conagra and Monsanto. You do not have to look far to find that GMOs are not bad simply because they are modified with terminator genes which could destroy all life on the planet (Cross pollination could spread the terminator gene to other plants which would die off and possibly collapse a vital part of the ecosystem causing other areas to be effected to the extent that the ecosystem cannot recover). One of the worst things about these companies is that they are irresponsible with their products, allowing them to cross pollinate with other farms and then accusing those other farms of stealing their patented crops, forcing them to destroy seed reserves and to sell their farms.

You cannot say that Conagra invests in communities by buying privately owned farms. What do those communities do when that money runs out?

"I'm supposed to be concerned because a private business owner is now making 60,000 a year as management instead of, say, 150,000 a year?" in short YES!

The following is copied directly from Conagra's Wikipedia page:

Environmental issues

ConAgra has been criticized for its lack of response to global warming. A 2006 report by CERES, a non-profit organization that works to address global climate change and other sustainability issues, titled "Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection," measures how 100 leading global companies are responding to global warming. Companies in the report were evaluated on a 0 to 100 scale. ConAgra scored a total of 4 points, the lowest of any of the food companies rated.[3]
In 2003-2004, ConAgra participated in a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency voluntary investigation and clean-up program. Through the program, the company cleaned up a property previously used for lithium ore processing and constructed a new 80,000-square-foot (7,000 m2) office/warehouse building.[4]

[edit] Labor issues

In May 2003, ConAgra and its subsidiary Gilroy Foods agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle charges of hiring discrimination brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charges involved a July 1999 Teamsters strike at a plant in King City, CA, then owned by Basic Vegetable Products LP but later purchased by ConAgra. In August 2001, the company successfully negotiated with the union to end the two-year strike with a new contract that would recall workers based on seniority. However, the recall process excluded workers who were on leave at the time of the purchase including those out due to work injury or pregnancy. Others were denied jobs due to a history of previous injury or illness, despite their having no restrictions on returning to work. According to the EEOC, most of the 39 workers who were excluded from the recall process had been working at the plant for 10 to 30 years and were primarily Hispanic and female.[5]
The company's Greeley, Colorado, plant had been cited almost 10 times from 1999 to 2002 for violating worker safety.[6]

[edit] Health issues

In 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture halted operations at two ConAgra plants because of health violations. The company was threatened with shutdowns at least a half dozen more times.[citation needed] The ConAgra facility in Longmont, Colorado, had the highest rate of salmonella among all the turkey processors tested by the Department during 2001. Nearly half of the turkeys processed at ConAgra's Longmont, Colorado, facility were contaminated with harmful Salmonella bacteria, compared with a rate of 13 percent for the industry at large according to the activist group Center for Science in the Public Interest.[7]

[edit] Ethical issues

In 1997, ConAgra pled guilty to federal criminal charges that its Peavey Grain unit illegally sprayed water on stored grain to increase its weight and value and also bribed Federal inspectors. The company agreed to pay $8.3 million to resolve the charges, which included a $4.4 million criminal fine, $3.45 million as compensation for illegal profits and $450,000 to reimburse the U.S. Department of Agriculture for storage and investigation expenses. ConAgra had also paid $2 million to settle a related civil case filed by a group of Indiana farmers.[8]
ConAgra was responsible for the demolition of one of the largest sites on the National Registrar of Historic Places when it destroyed over 20 historic structures in "Jobbers Canyon," a 19th century warehouse district along the banks of the Missouri River in Downtown Omaha, Nebraska. The demolition was performed to make room for a sprawling new corporate campus, and prompted protests and lawsuits from historic preservationists. Charles Harper, the chief executive of ConAgra at the time, described the structures as "some big, ugly red brick buildings." The National Trust for Historic Preservation asked that the historic legacy of a city and region not be held hostage to the narrow corporate preferences of a single commercial enterprise. But ConAgra refused to reconsider. The Jobbers Canyon district was adjacent to another historic district, "The Old Market," which has proved to be an important center of cultural, tourist, and residential development in Omaha.
Multinational Monitor, a corporate watchdog organization, named ConAgra one of the 'Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s'.[9]

[edit] Genetically-modified food

In 2002, ConAgra, together with other major food and beverage companies including PepsiCo, General Mills, Kelloggs, Sara Lee, and H.J. Heinz Co., spent heavily to defeat Oregon's measure 27, which would have required food companies to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients.[10] According to the Oregon Secretary of State, ConAgra contributed $71,000 to the campaign to defeat the ballot initiative.[11]

lets have future posts on this thread relate only to the OP (assuming we have not choked the thread to death already), if you wish to debate this further you can PM me.

ganjalo

First and foremost, let's face it: this thread has ended. I do understand your wish for it to continue on the original topic, and will try to keep my response relatively short so this may happen. As to the idea of a private message, the possibility of placating you ended when you remained hostile, arrogant, and condescending. Likewise, do you think it fair to act in such a manner while repeating previous insults, and then demand a private response? Your behaviour isn't very endearing, to say the least. The irony of your disposition is that the validity of your opinions is almost exclusively contingent on my being "immature." So, before any formal response, I beg the question: do you associate hostility, arrogance, and near-plaigiarism with maturity?

First, I'll address the constant theme of maturity. Your judgment that I am necessarily immature or "juvenile" is based upon value judgments, primarily. While this may also be your method of gaining the upper-hand, I like to believe that's not true. If it is, then your opinion has no validity at all. But, I will assume that it isn't. Your conclusion that I am somehow immature is entirely informed by the assumption that your opinion is inherently correct, when you've offered little more than token gestures and catchphrases in relation to our original disagreement or the successive disagreements (I'll get to your ConAgra statistics in a second). You also consider and criticize what appears to you as disparate and irrelevant information. Why bring up the national economy? Why bring up the mechanization of agriculture techniques? Because everything is interrelated. This is all relevant. Agribusiness has a major impact on the national and global economy, as does the business model which is dominant. What you vaguely posit on a large scale would effectively minimize agricultural productivity (in terms of yield and profits) by at least 15%, if not more. Discussions cannot be as linear as you seem to want them to be. I bring up those topics because they are directly or indirectly related to the main topic. Furthermore, this issue of identity crisis that you refer to, did you not pay attention when I told you that I'm going to declare a minor in Psychology? Did you really believe that it wouldn't be blatantly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about? Everything I referred to about my 16 year-old personality was supposed to be taken as emphasis of my criticisms for the anti-globalization and anti-multinational agribusiness movement. Those ideologies, movements, and organization are all related. This same logic also applies to the "irrelevant" topics that I referred to. How you relate "he's bringing secondary related topics into the discussion" with "he's going through an identity crisis." Since you seem to know so much about ethical theory and logic, I'm sure you know what a hasty generalization is. If you don't, I'm sure Wikipedia does.

Why did you have to go and play semantics? I really suggest that you stop relying on the dictionary and Wikipedia for your information.You offer a very rigid and linear definition of utopia directly out of a dictionary, which is inarguably correct to be sure, but such rigidity belies the nature of philosophy, ethics, and most of the other social sciences. Utopia is a novel by Thomas Moore. The term itself is taken from this novel, and largely defined by this novel. In it, Moore himself implies the impossibility of utopia. Moore enjoyed what we could generally call "word games." An example that comes to mind is his use of anywhere and nowhere, and the inevitable relationship these have with possible and impossible. Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that cultural circumstances have implications on this subject. While Dictionary.com, Oxford's, or Wikipedia will give you the information that you stated, to understand and actively discuss the concept and it's definition, you need to be more privy to philosophical discourse; many modernist and existentialist philosophers would define utopia as impossible, among other things. Sartre implies this in his The Age of Reason. Again, your conclusion of this paragraph is a value-based judgment. While I appreciate your rationality here, your conclusion is still your opinion, with no valid basis in fact. How do I know this? I've read all of the skewed facts and statistics, the information taken out of context, and by my own admission, some valid information. Remember, such change is gradual. Well...it wasn't short. Surprise!

You're absolutely correct on the topic of suburban sprawl. At the same time, I didn't make a correlation between suburban sprawl and some type of compromise. Some of the things you state are certainly generalizations, but it's technically correct. I apologize for bringing it up, because it seems like my use of it confused you; it was simply used to emphasis the rapidity of urbanization.

On to the concept of the slippery slope. Wikipedia certainly explains it in it's entirety (in simplistic terms), it does not express the scope of the concept. Again, we're on the topic of the linearity of Wikipedia. This is inevitable due to the nature of Wikipedia. Only the definition or explanation of a subject which is accepted by close to 100% of people will be permitted to remain on Wikipedia. Like the concept of "utopia," Wikipedia is simply inadequate as a source of conclusive information (though it certainly helps for a somewhat in-depth overview). Your slippery slope is the the one which all anti-globalization/anti-multinational business activists fall victim to (the consequential effect of corporate agribusiness). A slippery slope does not necessarily require a small "first step" and increasingly larger successive "steps." Nor does it necessarily require action, or any verb at all on the part of an individual or group of individuals. Finally, and I quote (you), "it is not important anyway because the slippery slope is a logical fallacy." Yes, you're right; it is a major concept in logic that belongs to the group of logical fallacies.The slippery slope is true when an individual or individuals commit this specific fallacy. They are said to have argued fallaciously utilizing a slippery slope fallacy. Of course, a slipper slope can be correct, provided each step in the process is validated and deemed correct. The use of said fallacy requires that a conclusion is made based on the assumption that "....necessarily follows _____." Not to sound snide, but it helps when you learn about ethics, logic, etc. from people with doctorates rather than Wikipedia and disparate and/or sporadic individual research. Because of your statement which I quoted and the last four sentences in the paragraph (everything not from Wikipedia), it is clear to me that you have no formal knowledge on logical fallacies (nor did you fully understand it in your Wikipedia research).

The Yes Men are an interesting agitation propaganda-performance art-direct action act. While it is interesting and the concept amusing, it is also trite and banal; it is commentary on the obvious. Furthermore, there's nothing new about agitation propaganda and subversive activism. Chumbawamba were doing it in 1979, and Alexander Berkman was doing it in late 19th century, though The Yes Men were certainly more inventive (with the exception of Duchamp, obviously). In fact, your reference to The Yes Men says more about you than anything else you have said. It actually clarifies why you're so hostile, arrogant, and morally superior. To actually respect such activism necessitates a linear perspective. It requires that your perception of the world be in relative absolutes. While I can't make a conclusive generalization about your character, it certainly provides me with some insight.

Now, ConAgra. I'll try to paraphrase my responses, because you said a lot here (sic). I know what information your opinion is based on (and if your opinion is based on biased primarily uncited Wikipedia pages then...), because I shared many of your views of ConAgra between 1999 and 2005. I read the information in zines, periodicals, record liner notes, and open public records What makes your (general) position skewed is the way in which you and others who share the same or similar views misinterpret statistics (to understand the statistics you quoted, you need to compare and contrast with what we could call the "business standard"). Sometimes, you (and others) go as far as believing and espousing information that is no longer valid or is rendered void due to business reform and/or federal regulation reform. You specifically don't seem to place your examples from Wikipedia into context when you consider them. Likewise, the conclusion that you come to about ConAgra is values-based. It needs to be clear that while I make a generalization, it is only meant to imply that people, regardless of their ideology, tend to come to conclusions and develop ideas based upon their subjective values and morals, experiences, self-interested interpretation of statistics, and assumptions, whether they be anti-globalization anarchists or right-wing neocons. I'll approach these statistics one by one, and attempt to address each in two sentences or less. Environmental issues - One of the largest agribusiness firms is not carbon-efficient, duh. Oh, don't forget about the inconclusive nature of research concerning the net human effect on global warming vs environment factors...and...wait...the CERES report? Hahahahaha; when you research this, don't forget that Wikipedia is governed by popular opinion, not institutes, universities, and regulatory bodies. Don't forget one last thing: in terms of increased expenditures business tends to follows government. Labor issues: Oh my God, they laid some people off. You know what I love? Socialism and trade unionism. Mhmm. Some of the examples ConAgra should be criticized for, but a corporate entity (or individual) can never adhere to ethical and/or moral standards 100% of the time. Sorry. Health issues: There was a Salmonella outbreak you say? Dear lord, because that doesn't happen to at least four companies globally at least once a year. Oh look! The plants were nearly shut down half a dozen times. Citations needed? Hmmm, dubious. Wait, a citation...wait...WAIT A MINUTE....The Activist Group Center for Science in The Public Interest. You know crap like that is about as objective as Christian Science, right? Ethical Issues: Again, no one person or entity can abide by ethical or moral standards 100% of the time (especially not moral standards). While many, many, many firms (including ConAgra) have disregarded ethical standards throughout history, the rate at which this occurs is becoming minimal, because it is becoming more taboo in Western culture. Wait...an historic building? Oh no. Wait...Multinational Monitor...a corporate watchdog group? I smell shenanigans on this Wikipedia page! Genetically modified food? This is where you come off worst. Only selfish, arrogant, self-righteous, ignorant pseudo-intellectuals prostest against genetically modified food. It's so wrong dude. Well, tell that to the billions of people living below the poverty line that couldn't afford basic food staples if it weren't for the advancements in biology and chemistry (and the application of) that makes genetically modified food possible.

Keep in mind that I didn't cite anything, and I didn't quote anything. The point remains, multinational agribusiness is not inherently bad (nor is it inherently good), and the local-only and anti-globalization movement is full of a bunch of True Believer wingnuts. This is so a journal entry and a response. Yes, I save my better discussion post rambles in my journal. If you read it all, cool. If not, I don't really care. I compose these essays and ad hoc rambles for myself just as much as I do to elicit a response from others. Take it as you will. I'm done though man. I've got a research paper to write tomorrow. Too bad I can't ramble like this on that one...I'd get it done in a jiff.