Holy
this is the dumbest argument I've ever seen in this thread...and for the people who've been here for a while you know that's pretty impressive. So here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to take this so seriously that nobody will have any choice but to stop and realize how stupid this all is. Just throw up a massive wall of text dissecting as much of this as I can until I get bored. Here we go.
As far as I can tell, the argument for why it is better to open games goes as follows:
1. Games are more enjoyable when opened
2. If games are more enjoyable when opened, then it is better to open them
Therefore, it is better to open your games
I'm trying to be as accurate as possible here, because none of this matters if I'm simply building up a strawman. Also, I'm purposely using the language "it is better to open" instead of "one should open" to avoid any issues surrounding Hume's guillotine, and I'm granting some sort of implied premise that people benefit from maximizing their enjoyment. Structurally, this appears to be a valid argument. Even so, the argument utterly fails for a few reasons.
a) "Enjoyment" is not an objective concept. It requires an agent, and agents derive enjoyment from different sources--as well as different amounts of enjoyment from the same source. If someone doesn't derive enjoyment from opening a game, seeing the interior art, playing from a cart/disc, or reading a manual, then it's not possible to argue that it would be better for them to open their game. Therefore, premise 1 is false and the argument is unsound.
b) Many games don't have any of the above justifications for opening them. Take the copy of Bloodstained I own because I kickstarted the game: there's no interior art, no manual, and the cart contains a version of the game that's unplayable without any updates. Plenty of games are released in this state, so no matter what the physical copies of those games are only for decoration anyway and opening them provides no additional enjoyment. Therefore, premise 1 is false again and the argument is still unsound.
c) Games have more value when they're sealed. You can argue that games are a bad investment all you want (and I'd agree with you), but it doesn't change the fact that they're worth less when opened. This matters because it gives a reason to keep a game sealed even if it
would be more enjoyable when opened. If the enjoyment derived from maximizing a game's value is greater than the enjoyment derived from opening it, then it would be reasonable to keep it sealed. Therefore, premise 2 is false and the argument is unsound again.
Another argument that's been floated in favor of opening games is that of purpose, which we'll state as follows:
1. Games are made to be played
2. If games are made to be played, then it is better to open them
Therefore, it is better to open games
This fails for many of the same reasons as the enjoyment argument. Another reason is that purpose is not necessarily innate to all objects. Sometimes it is--the idea of a chair, for instance, implies a purpose. A chair may be used for many things, but calling it a chair means you believe it's *for* sitting. I would argue the idea of a game implies something to be played, however we're not talking about games generally. We're talking specifically about physical games and that's a whole different beast. Physical games also have purpose as collectibles or investments or art or whatever else one can think of. In this case, purpose requires an agent, and agents may have different purposes for the same object. Therefore, premise 1 is false and the argument unsound.
I think it would be fairly easy to construct an argument proving that it's better to let people enjoy their games however they want, but I've hit my boredom limit. This is all stupid and hopefully I've done my part to drive that home so we can all move on.
Why? But ok whatever.
