So why waste money a great serie when i know that in 14 years people is going to rip my sucess?? Let's flood the market with cheap cookie cutter games and if the market crash let it be..
Because you'll have 14 years of success and profit? Because you're not a one-trick pony and after 14 years most franchises going out to pasture isn't a bad thing? Because even with copyright people can clone a lot of what God of War is but by 14 years in, one would hope the franchised has evolved that it's not just a cheap cookie cutter of the original so you still fundamentally have a lock on the franchise so long as you keep making quality games?
Seriously, even with long copyrights we have tons of cheap cookie cutter games because for some that's profitable. Yet people spend 60x+ as much on higher quality* games. If copyright lasted a day or a year, maybe that'd change. But 14 years is a decently long time and most things, again, recoup their costs (if they ever do) in 3-5 years. A copyright term five times that isn't going to cripple the market for high quality* games.
I know that... I was giving you an example.. God of war would be public domain in one year.
Ah, now I understand. You make that sound like a bad thing? I've never played any of the God of War games and honestly am not interested in them. If one were public domain, though, maybe I'd take an interest in them? Maybe if I ended up liking it, I'd end up buying a newer one that was still copyrighted? Honestly, I like most people have finite funds. Short of piracy, there's no reasonable way I'll play most copyrighted "great" games--I presume you keep using God of War as an example because you think it great--because I don't begin to have the money to buy them.
Further, I'm unlikely to take a chance on any game that costs $60 unless I've somehow had first hand experience that it's worthwhile. Maybe there was a God of War sale (don't even have a PS1/2/3/4 so there's a whole library of games that are up for grabs for me experiencing) that'd make it worthwhile to try? *shrug*
The point really is that except for specific games from the past I'm familiar with as great games, there's nothing really motivating me to think that any author "deserves" compensation 14 years later. Even for those I'm aware of, with rare exception those authors have already been well compensated for their efforts over 14 years. For those that have not been well compensated, clearly copyright as a system has failed and its great length has done nothing to solve such edge cases.
See that is your mistake an Horrible games cost much less than a great game, yet those horrible games still make some money.
Yes and no. If you're talking about absolutely horrible games with near zero production cost, then yes a lot of horrible games can make a profit even if there were no copyright. But there's also plenty of horrible or at least incredibly mediocre multi-million dollar games that were entirely flops. Being high quality* doesn't, again, inherently mean good or great games let alone profitable games.
It's clear most companies are taking the Hollywood model: develop a lot of big budget projects with high production costs and in aggregate hope that in less than a decade you'll recoup the losses from the winners because you honestly don't know what sort of game or design will be profitable. Well, that system works with a 14 year time frame.
You are mixing things there, companies don't tax you the government tax you.
Copyright is a government enforced, though courts, system of allowing third parties to extract money from you with potential punitive damages like prison time. Without copyright, the only rights these third parties would have to extract money from you is convincing you to buy a copy of something from them, whether they were the original creator or not would be secondary, and anyone could attempt to undercut their asking price. Perhaps you don't want to call it a tax because the government isn't the receiver the funds, but it's very much a government created and enforced property, not some sort of inherent one**.
Here we are taling about privates companies that want to have a lucrative product. A product they made.
This has nothing to do if the society will be a better place or not. This is about making profit of a product.
The less profit they can make, they less money they will invest.
Well, if it has nothing to do with society being a better place, then government shouldn't really be involved in copyright at all. But to the final point, you're turning this into a simple, ludicrous tautology. Companies always want more profit. They don't create products out of thin air but by expanding on the ideas of others--almost all most fundamental used the shared thing call language. Their existent then can further enrich society to produce other ideas. As an example, God of War.
If one company or person can benefit from the collective ideas of society/other companies, why shouldn't others benefit from that company as well? Is there something so absolutely genius and unique about the creative work of one that they deserve a life-time of exclusivity? Maybe in very instances they deserve substantial recognition, but is beyond inane to treat creators as if what they produce is of the sort that they literally deserve the right to dictate to others how they may expand upon ideas they introduced or changed indefinitely.
If they're producing a product, it sold, it made a profit, and they can keep making more, then they clearly are able to invest enough. It's not, generally, the case that a margin increase in profit will make those games better and the marketplace will and can only bare so many games at a time of high price because everyone is of limited income, interest in games, and time to enjoy them. Again, it's not a simple tautology.
Think about MCU, they were planning about 10 years or more of movies... Companies like to think in long term.
MCU is a great example of horrible movies, but then that's obviously my opinion; from a profit perspective they're great movies, and clearly that's all MCU really cares about. Regardless, what drives MCU and the like is large box office sales, not 14 year copyrights on individual works; it's obviously something they enjoy, though. Yes, it's possible if copyright were 14 years long MCU would have long ago died because they ran out of creative ideas***, but that's honestly a good thing IMO. If they managed to survive, though, each film would presumably build off the last and even though the first would expire 4 years after the last one wouldn't meaning impact sales. The franchise would live on with new ideas, new characters (or well written, trademarked old ones), and those that wish to clone them would just like they already do.
I think I'm finished respond upon this line of discussion for now. Clearly you have very different views of what copyright is and should be. I do not believe that people should be able to own ideas or representation of those ideas indefinitely. The value of nearly any good idea is that it is spread and is used. Often reinterpretation from a different perspective produced the most useful insight. If a person really values their idea and wants it not to spread, they should keep it to themselves and not try to inflict upon society life-time plus draconian copy right rules. I can appreciate copyright being a compromise and not a perfect one, but I see copyright as it stands to be a farce.
* Quality here means production costs, not necessarily anything else.
** And this could be side tracked into a whole discussion about property rights in general, but suffice it to say that property is a rival good and copyrighted works are not (inherently, anyways), so they're very different things.
*** Even a cursory glance through MC history is once of trying to be creative and introducing new properties, but I honestly find that most of the good super hero/anti-hero/villain/anti-villain stories have run their course.
Good job Nintendo! 
