> Video games are relatively cheap for the amount of time you can spend on them. This has far-reaching consequences. With most goods, the consumer has to keep

> Video games are relatively cheap for the amount of time you can spend on them. This has far-reaching consequences. With most goods, the consumer has to keep consuming (and thus creating demand). There's major concerns whether or not we can keep enough people working (and buying things) to keep the economy going, and video games don't contribute as much to aggregate demand. With an economic system that depends on continuous growth, we are trying to simultaneously squeeze more labor out of people while reducing the value of what people get out of it. This contradiction doesn't come with new luxury goods, but is a contradiction within capitalism that has been well described for almost two centuries: the dual nature of labour as capital and labour as a commodity. >They are confusing correlation with causation. Actually, this is one of the biggest questions of the paper cited, so the authors are not oblivious.