4 ms·

"Not trying to put anyone down here, it's just I can't see a lot of economic benefit in a team of 10 engineers modeling the hair of the next Assassin's Creed ch

"Not trying to put anyone down here, it's just I can't see a lot of economic benefit in a team of 10 engineers modeling the hair of the next Assassin's Creed character... and where do you think this money comes from?" Errr - doesn't it come from the people buying the Assassin's Creed games? That particularly series earns hundreds of millions of dollars each game, and at least some of that value is created by the engineers modeling the character's hair.

bluGill 9y ago
Is that valuable? Sure it is work and effort and all that, but is it valuable? Would we be better off without movies and video games? There are many in the "bible belt" who will argue that we are (the Amish are the most famous but there are plenty of others).
- PeterisP 9y ago
  If something creates zero value for many (most) people but some value to others, then yes, that is valuable. If I get a haircut, that's not valuable to at least 7 billion people worldwide, but it is valuable to me, so it is some positive value created. In a similar manner, if a million gamers like some game (or a satanic black metal song) and the whole of bible belt does not, well, that's a lot of positive value created anyway; assuming no actual negative externalities where someone else gets harmed by it. Individual value is subjective, but it can be aggregated - if you consider that playing a particular videogame has negative value and don't play it, then the impact is zero; if I consider that playing the same game has positive value to me and do it, then it adds a positive contribution to the global value created; I got something I liked, and that's valuable by itself, asssuming noone else got hurt by this.
tpallarino 9y ago
The money earned from Assassin's Creed isn't by creating value, it's given by others who are creating value. I'm genuinely surprised I'm getting so many people disagreeing with this idea.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  The game purchases believe it has enough value to be worth exchanging their dollars for it. Do you also believe the Rolling Stones didn't create any real value?
  - trophycase 9y ago
    Does getting people addicted to heroin add value? Because people will exchange their dollars for that too. Just because people pay money for something doesn't mean it adds value or creates wealth. Rolling Stones is a tough case, some entertainment is necessary, but at what level and cost is up for debate, it's not like I have all the answers.
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      You're in a hopeless box trying to decide for other people what they should value and what they should not.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      Necessities is a fixed amount, wants are (nearly) boundless. As we are able to afford things beyond bare necessities, pretty much all value create and consumed isn't 'necessary' - it's one or other kind of comfort, desire, status, entertainment, etc. Those things do add value and do create wealth - if getting enough nutrients and bare minimum of shelter takes just 10% of my resources, then 90% of my wealth is something that's not necessary. If people prefer hearing a song over getting an (extra) loaf of bread, then hearing that song is by definition more valuable (more valued by that person) as that loaf of bread. There's not much debate needed about Rolling Stones - millions of people have expressed their values, and their choices illustrate that the music of Rolling Stones is literally more valuable than a billion loaves of bread; people have intentionally allocated a billion bread-loaves worth resources towards Rolling Stones because they valued Rolling Stones more than other alternatives. People paying money for something doesn't necessarily mean it adds value or creates wealth, there are all kinds of edge cases like fraud, exploitation, addiction, etc, but in general, in the vast majority of cases it does mean exactly that - if people genuinely freely wanted to pay money for something and did so, then that's very informative about what they actually value; this is far more informative and truthful than, for example, what they claim they value.
jeffreyrogers 9y ago
There's obviously a difference between industries like agriculture, oil and gas, steel-making, etc. and something like a game company. Some industries are crucial to the functioning of society, while others are a pleasant way to spend time. The world would be culturally poorer without music, art, etc., but it would still function. That's not true if you got rid of those other industries.

bluGill 9y ago

Is that valuable? Sure it is work and effort and all that, but is it valuable? Would we be better off without movies and video games? There are many in the "bible belt" who will argue that we are (the Amish are the most famous but there are plenty of others).

PeterisP 9y ago
If something creates zero value for many (most) people but some value to others, then yes, that is valuable. If I get a haircut, that's not valuable to at least 7 billion people worldwide, but it is valuable to me, so it is some positive value created. In a similar manner, if a million gamers like some game (or a satanic black metal song) and the whole of bible belt does not, well, that's a lot of positive value created anyway; assuming no actual negative externalities where someone else gets harmed by it. Individual value is subjective, but it can be aggregated - if you consider that playing a particular videogame has negative value and don't play it, then the impact is zero; if I consider that playing the same game has positive value to me and do it, then it adds a positive contribution to the global value created; I got something I liked, and that's valuable by itself, asssuming noone else got hurt by this.

tpallarino 9y ago

The money earned from Assassin's Creed isn't by creating value, it's given by others who are creating value. I'm genuinely surprised I'm getting so many people disagreeing with this idea.

skookumchuck 9y ago
The game purchases believe it has enough value to be worth exchanging their dollars for it. Do you also believe the Rolling Stones didn't create any real value?
- trophycase 9y ago
  Does getting people addicted to heroin add value? Because people will exchange their dollars for that too. Just because people pay money for something doesn't mean it adds value or creates wealth. Rolling Stones is a tough case, some entertainment is necessary, but at what level and cost is up for debate, it's not like I have all the answers.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    You're in a hopeless box trying to decide for other people what they should value and what they should not.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    Necessities is a fixed amount, wants are (nearly) boundless. As we are able to afford things beyond bare necessities, pretty much all value create and consumed isn't 'necessary' - it's one or other kind of comfort, desire, status, entertainment, etc. Those things do add value and do create wealth - if getting enough nutrients and bare minimum of shelter takes just 10% of my resources, then 90% of my wealth is something that's not necessary. If people prefer hearing a song over getting an (extra) loaf of bread, then hearing that song is by definition more valuable (more valued by that person) as that loaf of bread. There's not much debate needed about Rolling Stones - millions of people have expressed their values, and their choices illustrate that the music of Rolling Stones is literally more valuable than a billion loaves of bread; people have intentionally allocated a billion bread-loaves worth resources towards Rolling Stones because they valued Rolling Stones more than other alternatives. People paying money for something doesn't necessarily mean it adds value or creates wealth, there are all kinds of edge cases like fraud, exploitation, addiction, etc, but in general, in the vast majority of cases it does mean exactly that - if people genuinely freely wanted to pay money for something and did so, then that's very informative about what they actually value; this is far more informative and truthful than, for example, what they claim they value.

jeffreyrogers 9y ago

There's obviously a difference between industries like agriculture, oil and gas, steel-making, etc. and something like a game company. Some industries are crucial to the functioning of society, while others are a pleasant way to spend time. The world would be culturally poorer without music, art, etc., but it would still function. That's not true if you got rid of those other industries.