13 ms·

Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

190 points by raleighm 8y ago

gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
Is this another shitpiece against capitalism?
- mrleiter 8y ago
  Well, you would have to read it and make up your mind.
- andrepd 8y ago
  Why, is it immune from criticism? Instead of this worthless comment, why didn't you read the piece yourself? Then you could make your own judgement.
  - ManFromUranus 8y ago
    No but the poster you are replying to is correct. The article is indeed a "shitpiece" against capitalism, it seeks to paint shitty video games that bilk their users of money as some sort of phenomenon that unique to capitalism. Therefore we need to enact "Big Government" to solve the problem. The author nor the readers generally could not care less about those affected, their only concern are the delicious condemnations of capitalism. Meanwhile in Venezuela, and the USSR, and Vietnam and North Korea and on and on and on... maybe in some fictional country where humans are perfect robots their ludicrous socialist fantasy is possible, just not in the real world.
    - Retric 8y ago
      I don't agree with the article's presentation, but the idea might not be inherently worthless. Gambling which abstractly seems rather harmless has been banned. So, some taking a hard look at highly additive gamely seems reasonable IMO. Edited: I put drugs in a similar category, but I can see people disagreeing with that.
      - ManFromUranus 8y ago
        I agree that gambling is indeed bad, but gambling is not some sort of outgrowth of capitalism. You do not need captialism to gamble and one does not beget the other. The "game" makers are simply bad people exploiting others. These bad people would simply be bad in a different way in a socialist country.
        Retric 8y ago
        Fair point. However, there are a bunch of complex laws in the US around gambling and gambling as a business is often banned where doing the same things as individuals is more often legal. Old but interesting: http://fortune.com/2011/02/15/was-my-sports-bet-legal/ http://fortune.com/2011/02/15/was-my-sports-bet-legal/ Which I think get's into the same incentives as these games. If the house get's a cut of from poker players without risks they have reason to promote addiction. On the other hand friends playing for bubble gum can enjoy betting without meaningful downsides. I don't think their are clear cut answers, but special regulations for companies due to the nature of capitalism has precedent in the US.
        ManFromUranus 8y ago
        I think that the danger is: you make a law to protect idiots from their own stupidity and end up breaking normal business activity somehow, or creating a regulatory environment that's a pain in the ass for entrepreneurs and whatnot.
        musage 8y ago
        > protect idiots from their own stupidity It's not idiocy, it's vulnerability, and it's not the magic result of "their stupidity", but of exploitation. Why should people who are either so useless they have to prey on others, or so fucked in the head that they do it even though they could do something useful, be protected?
    - rtikulit 8y ago
      Even if you abhor the remedies suggested in the article, it is still true that marketers in general are trying very hard to run ahead of the average person's cognitive defences against exploitation. Given that, much of the discussion in the article is interesting and useful (and by that I don't mean "correct".)
      - ManFromUranus 8y ago
        The problems cited by the article are real, and the game makers are shitty people with bad motives. Unfortunately neither government (nor anyone) can make the world idiot proof, sometimes people have to learn from their own mistakes.
    - andrepd 8y ago
      On your points: the shady and unethical practices by video games companies that the article points are indeed direct consequences of the reward model of capitalism, in that the only variable that seeks to be maximised is profit, irrespective of any other concerns such as ethics, morality, general social good, etc. Second, of course you just had to come on a meaningless tangent about "USSR, North Korea, bla blah it doesn't work in practice", as if any criticism of capitalism could be dismissed by the magical arguments "well if you don't like it you can just move to korea you commie!" and "it doesn't work in practice, everyone who advocates for socialism is a deluded naive child".
      - gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
        "everyone who advocates for socialism is a deluded naive child" glad we could agree on something
      - ManFromUranus 8y ago
        There are no thieves or bad actors in socialist utopias? Of course there are. Socialism doesn't work now and never will work given human nature. Face it: bad people exist and they will do bad things in whatever context they find themselves in. You are just complaining about the ones you see in this context. However they would just be a different kind of bad actor in a socialist context.
        UncleSlacky 8y ago
        "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough." - Andrew Collier In any case, why should society encourage qualities like greed and selfishness?
        ManFromUranus 8y ago
        "Society" does not encourage greed or selfishness, nor does capitalism. I'll wager that you don't actually care about those things, that you only care about other people having more than you. You are simply wrapping your "concerns" in moral language to make it seem like some sort of altruistic concern. However, you already have more than most people on earth I would imagine, you can already give your money away to the poor. I'll eat my socks if that's actually what you do though. Are you greedy are you selfish? No, just a normal person.
  - gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
    Reading it myself would require wasting precious time, when I can instead offload that responsibility to someone who has already read it and can comment on whether or not it is a shitpiece.
    - vernie 8y ago
      Your time doesn't seem that precious.
    - jfk13 8y ago
      So you'll happily accept some random commenter's opinion of the piece? That seems rather arbitrary. Why not accept the original article just as readily? Or was the title enough to prejudice you completely, so that all you're looking for is someone to confirm your preconceptions?
- colemannugent 8y ago
  Basically. This time they've added the word "digital" before it, as if that somehow changes the market forces that drive the economy.
- nailer 8y ago
  Yes it is, but see the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.
  - RandomInteger4 8y ago
    This story seems on topic considering y combinator is a startup focused enterprise, so monetization discussions, in whatever direction, are relevant.
    - nailer 8y ago
      Yes, but it's flamebait and not particularly well researched as the other comments illustrate.
gaius 8y ago
That hypothesis offended the sensibilities of anyone who believes that all those who are able to work should do so. From each according to his ability, Comrade.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > From each according to his ability, Comrade. Soviet Communism is, indeed, terrible. But a UBI is basically the opposite of politburos and bread lines. And when the supply of unskilled labor exceeds the demand to such an extent that it no longer commands a living wage in a free market, what's your solution?
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to attack the idea. My impression is that people are more positive on UBI than they should be because they think it will enable a higher standard of living than it actually will. I would be more in favor of a jobs guarantee since I think people find working meaningful, but this isn't an area I've researched very much so I'm definitely open to changing my opinions if I learn more.
    - gaius 8y ago
      Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? For the cost of the current welfare system in the UK we could give every man, woman and child £3000/year, approx. This assumes that the cost of administration is basically zero, so it would involve sacking all the employees of the DWP or whatever it’s called now. Well, they would be entitled to UBI too... it has to be “universal” and “basic” or the numbers don’t work
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? There are different ways to do the accounting here. The opponents like to just add up the sum of everyone's UBI and call that the cost. But if someone pays $12,000 to fund the UBI and then receives a $10,000 UBI, the net cost to them is obviously $2000 rather than $12,000. Calculating the overall net cost is also not very useful, because it's effectively zero outside of some minimal administrative costs -- payments in equal payments out. Probably the sensible way to do it is to calculate the net loss to people who pay more than they receive, e.g. $2000 to someone who pays $12,000 and receives $10,000 but $0 (rather than -$2000) for someone who pays $8000 and receives $10,000. Using those numbers you end up somewhere in the ballpark of 25% of the cost calculated using the first method, because you take the total cost and subtract out the UBI the top half of the population is paying themselves, and then half the remainder for the bottom half, because people in the bottom half would be net recipients but would still on average be paying half as much as they receive. Whether this is exactly 25% depends on the income distribution within the population. It gets higher the more inequality there is. If everyone had exactly the same income it would be 0%. If there is great inequality it would be higher, i.e. more dollars transferred from richer to poorer. But that's kind of what you want. The most important factor in the cost is obviously the amount of the UBI. It can be made arbitrarily more or less expensive by changing that. > I would be more in favor of a jobs guarantee since I think people find working meaningful There are reasons to think that would be a bad idea, e.g.: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-against-hijacking-utopia/?comments=false http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-... Moreover, half the point of a UBI is that it doesn't impose costs on working, unlike means-tested programs where earning money from working causes the loss of benefits. It's one of the things that allow it to operate productively even at below-subsistence payment levels. The highest paying job you're qualified to do may not pay enough to subsist on but becomes enough when combined with a modest UBI. And for someone who genuinely can't find full-time work, they're more likely to find meaning -- or a lead on gainful employment -- by volunteering somewhere of their choosing rather than being forced to dig holes and fill them back in with insufficient free time to improve themselves and get out of that situation.
Andrex 8y ago
This is a good read, but I question this line: > Video games, at their best, offer everyone an equal chance to overcome the same challenges on an equal playing field. “Pac-Man,” after all, didn’t let you add extra quarters to purchase immunity from the ghosts. I mean, in a way they did. If you had more quarters to spare in Pac-Man, you'd be more likely to make it further than your cash-strapped compatriot. But then again arcades peddled these types of "pay to win" mechanics long before the App Store, and so probably aren't the best example to use in an article like this. NES era games would be more appropriate I think.
- digi_owl 8y ago
  But it also allowed skill with the game to shine by getting further on a single quarter.
  - bitwize 8y ago
    But skill with the game doesn't come from nowhere. You build skill by playing, and with arcade games, you have to pay to play. Granted, paying for a chance to test and improve your skill sounds a lot more fair than paying to win.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    Yea, I recall fondly playing Mortal Kombat in the arcade for literally hours with one quarter vs. a line of people each putting their own quarters in. As long as you won the match it let the winner continue playing without adding more money. An afternoon of entertainment could be had for <$1.
- dfxm12 8y ago
  You don't get to enter your initials into the machine based on how far you get. Only your score matters, and your score resets when you continue. You don't "beat" Pac-Man when you get to the kill screen, you beat Pac-Man when you get a perfect score.
  - Andrex 8y ago
colemannugent 8y ago
>how can the market exploitation of civic, social, and leisure spaces possibly be averted What? The ominous "market" isn't forcing its way into any of these spaces. You let it in. You bought that game with micro-transactions, you signed up for that "free" social media app that was "secretly stealing your data". What shall we do? Our economic system isn't doing what we think it should! Could it be that we don't understand it and we should educate people so that they can't be taken advantage of? No! It's the system that's wrong! Towards the end of the article the author starts talking about UBI and just after that mentioning a scheme for the government to employ all workers. I should have guessed that would be the endgame. Two completely unproven ideas suggested as the panacea to market forces the author doesn't understand. Why does it that every time I see someone refer to something as "Social Democracy" they are merely using it as a euphemism for Socialism or Communism?
- germinalphrase 8y ago
  Are you not concerned that while some of these costs may not be entirely hidden - they are very often intentionally obfuscated? It's not exactly analogous to "people should know to avoid credit cards with 20% interest rates" as that interest rate must be openly communicated to the consumer while the collection and sale of my personal data has no such requirement.
  - lr4444lr 8y ago
    Hidden terms in a credit card agreement are not the same concept as voluntarily confirming and paying for a video game in-game purchase. Or what is it that you're saying is hidden in video games?
    - marnett 8y ago
      Micro transactions allow some "video games" (I use quotes as it seems to mostly be mobile apps) to play nearly identically to machines you'd find within a casino. We regulate those casinos due to the known addiction of gambling - some applications employ the same psychological tactics that result in gambling addiction, and they sit right there on your phone; a phone that is constantly with you, and constantly sending push notifications to convince you to take another hit.
DrImplausible 8y ago
Games are, and won't be a "consumer luxury good", as the article states, unless we're getting into bespoke CAVE systems or Westworld-like theme parks. Consoles have achieved that point of ubiquity that they're a common household appliance, and it isn't unusual to see one. A "normal" good in other words. The games themselves are content from a production culture standpoint, which is why we so little innovation (and lots of duplication) within the market. EGP coming out of the pipeline. There is a salient point about the capture of leisure time, but it was written 40 years ago. Seeing as it ties into the Facebook ad policy reveal of a month ago, maybe it's worth bringing up in it's own thread.
- nsxwolf 8y ago
  I really didn't understand that point at all. Were they talking about price? Because adjusted for inflation, computers consoles and games have never been cheaper.
jeffreyrogers 8y ago
The argument essentially seems to be this: Some people are making substantial amounts of money from activities that we traditionally associate with leisure, in the example given, videogames. This devalues gaming as a leisure activity for the rest of society. This is a bad thing. This is an indicator of a broader trend of the monetization of all forms of leisure. This is bad. Consequently we should find ways to redistribute wealth so that everyone can benefit from having leisure time and using it in non-wealth producing ways. I think this is a fair summary of the argument (but I don't want to misrepresent the argument so correct me if I got something wrong), though I've tried to phrase it in more neutral terms rather than the ideologically loaded ones the author uses. I agree with some aspects of the argument. I think it's true that people are finding more ways to make money from things that would previously be described as hobbies through the advent of platforms like Patreon, Twitch, and YouTube. I also think it's undesirable for everyone to view their hobby as a means of making more money, but I don't think it's likely everyone will move to this for a simple reason: these are winner-takes-all fields. The most popular streamers are going to create the vast majority of revenue and reap the vast majority of profit. Further, money serves a useful purpose: allocating labor to things people otherwise wouldn't do on their own. Sure, it'd be great if everyone could play videogames more without worrying about providing for their needs. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. We aren't at a point where we can produce everything that people want at a small amount of labor time and use the rest for leisure. Plus a fundamental fact about people is this: we're never satisfied. We always want more. Access to money mediates our desire for more by limiting what we can have. It also helps integrate us into broader society by making us do things that at least someone finds valuable enough to pay for. In short, I think the article is weak because it is dealing with what would be nice (from the perspective of the author, not necessarily my perspective), rather than what is realistically achievable.
- zrobotics 8y ago
  Furthermore, the author ever addresses other forms of leisure where people are paid to participate, such as sports. Does the NBA devalue the pickup game played solely for bragging rights? The other problem I have with this argument is the fallacy that leisure activities were not class based in the past. Polo would seem to be a fairly obvious example, very few people can afford the horses required.
s_m_t 8y ago
Digital capitalism is "attacking" leisure but per the articles first source the decline in young male labor participation is supposed to be due to advances in leisure technology... and the people taking advantage of this are self-reportedly happier because of it. But because of "commodification" and a perceived social inequality in the leisure sphere this is supposed to be inherently bad for reasons not stated. Then they shift to talking about UBI.
cirgue 8y ago
> passive consumption over leisure This is the money quote for me. We somehow managed to convince an entire generation of people who were skeptical of the passive consumption of television that 'Hey wait, this other form of manufactured entertainment is entirely different and not at all bad for you because we're the tech industry and we aren't the people in suits."
- gowld 8y ago
  > We somehow managed to convince We did? I though people just switched from TV to Internet because Internet is more fun or more faddy or just cheaper.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    One can't skip the "cheaper" aspect. Computer games (well at least not the freemium play2win types) are generally much better deals than being a sports buff, as you can spend a lot more time playing/watching replays of games for less than a cable subscription. The MMOG and freemium types that require subscription fees or have an in-game economy are a different story. I truly hope legislation prevents those types of games from destroying the existing landscape of "buy-once play-many" vs. constantly buying "gold/credits" for upgrades (that you need to even stay competitive).
    - michaelbuckbee 8y ago
      Even most of those seem to subsist more on pulling in a small percentage of "whales" (who spend thousands and likely have gambling addictions) and people who buy the occasional hat. Even then on an entertainment/hour basis video games are a remarkably cheap form of entertainment.
  - wolf550e 8y ago
    Yeah, people switched from cable TV to on-demand niche content, but it's the same kind of passive entertainment.
    - 8y ago
ballenf 8y ago
One of the solutions to the problem of pay-to-win is to eliminate all laws making it illegal to hack these games. This position seems very problematic and will rub a lot of people the wrong way, but we should have the freedom to hack the code running on our devices. If that breaks someone's business model, then maybe it's the business model that's broken. Most people don't have any ethical issues with hacking single-player games, but the morality does get hazier when you talk about hacks that unlock otherwise paid upgrades. I'll be honest, I don't know how to feel about it. I want game designers to get paid and don't want to "cheat" them out of payment, but I also feel strongly that I should be able to open the hood of my car and do whatever I want up to the limit of endangering others (whether through exceeding emissions limits or general "physical" safety).
- gowld 8y ago
  Or you could just not buy garbage games.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
There's something I never understand about bits like this. The main point of this article basically entails greatly expanding the role of government in our economic system. But how happy are you with our government? It's a rhetorical question as the statistics make the answer abundantly clear. Congress' approval rating is currently resting at a whopping 18%, with a 78% disapproval rate. And our president certainly inspires a wide array of emotions across the population. The reason for this displeasure varies, but among the reasons would be corruption, ineptitude, graft, greed, pandering to special interests, and so on. In a world where government was some post-humanistic benevolent and impartial entity, I think this article would have some reasonable points. However, people tend to be self absorbed, ignorant of whatever lays outside their own interests, and driven by bias. And government is little more than a collection of us, biased to those who share mostly the same skill set as con men. I'm certainly not anarchistic, but I think we need to consider the fact that government is us. And so where is the logic that massively expanding the role and power of our government would solve more problems than create? My favorite example of good intentions gone awry is passports. Many wish we had a more open and free world, and at one time we did. Mandatory usage of passports was little more than a "temporary war measure" during WW1. But once we'd granted governments such tremendous power and control, it was predictably never relinquished.
chillingeffect 8y ago
It's questionable to see the article's focus on males in gaming when females have been established as a >=40% constituency over the last decade. [1] [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-us-computer-and-video-gamers/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-u...
jpmoyn 8y ago
I don't understand why there is an issue with markets entering the domain of "leisure", and I certainly do not think that this is something new. Is a hobby shop immoral? Micro-transactions in freemium video games have proven to be a great way to make money for games that are deemed worthy by their users. No one is being forced to buy the new skin in Fortnite. You can't stop market forces. If you choose not to partake, good on you. But applying your own personal moral concept of what leisure should be onto the entire country is worse than Fortnite making me pay $10 for the new skin.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  >You can't stop market forces “Market forces” are not natural phenomenon, they’re political impositions on human interaction in places where and to the extent which they’re useful. It’s fully within our power to prevent their intrusion into domains where this application is wreckless, destructive, or immoral. Many more sane developed countries than the US, for example, have done this with healthcare.
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    Amen
- twinkletwinkle 8y ago
  > You can't stop market forces. Surely you can, we do it all the time. That's why we have subsidies on American sugar and tariffs on Chinese steel and higher taxes on cigarettes than on milk and... We have entire government agencies who spend all day thinking up ways to affect market forces.
JTbane 8y ago
This article has such a condescending tone- how is paying for a video game subscription any more harmful to "leisure" than paying for a trip to the beach? Pure clickbait.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  The beach just exists. You might live near it or not, there are economics involved, but nobody set you up to go to the beach and designed it to be addictive. Subscription video-games that were being criticized were those specifically framed to get people hooked and buy more and more special stuff etc. What's harmful is pushing people into patterns of spending money on leisure when there's lots of ways to have great leisure without the cost. In that sense, marketers who tell people they have to travel to the beach for vacation are also pushing for people to spend on their leisure. Incidentally, the beach is better than video games.
everyone 8y ago
This reads like it was written by someone who doesnt play or appreciate games, or even know much about the artform. The point that is brought up several times, that they are classist due to their cost.. If you cant afford a game, or dont want to support its publisher or business model, but still want to play it. Just pirate it. Most games are readily available to pirate. Games have simply become as film, and novels and all other art forms these days. You have the good stuff, which is cheap and indie and obscure, and innovative.. And you have the bad commercial stuff, which is very homogeneous and repetitive and 'safe' and is heavily marketed and designed to have the broadest and most shallow appeal. Its simply another business where X investment yields X*Y return (where Y is positive) So, the equivalent of blockbuster Hollywood films, or airport novels. If you have an interest in a particular medium you will quickly learn to avoid the bad stuff and learn where to find the good stuff.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >This reads like it was written by someone who doesnt play or appreciate games, or even know much about the artform. So, like a proper adult?
  - ionised 8y ago
    Your snarky comment belies your thin implication that you yourself are a mature adult for not liking games.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      My implication wasn't that I am mature for not liking games. Only that liking games is immature -- which doesn't imply that not liking games automatically qualifies one for maturity (it's a necessary, but not sufficient condition). Nor does it imply that I and those who share my opinion consider themselves mature (a non-X person can still make claims about what constitutes being X, and those claims can even be perfectly correct -- doubly so in a subjective, non-well defined, topic, like what constitutes maturity).
- CM30 8y ago
panzagl 8y ago
This article unravels at this line- " In industrial and post-industrial societies, work tends to be necessarily hierarchical. But leisure has always held out the promise of equality. " I don't think this has ever really been true.
- derblitzmann 8y ago
  Yeah, you need only look at traditional sports to see that. A leisurely game of amateurs/hobbyists will still have a hierarchy in terms of individuals and what aspect of the game they are proficient in.
IanDrake 8y ago
This is probably the best argument for socialism I’ve ever heard. We must, must, give up the abundance that capitalism provides for the vast majority of people so kids can...play more video games? This is Poe’s law at its finest. I really can’t tell if the author is trolling.
cromwellian 8y ago
This article definitely isn't written by a gamer. Most gamers HATE pay-for-powerup. There was a huge rebellion against EA's ingame purchase model for Starwars Battlefront for example. Many games allow in game purchases, but only for cosmetic changes (e.g. "skins") like Counter Strike, TF2, Overwatch, etc, not to allow you to buy skills no one else can acquire. And while it's a concern that there are games that are going that route, the gaming community does push back.
- Dirlewanger 8y ago
  >Most gamers Most gamers that voice their opinion online, but not in the actual market. Otherwise we wouldn't have as many microtransaction-laden games as we currently have. The Battlefront 2 debacle was something that was quickly forgotten after a couple weeks. EA even said they weren't worried about it to shareholders. I'm sure if you look at earnings reports, the "boycott" did almost nothing to them.
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    Enough voiced their opinion that EA changed the Battlefront system. But Battlefront also failed as a francise game, hardly anyone plays it. League of Legends is probably the most long lasting multiplayer game that has skill based micro purchases, but it's not as egregious, because the game has been around for a long time, and the amount of pure avarice isn't anywhere need the obvious money grab that EA tried to pull off. Take Fortnite, the game which is printing cash faster than Epic can spent it. Their entire loot system, like Counter Strike and Team Fortress, is cosmetic only and grants no extra ability. It remains to be seen, but I bet Fortnite has longevity far in excess of the pay-for-skill titles.
rconti 8y ago
"As a result, gaming has come to privilege haves over have-nots, work and passive consumption over leisure, and the economic over the social." I can't parse this. And my eyes glazed over once I kept trying to get past it and keep reading.
- FooHentai 8y ago
  It is horribly written. >gaming has come to privilege haves over the have-nots Extrapolated, I take it to mean: People with money to spend now have an advantage over poor people when it comes to video gaming Even then, it's unclear what this means. An advantage acquiring games to play because it's more expensive to get into? In success within the games themselves? Something only rich people have the time to engage in?
  - rconti 8y ago
    Yeah, I can sorta figure out what was meant by that line. I think he's saying that in-game purchases have turned gaming into something you need to have money to be able to do. I'm not sure I agree with that, though. Casual gaming is apparently more popular than ever, and plenty of good games can be played without 'buying up'. I have to caveat that with a few statements. For one, I am a silicon valley 'have'. Secondly, I'm not a gamer. But I distinctly remember how long it took me to save up $65.99 1990 dollars ($130 today!!!) for Super Mario 3. To say nothing of the costs of the consoles. Smartphones aren't free, but today you can play free- or nearly-free games on hardware you already own.
zerostar07 8y ago
Gaming is more akin to sports than to leisure. So i think the article is trying to make a lot of false analogies.
grosjona 8y ago
The past decade of 0% interest rates has had a really bad effect on the economy. It seems that most of the money in the world is flowing around in circles from one useless company to another and everyone has a useless office job to match. The people who get paid the most are those who do the most useless work of all; pitching silly ideas to foolish investors and trying to predict the next hot useless trend in an economy that is founded on complete randomness. ...all in the hope that they too will one day acquire enough capital so that they can afford to start making their own random investment decisions about random trends in the economy and create more useless jobs in the process.
FooHentai 8y ago
I'm currently going through a phase of setting up a games room, and acquiring a bunch of slightly older video game consoles and games to populate it. I've settled on PS2 and PS3, and Xbox/360 as the sweet spot for this. Partly due to price (they're not old enough to be worth much, but not new enough to be hawked at retail prices). But a factor just as big as price is how, from about mid-360 and PS3 onwards, gaming stopped being a case of 'buy a disc and play the game' and became 'register online, tie to a service which will be withdrawn at some point, and pay extra for bits of the game that would previously have been free'. All of that stuff transformed gaming media from about 2007 onwards from something that you could put on a shelf and return to at your leisure, into this ephemeral thing that you must buy into at the peak of the hype cycle, or it won't exist in proper form (if at all) when you do get around to it. That said, this phenomenon is mostly limited to commercial games. There's an incredible grassroots movement of indie, modding, and retro gaming that everyone is free to immerse and engage in, where this issue just doesn't exist. My reaction to cutting-edge gaming for the past decade or so has been largely to turn away from commercial games and find entertainment via other gaming channels.
- ryan-allen 8y ago
  For those interested in some cool indie games (on Steam), check out these for a start: Not A Hero, Mother Russia Bleeds, Death Road to Canada, Streets of Rogue, SPACEPLAN, Cluster Truck, Stick Fight by Landfall. There are so many!
- andrepd 8y ago
  It's indeed sad. My only consolations are (i) like you said, indie games are still an oasis of bubbling creativity in a desert of insipid money-makers, and (ii) there are more brilliant old games I'm still yet to play than I could complete in many many years.
- malloryerik 8y ago
  What do you think are the best games for modding? Of course Minecraft. What else? I'm thinking especially in terms of modding as a way to get into programming.
phkahler 8y ago
I find it odd that PCs are getting bigger and have Windows on the side, and lots of LEDs lighting up various things like fans...
AdamM12 8y ago
Might be because I just finished reading it the other night but kinda reminds me of "Brave New World."
k4ch0w 8y ago
I know I usually don't see gifs on this website but this completely sums it up. https://i.imgur.com/5lKYfh6.gifv https://i.imgur.com/5lKYfh6.gifv

190 points by raleighm 8y ago

gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago

Is this another shitpiece against capitalism?

mrleiter 8y ago
Well, you would have to read it and make up your mind.
andrepd 8y ago
Why, is it immune from criticism? Instead of this worthless comment, why didn't you read the piece yourself? Then you could make your own judgement.
- ManFromUranus 8y ago
  No but the poster you are replying to is correct. The article is indeed a "shitpiece" against capitalism, it seeks to paint shitty video games that bilk their users of money as some sort of phenomenon that unique to capitalism. Therefore we need to enact "Big Government" to solve the problem. The author nor the readers generally could not care less about those affected, their only concern are the delicious condemnations of capitalism. Meanwhile in Venezuela, and the USSR, and Vietnam and North Korea and on and on and on... maybe in some fictional country where humans are perfect robots their ludicrous socialist fantasy is possible, just not in the real world.
  - Retric 8y ago
    I don't agree with the article's presentation, but the idea might not be inherently worthless. Gambling which abstractly seems rather harmless has been banned. So, some taking a hard look at highly additive gamely seems reasonable IMO. Edited: I put drugs in a similar category, but I can see people disagreeing with that.
    - ManFromUranus 8y ago
      I agree that gambling is indeed bad, but gambling is not some sort of outgrowth of capitalism. You do not need captialism to gamble and one does not beget the other. The "game" makers are simply bad people exploiting others. These bad people would simply be bad in a different way in a socialist country.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Fair point. However, there are a bunch of complex laws in the US around gambling and gambling as a business is often banned where doing the same things as individuals is more often legal. Old but interesting: http://fortune.com/2011/02/15/was-my-sports-bet-legal/ http://fortune.com/2011/02/15/was-my-sports-bet-legal/ Which I think get's into the same incentives as these games. If the house get's a cut of from poker players without risks they have reason to promote addiction. On the other hand friends playing for bubble gum can enjoy betting without meaningful downsides. I don't think their are clear cut answers, but special regulations for companies due to the nature of capitalism has precedent in the US.
        ManFromUranus 8y ago
        I think that the danger is: you make a law to protect idiots from their own stupidity and end up breaking normal business activity somehow, or creating a regulatory environment that's a pain in the ass for entrepreneurs and whatnot.
        musage 8y ago
        > protect idiots from their own stupidity It's not idiocy, it's vulnerability, and it's not the magic result of "their stupidity", but of exploitation. Why should people who are either so useless they have to prey on others, or so fucked in the head that they do it even though they could do something useful, be protected?
  - rtikulit 8y ago
    Even if you abhor the remedies suggested in the article, it is still true that marketers in general are trying very hard to run ahead of the average person's cognitive defences against exploitation. Given that, much of the discussion in the article is interesting and useful (and by that I don't mean "correct".)
    - ManFromUranus 8y ago
      The problems cited by the article are real, and the game makers are shitty people with bad motives. Unfortunately neither government (nor anyone) can make the world idiot proof, sometimes people have to learn from their own mistakes.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    On your points: the shady and unethical practices by video games companies that the article points are indeed direct consequences of the reward model of capitalism, in that the only variable that seeks to be maximised is profit, irrespective of any other concerns such as ethics, morality, general social good, etc. Second, of course you just had to come on a meaningless tangent about "USSR, North Korea, bla blah it doesn't work in practice", as if any criticism of capitalism could be dismissed by the magical arguments "well if you don't like it you can just move to korea you commie!" and "it doesn't work in practice, everyone who advocates for socialism is a deluded naive child".
    - gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
      "everyone who advocates for socialism is a deluded naive child" glad we could agree on something
    - ManFromUranus 8y ago
      There are no thieves or bad actors in socialist utopias? Of course there are. Socialism doesn't work now and never will work given human nature. Face it: bad people exist and they will do bad things in whatever context they find themselves in. You are just complaining about the ones you see in this context. However they would just be a different kind of bad actor in a socialist context.
      - UncleSlacky 8y ago
        "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough." - Andrew Collier In any case, why should society encourage qualities like greed and selfishness?
        ManFromUranus 8y ago
        "Society" does not encourage greed or selfishness, nor does capitalism. I'll wager that you don't actually care about those things, that you only care about other people having more than you. You are simply wrapping your "concerns" in moral language to make it seem like some sort of altruistic concern. However, you already have more than most people on earth I would imagine, you can already give your money away to the poor. I'll eat my socks if that's actually what you do though. Are you greedy are you selfish? No, just a normal person.
- gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
  Reading it myself would require wasting precious time, when I can instead offload that responsibility to someone who has already read it and can comment on whether or not it is a shitpiece.
  - vernie 8y ago
    Your time doesn't seem that precious.
  - jfk13 8y ago
    So you'll happily accept some random commenter's opinion of the piece? That seems rather arbitrary. Why not accept the original article just as readily? Or was the title enough to prejudice you completely, so that all you're looking for is someone to confirm your preconceptions?
colemannugent 8y ago
Basically. This time they've added the word "digital" before it, as if that somehow changes the market forces that drive the economy.
nailer 8y ago
Yes it is, but see the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.
- RandomInteger4 8y ago
  This story seems on topic considering y combinator is a startup focused enterprise, so monetization discussions, in whatever direction, are relevant.
  - nailer 8y ago
    Yes, but it's flamebait and not particularly well researched as the other comments illustrate.

gaius 8y ago

That hypothesis offended the sensibilities of anyone who believes that all those who are able to work should do so. From each according to his ability, Comrade.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> From each according to his ability, Comrade. Soviet Communism is, indeed, terrible. But a UBI is basically the opposite of politburos and bread lines. And when the supply of unskilled labor exceeds the demand to such an extent that it no longer commands a living wage in a free market, what's your solution?
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to attack the idea. My impression is that people are more positive on UBI than they should be because they think it will enable a higher standard of living than it actually will. I would be more in favor of a jobs guarantee since I think people find working meaningful, but this isn't an area I've researched very much so I'm definitely open to changing my opinions if I learn more.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? For the cost of the current welfare system in the UK we could give every man, woman and child £3000/year, approx. This assumes that the cost of administration is basically zero, so it would involve sacking all the employees of the DWP or whatever it’s called now. Well, they would be entitled to UBI too... it has to be “universal” and “basic” or the numbers don’t work
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? There are different ways to do the accounting here. The opponents like to just add up the sum of everyone's UBI and call that the cost. But if someone pays $12,000 to fund the UBI and then receives a $10,000 UBI, the net cost to them is obviously $2000 rather than $12,000. Calculating the overall net cost is also not very useful, because it's effectively zero outside of some minimal administrative costs -- payments in equal payments out. Probably the sensible way to do it is to calculate the net loss to people who pay more than they receive, e.g. $2000 to someone who pays $12,000 and receives $10,000 but $0 (rather than -$2000) for someone who pays $8000 and receives $10,000. Using those numbers you end up somewhere in the ballpark of 25% of the cost calculated using the first method, because you take the total cost and subtract out the UBI the top half of the population is paying themselves, and then half the remainder for the bottom half, because people in the bottom half would be net recipients but would still on average be paying half as much as they receive. Whether this is exactly 25% depends on the income distribution within the population. It gets higher the more inequality there is. If everyone had exactly the same income it would be 0%. If there is great inequality it would be higher, i.e. more dollars transferred from richer to poorer. But that's kind of what you want. The most important factor in the cost is obviously the amount of the UBI. It can be made arbitrarily more or less expensive by changing that. > I would be more in favor of a jobs guarantee since I think people find working meaningful There are reasons to think that would be a bad idea, e.g.: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-against-hijacking-utopia/?comments=false http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-... Moreover, half the point of a UBI is that it doesn't impose costs on working, unlike means-tested programs where earning money from working causes the loss of benefits. It's one of the things that allow it to operate productively even at below-subsistence payment levels. The highest paying job you're qualified to do may not pay enough to subsist on but becomes enough when combined with a modest UBI. And for someone who genuinely can't find full-time work, they're more likely to find meaning -- or a lead on gainful employment -- by volunteering somewhere of their choosing rather than being forced to dig holes and fill them back in with insufficient free time to improve themselves and get out of that situation.

Andrex 8y ago

This is a good read, but I question this line: > Video games, at their best, offer everyone an equal chance to overcome the same challenges on an equal playing field. “Pac-Man,” after all, didn’t let you add extra quarters to purchase immunity from the ghosts. I mean, in a way they did. If you had more quarters to spare in Pac-Man, you'd be more likely to make it further than your cash-strapped compatriot. But then again arcades peddled these types of "pay to win" mechanics long before the App Store, and so probably aren't the best example to use in an article like this. NES era games would be more appropriate I think.

digi_owl 8y ago
But it also allowed skill with the game to shine by getting further on a single quarter.
- bitwize 8y ago
  But skill with the game doesn't come from nowhere. You build skill by playing, and with arcade games, you have to pay to play. Granted, paying for a chance to test and improve your skill sounds a lot more fair than paying to win.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Yea, I recall fondly playing Mortal Kombat in the arcade for literally hours with one quarter vs. a line of people each putting their own quarters in. As long as you won the match it let the winner continue playing without adding more money. An afternoon of entertainment could be had for <$1.
dfxm12 8y ago
You don't get to enter your initials into the machine based on how far you get. Only your score matters, and your score resets when you continue. You don't "beat" Pac-Man when you get to the kill screen, you beat Pac-Man when you get a perfect score.
- Andrex 8y ago

colemannugent 8y ago

>how can the market exploitation of civic, social, and leisure spaces possibly be averted What? The ominous "market" isn't forcing its way into any of these spaces. You let it in. You bought that game with micro-transactions, you signed up for that "free" social media app that was "secretly stealing your data". What shall we do? Our economic system isn't doing what we think it should! Could it be that we don't understand it and we should educate people so that they can't be taken advantage of? No! It's the system that's wrong! Towards the end of the article the author starts talking about UBI and just after that mentioning a scheme for the government to employ all workers. I should have guessed that would be the endgame. Two completely unproven ideas suggested as the panacea to market forces the author doesn't understand. Why does it that every time I see someone refer to something as "Social Democracy" they are merely using it as a euphemism for Socialism or Communism?

germinalphrase 8y ago
Are you not concerned that while some of these costs may not be entirely hidden - they are very often intentionally obfuscated? It's not exactly analogous to "people should know to avoid credit cards with 20% interest rates" as that interest rate must be openly communicated to the consumer while the collection and sale of my personal data has no such requirement.
- lr4444lr 8y ago
  Hidden terms in a credit card agreement are not the same concept as voluntarily confirming and paying for a video game in-game purchase. Or what is it that you're saying is hidden in video games?
  - marnett 8y ago
    Micro transactions allow some "video games" (I use quotes as it seems to mostly be mobile apps) to play nearly identically to machines you'd find within a casino. We regulate those casinos due to the known addiction of gambling - some applications employ the same psychological tactics that result in gambling addiction, and they sit right there on your phone; a phone that is constantly with you, and constantly sending push notifications to convince you to take another hit.

DrImplausible 8y ago

Games are, and won't be a "consumer luxury good", as the article states, unless we're getting into bespoke CAVE systems or Westworld-like theme parks. Consoles have achieved that point of ubiquity that they're a common household appliance, and it isn't unusual to see one. A "normal" good in other words. The games themselves are content from a production culture standpoint, which is why we so little innovation (and lots of duplication) within the market. EGP coming out of the pipeline. There is a salient point about the capture of leisure time, but it was written 40 years ago. Seeing as it ties into the Facebook ad policy reveal of a month ago, maybe it's worth bringing up in it's own thread.

nsxwolf 8y ago
I really didn't understand that point at all. Were they talking about price? Because adjusted for inflation, computers consoles and games have never been cheaper.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago

The argument essentially seems to be this: Some people are making substantial amounts of money from activities that we traditionally associate with leisure, in the example given, videogames. This devalues gaming as a leisure activity for the rest of society. This is a bad thing. This is an indicator of a broader trend of the monetization of all forms of leisure. This is bad. Consequently we should find ways to redistribute wealth so that everyone can benefit from having leisure time and using it in non-wealth producing ways. I think this is a fair summary of the argument (but I don't want to misrepresent the argument so correct me if I got something wrong), though I've tried to phrase it in more neutral terms rather than the ideologically loaded ones the author uses. I agree with some aspects of the argument. I think it's true that people are finding more ways to make money from things that would previously be described as hobbies through the advent of platforms like Patreon, Twitch, and YouTube. I also think it's undesirable for everyone to view their hobby as a means of making more money, but I don't think it's likely everyone will move to this for a simple reason: these are winner-takes-all fields. The most popular streamers are going to create the vast majority of revenue and reap the vast majority of profit. Further, money serves a useful purpose: allocating labor to things people otherwise wouldn't do on their own. Sure, it'd be great if everyone could play videogames more without worrying about providing for their needs. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. We aren't at a point where we can produce everything that people want at a small amount of labor time and use the rest for leisure. Plus a fundamental fact about people is this: we're never satisfied. We always want more. Access to money mediates our desire for more by limiting what we can have. It also helps integrate us into broader society by making us do things that at least someone finds valuable enough to pay for. In short, I think the article is weak because it is dealing with what would be nice (from the perspective of the author, not necessarily my perspective), rather than what is realistically achievable.

zrobotics 8y ago
Furthermore, the author ever addresses other forms of leisure where people are paid to participate, such as sports. Does the NBA devalue the pickup game played solely for bragging rights? The other problem I have with this argument is the fallacy that leisure activities were not class based in the past. Polo would seem to be a fairly obvious example, very few people can afford the horses required.

s_m_t 8y ago

Digital capitalism is "attacking" leisure but per the articles first source the decline in young male labor participation is supposed to be due to advances in leisure technology... and the people taking advantage of this are self-reportedly happier because of it. But because of "commodification" and a perceived social inequality in the leisure sphere this is supposed to be inherently bad for reasons not stated. Then they shift to talking about UBI.

cirgue 8y ago

> passive consumption over leisure This is the money quote for me. We somehow managed to convince an entire generation of people who were skeptical of the passive consumption of television that 'Hey wait, this other form of manufactured entertainment is entirely different and not at all bad for you because we're the tech industry and we aren't the people in suits."

gowld 8y ago
> We somehow managed to convince We did? I though people just switched from TV to Internet because Internet is more fun or more faddy or just cheaper.
- r00fus 8y ago
  One can't skip the "cheaper" aspect. Computer games (well at least not the freemium play2win types) are generally much better deals than being a sports buff, as you can spend a lot more time playing/watching replays of games for less than a cable subscription. The MMOG and freemium types that require subscription fees or have an in-game economy are a different story. I truly hope legislation prevents those types of games from destroying the existing landscape of "buy-once play-many" vs. constantly buying "gold/credits" for upgrades (that you need to even stay competitive).
  - michaelbuckbee 8y ago
    Even most of those seem to subsist more on pulling in a small percentage of "whales" (who spend thousands and likely have gambling addictions) and people who buy the occasional hat. Even then on an entertainment/hour basis video games are a remarkably cheap form of entertainment.
- wolf550e 8y ago
  Yeah, people switched from cable TV to on-demand niche content, but it's the same kind of passive entertainment.
  - 8y ago

ballenf 8y ago

One of the solutions to the problem of pay-to-win is to eliminate all laws making it illegal to hack these games. This position seems very problematic and will rub a lot of people the wrong way, but we should have the freedom to hack the code running on our devices. If that breaks someone's business model, then maybe it's the business model that's broken. Most people don't have any ethical issues with hacking single-player games, but the morality does get hazier when you talk about hacks that unlock otherwise paid upgrades. I'll be honest, I don't know how to feel about it. I want game designers to get paid and don't want to "cheat" them out of payment, but I also feel strongly that I should be able to open the hood of my car and do whatever I want up to the limit of endangering others (whether through exceeding emissions limits or general "physical" safety).

gowld 8y ago
Or you could just not buy garbage games.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

There's something I never understand about bits like this. The main point of this article basically entails greatly expanding the role of government in our economic system. But how happy are you with our government? It's a rhetorical question as the statistics make the answer abundantly clear. Congress' approval rating is currently resting at a whopping 18%, with a 78% disapproval rate. And our president certainly inspires a wide array of emotions across the population. The reason for this displeasure varies, but among the reasons would be corruption, ineptitude, graft, greed, pandering to special interests, and so on. In a world where government was some post-humanistic benevolent and impartial entity, I think this article would have some reasonable points. However, people tend to be self absorbed, ignorant of whatever lays outside their own interests, and driven by bias. And government is little more than a collection of us, biased to those who share mostly the same skill set as con men. I'm certainly not anarchistic, but I think we need to consider the fact that government is us. And so where is the logic that massively expanding the role and power of our government would solve more problems than create? My favorite example of good intentions gone awry is passports. Many wish we had a more open and free world, and at one time we did. Mandatory usage of passports was little more than a "temporary war measure" during WW1. But once we'd granted governments such tremendous power and control, it was predictably never relinquished.

chillingeffect 8y ago

It's questionable to see the article's focus on males in gaming when females have been established as a >=40% constituency over the last decade. [1] [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-us-computer-and-video-gamers/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-u...

jpmoyn 8y ago

I don't understand why there is an issue with markets entering the domain of "leisure", and I certainly do not think that this is something new. Is a hobby shop immoral? Micro-transactions in freemium video games have proven to be a great way to make money for games that are deemed worthy by their users. No one is being forced to buy the new skin in Fortnite. You can't stop market forces. If you choose not to partake, good on you. But applying your own personal moral concept of what leisure should be onto the entire country is worse than Fortnite making me pay $10 for the new skin.

knuththetruth 8y ago
>You can't stop market forces “Market forces” are not natural phenomenon, they’re political impositions on human interaction in places where and to the extent which they’re useful. It’s fully within our power to prevent their intrusion into domains where this application is wreckless, destructive, or immoral. Many more sane developed countries than the US, for example, have done this with healthcare.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  Amen
twinkletwinkle 8y ago
> You can't stop market forces. Surely you can, we do it all the time. That's why we have subsidies on American sugar and tariffs on Chinese steel and higher taxes on cigarettes than on milk and... We have entire government agencies who spend all day thinking up ways to affect market forces.

JTbane 8y ago

This article has such a condescending tone- how is paying for a video game subscription any more harmful to "leisure" than paying for a trip to the beach? Pure clickbait.

quadrangle 8y ago
The beach just exists. You might live near it or not, there are economics involved, but nobody set you up to go to the beach and designed it to be addictive. Subscription video-games that were being criticized were those specifically framed to get people hooked and buy more and more special stuff etc. What's harmful is pushing people into patterns of spending money on leisure when there's lots of ways to have great leisure without the cost. In that sense, marketers who tell people they have to travel to the beach for vacation are also pushing for people to spend on their leisure. Incidentally, the beach is better than video games.

everyone 8y ago

This reads like it was written by someone who doesnt play or appreciate games, or even know much about the artform. The point that is brought up several times, that they are classist due to their cost.. If you cant afford a game, or dont want to support its publisher or business model, but still want to play it. Just pirate it. Most games are readily available to pirate. Games have simply become as film, and novels and all other art forms these days. You have the good stuff, which is cheap and indie and obscure, and innovative.. And you have the bad commercial stuff, which is very homogeneous and repetitive and 'safe' and is heavily marketed and designed to have the broadest and most shallow appeal. Its simply another business where X investment yields X*Y return (where Y is positive) So, the equivalent of blockbuster Hollywood films, or airport novels. If you have an interest in a particular medium you will quickly learn to avoid the bad stuff and learn where to find the good stuff.

coldtea 8y ago
>This reads like it was written by someone who doesnt play or appreciate games, or even know much about the artform. So, like a proper adult?
- ionised 8y ago
  Your snarky comment belies your thin implication that you yourself are a mature adult for not liking games.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    My implication wasn't that I am mature for not liking games. Only that liking games is immature -- which doesn't imply that not liking games automatically qualifies one for maturity (it's a necessary, but not sufficient condition). Nor does it imply that I and those who share my opinion consider themselves mature (a non-X person can still make claims about what constitutes being X, and those claims can even be perfectly correct -- doubly so in a subjective, non-well defined, topic, like what constitutes maturity).
CM30 8y ago

panzagl 8y ago

This article unravels at this line- " In industrial and post-industrial societies, work tends to be necessarily hierarchical. But leisure has always held out the promise of equality. " I don't think this has ever really been true.

derblitzmann 8y ago
Yeah, you need only look at traditional sports to see that. A leisurely game of amateurs/hobbyists will still have a hierarchy in terms of individuals and what aspect of the game they are proficient in.

IanDrake 8y ago

This is probably the best argument for socialism I’ve ever heard. We must, must, give up the abundance that capitalism provides for the vast majority of people so kids can...play more video games? This is Poe’s law at its finest. I really can’t tell if the author is trolling.

cromwellian 8y ago

This article definitely isn't written by a gamer. Most gamers HATE pay-for-powerup. There was a huge rebellion against EA's ingame purchase model for Starwars Battlefront for example. Many games allow in game purchases, but only for cosmetic changes (e.g. "skins") like Counter Strike, TF2, Overwatch, etc, not to allow you to buy skills no one else can acquire. And while it's a concern that there are games that are going that route, the gaming community does push back.

Dirlewanger 8y ago
>Most gamers Most gamers that voice their opinion online, but not in the actual market. Otherwise we wouldn't have as many microtransaction-laden games as we currently have. The Battlefront 2 debacle was something that was quickly forgotten after a couple weeks. EA even said they weren't worried about it to shareholders. I'm sure if you look at earnings reports, the "boycott" did almost nothing to them.
- cromwellian 8y ago
  Enough voiced their opinion that EA changed the Battlefront system. But Battlefront also failed as a francise game, hardly anyone plays it. League of Legends is probably the most long lasting multiplayer game that has skill based micro purchases, but it's not as egregious, because the game has been around for a long time, and the amount of pure avarice isn't anywhere need the obvious money grab that EA tried to pull off. Take Fortnite, the game which is printing cash faster than Epic can spent it. Their entire loot system, like Counter Strike and Team Fortress, is cosmetic only and grants no extra ability. It remains to be seen, but I bet Fortnite has longevity far in excess of the pay-for-skill titles.

rconti 8y ago

"As a result, gaming has come to privilege haves over have-nots, work and passive consumption over leisure, and the economic over the social." I can't parse this. And my eyes glazed over once I kept trying to get past it and keep reading.

FooHentai 8y ago
It is horribly written. >gaming has come to privilege haves over the have-nots Extrapolated, I take it to mean: People with money to spend now have an advantage over poor people when it comes to video gaming Even then, it's unclear what this means. An advantage acquiring games to play because it's more expensive to get into? In success within the games themselves? Something only rich people have the time to engage in?
- rconti 8y ago
  Yeah, I can sorta figure out what was meant by that line. I think he's saying that in-game purchases have turned gaming into something you need to have money to be able to do. I'm not sure I agree with that, though. Casual gaming is apparently more popular than ever, and plenty of good games can be played without 'buying up'. I have to caveat that with a few statements. For one, I am a silicon valley 'have'. Secondly, I'm not a gamer. But I distinctly remember how long it took me to save up $65.99 1990 dollars ($130 today!!!) for Super Mario 3. To say nothing of the costs of the consoles. Smartphones aren't free, but today you can play free- or nearly-free games on hardware you already own.

zerostar07 8y ago

Gaming is more akin to sports than to leisure. So i think the article is trying to make a lot of false analogies.

grosjona 8y ago

The past decade of 0% interest rates has had a really bad effect on the economy. It seems that most of the money in the world is flowing around in circles from one useless company to another and everyone has a useless office job to match. The people who get paid the most are those who do the most useless work of all; pitching silly ideas to foolish investors and trying to predict the next hot useless trend in an economy that is founded on complete randomness. ...all in the hope that they too will one day acquire enough capital so that they can afford to start making their own random investment decisions about random trends in the economy and create more useless jobs in the process.

FooHentai 8y ago

I'm currently going through a phase of setting up a games room, and acquiring a bunch of slightly older video game consoles and games to populate it. I've settled on PS2 and PS3, and Xbox/360 as the sweet spot for this. Partly due to price (they're not old enough to be worth much, but not new enough to be hawked at retail prices). But a factor just as big as price is how, from about mid-360 and PS3 onwards, gaming stopped being a case of 'buy a disc and play the game' and became 'register online, tie to a service which will be withdrawn at some point, and pay extra for bits of the game that would previously have been free'. All of that stuff transformed gaming media from about 2007 onwards from something that you could put on a shelf and return to at your leisure, into this ephemeral thing that you must buy into at the peak of the hype cycle, or it won't exist in proper form (if at all) when you do get around to it. That said, this phenomenon is mostly limited to commercial games. There's an incredible grassroots movement of indie, modding, and retro gaming that everyone is free to immerse and engage in, where this issue just doesn't exist. My reaction to cutting-edge gaming for the past decade or so has been largely to turn away from commercial games and find entertainment via other gaming channels.

ryan-allen 8y ago
For those interested in some cool indie games (on Steam), check out these for a start: Not A Hero, Mother Russia Bleeds, Death Road to Canada, Streets of Rogue, SPACEPLAN, Cluster Truck, Stick Fight by Landfall. There are so many!
andrepd 8y ago
It's indeed sad. My only consolations are (i) like you said, indie games are still an oasis of bubbling creativity in a desert of insipid money-makers, and (ii) there are more brilliant old games I'm still yet to play than I could complete in many many years.
malloryerik 8y ago
What do you think are the best games for modding? Of course Minecraft. What else? I'm thinking especially in terms of modding as a way to get into programming.

phkahler 8y ago

I find it odd that PCs are getting bigger and have Windows on the side, and lots of LEDs lighting up various things like fans...

AdamM12 8y ago

Might be because I just finished reading it the other night but kinda reminds me of "Brave New World."

k4ch0w 8y ago

I know I usually don't see gifs on this website but this completely sums it up. https://i.imgur.com/5lKYfh6.gifv https://i.imgur.com/5lKYfh6.gifv