3 ms·

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 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.
yborg 8y ago
The article is weak from clickbaity title to eventual conclusion that only UBI will save us from a dark dystopian future of a huge slave class of gamers forced to allocate their meager incomes to buy in-game powerups by a shadowy cabal of Silicon Valley overlords. It always sounds cool to derive these kinds of arguments when there is a new delivery model that is Paradigm Shifting Everything. In fact, as pointed out by a bunch of other commenters, this model isn't intrinsically much different from the console arcade game model of whenever it was the first pinball machine came out. As for the "monetization of leisure" this is basically as old as leisure time itself, as is the idea of restricting access to this leisure activity to those with the wherewithal. The classic model here is - golf. To play a "better course" you need to pay large fees, and in many clubs need to pass some kind of vetting. Golf nonetheless created a class of professional players, who are paid based on how well their play (and possibly antics) entertain a population of passive fans. I don't see how "monetized gaming" and "e-sports" is at all different from the vast class of professional gaming or sporting activities from poker to football. Civilization has not collapsed because there are millions of lowly duffers who feel compelled to spend money to knock little white balls around a field. I feel confident we will survive "Clash of Clans" as well.
- wpasc 8y ago
  I don't know... Clash of Clans strikes me as an early alpha of Skynet
volkl48 8y ago
I'll point out that there's always been a big class of hobbies where average people make a few bucks here and there, but money is not the focus and doesn't really detract from the enjoyment of it as leisure. For example, everyone that likes DIY/fixing things/tinkering. Will I fix something little for my buddy for a case of beer? Sure. Will I do the brakes on his little sports car for a few bucks, him providing the parts, and letting me take it for a drive up in the hills? Sure. Will I work on his daily driver with him needing it for work on Monday? Nope. It's a hobby, not a job. It's enjoyable to do in my spare time, relaxed and with a beer in hand, the moment it becomes a source of stress I'm not interested.

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.

yborg 8y ago

The article is weak from clickbaity title to eventual conclusion that only UBI will save us from a dark dystopian future of a huge slave class of gamers forced to allocate their meager incomes to buy in-game powerups by a shadowy cabal of Silicon Valley overlords. It always sounds cool to derive these kinds of arguments when there is a new delivery model that is Paradigm Shifting Everything. In fact, as pointed out by a bunch of other commenters, this model isn't intrinsically much different from the console arcade game model of whenever it was the first pinball machine came out. As for the "monetization of leisure" this is basically as old as leisure time itself, as is the idea of restricting access to this leisure activity to those with the wherewithal. The classic model here is - golf. To play a "better course" you need to pay large fees, and in many clubs need to pass some kind of vetting. Golf nonetheless created a class of professional players, who are paid based on how well their play (and possibly antics) entertain a population of passive fans. I don't see how "monetized gaming" and "e-sports" is at all different from the vast class of professional gaming or sporting activities from poker to football. Civilization has not collapsed because there are millions of lowly duffers who feel compelled to spend money to knock little white balls around a field. I feel confident we will survive "Clash of Clans" as well.

wpasc 8y ago
I don't know... Clash of Clans strikes me as an early alpha of Skynet

volkl48 8y ago

I'll point out that there's always been a big class of hobbies where average people make a few bucks here and there, but money is not the focus and doesn't really detract from the enjoyment of it as leisure. For example, everyone that likes DIY/fixing things/tinkering. Will I fix something little for my buddy for a case of beer? Sure. Will I do the brakes on his little sports car for a few bucks, him providing the parts, and letting me take it for a drive up in the hills? Sure. Will I work on his daily driver with him needing it for work on Monday? Nope. It's a hobby, not a job. It's enjoyable to do in my spare time, relaxed and with a beer in hand, the moment it becomes a source of stress I'm not interested.