3 ms·

No, that's where you're wrong. A lot of people say they want the cookies. But the people will actually pay more for the cake. It's not that game developers a

No, that's where you're wrong. A lot of people say they want the cookies. But the people will actually pay more for the cake. It's not that game developers aren't listening. They are listening very closely, and being extremely responsive to where money is being spent.

a1369209993 7y ago
That's a well-known fallacy called revealed preferences. If someone says they want cookies, but spends money on cake, that means they want cookies.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fragmede 7y ago
  This is the first time I've heard of it being a fallacy, but if someone says they want cookies, but spends money on cake, if I have a factory that can make either cookies or cake, and it operates under capitalism, it seems self-evident that I should make cake.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    Sure, but if someone says they want not-heroin, but spends money on heroin, that doesn't mean they want heroin, except in the most asininely reductive misrepresentation of their preferences. Maybe most people don't care about, say, the existence of servers that will put their desires above those of the game company (which is one of the things self-hosted software practically provides; no one disputes that running the server on your PC just because is a niche scenario), but the fact that they fail to effectively strategise their spending toward that goal is not evidence in favor of that conclusion, because it's much more easily explained by the known fact that people (note I didn't say "most") are short-sighted, impulsive, technologically-illiterate (okay, that one's most) hypocrites in most of their decision making.
    - ncallaway 7y ago
      Sure, but none of that rebuts fragmede's point: "if I have a factory that can make either cookies or cake, and it operates under capitalism, it seems self-evident that I should make cake." The system has evolutionary pressures towards financial reward. The game companies that make "cake" are rewarded and gain market share and power. The companies that make "cookies" are financially punished and lose market share and wither. In the system that we have, with the financial systems at play, it's inevitable that you'll get "cakes".
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        fragmede's point doesn't need a rebuttal because it has nothing to do with the actual disagreement. > > nobody asked for the fucking fancy cake! [...] We were all very happy with the cookies we had before. > No, [...] you're wrong. Clearly the the profit-maximizing action is to manufacture cake, 'free'-to-play games, and heroin, rather than cookies, well-designed games, and nothing; no one in this thread (that I've noticed at least) is actually disputing that; we're saying that we don't want cake, as far as we can tell no one actually wants cake, and it's axiologically bad that production is focused on cake rather than cookies. Some people are then (rightly or wrongly) blaming the baker, but the only thing I was asserting was that no, the fact that people pay money for cake does not mean they want cake. (In the absence of any other evidence it suggests that people want cake - which is the reason capitalism ever works at all for anything - but we have multiple people saying cake is terrible, so there is not a absence of other evidence.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
brnt 7y ago
People 'want' whatever advertising tells them they want.
Rury 7y ago
Nonsense. If they want cookies, but the only option the baker gives is cake or go hungry, of course they're going to pay for the cake. It's their only option! Doesn't necessarily mean they don't prefer the cookies just because they're spending on cake...
- ncallaway 7y ago
  Sure, let's extend the analogy a bit. Let's say there are thousands of bakers. There are bakers making cookies and cakes all the time. Some of those bakers are financially rewarded for their choices, and thus gain power. Others are financially punished for their choices, and slowly are pushed to the margins or die (as a business. The person just moves to a non-baking field). Over time, you will see an evolutionary pressure toward the baker's baking cakes. You will see fewer and fewer baker's baking cookies. This is what happened in the gaming industry. There were options for cookies, but they weren't financially rewarded and those options have been drastically diminished because of it. I will say that, in this now-stretched analogy, I also prefer "cookies". Those games are out there. They're being made by indie developers. Go spend money on them if you want more of them.

a1369209993 7y ago

That's a well-known fallacy called revealed preferences. If someone says they want cookies, but spends money on cake, that means they want cookies.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fragmede 7y ago
This is the first time I've heard of it being a fallacy, but if someone says they want cookies, but spends money on cake, if I have a factory that can make either cookies or cake, and it operates under capitalism, it seems self-evident that I should make cake.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  Sure, but if someone says they want not-heroin, but spends money on heroin, that doesn't mean they want heroin, except in the most asininely reductive misrepresentation of their preferences. Maybe most people don't care about, say, the existence of servers that will put their desires above those of the game company (which is one of the things self-hosted software practically provides; no one disputes that running the server on your PC just because is a niche scenario), but the fact that they fail to effectively strategise their spending toward that goal is not evidence in favor of that conclusion, because it's much more easily explained by the known fact that people (note I didn't say "most") are short-sighted, impulsive, technologically-illiterate (okay, that one's most) hypocrites in most of their decision making.
  - ncallaway 7y ago
    Sure, but none of that rebuts fragmede's point: "if I have a factory that can make either cookies or cake, and it operates under capitalism, it seems self-evident that I should make cake." The system has evolutionary pressures towards financial reward. The game companies that make "cake" are rewarded and gain market share and power. The companies that make "cookies" are financially punished and lose market share and wither. In the system that we have, with the financial systems at play, it's inevitable that you'll get "cakes".
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      fragmede's point doesn't need a rebuttal because it has nothing to do with the actual disagreement. > > nobody asked for the fucking fancy cake! [...] We were all very happy with the cookies we had before. > No, [...] you're wrong. Clearly the the profit-maximizing action is to manufacture cake, 'free'-to-play games, and heroin, rather than cookies, well-designed games, and nothing; no one in this thread (that I've noticed at least) is actually disputing that; we're saying that we don't want cake, as far as we can tell no one actually wants cake, and it's axiologically bad that production is focused on cake rather than cookies. Some people are then (rightly or wrongly) blaming the baker, but the only thing I was asserting was that no, the fact that people pay money for cake does not mean they want cake. (In the absence of any other evidence it suggests that people want cake - which is the reason capitalism ever works at all for anything - but we have multiple people saying cake is terrible, so there is not a absence of other evidence.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

brnt 7y ago

People 'want' whatever advertising tells them they want.

Rury 7y ago

Nonsense. If they want cookies, but the only option the baker gives is cake or go hungry, of course they're going to pay for the cake. It's their only option! Doesn't necessarily mean they don't prefer the cookies just because they're spending on cake...

ncallaway 7y ago
Sure, let's extend the analogy a bit. Let's say there are thousands of bakers. There are bakers making cookies and cakes all the time. Some of those bakers are financially rewarded for their choices, and thus gain power. Others are financially punished for their choices, and slowly are pushed to the margins or die (as a business. The person just moves to a non-baking field). Over time, you will see an evolutionary pressure toward the baker's baking cakes. You will see fewer and fewer baker's baking cookies. This is what happened in the gaming industry. There were options for cookies, but they weren't financially rewarded and those options have been drastically diminished because of it. I will say that, in this now-stretched analogy, I also prefer "cookies". Those games are out there. They're being made by indie developers. Go spend money on them if you want more of them.