4 ms·

Well... I don't really know anymore. I'm with you on the ethics of gambling mechanics. But I'm less certain about the predatory part than I used to be. I spe

by alex_c 5y ago

Well... I don't really know anymore. I'm with you on the ethics of gambling mechanics. But I'm less certain about the predatory part than I used to be. I spent some time a few years ago playing some of the multiplayer "strategy" mobile games (FF, GoT, etc). I only ever sunk about $100 into any of them, the fun part for me was the politics and the intrigue on each server and that was roughly the ticket to entry. Got to know some of the whales a little - people who drop $5K-$10K+ on the game without a second thought. No real life names, just some conversations here and there. One was a VC, another a race car driver, lots of people from Kuwait for some reason... My point is that I'm having trouble applying the "predatory" label when it's high net worth individuals throwing around sums that are ridiculous to me but trivial to them. I probably spend way more on some of my hobbies as a percentage of my income than they do on these games. Now lower down on the scale, the people spending $100, $200, $500 on these games... that's where I get more uncomfortable.

throwuxiytayq 5y ago
Do you often enjoy being cannon fodder for people who are already more influential/successful than you IRL?
- alex_c 5y ago
  Enjoy? Not particularly, but isn't that just reality? There's always a bigger fish. In-game I had no illusions about personally competing or winning given that those games are purely pay-to-win, as I said I just enjoyed watching the server dynamics and the drama. I felt I got enough value out of, say, the $100 spread out over a few months until I got bored with the game.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    > Enjoy? Not particularly, but isn't that just reality? That's kind of the disappointing thing about all this. In retrospect "classic" (as opposed to gacha) games are somewhat egalitarian. It didn't matter how much money you had, if you could master the gameplay and mechanics you could beat anyone else in the world. It's a shame that the industry is turning so hard towards re-creating real world inequality in these fantasy spaces. This is an ironic reversal of imagined post-scarcity society from sci-fi like Star Trek - instead of creating post-scarcity in the real world we're artificially introducing scarcity to our virtual worlds.
    - MichaelZuo 5y ago
      Post scarcity is physically impossible as it assumes infinite energy, infinite space-time, and no entropy generation. Whereas in reality its the opposite, the most energy, resources, and thermodynamic headroom mankind can ever have access to is based on the co-moving light cone centred on Earth. Not everything imaginable is realizable.
      - VRay 5y ago
        We’re already a post scarcity society by the way an ancient peasant would measure it We have so much food available that it’s a problem that poor people suffer from eating too much It’s easier and more convenient to throw electronics, clothing, and furniture away than to bother repairing them I wouldn’t bend over to pick up a quarter, even though it could buy me a day’s rice or flour Once we’ve moved industry into space, we could well be ten or a hundred times as wealthy as this. Maybe employment will only be something for overachievers in that distant future
        MichaelZuo 5y ago
        By that standard, we’re already living in a fantastical utopia by the way an ancient peasant would measure it, yet lots of folks in this thread are dissatisfied. Why do you think that is?
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        I disagree. One of the largest industries right now is creating demand. People being content with what they have is an economic problem. A significant amount of consumption is simply socio-economic signaling and zero-sum games that have little correlation to the finite nature of resources. There is little the average person truly wants that we cannot provide.
        MichaelZuo 5y ago
        What if more than half the people want to be above average? By definition it’s impossible to fulfill that, now or a billion years in the future. Let alone all the other intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and materialistic desires that will inevitably grow. You are assuming people have fixed minds, and wants never expand to fill the available resources.

by alex_c 5y ago

throwuxiytayq 5y ago

Do you often enjoy being cannon fodder for people who are already more influential/successful than you IRL?

alex_c 5y ago
Enjoy? Not particularly, but isn't that just reality? There's always a bigger fish. In-game I had no illusions about personally competing or winning given that those games are purely pay-to-win, as I said I just enjoyed watching the server dynamics and the drama. I felt I got enough value out of, say, the $100 spread out over a few months until I got bored with the game.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  > Enjoy? Not particularly, but isn't that just reality? That's kind of the disappointing thing about all this. In retrospect "classic" (as opposed to gacha) games are somewhat egalitarian. It didn't matter how much money you had, if you could master the gameplay and mechanics you could beat anyone else in the world. It's a shame that the industry is turning so hard towards re-creating real world inequality in these fantasy spaces. This is an ironic reversal of imagined post-scarcity society from sci-fi like Star Trek - instead of creating post-scarcity in the real world we're artificially introducing scarcity to our virtual worlds.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    Post scarcity is physically impossible as it assumes infinite energy, infinite space-time, and no entropy generation. Whereas in reality its the opposite, the most energy, resources, and thermodynamic headroom mankind can ever have access to is based on the co-moving light cone centred on Earth. Not everything imaginable is realizable.
    - VRay 5y ago
      We’re already a post scarcity society by the way an ancient peasant would measure it We have so much food available that it’s a problem that poor people suffer from eating too much It’s easier and more convenient to throw electronics, clothing, and furniture away than to bother repairing them I wouldn’t bend over to pick up a quarter, even though it could buy me a day’s rice or flour Once we’ve moved industry into space, we could well be ten or a hundred times as wealthy as this. Maybe employment will only be something for overachievers in that distant future
      - MichaelZuo 5y ago
        By that standard, we’re already living in a fantastical utopia by the way an ancient peasant would measure it, yet lots of folks in this thread are dissatisfied. Why do you think that is?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      I disagree. One of the largest industries right now is creating demand. People being content with what they have is an economic problem. A significant amount of consumption is simply socio-economic signaling and zero-sum games that have little correlation to the finite nature of resources. There is little the average person truly wants that we cannot provide.
      - MichaelZuo 5y ago
        What if more than half the people want to be above average? By definition it’s impossible to fulfill that, now or a billion years in the future. Let alone all the other intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and materialistic desires that will inevitably grow. You are assuming people have fixed minds, and wants never expand to fill the available resources.