3 ms·

I know you're not arguing this, but for the sake of expanding into the following point: There have been plenty of games and other creative projects that became

by dgb23 5y ago

I know you're not arguing this, but for the sake of expanding into the following point: There have been plenty of games and other creative projects that became successful ignoring or even despite the economic system. In fact I would argue that many of the most artistic games that had the most positive impact on me personally were made because they simply had to be made. I'm not a fan of table top games (haven't tried them seriously enough) but I could give you a long list of computer games that are just oozing of passion, artistry, profound insights and deep respect for both their craft and their players. A good portion were successful financially, but certainly not all of them.

Jensson 5y ago
Right, today is very different from the 70's, and computer games are very different from table top games. Anyway, I do think that the gaming industry would be much worse if not for capitalism. As you say you can find plenty of good passion projects to play, and even though most of them don't blow up some of them do, giving tons of money to people who have a passion for making games. If not for capitalism, the moment the person starts to add more workers to his project he no longer owns the IP since the concept of owning means of production is a core part of capitalism and IP is a means of production. Now I'm all for worker rights etc, but democratizing the decisions of how an IP should be handled and what should happen with game design etc isn't a good thing, I don't think the people he hires should have any say in that, I bought his products since I liked his vision and don't want new people to ruin it.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > since the concept of owning means of production is a core part of capitalism and IP is a means of production Means of production are scarce property which is used (and consumed—even if only for a time) in the production of other goods. "IP" is not a means of production because it is not scarce. This also implies that it is not property, despite the misleading name. It's a social engineering project instituted by governments and not a core element of capitalism.

by dgb23 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago

Right, today is very different from the 70's, and computer games are very different from table top games. Anyway, I do think that the gaming industry would be much worse if not for capitalism. As you say you can find plenty of good passion projects to play, and even though most of them don't blow up some of them do, giving tons of money to people who have a passion for making games. If not for capitalism, the moment the person starts to add more workers to his project he no longer owns the IP since the concept of owning means of production is a core part of capitalism and IP is a means of production. Now I'm all for worker rights etc, but democratizing the decisions of how an IP should be handled and what should happen with game design etc isn't a good thing, I don't think the people he hires should have any say in that, I bought his products since I liked his vision and don't want new people to ruin it.

nybble41 5y ago
> since the concept of owning means of production is a core part of capitalism and IP is a means of production Means of production are scarce property which is used (and consumed—even if only for a time) in the production of other goods. "IP" is not a means of production because it is not scarce. This also implies that it is not property, despite the misleading name. It's a social engineering project instituted by governments and not a core element of capitalism.