3 ms·

I could not agree more. I won't romanticize 1950s or 1970s cheap junk products compared to 1990s cheap junk products or 2020s cheap junk products, but something

I could not agree more. I won't romanticize 1950s or 1970s cheap junk products compared to 1990s cheap junk products or 2020s cheap junk products, but something definitely has changed. Here's how I like to argue it: TVs might be cheaper "per unit of TV", but it's also difficult to just buy a basic TV. This is also offset intensely by "shrinkflation", which applies as much to durable goods (cheapening components) as it does to food. So you end up stuck with a bunch of "extra TV" that you don't need or want, effectively providing 0 utility, while the core product is lower-quality, even further lowering utility. And meanwhile economists deny that there is a problem because when you average it all out, you do technically pay less per abstracted unit of TV. The reason this happens is because it ultimately leads to better profit margins for manufacturers. "We make 'em like they used to!" isn't enough of a differentiating factor for most consumers, who are deliberately kept under-educated and constantly bombarded with p̶r̶o̶p̶a̶g̶a̶n̶d̶a̶ advertising and marketing. If you can sell a TV for $100, do you want to spend $10 manufacturing the TV, or do you want to spend $5 manufacturing the TV and $0.25 adding some onboard computer and software to make it "smart" (marketing!) while skimming off a huge data/ad revenue stream as essentially free money on the side? Moreover, luxury goods are somewhat irrelevant if your basic economic needs become less affordable. Maybe TVs are cheaper "per unit", but housing, healthcare, food, and energy are not. Those are literally all of the basic human needs except one (water), recognizable as such in even the most primitive of ancient societies. And water is problematic ("expensive" in terms of consumer welfare) in much of the USA for reasons other than pure financial cost. Edit: None of the above should be construed as advocacy or apology for chart-crimes and misleading reports based thereupon.

mf_tomb 4y ago
It's conspiratorial to assume that advertising and marketing is responsible for the status quo, rather than it being reflective of the genuine preferences of consumers to have new toys. Consumer preference has rewarded lowest-common-denominator dopamine trains in basically every facet of modern life. See the gaming industry with microtransactions/lootboxes, or entertainment with the move towards short-form content.
- Kaze404 4y ago
  It’s not conspirational to assume that advertising and marketing is part of forming the status quo, by virtue of those fields literally exploiting human weaknesses to do so. If they simply reflected what consumer want, not only would they not have a reason to exist, but if they did they wouldn’t need to resort to endless amounts of FOMO to get you to buy Season 329 of their Battle Pass.
  - mf_tomb 4y ago
    In 2022, it would be stupid to make a game that doesn't have some sort of battle pass and dopamine-drip progression system. Way fewer people would play your game and gamers would complain without them. People genuinely enjoy these systems, just like they genuinely enjoy reality TV over a documentary or TikTok over long-form Youtube videos. It's an obvious trend that won't be fixed if we misunderstand the issue and assume that people don't want these things and they're being pushed by advertising.
    - Kaze404 4y ago
      How do you know people want these things? Do you actually think “yay! I love that this new game has a battle pass system and lootboxes” is a common sentiment? The point is that there is no choice. Sure, companies are very likely making more money off these systems than otherwise, but to say this is because people want it doesn’t ring true to me, simply because they can’t just pivot to a similar game without them, or avoid it entirely. Games like Fortnite are so predatory on monetization that they strip you out of even choosing the base nothingburger characters available for free, instead randomizing which one you get per match to force you to buy something to even have a consistent player model you somewhat like. That kids, a demographic that’s by nature desperate to express themselves, spend piles of money on these systems is no surprise. Not to mention the fact that they’re too young to know there’s even an alternative at all. There’s also mountains of evidence that contradict the statement that a game without a battle pass won’t succeed. One of the most profitable and respected MMOs currently is Final Fantasy XIV, a game that has nothing like it, in the genre that had micro-transactions and lootboxes before most people even heard the terms. Middle Earth Shadows of War is also a great game that was ruined by loot boxes and progression systems, where the outcry was so big that the developers completely removed them after the fact.

mf_tomb 4y ago

It's conspiratorial to assume that advertising and marketing is responsible for the status quo, rather than it being reflective of the genuine preferences of consumers to have new toys. Consumer preference has rewarded lowest-common-denominator dopamine trains in basically every facet of modern life. See the gaming industry with microtransactions/lootboxes, or entertainment with the move towards short-form content.

Kaze404 4y ago
It’s not conspirational to assume that advertising and marketing is part of forming the status quo, by virtue of those fields literally exploiting human weaknesses to do so. If they simply reflected what consumer want, not only would they not have a reason to exist, but if they did they wouldn’t need to resort to endless amounts of FOMO to get you to buy Season 329 of their Battle Pass.
- mf_tomb 4y ago
  In 2022, it would be stupid to make a game that doesn't have some sort of battle pass and dopamine-drip progression system. Way fewer people would play your game and gamers would complain without them. People genuinely enjoy these systems, just like they genuinely enjoy reality TV over a documentary or TikTok over long-form Youtube videos. It's an obvious trend that won't be fixed if we misunderstand the issue and assume that people don't want these things and they're being pushed by advertising.
  - Kaze404 4y ago
    How do you know people want these things? Do you actually think “yay! I love that this new game has a battle pass system and lootboxes” is a common sentiment? The point is that there is no choice. Sure, companies are very likely making more money off these systems than otherwise, but to say this is because people want it doesn’t ring true to me, simply because they can’t just pivot to a similar game without them, or avoid it entirely. Games like Fortnite are so predatory on monetization that they strip you out of even choosing the base nothingburger characters available for free, instead randomizing which one you get per match to force you to buy something to even have a consistent player model you somewhat like. That kids, a demographic that’s by nature desperate to express themselves, spend piles of money on these systems is no surprise. Not to mention the fact that they’re too young to know there’s even an alternative at all. There’s also mountains of evidence that contradict the statement that a game without a battle pass won’t succeed. One of the most profitable and respected MMOs currently is Final Fantasy XIV, a game that has nothing like it, in the genre that had micro-transactions and lootboxes before most people even heard the terms. Middle Earth Shadows of War is also a great game that was ruined by loot boxes and progression systems, where the outcry was so big that the developers completely removed them after the fact.