2 ms·

What a luxury you have to spend so much money on things, then. Hint: most people don't live that way.

vouwfietsman 5mo ago
Hint: maybe they would if they would unionize themselves.
fodkodrasz 5mo ago
Well, given that computer games are not essential goods, most people could survive perfectly well without these so-called luxuries. Or is it only fairly produced luxury goods that are considered a luxury, while exploitatively produced luxury goods are simply treated as the standard way people live?
thrance 5mo ago
It's extremely dishonest to frame it as "if workers get good working conditions then consumers suffer". The reality is that Rockstar is extremely profitable. The crunch they impose on their devs with every single release shouldn't be tolerated, and I stand in full support of the unionized workers. And if a product requires human suffering to be so cheap, then maybe it shouldn't be so cheap.
keybored 4mo ago
Most people haven’t had the luxury of playing a new GTA game in 13 years either. Jesus Christ, I need to spell out that it’s a video game and not some life necessity? The usual anti-union scaremongering is about families being delayed for their vacations because airport workers want rights, but this is even more optional. I don’t buy the premise of workers ruining the lives of consumers; I think the real problem is them ruining the relative profits of shareholders.[1] But F me, I’m not gonna buy this privilege checking over a crime sandbox video game. [1] This user in another subthread[2] is complaining that people are antagonistic against management. Of course, whatever is most expedient for anti-unionism, everything from woe-is-poor-person to you-need-management-you-peons. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48326490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48326490
moondance 4mo ago
In other words: people are entitled to cheap entertainment, but the people who labor to produce that entertainment aren’t entitled to good working conditions. Boo

Hint: maybe they would if they would unionize themselves.

Well, given that computer games are not essential goods, most people could survive perfectly well without these so-called luxuries. Or is it only fairly produced luxury goods that are considered a luxury, while exploitatively produced luxury goods are simply treated as the standard way people live?

thrance 5mo ago

It's extremely dishonest to frame it as "if workers get good working conditions then consumers suffer". The reality is that Rockstar is extremely profitable. The crunch they impose on their devs with every single release shouldn't be tolerated, and I stand in full support of the unionized workers. And if a product requires human suffering to be so cheap, then maybe it shouldn't be so cheap.

keybored 4mo ago

Most people haven’t had the luxury of playing a new GTA game in 13 years either. Jesus Christ, I need to spell out that it’s a video game and not some life necessity? The usual anti-union scaremongering is about families being delayed for their vacations because airport workers want rights, but this is even more optional. I don’t buy the premise of workers ruining the lives of consumers; I think the real problem is them ruining the relative profits of shareholders.[1] But F me, I’m not gonna buy this privilege checking over a crime sandbox video game. [1] This user in another subthread[2] is complaining that people are antagonistic against management. Of course, whatever is most expedient for anti-unionism, everything from woe-is-poor-person to you-need-management-you-peons. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48326490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48326490

moondance 4mo ago

In other words: people are entitled to cheap entertainment, but the people who labor to produce that entertainment aren’t entitled to good working conditions. Boo