That's what amused me about the phrasing. "CAPITALISM KILLS GAMES (and also the world, but, yeah)". It kinda reminds me how EA is the WORST MOST EVIL COMPANY EVAR BECAUSE MAH GAYYYMES.

But for the rest, to answer MaGo72, the problem is how the word "capitalism" is used in such discussions. In some contexts, it means a global system in any of its forms ("capitalism" as opposed to "communism"), in others it's more like an ideological pole, a component of every society but that you can push for to more extreme and exclusive levels.

Most people who are "anticapitalist" (that is, who feel that the capitalist logics are eating up all other social considerations and all aspects of life) are also "capitalist" (they discuss social organisation in a society which background is globally "capitalistic", implicitely, and would not really have it otherwise). There is no contradiction here, just an ambiguity of words. Just like nationalists do live in a nation, and if you're not nationalist it doesn't mean you don't, it just means that nations shouldn't be fetishized.

Likewise, socialism, in Europe, is meant as a mode of organisation in a capitalist country, not as a communist system. But in some contexts, it's meant as the USSR model.

So, yeah, words. And tedious deaf dialogues. Capitalism is basically a nuclear plant's reaction, that requires to be restrained and controlled for the plant to not melt down, but is still its basic principle. As debates can go on and on on the nature and levels of these restrains, you can call "capitalist" and "anticapitalist/socialist" those who pull (sometimes, for good or bad reasons, very strongly) on the opposing ends of the rope, but very few of them would pull the rope all the way to their direction...

If you follow the beliefs of some... movements within gaming, yes, that is their answer. After all, there are some who believe that games aren't really meant to be played for fun. Rather, they're 'teaching tools' capable of conditioning youngsters into how to think (and who to obey). Games as a service has a totally different meaning when you put it in that context.

Give me capitalist pigs any day over nit-picky social engineers. At least the filthy capitalists still know how to offer a good time.

Capitalism is awesome - yes
corporate greed is good. - no

The problem is people confuse corporate greed with capitalism. That is they think corporatocracy is capitalism but capitalism is free enterprise.

Yup, doesn't "free enterprise" directly lead to "corporatocracy", in most radical "free market" systems ?

Like, unchecked law-of-the-jungle (because ethical constraints are limitations to free enterprise) -> predatory victories -> big ones securing domination -> lasting economic (therefore political) control ?

You seem to present them as if they are completely distinct notions.

Fully agree with this +1

So, basically, this guys argument is that he wants to make games but can't afford to do so on his own. He then asks others to put their money into the project so that he can pay for personnel, equipment, tools and such for the duration of the development period. Those who invested in the game want to make sure that they not only get all their money back but actually make a return on that investment. Yet somehow the investors are the "greedy" ones and not the guy begging them for money? Does this qualify as irony?

Maybe because they ask to much return of investment?

In the article it says something like

"So I look at it as, if I went with a publisher, you want a 5x return. If you're a venture capitalist, you want a 10x return. If you're an indie, can you double your money? Now, if you were in real estate, and you could double your money, you would be thrilled. So why not in entertainment? "

Freedom to develop will always be better than any regulated system. Let the people who will break their back on half a Battlefield game do so and realize the futility. Its useless to cut off avenues of game development that gives developers important data and experiences. AAA will fall and fail occasionally; and the market will decide it doesn't want it anymore. Either way the corporate best will be purged. But in the unregulated system, the market will decide; and that is the best 100% of the time.

Wasn't there a good old game called Capitalism?

Regarding the article I think that the comparison of the video game industry to environmental problems and food production is not very productive. This kind of disrupts the article.

So my two cents for whatever they are worth: Capitalism works splendid on the small scale but over the course of years capital gets accumulated and must be redistributed effectively. On the large scale the use of ressources and the destruction of the planet must be limited smartly and if done right capitalism could even help there. For example just put a high tax on resource consumption and capitalism will automatically find ways to use less of them. The problem is rather a political problem where such solutions are effectively blocked by all those short-sighted and self-centered voters. The capital itself should rather be interested in that we do not drive against the wall, I guess. But we humans being on average not very clever, we probably are capable of doing it. I don't see much chance that we can change this - our children and their children will definitely have it worse.
Customers could actually do alot if only they wanted to. Just imagine everyone would not buy a single AAA game for one year. All the major publishers would go bankrupt and we could start again all over with smaller budget and a greater variety of titles, maybe more focus on story and gameplay instead of looks and shine and iterations of the same topic or maybe not, who knows.

But a shift of what the customers values could probably make some difference.

I think capitalism still works for gaming, but due to the nature of game developement that takes years, the effects are slow to happen.

Paradox is earning 160 million last month with Cities Skyline and Pillars of Eternity thanks to EA.

When presented a better alternative to EA Sim City, gamers flock to it. same could be said to the new Dragon Age.
It will be harder and harder for publisher to screw gamers, if I know it correctly, Assassin Creed Unity could no longer garner fans as the previous series do.

Continue to screw gamers and someone else is going to take the place of the big publisher. It just need years to do so due to the nature of game developement......

They are not unrelated, but then the causations you propose are not automatic dynamics.

The word free by itself has implications of ethical nature, it's only by ignoring those that most your boogeymen (Predation! Domination! Control!) appear. Coercion and freedom are contradictory, so either the monopoly is natural and free competition possible, hence no actual abuse is actual. Or some form of coercion is involved, be it violent, regulatory, or even ethical, sure... in which case naming it free enterprise or free market is in fact a sort of category mistake.

So your black is my white, etc.. etc...

Capitalism kills the world, aye, that be true, but about games, no me hearties, the "seas" are still free to sail, as of yet...

That argument just betrays the author's complete ignorance.

Expected return varies wildly by industry and product. The return on groceries is different from the return on tablets which is different from the return on houses. Each product has its own seasons and market cycles, different types of actors in the market...trying to claim that games should be treated like houses is foolish and ignorant.

Games share a general business model with movies - books, TV shows and music used to work the same way but are transitioning to a new model after market shakeups - where publishers take risks to finance games in the hopes of a megahit that will provide astronomical returns needed to pay off debt accumulated for the 90% of games that bomb. No publisher is willing to take on a proven low-earner game, because they need to sell millions of copies to recoup the cost of the game and then support the 8 other games that didn't make it to market, or didn't sell enough to cover development expenses.

Indies can get away from the megahit model, because they minimize development costs and timeframes (free tools, developing in a basement, etc). But corporate publishers or investors can't stay afloat that way in the current market.

TL;DR The author has no clue about why and how products sell. Why is he being given an article to spout ignorance?
I agree - it's really a cultural problem. Culture can change, but it's going to take a generation and some shocks, I'm afraid.

Which is part of the reason I buy DRM-free. It's one less barrier to game longevity. If in 20 years it's practically impossible to get games, I'll probably still have a backlog.

It's sad that most people seem to have the opinion that criticizing and/or refusing capitalism is a kind of taboo. Everyone seem to think that developing a new economy and monetary system would automatically result in less freedom.
Did you all forget what 2008 happened? Keyword: Lehman Brothers? Do you really think that was just bad luck?