It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionCapitalism killing games and the world(70 posts)(70 posts)
(70 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 02, 2015
avatar
itchy01ca01: are lurking in the background, slowly eroding freedoms and slowly instituting themselves into our highest positions of government and insulating themselves from the public and any recrimination.
avatar
Telika: DON'T DENY THEM THE FREEDOM TO DO SO, you liberticide commie !
Bahahaa. And this is how most "patriots" view these kinds of debates.
Posted April 02, 2015
avatar
Telika: ...I agree that we haven't had yet revolutionary alternatives that function (at least on today's unavoidable large scale). And that most debates should stay about the choices of fields and levels of restrictions within a generally "capitalist" system. But these restrictions will exist and be enforced, more or less explicitely or implicitely, more or less denounced or presented as "natural" and "unquestionnable", whatever the system. This word is really not a good angle to qualify the different policies available.

It's mostly purely rhetorical, and, as such, pretty dangerously instrumentalizable.
One way out would be to talk less about buzzwords and more about ideas/how things should really work, but then who is doing that here? It's just a guess, but I estimate that the GOG customer forum will hardly be the place to give birth to a new world order that is actually working. Seen realistically this is all here just a bit of smalltalk.
Posted April 02, 2015
avatar
itchy01ca01: Exactly. Maximum freedom.. for the producer. The consumer? Where is his freedom if there is no freedom of choice?
avatar
apehater: i can't think of something else :)
(long version)
Posted April 02, 2015
avatar
Telika: ...I agree that we haven't had yet revolutionary alternatives that function (at least on today's unavoidable large scale). And that most debates should stay about the choices of fields and levels of restrictions within a generally "capitalist" system. But these restrictions will exist and be enforced, more or less explicitely or implicitely, more or less denounced or presented as "natural" and "unquestionnable", whatever the system. This word is really not a good angle to qualify the different policies available.

It's mostly purely rhetorical, and, as such, pretty dangerously instrumentalizable.
avatar
Trilarion: One way out would be to talk less about buzzwords and more about ideas/how things should really work, but then who is doing that here? It's just a guess, but I estimate that the GOG customer forum will hardly be the place to give birth to a new world order that is actually working. Seen realistically this is all here just a bit of smalltalk.
But buzzwords are what corporations are using to shift the blame for all the worlds woes onto their own consumers. So, we combat back with buzzwords and slogans. I never gave a concrete solution to our problems, but recognizing that they do exist, even simply on some internet forum, is a miniscule step forward in the right direction.
Posted April 02, 2015
avatar
itchy01ca01: But buzzwords are what corporations are using to shift the blame for all the worlds woes onto their own consumers. So, we combat back with buzzwords and slogans. I never gave a concrete solution to our problems, but recognizing that they do exist, even simply on some internet forum, is a miniscule step forward in the right direction.
Sure. I'm hanging out here too. If we would sit in a bar, I would now buy some beer for you and me and say: go on. The good thing about smalltalk is that you can say anything you like.
Posted April 02, 2015
avatar
Telika: (long version)
Right at the beginning they say this:

War, as I came to report it, was something fought between people with causes, however crazy or honourable: like between the American and British occupiers of Iraq and the insurgents who opposed them.
I thought most wars if not all begin because of resources. To say it's about some cause seems like propaganda one way or another.

The article then mentions this:
The thing that really makes Mexico's war a different war, and of our time, is that it is about, in the end, nothing.
I don't get it, it's the same as the others; they are about resources, not nothing. Just because there's less faith or whatever doesn't mean it's less legitmate. Granted, I'm not going to defend the drug business nor rampant greed but I won't defend nation war / patriotism either.
Post edited April 03, 2015 by Nirth
Posted April 03, 2015
avatar
Telika: (long version)
avatar
Nirth: Right at the beginning they say this:

War, as I came to report it, was something fought between people with causes, however crazy or honourable: like between the American and British occupiers of Iraq and the insurgents who opposed them.
avatar
Nirth: I thought most wars if not all begin because of resources. To say it's about some cause seems like propaganda one way or another.
I don't think that resources is the narrative that the soldiers go by, and are motivated through.
Posted April 03, 2015
avatar
Telika: I don't think that resources is the narrative that the soldiers go by, and are motivated through.
Strictly speaking they are used though by someone else to gain resources one way or another.
Posted April 03, 2015
avatar
Trilarion: So, what do you want?
Maybe something fairer than what we have now? Something that doesn't make people sick (mental illnesses) in the long run? Something that doesn't abuse the majority so a minority can live in opulence? Something that doesn't force "unlimited" growth (because growth in capitalism is exponential and that doesn't work in an finite world)? Something that doesn't destroy ourselfs?
I'm not smart enough to develop such a system. Even economists who doesn't lobbying for capitalism, are not sure what to do, only some ideas and the certainty that something has to change.

Edit:
And I think the allegory with the nuclear power plant is more fitting because if something goes wrong it does far more damage than a simple knife. Just like capitalism.
Post edited April 03, 2015 by viperfdl
Posted April 03, 2015
avatar
Telika: I don't think that resources is the narrative that the soldiers go by, and are motivated through.
avatar
Nirth: Strictly speaking they are used though by someone else to gain resources one way or another.
Yeah, but I mean, what the author may mean here (I doubt he's naive about the underlying stakes of territorial wars) is the ideological drive at the foot soldier's level.
Posted April 03, 2015
avatar
viperfdl: 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.
avatar
yogsloth: Well, it would, because capitalism is freedom.

Capitalism is the ability to market the product of your own labor as you see fit, and sell it at the highest price you can negotiate. Whether you're programming computer games or digging ditches, capitalism only limits you to your own talents, abilities, and motivation.

Any other system would inherently have to be less free.
Like Telika wrote: Where does freedom end? There, where the freedom of someone else begins? There, where it starts to damage others than the one who uses his freedom?
Who is more equal than others?
Posted April 03, 2015
avatar
Telika: Yeah, but I mean, what the author may mean here (I doubt he's naive about the underlying stakes of territorial wars) is the ideological drive at the foot soldier's level.
Fair enough. Still, a worrying part is that the hunt for resources never change and while the rest seem to do.
Posted April 03, 2015
Considering there is hardly a free market industry in the world, I would not blame a system that has been limited to basically just online commerce.

The US right now is basically in a mixed economy right now that leans heavily towards corporatism (not rule of business corporations but rather the concept of state-controlled economics through heavy regulations and mandatory association).
Posted April 03, 2015
avatar
Gnostic: 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? "
avatar
Gilozard: 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?
Well, your opinion is based on business model with movies - books, TV shows and music is becoming better when compare to the old way.

Are they better?

Does knowing why the new buisness model works equal to agreeing that everyone should embrace the new buisness model and happly being screw?

In my humble opinion, the author hates the new buisness model and is encourage by the rise of digital distribution to go back to the old buisness model.
Post edited April 03, 2015 by Gnostic
Posted April 03, 2015
avatar
infinite9: Considering there is hardly a free market industry in the world, I would not blame a system that has been limited to basically just online commerce.

The US right now is basically in a mixed economy right now that leans heavily towards corporatism (not rule of business corporations but rather the concept of state-controlled economics through heavy regulations and mandatory association).
?? There is hardly ANY control on corporations anymore. When there WAS regulation, it worked. People were prospering, creativity was flowing. Now, monopolism is the game, and corporations are making a crap ton of money. Profits are at an all time high, and yet unemployment isn't getting any better and wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living. At least where I live.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionCapitalism killing games and the world(70 posts)(70 posts)
(70 posts)