Yeah I mean I agree with you on the topic of video games in general. It’s cool. But like I said, this original article, movement, etc, is for video games that are sold to customers for money and for profit.
If YOU choose to engage with them commercially then you do so at the creators direction and on their terms.
Yes, and I said that the consumers in general can coerce creators by choosing which works to engage with. Again, If the creator of a for-profit work must (more or less) present their work in a specific way otherwise no-body will buy it, that is coercion and a slight to the creator’s authority, no? (Bolded for emphasis)
You might have a point if indie development and publishing wasn’t in the middle of literal renaissance… Things made the way YOU prefer are hardly disappearing. If AAA gaming isn’t for you anymore, then move on; no need to announce your departure.
Again, my problem is people in these types of threads, and frankly outlets like GamesRadar, presenting their opinions as though they represent opinions of anything other than a loud and incredibly tiny minority of the 3,700,000,000 gamers in the world right now.
Nope that was meant for you. You were insinuating that developers won’t be able to make money if they don’t “comply” with some draconian corporate strategy they loath… and the reality just doesn’t support that.
Indie developers are making more money and getting more mainstream coverage than at any point in history.
We live in a fully globalized world, anyone can absolutely stand behind their sole creative vision for their game and make a living today.
Sorry, it took me for a surprise because I don’t believe I have expressed any preference for a type of video game here. No, I am not insinuating that developers won’t be able to make money if they don’t “comply” with some draconian corporate strategy they loath. Like I said earlier, it’s a hypothetical scenario.
Then, going back to the original post, you would be okay with saying that there isn’t really a “necessity” in the “course correction”, and that if the 3,700,000,000 gamers wanted otherwise, they probably would get it, right?
I think the system that capitalists developed in the 19th and 20th century devalues art and exploits creatives. I think at the time, their work wasn’t seen by the masses as “real labor”, or being of intrinsic value to humanity due to the general population being mostly preoccupied with figuring out how to meet their basic survival needs in an newly industrialized world. This led to people being accepting of someone else’s exploitation as long as it provided them benefit. This is the same dynamic that has ignored rampant sexual exploitation in hollywood, union busting, back-to-work legislation, and slavery at various points throughout history.
If an actual majority of the 3,700,000,000 gamers believe that physical media must exist or they will boycott the entire industry (as unlikely as I think that is), then yes, they will likely get what they want as artists will feel pressured to kowtow or risk their livelihood. If this were to come to pass, I would see it as a moral failing of society to choose the ongoing victimization of creative workers for their own convenience.
To be clear if the gaming industry was currently attempting to eliminate digital sales and move explicitly to physical media, I would feel the exact same way about public pressure to keep digital.
My objection is not about one set of practices over the other, it is about the artists fundamental moral authority to choose how their intellectual labor is capitalized without direct interference from outside influences against their will.
Yeah I mean I agree with you on the topic of video games in general. It’s cool. But like I said, this original article, movement, etc, is for video games that are sold to customers for money and for profit.
Yes, and I said that the consumers in general can coerce creators by choosing which works to engage with. Again, If the creator of a for-profit work must (more or less) present their work in a specific way otherwise no-body will buy it, that is coercion and a slight to the creator’s authority, no? (Bolded for emphasis)
You might have a point if indie development and publishing wasn’t in the middle of literal renaissance… Things made the way YOU prefer are hardly disappearing. If AAA gaming isn’t for you anymore, then move on; no need to announce your departure.
Again, my problem is people in these types of threads, and frankly outlets like GamesRadar, presenting their opinions as though they represent opinions of anything other than a loud and incredibly tiny minority of the 3,700,000,000 gamers in the world right now.
I think you responded to the wrong post 😅
Nope that was meant for you. You were insinuating that developers won’t be able to make money if they don’t “comply” with some draconian corporate strategy they loath… and the reality just doesn’t support that.
Indie developers are making more money and getting more mainstream coverage than at any point in history.
We live in a fully globalized world, anyone can absolutely stand behind their sole creative vision for their game and make a living today.
Sorry, it took me for a surprise because I don’t believe I have expressed any preference for a type of video game here. No, I am not insinuating that developers won’t be able to make money if they don’t “comply” with some draconian corporate strategy they loath. Like I said earlier, it’s a hypothetical scenario.
Great, so we agree that platform holders and AAA devs going digital only won’t hinder the industry!
Then, going back to the original post, you would be okay with saying that there isn’t really a “necessity” in the “course correction”, and that if the 3,700,000,000 gamers wanted otherwise, they probably would get it, right?
I think the system that capitalists developed in the 19th and 20th century devalues art and exploits creatives. I think at the time, their work wasn’t seen by the masses as “real labor”, or being of intrinsic value to humanity due to the general population being mostly preoccupied with figuring out how to meet their basic survival needs in an newly industrialized world. This led to people being accepting of someone else’s exploitation as long as it provided them benefit. This is the same dynamic that has ignored rampant sexual exploitation in hollywood, union busting, back-to-work legislation, and slavery at various points throughout history.
If an actual majority of the 3,700,000,000 gamers believe that physical media must exist or they will boycott the entire industry (as unlikely as I think that is), then yes, they will likely get what they want as artists will feel pressured to kowtow or risk their livelihood. If this were to come to pass, I would see it as a moral failing of society to choose the ongoing victimization of creative workers for their own convenience.
To be clear if the gaming industry was currently attempting to eliminate digital sales and move explicitly to physical media, I would feel the exact same way about public pressure to keep digital.
My objection is not about one set of practices over the other, it is about the artists fundamental moral authority to choose how their intellectual labor is capitalized without direct interference from outside influences against their will.
Why? It’s not a failure for a consumer to want what they want. You even said yourself earlier: