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.
A boycott, by definition is an attempt to punitively coerce others.
If your employer attempted to coerce you into physical relationship to “earn” a promotion, would that feel different to you than them simply overlooking you for said promotion?
A boycott, by definition is an attempt to punitively coerce others.
Punitively coerce by witholding your sale. The same sale that would have been witheld by your disengagement.
If your employer attempted to coerce you into physical relationship to “earn” a promotion, would that feel different to you than them simply overlooking you for said promotion?
The issue here is that the condition is unrelated to your employment. The end of life plans of the video game is directly relevant to whether you might want to purchase said game or not.
would that feel different to you
Are you trying to say that the difference is just vibes?
If you ever believed that any video game was going to be available for the rest of your life I don’t really know where to go from there…
I have never once in my life had the expectation that any digital entitlement I have purchased would be usable for the rest of my life.
Not only would that be an insane, illogical, and entitled perspective to hold; but it is also directly contradicted by every TOS/EULA of every single streaming service I have ever signed up for, and the T&C of every single digital purchase I have ever completed.
I am at a loss as to why you, or anyone else has ever had a different expectation.
Also, are you saying that when you accept an employment offer that you don’t have the expectation that compensation increases and career mobility will be available independant of sexual favors? That’s weird.
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:
There is a clear difference between disengagement and a boycott.
In your own words, what is the difference? Does it make a practical difference to the creator whose work is no longer being consumed?
A boycott, by definition is an attempt to punitively coerce others.
If your employer attempted to coerce you into physical relationship to “earn” a promotion, would that feel different to you than them simply overlooking you for said promotion?
Punitively coerce by witholding your sale. The same sale that would have been witheld by your disengagement.
The issue here is that the condition is unrelated to your employment. The end of life plans of the video game is directly relevant to whether you might want to purchase said game or not.
Are you trying to say that the difference is just vibes?
If you ever believed that any video game was going to be available for the rest of your life I don’t really know where to go from there…
I have never once in my life had the expectation that any digital entitlement I have purchased would be usable for the rest of my life.
Not only would that be an insane, illogical, and entitled perspective to hold; but it is also directly contradicted by every TOS/EULA of every single streaming service I have ever signed up for, and the T&C of every single digital purchase I have ever completed.
I am at a loss as to why you, or anyone else has ever had a different expectation.
Also, are you saying that when you accept an employment offer that you don’t have the expectation that compensation increases and career mobility will be available independant of sexual favors? That’s weird.