I'm sorry but I vehemently disagree with this and though I am not assuming anything about why, I will say I am puzzled to see a consumer essentially cape for aggressive monetization and/or general incompetence?
Your puzzlement is not an argument.
Principled positions often require people to defend stances that are, in the short-term, at least, disadvantageous to them.
It's called having principles.
That "microtransactions are optional argument" has been, time and time again debunked and the argument is not "they don't have a right to do it!" but "why are they forcing aggressive monetization in a game that already costs a premium?"
If it's been "debunked" "time and time again", why are you doing such a poor job at it?
They are doing it because A) companies want to cut a profit - a critical ambition, B ) because companies absolutely can legitimately do it, and, last but not least, C ) if numbers are anything to go by, because customers do want MTX with just as much eagerness.
This means all interested parties have entered the transaction voluntarily, which is what is required for it not to be an infringement upon individual rights.
I also would like to point out the trademark usurpation of language. No, companies are not "forcing" anything. You are not "forced" to engage in microtransactions. You are
offered MTX, which you can purchase or pass at your own complete discretion.
Pay-to-win MTX would deserve additional comment, but I'll assume you're simply discussing cosmetics.
Your analogy of policing how Jim does/does not spend his money is a false equivalence as well - no one is policing people who buy them, but questioning why they exist.
They exist because A ) companies want to sell these services and goods and B ) customers want to buy these services and goods. And since the rights of third parties are not being infringed upon, the sort of moral condescension usually used when passing comment about people purchasing them is vapid and void.
MTX generate revenue for companies. MTX generate sensorial pleasure for gamers. MTX do not violate the rights of third parties.
I'd say it's case closed.
Companies like Ubisoft literally allow real world purchases deemed "time savers" - essentially demanding money for less time spent playing the game as designed.
As I said before, pay-to-win MTX would deserve additional comments. At this point, I'm not going to waste time on a fringe issue. I'd rather address the core principle, which is exemplified by paid cosmetics.
There are instances where microtransactions have been shoehorned into games before release. Companies, again, don't have to repent, but having said that what does that argument do? Should they or should not?
They should stray true to the capitalist motto: engage in win-win voluntary transactions with customers. That includes offering paid cosmetics, which, evidently, customers crave.
Companies voluntarily offer, customers voluntarily buy.
Video games are getting more expensive to make but they have also literally exponentially exploded in terms a) revenue and b) audience.
Irrelevant.
Thank goodness this isn't Cuba or North Korea. In a free market economy, companies get to decide how much they charge. Guess what will happen to a product the vast majority of potential customers deem overpriced? It will flop.
No. In a free market economy, the best there is, the State doesn't set prices.
Jim Sterling is not the State by proxy of the gaming industry.
Yes, Jim, lacks the bare minimum of knowledge required to assert a specific game is overpriced and, just as importantly, Jim lacks the legitimacy to set prices.
There are actual statistics, articles, fact-based checking to correlate this. That someone does or does not have any "internal knowledge" is not enough to offset this fact.
It most definitely is.
Only under central planning, but definitely not under a free market economy, is a company required to price its products according to a certain mark up. No. I can mark up my costs the way I see fit. I can multiply my cost by 1,000,000,000% , if I so desire. You, in turn, as a customer, can give me the middle finger.
That's the cosmic beauty of a free market economy.
The gaming industry in fact has not only persevered, it thrives year on year, and given how digital formats have thrived within the pandemic, it's only going to eclipse more and more money. Freemium economies found in F2P games is fine, but this...is not.
You asserting it's not fine is an unsubstantiated assertion. Asserted, but not substantiated, therefore dismissed.
So because Jim himself doesn't work as a developer he is unqualified to comment upon the status of workers, many of whom seek him out to get the word out?
Jim can offer comment on whatever Jim pleases.
I am not looking to censor Jim. I'm of the opinion inane arguments need to be on display, so they can be properly scalped.
In a free market economy, both parties enter voluntary partnerships they find beneficial, win-win relationships. A company lays out the conditions under which they'll accept to employ a developer. A developer lays out the conditions under which they'll accept to be employed by a company. Both parties let the other know the terms and conditions they find acceptable. If they reach an agreement, great. A contract is written, both parties are made aware of the terms well in advance, and both parties voluntary sign the contract.
But no. Here comes Jim letting developers know the contract they have voluntary signed is not appealing to Jim. Gee.
But let's say a developer become dissatisfied, after having signed that piece of paper that goes by the name of a contract. They have several options at their disposal. They can try to negotiate with the compony, they can unionize. But the company is under no obligation whatsoever to give in to the requests. For
whatever reason, the company can and is entirely free to decline. It might not be in the company's best interests to decline, it might be foolish for a company to decline, but it is still well within their sovereignty to decline.
Developers can then go on strike, they can quit, they can go and work for the competition, or they can start their own studio, risk and manage their own money, and build that fabled Worker's Paradise, with no crunch, absolute creative freedom, low price tags for games, and still cut a decent profit.
It's all voluntary.
It's all up to both parties to decide.
Uh. "If you hate it so much, you can always leave" is a phantom choice.
No, it's not. A company is under no obligation to offer you a position under terms and conditions you'll find palatable. Ultimately, try to bargain. Go on strike. Didn't work? Too bad. Put up with it or choose to fuck off.
This implies there is all-or-nothing (something we rightfully drag RE for, btw) - you either hate your job but be quiet because you work there (because you need money to...not starve?) OR you don't want to be a 24/7 workaholic and so should leave. Logically, these two are NOT opposite ends of the spectrum.
On the contrary, market economies have built-in inherent self-correcting mechanisms.
What happens to a company which continuously refuses to accommodate workers' demands? They go work for the competition. The best certainly will. Companies that want to stay at the top of their game will want to attract and retain top talent.
There's the mechanism for you.
It just seems like some of the views here are often shaped as responses to someone else.
I'm unburdened by your impression.
Conversely, my impression is now that you've been unexposed to an entire significant section of the political spectrum and its arguments ever since you gained political conscience.
That, however, is irrelevant.
There you go misrepresenting.
Where did I say I hate Jim?
On the contrary, I have said Jim can do whatever Jim wants, provided Jim doesn't encroach upon the rights of others.
I vehemently disagree with Jim's positions.
Surely you can acknowledge the difference between hating Jim and vehemently disagreeing with Jim, no?
I don't even like him much more. But because he hates micro-transactions, wants worker's rights, that shouldn't auto position you as against those things.
That's not why I disagree with Jim.
I disagree with Jim because Jim is demonstrably wrong.
There are literal trans women athletes with insane muscular frames, ones that are unattainable for 99% of people.. (Now whether or not they should compete in women's leagues is very contentious and is a whole other debate entirely)
www.denofgeek.com
always been surprised he stayed so silent for many years, being one of the greats, but now it seems things are working out for him there is lot of potential for fun stories, streaming TV,series/movie, new books, anthologies, etc.
