Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

democracyjournal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 163 posts

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#61

Post by mantas »

emodendroket wrote: post #27
Andrex wrote: post #9

This is a good read, but I question this line: > Video games, at their best, offer everyone an equal chance to overcome the same challenges on an equal playing field. “Pac-Man,” after all, didn’t let you add extra quarters to purchase immunity from the ghosts. I mean, in a way they did. If you had more quarters to spare in Pac-Man, you'd be more likely to make it further than your cash-strapped compatriot. But then a…

NES-era games juiced the difficulty so you couldn't beat them on rental. Not quite the same but if I were going to pick a "golden age" of relatively not-exploitative gaming it might go from SNES-PS2 or so.

PS1 was the golden era IMO. It was slow enough for good graphics, so gameplay came first. But it was fast enough for rather good physics and AI.

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#62

Post by ManFromUranus »

andrepd wrote: post #32
ManFromUranus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but the poster you are replying to is correct. The article is indeed a "shitpiece" against capitalism, it seeks to paint shitty video games that bilk their users of money as some sort of phenomenon that unique to capitalism. Therefore we need to enact "Big Government" to solve the problem. The author nor the readers generally could not care less about those affected, their only concern are the delicious condemnati…

[flagged]

There are no thieves or bad actors in socialist utopias? Of course there are. Socialism doesn't work now and never will work given human nature. Face it: bad people exist and they will do bad things in whatever context they find themselves in. You are just complaining about the ones you see in this context. However they would just be a different kind of bad actor in a socialist context.

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#63

Post by ManFromUranus »

Retric wrote: post #7
ManFromUranus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but the poster you are replying to is correct. The article is indeed a "shitpiece" against capitalism, it seeks to paint shitty video games that bilk their users of money as some sort of phenomenon that unique to capitalism. Therefore we need to enact "Big Government" to solve the problem. The author nor the readers generally could not care less about those affected, their only concern are the delicious condemnati…

I don't agree with the article's presentation, but the idea might not be inherently worthless. Gambling which abstractly seems rather harmless has been banned. So, some taking a hard look at highly additive gamely seems reasonable IMO. Edited: I put drugs in a similar category, but I can see people disagreeing with that.

I agree that gambling is indeed bad, but gambling is not some sort of outgrowth of capitalism. You do not need captialism to gamble and one does not beget the other. The "game" makers are simply bad people exploiting others. These bad people would simply be bad in a different way in a socialist country.

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#64

Post by ergomarky »

cirgue wrote: post #39

> passive consumption over leisure This is the money quote for me. We somehow managed to convince an entire generation of people who were skeptical of the passive consumption of television that 'Hey wait, this other form of manufactured entertainment is entirely different and not at all bad for you because we're the tech industry and we aren't the people in suits."

Were they skeptical at all though? Or did they just want more control over the content? Whenever I talk to people who would very much be in that category, they don't hate TV at all, in fact they love it and sub to Netflix and Prime (or whatever else), they just hated the bombard of ads and not being able to watch what you want when you want.

So this hypocritical behavior you're trying to highlight just doesn't exist at all IMO, people wanted more control and they got it.

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#65

Post by wpietri »

colemannugent wrote: post #15

> how can the market exploitation of civic, social, and leisure spaces possibly be averted What? The ominous "market" isn't forcing its way into any of these spaces. You let it in . You bought that game with micro-transactions, you signed up for that "free" social media app that was "secretly stealing your data". What shall we do? Our economic system isn't doing what we think it should! Could it be that we don't unde…

This perspective isn't wrong but it isn't complete.

Blaming the user is common, and so is blaming the purchaser. From that individual's perspective, sure, they could exercise more control by being more careful. Who could be against personal responsibility?

But what it leaves out is systemic effects and power imbalances. For example, if I were running a Ponzi scheme I could plow a lot of "investment" money back into marketing, having many skilled professionals create the appearance of respectability, of safety. I could create entire front organizations, or bribe trusted recommenders.

Would my investors still be responsible for losing money? Sure. But the fact that I can use power to manipulate my investors' decisions means that it isn't a fair fight. So I would still be responsible for taking their money. And society would be responsible for permitting a fraud to continue deceiving individuals.

Responsibility isn't zero sum.

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#66

Post by jandrese »

piker wrote: post #41
dfxm12 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get to enter your initials into the machine based on how far you get. Only your score matters, and your score resets when you continue. You don't "beat" Pac-Man when you get to the kill screen, you beat Pac-Man when you get a perfect score.

...and how does one practice to "beat" Pac-Man with a perfect score?

Getting to the kill screen seems like it should count as a victory. Getting your initials on the top of the high score screen counts too, if perhaps only briefly. The idea that you can't say you've won unless you've played a completely perfect game is a mindset for insane people who will never be happy.

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#67

Post by mrguyorama »

bambataa wrote: post #55
Andrex wrote: post #9

This is a good read, but I question this line: > Video games, at their best, offer everyone an equal chance to overcome the same challenges on an equal playing field. “Pac-Man,” after all, didn’t let you add extra quarters to purchase immunity from the ghosts. I mean, in a way they did. If you had more quarters to spare in Pac-Man, you'd be more likely to make it further than your cash-strapped compatriot. But then a…

This is slightly off topic, but are modern arcade games more extortionate than they used to be? If you play e.g. Mario Kart you have to keep putting in coins after each race. Maybe if you come first it lets you continue but it seems a total rip off.

Atari aimed for a playtime per quarter of 2-3 minutes back in the day

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#68

Post by jpmoyn »

I don't understand why there is an issue with markets entering the domain of "leisure", and I certainly do not think that this is something new. Is a hobby shop immoral?

Micro-transactions in freemium video games have proven to be a great way to make money for games that are deemed worthy by their users. No one is being forced to buy the new skin in Fortnite.

You can't stop market forces. If you choose not to partake, good on you. But applying your own personal moral concept of what leisure should be onto the entire country is worse than Fortnite making me pay $10 for the new skin.

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#69

Post by sincerely »

wpietri wrote: post #65
colemannugent wrote: post #15

> how can the market exploitation of civic, social, and leisure spaces possibly be averted What? The ominous "market" isn't forcing its way into any of these spaces. You let it in . You bought that game with micro-transactions, you signed up for that "free" social media app that was "secretly stealing your data". What shall we do? Our economic system isn't doing what we think it should! Could it be that we don't unde…

This perspective isn't wrong but it isn't complete. Blaming the user is common, and so is blaming the purchaser. From that individual's perspective, sure, they could exercise more control by being more careful. Who could be against personal responsibility? But what it leaves out is systemic effects and power imbalances. For example, if I were running a Ponzi scheme I could plow a lot of "investment" money back into m…

Agreed. If we (humans) had reliable personal responsibility, grocery stores wouldn't put candy bars and tabloids near the checkout lanes and advertising would be much less effective.

Re: Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure

#70

Post by r00fus »

gowld wrote: post #42
cirgue wrote: post #39

> passive consumption over leisure This is the money quote for me. We somehow managed to convince an entire generation of people who were skeptical of the passive consumption of television that 'Hey wait, this other form of manufactured entertainment is entirely different and not at all bad for you because we're the tech industry and we aren't the people in suits."

> We somehow managed to convince We did? I though people just switched from TV to Internet because Internet is more fun or more faddy or just cheaper.

One can't skip the "cheaper" aspect. Computer games (well at least not the freemium play2win types) are generally much better deals than being a sports buff, as you can spend a lot more time playing/watching replays of games for less than a cable subscription.

The MMOG and freemium types that require subscription fees or have an in-game economy are a different story. I truly hope legislation prevents those types of games from destroying the existing landscape of "buy-once play-many" vs. constantly buying "gold/credits" for upgrades (that you need to even stay competitive).

Post reply on HN