So...I get a lot of self righteous sentiment when I express my lack of willingness to pay more for video games. A lot of it is due to the idea that we must "support the artists" and that we're bad people if we don't wanna pay more for video games because they have to live too.
First of all, let's just call this crap out as nonsense. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how video games have stagnated in cost and how studios have rising costs. In capitalism, this isn't my problem. As a consumer, my only interest is in my bottom line, just as for a business, they only care about theirs, and workers should ideally only care about theirs. Supply and demand is a matter of these conflicting self interest maximizing groups coming together and making deals that are in their interests. My interest is in cheap games. I want cheap games. I will pay for cheap games, but not expensive ones. That is my interest.
Second of all, a lot of this sentiment is an outgrowth of pro worker sentiment. The idea being they need to eat too and we should be willing to pay them so they sustain themselves. They might have a point with indie games, which often charge like $15-20 anyway, but for AAA games? These are big studios controlled by multibillion dollar corporations, and guess who most of that $80 price tag is going to when you spend $80 on games? it isn't going to the developers, it's going to the company itself.
And while people will complain about the cost it takes to make games these days, for example, that randy guy from gearbox said BL4 costs twice as much to make as BL3...well....that's a you problem, and it's an industry problem. Again, they need larger studios to make modern AAA games. And to me, this is all self inflicted. I didn't ask them to make more demanding games that require me to pay more money for hardware and the games themselves just to play them. No, I have a relatively fixed budget. I utilize that budget to maximize costs, and any game that charges $80 is getting the cut, unless they're maybe BF6...and even if it is BF6, because I'll wait for a sale there too. THe point is, I'll wait for a sale.
And as far as the developers and the artists go, let's explain basic economics here. I hate to sound like a libertarian here, but this is supply and demand. You make art for money. People pay money for your art. Artists think their art is worth so much money, but if people aren't willing to pay that amount of money, they're not gonna sell anything. Im under no obligation to buy art that I dont think is worth the price tag, and if people dont think your art is worth the price, they won't pay. That's just reality. A lot of these labor oriented people who think in these terms are kinda like luddites. They want payment that isnt supported by their market, because their art isn't valuable enough.
And before people suggest that that means I think people should die or live in poverty because their art isnt valuable enough to sustain themselves, NO, NOT AT ALL. Keep in mind I am the UBI guy, the thing is, I don't think people should be defined by their labor, and I dont think their living standards should be dictated solely by markets. In fact, I think doing so is sociopathic and basically social darwinism. The fact that we expect self interest entities to pay people for labor is the core fault of capitalism. While the market should exist, everyone should get a UBI and universal healthcare and education, and from there, well, sink or swim. And if people dont think borderlands 4 is worth $80, it's not gonna be worth $80. The market has spoken.
And that's the thing. Economically, when you overcharge for something, people are gonna buy LESS of it. And youre hurting yourself. Game development is such where the final product doesnt have a fixed cost. People paid costs to make the game, and then they charge what they can to maximize profits. A lot of studios in the 2020s keep spending millions and billions on blockbuster games, only to find they dont sell well, and when they dont sell well, they're forced to lay people off and scale back development costs. And ya know what? They should. That's a market correction. Because if your audience doesnt think your final product is valuable enough to pay inflated prices for, developers shouldnt pay inflated costs to make them in the first place. Again, I keep saying peak gaming is a problem. In this modern era, moore's law is slowing down, game development costs are up, the time it makes to make games are up, and studios are getting squeezed, sure, but SO ARE CONSUMERS. The answer to this is that developers should scale back their ambitions of their games. If they make games that are less complex like they used to, they can hire fewer people, have lower costs, reach larger audiences as the hardware is more accessible (seriously we're now getting to the point even HANDHELDS and PHONES have gen 8 level hardware in them), and you know what? MAKE MORE MONEY. Maybe the graphics will be stuck in the 2010s, but at the same time, they can make cheap consoles, they can make cheap games, they can make tons and tons of money. This whole "but what about the developer costs" thing is purely self inflicted.
As such, don't try to guilt trip me about "supporting the artists." I support a UBI. I support everyone paying taxes for a UBI. I support artists being supported through a UBI. But beyond that UBI, it is up to the artist to ensure that their product is valuable to consumers, and well, on that one, sink or swim.
The same goes with AI. A lot of people oppose AI because "but but what about the artists." Well if you can do voice acting and do stuff artists used to do with AI and it comes out decently enough, that's a cost saving measure. Again, the only thing that matters to me is that final product. Personally I think AI cant replicate human creativity adequately and that its creations are completely and utterly soulless. For example I've listened to AI till lindemann songs and they suck. But I like till's actual creative endeavors. Because they actually require effort and the difference speaks for itself.
So...yeah. If AI art replaces actual artists, well, again, that's the market. Im not gonna seek preserving jobs for their own sake. I get that people like to make art, and I support a model of society where we arent all forced to work just to survive, so ya know what? Make whatever art you want, I dont care. It's just a matter of charging people for stuff, and if the stuff can be made more cheaply, or your art isn't valuable enough that people will pay for it, well, it is what it is.
The real lesson here that we should be getting is maybe humans shouldnt be forced to work to survive in the first place and maybe rather than guilt tripping people into paying artists, we give all artists a UBI instead. I mean, like even with me, I'm trying to work on a book. I eventually will likely charge for said book. But if people dont pay for it, well, that's just what the market decided I guess. However, that's the thing, I dont think that my income should be entirely left up to the market. Rather, I think I should be given a UBI and be left to decide what else I do with my life, and whatever money I get from it is what it is. Ya know? Again, that's just my perspective and how it differs from a lot of lefties.
Quite frankly, this whole "support the artists" thing sounds a lot like tipping culture. Like, we're supposed to tip, and we dont think about how gee, maybe restaurant workers should be paid a decent wage in the first place, or even better, they should get a UBI outside of work so they dont have to beg for tips.
Again, it's not like there aren't solutions to these problems. We just insist on sticking to this outdated model of linking all money to labor and then telling everyone to sink or swim. And then guilt tripping people for wanting affordable stuff. It's dumb. Change the societal model of doing things in the first place and you solve the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment