So, this has actually been something I've touched on in places other than this blog, and has entered my mind again in the wake of halo infinite and its controversy over it being free to play and having lootboxes. And maybe, given how many people are losing their crap over it being free to play, this post will come off as alienating to some, but as someone who actually really LIKES the free to play model when it's done correctly, well, yeah, I like the concept.In a lot of ways, I actually think my ideal society would be run like a fairly designed free to play game, rather than a paid game.
As we know, I consider myself an indepentarian. I believe that poverty is a form of economic coercion, and that wage labor is slavery. Without having enough resources, guaranteed to you as a right, you are not free, you are coerced to work (grind, in gaming terms) for the purpose of acquiring property to survive. Now, it could be argued, in the past, such a system was needed. After all, if everyone didn't work, there wouldn't be enough, and society couldn't afford laziness because that would lead to people starving. That's a perfectly fair way to look at things. And that's why we have such statements as "he who does not work does not eat." It isn't a divine command like some who believe in the bible treat it, it's a common sense statement of look, we need people to work in order to produce things we need. If you want to not starve to death, you have to pitch in.
But, some time in the past 200 years, things have changed. Modern capitalism led to great economic growth, and technology has allowed us to do far more with less. But rather than using this technology and economic growth to work less, we instead seek to force people to provide higher levels of goods and services while keeping them under the same levels of economic coercion. At this point, the idea that we need everyone working just to survive is madness. We're just creating jobs that don't need to exist for the purpose of providing them an income to buy things we need because we still see it deep in our being as fundamentally unfair for people to not work. Those who work become resentful toward those who don't, and thus, the key thing keeping us creating jobs seems to be to ensure we're all miserable. And to make numbers on spreadsheet go up.
But let's face it, the economy has exploded in the past 200 years, and as COVID has proven, we could afford to work a lot less without a major impact on quality of life. Maybe some higher luxuries like restaurants and movie theaters might be harder to come by, maybe that video game you want gets delayed a year. Oh well, isn't it worth it to ensure a more just world? Right now, we have a society of slaves, where lower class people are basically forced to work in service of much more entitled middle and upper class people. Think about it. The people screaming about going back to normal generally aren't going without basic needs, but luxuries. They want to eat out. They want to get their nails and hair done. They want people to be forced to work, to serve them. And to me, it's sickening. In some ways I like how the pandemic changed how many of us think about the economy. More remote work, less unnecessary luxuries, and while let's face it luxuries are nice, I'm not really one to suggest that people be forced to be slaves to provide them. If anything, I want people to be free to live as they want.
In some ways, I suggest rather than have the current paid model, we move to a free to play model.
Paid games vs f2p games
The traditional model of gaming is this. If you want access to the game, you pay for it. Period. if you don't pay, you can't play the game. Period. I mean, it makes sense. You want a product or service, you pay for it. it's only fair. I mean, the developers aren't working for free, if you want to play a game, you need to give them money to buy it. How can you give games for free, isn't that an unsustainable business model?
Well, maybe not. But before I get that far, let's draw comparisons to a work based society here. THe logic behind a paid game is the same logic behind a "no work no eat" society. If you want something, you need to contribute. Period. otherwise why would we provide this good or service to you? I mean, we need to expend effort to make this stuff, why should you get it for free?
But, as we know, paid games tend to have issues. They tend to shrink player bases, as there's a paywall stopping people from playing your game. And as the price goes up, often times these business models are subject to DLC and subscription models which are kind of coercive in the sense that you need to keep paying more money to get the complete product. Ultimately, the product, rather than offering a flat rate, tends to extract as much as they can from consumers, often with backlash.
Which brings us to f2p games. Free to play games started out in the 2000s or so, when the internet started being widespread. They made the base access to the game free, so that it's free to play, but then monetized other stuff. Cosmetics were always a huge part of it, but on top of that, they often monetized in game advantages and stuff. However, this was largely deemed unfair, and these aspects were largely removed from the business model as time went on. Nowadays, modern f2p games are run on cosmetics, rather than pay to win elements. And even paid games often include similar cash shops, often at the expense of DLC. So now games are cheaper, and now free. The game quality has largely stayed high, and they are often monetized purely though cosmetics or maybe in game grinding toward elements that impact game play, in ways which are deemed fair.
This has actually been good for the industry in my opinion. It has made games cheaper, and often free. THis has grown their player bases, leading to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to play them to play them, and some people tend to go for paid items. Developers make money by offering cash shop cosmetics and other such items, which often do little to impact game play, but tend to make the user feel good. Ultimately, most people who play f2p games are free loaders, but a smaller number of core players who pay for such voluntary content often drive the sustainability of the whole game.
A free to play society
Essentially, when I argue for an indepentarian society, I argue for a society based around similar principles. Rather than require every member of society be forced to participate or lose their access (which in the modern world means poverty and death), I suggest we make the basics of society free. Everyone should have access to the basics and be able to freely participate as much or as little as they want. So how do we get the sausage made? Offering positive incentives. Obviously, starting out, a basic income oriented f2p society is going to be barebones, a lot like an early f2p game from the 2000s. Free players can play but they don't really get a good experience. You'll be given enough to be kept alive and relatively comfortable, but if you really want a good experience, you need to work. If you want to eat out on the regular or get your nails done, you would still probably need to work to get extra money to afford such things. Given our current labor needs, and the fact that society still needs a relatively large labor force, this is fair. And those who work would gain access to the "pay to win" experience of being able to afford much nicer houses, and clothing, and food, and luxuries, etc.
However, as time goes on, and labor needs go down, perhaps the basic experience could be raised to ensure everyone a much higher living standard, with those who work being willing to do so for more abstract rewards. I never imagined we would get to a point where in halo infinite despite such a high quality free to play game people take their skins that seriously they complain about them literally as hard as a more flawed game's issues like battlefield 2042, but here we are. But perhaps if we have several generations of the f2p basic income society I want, things will advance that much and concerns that seem stupid and petty now like grinding for cosmetics becomes the most pressing issue of our society. That would be wonderful. But sadly, I probably wouldn't be able to even grasp these debates given my current 21st century mindset much.
Anyway, people always ask the question about who would work if we gave people a basic income. I counter by asking who would pay for freaking cosmetics in a f2p game? people do. And apparently they do it enough to make it a viable business model where even AAA developers are offering free games or at least free modes to paid games in some cases.
My ideal society would work in a similar way. Everyone gets the basics, and then depending on the labor needs of society, we incentivize people through positive incentives to work. And while some might not work, many will, and as long as enough choose to voluntarily work under such a system, I don't see the problems with it. We get to solve poverty and make everyone's lives better, and it seems to me that the challenges and debates that would be had under such a society seem so petty and minor compared to the real issues we face in modern society.
That isn't to say people will always be happy. Maybe some people would deem the tax system too unfair, or dislike free loaders, or think the cost of luxuries is too high or something like that. People are people, and I'm to the point of thinking people will always find something to complain about. Again, I dont think people become conservative as they get older as much as society changes to make people relatively conservative compared to it. It would be possible where given society changed enough in the direction I support it changing I would become the out of touch boomer while people would complain about something I deem petty while I talk about how I walked 5 miles in the snow to go to school.
Conclusion
Anyway, I just felt like this was a good analogy through which to explain my indepentarian principles and how we can move from a society where everyone has to work, to one where everyone doesn't. I dont necessarily believe if people werent coerced to work that they wouldnt work. Rather, I think it depends on the incentive structure offered. Some absolutely would work regardless of coercion assuming we balanced incentives right. And I do believe that much like a f2p game can provide high quality experiences to gamers for free while still making money, on the large scale, we could do the same thing with society as a whole. The real question is changing peoples' attitudes to be accepting of such a society. Which is where we have our work cut out for us. Oh well, that's what this blog is for. To try to enlighten people to my way of thinking. Hopefully if you read this I changed your mind or at least got you thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment