Do you like Diablo 3?

[zebramatt]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to imagine all publishers as 'evil', frankly.

In fact, it's not even true that they're all 'businessmen', insofar as that's their defining feature.

Sure, we live in capitalist societies. That makes most of us capitalists, whether ideologically we'd identify ourselves such or not. We exchange our efforts for money and exchange that money for goods and services. Many of which we need to live, or to grant ourselves a minimum acceptable standard of living. We invest in things. We acquire assets. We speculate. An imperative to have money runs through our collective psyche. There are exceptions, of course, but on the whole this is simply the nature of capitalist society.

But that doesn't define us.

So, yeah. People want to play games. Other people want to make games. And some people just want to make money off of anything. But are video games the best way for people who have no interest in them to make money? Sometimes, sure. On the whole, though, it's far more likely that people are involved - at any level - because they have an interest in it. But business is complicated. Sometimes you need competency more than you need interested parties; and sometimes you need investment more than anything.

Is it ideal? No. But it is[/i] fundamental to our economic systems. Systems which allow us access to a wider range of games than ever before. And systems, lest we forget, which also encourage the free enterprise through which independents are able to succeed.

Point is: there are many ways we can be agents for change towards a better world for video games; but thinking of an agency as 'evil' is rarely ever one such way. That kind of vilification just gets in the way.

[eRe4s3r]

It would be better if games could made by people who want to make them (and who don't need to "sell" anything to be able to live properly). The "always" consumption economy is at an end anyway. I give it at best another 30 years and then capitalism will have so UTTERLY failed that nobody will ever again even consider it for centuries to come. And by then finally we will be able to either live in caves again, or we end up making the first true self-decided evolution of mankind, we stop greed and assorted. And we work on a culture that is BY the people not FOR (all) the people.

If we are agents for change we first have to start by ending capitalism. Because capitalism leads this world into the apocalypse. When the resources run out (and there is only *when*) we can no longer have economies based on interest and taxes. At that pivotal point humanity has the 1 and only chance to decide how to continue existing. And that also will define whether humans start actually working on culture again (something that is completely gone now, there is no actual western culture left in between starving artists and pop crap). Culture is when society takes part in art, not when art is made to earn money on the back of a society.

In fact, the current culture has absolutely nothing to do with 99.9% of the entire population of the world. Only very few privileged are defining the current paid-for-culture and I detest it (the culture this produces). The only good music is that of those who make it for themselves, and then share it. The best games are those people make for themselves FIRST. Currently there is no way around earning money, but when the sole goal of a game is to earn money it is already utter crap by definition. Because to earn *more* money you cut out things that would actually define the game properly but narrow its target group. Diablo 3 is the perfect example, dumbed down into brainless simplicity that even my cat could play, if it could hold a mouse.

So yeah, Indy devs are not going to make the epic games that could really push a genre forward a decade. They make interesting games yes, fun games, even.. yes.. but they do not ever advance the genre. Because the genre is defined by how the biggest games define it, and they do not redefine a genre anymore. Why should they.

Anyway, my anti-capitalism rant is over

[keith.lamothe]

I saw the discussion on D3 and was alarmed that the thread had gotten back on-topic.  Then I saw it turn to a discussion on capitalism and an urge to hit the red "panic" button eventuated

Personally I think the need to either make a game commercially viable or have a fair pile of cash to support oneself despite the lack of commercial viability is a good... form of accountability, for lack of a better phrase.  It actually helps keep the focus on customer-service (if one has integrity; otherwise an alternative focus is on no-holds-barred marketing/etc tricks).

Doesn't mean there aren't a number of games I want to make and if noone else likes them I don't care

[Mánagarmr]

I don't mind companies making money if they're doing it by making me enjoy my brains out. It's when they start making money at the cost of my enjoyment I mind. ActiBlizz does just that with their RMAH and always online bullcrap.

[eRe4s3r]

At least Diablo 3 and capitalism are perfectly related to each other Without capitalism, would Diablo 3 have been made, or been better? I think .. yes. 

But yeah, this topic would be wasted just on D3 ;p Besides, it asks "do we like Diablo 3" and so a "not really.. because" will always spin into the off-topic land of ponies and pie

[zespri]

At least Diablo 3 and capitalism are perfectly related to each other Without capitalism, would Diablo 3 have been made, or been better? I think .. yes. 

You are a Bolshevik, you are from east Germany and you are longing for the "old times"! (This is meant as a joke).

[eRe4s3r]

Hehe, as a gamer I only really care what form of society produces the best cultural output. I would highly doubt the Bolsheviks would have made Diablo 3 though, I think it'd even be illegal (the game is based on exploiting human greed /loot\)

[zespri]

Hehe, as a gamer I only really care what form of society produces the best cultural output. I would highly doubt the Bolsheviks would have made Diablo 3 though, I think it'd even be illegal (the game is based on exploiting human greed /loot\)

But at least they would get rid of capitalism that is in the way =) But as history shows it's not as easy to get rid of as lenin and marx thought. I doubt that what russia did not do in 70 years the world would do in 30.

[eRe4s3r]

Well there is also to consider that Lenin perverted Marx's teachings. Marx never wanted an oppressed lower class of any kind in fact he never even wanted a class based society to begin with (he never finished his writings on that topic, sadly) so anything claimed as Marxism now is further perverted by so called "Marxist writers" who assume and push something that Marx likely never would have considered viable.

The true sadness is that socialism as preached and taught is NOT what socialism was going to be before human greed and perversion got it's grips on it. Thinking we might be better off with an AI commanding over us. Because as long as those in power are in power they are a class, and there is some argument to be had whether a nation does need politicians. Whether humans even need nations in a globalized society. But you are right, It is highly unlikely anything happens next 30 years, apart from the endless downfall of capitalism. My only real fear is that it falls before I die.. Because I can't imagine that once this system fails the world will be a better place, unless we get some serious ethical and moral guidance in the future. I actually think nations will fall when capitalism falls. Corporations will likely become "nations". And that sounds even worse than what we have now.

[Wanderer]

The true sadness is that socialism as preached and taught is NOT what socialism was going to be before human greed and perversion got it's grips on it.

Barring my bias on Darwinism, you're correct.  However, Marx believed in an intrisic human value of morality, rather than an instilled one.  Sorry, but i've got to lean towards Heinlein on that one.

I actually think nations will fall when capitalism falls. Corporations will likely become "nations". And that sounds even worse than what we have now.

(paraphrased, I'm not up to google at the moment...)
"The republic of America is not a democracy, but we all look up to it.  Why? Not because it's a shining star, but because it's the best that's wandered past our vision of hope to control our lives in a long time."

[zebramatt]

Although I find the idea of attributing a singular and cohesive ideology to an individual, such as to produce a concept of 'Marxism', rather misguided - I mean, he said and wrote a lot of stuff, and some of the stuff doesn't necessary reconcile (or need to reconcile, even) with some of the other stuff - I like to think he was first and foremost a sort of economically-minded future historian.

His body of work - even that which is more politically charged towards the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie - seats as its fundamental premise the notion that the stage of history capitalism invokes will bring about an end to the notion of economic scarcity, paving the way for a socialist and ultimately communist society. The fact that it will also bring about many conditions - alienation, exploitation and the like - which themselves inevitably cause its own downfall into the next stage, does not detract from its position as necessary step, from what we can discern of Marx's opinion.

I guess that's what gets me most about the strength of anti-capitalist sentiment in the world today. The best known of its opponents in modern political thought, friend to the people Karl Marx, thought it vital for the stabilisation of economics. For the good it would do.

But hey, he was just a guy. Maybe he was wrong about some things. About a lot of things. Personally, I look around: I look at the economic social structures which came before, which exist elsewhere in the world today; I look at what capitalism has done for the world, the bad and the good; and I look at how every day human beings seize capitalism and humanise it, make it more social. I look at all that and I think maybe Marx knew a thing or two. But maybe his scope was just slightly out.

[Wingflier]

I was told that Marx's analysis of the problem (Capitalism) was spot on, but his solution was flawed.

Nobody is perfect.  For something as deep and nuanced as human government/politics, it's hard for 1 man to know all of the consequences of any given strategy.  That's one reason why people are so afraid to let go of Capitalism - what would we move to? 

People already have the idea that Communism and Socialism don't work, though the Capitalist-Socialist hybrids of East Europe seem to be doing pretty damn well right now, with the highest employment rate and quality of living in the world (as well as low crime and great education). 

Personally, I'd like to see a Resource-Based Economy.  I've researched the idea a lot, and it seems like it could work really well.  Of course, like any idea, it could also fail miserably, but at this point I think we have to try something new.  If things keep going at their current rate, most of humanity will die off when the fossil fuels run out.  Change will happen - whether by choice, or by inevitability.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy

[eRe4s3r]

resource based economy has the problem that most developed nations (that's in the name) already developed all their resources and depleted them mostly and thus all people there work not with their own resources. Also the venus project says this grand line

By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

Notice that
1) Not everyone (as in, the developed nations) could actually maintain the standard of living they already have.
2) Very high living standard is very relative, and very subjective.

There is also that those who own resources would be gods, and those who don't less worth than slaves. A resource based economy would only be the old monarchy system all over again, except kings are now those who sit on mines or farms, or those corporations who run those farms and mines. With a resource based economy 99% of the worlds population also could no longer pay for anything. Most people do not have access to any resource of their own. Actually, one thing I definitely do not want coming is resource based economy ;P

Because, if you try to adapt everyones standard of living to the same level, a lot of very powerful western people would be downgrading quite drastically. Is a computer very high standard of living? If you ask a sudanese? What about making video games, music? Who would feed those who do that?

[Wingflier]

resource based economy has the problem that most developed nations (that's in the name) already developed all their resources and depleted them mostly and thus all people there work not with their own resources. Also the venus project says this grand line

By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

Notice that
1) Not everyone (as in, the developed nations) could actually maintain the standard of living they already have.
2) Very high living standard is very relative, and very subjective.

There is also that those who own resources would be gods, and those who don't less worth than slaves. A resource based economy would only be the old monarchy system all over again, except kings are now those who sit on mines or farms, or those corporations who run those farms and mines. With a resource based economy 99% of the worlds population also could no longer pay for anything. Most people do not have access to any resource of their own. Actually, one thing I definitely do not want coming is resource based economy ;P

Because, if you try to adapt everyones standard of living to the same level, a lot of very powerful western people would be downgrading quite drastically. Is a computer very high standard of living? If you ask a sudanese? What about making video games, music? Who would feed those who do that?

The first thing I want to say is that I think you're making a lot of assumptions about a resource-based economy without knowing much about it.

The vast amount of resources we have on the Earth (still) is enough to feed, shelter, and clothe the entire Earth population many times over, the main problem is how it's being misused and the cost of transportation.

Geothermal energy utilizes, what is called “heat mining”, which, through a simple process using water, is able to generate massive amounts of clean energy. In 2006 an MIT report on geothermal energy found that 13.000 zettajoule of power are currently available in the earth with the possibility of 2.000 ZJ being easily tapable with improved technology. The total energy consumption of all the countries on the planet is about half of a zettajoule a Year. This means about 4000 years of planetary power could be harnessed in this medium alone. And when we understand that the earth’s heat generation is constantly renewed, this energy is really limitless. It could be used forever!

These energy sources are only a few of the clean renewable mediums available. And as time goes on we will find more. The grand realization is that we have total energy abundance without the need for pollution, traditional conservation, or in fact a price tag!

And what about transportation?

The prevailing means of transportation in our societies is by automobile and aircraft. Both of which predominantly need fossil fuels to run.

In the case of the automobile, the battery technology needed to power an electric car that can go over a hundred miles an hour for over two hundred miles on one charge exists, and has existed for many years. However, due to battery patents controlled by the oil industry, which limits their ability to maintain market share coupled with political pressure from the energy industry; the accessibility and affordability of this technology is limited.

There is absolutely no reason, other than pure corrupt profit interest, that every single vehicle in the world cannot be electric and utterly clean with zero need for gasoline.

As far as airplanes, it is time we realized that this means of travel is inefficient, cumbersome, slow, and causes far too much pollution.

This is a mag-lev train. It uses magnets for propulsion. It is fully suspended by a magnetic field and requires less than 2% of the energy used for plane travel. The train has no wheels, so nothing can wear out. The current maximum speed, of versions of this technology as used in Japan, is 361 miles per hour. However, this version of the technology is very dated.

An organization called ET3, which has connections with The Venus Project, has established a two base mag-lev that can travel up to 4,000 miles per hour in a motionless, frictionless tube, which can go over land or under water. Imagine going from L.A. to New York for an extended lunch break, or from Washington D.C. to Beijing China in 2 hours. This is the future of continental and intercontinental travel. Fast, clean, with only a fraction of the energy useage we use today for the same means.

In fact, between mag-lev technology, advanced battery storage, and geothermal energy; there would be no reason to ever burn fossil fuels again. And we could do this now, if we were not held back by the paralyzing profit structure.

This technology is already a reality, but Capitalism keeps us from pursuing it.

When you say people that "own" the resources would be rich, you are stuck in the Capitalistic mindset.  "Rich" wouldn't be a concept, because money wouldn't exist anymore.  Nobody would own the resources, the resources would belong to everybody.

There would be no ruling hierarchy or democracy, most of the major decisions will be made using algorithms and technology:

When computers eventually have sensors extended into all areas of the physical and social complex, we will be able to achieve centralization of decision-making. In a global resource-based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach.

This centralized system could be connected to research labs and universities, with all data monitored and updated constantly. Most of the technology needed for such infrastructure management is currently available. The major difference between today's computer technology and the system we recommend is that our system extends its autonomic nervous system (environmental sensors) into all areas relevant to the social complex. It coordinates a balance between production and distribution, and operates to maintain a balanced-load economy. This technology of industrial electronic feedback can be applied to the entire global economy.

For example, with electrical sensors extended into the agricultural region, computerized systems would manage and control agriculture by monitoring the water table, insects, pests, plant diseases, soil nutrients, and so forth. The information processed will enable us to arrive at more appropriate decision-making based on feedback from the environment.

Computers and artificial intelligence will serve as catalysts for change. They will establish scientific scales of performance. It is doubtful that in the latter part of the twenty-first century people will play any significant role in decision-making. Eventually, the installation of AI and machine decision-making will manage all resources serving the common good.

This will result in a more humane and meaningful approach for shaping tomorrow's civilization that is not based on the opinions or desires of a particular sect or individual. All decisions would be made on the basis of a comprehensive survey of resources, energy, and existing technology without allowing any advantage to a particular nation or select group of people.

This may be accomplished with large-scale, computer-based processors that can assist us in defining the most humane and appropriate ways to manage environmental and human affairs. This is essentially the function of government. With computers processing trillions of bits of information per second, existing technologies far exceed the human capacity for processing information and they can arrive at equitable and sustainable decisions about the development and distribution of physical resources. With this potential, we would evolve beyond political decisions made on the basis of power and advantage.

It's appropriate that I'm posting this on the AI forum , but in all seriousness, can we please just skip the "AI taking over humanity discussion", you've watched too many Sci-Fi movies.

Computers are reliable, honest, and unbiased.  On any aspect which requires human decision making (such as say moral issues like crime and punishment) only the experts will vote, not the common citizens.  Why would a common citizen vote for something they haven't been trained in and know nothing about?  This is the major problem with Democracy.  Studies have shown that Democracies create only mediocre governments because the people voting aren't intelligent enough to make good choices.

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

Also yes, some people's standard of living may have to drop to make it fair for everybody.  I don't think that's too much to ask.

What about making video games, music? Who would feed those who do that?

It's estimated that if technology took over most of the jobs that would be needed with a Resource-Based Economy (and plenty of things like business and fast food could disappear), only about 10-20% of the population would have to work at any given time.  On the contrary, people would have much MORE time to do things they loved, like making music or video games.

[zespri]

Computers are reliable, honest, and unbiased.

Computers do what they are programmed to do. And it's people that are programming them. And they are NOT reliable, honest, and unbiased. By extension, programs are not either.