Microtransactions: Selling in-game content for real money

[Pandonetho]

Point of view of the people against paying for stuff: Shit, I'm too cheap to pay for this shit, and even though I am TOTALLY FREE NOT TO PAY FOR IT I don't want anyone else buying it, because if I can't have it, neither should they.

[DemolitionSquid]

This is why I'm a socialist.

[Krikkitone]

This is why I'm a socialist.

So we Shouldn't be free to Not pay for it, instead we would have to pay for it whether we want to or not.

[DemolitionSquid]

So we Shouldn't be free to Not pay for it, instead we would have to pay for it whether we want to or not.

That is not even remotely what I said.

[Krikkitone]

That is not even remotely what I said.

I'm presuming by socialist you meant the regulation of economy type.

You could have meant the social welfare type where you pay for it, not only whether or not you want it, but whether or not you are the one that gets it.

But I thought that would be presuming too much.

Or were you focusing on the idea that we shouldn't have the option to pay for it because it wouldn't exist. (because there is no profit in it)

[DemolitionSquid]

I'm presuming by socialist you meant the regulation of economy type.

You could have meant the social welfare type where you pay for it, not only whether or not you want it, but whether or not you are the one that gets it.

But I thought that would be presuming too much.

Or were you focusing on the idea that we shouldn't have the option to pay for it because it wouldn't exist. (because there is no profit in it)

That people would make video games for entertainment, not money.
That food would be grown, clothes tailored, and houses built for the greater good from a sense of unity, not profit.
That anyone could truly do anything they wanted for free and for personal and society fulfillment.

[Krikkitone]

That people would make video games for entertainment, not money.
That food would be grown, clothes tailored, and houses built for the greater good from a sense of unity, not profit.
That anyone could truly do anything they wanted for free and for personal and society fulfillment.

So a communist*....sorry, none of those has ever made it out of the dictatorship phase, maybe with better genetic engineering, educational technigues, marketing methods, political propaganda, and planned breeding someone will be able to successfully change human nature so that people will suffer scarcity for the general good without trying to cheat the system.

And then real humans like you and me will exploit them. (not you and me specifically but humans like you and me).

PS video games Are made for entertainment not profit, just not by Blizzard
There are food banks, good will clothing donations... Habitat for Humanity. All these things take place.

The problem with the view is this

That anyone could truly do anything they wanted for free and for personal and society fulfillment

So which is it....
anything you want for free (what I want)
OR
society fullfillment (what someone else wants)


Basically you either have to

Give humans an unlimited ability to detect cheating ie unblockable mind reading abilities

Take away our ability to cheat (brain programming)

Eliminate scarcity by eliminating our desires

Eliminate scarcity by altering the fundamental nature of the universe so that all our wishes come true


*just about everyone is a communist in the sense of desiring some type of society similar to Marx's end point vision, the problem is that vision is Utopian, in all its senses.

And with that Archer's thread has been successfully derailed (sorry)

[ArcherofAiur]

And with that Archer's thread has been successfully derailed (sorry)

I actually kinda like where this is going....

[DemolitionSquid]

I am a Socialist. Not a Communist. They are completely different things, and your ignorance is typical and saddens me.

[Krikkitone]

I am a Socialist. Not a Communist. They are completely different things, and your ignorance is typical and saddens me.

Everyone should do things for the common good rather than any benefit they get?

That's Marx's ideal. I'm not assuming you agree with his description of the best way to get there, as that was pretty discredited by all the people that tried. (ie I'm not assuming you are a Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist, that you believe in central planning, worker's revolution, etc.)... only that you think people should be doing things for 'the common good' because of a spirit of 'unity'.

OK, let me put it this way.

George wants a video game
George can't make video games
Jenny can

How does George get Jenny to make a video game?

There are a number of factors that can lead to Jenny making a video game for George

1. Jenny likes George and wants him to be happy

2. Jenny likes making video games

3. George, or some of his friends, will beat Jenny up if she doesn't make a video game

4. Other people won't do nice things for Jenny if she doesn't do this for George (and they will do noce things for her if she does)


I'd say those are the four basic reasons
# 3 is definitely a bad one so we'll leave that off... but it gets use quite a lot.

#1 would be nice, but not everyone is going to be liked in that unconditional way... this is a Utopian solution

#2 is also nice, but maybe more people want video games than Jenny wants to make them for... or maybe Jenny likes making video games that other people don't like

#1-3 also don't provide any benefit to Jenny besides
enjoying her work, not getting beat up, and making people happy

Now what if Jenny wants a car.. she can rely on the same strategy but
#1 what if people don't like her that much
#2 what if there aren't enough people who like building cars
#3 If she was strong enough to beat people up George wouldn't have been able to threaten her in the first place

That is why #4 is the best method....
if you do things for George, Other people will do a wide variety of stuff for you

Now there are a number of ways to do this, in a small enough community you can do it through a shared understanding... a unity, we'll all be there for each other. People developed in these societies....

And they learned how cheat the system (and how to catch cheaters)

People learned how to slack off, or get Lots of nice things without doing nice things for others.

Because they got caught in small societies it didn't get out of hand.

In bigger societies its a lot harder to tell if someone is slacking, or getting too many nice things, so the way to do it is to either
have some way of keeping track of how many nice things a person has done.
or
the only way you get a nice thing from someone is doing a nice thing for them ... ie Jenny better hope George can build a car

barter is easier when you are just randomly thrown together but terribly inefficient... so eventually it developed into money

money essentially became a way to do that first option... you give people money when they do something for you, and they can give that money to other people to get them to do something nice to them.

Now there is still a lot of people that enjoy making (certain) other people happy, and a lot of people that enjoy (some) of their work, and a lot of beating up (or throwing in jail or threateningto do so) that happens.

but by and large ists the best possible system unless you can

1. Stop Cheating
2. Stop people wanting things
3. Make sure everyone likes making other people happy more than themselves
4. Make everything that people want/need enjoyable to make in the way and amount people want (compared to anything else people could do)

#1-3 there is some hope if you literally rewire human brains on a very significant level
#4 is probably prohibited by the laws of the universe (as long as people keep wanting things)


Now Money does not obviously solve the problem of people cheating... but they have to cheat with the money (things like contracts help too, and those work better with money)
It doesn't solve the beating up problem, but it provides an alternative.

It doesn't make everyone like each other, but so far nothing else has either.

Your ideal society is economically the same as Marx's ideal society.... relying on everyone liking each other/common good/unity to get things done. That is why I said it was Communist. (again no intent to compare you to the Soviets, etc etc.)

Socialist implies much more of a regimented society with safety nets (which is why I initially thought you meant people wouldn't be able not to pay, or wouldn't be able to pay, or would pay for someone else)