
Digital Capitalism’s War on Leisure - raleighm
https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/digital-capitalisms-war-on-leisure/
======
FooHentai
I'm currently going through a phase of setting up a games room, and acquiring
a bunch of slightly older video game consoles and games to populate it. I've
settled on PS2 and PS3, and Xbox/360 as the sweet spot for this. Partly due to
price (they're not old enough to be worth much, but not new enough to be
hawked at retail prices).

But a factor just as big as price is how, from about mid-360 and PS3 onwards,
gaming stopped being a case of 'buy a disc and play the game' and became
'register online, tie to a service which will be withdrawn at some point, and
pay extra for bits of the game that would previously have been free'. All of
that stuff transformed gaming media from about 2007 onwards from something
that you could put on a shelf and return to at your leisure, into this
ephemeral thing that you must buy into at the peak of the hype cycle, or it
won't exist in proper form (if at all) when you do get around to it.

That said, this phenomenon is mostly limited to commercial games. There's an
incredible grassroots movement of indie, modding, and retro gaming that
everyone is free to immerse and engage in, where this issue just doesn't
exist. My reaction to cutting-edge gaming for the past decade or so has been
largely to turn away from commercial games and find entertainment via other
gaming channels.

~~~
malloryerik
What do you think are the best games for modding? Of course Minecraft. What
else? I'm thinking especially in terms of modding as a way to get into
programming.

~~~
zaarn
Factorio has to my knowledge a pretty neat modding API internally.

~~~
graphitezepp
It does, Factorio is an impressive software project anyway you look at it.

------
Andrex
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 again arcades peddled these types of "pay to win" mechanics long
before the App Store, and so probably aren't the best example to use in an
article like this. NES era games would be more appropriate I think.

~~~
dfxm12
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.

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

~~~
jandrese
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.

~~~
jakelazaroff
I think GP's point was, if every practice run costs a quarter, there's likely
a correlation between wealth/resources and practice/skill.

------
cirgue
> 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."

~~~
gowld
> 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.

~~~
r00fus
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).

~~~
michaelbuckbee
Even most of those seem to subsist more on pulling in a small percentage of
"whales" (who spend thousands and likely have gambling addictions) and people
who buy the occasional hat.

Even then on an entertainment/hour basis video games are a remarkably cheap
form of entertainment.

------
jeffreyrogers
The argument essentially seems to be this:

Some people are making substantial amounts of money from activities that we
traditionally associate with leisure, in the example given, videogames. This
devalues gaming as a leisure activity for the rest of society. This is a bad
thing. This is an indicator of a broader trend of the monetization of all
forms of leisure. This is bad. Consequently we should find ways to
redistribute wealth so that everyone can benefit from having leisure time and
using it in non-wealth producing ways.

I think this is a fair summary of the argument (but I don't want to
misrepresent the argument so correct me if I got something wrong), though I've
tried to phrase it in more neutral terms rather than the ideologically loaded
ones the author uses.

I agree with some aspects of the argument. I think it's true that people are
finding more ways to make money from things that would previously be described
as hobbies through the advent of platforms like Patreon, Twitch, and YouTube.
I also think it's undesirable for everyone to view their hobby as a means of
making more money, but I don't think it's likely everyone will move to this
for a simple reason: these are winner-takes-all fields. The most popular
streamers are going to create the vast majority of revenue and reap the vast
majority of profit.

Further, money serves a useful purpose: allocating labor to things people
otherwise wouldn't do on their own. Sure, it'd be great if everyone could play
videogames more without worrying about providing for their needs.
Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. We aren't at a point where we
can produce everything that people want at a small amount of labor time and
use the rest for leisure. Plus a fundamental fact about people is this: we're
never satisfied. We always want more. Access to money mediates our desire for
more by limiting what we can have. It also helps integrate us into broader
society by making us do things that at least someone finds valuable enough to
pay for.

In short, I think the article is weak because it is dealing with what would be
nice (from the perspective of the author, not necessarily my perspective),
rather than what is realistically achievable.

~~~
yborg
The article is weak from clickbaity title to eventual conclusion that only UBI
will save us from a dark dystopian future of a huge slave class of gamers
forced to allocate their meager incomes to buy in-game powerups by a shadowy
cabal of Silicon Valley overlords.

It always sounds cool to derive these kinds of arguments when there is a new
delivery model that is Paradigm Shifting Everything. In fact, as pointed out
by a bunch of other commenters, this model isn't intrinsically much different
from the console arcade game model of whenever it was the first pinball
machine came out.

As for the "monetization of leisure" this is basically as old as leisure time
itself, as is the idea of restricting access to this leisure activity to those
with the wherewithal. The classic model here is - golf. To play a "better
course" you need to pay large fees, and in many clubs need to pass some kind
of vetting. Golf nonetheless created a class of professional players, who are
paid based on how well their play (and possibly antics) entertain a population
of passive fans.

I don't see how "monetized gaming" and "e-sports" is at all different from the
vast class of professional gaming or sporting activities from poker to
football. Civilization has not collapsed because there are millions of lowly
duffers who feel compelled to spend money to knock little white balls around a
field. I feel confident we will survive "Clash of Clans" as well.

~~~
wpasc
I don't know... Clash of Clans strikes me as an early alpha of Skynet

------
cromwellian
This article definitely isn't written by a gamer. Most gamers _HATE_ pay-for-
powerup. There was a huge rebellion against EA's ingame purchase model for
Starwars Battlefront for example.

Many games allow in game purchases, but only for cosmetic changes (e.g.
"skins") like Counter Strike, TF2, Overwatch, etc, not to allow you to buy
skills no one else can acquire.

And while it's a concern that there are games that are going that route, the
gaming community does push back.

~~~
Dirlewanger
>Most gamers

Most gamers that voice their opinion online, but not in the actual market.
Otherwise we wouldn't have as many microtransaction-laden games as we
currently have. The Battlefront 2 debacle was something that was quickly
forgotten after a couple weeks. EA even said they weren't worried about it to
shareholders. I'm sure if you look at earnings reports, the "boycott" did
almost nothing to them.

~~~
cromwellian
Enough voiced their opinion that EA changed the Battlefront system. But
Battlefront also failed as a francise game, hardly anyone plays it.

League of Legends is probably the most long lasting multiplayer game that has
skill based micro purchases, but it's not as egregious, because the game has
been around for a long time, and the amount of pure avarice isn't anywhere
need the obvious money grab that EA tried to pull off.

Take Fortnite, the game which is printing cash faster than Epic can spent it.
Their entire loot system, like Counter Strike and Team Fortress, is cosmetic
only and grants no extra ability.

It remains to be seen, but I bet Fortnite has longevity far in excess of the
pay-for-skill titles.

------
grosjona
The past decade of 0% interest rates has had a really bad effect on the
economy.

It seems that most of the money in the world is flowing around in circles from
one useless company to another and everyone has a useless office job to match.

The people who get paid the most are those who do the most useless work of
all; pitching silly ideas to foolish investors and trying to predict the next
hot useless trend in an economy that is founded on complete randomness.

...all in the hope that they too will one day acquire enough capital so that
they can afford to start making their own random investment decisions about
random trends in the economy and create more useless jobs in the process.

------
everyone
This reads like it was written by someone who doesnt play or appreciate games,
or even know much about the artform.

The point that is brought up several times, that they are classist due to
their cost.. If you cant afford a game, or dont want to support its publisher
or business model, but still want to play it. Just pirate it. Most games are
readily available to pirate.

Games have simply become as film, and novels and all other art forms these
days. You have the good stuff, which is cheap and indie and obscure, and
innovative.. And you have the bad commercial stuff, which is very homogeneous
and repetitive and 'safe' and is heavily marketed and designed to have the
broadest and most shallow appeal. Its simply another business where X
investment yields X*Y return (where Y is positive)

So, the equivalent of blockbuster Hollywood films, or airport novels. If you
have an interest in a particular medium you will quickly learn to avoid the
bad stuff and learn where to find the good stuff.

~~~
coldtea
> _This reads like it was written by someone who doesnt play or appreciate
> games, or even know much about the artform._

So, like a proper adult?

~~~
ionised
Your snarky comment belies your thin implication that you yourself are a
mature adult for not liking games.

~~~
coldtea
My implication wasn't that I am mature for not liking games.

Only that liking games is immature -- which doesn't imply that not liking
games automatically qualifies one for maturity (it's a necessary, but not
sufficient condition).

Nor does it imply that I and those who share my opinion consider themselves
mature (a non-X person can still make claims about what constitutes being X,
and those claims can even be perfectly correct -- doubly so in a subjective,
non-well defined, topic, like what constitutes maturity).

------
ballenf
One of the solutions to the problem of pay-to-win is to eliminate all laws
making it illegal to hack these games. This position seems very problematic
and will rub a lot of people the wrong way, but we should have the freedom to
hack the code running on our devices. If that breaks someone's business model,
then maybe it's the business model that's broken.

Most people don't have any ethical issues with hacking single-player games,
but the morality does get hazier when you talk about hacks that unlock
otherwise paid upgrades. I'll be honest, I don't know how to feel about it. I
want game designers to get paid and don't want to "cheat" them out of payment,
but I also feel strongly that I should be able to open the hood of my car and
do whatever I want up to the limit of endangering others (whether through
exceeding emissions limits or general "physical" safety).

~~~
gowld
Or you could just not buy garbage games.

------
panzagl
This article unravels at this line- " In industrial and post-industrial
societies, work tends to be necessarily hierarchical. But leisure has always
held out the promise of equality. "

I don't think this has ever really been true.

~~~
derblitzmann
Yeah, you need only look at traditional sports to see that. A leisurely game
of amateurs/hobbyists will still have a hierarchy in terms of individuals and
what aspect of the game they are proficient in.

------
DrImplausible
Games are, and won't be a "consumer luxury good", as the article states,
unless we're getting into bespoke CAVE systems or Westworld-like theme parks.
Consoles have achieved that point of ubiquity that they're a common household
appliance, and it isn't unusual to see one. A "normal" good in other words.

The games themselves are content from a production culture standpoint, which
is why we so little innovation (and lots of duplication) within the market.
EGP coming out of the pipeline.

There is a salient point about the capture of leisure time, but it was written
40 years ago. Seeing as it ties into the Facebook ad policy reveal of a month
ago, maybe it's worth bringing up in it's own thread.

~~~
nsxwolf
I really didn't understand that point at all. Were they talking about price?
Because adjusted for inflation, computers consoles and games have never been
cheaper.

------
JTbane
This article has such a condescending tone- how is paying for a video game
subscription any more harmful to "leisure" than paying for a trip to the
beach? Pure clickbait.

~~~
quadrangle
The beach just exists. You might live near it or not, there are economics
involved, but nobody set you up to go to the beach and designed it to be
addictive.

Subscription video-games that were being criticized were those specifically
framed to get people hooked and buy more and more special stuff etc.

What's harmful is pushing people into patterns of spending money on leisure
when there's lots of ways to have great leisure without the cost. In that
sense, marketers who tell people they have to travel to the beach for vacation
are also pushing for people to spend on their leisure.

Incidentally, the beach is better than video games.

------
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.

~~~
knuththetruth
>You can't stop market forces

“Market forces” are not natural phenomenon, they’re political impositions on
human interaction in places where and to the extent which they’re useful. It’s
fully within our power to prevent their intrusion into domains where this
application is wreckless, destructive, or immoral. Many more sane developed
countries than the US, for example, have done this with healthcare.

~~~
quadrangle
Amen

------
rconti
"As a result, gaming has come to privilege haves over have-nots, work and
passive consumption over leisure, and the economic over the social."

I can't parse this. And my eyes glazed over once I kept trying to get past it
and keep reading.

~~~
FooHentai
It is horribly written.

>gaming has come to privilege haves over the have-nots

Extrapolated, I take it to mean: People with money to spend now have an
advantage over poor people when it comes to video gaming

Even then, it's unclear what this means. An advantage acquiring games to play
because it's more expensive to get into? In success within the games
themselves? Something only rich people have the time to engage in?

~~~
rconti
Yeah, I can sorta figure out what was meant by that line. I think he's saying
that in-game purchases have turned gaming into something you need to have
money to be able to do. I'm not sure I agree with that, though. Casual gaming
is apparently more popular than ever, and plenty of good games can be played
without 'buying up'.

I have to caveat that with a few statements. For one, I am a silicon valley
'have'. Secondly, I'm not a gamer.

But I distinctly remember how long it took me to save up $65.99 1990 dollars
($130 today!!!) for Super Mario 3. To say nothing of the costs of the
consoles.

Smartphones aren't free, but today you can play free- or nearly-free games on
hardware you already own.

------
k4ch0w
I know I usually don't see gifs on this website but this completely sums it
up.

[https://i.imgur.com/5lKYfh6.gifv](https://i.imgur.com/5lKYfh6.gifv)

------
chillingeffect
It's questionable to see the article's focus on males in gaming when females
have been established as a >=40% constituency over the last decade. [1]

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-
of-u...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-us-
computer-and-video-gamers/)

------
AdamM12
Might be because I just finished reading it the other night but kinda reminds
me of "Brave New World."

------
phkahler
I find it odd that PCs are getting bigger and have Windows on the side, and
lots of LEDs lighting up various things like fans...

------
zerostar07
Gaming is more akin to sports than to leisure. So i think the article is
trying to make a lot of false analogies.

------
TangoTrotFox
There's something I never understand about bits like this. The main point of
this article basically entails greatly expanding the role of government in our
economic system. But how happy are you with our government? It's a rhetorical
question as the statistics make the answer abundantly clear. Congress'
approval rating is currently resting at a whopping 18%, with a 78% disapproval
rate. And our president certainly inspires a wide array of emotions across the
population.

The reason for this displeasure varies, but among the reasons would be
corruption, ineptitude, graft, greed, pandering to special interests, and so
on. In a world where government was some post-humanistic benevolent and
impartial entity, I think this article would have some reasonable points.
However, people tend to be self absorbed, ignorant of whatever lays outside
their own interests, and driven by bias. And government is little more than a
collection of us, biased to those who share mostly the same skill set as con
men.

I'm certainly not anarchistic, but I think we need to consider the fact that
_government is us._ And so where is the logic that _massively_ expanding the
role and power of our government would solve more problems than create? My
favorite example of good intentions gone awry is passports. Many wish we had a
more open and free world, and at one time we did. Mandatory usage of passports
was little more than a _" temporary war measure"_ during WW1. But once we'd
granted governments such tremendous power and control, it was predictably
never relinquished.

------
s_m_t
Digital capitalism is "attacking" leisure but per the articles first source
the decline in young male labor participation is supposed to be due to
advances in leisure technology... and the people taking advantage of this are
self-reportedly happier because of it.

But because of "commodification" and a perceived social inequality in the
leisure sphere this is supposed to be inherently bad for reasons not stated.

Then they shift to talking about UBI.

------
IanDrake
This is probably the best argument for socialism I’ve ever heard. We must,
must, give up the abundance that capitalism provides for the vast majority of
people so kids can...play more video games?

This is Poe’s law at its finest. I really can’t tell if the author is
trolling.

------
colemannugent
> _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 understand it and we should educate people so that
they can't be taken advantage of? No! It's the system that's wrong!

Towards the end of the article the author starts talking about UBI and just
after that mentioning a scheme for the government to employ all workers. I
should have guessed that would be the endgame. Two completely unproven ideas
suggested as the panacea to market forces the author doesn't understand.

Why does it that every time I see someone refer to something as "Social
Democracy" they are merely using it as a euphemism for Socialism or Communism?

~~~
germinalphrase
Are you not concerned that while some of these costs may not be entirely
hidden - they are very often intentionally obfuscated?

It's not exactly analogous to "people should know to avoid credit cards with
20% interest rates" as that interest rate must be openly communicated to the
consumer while the collection and sale of my personal data has no such
requirement.

~~~
dcosson
What? If I sign up for a new credit card I won't come across the interest rate
at all until I get to the fine-print legal contract. Sure, maybe it's in bold
or something there, but it's still not upfront and obvious in the signup flow
like the perks are.

Similarly, the ways in which a site will use your data is hidden within the
thousands of words of fine print in their privacy policy.

Seems exactly the same to me.

~~~
abiox
> If I sign up for a new credit card I won't come across the interest rate at
> all until I get to the fine-print legal contract.

my experience has been different (in TX, USA).

having modestly improved my credit score (at least, i assume this is the
reason), as well as registering a LLC, i've been getting a deluge of offers
for personal and business cards.

every distinct one i've looked at was pretty clear about the apr and fees. i
mean, i suppose you could miss these things if you really don't care too look,
but i haven't seen anything be obfuscated at all (at least wrt to apr).
doesn't really seem fine-printy.

------
gaius
_That hypothesis offended the sensibilities of anyone who believes that all
those who are able to work should do so._

From each according to his ability, Comrade.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> From each according to his ability, Comrade.

Soviet Communism is, indeed, terrible.

But a UBI is basically the opposite of politburos and bread lines.

And when the supply of unskilled labor exceeds the demand to such an extent
that it no longer commands a living wage in a free market, what's your
solution?

~~~
jeffreyrogers
Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed? I'm genuinely
curious, not trying to attack the idea. My impression is that people are more
positive on UBI than they should be because they think it will enable a higher
standard of living than it actually will. I would be more in favor of a jobs
guarantee since I think people find working meaningful, but this isn't an area
I've researched very much so I'm definitely open to changing my opinions if I
learn more.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Has anyone run the numbers of how UBI would be financed?

There are different ways to do the accounting here. The opponents like to just
add up the sum of everyone's UBI and call that the cost. But if someone pays
$12,000 to fund the UBI and then receives a $10,000 UBI, the net cost to them
is obviously $2000 rather than $12,000.

Calculating the overall net cost is also not very useful, because it's
effectively zero outside of some minimal administrative costs -- payments in
equal payments out.

Probably the sensible way to do it is to calculate the net loss to people who
pay more than they receive, e.g. $2000 to someone who pays $12,000 and
receives $10,000 but $0 (rather than -$2000) for someone who pays $8000 and
receives $10,000.

Using those numbers you end up somewhere in the ballpark of 25% of the cost
calculated using the first method, because you take the total cost and
subtract out the UBI the top half of the population is paying themselves, and
then half the remainder for the bottom half, because people in the bottom half
would be net recipients but would still on average be paying half as much as
they receive.

Whether this is exactly 25% depends on the income distribution within the
population. It gets higher the more inequality there is. If everyone had
exactly the same income it would be 0%. If there is great inequality it would
be higher, i.e. more dollars transferred from richer to poorer. But that's
kind of what you want.

The most important factor in the cost is obviously the amount of the UBI. It
can be made arbitrarily more or less expensive by changing that.

> I would be more in favor of a jobs guarantee since I think people find
> working meaningful

There are reasons to think that would be a bad idea, e.g.:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-
basic-...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-
against-hijacking-utopia/?comments=false)

Moreover, half the point of a UBI is that it _doesn 't_ impose costs on
working, unlike means-tested programs where earning money from working causes
the loss of benefits.

It's one of the things that allow it to operate productively even at below-
subsistence payment levels. The highest paying job you're qualified to do may
not pay enough to subsist on but becomes enough when combined with a modest
UBI.

And for someone who genuinely can't find full-time work, they're more likely
to find meaning -- or a lead on gainful employment -- by volunteering
somewhere of their choosing rather than being forced to dig holes and fill
them back in with insufficient free time to improve themselves and get out of
that situation.

~~~
IanDrake
I’m not sure why you’re doing mental gymnastics on this one. There is a simple
answer.

300,000,000 - US population

$12,000 - Your UBI amount

Total cost: 3.6 trillion dollars.

Projected US tax collection for 2019: 3.4 trillion. That’s not the US budget,
just the amount not borrowed to pay for the budget.

Cost of social programs that UBI would replace (in theory): 2.3 trillion. (SS,
Medicare, other). I don’t think UBI could replace SS though.

So you need to increase tax revenues about 33% if you look at it in the most
favorable way.

Then, when the bottom falls out for those who needed the full benifit of the
programs you replaced, you will either bring those programs back or increase
the UBI payment for everyone, which is easy to do because we’d just vote
ourselves more money, because money is free.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> There is a simple answer.

Only if you want to count the dollar you pay but not the dollar you get back
in order to claim that it's too expensive.

It ignores all of the misleading accounting that occurs in the existing system
and wouldn't be there anymore.

Suppose we used to provide $1000/year value in assistance with a 10% phase out
rate and then we had a 15% tax rate up to $10,000 and 25% thereafter. We
switch that to $1000/year in unconditional assistance with no phase out and
pay for it by changing to a flat 25% tax rate. If your accounting method is
telling you that this change has caused everyone who makes more than
$10,000/year to have to pay an extra $1000/year in taxes, you've missed a
term. Neither the marginal nor effective tax rates have changed for anyone.

This is why many economists prefer the "negative income tax" formulation of a
UBI where the UBI is a tax credit and it's possible for low income people to
pay a negative amount in taxes.

~~~
IanDrake
I suppose we’re starting with two different assumptions.

My assumption is UBI is tax free OR UBI is taxable income but the first
$12,000 of income is tax free. Same difference, different language.

Your assumption would be that UBI is taxible...like SS is now. That’s a
garbage policy.

If I recall, Rand Paul’s tax plan was that a person filing singly would not be
taxed on their first 40K of income. Just about double that for filing jointly.
Then there’s a 16% flat tax, no deductions. I personally liked that plan.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Your assumption would be that UBI is taxible...like SS is now.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that the additional tax to fund the
universality of the UBI would go in approximately the same place as the phase
outs go for existing benefits, and they cancel out.

The advantage of putting the phase out on the tax side is that it's easier to
see what's happening, so you don't accidentally create one income range where
the marginal tax rate is 10% and an adjacent one where it's 110% because five
independent programs all phase out at the same income level. Or impose higher
marginal rates on lower income people than higher income people.

