In a reality where there are no paid games (I assume Witcher-tier single player games would be free), those wouldn't necessarily become a cancer. It all depends on what games you must compete with. Also there are many ways how you can implement cosmetics and other DLC. FOMO enforcement is not something that should automatically come with any game. Deep Rock Galactic handles paid dlc, free seasons and cosmetics brilliantly in my opinion, and I don't see why other games can't have success if they did it the same way. Maybe it's a combination of original financial decisions, game quality, players reactions and overall current situation/background.

Also I can't get rid of the thought that there is an underestimated connection between spending money on a game and desire to spend time on playing it. It seems that if developers of good games would be suitably rewarded according to players satisfaction, there will be no need to pursue financial success by pushing cancer on players.

Consider the following:

One day we manage to reach the pinnacle of invention - we create the replicator from Star Trek. We can suddenly bring immense amounts of anything we want for everyone in the world, for very little energy (caveat: I don't know enough about Star Trek lore to know this to be true).

Now, this machine would certainly make a whole lot of business models redundant - farming, factory work, you name it - they would all no longer be able to make a living doing what they did before this invention existed.

Now for the moral question - should the fact that this invention will harm certain groups' way of life be considered enough of a motivation to prohibit the use of this invention? Despite the immense wealth we could bring upon the world?

Take a pause to form an opinion on the subject.

Now that you've formed an opinion on the replicator - consider that we already have replicators for all types of digital media. It can be infinitely replicated for trivial amounts of energy. Access to the library of all cataloged information in the world is merely a matter of bandwidth.

Now, should the fact that groups relying on copyright protection for their way of life be considered reason enough to prohibit the use of the information replicator?

To me, the answer is clear. The problem of artists, authors, actors, programmers and so on not being able to make money as easily without copyright protection does not warrant depriving the people of the world from access to the information replicator. What we should focus on is to find another model under which someone creating information can sustain themselves.

the good thing about copyright is that it's the only thing that might protect an individual against a giant company to steal someone's work and drown it with an insanely more marketed version to make money off of someone else's work without compensating them. i mean they already do that as best they can but it would be worse without copyright protections.

on the other hand i would severely limit copyrights in general, and even more for publishers and companies. I'd much rather individuals retain rights to IP than companies.

i realize there are some problems that might arise from such a system but it would be much less significant than the BS we have today.

but wait, oh no, that means Sony shouldn't have exclusive rights to churn out another vaguely spider-man-related shit stain! how will our culture survive this?

it'll be fine.

You can change the display of your username on the Web version of Lemmy and it accepts emojis.