Do corporations in capatialistic societies make crap sometimes? Yeah, but they do it because people buy it. If people didn't buy crap, it wouldn't get made.
You could argue that capitalism is democratic, with the same flaws. With "dollar votes" people directly decide what sort of music gets made, cars are driven, ect. and sometimes people make poor choices; choose something flashy and shallow over something with more substance, like in elections.
I think Britney Spears is crap, but she endures because people willingly buy her shit. If that's what they want, that's what they'll get.
EDIT: Capitalism ironically is a system where "if you ignore it, it will go away" is a true statement. If enough people don't buy something, it goes away.
You also could look at "niche markets". Smaller, yet still profitable because they appeal to certain demographics that reject the mass-market stuff. Say, EvE online, Warhammer 40K, imported beers, ect.
Frankly, after considering that and just looking at an iTunes store, with all the choices capitalism offers, appealing to mass and nitche markets, I reject the notion that it stifles creativity and innovation.
I'd say that the biggest problem with purely capitalistic systems is that they reward the first person who figures out how to dismantle them. See the early 20th century, for example.
I'd say that the biggest problem with purely capitalistic systems is that they reward the first person who figures out how to dismantle them. See the early 20th century, for example.
True. I'm all for anti-trust laws and regulations. Monopolies end competition.
Do corporations in capatialistic societies make crap sometimes? Yeah, but they do it because people buy it. If people didn't buy crap, it wouldn't get made.
True. However, the inverse causation is also true, and arguably more true. People buy crap because corporations make it. If they didn't make it, it wouldn't get bought.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Do corporations in capatialistic societies make crap sometimes? Yeah, but they do it because people buy it. If people didn't buy crap, it wouldn't get made.
True. However, the converse is also true. People buy crap because corporations make it. If they didn't make it, it wouldn't get bought.
Do corporations in capatialistic societies make crap sometimes? Yeah, but they do it because people buy it. If people didn't buy crap, it wouldn't get made.
True. However, the converse is also true. People buy crap because corporations make it. If they didn't make it, it wouldn't get bought.
It is pretty shockingly easy to create need.
It's not a matter of people being stupid, it's a matter of people being inadequately educated. About pretty much everything.
I think my only issue with capitalism is just this notion that nothing would ever get done unless we we're constantly striving to earn more just simply to make a living.
People would still innovate, people would still be creative, not always having to fight just to survive doesn't kill these things, it just slows the pace down quite a bit. Capitalism is a motivator
Capitalism incentivizes activities that have economic value. Sometimes this coincides with activities that are creative and innovative, sometimes not. The video I linked a couple pages back provides evidence that you can't create innovation through financial incentives. Of course, you can provide the resources that allow people to be creative. In essence, you can pay creative people, but you can't pay people to be productive. People are creative and innovative because they want to be or are able to be. Capitalism is good for innovation to the degree that it allows people the freedom to pursue their ideas. It's bad when it prevents someone from engaging in creative enterprise because of financial limitations. I doubt that the incentives it creates are the kind that will encourage innovation.
This is not to say that Capitalism is good or bad; it seems to work better than most alternatives, but has its weaknesses. I absolutely don't think that the quality or popularity of Wii games and systems is a good indicator of whether or not an economic system stifles creativity and innovation.
A major problem with current capitalistic teachings is that many businessmen don't actually understand the effects of their actions because the economy is so irreducibly complex. In practice regulated capitalism/socialism/communism should all work similarly well the reasons they don't is that politicians get platforms mixed up with definitions and a stupid idea that the short term is all that's important in business.
Logic would dictate if you exist in an environment you don't sacrifice that environment for a day of short term profits. Unfortunately infinite market theory makes an argument that it's only the short term that matters. Infinite market theory is almost purely responsible for private industries ceasing innovation and firing their R&D departments which lead to the US govt offering incentives to innovate. This was done because in infinite market theory the idea is that there is an infinite amount of competitors in the world, and if there's an infinite number of competitors sinking money into innovation won't work because all you're doing is researching for the other companies. Therefore it's a bad idea to spend money on innovation.
You can blame Alan Greenspan, and Ronald Reagan for this.
Why market theory has deviated so far from logic and fact to the realm of the metaphysical and philosophical I don't know or understand. It might be because businessmen are better bullshitters than lawyers are. It might be because if you create elaborate circular logic that proves your point it looks like real logic and a president will embrace it cause it supports his political ideology rather than being empirically evident.
The other major problem with capitalism is false competition. If you have no real competition you have no incentive to innovate, you can continue to re-release the same thing with minor improvements and still obtain a huge profit. This is the conventional wisdom that a lot of markets are using to regulate themselves. Basically, if you don't release something that breaks the market I won't and we'll continue releasing little things. Although this is empirically wrong (by continuously innovating you both strengthen your economy and create new markets) the fact doesn't prevent the sentiment from being repeated over and over by crappy economists.
Every once and awhile the underdog manages a huge innovation that steals a lot of market share from their competitor but as intel, nvidia, maytag, ge etc have all shown they're hardly playing all of their cards. When AMD stole a lot of the market share from intel, intel's reply was to release technology that they'd had lying on the back shelf for almost 10 years, producible for almost 5. The same problem is evident in creative sound systems who decided they'd already invented all the sound innovations that could ever appear so they'd completely abandon their R&D and release the new innovations little by little.
Things like this lead to technology paths being forgotten because you only need to innovate where you have competition.
So basically, the cause of the recession? The cause of everything wrong with our country? One part all encompassing greed. One part Politicians who believe the end justifies the means if it means that the end is their control of the government. Honestly our country would run much better right now with a single party.
The solution? Regulation helps immensely, re-privatizing R&D (rather than the govt flipping the bill) should happen. Monopolies should be busted as much as possible as they lead to stagnation. In a perfect capitalistic model there are infinite companies which struggle with each other until the best wins. This is the real world though and while greed is a plus in the ideal market proposed by infinite market theory in excess it leads to far too many problems. Greed needs to be tempered by reason. In fact the only thing that has ever been proven to expand and increase economies is technological innovations, since we've hit a brick wall as far as expanding our market goes we need to start the innovation.
As for the economy in America, democrats are significantly better at pulling countries out of recessions but it'll take time for america who controls roughly a third of the entire world's wealth to bounce back. Efficient spending needs to take place and crap programs on both sides' lines need to be cut. Any retard can look at the budget and say why the hell do we need this much money for that? And no politician can give you a real answer.
In conclusion it's not capitalism or socialism or communism that stifle creativity but a lack of value placed on innovation.
elfdude on
Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
The same has been said of Socialism. I think what it comes down to is that you cannot measure the success of of a creative/artistic endeavor monetarily. If profit is your primary incentive then you're in it for the wrong reasons.
People don't make games for the Wii because it's ultimately an under-powered system for this generation. It's marketing was based on a control system which no one gave much thought too but wanted. Hell I have one - I never play it. The funnest thing I've done with it is bluetooth my wiimotes to my PC and play Half-Life with them.
Were the Wii implemented with an up-to-date graphics engine, then it'd be a different story, but the reality is that by and large people want games that look up-to-date and very few games benefit from a kind of finite haptic control system in terms of gameplay.
Were the Wii implemented with an up-to-date graphics engine, then it'd be a different story, but the reality is that by and large people want games that look up-to-date and very few games benefit from a kind of finite haptic control system in terms of gameplay.
All the numbers say you're wrong. The Wii is a massive success while all the of companies that refuse to support it are falling apart. Ironically, the principle of Capitalism is showing that the very conventional wisdom you're spouting right now is wrong, and tons of video game companies are suffering because they aren't by and large giving the whole market what it wants.
Were the Wii implemented with an up-to-date graphics engine, then it'd be a different story, but the reality is that by and large people want games that look up-to-date and very few games benefit from a kind of finite haptic control system in terms of gameplay.
All the numbers say you're wrong. The Wii is a massive success while all the of companies that refuse to support it are falling apart. Ironically, the principle of Capitalism is showing that the very conventional wisdom you're spouting right now is wrong, and tons of video game companies are suffering because they aren't by and large giving the whole market what it wants.
What are you talking about? Wii software lags. Wii's sold like hotcakes, but that's because everyone bought them and now no one has a damn clue what do with them.
I'm not arguing anything about capitalism, just the Wii is the greatest joke in the history of marketing.
What are you talking about? Wii software lags. Wii's sold like hotcakes, but that's because everyone bought them and now no one has a damn clue what do with them.
I'm not arguing anything about capitalism, just the Wii is the greatest joke in the history of marketing.
What are you talking about? Wii software lags. Wii's sold like hotcakes, but that's because everyone bought them and now no one has a damn clue what do with them.
I'm not arguing anything about capitalism, just the Wii is the greatest joke in the history of marketing.
Yeah and up till recently everyone was wondering what the fuck was wrong with Wii software sales. It's pretty telling that the new thing that got sold is another Nintendo fitness product, which ships with another haptic input device.
The criticism was a lack of software diversity for the platform. That's still true. If the Wii can sustain a sales dominance I'd be damn surprised.
What are you talking about? Wii software lags. Wii's sold like hotcakes, but that's because everyone bought them and now no one has a damn clue what do with them.
I'm not arguing anything about capitalism, just the Wii is the greatest joke in the history of marketing.
Yeah and up till recently everyone was wondering what the fuck was wrong with Wii software sales. It's pretty telling that the new thing that got sold is another Nintendo fitness product, which ships with another haptic input device.
The criticism was a lack of software diversity for the platform. That's still true. If the Wii can sustain a sales dominance I'd be damn surprised.
Except this was a misconception.
Wii software sales have always just as good, if not better then the other platforms.
What are you talking about? Wii software lags. Wii's sold like hotcakes, but that's because everyone bought them and now no one has a damn clue what do with them.
I'm not arguing anything about capitalism, just the Wii is the greatest joke in the history of marketing.
Yeah and up till recently everyone was wondering what the fuck was wrong with Wii software sales. It's pretty telling that the new thing that got sold is another Nintendo fitness product, which ships with another haptic input device.
The criticism was a lack of software diversity for the platform. That's still true. If the Wii can sustain a sales dominance I'd be damn surprised.
Wii Sports (47.62 million)[67]
Wii Play (22.98 million)[68]
Wii Fit (21.82 million)[67]
Mario Kart Wii (17.39 million)[67]
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (8.43 million)[68]
Super Mario Galaxy (8.02 million)[69]
Mario Party 8 (6.72 million)[69]
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (4.52 million)[69]
Link's Crossbow Training (3.76 million)[68]
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (3.4 million)[70]
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue (3.94 million)[124]
MotorStorm (3.31 million)[125]
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (3 million shipped)[126]
Grand Theft Auto IV (2.659 million approximately: 1.89 million in US,[27] 169,000 in Japan,[127] 600,000 in UK)[33]
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (2.6 million)[128][129]
Resistance: Fall of Man (2.5 million)[130]
Resident Evil 5 (1.21 million approximately: 585,000 in US,[131] 472,261 in Japan,[132] 100,000 in UK,[20] 62,040 in France)[133]
Heavenly Sword (1 million)[134]
Killzone 2 (1 million)[135]
MotorStorm: Pacific Rift (1 million)[136]
Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction (1 million)[137]
Halo 3 (8.1 million)[24]
Gears of War (5 million,[25] may include PC version)
Gears of War 2 (5 million)[26]
Grand Theft Auto IV (4.074 million approximately: 3.29 million in US,[27] 750,000 in UK,[28] 34,000 in Japan)[29]
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (3.772 million approximately: 3.04 million in US,[30] 78,000 in Canada,[31] 54,742 in Japan,[32] 600,000 in UK)[33]
Call of Duty: World at War (3.35 million approximately: 2.75 million in US,[27] 600,000 in UK)[33]
Forza Motorsport 2 (2.674 million approximately: 2.23 million in US,[19] 31,255 and 100,500 Platinum Collection,[32] 12,600 in Canada,[34] 300,000 in UK)[35]
Fable II (2.6 million)[36]
Assassin's Creed (2.285 million approximately: 1.87 million in US,[30] 60,000 in Canada,[31] 55,041 in Japan,[32] 300,000 in UK)[35]
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (2.08 million in US)[19]
Versus it's install base it should be doing a lot better. It's telling that the top 3 are the following:
Wii Sports (47.62 million)[67]
Wii Play (22.98 million)[68]
Wii Fit (21.82 million)[67]
Nintendo's marketing has tapped into the home gym equipment demographic.
Exactly. I'd bring the numbers, as I just did the exact same report a few weeks ago for a different forum, but the truth is while the Wii, right now, isn't hurting financially, it's headed that way in a massive hurry.
Take away those three that ELM highlighted, because their stats are cheating; one is a game sold with the system, one is a terrible and almost broken game that comes with a free controller, and one isn't a game at all. Yes, they made money; no, there's no more money to be made from any extension of them. Those games are done.
Again, look at the numbers you posted yourself, Xenogears. All the top Wii sellers are 1st-party titles. Then take out the numbers from those top three Wii titles, and compare their top fifty games against their competition (360+PS3).
-Wii: 131 million games sold
-PS3/360: 224 million games sold
That means when people go out to buy a game, they pick the competition 2 times out of every 3. Minus those three outliers, the 360 on its own sells more games than the Wii.
But back to the first-party thing. Sony and Microsoft have in their top 50 fifteen and ten first-party games, respectively. Wii has 16 in just their top twenty. What that says is that the Wii is not developer friendly, and that brand loyalty and awareness may have much more to do with Nintendo's sales figures than "innovation."
So to keep this whole mess on-topic, is the Wii an example of capitalism rewarding or punishing innovation? Well, a little of both, it seems. Considering the Wii's longterm outlook compared to its most direct competition, it seems in this case that the market isn't so much rewarding innovation as it is rewarding novelty. But that's okay, the market allows for that, too. But as a gaming device planning to go head-to-head with Sony and Microsoft, the outlook is grim, even moreso when you consider how much Nintendo is probably losing in first-party development costs to keep their brand viable. And the boomerang on that is that when your product is dependent on market awareness, you run the risk of saturating your brand, because diminishing returns are all that's left when your "innovation" reaches its limit. And with the Wii, it definitely has.
While I'd be surprised if Sony or Microsoft have spent too much developing a next-gen product, I can almost promise you Nintendo is in early stages of a build. Which is silly, because the Wii's faults can be overcome by simply aping what things Sony and Microsoft are doing better. People like the Wii; people just don't like its limitations. It has poor graphics, limited gameplay mechanics, horrible web-browsing apps, an almost-broken P2P interface, and virtually zero utility beyond its game playing function.
What Nintendo needs to do is to continue to expand its innovation, but quit pretending that people aren't complaining about the two-dozen things the competition does better. Gamers are technophiles. Pander to them. Give them 1080p. Give them Blu-Ray (or at the least, a dvd player or iTunes). Give them a browser that doesn't feel broken. Give them a reason to be proud and singular Nintendo owners, and don't let the competition do anything better.
You are both fucking loony if you think the Wii is entering a serious downturn or that it's not innovative as all get out.
For one thing, over the past 18 months Nintendo has consistantly had the best software sales for both first and third party titles. Yes, combining the top 50 software sales of its two competitors has them above it, but you're forgetting that the Wii has quite a bit larger volume of said software out there.
You, Atomic Ross, are even crazier if you think Nintendo would be more successful aping the competition. MS and Sony's games and systems have higher development cost and a slower turn around than Nintendo. Just sticking to the gameplay is what Nintendo knows and what Nintendo does best. Nintendo's profitabilty is just staggering especially considering their entire company is around 3000 people.
To get the thread back on topic look at it this way. Nintendo knew that they'd be losing a considerable amount of profit trying to keep up with Sony and MS in a tech race, and decided to rework their GCN with more RAM and a faster processor and graphics co processor and an innovative control scheme and market their wares outside the traditional base. It worked quite well.
Maximizing profits via pure capitialism can lead to some truely innovative ideas.
Xenogears of Bore on
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
For one thing, over the past 18 months Nintendo has consistantly had the best software sales for both first and third party titles. Yes, combining the top 50 software sales of its two competitors has them above it, but you're forgetting that the Wii has quite a bit larger volume of said software out there.
What does this "larger volume" mean, exactly? What are you trying to say? The Wii's top ten games make up around 50% of its total game sales. Sony and MS are both around 20%.
You, Atomic Ross, are even crazier if you think Nintendo would be more successful aping the competition. MS and Sony's games and systems have higher development cost and a slower turn around than Nintendo. Just sticking to the gameplay is what Nintendo knows and what Nintendo does best. Nintendo's profitabilty is just staggering especially considering their entire company is around 3000 people.
I'll be the first to admit that the Wii is profitable. There's no logical way to argue against that. What I am saying is it's become stagnant. People who play games are picking the competition by a fairly large margin. You call it "sticking to gameplay," I'm calling it maximization of potential. But there's nothing conclusively there to say that the Wii is a marvel of capitalism; if anything, the sales figures show that people want better graphics and more system utility 2/3rds of the time.
To get the thread back on topic look at it this way. Nintendo knew that they'd be losing a considerable amount of profit trying to keep up with Sony and MS in a tech race, and decided to rework their GCN with more RAM and a faster processor and graphics co processor and an innovative control scheme and market their wares outside the traditional base. It worked quite well.
It did. I agree. The business model for rolling out the Wii was outstanding. But consoles aren't like other products; they're dependent on a continuing output of secondary product, and they are in fierce competition with other similar products. And on that end, the Wii is losing: Sony and MS are outselling the Wii on games . . . and consoles.
Maximizing profits via pure capitialism can lead to some truely innovative ideas.
If you're basing that statement on Wii sales, I'd say it's a bit early. Again, capitalism can also lead to mass-market novelty, and there's too much evidence citing that as the Wii's success to chalk it up to Keynesian theory just yet.
The people buying a Wii and the "non-gamer" games certainly think the system is innovative and creative. I'm not going to compare the Wii to the [farce] Movies, but the people who enjoy those movies feel the same way -- and they think they're hilarious.
So if Nintendo makes their own system and 80% of the games for it, and people are still happy to purchase them, then that's perfectly fine. And another example of the free market system working. If companies are making relatively "simple" games and people are happy to purchase them, then they're obviously creating a product for an audience and that audience is pleased.
And because of competition, there's other systems available that focus more on graphics and, as some would say, a "more involved" gaming experience due to the story or scope of the game. And people who prefer that are being catered to.
Of course, this is also why I don't buy a new technology, especially video game consoles, until there are applications that I actually want. If you're unhappy with a purchase, it's valid to complain about it, but it also means you should pay more attention the next time you're looking to make a similar purchase.
It did. I agree. The business model for rolling out the Wii was outstanding. But consoles aren't like other products; they're dependent on a continuing output of secondary product, and they are in fierce competition with other similar products. And on that end, the Wii is losing: Sony and MS are outselling the Wii on games . . . and consoles.
That is a pretty inaccurate statement.
Fact is, neither Sony nor MS are seeing an uptick in console sales. All that's happened is that the Wii has tapered off, as anyone could have predicted.
And to keep this on track: Nintendo made the right move economic move by recognizing that HD development is crazy expensive, and *most* consumers clearly don't care about it or don't have the hardware to take advantage of it. A simpler interface and some novel elements proved that design matters more than tech to a huge swath of the market.
MS is hoping to keep the most dedicated fans on their system, and I assume there's long-term viability in that.
Over and over, Nintendo has situated themselves slightly behind the tech curve. That's what works for them.
Hockey Johnston on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
Keep in mind all these systems are several years old now. Of course sales are going to decline.
Yeah doesn't seem like this has been posted, there is a recent TED talk on this very subject which seems to suggest that yes, typical capitalism does very much stiffle creativity and innovation.
Capitalism incentivizes activities that have economic value. Sometimes this coincides with activities that are creative and innovative, sometimes not. The video I linked a couple pages back provides evidence that you can't create innovation through financial incentives. Of course, you can provide the resources that allow people to be creative. In essence, you can pay creative people, but you can't pay people to be productive. People are creative and innovative because they want to be or are able to be. Capitalism is good for innovation to the degree that it allows people the freedom to pursue their ideas. It's bad when it prevents someone from engaging in creative enterprise because of financial limitations. I doubt that the incentives it creates are the kind that will encourage innovation.
This is not to say that Capitalism is good or bad; it seems to work better than most alternatives, but has its weaknesses. I absolutely don't think that the quality or popularity of Wii games and systems is a good indicator of whether or not an economic system stifles creativity and innovation.
I have to agree with the last point that the Wii can't be a serious benchmark of creativity and/or individualized production. Honestly, if your benchmark for "creative" work is a video game console, there's something a little wrong. There's very little innovation or creativity involved in the process. 1) We want motion controls; 2) we want a lower price point. Every decision is made from a business perspective on a net profit/loss matrix.
And that becomes the crux of the issue. To endear "creative" works one must place the creative process as both method and goal. When you toss business in there, it becomes a function of economic math. For a bit of a thought experiment, would Joyce be published today? Would any publishing house, in the face of waning profits and a faster-than-ever environment, dare touch something as complex as Ulysses? Finnegan's Wake? My initial thought is that "no" they wouldn't risk themselves, there wouldn't be a large enough audience. The issues surrounding Joyce's publishing in the 20th century don't even come near this problem.
If you want to talk about a medium that has been suffocated and pushed underground in the face of rapid advancement of technology and modern capitalism, let's talk about the "creative" work of poetry.
I mean, the only place where poets are not the total audience of other poets is in the Slam movement. Guess who owns the rights to "Slam Poetry"? HBO. Guess who will drop "Slam Poetry" as soon as the "fad" passes? HBO.
So we have a new economics of the "creative" in internet distribution. 9-5 monkeys publishing blogs and reading at the corner cafe every week. The community forms outside of capitalistic thinking of things like "products" and "labor" and exists in a weak, localized and fractured state until it picks up backing from a corporate sponsor, at which point the movement and community are milked for money until the idea has run dry. As there exists no corporate responsibility to the art form, when the product is finished, so is the endeavor in so much as they find themselves once again outside of the mainstream, on their own with a little face-recognition mixed in. Many of the structures, while dismantled, remain in theoretical place. Perhaps a new sponsor or private individual will step up to try to fund the work, but at a much limited scope.
Capitalism is good for innovation to the degree that it allows people the freedom to pursue their ideas.
I hate the use of the word "freedom". Freedom for what, exactly? That the mob won't break down your door? That you won't be censored too badly?
Capitalism gives freedom to work; freedom to make money and to spend that money. That's "quality of living" right there. If I, as a "creative" person, were to have the "freedom" to make my art the way I wish, it would mean not holding a job and not having to give the best 40+ hours of my week to someone else for the purpose of making money.
Capitalism gives the freedom to make money, which we oftentimes confuse with actual "freedom" of choice and pursuit of life.
It's bad when it prevents someone from engaging in creative enterprise because of financial limitations. I doubt that the incentives it creates are the kind that will encourage innovation.
"Financial limitations" is being easy on the system. Every artist I know lacks the ability to do what they wish and simply create art. But financial limitations also limit the ability of a working-class kid to get a good education and even begin the creative process.
Now, there's a huge gap between "creative" and "innovative". I think it's rather impossible to have true "freedom of creative expression" under the current system. That said, "innovation" will always be a quick sell due to the very nature of innovation to simply mean "improvements on existing theses". There will always be a market for a "better" hairspray, and "innovation" becomes nothing more than another marketing tool; the same cannot be said of art and intellectual pursuit. Hell, I know a number of university professors who have made "innovative" and "revolutionary" findings within their fields, yet struggle to make payments on their modest mortgage. Meanwhile, the guy who invented Velcro was paid enough to ensure that his family's next seven generations won't ever have to really life too much of a finger.
In the end, it depends on what you think is important.
And that becomes the crux of the issue. To endear "creative" works one must place the creative process as both method and goal. When you toss business in there, it becomes a function of economic math. For a bit of a thought experiment, would Joyce be published today? Would any publishing house, in the face of waning profits and a faster-than-ever environment, dare touch something as complex as Ulysses? Finnegan's Wake? My initial thought is that "no" they wouldn't risk themselves, there wouldn't be a large enough audience. The issues surrounding Joyce's publishing in the 20th century don't even come near this problem.
Why wouldn't they? If anything the technical innovation that you downplay have made niche works more available by enhancing the economic value of the long tail. Something that offers the variety of artistic goods available on Amazon would have been unthinkable in Joyce's time.
If you want to talk about a medium that has been suffocated and pushed underground in the face of rapid advancement of technology and modern capitalism, let's talk about the "creative" work of poetry.
I mean, the only place where poets are not the total audience of other poets is in the Slam movement. Guess who owns the rights to "Slam Poetry"? HBO. Guess who will drop "Slam Poetry" as soon as the "fad" passes? HBO.
How has capitalism and technology pushed poetry underground? When was this halycon time when poetry was appreciated by the masses?
So we have a new economics of the "creative" in internet distribution. 9-5 monkeys publishing blogs and reading at the corner cafe every week.
The horror of the plebians creating works. How dare they do so without undergoing the trials of academia.
Capitalism gives freedom to work; freedom to make money and to spend that money. That's "quality of living" right there. If I, as a "creative" person, were to have the "freedom" to make my art the way I wish, it would mean not holding a job and not having to give the best 40+ hours of my week to someone else for the purpose of making money.
Capitalism gives the freedom to make money, which we oftentimes confuse with actual "freedom" of choice and pursuit of life.
Capitalism gives us a large degree of freedom of choice when compared to other systems. Maybe in some mythical post-scarcity society, we will have the ability to free artists from the shackles of material want or some such noble endeavor, but until that time, it's a decent enough system.
Now, there's a huge gap between "creative" and "innovative". I think it's rather impossible to have true "freedom of creative expression" under the current system.
You are going to explain this huge gap. There is very little in terms of themes or concept that doesn't have some precedent in human thought. We build upon the backs of our forefathers, both in art and in science. And what system would better allow for this noble expression of the human spirit?
I think a big problem here is the usually erroneous assumption that people CREATE (in an artistic sense) to make money.
The vast majority of the time, it seems that people create because they want to. (That TED video was good in pointing this out).
The most obvious example of this is Authors. This is because, unlike most other mediums, authors singlehandedly create something. It's an act of creativity done by 1 person.
And the truth is, most authors don't write to make money. They write because they want to and then people pay them for their work. Authors start writing LONG before anyone even hints at paying them for it.
Most other artists are no different, with varying degrees of bend in order to accommodate the medium they wish to work in. (Directors might need to churn out some easy crap first in order to be able to do the movies THEY want and so on).
Most people create books/programs/movies/etc because they WANT to, not because someone will pay them for it.
And that becomes the crux of the issue. To endear "creative" works one must place the creative process as both method and goal. When you toss business in there, it becomes a function of economic math. For a bit of a thought experiment, would Joyce be published today? Would any publishing house, in the face of waning profits and a faster-than-ever environment, dare touch something as complex as Ulysses? Finnegan's Wake? My initial thought is that "no" they wouldn't risk themselves, there wouldn't be a large enough audience. The issues surrounding Joyce's publishing in the 20th century don't even come near this problem.
Why wouldn't they? If anything the technical innovation that you downplay have made niche works more available by enhancing the economic value of the long tail. Something that offers the variety of artistic goods available on Amazon would have been unthinkable in Joyce's time.
Current methods of distribution could fill endless pages. In short, we're discussing support for creative works within a capitalist framework, not one's ability to distribute. "Underground" distribution has been around for as long as, well, forever. The question of what capitalism, specifically, does to support and ensure creativity is very different from any sort of theoretical concept of accessibility. I'll amend my position to include the caveat that Joyce would have probably ended up "self-publishing" or "self-distributing" his own works, with little actual support aside from a publishing house swooping down if it sold enough copies, which is difficult for us to actually make a judgment on.
If you want to talk about a medium that has been suffocated and pushed underground in the face of rapid advancement of technology and modern capitalism, let's talk about the "creative" work of poetry.
I mean, the only place where poets are not the total audience of other poets is in the Slam movement. Guess who owns the rights to "Slam Poetry"? HBO. Guess who will drop "Slam Poetry" as soon as the "fad" passes? HBO.
How has capitalism and technology pushed poetry underground? When was this halcyon time when poetry was appreciated by the masses?
Ironically, I don't believe that I was discussing plebeian art forms, here. The advancements made in the latter half of the 20th century shifted artistic and creative work away from the written and toward the short, concise and visual. It isn't a throw-back, or any sort of stupid Luddite "it was better back in the day without this tech!" but an observation on how the economic and social conditions created by capitalism force a creative tradition to become insular, with the outward aspects bearing the "brought to you by HBO" logo.
So we have a new economics of the "creative" in internet distribution. 9-5 monkeys publishing blogs and reading at the corner cafe every week.
The horror of the plebians creating works. How dare they do so without undergoing the trials of academia.
Woah, this isn't a statement in-and-of-itself.
Capitalism gives freedom to work; freedom to make money and to spend that money. That's "quality of living" right there. If I, as a "creative" person, were to have the "freedom" to make my art the way I wish, it would mean not holding a job and not having to give the best 40+ hours of my week to someone else for the purpose of making money.
Capitalism gives the freedom to make money, which we oftentimes confuse with actual "freedom" of choice and pursuit of life.
Capitalism gives us a large degree of freedom of choice when compared to other systems. Maybe in some mythical post-scarcity society, we will have the ability to free artists from the shackles of material want or some such noble endeavor, but until that time, it's a decent enough system.
And this is the magic bullet of capitalism: "We admit it kind of sucks sometimes, but it's better than everything else!"
That isn't an answer, and it certainly isn't an argument. And pre-industrial, authoritarian Soviet-communism isn't any sort of barometer by which we can actually have a compare-and-contrast session. Mainly because the Soviet system and so called "Marxist Orthodoxy" is a damn sham.
Now, there's a huge gap between "creative" and "innovative". I think it's rather impossible to have true "freedom of creative expression" under the current system.
You are going to explain this huge gap. There is very little in terms of themes or concept that doesn't have some precedent in human thought. We build upon the backs of our forefathers, both in art and in science. And what system would better allow for this noble expression of the human spirit?
I did explain it. And there is a difference. We can come back to this later.
Current methods of distribution could fill endless pages. In short, we're discussing support for creative works within a capitalist framework, not one's ability to distribute. "Underground" distribution has been around for as long as, well, forever. The question of what capitalism, specifically, does to support and ensure creativity is very different from any sort of theoretical concept of accessibility. I'll amend my position to include the caveat that Joyce would have probably ended up "self-publishing" or "self-distributing" his own works, with little actual support aside from a publishing house swooping down if it sold enough copies, which is difficult for us to actually make a judgment on.
It supports things that people want to experience. I fail to see how 'creativity' is an intrinsic good. There wasn't ever a time in history where creative workers didn't have to prove themself in some manner before becoming a professional artist unless they had access to family wealth or the like. So I guess you are right in that an artist will need to undergo some of the cost and risk of producing a work of value before gaining access to a support system, but I fail to see any remedy for that.
Ironically, I don't believe that I was discussing plebeian art forms, here. The advancements made in the latter half of the 20th century shifted artistic and creative work away from the written and toward the short, concise and visual. It isn't a throw-back, or any sort of stupid Luddite "it was better back in the day without this tech!" but an observation on how the economic and social conditions created by capitalism force a creative tradition to become insular, with the outward aspects bearing the "brought to you by HBO" logo.
When has poetry not been insular? And why should we even be concerned about such a shift when artistic creation is not a zero sum game. You can have many many more blogs out there and yet still have more great literature being created.
So we have a new economics of the "creative" in internet distribution. 9-5 monkeys publishing blogs and reading at the corner cafe every week.
The horror of the plebians creating works. How dare they do so without undergoing the trials of academia.
Woah, this isn't a statement in-and-of-itself.
You explicitly denigrated people with routine jobs by referring to them as monkeys. It is hard to not consider that elitist.
And this is the magic bullet of capitalism: "We admit it kind of sucks sometimes, but it's better than everything else!"
That isn't an answer, and it certainly isn't an argument. And pre-industrial, authoritarian Soviet-communism isn't any sort of barometer by which we can actually have a compare-and-contrast session. Mainly because the Soviet system and so called "Marxist Orthodoxy" is a damn sham.
If you feel that capitalism unecessarily constrains artistic endeavor, posit a fix. It is very hard to compare a system that is being implemented within imperfect reality with some theoretical construct anyhow.
You are going to explain this huge gap. There is very little in terms of themes or concept that doesn't have some precedent in human thought. We build upon the backs of our forefathers, both in art and in science. And what system would better allow for this noble expression of the human spirit?
I did explain it. And there is a difference. We can come back to this later.
All you said was that innovation is making incremental changes. And you made a claim that somehow art and intellectual pursuit was different without explaining how or why, but maybe you will address that in your next post.
Saammiel on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
Capitalism as a whole has pretty much fuck all to do with stifling or promoting creativity and innovation. Capitalism has one goal, aquisition of wealth. Sometimes that leads someone to create something fucking awesome (see: Ipods, Assembly lines, Dawn of the Dead, etc.). Sometimes it leads to ubiquitous bullshit (see: McDonalds, a cornucopia of Rx dick pills, Transformers 2).
On the converse, the public sector is also responsible for some really cool ultimately unprofitable shit (Space Program, GPS satelites, the sistine chapel). Whereas it is also responsible for its fair share of crazy bullshit (driving through New Jersey, barber licensing, Michelle Bachman)
I think the trick is not to prevent either side from doing what they do best and vote with our wallets and votes to keep them from continuing to prouce the worst... especially Transformers 3.
Current methods of distribution could fill endless pages. In short, we're discussing support for creative works within a capitalist framework, not one's ability to distribute. "Underground" distribution has been around for as long as, well, forever. The question of what capitalism, specifically, does to support and ensure creativity is very different from any sort of theoretical concept of accessibility. I'll amend my position to include the caveat that Joyce would have probably ended up "self-publishing" or "self-distributing" his own works, with little actual support aside from a publishing house swooping down if it sold enough copies, which is difficult for us to actually make a judgment on.
It supports things that people want to experience. I fail to see how 'creativity' is an intrinsic good. There wasn't ever a time in history where creative workers didn't have to prove themself in some manner before becoming a professional artist unless they had access to family wealth or the like. So I guess you are right in that an artist will need to undergo some of the cost and risk of producing a work of value before gaining access to a support system, but I fail to see any remedy for that.
The differnece is in what a system does to support an artist. The Bel Canto foundation was birthed out a seen necessity of "liberating" T.S. Eliot from his day job in order to allow him more time to create his art.
Every decision, conscious or unconscious, holds an economic aspect. Within a capitalist system, the consequence is often deadly. I know authors who bankrupted themselves in an attempt to actually simply create art.
There may or may not be "intrinsic good" in creative works. I can argue that within the system of capitalism, the question itself is moot as any decision on a capitalist scale cares not for good/bad but only profit/loss.
Ironically, I don't believe that I was discussing plebeian art forms, here. The advancements made in the latter half of the 20th century shifted artistic and creative work away from the written and toward the short, concise and visual. It isn't a throw-back, or any sort of stupid Luddite "it was better back in the day without this tech!" but an observation on how the economic and social conditions created by capitalism force a creative tradition to become insular, with the outward aspects bearing the "brought to you by HBO" logo.
When has poetry not been insular? And why should we even be concerned about such a shift when artistic creation is not a zero sum game. You can have many many more blogs out there and yet still have more great literature being created.
And who decides what that "great literature" will be? Companies with the ability and funding to provide marketing in order to actually operate in the market-economy. The better marketed, the more popular. The more popular, the more attention from critics. The more attention from critics, the more attention given, etc.
This can be extended to someone like Dan Brown, for whom there have always been "Dan Browns" running all over the place. He won't be counted as the "greatest literature", but I am uneasy that more American's have read "Angels and Demons" than "Moby Dick", to pick an example.
So we have a new economics of the "creative" in internet distribution. 9-5 monkeys publishing blogs and reading at the corner cafe every week.
The horror of the plebians creating works. How dare they do so without undergoing the trials of academia.
Woah, this isn't a statement in-and-of-itself.
You explicitly denigrated people with routine jobs by referring to them as monkeys. It is hard to not consider that elitist.
No ad-hominem, please. I'm one of those desk monkeys trying my best to create art in between keeping a roof over my head and eating.
If anything, the constant economic oppression on the working class prevents education and expression in both innovation and creativity.
And this is the magic bullet of capitalism: "We admit it kind of sucks sometimes, but it's better than everything else!"
That isn't an answer, and it certainly isn't an argument. And pre-industrial, authoritarian Soviet-communism isn't any sort of barometer by which we can actually have a compare-and-contrast session. Mainly because the Soviet system and so called "Marxist Orthodoxy" is a damn sham.
If you feel that capitalism unnecessarily constrains artistic endeavor, posit a fix. It is very hard to compare a system that is being implemented within imperfect reality with some theoretical construct anyhow.
I have no interest in getting into theoretical arguments over political and economic systems that don't exist. Suffice to say, a good basis in co-operation and community can do masterful things to provide for the needs of a community as well as provide incentive, happiness and stability. We can talk about this separately, if you wish.
You are going to explain this huge gap. There is very little in terms of themes or concept that doesn't have some precedent in human thought. We build upon the backs of our forefathers, both in art and in science. And what system would better allow for this noble expression of the human spirit?
I did explain it. And there is a difference. We can come back to this later.
All you said was that innovation is making incremental changes. And you made a claim that somehow art and intellectual pursuit was different without explaining how or why, but maybe you will address that in your next post.
I think we're getting held up in a discussion of terms, unknowingly. By "innovation" I assign a technological aspect in which production (vastly defined as all production) is bettered for the sake of the market conditions themselves. New pills replace old pills; new computers replace old, etc. Every production "innovation" works to increase production surplus/profit.
On the other hand, "creative" works are, inherently, outside of the production/profit relationship as so much as their intent is not to reap material profit, but to enhance societal, personal or non-market aims and goals.
That which is aeconomic will simply not find success in any market.
I find PA so funny. One half of you are propping up a command economic system that died because the value of its outputs was less than the value of its inputs and the other half is having a console war pissing contest.
I love you guys.
GungHo on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Capitalism as a whole has pretty much fuck all to do with stifling or promoting creativity and innovation. Capitalism has one goal, aquisition of wealth.
But Capitalism will do that one of two ways: by either rewarding monopoly or rewarding innovation.
So in that sense it does reward creativity as long as the innovation leads to wealth.
Capitalism as a whole has pretty much fuck all to do with stifling or promoting creativity and innovation. Capitalism has one goal, aquisition of wealth.
But Capitalism will do that one of two ways: by either rewarding monopoly or rewarding innovation.
So in that sense it does reward creativity as long as the innovation leads to wealth.
Monopolies still advance, though. Think of the expanding functionality* of windows. They had to keep developing new bits and bobs to expand into emerging markets and even created a few wholesale.
Posts
Do corporations in capatialistic societies make crap sometimes? Yeah, but they do it because people buy it. If people didn't buy crap, it wouldn't get made.
You could argue that capitalism is democratic, with the same flaws. With "dollar votes" people directly decide what sort of music gets made, cars are driven, ect. and sometimes people make poor choices; choose something flashy and shallow over something with more substance, like in elections.
I think Britney Spears is crap, but she endures because people willingly buy her shit. If that's what they want, that's what they'll get.
EDIT: Capitalism ironically is a system where "if you ignore it, it will go away" is a true statement. If enough people don't buy something, it goes away.
You also could look at "niche markets". Smaller, yet still profitable because they appeal to certain demographics that reject the mass-market stuff. Say, EvE online, Warhammer 40K, imported beers, ect.
Frankly, after considering that and just looking at an iTunes store, with all the choices capitalism offers, appealing to mass and nitche markets, I reject the notion that it stifles creativity and innovation.
Margaret Thatcher
True. I'm all for anti-trust laws and regulations. Monopolies end competition.
Margaret Thatcher
True. However, the inverse causation is also true, and arguably more true. People buy crap because corporations make it. If they didn't make it, it wouldn't get bought.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Unless it's subsidized.
It is pretty shockingly easy to create need.
It's not a matter of people being stupid, it's a matter of people being inadequately educated. About pretty much everything.
And Alexander Solzhenitsyn's were brought to you by Communism.
:P
People would still innovate, people would still be creative, not always having to fight just to survive doesn't kill these things, it just slows the pace down quite a bit. Capitalism is a motivator
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
This is not to say that Capitalism is good or bad; it seems to work better than most alternatives, but has its weaknesses. I absolutely don't think that the quality or popularity of Wii games and systems is a good indicator of whether or not an economic system stifles creativity and innovation.
Logic would dictate if you exist in an environment you don't sacrifice that environment for a day of short term profits. Unfortunately infinite market theory makes an argument that it's only the short term that matters. Infinite market theory is almost purely responsible for private industries ceasing innovation and firing their R&D departments which lead to the US govt offering incentives to innovate. This was done because in infinite market theory the idea is that there is an infinite amount of competitors in the world, and if there's an infinite number of competitors sinking money into innovation won't work because all you're doing is researching for the other companies. Therefore it's a bad idea to spend money on innovation.
You can blame Alan Greenspan, and Ronald Reagan for this.
Why market theory has deviated so far from logic and fact to the realm of the metaphysical and philosophical I don't know or understand. It might be because businessmen are better bullshitters than lawyers are. It might be because if you create elaborate circular logic that proves your point it looks like real logic and a president will embrace it cause it supports his political ideology rather than being empirically evident.
The other major problem with capitalism is false competition. If you have no real competition you have no incentive to innovate, you can continue to re-release the same thing with minor improvements and still obtain a huge profit. This is the conventional wisdom that a lot of markets are using to regulate themselves. Basically, if you don't release something that breaks the market I won't and we'll continue releasing little things. Although this is empirically wrong (by continuously innovating you both strengthen your economy and create new markets) the fact doesn't prevent the sentiment from being repeated over and over by crappy economists.
Every once and awhile the underdog manages a huge innovation that steals a lot of market share from their competitor but as intel, nvidia, maytag, ge etc have all shown they're hardly playing all of their cards. When AMD stole a lot of the market share from intel, intel's reply was to release technology that they'd had lying on the back shelf for almost 10 years, producible for almost 5. The same problem is evident in creative sound systems who decided they'd already invented all the sound innovations that could ever appear so they'd completely abandon their R&D and release the new innovations little by little.
Things like this lead to technology paths being forgotten because you only need to innovate where you have competition.
So basically, the cause of the recession? The cause of everything wrong with our country? One part all encompassing greed. One part Politicians who believe the end justifies the means if it means that the end is their control of the government. Honestly our country would run much better right now with a single party.
The solution? Regulation helps immensely, re-privatizing R&D (rather than the govt flipping the bill) should happen. Monopolies should be busted as much as possible as they lead to stagnation. In a perfect capitalistic model there are infinite companies which struggle with each other until the best wins. This is the real world though and while greed is a plus in the ideal market proposed by infinite market theory in excess it leads to far too many problems. Greed needs to be tempered by reason. In fact the only thing that has ever been proven to expand and increase economies is technological innovations, since we've hit a brick wall as far as expanding our market goes we need to start the innovation.
As for the economy in America, democrats are significantly better at pulling countries out of recessions but it'll take time for america who controls roughly a third of the entire world's wealth to bounce back. Efficient spending needs to take place and crap programs on both sides' lines need to be cut. Any retard can look at the budget and say why the hell do we need this much money for that? And no politician can give you a real answer.
In conclusion it's not capitalism or socialism or communism that stifle creativity but a lack of value placed on innovation.
Were the Wii implemented with an up-to-date graphics engine, then it'd be a different story, but the reality is that by and large people want games that look up-to-date and very few games benefit from a kind of finite haptic control system in terms of gameplay.
All the numbers say you're wrong. The Wii is a massive success while all the of companies that refuse to support it are falling apart. Ironically, the principle of Capitalism is showing that the very conventional wisdom you're spouting right now is wrong, and tons of video game companies are suffering because they aren't by and large giving the whole market what it wants.
I'm not arguing anything about capitalism, just the Wii is the greatest joke in the history of marketing.
The criticism was a lack of software diversity for the platform. That's still true. If the Wii can sustain a sales dominance I'd be damn surprised.
Except this was a misconception.
Wii software sales have always just as good, if not better then the other platforms.
The "Wii software dosn't sell" line is a myth.
Anyways, as I said, enough of a derail.
Wii Sports (47.62 million)[67]
Wii Play (22.98 million)[68]
Wii Fit (21.82 million)[67]
Mario Kart Wii (17.39 million)[67]
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (8.43 million)[68]
Super Mario Galaxy (8.02 million)[69]
Mario Party 8 (6.72 million)[69]
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (4.52 million)[69]
Link's Crossbow Training (3.76 million)[68]
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (3.4 million)[70]
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue (3.94 million)[124]
MotorStorm (3.31 million)[125]
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (3 million shipped)[126]
Grand Theft Auto IV (2.659 million approximately: 1.89 million in US,[27] 169,000 in Japan,[127] 600,000 in UK)[33]
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (2.6 million)[128][129]
Resistance: Fall of Man (2.5 million)[130]
Resident Evil 5 (1.21 million approximately: 585,000 in US,[131] 472,261 in Japan,[132] 100,000 in UK,[20] 62,040 in France)[133]
Heavenly Sword (1 million)[134]
Killzone 2 (1 million)[135]
MotorStorm: Pacific Rift (1 million)[136]
Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction (1 million)[137]
Halo 3 (8.1 million)[24]
Gears of War (5 million,[25] may include PC version)
Gears of War 2 (5 million)[26]
Grand Theft Auto IV (4.074 million approximately: 3.29 million in US,[27] 750,000 in UK,[28] 34,000 in Japan)[29]
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (3.772 million approximately: 3.04 million in US,[30] 78,000 in Canada,[31] 54,742 in Japan,[32] 600,000 in UK)[33]
Call of Duty: World at War (3.35 million approximately: 2.75 million in US,[27] 600,000 in UK)[33]
Forza Motorsport 2 (2.674 million approximately: 2.23 million in US,[19] 31,255 and 100,500 Platinum Collection,[32] 12,600 in Canada,[34] 300,000 in UK)[35]
Fable II (2.6 million)[36]
Assassin's Creed (2.285 million approximately: 1.87 million in US,[30] 60,000 in Canada,[31] 55,041 in Japan,[32] 300,000 in UK)[35]
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (2.08 million in US)[19]
Evidence says you are wrong.
Wii Sports (47.62 million)[67]
Wii Play (22.98 million)[68]
Wii Fit (21.82 million)[67]
Nintendo's marketing has tapped into the home gym equipment demographic.
Exactly. I'd bring the numbers, as I just did the exact same report a few weeks ago for a different forum, but the truth is while the Wii, right now, isn't hurting financially, it's headed that way in a massive hurry.
Take away those three that ELM highlighted, because their stats are cheating; one is a game sold with the system, one is a terrible and almost broken game that comes with a free controller, and one isn't a game at all. Yes, they made money; no, there's no more money to be made from any extension of them. Those games are done.
Again, look at the numbers you posted yourself, Xenogears. All the top Wii sellers are 1st-party titles. Then take out the numbers from those top three Wii titles, and compare their top fifty games against their competition (360+PS3).
-Wii: 131 million games sold
-PS3/360: 224 million games sold
That means when people go out to buy a game, they pick the competition 2 times out of every 3. Minus those three outliers, the 360 on its own sells more games than the Wii.
But back to the first-party thing. Sony and Microsoft have in their top 50 fifteen and ten first-party games, respectively. Wii has 16 in just their top twenty. What that says is that the Wii is not developer friendly, and that brand loyalty and awareness may have much more to do with Nintendo's sales figures than "innovation."
So to keep this whole mess on-topic, is the Wii an example of capitalism rewarding or punishing innovation? Well, a little of both, it seems. Considering the Wii's longterm outlook compared to its most direct competition, it seems in this case that the market isn't so much rewarding innovation as it is rewarding novelty. But that's okay, the market allows for that, too. But as a gaming device planning to go head-to-head with Sony and Microsoft, the outlook is grim, even moreso when you consider how much Nintendo is probably losing in first-party development costs to keep their brand viable. And the boomerang on that is that when your product is dependent on market awareness, you run the risk of saturating your brand, because diminishing returns are all that's left when your "innovation" reaches its limit. And with the Wii, it definitely has.
While I'd be surprised if Sony or Microsoft have spent too much developing a next-gen product, I can almost promise you Nintendo is in early stages of a build. Which is silly, because the Wii's faults can be overcome by simply aping what things Sony and Microsoft are doing better. People like the Wii; people just don't like its limitations. It has poor graphics, limited gameplay mechanics, horrible web-browsing apps, an almost-broken P2P interface, and virtually zero utility beyond its game playing function.
What Nintendo needs to do is to continue to expand its innovation, but quit pretending that people aren't complaining about the two-dozen things the competition does better. Gamers are technophiles. Pander to them. Give them 1080p. Give them Blu-Ray (or at the least, a dvd player or iTunes). Give them a browser that doesn't feel broken. Give them a reason to be proud and singular Nintendo owners, and don't let the competition do anything better.
For one thing, over the past 18 months Nintendo has consistantly had the best software sales for both first and third party titles. Yes, combining the top 50 software sales of its two competitors has them above it, but you're forgetting that the Wii has quite a bit larger volume of said software out there.
You, Atomic Ross, are even crazier if you think Nintendo would be more successful aping the competition. MS and Sony's games and systems have higher development cost and a slower turn around than Nintendo. Just sticking to the gameplay is what Nintendo knows and what Nintendo does best. Nintendo's profitabilty is just staggering especially considering their entire company is around 3000 people.
To get the thread back on topic look at it this way. Nintendo knew that they'd be losing a considerable amount of profit trying to keep up with Sony and MS in a tech race, and decided to rework their GCN with more RAM and a faster processor and graphics co processor and an innovative control scheme and market their wares outside the traditional base. It worked quite well.
Maximizing profits via pure capitialism can lead to some truely innovative ideas.
What does this "larger volume" mean, exactly? What are you trying to say? The Wii's top ten games make up around 50% of its total game sales. Sony and MS are both around 20%.
I'll be the first to admit that the Wii is profitable. There's no logical way to argue against that. What I am saying is it's become stagnant. People who play games are picking the competition by a fairly large margin. You call it "sticking to gameplay," I'm calling it maximization of potential. But there's nothing conclusively there to say that the Wii is a marvel of capitalism; if anything, the sales figures show that people want better graphics and more system utility 2/3rds of the time.
It did. I agree. The business model for rolling out the Wii was outstanding. But consoles aren't like other products; they're dependent on a continuing output of secondary product, and they are in fierce competition with other similar products. And on that end, the Wii is losing: Sony and MS are outselling the Wii on games . . . and consoles.
If you're basing that statement on Wii sales, I'd say it's a bit early. Again, capitalism can also lead to mass-market novelty, and there's too much evidence citing that as the Wii's success to chalk it up to Keynesian theory just yet.
So if Nintendo makes their own system and 80% of the games for it, and people are still happy to purchase them, then that's perfectly fine. And another example of the free market system working. If companies are making relatively "simple" games and people are happy to purchase them, then they're obviously creating a product for an audience and that audience is pleased.
And because of competition, there's other systems available that focus more on graphics and, as some would say, a "more involved" gaming experience due to the story or scope of the game. And people who prefer that are being catered to.
Of course, this is also why I don't buy a new technology, especially video game consoles, until there are applications that I actually want. If you're unhappy with a purchase, it's valid to complain about it, but it also means you should pay more attention the next time you're looking to make a similar purchase.
That is a pretty inaccurate statement.
Fact is, neither Sony nor MS are seeing an uptick in console sales. All that's happened is that the Wii has tapered off, as anyone could have predicted.
And to keep this on track: Nintendo made the right move economic move by recognizing that HD development is crazy expensive, and *most* consumers clearly don't care about it or don't have the hardware to take advantage of it. A simpler interface and some novel elements proved that design matters more than tech to a huge swath of the market.
MS is hoping to keep the most dedicated fans on their system, and I assume there's long-term viability in that.
Over and over, Nintendo has situated themselves slightly behind the tech curve. That's what works for them.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I now have no Wii games left.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
VC FTW?
I have to agree with the last point that the Wii can't be a serious benchmark of creativity and/or individualized production. Honestly, if your benchmark for "creative" work is a video game console, there's something a little wrong. There's very little innovation or creativity involved in the process. 1) We want motion controls; 2) we want a lower price point. Every decision is made from a business perspective on a net profit/loss matrix.
And that becomes the crux of the issue. To endear "creative" works one must place the creative process as both method and goal. When you toss business in there, it becomes a function of economic math. For a bit of a thought experiment, would Joyce be published today? Would any publishing house, in the face of waning profits and a faster-than-ever environment, dare touch something as complex as Ulysses? Finnegan's Wake? My initial thought is that "no" they wouldn't risk themselves, there wouldn't be a large enough audience. The issues surrounding Joyce's publishing in the 20th century don't even come near this problem.
If you want to talk about a medium that has been suffocated and pushed underground in the face of rapid advancement of technology and modern capitalism, let's talk about the "creative" work of poetry.
I mean, the only place where poets are not the total audience of other poets is in the Slam movement. Guess who owns the rights to "Slam Poetry"? HBO. Guess who will drop "Slam Poetry" as soon as the "fad" passes? HBO.
So we have a new economics of the "creative" in internet distribution. 9-5 monkeys publishing blogs and reading at the corner cafe every week. The community forms outside of capitalistic thinking of things like "products" and "labor" and exists in a weak, localized and fractured state until it picks up backing from a corporate sponsor, at which point the movement and community are milked for money until the idea has run dry. As there exists no corporate responsibility to the art form, when the product is finished, so is the endeavor in so much as they find themselves once again outside of the mainstream, on their own with a little face-recognition mixed in. Many of the structures, while dismantled, remain in theoretical place. Perhaps a new sponsor or private individual will step up to try to fund the work, but at a much limited scope.
I hate the use of the word "freedom". Freedom for what, exactly? That the mob won't break down your door? That you won't be censored too badly?
Capitalism gives freedom to work; freedom to make money and to spend that money. That's "quality of living" right there. If I, as a "creative" person, were to have the "freedom" to make my art the way I wish, it would mean not holding a job and not having to give the best 40+ hours of my week to someone else for the purpose of making money.
Capitalism gives the freedom to make money, which we oftentimes confuse with actual "freedom" of choice and pursuit of life.
"Financial limitations" is being easy on the system. Every artist I know lacks the ability to do what they wish and simply create art. But financial limitations also limit the ability of a working-class kid to get a good education and even begin the creative process.
Now, there's a huge gap between "creative" and "innovative". I think it's rather impossible to have true "freedom of creative expression" under the current system. That said, "innovation" will always be a quick sell due to the very nature of innovation to simply mean "improvements on existing theses". There will always be a market for a "better" hairspray, and "innovation" becomes nothing more than another marketing tool; the same cannot be said of art and intellectual pursuit. Hell, I know a number of university professors who have made "innovative" and "revolutionary" findings within their fields, yet struggle to make payments on their modest mortgage. Meanwhile, the guy who invented Velcro was paid enough to ensure that his family's next seven generations won't ever have to really life too much of a finger.
In the end, it depends on what you think is important.
Why wouldn't they? If anything the technical innovation that you downplay have made niche works more available by enhancing the economic value of the long tail. Something that offers the variety of artistic goods available on Amazon would have been unthinkable in Joyce's time.
How has capitalism and technology pushed poetry underground? When was this halycon time when poetry was appreciated by the masses?
The horror of the plebians creating works. How dare they do so without undergoing the trials of academia.
Capitalism gives us a large degree of freedom of choice when compared to other systems. Maybe in some mythical post-scarcity society, we will have the ability to free artists from the shackles of material want or some such noble endeavor, but until that time, it's a decent enough system.
You are going to explain this huge gap. There is very little in terms of themes or concept that doesn't have some precedent in human thought. We build upon the backs of our forefathers, both in art and in science. And what system would better allow for this noble expression of the human spirit?
The vast majority of the time, it seems that people create because they want to. (That TED video was good in pointing this out).
The most obvious example of this is Authors. This is because, unlike most other mediums, authors singlehandedly create something. It's an act of creativity done by 1 person.
And the truth is, most authors don't write to make money. They write because they want to and then people pay them for their work. Authors start writing LONG before anyone even hints at paying them for it.
Most other artists are no different, with varying degrees of bend in order to accommodate the medium they wish to work in. (Directors might need to churn out some easy crap first in order to be able to do the movies THEY want and so on).
Most people create books/programs/movies/etc because they WANT to, not because someone will pay them for it.
Current methods of distribution could fill endless pages. In short, we're discussing support for creative works within a capitalist framework, not one's ability to distribute. "Underground" distribution has been around for as long as, well, forever. The question of what capitalism, specifically, does to support and ensure creativity is very different from any sort of theoretical concept of accessibility. I'll amend my position to include the caveat that Joyce would have probably ended up "self-publishing" or "self-distributing" his own works, with little actual support aside from a publishing house swooping down if it sold enough copies, which is difficult for us to actually make a judgment on.
Ironically, I don't believe that I was discussing plebeian art forms, here. The advancements made in the latter half of the 20th century shifted artistic and creative work away from the written and toward the short, concise and visual. It isn't a throw-back, or any sort of stupid Luddite "it was better back in the day without this tech!" but an observation on how the economic and social conditions created by capitalism force a creative tradition to become insular, with the outward aspects bearing the "brought to you by HBO" logo.
Woah, this isn't a statement in-and-of-itself.
And this is the magic bullet of capitalism: "We admit it kind of sucks sometimes, but it's better than everything else!"
That isn't an answer, and it certainly isn't an argument. And pre-industrial, authoritarian Soviet-communism isn't any sort of barometer by which we can actually have a compare-and-contrast session. Mainly because the Soviet system and so called "Marxist Orthodoxy" is a damn sham.
I did explain it. And there is a difference. We can come back to this later.
It supports things that people want to experience. I fail to see how 'creativity' is an intrinsic good. There wasn't ever a time in history where creative workers didn't have to prove themself in some manner before becoming a professional artist unless they had access to family wealth or the like. So I guess you are right in that an artist will need to undergo some of the cost and risk of producing a work of value before gaining access to a support system, but I fail to see any remedy for that.
When has poetry not been insular? And why should we even be concerned about such a shift when artistic creation is not a zero sum game. You can have many many more blogs out there and yet still have more great literature being created.
You explicitly denigrated people with routine jobs by referring to them as monkeys. It is hard to not consider that elitist.
If you feel that capitalism unecessarily constrains artistic endeavor, posit a fix. It is very hard to compare a system that is being implemented within imperfect reality with some theoretical construct anyhow.
All you said was that innovation is making incremental changes. And you made a claim that somehow art and intellectual pursuit was different without explaining how or why, but maybe you will address that in your next post.
On the converse, the public sector is also responsible for some really cool ultimately unprofitable shit (Space Program, GPS satelites, the sistine chapel). Whereas it is also responsible for its fair share of crazy bullshit (driving through New Jersey, barber licensing, Michelle Bachman)
I think the trick is not to prevent either side from doing what they do best and vote with our wallets and votes to keep them from continuing to prouce the worst... especially Transformers 3.
The differnece is in what a system does to support an artist. The Bel Canto foundation was birthed out a seen necessity of "liberating" T.S. Eliot from his day job in order to allow him more time to create his art.
Every decision, conscious or unconscious, holds an economic aspect. Within a capitalist system, the consequence is often deadly. I know authors who bankrupted themselves in an attempt to actually simply create art.
There may or may not be "intrinsic good" in creative works. I can argue that within the system of capitalism, the question itself is moot as any decision on a capitalist scale cares not for good/bad but only profit/loss.
And who decides what that "great literature" will be? Companies with the ability and funding to provide marketing in order to actually operate in the market-economy. The better marketed, the more popular. The more popular, the more attention from critics. The more attention from critics, the more attention given, etc.
This can be extended to someone like Dan Brown, for whom there have always been "Dan Browns" running all over the place. He won't be counted as the "greatest literature", but I am uneasy that more American's have read "Angels and Demons" than "Moby Dick", to pick an example.
No ad-hominem, please. I'm one of those desk monkeys trying my best to create art in between keeping a roof over my head and eating.
If anything, the constant economic oppression on the working class prevents education and expression in both innovation and creativity.
I have no interest in getting into theoretical arguments over political and economic systems that don't exist. Suffice to say, a good basis in co-operation and community can do masterful things to provide for the needs of a community as well as provide incentive, happiness and stability. We can talk about this separately, if you wish.
I think we're getting held up in a discussion of terms, unknowingly. By "innovation" I assign a technological aspect in which production (vastly defined as all production) is bettered for the sake of the market conditions themselves. New pills replace old pills; new computers replace old, etc. Every production "innovation" works to increase production surplus/profit.
On the other hand, "creative" works are, inherently, outside of the production/profit relationship as so much as their intent is not to reap material profit, but to enhance societal, personal or non-market aims and goals.
That which is aeconomic will simply not find success in any market.
I love you guys.
But Capitalism will do that one of two ways: by either rewarding monopoly or rewarding innovation.
So in that sense it does reward creativity as long as the innovation leads to wealth.
*ok, 'attempts at'