then the solution is to not consume their art, not demand that they adapt their creative process to accommodate your preferences.
Then (hypothetically, bear with me here), if by the hand of the free market and general consumer sentiment, the only successful video games were the ones that had reasonable end of life plans, and the one that didn’t faded out into irrelevancy, couldn’t get money since nobody bought them, etc, that would be OK by you, right?
TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Why would I care?
If a thing stops being something I want to engage with, I stop engaging. Demanding that everything that has ever existed, must continue to exist in exactly the fashion of my preference would seem like a mental illness.
tomalley8342@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Because it establishes that the creator’s authority is not absolute and the consumer has quite a bit of sway in how products are created and commercialized. Unless you are one of such people who believe indirect coercion of the free market doesn’t count as coercion? If the creator (more or less) of a for-profit work must present their work in a specific way otherwise no-body will buy it, that is coercion and a slight to the creator’s authority, no?
TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
The creator can continue to produce their work in whatever way they want. Art does not require an observer to exist or be valuable.
tomalley8342@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I appreciate that sentiment, but let’s stay on topic. This and the original article, movement, etc, are for commercial ventures no?