I think the system that capitalists developed in the 19th and 20th century devalues art and exploits creatives. I think at the time, their work wasn’t seen by the masses as “real labor”, or being of intrinsic value to humanity due to the general population being mostly preoccupied with figuring out how to meet their basic survival needs in an newly industrialized world.
If an actual majority of the 3,700,000,000 gamers believe that physical media must exist or they will boycott the entire industry (as unlikely I think that it), then yes, they will likely get what they want as artists will feel pressured to kowtow or risk their livelihood. If this were to come to pass, I would see it as a moral failing of society to choose ongoing victimization of create workers for their own convenience.
To be clear if the gaming industry was currently attempting to eliminate digital sales and move explicitly to physical media, I would feel the exact same way about public pressure to keep digital.
My objection is not about one set of practices over the other, it is about the artists fundamental moral authority to choose how their intellectual labor is capitalized without direct interference from outside influences against their will.
tomalley8342@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Why? It’s not a failure for a consumer to want what they want. You even said yourself earlier:
TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
There is a clear difference between disengagement and a boycott.
tomalley8342@lemmy.world 1 day ago
In your own words, what is the difference? Does it make a practical difference to the creator whose work is no longer being consumed?
TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
A boycott, by definition is an attempt to punitively coerce others.
If your employer attempted to coerce you into physical relationship to “earn” a promotion, would that feel different to you than them simply overlooking you for said promotion?