And yes, maybe the immediate replacement is worse (as with VHS)

VHS was arguably not worse. It ran twice as long. That's a pretty big advantage in being able to put movies on one tape. The load mechanism was also far simpler, and didn't break as much as BETA.

Is every product better in every way than what replaced it? Of course not, but do more people have access to greater benefits than they had before? On the whole and over enough time, I think the answer to that question is undeniably yes.

Hard disagree. As Technology has proliferated, we are seeing less and less benefit, and lots of straight up regressions. Platforms enshittify. Our ownership rights are taken away. Prices go up. Generative AI plundered human culture for nobody's benefit. I can count on one hand the number of things that have gotten better in the last 15 years.

Like I said, a real issue that is more likely to happen with large corporations that have some sort of lock on the market. We must be diligent and ensure fair competition. Focusing on large corporations, however, presents a distorted view of our economy—at least in the US. Small business make up 99.9% percent of US companies. They represent a little less than half of our GDP. 


It is not the small businesses that are ruining everything. It's the large ones that have the push.

Small business owners are often hustling 80+ hours a week to out-innovate their competitors.

To failure it seems then. Because we have no meaningful choice anymore with regards to many things we used to, or technologies that control large portions of people's lives. Nobody cares if a brewery started by immigrants thrives. That's not driving the destruction of our privacy, rights, or culture.

Consumers get a vote, and when they don’t buy, they are being critics.

I've found that instead of 'listening', they simply make it harder for you to not buy it.

Here is the bottom line: what I appreciate about free markets as opposed to alternatives to it is the former’s ability to self-heal.

Never in my life have I seen a market heal. Only destroy. Have you looked at ANYTHING?! We'd still be driving without seatbelts and airbags if the market weren't distorted by having them be REQUIRED.

Not requiring an account of any sort for splitscreen is just not an option for a company that is so intent on data collection. They can't even conceive of NOT logging everything you do. What does that gain you? Not a damn thing.

Hmm. Just the other day I drove my Saturn over to Sears to pick up some Kodachrome film to use on my vacation, which of course I'd planned using a travel agent. I'm visiting Italy, by the way, inspired by the movie ROMAN HOLIDAY--a friend had loaned me her copy of it on betamax last year. I dialed her up the other night to thank her again, but the line was busy. Yeah, the established producers stay established and nothing ever changes.

The fact that some things are old does not prove any point that cuts against anything I have said.

Maybe let’s back up, because you’re right—we’re getting far afield here. You criticized my use of the phrase “invisible hand” when describing how free markets work. And I agree that it doesn’t always work that way in every particular case. The minimally viable product is a real phenomenon that we see in shrinking candy bars and whatnot. What does that have to do with old things? How do things get categorized as old? Because they are replaced by something newer. Why are they replaced? Because what is a minimally viable product is affected by innovation and competition. And yes, maybe the immediate replacement is worse (as with VHS), but in the long-term that’s not a constant to say the least. DVDs are obviously superior to betamax. The nature of change is that there are losses to go with the gains. Is every product better in every way than what replaced it? Of course not, but do more people have access to greater benefits than they had before? On the whole and over enough time, I think the answer to that question is undeniably yes.

We both can be right in describing different aspects but still incomplete. These are your points that I take issue with.

1. Producers deliver less and get more. 



Like I said, a real issue that is more likely to happen with large corporations that have some sort of lock on the market. We must be diligent and ensure fair competition. Focusing on large corporations, however, presents a distorted view of our economy—at least in the US. Small business make up 99.9% percent of US companies. They represent a little less than half of our GDP. 


2. Innovation comes from the iconoclast “financed by the seedier parts of the system.” 



Considering what the gets the most attention in the media, I assume you’re talking about the Elon Musks and Sam Altmans and the VCs associated with them. See previous answer—the focus on this ignores a huge chunk of our economy. Small business owners are often hustling 80+ hours a week to out-innovate their competitors. There’s a brewery in western North Carolina that was started several decades ago by a Jamaican-Chinese immigrant. They’ve weathered hurricanes and changing tastes (less drinking) to become a tourist destination with large indoor and outdoor spaces of activities and events. They’re now moving into food service. Maybe they’ll never end up on the cover of Forbes, but they are innovators and that’s the free market, too. 


3. Critics are the source of ideas, not the “wisdom of the crowd.”

We might be using different words for the same thing. You ever do a usability study? The most talented designers in the world can't reliably predict how users will actually react to their product. And you’re right, the best solution may not be what they say they want. On the other hand, several iterations of “best solutions” still may not be what they want. Consumers get a vote, and when they don’t buy, they are being critics. And now we’re getting back to the invisible hand. There isn’t a discussion or plan, but there is the behavoir of many customers acting out of their personal self-interest.

Nobody said only Cody can have an opinion. That's a straw man you have introduced into the conversation. My question has been why you think only Cody can't share his opinion.

Of course Cody can have an opinion. My issue with Cody is almost always his presentation, and this thread started because of his opinion that living with no guest option in the new Halo game equated to not having respect for oneself. Since then, Sony made their stupid disc announcement, an issue truly worthy of anger. Cody can be the boy who cried wolf, but in the latter case, Sony is being a bona fide wolf. Even though I have many fewer PS discs than Xbox discs, I won’t see myself buying a PS6 because I’ve yet to see that what I’ll gain exceeds what I’ll lose. I can easily imagine not updating either of my consoles for years and I don’t think I’ll be alone, which means PS6 or Helix exclusives will be slow coming. We’ve got to figure out a way to ensure that a purchase is a purchase. I expect there to be lawsuits. I expect that the landscape will change. 



Here is the bottom line: what I appreciate about free markets as opposed to alternatives to it is the former’s ability to self-heal. There is a thermostatic effect at work: with every problem comes an incentive to solve the problem. But what about the big corporations like Sony? Sony survived 35 years to be featured as an ad in both Bladerunner movies. Many big brands featured in the first movie didn’t. Bring on creative destruction. 



But it's confusing to me for someone to say it's because of how hardcore the game is.

It could be one of those 'top 20% get 80% of the kills' things. I don't think the scale of hardcore is linear.

Things can exist between the two extremes. That's my point. Marathon exists in the middle area on the array of shooter games, and yet people talk about it as if it were at the extreme edge. That's also my point. If that middle area is not something you enjoy, oh well, that's life. But it's confusing to me for someone to say it's because of how hardcore the game is.

Marathon lets the entire map extract, if they want to. Extraction can happen multiple times at locations all over the map. You can choose to co-operate and your personality becomes part of the game. You can make progress on contracts, or gather resources and never fight anyone. That is an intended option. But it's not an arena deathmatch, so it's got some consequence to death. I'd say it is in the middle.

It's just not super compelling. Going down to hold square to pick up materials and extract with them is not interesting exploration. The spaces in Marathon aren't really designed to have interesting things to do. What is interesting is limited to looking down the barrel of a gun. All this talk about avoiding PvP is essentially, in my mind anyway, simply telling someone to not do the only real compelling thing the game has to offer.

Like, if you don't want to kill anyone else and nobody wants to kill you, what is the point? What are you left to do that's in any way engaging? Shoot bots with AI that isn't even as good as the dudes in Halo?

You can do everything you say, but then the game becomes absolutely pointless. Extraction is catharsis precisely because you're being hunted.

As a Marathon non-player myself, it’s not that I avoid the game because it looks “lame”, but rather because it isn’t the type of experience I’m looking for at this point in my life. A hardcore PvP-only online shooter with high stakes has a very niche built-in audience.

With how hard things have gotten out there, I don’t know that very many people are looking for gaming experiences that add even more stress to their lives.

I'm not here to tell you Marathon is a relaxing day on the lake, but it's astonishing to me how many times I see someone (this is not personal to Coaxkez) who says some variation of "Marathon is not for me, because I don't like [description that's not really a good match to Marathon]"

It's not PVP only. In fact, the whole point of it is that it is PvPvE (and that's even in the time before several recent and future changes to shift that balance toward PvE. And the stakes are…pretty low. You can (I do) have a good time running only free kits that get equipped onto your character with a single click. There is a mode designed to only last about 15 minutes if you don't even want to invest that much time. You can gear up, and lose it, but there's very little consequence to that gear loss. Unlike, say Destiny, there are very few activities from which you are excluded for not having grinded for hours hoping for the right gear.
It is an Online shooter, but in the world of online shooters it's not that hardcore. The most popular format for shooters is Battle Royale. Every match of that type of game starts with a huge number of players and only one team (1-3 people) will avoid loss and the only way to define success is by beating others. THAT'S hardcore. I know. I played APEX between D2 and Marathon. Marathon lets the entire map extract, if they want to. Extraction can happen multiple times at locations all over the map. You can choose to co-operate and your personality becomes part of the game. You can make progress on contracts, or gather resources and never fight anyone. That is an intended option. But it's not an arena deathmatch, so it's got some consequence to death. I'd say it is in the middle.

Hmm. Just the other day I drove my Saturn over to Sears to pick up some Kodachrome film to use on my vacation, which of course I'd planned using a travel agent. I'm visiting Italy, by the way, inspired by the movie ROMAN HOLIDAY--a friend had loaned me her copy of it on betamax last year. I dialed her up the other night to thank her again, but the line was busy. Yeah, the established producers stay established and nothing ever changes.

The fact that some things are old does not prove any point that cuts against anything I have said. Unless you are trying to say that all change is good. I certainly disagree with that assertion. In fact, my point has been that change exists and the natural general direction of that change under capitalism is toward the benefit of the producer/companies/rich and against the consumer.

If you are, in fact, trying to convince me that historically, change is good for the consumer, I would not have picked: a famously superior video cassette format that died because the merits were outweighed by forces of capitalism, a profession that used to provide high-touch service that benefited travelers but was driven to extinction by companies doing cost-cutting, a retail and manufacturing company that was done-in by choosing to make products with long warranties and high quality sold by career experts but cost more than the cheap disposable crap sold by websites, one of the greatest movies ever, and film stock so respected that it is to this day hoarded and prized by collectors and imitated digitally by people who were never alive to even touch it. ¯\(ツ)/¯

You can try to curb it by implementing regulation and laws like antitrust. But that's substituting human judgement for the "free market". Some great things have come out of the system, but those are almost always some iconoclast's personal vision that is financed by the seedier parts of the system. So, where does this human judgement come from; who gives ideas to the iconoclast? The critic.

The free market IS human judgment at scale—many humans making independent decisions.

Even if you have faith in the wisdom of crowds — which I have learned not to, but we're getting far afield here — it is not a source of creative direction (If Ford asked people what he should make they would have said "faster horses") and it would require access to a wide range of different options which is a problem I have discussed a lot so far.

P.S. The Critic, by the way, is also the "fountainhead of the public" will that will sometimes change what is considered a minimum viable product, so what exactly are you arguing against here, anyway?

I am not sure what "fountainhead of the public" means, but you seem to imply that only some people can be critics, as opposed to all consumers being critics all the time. I was arguing against the idea that we must align with Cody's ideas of what is acceptable in a game else it's our moral failure. It seems as if you are arguing that he is the Critic with a capital C--thereby the only one who can have ideas or legitimate judgments about what we should spend money on. I disagree.

Ideas come from somewhere; a source, a fountainhead, a specific point from which a wide range of impacts will flow. When you speak of "the public" making decisions, they do not do so sua sponte in a vacuum of ideas; these decisions are influenced by experiences they have had with others. Specifically, critics.

Nobody said only Cody can have an opinion. That's a straw man you have introduced into the conversation. My question has been why you think only Cody can't share his opinion.

That's cool! That's quite a testimony to how good the game is. Good games motivate other devs to create good games. I promise, when those devs do and cite Baldur's Gate 3 as an inspiration, I won't come swaggering around here (if "here" exists) saying "Kermit was right" like I'm cock of the walk or something. Not saying you do this, Cody, but you know what I mean.

You should. Feels good to drop the hashtag.

It's even better when others do it on your behalf.

I mean, in my case it’s often both. 😛

So all goods end up being produced by monopolies? How does that track with the state of gaming at this moment? How does that explain smaller studios producing AAA-level games that are hits?



And who gets 30% of the take? I'll give you a hint… monopolies.

You mean publishers?

No. The storefronts you are required to sell on in order to actually reach people. No publisher? You still gotta sell on steam. That'll be 30%.

We have laws against monopolies, and we should use them. Too often, entities petition the government to create regulations that solidify their competitive advantage.

I wonder if Sony no longer making physical Discs will run afoul… as now the only place to buy a PlayStation game is on PSN, at the price they choose.

🤞

I don't think it works like that. You can still buy video games elsewhere. On Xbox, on Switch, on Steam or GOG or any number of other places on PC. Playstation isn't a monopoly.

Neither is Apple then, but the EU is making them open their devices to other stores and sideloading.

Uh. Aren’t you being a little dramatic? Anyway, you could make a better case for abandoning the hobby thanks to the ever-increasing cost of participating.

Money is not a concern. Heck, if they had simply charged a premium for physical discs I would have paid.

Are you telling me the games you play on your mac you buy on a disc?

No, you can't buy computer games on a disc anymore. I buy them from GOG or in certain cases Apple's App store. Weirdly, it actually seems like the Mac App store doesn't have DRM because I've copied my games around with no issue (although that could be on a per game basis, I don't know).

Uh. Aren’t you being a little dramatic? Anyway, you could make a better case for abandoning the hobby thanks to the ever-increasing cost of participating.

Maybe he is. But I don’t think so. Sony just removed 500 movies from their service. Even you bought them, you can no longer access them. They either just did or are shutting down the Playstation 3 store. Anyone who thinks they’re going to have access to their digital games forever is a fool. Whether that’s a real issue or not is up to you.

I hit digitally because it’s convenient and I don’t want shelves full of old games I’ll never touch again. But I don’t think I’ll have those digital games forever either.

https://blog.playstation.com/2026/07/01/physical-disc-production-ending-in-january-2028-for-new-games-releasing-on-pl...

Looks like 2028 will be the end for me. Switch has fake game carts. MS has ads everywhere. Now PS will have no discs. It appears from 2028 on, I’ll only be able to play something I can buy on GOG, or be confident I can crack.

Time to sunset console gaming. So very sad. Thank you to everybody who buys digital. This is your fault.

Are you telling me the games you play on your mac you buy on a disc?

And I say this as someone who has been buying physical switch games (never Game Key cards), xbox, and ps5 games.

I don't like this, but looking at it from the other end: I'm nearing retirement. I've got rooms full of physical media I've been collecting for 50 years, including games. (The most common things I buy now are books and 4K movies, but if I never bought anything else, I've got enough to keep me busy until I die.) I haven't bought games on disc for a while, and part of my assumption is that they all have patches and probably won't work without them, so what is the difference?

I do worry about future support. That's a real issue. Talk of Xbox's demise has me concerned. I had Xbox Gold from the beginning and rarely did I turn down a free game, but I often picked up old licenses for hits when they got really cheap. How will I access those? I better be part of the class action suit.

So all goods end up being produced by monopolies? How does that track with the state of gaming at this moment? How does that explain smaller studios producing AAA-level games that are hits?



And who gets 30% of the take? I'll give you a hint… monopolies.

You mean publishers?

No. The storefronts you are required to sell on in order to actually reach people. No publisher? You still gotta sell on steam. That'll be 30%.

We have laws against monopolies, and we should use them. Too often, entities petition the government to create regulations that solidify their competitive advantage.

I wonder if Sony no longer making physical Discs will run afoul… as now the only place to buy a PlayStation game is on PSN, at the price they choose.

🤞

I don't think it works like that. You can still buy video games elsewhere. On Xbox, on Switch, on Steam or GOG or any number of other places on PC. Playstation isn't a monopoly.

https://blog.playstation.com/2026/07/01/physical-disc-production-ending-in-january-2028-for-new-games-releasing-on-pl...

Looks like 2028 will be the end for me. Switch has fake game carts. MS has ads everywhere. Now PS will have no discs. It appears from 2028 on, I’ll only be able to play something I can buy on GOG, or be confident I can crack.

Time to sunset console gaming. So very sad. Thank you to everybody who buys digital. This is your fault.

Are you telling me the games you play on your mac you buy on a disc?

And I say this as someone who has been buying physical switch games (never Game Key cards), xbox, and ps5 games.