This quote helps to simpliy this notion: "“Anti-consumerism is concerned with the private actions of business corporations in pursuit of financial and economic goals at the expense of the public welfare…”
I play Hearthstone and I play Overwatch exclusively. It is coming to a point wherein a simple portrait from the Hearthstone shop range upwards of 25$. This trend is trancending into Overwatch wherein, again, skins are being sold for prices as mentioned. What’s worse is that in Overwatch (and possibly Hearthstone), old skins, once acquired by simply playing, are now being sold, likewise, for ridiculous amounts of money.
You may say, “well then don’t buy them”, however, we all (mostly) love new skins, emotes, etc. To gatekeep these desirable skins behind ridicuous amounts of cash is unethical. It is the definiition of anticonsumerism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-consumerism
3 Likes
I’m in the same HS/OW boat…any interest in re-creating the scene where the string players keep playing as the Titanic sinks? HS is no picnic, but OW2 is obscenely overpriced. Players are actually missing loot boxes. Not because they were a healthy mechanic, but because the current shop sucks so bad.
2 Likes
I mean, I think most anti-consumerists would be pretty happy if life was a f2p as Hearthstone.
Stop using Wiki for your definitions. What you just typed out was nonsense.
4 Likes
Wiki is a reputable source, to the point that studies show it’s more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica. But, you do you, and deny facts because they don’ t fit into your narrative. Any important articles on Wiki are moderated and do not allow for just edit stuff. In fact, most contributors are from the field they writing for these specific articles.
Anyway, I mostly used the article to quote a concise definition of what is going on here. The quote is valid, and I somewhat baffled you disagree.
3 Likes
It was pretty easy to follow, but if you need a dumbed down summary: “portraits are too expensive”
1 Like
Indeed – and not only portraits.
So expensive portraits and novelty items that you have a choice whether to buy or not is a detriment to public welfare?
3 Likes
Honestly, you should read the article I had linked to get a better grasp on what anticonsumerism is.
You’re here, instead, trying to justify blatantly overpriced items.
My avatar is still the basic mage one, the back of my cards are still the default.
I understand people wanting to change appearances in games like MMO or something where you actively interact with the same people. I don’t get it in Hearthstone.
Then again, some people pay an $8 monthly fee so some billionaire grants them a small pixelated checkmark on Twitter.
3 Likes
I’m not justifying high prices, I’m just waiting for you to justify your entitlement to goods and services you can’t afford.
2 Likes
Personally I do think anti consumerism is a stretch. Specialised cancer drugs at $450,000 a dose, because “it’s life changing”… sure.
Overpriced yes, but I guess it’s subjective. I’d never pay for an in game cosmetic.
2 Likes
I am not entitled, and in fact own more skins than the average player. That is not my point. What I disapprove is overpricing shop items. These items are not, for instance, worth 25% (plus tax), and that this has extended to Overwatch.
As an interesting aside, the OW forums blew up for days over the shop prices. Many players uninstalled over this. Clearly there’s a problem here.
Right. Anti consumerism is ideological. It generally implies that you don’t have a choice. A small percentage of others believe it’s living without, or with little, material possessions.
The value of a good or service has a value only equal to what value the consumer puts on it. If people are buying the portraits for $25, then that’s the value. Also remember that, with inflation, there are additional costs associated with these goods and services. It is a fiduciary agreement.
Killumi does not believe that the value is fair, so he or she is free to not buy it. The very fact that it’s a choice makes the whole “anti consumerism” argument silly.
And yes, I know a thing or two about economics and far left/right rhetoric
1 Like
With that logic, is it fair to say that nothing can be overpriced?
(Anywho, I hope there are no hard feelings here. I appreciate the civil discussion,)
I don’t think it’s ideological. It’s a defined metric that can be measured, and that is whether the cost is detrimental to public welfare.
Extremely high priced medicines are an example. Suppression of clean energy technology to protect investments in fossil fuel infrastructure may well prove to be another.
Now, whether you think anti consumerism is evil, good, or you’re ambivalent… That is ideological.
2 Likes
uh so you are trying to sell the idea you need skins for your …welfare ?
O_O you really think is a basical need!
2 Likes
I agree with Kill’s overall point but disagree with the example he used. A much better example is the battleground perks requiring runestones now. It is not even a stretch to say HS normalizes gambling in the form of card packs. Intentionally releasing overpowered cards in the new set to drive sales before nerfing them once the sales have died down.
The thing that bugs me the most is the psychological manipulation tactics they use to cover their rumps while doing all these things.
They send their empty talking heads to social media to make pointless statements that they take less than 6 months to contradict.
Skins are not an example, overwatch 2 is also not an example. There are very real examples, but the ones mentioned so far are not them.
Keyword. Public Welfare.
While one can argue other things, it is critical to focus on ‘Public Welfare’ so that it does not get generalized and therefore gets to be further taken advantage of.
Something can be overpriced if there is something else to compare with under the same conditions.
Hear me out for a moment…
The more free a country and economy, the more choices. THe more choices, the lower the prices due to competition.
Government interference creates monopoly. Government itself is a monopoly (It won’t let itself go out of business, and everything it touches gains monopoly power). This is the only situation in a capitalist society that causes anti consumerism. For instance, the drug companies getting vast amount of subsidies, patents, etc, allows the pharmaceuticals to gain more and more control over supply and pricing. Because that one pharm might be the only place to get a much needed medication, they are now an anti consumer monopoly. The government regulations prevent competitors from making the medication and undercutting the competition.
2 Likes