26 votes

Things You Never Hear From Computer/Console Gamers

1. Every player should get an uber handout.
2. All avatars should be compelled to possess equal skills at all times.
3. In game auctions should include a /printMoney purchase option for those really great items you can't afford yet.
4. All targeting should be by auto aim to handicap gamers with exceptional mouse coordination.
5. If one person gets a power-up it's benefits should be redistributed equally to all players.

This is just a short list to stimulate a conversation. Computer/console games have likely been the best thing for capitalism since sliced bread. Exceptional comments below may be co-opted for inclusion in the OP. :)

List of additions based on exceptional comments:

6. TBA




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

For the new Modern Warfare

For the new Modern Warfare game:

6. Presidential Powerup: Allows you to get extra points for each civilian you kill with a drone strike that is "Combat Age" by calling them "Enemy Combatants" instead of civilians.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

How hard would it be?

I was thinking some more about the idea of a game designed to illustrate economic principles by letting groups of players decide things like what they'll use as money, who gets to regulate it, whether it can be created out of thin air, tax policy, etc. My first reaction was that it wouldn't be a fun enough game to be marketable, which is a shame because people could learn in a simulated world why some ideas, like fiat currency, are doomed to fail. It could be a very subversive game.

Then I got to thinking that it wouldn't appeal to a lot of WoW players perhaps, but there have been games like Sim City that did well. So how hard would it be to make such a game?

One neat thing about the idea is that a lot of what would happen in the game would emerge from very simple things. If you have limited resources, with different kinds varying in properties and scarcity, and you have a mechanism that lets players cooperate -- exchange things, communicate, etc. -- and goals that can only be met by cooperation on small and large scales, you've got a basis for economic principles to come into play. Barter follows easily, and then the idea of using something as money to make transactions simpler, and then decisions about what to use as money -- a scarce resource that requires mining perhaps, or something that is controlled by some central authority able to create arbitrary amounts of it. And so on.

The part about different resources reminded me of Minecraft. I've only played that a very small amount, but it seems like it's got a lot of what would be needed. Make the world finite, add some mechanisms for groups of players to band together and set policies, etc., for each group, and see what ideas cause groups to thrive and what ideas cause them to fail.

What do you think? Could a playable multi-player game be based on this kind of idea? Does it already exist? Does anyone have enough experience with game design to know how hard it would be to do?

I just love the idea that if players could decide, for example, to organize their country around fiat money, and then see that every time they try to play the game with that sort of policy they have no way of controlling inflation, among other things, and they see other countries that use a resource that's scarce and has to be mined as their money don't have the same sort of problems, it's a way of learning a lesson in a simulated world that's relevant to the real world.

I've always wanted to make

I've always wanted to make that game. Make it like Ultima Online, but with choices of economy. Fiat/debt, hard, etc.

I'm a programmer, and can handle some of the art. What about you?

I'm afraid

I'd have nothing to offer but encouragement! My programming days are long behind me and I have approximately zero artistic talent.

I think a big challenge here would be creating a world in which economic principles emerge in a natural way. If it feels like the game is biased toward sound money ideas -- if that's "baked into the rules" -- then players might just accept it as one of the idiosyncrasies of the game and not really give it much thought, the way players accept all kinds of things as just game fiction. That's not bad necessarily, but what would be much more exciting would be if there was a clear sense that the decisions they were making about the game economy would apply just as well in the real world.

Because then, if it's realistic enough, and the lessons from it clear enough, it might even provoke some of the big-name economists into writing op-eds about how the lessons from the game wouldn't really apply in real life, etc. And as long as it is, in fact, realistic enough, now you've got a debate spilling over into real life with a lot of gamers seeing how the intellectual economic theory, which just goes over most people's heads, doesn't fit with what they've experienced in the game. Those are going to be some intuitions that won't be easily shaken.

I'd like to see that too Charles

Honestly I thought about this too a couple times my friend. Different communities and economies that can compete for the most successful decisions. I'd like to catch up with you buddy.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

You must pay an extra 20 G for that healing potion

To help fund a potion exchange for the less fortunate players.

Come to think of it, though, the current Syria situation really reflects most FPS mentalities. Run in shooting and gloat after you pwn everybody and everything.

7 kill streak - drone strike activated

didnt obama recently say at some commemoration speach

that it was unfortunate that so many people had xboxes and playstations.

if someone recalls the url please link me.

I remember Lew Rockwell mentioning this in his last interview with Naomi Wolfe

Video games saved the world.

Video games saved the world. They drew a generation away from the idiot box and got them surfing the web. Blamo. Good bye corporate media domination of the mind.

How about 'of course neck shots shouldn't be instant kills.

'Anyone can live without a larynx.'

I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by pandas starving hysterical naked

-Allen Ginsberg

An MMO in which

each team has choices to make about money -- public works, taxation, central banking, sound money vs fiat, etc., -- probably wouldn't be enough fun to be commercially viable.

But that's a shame because it would be a fascinating experiment to see how people organize. You've got an AnCap group over here, a socialist group over there. Some want to cooperate with each other, some want to gain by force, some just want to be left alone. Limited resources to make it all realistic.

What do you think would happen? I think the idea of "print as much money as you need" would go out the window quickly. Maybe not even be tried because it's just such a loony idea. Barter using useful resources would win out over fiat money easily.

It would be very instructive I think, if there were a way to make it fun to play.

I don't know, there are some

I don't know, there are some games that are wildly popular that have much more 'economic' factors thrown in, specifically RTS games. Now they don't ever get down to the nitty gritty of commerce directly, but the idea of a 'fleshed out economic strategy' could work out in an MMO as a side factor. It's sad though, almost all of that is 'bundled' in 'warRTS'. Which as much as I love to 'play' them, I'd love one that was focused on the economic side of things, not like a 'sims city' style but specifically focused on economic factors(maybe you run a business and take it all the way to the top).

It is really interesting to see the economies of different MMO's flourish, or die based on many factors that mirror the real world economy so well.

Everyone starts off evenly,

Everyone starts off evenly, given the same tools as everyone else. Only those who actually put in effort into becoming good prosper.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

I agree!

Unlike the real world, everyone starts off at the same point in a video game. It doesn't matter if your last name is Clinton or a Rockefeller ;)

good analogies

From one gamer to another =)

When you die in a video game

When you die in a video game you respawn or hit continue. How does one go about doing that in reality when they die from a lack of healthcare?

Please define "healthcare" and "lack of"

All too often, people use such phrases to conjure emotional responses rather than engage in rational discussion.

Please show me any statistics - from any or all of the several States, which quantifies how many people have died from "lack of healthcare."

I would posit, if ANY one has, the number is infinitesimal compared to any other cause of death, and I don't see any effort (thank God) to socialize the rest of the country and the various industries to "address" deaths from those other causes.

Also, please do not confuse "healthcare" with "health insurance." The two are not even remotely the same. One is a service, the other, a way to pay for that service. Not being able to afford health insurance, or more aptly, not having it paid on your behalf and given to you BY OTHERS, is NOT the same as 'lack of healthcare' by a mile.

In contrast, when healthcare itself is "free" and "available to all" allegedly, you will see MORE people dying precisely because some bureaucrat deems them too expensive to keep alive, and in fact DENIES them access to healthcare, than when it is operated as a for profit enterprise. And in such a scenario, it is usually illegal to even attempt to pay for the care yourself, or provide care through private payment.

Thus more people die under socialist health systems because it is too expensive, than under capitalist systems. And to compound the "unfairness" of the matter, in a socialist system - you die because some asshole bureaucrat said so, not because you can't afford the treatment. Even if you could afford it - you have to die anyway - because said jackass has "authoriti" over your life and that of all doctors and nurses.

Webster's definitions work

Webster's definitions work fine here:
health care
noun

: the prevention or treatment of illness by doctors, dentists, psychologists, etc.

lack
verb \ˈlak\

: to not have (something) : to not have enough of (something) ( chiefly US )

And how many people DIE from lack of health care here in the

U.S.?

I asked for your definitions, becuase too many people equate abscence of health INSURANCE - which is NOT health care, but simply ONE way to pay for it, with lack of the actual care itself.

The two are not the same.

Since you have defined "lack of healthcare" correctly, now please explain what this has to do with Obamacare, other than it will CAUSE people to not receive care where they presently can.

More people die from lack of healthcare when it's 'free'

That is the question you've begged.

Socialists live in a fantasy world where there are no costs and you can wave a magic sceptre and things will be provided. Ignoring for the moment the fact that you have to enslave someone to work to provide the 'free' stuff you want, you still are worse off and more people die waiting on queue for care under countries with socialized HC.

The reason is simple, absent profit there is no motivation to provide quality or quantity.

People are people and the disutility of labor is universal. If you remove profit, the only ways left to gain from the system are sloth and corruption.

Our fascist healthcare system has become extremely inefficient as all fascist systems must. Profit is not gained through providing a good product, but rent is gained by working regulation, and other legislative protection. Nevertheless fully socialized HC would be even less efficient.

Before fascist healthcare took off healthcare was cheap and plentiful. Doctors were paid equivalent to other equivalent highly skilled labor. Little more than a really good plumber. Also like really good plumbers Doctors made house calls.

The reason it's so expensive now is because idiots wanted to make healthcare appear to be free. To an employee it did seem so. Of course appearing free just made the real cost rise and rise.

If you want to fix healthcare get the government out. Of course the AMA, Pharma, ACM, AAMC, and their government counterpart the FDA would never allow this because they all gain rent from the system.

Remove the AMA/AAMC lockhold on provider supply.
End licensure laws. If you want to pay a 'quack' so what. Often non allopaths know better.

Kill the FDA. Or make it advisory only. Let them label stuff they don't like, but make everything OTC.

Allow drug imports.

Make drug patents 5 year fixed and non extendable, ever, or better just end drug patents. Even better yet close the patent office period.

If you must subsidize healtchare, and you can never subsidize anything without increasing costs, make the subsidy string free. Make it an individual account which the individual can use for other purposes if not used in a number of years.

If people have to use the money on HC or lose the money they will use it always and drive up costs.

That's how you normalize the HC market.

That's how you save lives.

Healthcare should be a right, like the right to buy cheap food at the grocery store. The government has destroyed your right to engage in free commerce for healthcare. Only idiots think the government can fix it.

Oh and end the fcuking drug war.

it's an anology

How does one respawn in reality when they die from an abusive spouse? Everyone has a right to have full time police protection!!!

You can walk away from an

You can walk away from an abusive spouse - not so much from cancer. Emergency rooms charge 1500+ for what amounts to a Dr. visit. As of right now poor people just go to the ER and leave you the bill anyway OR they don't see a Dr. forever, then go to the ER where they're diagnosed with something serious that keeps them from working and they're given Medicaid...whichever way you wanna pay for it...Oh, and thanks for pointing out it's an analogy - maybe try not to talk to me like I'm fucking retarded...BTW they do have police protection - domestic violence is a crime and I'm pretty sure all police departments have an emergency line...what's that number again?...

You've never worked in an ER apparently, or in hospital

adminstration. You have no concept of what things cost to provide, or WHY they cost that much.

Try making friends with people who work in an ER or hospital admin. Engage them in conversation as to why things are the way they are. Your eyes will be opened.

ER stands for EMERGENCY ROOM. It is not designed for a "doctor's visit." The ER ins't your "GP." (that's General Practitioner)

If you visit the ER, and all you got was what you could have gotten at a walk-in-clinic, or your average GP, then YOU SCREWED UP and went to the ER when it was NOT an emergency.

"Basic healthcare" doesn't come from an ER. "Basic healthcare" is called FIRST-AID and it is YOUR responsibility to know it and how to apply it.

If you have a tummy ache, or a minor cut, your butt shouldn't be in the ER. A compound fracture that you can't stop the bleeding on? Okay, sure, stroll on in.

One last thing, you'll be shocked to find out one of the reason for long ER waits, and high ER prices, is that the vast majority of people you see waiting with you, are there ROUTINELY. NO ONE has routine emergencies—NO ONE.

You'll also be shocked to learn that a not insignificant number of ER visitors are not only regulars, they essentially are there because they have no social life—seriously. This is where they meet people, visit, and get to have conversations. Otherwise, they'd be stuck on their couch or their recliner.

Now, go chat up a nurse and have your eyes opened.

I understand that's not what

I understand that's not what an ER is "designed for", I'm telling you what poor people do when they can't afford to see a GP because it's the only place legally bound to see you when you come in with no money. The first-aid comment is kind of true if you do your research...unfortunately you still can't prescribe yourself anything so try to only have health problems that can be solved with bacitracin and band-aids

As I suggested, befriend an ER care provider.

You'll find that nearly 90% of all work there is nothing more than common first-aid and could be handled with over the counter products and medications - no prescriptions needed.

I'm poor. I don't use the ER for a headache.

If I have a problem I really think I need to see a doctor for, I'll go to a local walk-in clinic.

An ER is for EMERGENCIES, where there is a high probability of loss of life or limb.

I know poor people use it when they shouldn't, which is my entire point.

It's not that they don't have options, or that they NEED that level of care. They are placing undue demand on the system because they DON'T have to pay for it.

What do you think is going to happen when NO ONE has to pay for it?

Do you really think prices will go down?

Do you really think that stealing money from me every month will somehow lower the cost for YOU?

Do you not understand that when you don't have to pay for something, price is no longer a check upon demand and that it is DEMAND that drives price?

How about ER's turn away anyone that isn't an actual emergency.

Then, people wouldn't be able to abuse the services, and prices would plummet.

No one is "denied care" because those leeches don't need CARE, they need first aid - which it is their OWN responsibility to provide for themselves.

I swear, if poor people spent money on video games and movies, and music and then went to an ER because they were dehydrated and sickly due to NOT EATING OR DRINKING, I'd bet your type would be wailing at the inhumanity of turning those fools away instead of spoon feeding them because they are "too poor" to know they need to eat or buy food!

Do you know why it costs 1500+?

It didn't used to... until you understand that, you wont understand the r3V0Lution

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

(b) There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty. No such duty existed here, for the harms petitioner suffered did not occur while the State was holding him in its custody, but while he was in the custody of his natural father, who was in no sense a state actor. While the State may have been aware of the dangers that he faced, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him more vulnerable to them. Under these circumstances, the Due Process Clause did not impose upon the State an affirmative duty to provide petitioner with adequate protection. Pp. 489 U. S. 197-201.

nice

thanks

World of Warcraft

Just released it's latest patch 5.4 Timeless Isle. Or as I like to call it "Obama's Free Crap Isle". Basically Blizzard Entertainment decided they wanted to let players with less than decent gear get a crap ton of freebies. Lots of loot-able chests lying around, rare spawn mobs all over the place that you just have to hit once to be eligible to loot it, a new currency coin that basically rains from the sky that you can also use to buy gear. Not only are the drop rates ridiculously high on these epic gear pieces but they are account bound so you can mail them to your other poorly geared toons and get them free crap too. It seems like the last death throws of a dieing mmorpg franchise. The player base is shrinking and they figure if they get ppl some gear they can use to see higher level content more players will stay. The problem is those that don't have the ambition and or time to earn the gear also don't have the ambition or time to learn complex raiding scenarios or how to even play their class properly. Oh well Blizzard I've been around this long might as well stick around to watch the ship sink...

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

WoW

I left when they put a time limit on Warsong Gulch.
Leaving the BG because you've been at stalemate for 1.5 hours?
Ha! Weaklings!

Southern Agrarian

Stopped playing WoW 2-3 years ago.

Welfare epics.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com