Typed out a whole thing because I didn't really agree with you that it's not just the people up top, but also this perpetual growth, zero sum game most C-suite level people seem to think the world operates on.
Most of my points ended up agreeing with you, but I do want to add that profit seeking isn't a bad thing, but that the constant desire for more profit, 'growth' is where the real evil lies.
I think that's where his point kind of lies tho. Don't get me wrong, I share the same sentiments, but scale doesn't necessarily translate to production costs. Larian has been in the CRPG genre for a while, and they have engines, proprietary tools, and design philosophies based off their past successes and failures. Other companies won't really have that edge, and will likely make many of the same mistakes that earlier titles did, which is what Rami Ismail is probably fearing.
There aren't many other ideal solutions to deal with this tricky problem. Capital like engines and tools aren't really built so easily, and even when they are built, there's tons of tiny little details that CRPGs make, ranging from camera to how dialogue is handled, to control schemes, character building (I don't think Larian got away with utilizing the 5E system without a hefty licensing fee) and plot.
Not to say all these things need to be at quality and comparable to BG3, but that due to it's popularity and success, it will be a frame or point of reference when thinking about another CRPG, and thus when a game doesn't do anything new or drastically different, it'll be framed as a 'lower quality BG3' because it won't have anything to help it escape that direct comparison.
As for doing something different, using a different TTRPG system, or other unique quirk that set it apart drastically enough to free itself from that looming shadow, that's a pretty hefty risk for a TTRPG or studio to take up, with no guarantee that the game itself will come out okay. You only need to look at Shadowrunn Returns, a CRPG for Shadowrun a cyberpunk fused fantasy world. Sounds like a great time, no? Well, I wouldn't say it did badly, but that it didn't do well enough for the people making or funding to entertain the risk of a sequel, and thus the 'tightening of the noose' that he's referring to.
With a step down in price, or for new entrants to enter a market, we'll either need to understand that new games likely won't have the same polish or quality of current ones, but they will still need to earn a profit from these games. This either translates into enough sales (which I doubt people would do as people generally don't care about things unless they're incredibly passionate, which naturally limits the quantity of people) or a high enough price to still make a profit with a lower amount of sales, which means that smaller scale 20-30$ CRPG is just not feasible if they don't have some other way to raise funding or keep costs down. You'd basically be looking at maybe 5-10 hours of gameplay for that kind of price, and the quality still would not be the same, missing a lot of things we take for granted in a AA or AAA setting.
It's not really about consumer interest in a genre or style of game, it's more to do with people's flawed perspective that games are constantly getting better, and while it's not to say new ideas aren't being tried, and those can be done with indie teams, they just need to be either completely distinct when compared to it's competitors, so the flaws aren't fixated on, and accepted as a form of the medium, or reinvent the wheel in a way to subvert the genre they're currently in. I could go on all day, but this is already a wall of text, and you get my point.
So, I get where you're coming from, and it might make sense for an Aussie, who's consumer protections are very strict. However, most of what is being discussed exists in a completely different environment.
That being said, when you work for someone, it is your choice. However, for the sake of understanding the situation, let's say that companies in the local area all pay very little. Perhaps enough to pay rent, food, and utilities, but not much else. Now, you might be aware that the products you sell are being sold for much more than you make. This isn't a fair pay, and you know that. According to your other statements, you should go find a job that pays well and treats you with respect, right?
But that's based on a premise that that job and company exists. If the current jobs that aren't paying you fairly are all that exist around you, that idea falls on its head. So what do you do then? Not work? You can't afford to save with your current income, and you will starve without it (I cannot stress this point). Move? This article should be telling (https://myelisting.com/commercial-real-estate-news/1334/most-and-least-expensive-cities-states-to-rent-compared-to-income/). No place in the US is going to change your situation, as you're more than likely going to end in a worse spot, if you move without any savings, even with another job lined up. If your next argument is to move out of the country, once again, how would you do so without any savings? Sure, there are people who manage to do it, but immigration in any country is not a quick process, and employment isn't always guaranteed for unstable citizens like immigrants.
So, left in this situation, we are left to ponder the initial question; are crimes of greed (I haven't even gotten to discussing what exactly this might entail) actually worth codifying into law, and having criminal penalties attached to them? I say yes, for many reasons. Crimes of greed are typically what we perceive as immoral or damaging actions due to either unchecked, rampant white collar crime, or the actions of companies that previously would have been unthinkable, but due to eroding regulations and dulling the fangs of the enforcement of surviving regulations, the risk is mitigated enough to justify the profit of these 'greed crimes'.
Pt 4.
Yes, if you throw democracy in the trash, ignore the rights of the unpopular, and pass any law that appeals to today’s public morality, then you’ll have lots of options.
Great extremist response to a more moderated opening of discussion.
I just don’t want to hear you guys complain after this idealism gets spun to fuck you over by corporate lawyers more skillful than your populist politicians.
You've just talked shit to basically everyone in the room, ignored the discussion going on around you and decided you were right in your own head, structured arguments to take down discussions going on to justify your own conclusions, and now you try to pretend to have a semblance of morals?
But fuck me for pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the useless seething groupthink machine, I guess. Apparently I only have rights if the public likes me.
I mean yeah. Fuck you. Fuck you for coming into a discussion, arguing in bad faith while tossing around assumptions made in bad faith and building bad faith arguments off that. In a forum setting, you only have someone's ear if you actually make sense instead of having arguments so poorly worded I'd believe it if a geriatric wrote it for you.
Also, great to have a clean, easy way to wipe your hands of any actual discussion after you came in and shat all over the place with your existence. Just go 'yeah, fuck me I guess' when things don't seem to be going your way and walk away from a conversation, sure to go over great with anyone you get into an intellectual debate with.
I know you're probably not going to read this far (luddites, amirite?) but this kinda seems like you're worshipping corporate law in either the hopes you become one, you already are one, or you just don't like the idea that white collar crime is starting to become a serious issue that people are understanding needs severe rules and regulations around, and there needs to be severe penalties for. Which in that case, I'm not quite sure why that idea bothers you so much. As they say, ' if you've got nothing to hide, why are you worried?'. Finally, you may just be arguing from a standpoint that is just factually false, trying to justify it like some kind of religion. In which case, I sincerely hope you either learn to know better from educating yourself, experiencing it yourself, or fall out of the population as fast as possible.
Intellectual debate is pretty important, and intentionally arguing and acting in bad faith is just as serious to making sure young voters understand why things are important, as well as laying out the thought process for them to understand. Instead of just giving false promises if you buy into their cult of corprotology, teaching people and encouraging them to learn about issues they feel strongly enough to argue in bad faith or make an effort talking about is so important.
Pt 3.
You go after organizations whose bread and butter is legal entanglement, using legal entanglement as your only weapon. You make the regulatory environment more difficult for startups and SMBs to compete in, and you do nothing but give your (supposed) worst enemies more political tokens with which to negotiate advantageous positions in that environment. Why do you think these corporate elites flush hundreds of millions of dollars sponsoring progressive media outlets?
Again, we're not writing law here. Nobody has even propositioned any concrete plan, or even an actionable statement to get this riled up about. The 'legal entanglement' you're speaking of is just fretting about the semantics of a law neither you nor anyone else has defined, and how if this hypothetical law is hypothetically written poorly; Which is a strawman you've created, deluded yourself into somehow being convinced is the most logical and reasonable stance to take, and the most accurate interpretation of events is both baffling, and really underlines how you're not here to discuss, just argue in bad faith and say, 'no this is bad because what if, if, if, ad infinitum.'
We’re talking about criminal law. Can you clearly, objectively, without arbitrary valuation of goods or services, define a legal principle which identifies the point at which a health plan cut becomes a crime?
We discuss a general idea and intentionally leave the actual wording of the hypothetical law unsaid because that is none of our (including you) job to make, and to intentionally assume it's going to be written poorly or demand details like what you've argued above is really, once again, putting a nail in the coffin.
Also, nice hyper-focus to the literals instead of the practical argument being made. Nobody ever defined if we were discussing civil or criminal law, or even what classification it should be. So, would you mind explaining why you thought the example given would be inferred as a criminal offense?
Do you think they’re stupid?
Do you think anyone else but you is this stupid? Seriously, this is some piss poor arguing.
Pt 2.
Adding more subjective emotional consideration to a punitive system which is already weighed down beyond the ability to enact swift justice is the opposite of helpful.
Subjective emotional consideration? You mean the discretionary judgment that all standing justices (supreme court or otherwise) have had since the founding of America, and that continues to this day? I won't disagree that the justice system is being weighed down, but we'll save tackling that issue another day.
What’s your point? That people organize themselves to commit crimes?
You mean like a criminal organization? But, and stay with me here, but what if a legal organization seeks to abuse legal loopholes or commit crimes when the calculated profits offset the risks?
That risky behavior is more dangerous when it’s amplified by concentrated capital?
Uh, yes. Risk taking behavior is incredibly more dangerous when power, wealth, or capital is concentrated in fewer hands. If the rail companies chose, they could effectively strangle national defenses, aid and abet foreign actors to cause very serious damage to our national economy (yes, the national economy is a form of national power, and thus defense. I'm not going to argue semantics about how intentionally harming the economy is different than harming military assets).
None of this justifies the phenomenal leap you made to say that an employer is responsible for the lives of their employees. None of this is precedent for the further corruption of the justice system into subjectivity and emotional bias.
Pretty sure I've made it clear in the above that this is neither such a drastic leap in logic or risk for lawmakers, the public, or the country to make. We're literally talking about cracking down on white collar crime, and somehow it's this sin against all natural goodness. Neither does a precedent need to be made; we're not writing a law, none of us are lawyers, and this isn't a court of law, so I'm unsure if this is yet another attempt to shift goalposts to some much higher, loftier standard than the general discourse it was meant to be, or if you're somehow under the delusion that these arguments are anything more than idle conversation amongst the general public, and that you somehow think you're in the senate hearing a bill proposition.
Can’t you see that you’re actually making it worse?
In what way? So far you've only agued using common logical fallacies by shifting goalposts, virtue signaling, and obfuscating the actual point you're trying to make.
Just throw the discussion out the window to focus narrowly, in your extremely pointed view, on the hypothetical monkey's paw of the potential affects a hypothetical law might actually impact, with neither side actually identifying or defining what would be the actual dangers or downsides of such a hypothetical law.
I'm not even sure how to start rebuking your points, as any which way is just a different direction that is still buried 17 leagues deep in your ass. Still, on the thinnest of pretenses that you actually want a discussion about what the post talks about, I'll try to make an attempt.
I’m going to ignore the insane part of your point where you equated layoffs with murder.
I mean, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from with this take, unless your basic understandings of cause and effect are so broken to not see the relationship between the only part where I can see this comment referencing:
Hypothetical:
A CEO lays off 10,000 employees that helped that company succeed, solely to increase earnings and not because the company is hurting, not only seriously hurting 9,997 people, but causing 3 to commit suicide.
If I'm correct, you're saying that people killing themselves due to a unexpected layoff is absolutely insane, and you cannot think of any way, shape, or form that being laid off has on that kind of decision? Or are you attempting to say that people who are laid off due to business decisions - which are typically premediated, uncommunicated in advance to avoid the loss of productivity that would be expected if a company were to sabotage it's employees like that - are entirely morally and ethically absent of any relation to the effects this will have on those laid off?
Now, you might argue in bad faith that it's not illegal, and thus is perfectly fine. If someone kills themselves due to something like this, they may have had problems before this, or that this wasn't an impact and probably would have done it anyways, or if it did, it wasn't that big, and if it was that big, then they deserved it somehow.
I feel this approach is morally, ethically, and as a human being, a completely void subject. At that point, you're attempting to rid yourself of the responsibility of the effects actions have on others, and sidestep the entire point of the post which addresses the moral quandary of the incredible perveance of white collar crime, and discussing possible ways to tackle this social issue.
Greed, like hate, is subjective. It is therefore, like hate, a terrible prerequisite for the activation of the criminal justice system. The idea that motivations for crimes should change the definition and/or penalty of those crimes has fostered popular corruption of the justice system since its inception. Industrialization has accelerated the adoption of human fears into that justice system, to the point where we can no longer even count the number of infractions under the law.
I'm pretty sure this deflection is what you're attempting to do with the above statement, while also exploring your own uniquely twisted idea that motivations for crimes are bad, and pretending like most crimes and cases aren't built around proving intent and because of intent.
In your world nobody would go to jail for attempted murder because if there wasn't a motivation to murder someone, it can't really be called an attempt. Tax fraud wouldn't be considered tax fraud because they can't connect that there was an active effort to evade taxes, they just made mistakes that their accountants didn't catch. It's actively advocating for the erosion of the common sense and most basic part of our justice system (if you can't prove the intent or motive, then you can't actually convict someone of a crime, it'd just be witch hunts at that point).
Also, not sure what Industrialization has to do with human fears, or what corruption you're referring to. Could you give concrete examples of changes in law that occurred during the Industrial revolution (1760 – 1840 in case you forgot) of this corruption you're talking about? Also, pretty sure you're talking about the Industrial Revolution as there is no period of time for 'Industrialization" other than the Industrial Revolution, unless you're referring to a more vague, made up timeframe. In which case, keep it to yourself.
So you say, but just think back to several months ago, when all anyone could talk about was the labor shortages in the US and the ever present tagline "Nobody wants to work anymore". So forgive me if I don't really believe you that supply vastly outstrips demand.
As a general statement, that might be the common conception. But the truth of the matter is, no matter how much supply of labor there is, and no matter how much demand there is for labor, if the conditions aren't actually desirable, the labor is not going to work for any price someone with an ego sets. People seem to forget that when you're talking about supply and demand that there are lower bounds. Even basic theories like supply and demand do break down when they get too distant from the reality it is supposed to be modelling.
Hope you or your family don't get falsely accused or convicted of any of those felonies then. Seriously, some people don't understand, once you strip rights from one group of people, it's only a matter of time until either they or their families either fall into that group, or the group gets expanded so large that they will inevitably be included in it. If you don't think you'll end up in that group, you're either incredibly conceited, or you probably deserve to be in jail in the first place. Seriously why would people who benefit from disenfranchisement ever want to stop?
politicians are really just career criminals. They can't earn an honest dollar on their own so they have to buy and sell favors for it, all while selling out the rest of the country underneath them.
Unless they can't see the difference between the dickhead and themselves.