Everything the OP describes is a symptom of the same problem, I recognized the problem awhile ago but still don't have a solution. Basically the
problem is that what you're seeing is the failure of capitalism. Capitalism as an economic system works quite well when most or all of the
population is required to provide for everyones needs. What happens though when not everyones work is needed? Unemployment happens. We've
addressed this in the past with the concept of planned obsolence. This causes goods to need replacing so that there's an ever present stream of new
work to be done, it also raises costs to the consumer over time letting corporations profit which is the whole point of Capitalism.
In the past 20 years or so however we've reached a point where productivity is so high that only a fraction of the population is needed to produce
the goods for everyone, even though we're already using a massively inefficient method of creating goods in order to create jobs. Right now only
about 50% of the workforce is needed to provide for everyone in the US. Thus, the whole system is falling apart. We've tried to make this up by
shifting to service sector jobs which have an unending work supply, but people are only able to consume a finite number of these services, we've
If we were to switch to producing quality goods that last 10 years, 20 years, or even lifetimes as we have the engineering capability of doing would
cause the portion of the population that's needed to provide for everyone to shrink to a mere 15-20% of the labor force.
How can society function if 85% of the population is unemployed because there's no work for them to do? We could all work just 6 hours per week, but
the economic transition to that would take time, goods of high quality have to first be produced to lower consumer demand. Certain jobs don't work
well on low hour schedules either such as school teachers and politicians. Though I'm not sure making those the best paying jobs in society is an
entirely bad thing.
The real problem, is how to create a system that provides incentive for these concepts. Profit leads to repeated purchases which is the theory behind
planned obsolence so profit can't be a motivator in such an economic system, but communism has shown without a personal motivator productivity and
the innovation to find better ways to do things lag too far behind.
reply to post by TheRedneck
Great write up brother....I have all to well for the last decade at least been let down with promises in the video game industry. I used to beta test
and alpha test several games when I was accepted. Back then it was free and you tested a game and worked with developers finding issues with the
product and then bam out of no where game was cancelled. Now in video gaming they do this sort of prerelease entry where you pay for the game to play
during an alpha or beta...of course I do it cause I like helping advance the game but I rarely see someone deliver anything they claimed they
would..its not even close..then its shipped out early filled with bugs and errors as if it is "finished'. People then buy the game only to see how
crappy it is....they leave while in a way helping developers improve the game. We will be beta testers for all products.
I'm in the game industry myself. Basically what it comes down to is most game companies are poorly run, my opinion of the industry as a whole is
very negative. The modern day philosophy behind creating games basically comes down to the same thing as what casinos do. Create a feedback loop
where people perform an action and get rewarded. Make the loop more costly or difficult each time one goes through it to create an addiction cycle
where one has to work just a little bit harder for each additional hit. Companies like Zynga take this loop and monetize it by charging you to
perform the loop additional times each day. Other companies such as those that make console and computer games monetize the loops with DLC that you
purchase for the same advancement rush. The whole thing feels very predatory to me.
One of the big reasons games ship unfinished is because the majority of companies don't understand the design-develop-evaluate-test loop, and don't
give ample opportunity to perform it. Most companies tend to minimize the skillset of individual designers as well, which creates a lot of slack and
wasted time when a designer has to have a vision, then goto a programmer to create that vision, and then an artist to give visual form to that vision,
then finally back to their job to put it all together. It causes a company to need 3-5 people to create one persons idea which is hugely inefficient,
and drains budgets, leading to the previously mentioned loop not getting enough time. Good designers are multi disciplined so that they can create
whatever their game needs themselves. I hold 4 degrees myself in various computer and artistic types of voodoo, along with several classes in other
subjects like music theory and psychology which are good things to know. Most game companies don't want this approach however, they instead focus on
an assembly line style where each person does a small part which to me is hugely inefficient when a large portion of game design relies on quantifying