I love the concept of a relatively open/hackable interface platform. This seems to have applications far beyond gaming. It seems to lower the bar for developing specialized scientific instrumentation as well.
I know you get a lot of pat-on-the-backs when you implement stuff for the disabled. But I just feel like it’s rarely worth it unless you are at a large scale where the disabled population will offset the man-hours. Not to mention that different segments of the disabled have different requirements and the same special interface will not couple with all of them.
So to me, I can’t help but think that whenever some megacorps implement these solutions, it’s more likely virtue-signalling rather than altruism or legit economic advantage.
The problem of course, is that if we could solve this problem economically, then we would have solved it forever, but if it is virtue-signalling, then the incentive isn’t really to provide solutions, but to provide the appearance of caring, and so the mismatch will eventually result in the problem not really being solved long-term.
I don’t understand this comment at all. If it’s not profitable, why do you think companies are “virtue signaling” and not caring? ISTM you’re reading an awful lot into their behavior, under the odd belief that doing something good has to be for egotistical reasons, and not because you want to help someone out.
To expand on what I believe @LibertarianLlama is saying is, it’s possible this comes out of their marketing budget as a kind of loss. The upside of this would be that the PR leads to other sells, not necessarily of this product, but others.
In the end it doesn’t really matter. It’s a local choice of the company, not trying to solve a problem globally in an economically sustainable way.
It should also be remembered that helping people can be egotistical, in which case it’s a win-win! I find it personally strange when people sometimes boycott beneficial things because they’re suspicious of the underlying motives, when the motives clearly aren’t arming belligerents in a foreign war, or something else clearly evil.
Did you read the article? The controller is heavily customizable (it’s a platform, really), precisely to accommodate as many people’s needs as possible.
I think you’ve put your finger on a significant contradiction in libertarianism. You want to judge the worth of the enterprise by economic returns: success is denominated in dollars and the market is the only neutral or efficient judge of value.
However, the other name for “to provide the appearance of caring” is marketing, and of course good marketing enormously multiplies the returns of a product, the world being annoyingly reticent to beat a path to the door of entrepreneurial mousetrap makers. Even in the very unlikely event that sales of this controller wouldn’t cover the costs to design and manufacture it (given that video gaming is measured in the tens of billions for the U.S. and this product looks overwhelmingly superior to competitors for the mostly-untapped wallets of tens or hundreds of millions of humans with motor control injuries), Microsoft could get a positive return on investment just from the increase in warm, fuzzy feelings from the majority of the market with no need for this product if they go on to buy ever-so-slightly-more copies of OneDrive or Office. The existence of marketing and cross-promotion means that the value of these products can’t be judged solely by the invisible hand of the market discovering prices for goods and driving firms out of business. You make this point in reverse; the long-term existence of marketing points it being economically valuable. There are externalities not on the books of a single product, just like how, in reverse, the market overvalues a polluter because the externality of cleaning up toxic waste or reversing climate change isn’t charged to the company and so can’t be reflected in the stock price.
But whether or not the economics work, perhaps in this instance we can settle for helping make an entire art form accessible because it’s a small act of basic human decency and we’re not unthinking monsters.
I think you’ve put your finger on a significant contradiction in libertarianism. You want to judge the worth of the enterprise by economic returns: success is denominated in dollars and the market is the only neutral or efficient judge of value.
However, the other name for “to provide the appearance of caring” is marketing […]
Libertarianism is actually about the freedom to property and its action, where the individual is his or her own property. Economics is more a description of the market that emerges from action and property. Be it a free market or not, depending on the freedom to the underlying rights.
So when you point out a contradiction, there really is no contradiction. It barely exists on the same plane of reality. Anyone in business, who wants to stay there, knows about marketing, cross-promotion and all that. It’s a business strategy.
PS.
Libertarianism is not a game of winners and losers where money is how we keep score.
But in a hypothetical world where it were, Microsoft would likely end up winning with this device. As would the customer demographic.
As a partially blind person, there is SO much of the gaming world that’s closed off to me. That’s OK. I still sleep just fine at night knowing I will never be a Call of Duty GOD :)
However, when game developers and console makers bother to make adaptations available to allow me and others with disabilities to enjoy the beautiful mix of art and science that is most modern video games, I really appreciate it.
So, virtue signaling or not, this is a laudable move on Microsoft’s part, and I for one think we should all recognize that.
Almost makes me want to own an Xbox again. Only problem is that I haven’t had time to play a game on any platform in ~6 months :)
-Chris
(Aside from iPad gaming in waiting rooms sometimes)
Even if I disagree with you, I don’t understand why you are being downvoted for this argumenter opinion of your. Anyway… thank you for expressing yourself on the topic.
To me it’s mostly about having a customizable solution for gaming controls, that can be used for players with disabilities. If you look at Nintendo, they recently launched this thing with customizable objects in paper to enhance the gaming experience, this is just how the Microsoft gaming team is implementing it! Bold move from them!
Even if I disagree with you, I don’t understand why you are being downvoted for this argumenter opinion of your. Anyway… thank you for expressing yourself
Because it’s incorrect, and baseless bloviating in order to shit on the idea of not needlessly excluding the marginalized.
I love the concept of a relatively open/hackable interface platform. This seems to have applications far beyond gaming. It seems to lower the bar for developing specialized scientific instrumentation as well.
I know you get a lot of pat-on-the-backs when you implement stuff for the disabled. But I just feel like it’s rarely worth it unless you are at a large scale where the disabled population will offset the man-hours. Not to mention that different segments of the disabled have different requirements and the same special interface will not couple with all of them.
So to me, I can’t help but think that whenever some megacorps implement these solutions, it’s more likely virtue-signalling rather than altruism or legit economic advantage.
The problem of course, is that if we could solve this problem economically, then we would have solved it forever, but if it is virtue-signalling, then the incentive isn’t really to provide solutions, but to provide the appearance of caring, and so the mismatch will eventually result in the problem not really being solved long-term.
I don’t understand this comment at all. If it’s not profitable, why do you think companies are “virtue signaling” and not caring? ISTM you’re reading an awful lot into their behavior, under the odd belief that doing something good has to be for egotistical reasons, and not because you want to help someone out.
To expand on what I believe @LibertarianLlama is saying is, it’s possible this comes out of their marketing budget as a kind of loss. The upside of this would be that the PR leads to other sells, not necessarily of this product, but others.
In the end it doesn’t really matter. It’s a local choice of the company, not trying to solve a problem globally in an economically sustainable way.
It should also be remembered that helping people can be egotistical, in which case it’s a win-win! I find it personally strange when people sometimes boycott beneficial things because they’re suspicious of the underlying motives, when the motives clearly aren’t arming belligerents in a foreign war, or something else clearly evil.
because they think creating an image will give them financial rewards.
I’m truly sorry you’ve never had the opportunity to work somewhere that prioritizes results over optics.
Did you read the article? The controller is heavily customizable (it’s a platform, really), precisely to accommodate as many people’s needs as possible.
I think you’ve put your finger on a significant contradiction in libertarianism. You want to judge the worth of the enterprise by economic returns: success is denominated in dollars and the market is the only neutral or efficient judge of value.
However, the other name for “to provide the appearance of caring” is marketing, and of course good marketing enormously multiplies the returns of a product, the world being annoyingly reticent to beat a path to the door of entrepreneurial mousetrap makers. Even in the very unlikely event that sales of this controller wouldn’t cover the costs to design and manufacture it (given that video gaming is measured in the tens of billions for the U.S. and this product looks overwhelmingly superior to competitors for the mostly-untapped wallets of tens or hundreds of millions of humans with motor control injuries), Microsoft could get a positive return on investment just from the increase in warm, fuzzy feelings from the majority of the market with no need for this product if they go on to buy ever-so-slightly-more copies of OneDrive or Office. The existence of marketing and cross-promotion means that the value of these products can’t be judged solely by the invisible hand of the market discovering prices for goods and driving firms out of business. You make this point in reverse; the long-term existence of marketing points it being economically valuable. There are externalities not on the books of a single product, just like how, in reverse, the market overvalues a polluter because the externality of cleaning up toxic waste or reversing climate change isn’t charged to the company and so can’t be reflected in the stock price.
But whether or not the economics work, perhaps in this instance we can settle for helping make an entire art form accessible because it’s a small act of basic human decency and we’re not unthinking monsters.
I’ll probably get downvoted, but here goes…
Libertarianism is actually about the freedom to property and its action, where the individual is his or her own property. Economics is more a description of the market that emerges from action and property. Be it a free market or not, depending on the freedom to the underlying rights.
So when you point out a contradiction, there really is no contradiction. It barely exists on the same plane of reality. Anyone in business, who wants to stay there, knows about marketing, cross-promotion and all that. It’s a business strategy.
PS.
Libertarianism is not a game of winners and losers where money is how we keep score.
But in a hypothetical world where it were, Microsoft would likely end up winning with this device. As would the customer demographic.
I think you’re right, but I SO don’t care!
As a partially blind person, there is SO much of the gaming world that’s closed off to me. That’s OK. I still sleep just fine at night knowing I will never be a Call of Duty GOD :)
However, when game developers and console makers bother to make adaptations available to allow me and others with disabilities to enjoy the beautiful mix of art and science that is most modern video games, I really appreciate it.
So, virtue signaling or not, this is a laudable move on Microsoft’s part, and I for one think we should all recognize that.
Almost makes me want to own an Xbox again. Only problem is that I haven’t had time to play a game on any platform in ~6 months :)
-Chris (Aside from iPad gaming in waiting rooms sometimes)
Even if I disagree with you, I don’t understand why you are being downvoted for this argumenter opinion of your. Anyway… thank you for expressing yourself on the topic.
To me it’s mostly about having a customizable solution for gaming controls, that can be used for players with disabilities. If you look at Nintendo, they recently launched this thing with customizable objects in paper to enhance the gaming experience, this is just how the Microsoft gaming team is implementing it! Bold move from them!
Because it’s incorrect, and baseless bloviating in order to shit on the idea of not needlessly excluding the marginalized.