OGH wrote, "...my product has to compete for your attention and money in the same market as the [...] Assassin's Creed games. Neither of which have a near-monopoly incumbent like Amazon squatting between them and their customer base, trying relentlessly to depress prices...."
Except there is in the case of video games. Steam has a near monopoly on digital PC game sales channel. (Consoles might also be "video games", but they're a very different beast. Like comparing fiction and non-fiction markets.) Even a competing service run by one of the largest game publishers (Origin by EA) can't compete with Steam. Steam is well-known for their regular sales where games are discounted as much as 90%.
Now, Valve might not seem to be quite so cutthroat as Amazon, but it's a very similar situation and mostly hinges on the graces of the 800 lb gorilla who controls the vast majority of the market. We video game developers just pray that Steam doesn't choose to alter the terms of the agreement further.
]]>Oh, absolutely agreed here. It does take a fair amount of introspection to really root out the biases and understand how they can persist. More introspection than the average person invests into the topic.
As I said, bigotry still exists. I guess I'm just tired of the default assumption that nothing is changing, and if someone claims to be unbiased that they must really be the most pernicious form of bigot.
]]>Thank you for sharing your experiences.
]]>But, at what point does exposing "below-the-surface" sexism become rooting out thoughtcrime? I'm making this specific reference to an audience that will grok it and (hopefully) realize that it's not intended to be flippant. I think (a select number of) people may have their own biases and bigotry largely under control; I worry that some people who profit (emotionally, financially, whatever) from rooting out bigotry view such people as threats rather than proof of achieving the goal. By defining harmful bigotry as something that can linger without being observed, it feels like this becomes another self-perpetuating "war on an abstract idea".
Discussion and analysis are the foundation of logical thinking and vital to making lasting change. Therefore, I have concerns with the Kafkaesque logical trap of, "unless you admit you're part of the problem, you're part of the problem" that seems to get implied in discussions about bigotry. I think one can accept that progress has been made without trivializing the effect that the remaining bigotry has on our society. And this certainly doesn't mean we stop fighting the good fight to treat people as people and for equal rights for all.
]]>Part of the answer to achieving equality is to understand that things are changing, but perhaps not as fast as some of us might like. Honestly, I think the most important thing to do is to not make the process go slower than it already is by stunting the discussion.
I've seen people looking for answers and wanting to support equality get shouted down because they don't follow some specific dogma from self-identified "feminists". Those potential allies decide it's easier to remain silent and let biases continue than to work with people who only want to yell at them. It makes me weep to see progress being held back by people who think others must prove their ideological purity in order to support the radical notion that we should treat all people with dignity.
]]>