Not at all true. In my experience. Sadly.
I've looked into it.
There is a drive towards more 'bullshit jobs' I first came across (using that term) with Blackrock urging their investors to drive management into providing them (usually coined under C(orporate)S(ocial)R(esponsibility)), as well as the lasting trend for f.e. conferences like the WEF to have entire segments that are dedicated towards virtue signaling. (That serve entirely no purpose other than, f.e. for Microsoft to look good, because they have a database, where children are supposed to fill in their 'climate ideas'. That actually was a thing at the last one..
).
None of them are what they pretend to be.
(Inspiring, encouraging, ...
)
First the short version, then the longer one.
Short version is: They are there for 'social cohesion' they are currently being pushed because many future development trends point at fewer people being needed in the workforce (New Zealand prime minister just teased the 4 day week.
). Companies would look like absolute assholes, even in todays market, if they only employed "needed personal".
As a result they also produce what are coined bullshit jobs, which are close to minimum wage, that already close to a third of the labor market traffics in.
Longer version: This is sold to people as "millenials want a company to also have a 'social side'" which is an absolute fallacy, because - basically 'boycott' activism and online activism never worked. They didn't work, because it was so damn easy to deal with them.
In the end it factors out to, all you ever needed to do is give the impression that you were engaged in 'social responsible behavior' as a company, and the consumer had no way that worked, to figure out what that meant, or how to compare efforts. In addition, when going on an average purchase spree, those desires are saturated by buying 2-3 of that category of products. So it is not something that the majority of companies would even have to aim for, from a marketing stand point.
Basically, the actual cost for you to have that image, is much lower, than the cost for even the bullshit jobs that are provided. So bullshit jobs actually are a concession towards politics to keep societies stable, not towards millennials to have better feels while shopping.
Once in a crisis like the current Corona one, many of the bullshit jobs fell by the wayside, because they were in no way essential for production, and customers didn't even notice so far...
I actually researched around five 'Corperate social responsibility' outfits for bigger brands, while I was in college, so I'm pretty sure, that this was, and still is the case.
Its not mainstream economic school of thought though. So on this one I'm kind of 'out there'.
But everything I saw indicates, that this is the case.
edit: More importantly though on topic:
If in this case it was an effort of a 'social' initiative within the company, which still could be possible, or if you enjoy the free game, please, by all means, enjoy the product - just at the very moment when you start to feel good about Nintendo, because that one time, they did something nice for you -- immediately think, that this is designed, and never do anything because of a feeling of you wanting to give back.
They arent people. They are a for profit company. They have an entire department that produces their public image, they arent the treehouse you want to see them as..
