The money earned from Assassin's Creed isn't by creating value, it's given by others who are creating value. I'm genuinely surprised I'm getting so many people disagreeing with this idea.
That's because the implication is that entertainment has no value, and that sort of argument can be reduced to absurdity. Do we really need any comfort? Sounds like the whole clothing industry other than wool and cotton shirt/pant producers are useless and even then only for what's needed in cold weather.
Most dyes are useless,colors are only useful to write signage.
The only cars that are useful are the ones that have the currently most fuel efficient setup.
Do we really need safety features? We already have enough people and any dead ones can be replaced.
Does getting people addicted to heroin add value? Because people will exchange their dollars for that too.
Just because people pay money for something doesn't mean it adds value or creates wealth. Rolling Stones is a tough case, some entertainment is necessary, but at what level and cost is up for debate, it's not like I have all the answers.
Necessities is a fixed amount, wants are (nearly) boundless. As we are able to afford things beyond bare necessities, pretty much all value create and consumed isn't 'necessary' - it's one or other kind of comfort, desire, status, entertainment, etc. Those things do add value and do create wealth - if getting enough nutrients and bare minimum of shelter takes just 10% of my resources, then 90% of my wealth is something that's not necessary.
If people prefer hearing a song over getting an (extra) loaf of bread, then hearing that song is by definition more valuable (more valued by that person) as that loaf of bread. There's not much debate needed about Rolling Stones - millions of people have expressed their values, and their choices illustrate that the music of Rolling Stones is literally more valuable than a billion loaves of bread; people have intentionally allocated a billion bread-loaves worth resources towards Rolling Stones because they valued Rolling Stones more than other alternatives.
People paying money for something doesn't necessarily mean it adds value or creates wealth, there are all kinds of edge cases like fraud, exploitation, addiction, etc, but in general, in the vast majority of cases it does mean exactly that - if people genuinely freely wanted to pay money for something and did so, then that's very informative about what they actually value; this is far more informative and truthful than, for example, what they claim they value.
