this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2026
253 points (99.6% liked)
Gaming
5205 readers
391 users here now
The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community
For news, discussions and memes!
Community Rules
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
- No NSFW content
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
- Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
- Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
- Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
- Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
- Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He did? I have never noticed. My bad then.
However, it is surprising that noone came to help him.
not according to lemmy.
Wait, you link three examples where Lemmy users point out that the Pareto principle explains data showing the way that engagement and revenue are distributed between games on Steam. I'm failing to see how that's relevant to whether people would be willing to assist or take over the steamdb project. Obviously we can see in hindsight that they didn't, but how do these links address whether that's surprising?
Because the masses that use Steamdb to make financial decisions on when to purchase games, the folk looking to save money, are the first to not pay for the research service they depended on. Take a look rn at the upvotes. If 229 people paid a dollar to crowdfund its independence, steamdb wouldn't have been a financial loss. Yet months of pleading went unanswered, until Black Tree Gaming Ltd. offered to monetize the site. 80~% of the users caused the site to operate at a cost, 20% offered to monetize it as an investment. Black Tree Gaming Ltd. won the bid. I don't blame steamdb for choosing to sell it, I blame users for not financing it above costs.
In piefed, you can see my reaction.
Alright yeah, I agree with all that, but what does that have to do with the users that responded to reports about how game revenues are distributed by accurately associating it with the Pareto principle?
Theoretically even if the donation needs were met, it would be a small percent of users providing the majority of donations. So I don't really see how acknowledging the existence of the principle changes whether it's surprising that no one helped out.
Ask them that. I am using them as examples of political inaction. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit of your budget to support something.
Heck I read they are campaigning the politically incorrect way to stop killing games.
🤣 I am glad you're also applying the principle even now. But you can reapply it to amount people unaware steamdb even exists🤣. Just like you were unaware the pleading was made for months, 80% of the population didn't know either. We are the 20% knowledgeable base. I’m just part of the .001% that is too politically aware enough not recreate steamdb as a subscription crowdfund.
Plus, I hate capitalists.
Okay, now I'm extremely confused. How is being aware of the Pareto principle and mentioning it in situations where it applies "political inaction"? And more to the point, how does referencing it in response to reports about game revenue distribution in any way related to a person's willingness to donate to steamdb?
Because as of typing, both, !skg@lemmy.dbzer0.com & steamdb community have yet to accomplish their goals.
Political inactions in correct game conservations, inactions in financially stabilizing a community project.
I apologize if my language makes shortcuts in conclusions, I don't want to be writing essays on how politically ignorance is the prime cause of gamers losing the political battles they set out incorrectly to achieve. It just gives me much dramatic irony to see history repeat itself. I take inspiration from Buddhists, and cope laughing.
Yeah, sure, gamers are politically ignorant and fail to achieve their goals.
But what does any of this have to do with the Pareto principle?
I just said how: