Plebcouncilman

joined 5 months ago
[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 minutes ago

But Gamepass is not even close to being a tentpole. Halo and Call of Duty being in Gamepass has not limited the ability of games like BG3 being huge successes. If anything it frees up people to buy these type of games because their yearly COD is included in their monthly fee and now they can budget to buy other types of games.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I disagree, because fundamentally Gamepass is a great deal for consumers. And it’s also a good deal for developers if they know how to use it strategically. Like if your game came out a year ago, and its sales are stalling you can go to Microsoft and ask for a big lump sum, put your game there and stop worrying about month to month sales while you develop the next thing. People like me get to play a game they wouldn’t have never bought otherwise and they get the money to develop the next thing.

It’s not the best deals for all consumers, but it is for many. For example I don’t give a rats ass about owning a “library” because I very very rarely replay games, I have very little time for gaming and the type of game I prefer tend to be on the longer side. Gamepass is great because in between those 50+ hour games I have a large selection of games to choose from and I get to play a bunch of games that I wouldn’t have played otherwise because I wasn’t willing to pay $50 or more for them, like for example Lies of P. Then there’s the exclusive AAA from Microsoft which I happen to enjoy like Doom, Halo, and Gears of War. It saves me a lot of money.

Will Gamepass die at some point? Maybe. Probably. Nothing lasts forever. But there’s no signs that it is dying right now, nor that it is harming the industry at all. In fact it has allowed games that otherwise not see the light of day to become viable.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

It describes the budget of the game. It’s always relative to the average budget in the industry but it is a business term.

I still don’t know why you keep bringing the consumer into this. The consumer doesn’t and should not care whether Gamepass hurts sales, only that it is a good deal for them. And it is. Whether sales are affected (obviously they are) is an industry conversation, but the real question is whether it boosts profitability or not.

Quality of games etc etc is all irrelevant in this specific conversation.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

A) it’s already profitable, as per Phil. Unless you think he’s misleading shareholders there’s no reason to doubt that claim. B) they would never be able to buy enough studios to create industry pressure to be on GP, it’s just not possible and the service would crumble under its own weight

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago (5 children)

I mean from a consumer perspective no, but this isn’t something the consumer would even need to be concerned with. The conversation is from a business point of view.

The funniest thing is that I can guarantee that whatever numbers Deathloop did they would have been much worse without Gamepass. Great game, but not the kind of game that can have mass appeal.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

The number may be high but it’s an almost insignificant proportion of the industry. There’s no industry pressure to be on Gamepass.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 28 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (19 children)

The premise itself is flawed, of course Gamepass impact sales, that’s the whole point. The question is does it negatively affect profit? Well for AAA games it might, for AA and indies it might affect positively and those make up the bulk of the gamepass library. Matter of fact there’s barely any AAA games released on GP that aren’t Microsoft’s own games.

It’s not about paying more. It’s that Amazon has products that local retailers simply do not stock and will never stock because the demand just isn’t there.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 0 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

If I lived in a city where there are lots of different retailers that carry varieties of products then maybe I wouldn’t use Amazon. But when you live in a more rural area where the selection is limited and you like better stuff, there’s really not many other options.

It also seems like a very one sided criticism of Amazon. No corporation is good, and Amazon might very well be evil™️ but not everything about it is negative. It has also brought thousands of jobs to rural or semi rural areas that pay better than anything else in the area. They increase access to products that people like me wouldn’t be able to access otherwise. And they are actively trying to disrupt the healthcare industry by lowering prices and giving greater access to healthcare to people who are far from cities.

I also suspect that these descriptions of working conditions at Amazon centers seem to be cherry picked and might be attributed more to bad managers than company policy, because I’ve met people who work at Amazon warehouses and they don’t complain about this kind of stuff at all. In fact they seem to generally like their jobs.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 15 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Determinist that I am it looks like Covid-19 happened to leapfrog medical science.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 5 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

It is certainly 1000 times better than doing nothing, but even athletes lift weights to complement their training because there’s nothing quite like targeting the muscles directly. But like others have commented running is also good for strengthening the back, so any sports where there’s a lot of running like soccer, football or basketball will help.

Weightlifting can be a game itself though, at least for me it is. The game is attempting to best my previous numbers every session. Very much a single player game but a game nonetheless.

 

I’ve been permabanned from Reddit for harassment. I was fucking with some guys that liked anime in a non anime subreddit, I simply called them Chinese cartoons and they got mad, bigly. Anyways I trolled too much using that account so apparently they figured it was better to cut me off the website entirely. I would like to use Reddit still, but every account gets banned as soon as I make it. It tells me I can appeal but I can’t actually because that was more than a year ago.

If I delete that account and all associated accounts, and make new account not associated with them (new email), will it get banned too? I know reddit bans are not just IP bans but also use device ID and all that shit. Will I have to buy a new computer exclusively for Reddit? Or does my device becomes unflagged the moment I delete the banned account?

I need help with this shit. I like lemmy but there’s just not enough people here.

 

Since Meta announced they would stop moderating posts much of the mainstream discussion surrounding social media has been centered on whether a platform has a responsibility or not for the content being posted on their service. Which I think is a fair discussion though I favor the side of less moderation in almost every instance.

But as I think about it the problem is not moderation at all: we had very little moderation in the early days of the internet and social media and yet people didn’t believe the nonsense they saw online, unlike nowadays were even official news platforms have reported on outright bullshit being made up on social media. To me the problem is the godamn algorithm that pushes people into bubbles that reinforce their correct or incorrect views; and I think anyone with two brain cells and an iota of understanding of how engagement algorithms works can see this. So why is the discussion about moderation and not about banning algorithms?

view more: next ›