It’s 2024 and you can’t buy any individual movie or TV show you want, you have to buy access to literal Netflix or others as a subscription. Op is saying games are heading towards that.
You can buy individual films and TV programmes though, it’s just that most people want them now rather than in a day or two when the DVD arrives in the post
I just looked up one of Netflix’s star movies, Nimona, and yes, I can still buy blu-rays of it.
All mediums have had exceptions where the license holder is a fickle, or ineffective, ass at selling; rare books, games with soundtrack licensing complications, unloved movies. They’re generally exceptions by individual work, not from having signed on to the Great Netflix Prison.
Generally, where there’s demand, they still let you become its permanent owner. (In the topic of anime, they even overcharge for it because it’s such an uncommon choice made by super-fans as a prestige item)
where there’s demand, they still let you become its permanent owner. (
this is not true. in-fact it is seen as a marketing tool for the subscription services. market-forces do not naturally lead to the outcome you are describing.
it is also not the “exception” that something isn’t available, it’s an exception when a subscription service does release a purchasable option.
Indeed it’s getting more and more common that not only will shows/movies be unavailable for purchase, but deleted from the subscriptions too.
Well, they get the snuff out competition and get to hold on to IPs. The thing is though: People are saying that there are good indie games, but I won’t ever hear shit about said games unless I specifically go looking for them, which will almost never happen nowadays.
Even when I allow ads, game ads are pretty rare. AAA games were almost impossible to miss because there’s always enough buzz, positive or negative, for the big ones.
Well, as you can imagine, they don’t have quite the same marketing budget. Many of them market themselves on social media.
Personally, I keep up with gaming news anyways, so that’s how I’ll usually find out about them.
If you don’t do that, there’s occasionally indie showcases where it’s basically trailer after trailer for (already more established) indie titles.
Here’s a recent one, which had some good stuff, albeit lots announcements for the future: iii-initiative.com
I’m sure, you can also find a million articles and videos for “best indies of 2023” or similar.
You might be right. This might not have been a mistake. Some creators in the Twitter thread said that they brought it up ahead of time but the company sent those agreements out as is anyway.
I know there are others that have probably reached a higher score, but thought I would share. Ive been playing this off and on for over 11 years. I actually dont remember when I started.
“Good game, but the company behind it is shit and required me to sign this contract. <Insert contract clause>. Remember this whenever your reading the totally honest reviews about how good the game is.”
When they reach the aspects of the game that they didn’t like they can just say “let’s skip this next part about CTF mode, because I signed a contract” and let the viewers deduce what they deduce.
Ok…someone help me out here, because I must be reading this wrong.
In the first tweet, Mat says “the idea that subs will become dominant is unsupported by data.” Ok, so subs are not helping the industry.
But then in the second tweet, he says “Subs have been more additive than cannibalistic”–so wait, they’re actually good for the industry?–and they offer more choice, and fearmongering is unnecessary?
It is. But the industry would rather have all of us subscribing because that's a constant profit and they love constant profit. They'd rather have 100% subscribing and 0% buying than 10% subscribing and 100% buying.
I think he’s saying that neither extreme is right. Subscriptions aren’t going to take over the entire market but they will likely continue to play a role going forward.
So my current understanding of this is that he’s telling us, as consumers, not to worry because subscriptions are not taking over the industry like the industry wants it to. It’s working for them, but it’s not taking over.
When McDonald’s started asking “would you like fries with that?” their sales and profits exploded. That really happened.
Now let’s get theoretical. Imagine you were a potato farmer, and your friend was a cattle farmer. You both have an interest in selling as much of your product for the highest price possible.
You might try to promote potatoes, because that’s good for you. “French fries are going to become the main course, and burgers are going to become obsolete.” Well, no, that’s not supported by the data. That doesn’t mean that fries aren’t good for McDonald’s. Sales for both went up. People buying french fries didn’t buy fewer burgers. The effect was additive, not canibalistic.
Of course, does that mean that either is “good” for the industry? Does that mean it’s “good” for consumers? Is it fearmongering to point out the health risks of eating fried potatoes and ground beef every day, or how bad factory feeding people is for the economy?
Subscription gaming isn’t going to replace traditional games. But it has become a significant part of the industry. If that’s good or bad depends on your perspective.
Something not being dominant does not mean that it is cannibalistic or bad for the industry… it just means that it isnt the dominant form of income for them.
It would be very funny to go back to a 2000s era California college campus and explain to a bunch of up-and-coming game developers that the future of the industry would be located in Poland.
Not bootlicking, just reading the letter of the law. I read this more as “don’t be a total dick about it” so I’d love to hear a contract attorney’s take on this.
There’s nothing in this wording that implies anything more than “don’t negatively review us”
It’s says subjective negative reviews. it seems if you say “It kept crashing” or “this feature wasn’t working” or “this feature was super bugged” those aren’t subjective.
All reviews are subjective by definition. Your examples are observations, not reviews. A review is my opinion of the product based on my experience. Like honestly, if you ever wrote a review about anything on Steam, or IMDB, or GoodReads or whatever, go find it and remove everything that’s subjective and see what you’ll end up with. Not like you’d be able to post it, because they require you give a score, which is inherently subjective.
There’s nothing in the definition of review that requires it to be subjective. It’s shocking that you didn’t even stop to look it up to first figure out if this is accurate.
I did and it does. For example the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines review as:
a critical evaluation
Whereas evaluation is defined as:
determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone
It’s subtle, but it’s in there. The examples you gave don’t fall under this definition, as they don’t determine anything, they’re just statements of facts. However the statement “this game is shit” is a determination of quality and thus a review. If you just stop for a moment and think about it, you’ll realise that it is impossible to determine the quality of a video game in a purely objective way.
you’ll realise that it is impossible to determine the quality of a video game in a purely objective way.
The only subtle thing here is the subtle change in your wording from simple “review” to “determine the quality.” I agree with you there, as whether you think something is good or bad is subjective.
But it appears you realize Im right, which is why you’re trying to reframe it. Why is it hard for you to admit you were wrong? It’s okay, no one is perfect.
I literally gave you a definition that says a review means to determine quality, I just assumed you would make the connection between that definition and the sentence you quoted, but apparently you’re too dense for that. The only error I made in this conversation is assuming that your reading comprehension is above that of a 3rd grader
I literally gave you a definition that says a review means to determine quality
“Or” do you really not know what that word means? Do you really not realize that when you cherry pick one part of a definition that it doesn’t mean none of the others apply?
Are.you really such an idiot that you don’t know this? Or is it just that you’re willing to be completely dishonest in defense of your ego?
And of course you don’t address the fact that I called out your reframing. Stupid and dishonest. Lol
You’re only strengthening my theory that you have absolutely no reading comprehension. Or you’re just trolling. Literally none of the things you just said make any logical sense whatsoever and I refuse to believe that anyone that passed elementary school can be so absolutely illiterate.
Please do tell me how if I wrote the whole definition there of “determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone” instead of shortening it to just “determine quality” it would make my entire point completely invalid.
And literally how can you look at my comment and, with straight face, say that I didn’t address your claim of “reframing”. It was all literally addressing it. But ok, you’re a moron so you might have not understood my point so let me put it in simpler terms:
Me show you the definition of word Me give an example Me refer to definiton to show example can be described with word You: that’s reframing
Please do tell me how if I wrote the whole definition there of “determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something or someone” instead of shortening it to just “determine quality” it would make my entire point completely invalid.
You see that “or” in the definition? The word I already pointed out to you in the previous post? It does not mean “the one thing from this list that I get to pick because it makes me not wrong” it means “any of these things.” I can’t believe someone insulting me as “not having the reading comprehension of a third grader” needs this explained. It’s honestly hilarious. Although, can we appreciate for a second that you first said it was “subtle” but now are trying to argue that “it so obvious even a third grader would figure it out.” lmao. This is classic. Please keep it up.
Do you see how absurdly idiotic you’re being?
If I’m being absurdly idiotic, god help us because no way in hell we’re going to be able to come up with a term describe your stupidity. You’re not giving us nearly enough space to reach the depths of your stupidity if the fact that I understand what “or” means makes me “absurdly idiotic.” lol
I sort of saw it that way, but the last bit about “subjective negative reviews” seems unusual even for contracts.
There’s enough lazy rage bait “Turns out X is DOGSHIT?!?” videos out there that I don’t think it’s unreasonable to put some terms in expecting some professional effort. But disallowing even polite criticisms definitely seems too far.
The opinion of what is and isnt “subjective” is up for a lot of debate even if you dont personally have a major stake in a videogame’s marketing campaign (such as the authors and enforcers of these contracts).
The content creator agrees not to make public comments that are detrimental to the reputation of the game
Sounds pretty clear-cut, if you say anything bad about the game regardless of if it’s true or not then you’re in violation of this contract. That’s ridiculous.
They’re are actually saying you can’t criticize the game. Now, you tell me who is the arbiter of what is and isn’t “criticism”, because it never says constructive criticism isn’t criticism so presumably is also not allowed.
files.catbox.moe
Ważne