There are other explanations, ofc. Maybe there’s a galactic moratorium on contacting new space faring civilisations.
If you’re willing to discard the conclusion that we’re an early civilisation, then it’s reasonable to think that old civilisations have had plenty of time to decide whether or not to contact us.
There are quite a few different takeaways you could draw from that. My personal favourite is that they want to recreate the “early universe” experience for us because it’s an important process for civilisations to go through.
I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of the subscription model, and the reasons for those criticisms are the same as many of the reasons growth has flat lined. Labeling criticism as fear mongering seems like overly reductive spin, especially when this analyst doesn’t seem to be interested in addressing those criticisms.
It’s like saying “data shows very few people die annually from eating tide pods, therefore maybe we shouldn’t be so scared of eating tide pods.” Like, no, it’s because nearly everyone realises it’s a very bad idea that nobody dies from it.
You’ve crunched the numbers correctly, but have drawn the exact wrong conclusion.
What a lukewarm take. A quick glance to the subscription video-on-demand market should be fairly informative to the future of video game subscription services.
Right now they’re still in the honeymoon phase, that is to say the “offer better value to capture a market” phase, of enshitification.
This. They’ve been burning money trying to give games away for free to entice people to their platform. It’s quite possible they have a cash flow problem. That they just layed off 900 people definitely supports this idea.
Riccitiello also came under fire in 2022 for referring to developers who don’t focus on microtransactions as the “biggest f*cking idiots” before apologizing.
Classic CEO brainrot. There’s more to life than just maximizing profit.