Comments by "Gakusangi" (@Gakusangi) on "Upper Echelon"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So what do we need...that's always been the hardest question here. We want Lootboxes and predatory monetization gone, but government regulation is a bit too blunt and therefore imprecise. We can't rely on them to regulate themselves because...well, why the hell would they? Forming a third party for it, is just as messy as government oversight, because you need to know exactly what to look for and come up with regulations as necessary... it's just a vicious cycle of either taking a risk or leaving things as they are ^^;
You know, I think the biggest problem is that people want things to change NOW! They don't want to be patient, and don't want to take the time to really create solid arguments, and pin-point precise elements of this issue. This is a time where we need to hit the mark, not buck-shot blast in the general direction and hope everything works out. We need people with that kind of patience and attention to detail. We need people that will take this all very seriously as well, and I think we're still fighting THAT uphill battle. People who can tackle issues with the kind of care we want might not be taking games as anything but entertainment for kids still, despite the fact the industry has exploded into something so huge at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The fact that it RUNS and doesn't just crash every ten minutes is commendable considering the other versions of the game, but I also agree here. It has hilarious issues, and then the areas they couldn't finish like the A.I., the resource economy, the RPG elements... I mean this game is bare bones when you look past how pretty it looks, and that's if the textures are loading in and you're not looking out in the distance too much.
Even these initial patches have seemed a bit rushed. To fix the bug where Jackie's gun goes into his head during his death sequence, they just have him pull out and hand you... nothing, there's not chip graphic, there's just nothing now. The bandaid approach is everywhere in this game. Even the memory leak discovered in December was a matter of them rushing the code and not parsing out/unloading previous data that was irrelevant, and their best solution was just to remove the memory cap, so the bloated saves are still an issue!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lesath7883 But that's the thing, "over the years". Microsoft has raw spending power, I can make a large acquisition to make itself competitive all at once like this, but still only come up third.
Sony has founded in 1946, Microsoft was started in 1975, there's a nearly 30 year span between the two in which Sony was doing nothing but growing itself at a steady pace. Microsoft is largely in software, and has typically had a brand in being a very popular alternative to essentially the only rival its had in that industry, Apple. When Microsoft branched out into gaming, it was much like Sony had the generation before, it was just branching out and seeing what would succeed in a industry that had growth potential at the time.
It's not about throwing money around, consider how much product Microsoft is attached to compared to how much Sony is and how much longer Sony has had to acquire all of that under its banner. THAT is why Sony is larger and doesn't spend the same kind of money to get there. Microsoft had to make a major play to get into the top three, now it's there and as UE has pointed out, we're probably watching the first wave of acquisition for these companies to essentially be in competition with only themselves.
If that thought bothers you, do consider that for an even longer time than that, Sony has been one of... six or seven major corporations that control all media anyone can consume in the entire world. That's right, Sony is one of the companies that controls a large portion all media anyone will ever see or hear on Earth. It's always been a major player in that regard. Tencent, that came around in 1998, is the one that worries me the most, honestly. Being second place and the youngest of the two speaks volumes to it's aggressive amount of growth and probably why more than a few government regulator institutions have put limitations on it over the years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anteshell Strawman you, that's literally all you said. You claimed I listened to mainstream, which I don't and basically chucked it up to you apparently hearing different from your sources, which I don't know and can't confirm, anymore than you can for mine. When it becomes an argument of your sources vs my sources, then there's nothing left to discuss.
Fact is, Twitter doesn't make money for anyone, it's been on a downward slope for a few years now and that's been tracked for a while. When Elon made his offer, the reason it was so astounding was just how much more he was willing to pay, despite how much the site was actually worth monetarily. But we all knew it wasn't about Twitter's value in money, it was how influential it was as a social media platform and how much it controlled the narrative, which was a HUGE thing always suspected, but also recently uncovered after several people saw strange trends in subscriber counts and account unbanning as the deal was going through, as if a switch had just been flipped suddenly (and that wasn't too far from the truth). That's why people were so adamant in not letting the deal go through. Because Elon was making a huge offer that they'd be stupid not to take, but that would mean losing their control over the narrative. At the end of the day though, he backed them into the corner, because money is money and Twitter NEEDS the bail out. They have a lot to answer to their share holders and now even more to answer to their advertisers after the bot claim fiasco.
No, Twitter is not financially sound, it hasn't been and it's not going to get any better if Elon leaves the deal. He'll make a new platform and trounce it after all of this because it can't withstand the losses at this point. But you know what, we'll just wait and see how it all plays out.
1
-
@TourFaint There's some good people, but Twitter itself is a shady business run by people that ran it into the ground. It's not a manner of the people you don't want to follow or the drama you want to avoid, it's about steering the narrative and influencing others. Manipulating the general populace by secretly silencing people that don't follow the script Twitter is going off of. None of that was for protecting or as a convenience for anyone, it was so only one side could be counted and heard. Twitter, by its scope and nature, should be regarded as a public square. Anyone can say what they want there and YOU are free to ignore and listen to anyone you like. NEVER, let a company or institution start making that choice FOR you. Blocking and blacklists already existed on the platform, we didn't need Twitter shadow banning people and fluffing up some sides of the argument with bots.
And now that it's all out, Twitter has some hard questions to answer. Both from the public, but also to the organizations and ad partner they lied to, and the shareholders they've screwed over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1