Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThere are some anti-consumer behaviours which are clearly profitable and hardly any for-profit firm will avoid, like planned obsolescence--selling the same customer the same thing once every three years is clearly more profitable than selling it to them every 30 years.

Not sure about that. I'd tend to try something from another company after those three years. Which might break all the same - but it's worth a try.

The scheme does work better once you've got the field down to a few big firms who can quietly agree to all do it and all help block entry by outsiders . . . but the motivation is strong.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GroganThese companies have their fanboys, but there are also more passive aggressive defenders... defending the behaviour in the first place, admonishing everyone that "All corporations are the same and they have every right..." etc.

One thing I've noticed is that although all corporations are primarily motivated by profit, because the world is actually pretty complicated it's not always clear what kind of behaviour leads to the most profit. This leaves some room for the style and personality of individual leaders or even for a "personality" to arise in the corporate culture, where people assume that their personal instincts are also the best way to make a profit. And so for instance some will try to make a profit by chiseling the customer every chance they get to maximize every transaction, and others will try to make a profit by treating customers well to get repeat sales and word of mouth--there's wiggle room for differences because we can't really be sure which approach works best under what circumstances, and money has clearly been made both ways.

There are some anti-consumer behaviours which are clearly profitable and hardly any for-profit firm will avoid, like planned obsolescence--selling the same customer the same thing once every three years is clearly more profitable than selling it to them every 30 years.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Klaas

Quoting: Pengling

Quoting: Klaas

Quoting: PenglingI only threw in about a fiver, though, so I never ended up having to play it.

Well…

No way, nuh-uh. I'm not touching Mighty No. 9, hahaha! :tongue: Gravity Circuit looks like exactly my jam, though. :grin:

I think it gets as low as like $2 USD on Steam during the sales. Since you backed it, you may as well play it at that price. lol

I suppose there comes a point in game quality where the cost of the time you put into it alone, which you can never get back, is too much investment before you even get to giving them actual money.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BTREI'll forever be bemused by the special hatred Nintendo seems to attract from corners of the internet; they simply act like any other corporation; corporations are not your friend and are businesses first—including Valve who notified Nintendo about Dolphin on Steam and set the ball rolling.

The impression I get is that people don't see Nintendo like a normal soulless corporation; rather, they feel it has a soul and that soul is hostile. There's a widespread perception that Nintendo make special efforts to be anti-consumer even when it certainly looks as if those efforts are actually harming their business, or at least require failing to take steps that would help their business. So there's a feeling that while for most companies it's nothing personal, just business, Nintendo has an active bias towards actually hating their customers. It's like those stores that are so paranoid about shoplifters that they will have people following you around the whole time you're there and so you get the hell out without buying anything and tell your friends what jerks they are.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestIt's ok, the disgruntlement towards Nintendo will keep rising

Yes, I'm sure there are many who are, if not actually disgruntled yet, certainly far from being gruntled.
:grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dziadulewiczLinux Uprising ended up on numbers where 0.7% came from Mints repos, 99.3% from Ubuntu's. If this is true even to day, it is huge.

So did Canonical, or even Debian, write all that software in those repos?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: reedloveOf course, you can take this all with a grain of salt because it's personal opinion, blah blah blah. =]

Nah. My personal opinion agrees with you, so that makes it all gospel truth.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WORM

Quoting: ElectricPrismIt's more probable that anti-cheat is intended to be malware to spy on people -- after all -- WHY NOT only run it when connecting to gaming servers -- why does it need to be running the whole time a game is open?

General laziness. Hanlon's razor might apply here.

Maybe. Although IMO that dictum is overapplied. The fact is that although, sure, there is a lot of incompetence in the world, there is also a lot of malice (or at least, greed applied in such a way that we experience it as malice--"nuttin' personal, just business"). The proportions are close enough that effectively ignoring the whole "malice" category for simplicity's sake is going to make you miss quite a few important things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14I don't hate companies for being successful. But I don't like this. It's simply too much market control. I am baffled that Bell (telephone company) was broken up but not this. What the hell.

Bell was broken up back in the day when antitrust law was taken seriously. Things are different now, although even in the US there are signs of change back towards a more aggressive approach.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PenglingHAHAHAHAHAHA! :grin: :tongue: Reading this post was the highlight of my day! The only bum-note was that the word "blog" in the headline didn't get changed to "bog". :wink:

Well, particularly since I understand that was the original derivation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments