Perhaps the problem is market fatigue due to post sale monetization.
This is what has fatigued me about the F2P mobile scene, for sure. I like to pay for the games that I play. I know that making of these games costs money, so if I really like a game and keep playing, I think it's reasonable to pay a reasonable amount for the game.
The only only problem is very few people do it. So the finances aren't based around most people paying a reasonable amount to unlock content/whatever. The finances are based on the assumption that you'll have a much smaller number of people paying an absolutely exorbitant amount instead. So the people paying are expected to subsidize all the people who aren't, with the idea that they'll consider it worth it because they're so thoroughly addicted to this absolutely incredible game that they'll spend hundreds of dollars to get the cool stuff.
There's a fun little "tower defense" type game I play on Android; it's fun, I enjoy it. It has a "premium" feature which gives you the perks you normally get from watching ads, along with a premium spot for another tower, a modest boost. Sounds good, I'm especially interested in games that support themselves with ad watches, and you can pay $5-$10 to disable ads. I like that model. But this tower defense game wanted $7.49 per week subscription. $30/month is crazy for such a simple dinky little game. It's two World of Warcraft subscriptions. I see this more and more in the mobile market and it drives me nuts.
You can have an ordained universe without geocentricism. If their God is so great, he can make a universe, and not just a planet. Their failure is one of imagination, and it is arguably blasphemous in the bargain as it limits their supposedly unlimited deity.
It's a belief that the bible not only gives a complete account of the origins of man and Earth, but the heavens as well. There can't be more if it wasn't described in the bible.
Where the fuck are the stars in the moon landing video?
They're there, but the camera was not set to capture them. It was daytime on the moon, and the camera was set for a narrow aperture and a quick exposure so the image wouldn't be completely blown out. A wider aperture and longer exposure would have captured the stars, but the ambient light would need to be lower, and you'd have to stand very still to not blur the shot. Moon landing hoaxers (and hoax "true believers" in general) are good about moving the goalposts rather than admit they were incorrect about something, so if we took pictures from the moon with stars in them, they'd say "well sure, they're just doing that because they were caught, and are trying to repair the damage to their story." Or some other BS argument that validates their belief in a shadowy conspiracy.
And anybody claiming to be a "critical thinker" should first be critical of their own assumptions.
Being self-critical, wondering about the assumptions 'your side' makes, wondering if the arguments made make any sense is considered a "weakness" these days. It shows you're not strong and confident enough. People naturally follow confident, decisive people, even if they're flat-out wrong.
You just tell them that your entire bag is lithium ion batteries and is not allowed to be checked and you're allowed to keep the bag with you. Works every time.
Don't they say "thank you for telling us" and then point to the sign that says that LiOn batteries can't go on the plane? I've noticed that sign each time I flew last year.
The not-so-hidden goal of these companies, of course, is to shift the burden for Internet service onto companies like Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, etc. so that those companies have to raise their fees and the ISPs can keep their fees lower
I figured that was one goal, but the bigger goal was to compete directly with those services by offering their own. Degrade the Netflix experience so that customers will come to you for VOD and not Netflix. Set up a competing service, then use your ISP power make yours better.
Costs tend to trickle down from peering agreements to ISPs to subscribers.
LOL trick down. What other republican fag like to use those words like they were true?
Uhhh.. you have to be trolling, you have to know that the phrase "trickle down" is being used in an entirely different context with a totally different meaning, right? Did you just get triggered by the two words "trickle down" and couldn't think of anything else at that point?
Venezuela was a third world hell hole that did the unthinkable: they took some of their oil money and used it to benefit the working class.
Maybe they should have taken some of that oil money and used it to diversify their economy so it's not so dependent on a single export whose price fluctuates wildly.
He says as he swings a noose around at the next Lynnwood Klan meeting.
The clan was the activist arm of the Democrats in the South. The Antifa of its day. Democrats are the party of slavery. Democrats are the party of the KKK. Democrats are the party of Jim Crow.
That's a cool story, but do you have anything that isn't say, fifty years out of date?
Datasets are usually covered in any introductory course.
Given how much Enron was cooking the books (the scandal destroyed Enron's accounting firm), you can find out far more about Enron did by looking at their public records.
California is STILL paying off debt from this mess as well. They had a pretty balanced budget before all this went down too.
There were many reasons for that, but the Dot-Com collapse had a far far larger impact on the housing market, and California's budget is tied to the boom-bust cycle of the general economy.
No, they would have gouged consumers directly instead of by proxy
They couldn't have. People didn't really care if Enron gouged someone and the details were hidden from them. But if average customer bills went up by 300%? They absolutely would have cared and rioted inside Enron headquarters.
Having the details hidden from customers is what allowed Enron to raise the rates on distributors.
It's meant to give you an overview and direct you to those sources if you need to know more. Why some people can't accept this, I don't know.
My guess is that the GP found Wikipedia very easy to use, very convenient to edit, and it seems to be the first place people go. That is, it's easier to put changes in Wikipedia than it is getting that information actually published through "trusted platforms." Any time there is a path of least resistance, people will want to take it even when it's the disallowed path.
But there's no good way to add truly new information to Wikipedia, turning it into a true source of information, instead of it just being a derivative source.
But that's the point to an encyclopedia; it's not supposed to be original research. Everything is supposed to be verifiable. If there's no news source or journal or official database to point to to verify, then there's no way to evaluate the veracity of the information. "Original research" could be completely made up BS. There's no way to tell otherwise. Information in that case must be rejected -- it's better to have an incomplete story then to have a false story.
Of course, you could have completely made up BS on a journal or from a news source, then link to there on Wikipedia, but the counter to that supposedly is to identify sources of bullshit which are then considered unacceptable for Wikipedia use. IE, an edit that points to a source could be reverted if site X has been found to be unreliable.
just like how increasing home prices have reduced aggregate middle class home ownership, yet most people in the middle class still want them to go up
Because for the middle class, a good chunk of their overall financial worth is tied into the value of their home. Money paid on their mortgage isn't lost, it's invested for retirement. Since they're middle class, they're not going to have a lot of stocks and bonds and CDs and a mutual fund manager to help them. Their home will be the greatest investment they've ever made, the only one they can afford to do. That all goes out the window if their home prices were to plummet.
And yet - you attacked on a partisan basis making an asinine assumption and then doubled down in your defense - STILL not getting to the actual point that the plastic straw ban was vapid and virtue signaling and meaningless and that digital waste is a much bigger, more prevalent and more hazardous problem than plastic straws and yet, will not be banned.
The difference is that electronics are far more critical to our society than plastic straws, which are pretty easy to cut out of your life, just like plastic bags.
How about we bring back a service like the milk man, where used bottles(glass) was picked up and reused.
My grocery store does this for certain dairy distributors. The milk bottles have a $2 surcharge on them, making a bottle of milk much more expensive, but when you bring a bottle back on your next visit, you get a $2 credit on your grocery bill.
That's pretty good. I suspect in the future, higher-value phone numbers will have other numbers associated with them. IE, scripts will look through Facebook pages, trying to draw connections between people, trying to find out phone numbers. Then those numbers would be sold like they are now, but they could be charged a premium, as spammers could spoof their numbers to be someone you know.
no one expected the economy to do well. not obama, his administration, or people that laughed when he was going to get more than 2%.
You mean the economy that was doing about as well under Obama as it is now? Trump loved to tweet about stock market records, but a 10-year graph of the Dow will show a pretty consistent rise in performance. There was a short blip in 2011, a year-long pause from late 2015 - late 2016, and another pause from Feb 2018 - today. These bull markets do not last forever though -- this is the longest on record. I would expect a "correction" and transition to bear market soon. I doubt there's actually anything the President could do about it either.
Transgenic frankenstein technology is qualitatively different from previous techniques of plant and animal breeding.
Yes, you're right -- it's more targeted, and more likely to be safer. Far more genes get changed in traditional cross-breeding, but no one gets up in arms about that because it doesn't happen in a lab.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the problem is market fatigue due to post sale monetization.
This is what has fatigued me about the F2P mobile scene, for sure. I like to pay for the games that I play. I know that making of these games costs money, so if I really like a game and keep playing, I think it's reasonable to pay a reasonable amount for the game.
The only only problem is very few people do it. So the finances aren't based around most people paying a reasonable amount to unlock content/whatever. The finances are based on the assumption that you'll have a much smaller number of people paying an absolutely exorbitant amount instead. So the people paying are expected to subsidize all the people who aren't, with the idea that they'll consider it worth it because they're so thoroughly addicted to this absolutely incredible game that they'll spend hundreds of dollars to get the cool stuff.
There's a fun little "tower defense" type game I play on Android; it's fun, I enjoy it. It has a "premium" feature which gives you the perks you normally get from watching ads, along with a premium spot for another tower, a modest boost. Sounds good, I'm especially interested in games that support themselves with ad watches, and you can pay $5-$10 to disable ads. I like that model. But this tower defense game wanted $7.49 per week subscription. $30/month is crazy for such a simple dinky little game. It's two World of Warcraft subscriptions. I see this more and more in the mobile market and it drives me nuts.
You can have an ordained universe without geocentricism. If their God is so great, he can make a universe, and not just a planet. Their failure is one of imagination, and it is arguably blasphemous in the bargain as it limits their supposedly unlimited deity.
It's a belief that the bible not only gives a complete account of the origins of man and Earth, but the heavens as well. There can't be more if it wasn't described in the bible.
Where the fuck are the stars in the moon landing video?
They're there, but the camera was not set to capture them. It was daytime on the moon, and the camera was set for a narrow aperture and a quick exposure so the image wouldn't be completely blown out. A wider aperture and longer exposure would have captured the stars, but the ambient light would need to be lower, and you'd have to stand very still to not blur the shot. Moon landing hoaxers (and hoax "true believers" in general) are good about moving the goalposts rather than admit they were incorrect about something, so if we took pictures from the moon with stars in them, they'd say "well sure, they're just doing that because they were caught, and are trying to repair the damage to their story." Or some other BS argument that validates their belief in a shadowy conspiracy.
And anybody claiming to be a "critical thinker" should first be critical of their own assumptions.
Being self-critical, wondering about the assumptions 'your side' makes, wondering if the arguments made make any sense is considered a "weakness" these days. It shows you're not strong and confident enough. People naturally follow confident, decisive people, even if they're flat-out wrong.
You just tell them that your entire bag is lithium ion batteries and is not allowed to be checked and you're allowed to keep the bag with you. Works every time.
Don't they say "thank you for telling us" and then point to the sign that says that LiOn batteries can't go on the plane? I've noticed that sign each time I flew last year.
So where is the problem? Airline takes the money, and saves the fuel flying 200 lb less ...
Much of the time, they can put a person on standby on instead of the ticketed passenger, which only benefits the airline.
The not-so-hidden goal of these companies, of course, is to shift the burden for Internet service onto companies like Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, etc. so that those companies have to raise their fees and the ISPs can keep their fees lower
I figured that was one goal, but the bigger goal was to compete directly with those services by offering their own. Degrade the Netflix experience so that customers will come to you for VOD and not Netflix. Set up a competing service, then use your ISP power make yours better.
Costs tend to trickle down from peering agreements to ISPs to subscribers.
LOL trick down. What other republican fag like to use those words like they were true?
Uhhh.. you have to be trolling, you have to know that the phrase "trickle down" is being used in an entirely different context with a totally different meaning, right? Did you just get triggered by the two words "trickle down" and couldn't think of anything else at that point?
Venezuela was a third world hell hole that did the unthinkable: they took some of their oil money and used it to benefit the working class.
Maybe they should have taken some of that oil money and used it to diversify their economy so it's not so dependent on a single export whose price fluctuates wildly.
Do you know what a meme is? No one was coordinating this.
Memes aimed at one person by thousands are harassment.
He says as he swings a noose around at the next Lynnwood Klan meeting.
The clan was the activist arm of the Democrats in the South. The Antifa of its day. Democrats are the party of slavery. Democrats are the party of the KKK. Democrats are the party of Jim Crow.
That's a cool story, but do you have anything that isn't say, fifty years out of date?
Datasets are usually covered in any introductory course.
Given how much Enron was cooking the books (the scandal destroyed Enron's accounting firm), you can find out far more about Enron did by looking at their public records.
California is STILL paying off debt from this mess as well. They had a pretty balanced budget before all this went down too.
There were many reasons for that, but the Dot-Com collapse had a far far larger impact on the housing market, and California's budget is tied to the boom-bust cycle of the general economy.
No, they would have gouged consumers directly instead of by proxy
They couldn't have. People didn't really care if Enron gouged someone and the details were hidden from them. But if average customer bills went up by 300%? They absolutely would have cared and rioted inside Enron headquarters.
Having the details hidden from customers is what allowed Enron to raise the rates on distributors.
It's meant to give you an overview and direct you to those sources if you need to know more. Why some people can't accept this, I don't know.
My guess is that the GP found Wikipedia very easy to use, very convenient to edit, and it seems to be the first place people go. That is, it's easier to put changes in Wikipedia than it is getting that information actually published through "trusted platforms." Any time there is a path of least resistance, people will want to take it even when it's the disallowed path.
But there's no good way to add truly new information to Wikipedia, turning it into a true source of information, instead of it just being a derivative source.
But that's the point to an encyclopedia; it's not supposed to be original research. Everything is supposed to be verifiable. If there's no news source or journal or official database to point to to verify, then there's no way to evaluate the veracity of the information. "Original research" could be completely made up BS. There's no way to tell otherwise. Information in that case must be rejected -- it's better to have an incomplete story then to have a false story.
Of course, you could have completely made up BS on a journal or from a news source, then link to there on Wikipedia, but the counter to that supposedly is to identify sources of bullshit which are then considered unacceptable for Wikipedia use. IE, an edit that points to a source could be reverted if site X has been found to be unreliable.
just like how increasing home prices have reduced aggregate middle class home ownership, yet most people in the middle class still want them to go up
Because for the middle class, a good chunk of their overall financial worth is tied into the value of their home. Money paid on their mortgage isn't lost, it's invested for retirement. Since they're middle class, they're not going to have a lot of stocks and bonds and CDs and a mutual fund manager to help them. Their home will be the greatest investment they've ever made, the only one they can afford to do. That all goes out the window if their home prices were to plummet.
" Whether you like it or not does not change its legitimacy."
So anything one is paid to do is "legitimate"???
Fascinating.
What makes it "illegitimate?"
And yet - you attacked on a partisan basis making an asinine assumption and then doubled down in your defense - STILL not getting to the actual point that the plastic straw ban was vapid and virtue signaling and meaningless and that digital waste is a much bigger, more prevalent and more hazardous problem than plastic straws and yet, will not be banned.
The difference is that electronics are far more critical to our society than plastic straws, which are pretty easy to cut out of your life, just like plastic bags.
How about we bring back a service like the milk man, where used bottles(glass) was picked up and reused.
My grocery store does this for certain dairy distributors. The milk bottles have a $2 surcharge on them, making a bottle of milk much more expensive, but when you bring a bottle back on your next visit, you get a $2 credit on your grocery bill.
Good thing I registered with the 'DoNotCall' registry. I cannot wait for the government to take over healthcare, something much less important :(
The problem becomes when their is no enforcement. Regulations should have teeth, otherwise what is the point?
That's pretty good. I suspect in the future, higher-value phone numbers will have other numbers associated with them. IE, scripts will look through Facebook pages, trying to draw connections between people, trying to find out phone numbers. Then those numbers would be sold like they are now, but they could be charged a premium, as spammers could spoof their numbers to be someone you know.
no one expected the economy to do well. not obama, his administration, or people that laughed when he was going to get more than 2%.
You mean the economy that was doing about as well under Obama as it is now? Trump loved to tweet about stock market records, but a 10-year graph of the Dow will show a pretty consistent rise in performance. There was a short blip in 2011, a year-long pause from late 2015 - late 2016, and another pause from Feb 2018 - today. These bull markets do not last forever though -- this is the longest on record. I would expect a "correction" and transition to bear market soon. I doubt there's actually anything the President could do about it either.
The biggest "news" channel in the US is Fox "news."
Fox News is the biggest all-news cable channel, but they are still dwarfed by the likes of CBS News, NBC News, Reuters, and so on.
Transgenic frankenstein technology is qualitatively different from previous techniques of plant and animal breeding.
Yes, you're right -- it's more targeted, and more likely to be safer. Far more genes get changed in traditional cross-breeding, but no one gets up in arms about that because it doesn't happen in a lab.