The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo

joined 1 year ago

Of Valve keeps being nice to customers publishers can do nothing. Ubisoft and all others came back.

[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

A game on Steam shouldn't require a 3rd party launcher or account. I guess Valve is too afraid to deal with monopoly claims.

[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Idk how it looks like on PS but I finished it last year on PC and it was looking great already.

[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 72 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I hate the "review bombing" term.

[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Sir, this is a leg.

Imagine being killed by your tax.

[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Wipe your shit, wash your ass and wipe again to dry off your anus.

[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Most of their ads are still skippable, aren't they?

In my experience, no.

And can you prove no one asked for a premium service? I certainly recognize ads are a way to pay content creators and would like an alternative way to pay them in exchange for not seeing ads, so that already disproves your claim.

I said annoying ads and premium service. If ads were not annoying and you still wanted to support your content creators without watching ads; that's fine, premium service sounds a good solution to you. But Google chose the asshole way. They bombarded us with ads if we wanted not to pay. Even though I hate ads I am not against them. They should be short and not annoying.

And what does YouTube being profitable have to do with paying content creators, anyway?

If it's profitable they can pay content creators.

YouTube, who were known for running at a loss for years at the start, needs a way to pay content creators as well as pay for server costs to host YouTube videos.

Google is known for killing their services if they don't bring money. Let's assume what you said is true, so you are telling me that Google paid from their pocket and waited patiently till they became monopoly so they can execute their asshole plan?

Sure, they are also greedy, but watching content without paying the creators is not the actual way to fight that, is it? If you disagree with how Google runs YouTube, just stop watching YouTube instead of punishing the content creators.

Google built an empire by tracking us through the web sites before ad blockers are a thing. I'm punishing Google not content creators. If Google cared about content creators they wouldn't behaved like this in the first place. Why would care about content creators when their employer Google does not give a f**k about them?

Go watch them on alternative platforms where you can directly pay for their content like Patreon or Ko-Fi.

I haven't heard about Ko-Fi before . I'll take a look at that.

And finally I should add that Google is a danger to the internet. With this "pay for premium or you'll watch more ads then the content" bullshit they are becoming a role model to other streaming services.

[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Skippable and short ads were fine. No one asked for annoying ads and a "premium" service. And it was already profitable. Greedy Google wanted more money.

[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (4 children)

It is not about money. Google created a problem and then asked money to solve it. If I were a billionaire I still wouldn't paid a single penny.

[–] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I believe they want to process photos and videos to train their AI.

view more: next ›