My typical attitude is “I was fine without “latest fad” until now, I’ll still be fine now that I still know nothing about it”. And I forget about the whole thing. It’ll probably vanish fifteen months later anyway.
As an aside, who even makes those caricatural, utterly content free websites, and then pats themselves on the back thinking that’s a job well done? They’ve obviously put some amount of work into those things. Is the point to make it seem like it’s a cool super secret society or what?
She only has one after she sold the smaller one recently.
Also, she is getting memed now because her lawyers send that brain-dead letter to the dude posting the publicly available flight data of her jet on Xitter. Elmo already went through that phase.
I doubt it's because it's a competing service and it's more likely because it's a .io TLD... which is notorious for being used by phishers, spammers, and scammers unfortunately.
Ok…someone help me out here, because I must be reading this wrong.
In the first tweet, Mat says “the idea that subs will become dominant is unsupported by data.” Ok, so subs are not helping the industry.
But then in the second tweet, he says “Subs have been more additive than cannibalistic”–so wait, they’re actually good for the industry?–and they offer more choice, and fearmongering is unnecessary?
It is. But the industry would rather have all of us subscribing because that's a constant profit and they love constant profit. They'd rather have 100% subscribing and 0% buying than 10% subscribing and 100% buying.
I think he’s saying that neither extreme is right. Subscriptions aren’t going to take over the entire market but they will likely continue to play a role going forward.
So my current understanding of this is that he’s telling us, as consumers, not to worry because subscriptions are not taking over the industry like the industry wants it to. It’s working for them, but it’s not taking over.
When McDonald’s started asking “would you like fries with that?” their sales and profits exploded. That really happened.
Now let’s get theoretical. Imagine you were a potato farmer, and your friend was a cattle farmer. You both have an interest in selling as much of your product for the highest price possible.
You might try to promote potatoes, because that’s good for you. “French fries are going to become the main course, and burgers are going to become obsolete.” Well, no, that’s not supported by the data. That doesn’t mean that fries aren’t good for McDonald’s. Sales for both went up. People buying french fries didn’t buy fewer burgers. The effect was additive, not canibalistic.
Of course, does that mean that either is “good” for the industry? Does that mean it’s “good” for consumers? Is it fearmongering to point out the health risks of eating fried potatoes and ground beef every day, or how bad factory feeding people is for the economy?
Subscription gaming isn’t going to replace traditional games. But it has become a significant part of the industry. If that’s good or bad depends on your perspective.
Something not being dominant does not mean that it is cannibalistic or bad for the industry… it just means that it isnt the dominant form of income for them.
I once met Ray Parker, Jr. but I didn’t talk to him beyond pleasantries, because I had no idea what to say. “Nice way you stole a horn line from that Huey Lewis song?” “What the fuck were you thinking with the ‘bustin’ makes me feel good’ lyric?”
files.catbox.moe
Top