Dog: Yeah, you see the problem is it’s already in my mouth. If you would have asked a bit sooner, this could have turned out differen – SQUIRREL OH MY GOD SQUIRREL DID YOU SEE THAT SQUIRREL IMMA MUNCH IT
Yes. But at the same time I’m actually okay with ads for products that are legitimately good and are relevant to me, so long as I know they’re an advertisement.
Products need marketing. It’s reality. I’d rather get my marketing in the form of a recommendation or review from a trusted source than a random video shoved down my throat.
A easy example of a good source for me is MKBHD. He gets free stuff and sponsorships, but is selective regarding what he’ll accept sponsorships from, is very clear when a segment is sponsored, and will absolutely say a product is bad or overpriced even if he got it for free.
What is the problem they’re so pragmatically a part of? And how do you pin both the content creators needing to eat and the reasonable take of that commenter on the poor Marketing executives who care about neither but just want–actually what do they (end goal of marketing, literally, semantically) want, in your eyes while you’re at it? It is their (the marketing execs) side I take it you’re on, since the commenter you replied to is part of the problem and the creators do “an ad is an ad” things?
Challenge; remember capitalism exists in the world as it must as the beginning of your answer (but if you can make it vanish and it all works out by the end of the answer, that’s cool too as lots of us are looking for that one).
How is that other commenter part of the problem, actually part of the problem suspect?
Exploiting trust is worse. That parasocial z-list celebrity isn’t recommending something - they were paid to read corporate propaganda.
The most painful version of this is Lindsey Ellis’s video on “Manufacturing Authenticity.” It ends with a deep sigh and an ad read. The brand knew she was doing a video about how brands pay the popular kids to shill their whatever, and they did not care, because all that matters is getting a known face to say the words.
He bought overpriced shoes - so he’s a dumbass - and he got them from some rando instead of an actual store. I guess he never heard the term “buyer beware.”
Well it only has one use and that’s to be a shoe, the quality of which is perfectly available that doesn’t cost 10 times as much because it’s colorful or has somebody’s name on it.
But it’s fine I’m sure that the kids working in the sweatshops in India or China don’t mind that they’re only making pennies on the dollar for the product which is then subsequently enormously marked up in order to profit some rich asshole.
So yeah it’s stupid because it’s a shoe that costs too much.
Just because I had two opinions in the same comment doesn’t mean you should get the fleet the two. If you buy something without verifying its source you are stupid. If you buy overly expensive shoes you are stupid. See they’re two different things. I’m just using this case as a chance to jab at the stupidity of buying the overpriced shoes while also jabbing at the stupidity of buying something without verifying it’s authenticity. It’s a two-for-one.
Amazing game. One of the few shooters I can think of that really drove the "War is Hell" message home. Shame it got delisted over an expired music license.
I thought they had on several occasions dropped games from the store because they had DRM. Which DRM titles does GOG still have?
Last game I paid good money for was on GOG. Everything added to my steam account in the last few years has either been part of a humble bundle or a freebie from somewhere.
You can also find some reports checking this thread - the post in question says Beat Hazard 2 won’t run after a clean offline install on a computer without internet. Not DRM per se, as that check only happens once and it creates a savefile
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.