loobkoob
The convenient thing about a handful of people controlling all the wealth is it means there are only a handful of people who need to be liberated of their wealth!
I'm not sure they're sleepwalking into it; I think there's just very little they can do without pivoting to an entirely different business sector at this point.
- Physical game sales been dropping for years as people get better internet connections, bigger hard-drives and as games come with larger and larger day-one patches
- Many "physical" versions of games these days just contain a download code which only reduces physical sales further
- People often find it easier to buy peripherals on Amazon then go into GAME. And GAME can't really compete with Amazon when it comes to online shopping.
- GAME tried to diversify into gaming and general "nerd culture" collectibles years ago and it's obviously not something that's revitalised their business.
Where do they go from here? I certainly think they handled things poorly 10-15 years ago, and could perhaps have pivoted successfully then if they'd seen the writing on the wall. But pretty much no-one predicted the current landscape back then. It's only a decade since Microsoft's disastrous Xbox One reveal where they got savaged for its always online nature and for heading towards digital-only games, with everyone saying, "but we love buying physical copies of games", and now here we are ten years later with brick-and-mortar stores looking like they might not survive the year and physical sales numbers in free fall.
I don't think GAME is necessarily mishandling things right now. I just think there's not really a market for a business like theirs nowadays.
Yeah, I don't get it. I guess I can see the appeal of some "Internet Of Things" connected appliances, like smart fridges suggesting recipes and keeping track of stock and auto-populating shopping lists for you. I don't need that personally, but I can see why it could appeal to some people.
But things like washing machines and dishwashers? You need to be there in person to fill them up just before they're ready to go on, and to empty them when they're done. And when they're not turned on, they're sat there doing nothing. What "smart" functions can they even offer?
Your assumptions aren't true at all. It looks like it's heading that way part-way through the film, when Barbie and Ken are at odds with each other. And then it goes ahead and empowers all the men as well. It's certainly critical of toxic masculinity but I think it's empowering for both men and women overall. Obviously your Ben Shapiro types were offended by it because it's not trying to appeal to incels, and it is woke, but not in a bad, inauthentic way.
I don't think it's really supposed to re-popularise the line of toys either. Sure, people who liked the toys when they were young will probably find details they appreciate, but it's not meant to sell the toys. It's not aimed at the demographic (young girls, typically) who would want to buy dolls. It's not an R-rated film, of course, but I'd say anyone under 12 probably isn't going to get much out of it, and it's probably much more enjoyable for adults overall. It's pretty philosophical and thoughtful, and has quite a lot of metaphors and symbolism that would be lost on younger viewers.
Rather than aiming to sell toys, the film is the product; it's a way to make money with the Barbie brand from audiences outside of the toy-buying demographic. And it achieved that (by being a good film).
You've got some good answers already, but I can expand on it a little: businesses in most sectors are feeling the impact of increased interest rates - both because they can't borrow as much themselves any more, and because there is less money coming in from investors because they can't borrow as much either - but tech (including games) is doubly impacted because there was such a surge in demand during lockdowns. While other businesses tended to struggle during lockdowns, and have simply had that struggle replaced with a different struggle due to the interest rates, the tech sector grew massively during the pandemic.
People working at home, or furloughed, had more personal time and more disposable income because they weren't spending money on travelling to work, on overpriced lunches, on dining out with friends, going to concerts, etc. It all added up, and they spent that money on streaming subscriptions, video games and just generally on recreational, home-based activities, many of which revolve around tech these days. So the tech sector grew a lot because of the low interest rates, and it grew a lot because more people were buying its products/services. And now, rather than having more disposable income, a lot of people are facing a cost of living crisis, meaning not only have they reduced their spending because they're back in the office and dining out and going to concerts again (and all those other things people spend money on when they're not confined to their house), but many people have less money to spend on gaming, subscriptions, etc, than pre-pandemic.
Also, because the tech sector was doing so well during the pandemic, it was an attractive prospect for investors (who themselves had increased money, as well as great interest rates), meaning it grew even more. Everything kind of fed into each other and the tech sector grew exponentially as a result. Whereas right now, not only does the increased interest rate for borrowing mean investors are throwing their cash around less in general, but the fact that the tech sector is struggling makes it a less attractive prospect for investors, meaning the whole sector kind of doubly loses out on that front.
So these tech companies invested their money into growing their companies and expanding their businesses' scopes like good capitalists. Which does generally make sense - if you find yourself sat on a huge pile of money, it's generally better to find a way to invest it into something useful (or to invest it into something makes you an even bigger pile of money if you see the Monopoly Man as aspirational). The issue is, most of them were somewhat short-sighted (plus global economics is a tricky thing to predict); they spent money as if it was always going to be coming in at the same rate. And now that they're being impacted by increased interest rates on their own borrowing, the loss of investors, and the reduced spending power of consumers and they're very suddenly having to make massive cuts to stay afloat.
It'll potentially just end up like emails (which are also federated, after all), where Gucci employees get an @gucci.com email address and an @gucci.com ActivityPub handle.
"Trump" is synonymous with "fart" in British English. Plenty of Americans already did celebrate and vote for a fart.
Yeah, there's a lot to be said for what the quality of the practice is. Someone just practicing something for 200 hours could see less (relative) improvement than someone who, for instance, records themselves doing something and watches it back so they can find the things they really need to focus on, and then practices those things for 50 hours. Coaching themselves, essentially.
Of course, it may just be that more focused, high-quality practice just lets people reach their ceiling faster and doesn't actually give them any long-term advantage - I don't know. It's something that would be interesting but difficult to study.
I'm sure a lot of the people who said they were going to boycott it did boycott it. But a boycott was never going to work for this game. The IP alone meant it was going to sell 10M+ copies, even if it was absolutely terrible.
My keyboard (Swiftkey) gets very excited about the possibilities when I start to hyphenate words to create compounds. It accepts that they exist, but it starts trying to throw all sorts of random suggestions in for what the second word could be (and it rarely gets the right word).
"Landed gentry" was a social class of people who owned estates and, well, land. They didn't have to work; they made their income by profiting off the work of the farm hands, merchants, etc, who worked on their land. The estates these landed gentry owned, along with their wealth, would be passed down to their children when they died. It meant the gentry did very little to earn their station in life, but still had a fair amount of power and wealth.
How spez thinks it applies to Reddit mods, I'm not entirely sure. But he definitely meant it as an insult. His full quote was:
So I guess he was upset that mod teams get to select who else is a good fit to join the mod team? Of course, the issue is that he is the landed gentry - users didn't vote for him, nor can they remove him; and he's profiting off the work of the people who post content and the people who spend their time moderating.