loobkoob

This is known as the "Overton window" for anyone who wants to read into it further.

Dude, what the fuck kind of comment is this?! I have no love for spez whatsoever, and would happily see him lose all his money and landed gentry status. But your comment is just unhinged.

They're both certainly people who know how to burn bridges when they see them.

So as per @Kierunkowy74's reply to me, limiting (basically what I described) is a feature on Mastodon already. It basically just sets things to follower-only mode on a per-instance basis. I'm not sure how well that would translate to the threadiverse, but I do think some level of opt-in integration would be best.

To go on a slight tangent: I've never used Imgur as anything other than a image hosting site, but I'm aware it has people that use it as a social network in its own right. Whenever I've hosted anything on Imgur in the past - even images that don't need any context - I've noticed it always ended up downvoted and sometimes with some negative comments, while the reception on reddit was generally far better. It doesn't bother me - like I said, I just used it as an image host - but it's clear Imgur has its own culture. Threads could be the same, and trying to merge its culture with ours could prove difficult.

I don't know what full-on federation with Threads would look like, but federating vote counts could definitely lead to Threads culture overwhelming threadiverse culture. But I assume that's also something that can be done on a per-instance basis; I know kbin (which I use) already doesn't federate downvotes from other instances, for example.

I'm not sure I have a fully-formed opinion on it all yet, unfortunately. I don't like the idea of cutting Threads off completely unless they do something to earn defederation. I think finding a way to smoothly federate with Threads could give the fediverse a boost in users that could be significant for more niche communities that haven't managed to find a large enough audience yet (because yes, I'm still missing some of the smaller communities from reddit). But I do also think there are very valid concerns about both the long-term and immediate impacts Threads could have on the fediverse.

That sounds like a good solution. I don't want to need an account on a different platform to see Threads, but I also don't want the feeds to just be overrun by Threads users, and that seems to achieve that.

I guess the ideal situation as far as I'm concerned would be for users to be able to choose that setting on an individual basis. Obviously anyone can set up their own instance and achieve that, but being able to do it without being an instance admin would be the best.

Personally, I would like to be able to follow individual Threads users if I so desire but not have Threads content showing up in my All feed. I don't know if that's possible with how federation/individual blocking currently works, but it would be the ideal, I think.

Sweet?!

So I just had a look into it and apparently American tomato ketchup is one third sugar (corn syrup, obviously...). Ketchup is supposed to be savory, America; why do you do this?

That's not even the big reason; microtransactions are often very lucrative (as much as I tend to dislike them). The main thing is just the COVID hangover and general economic downturn the world has seen.

• during the height of COVID, people had more time and money to spend on gaming. While brick and mortar stores and quite a few service industries suffered, the gaming sector was seeing record profits and growth.
• investors were also investing a lot. Crypto was booming, interest rates were really low, and a lot of investment companies were just throwing money around as a result. With gaming companies not only not being hit too hard by COVID, but also thriving during it, gaming-related investment shot up. See Embracer Group for the prime example in gaming.
• like good little capitalists, these companies saw all the extra money coming in and tried to grow their companies - more staff, bigger projects, etc. They scaled up to levels that were sustainable for their newfound income and investments.

Now, not only have all of those factors been reduced, they've actually gone the other way. Consumers have less disposable income than they did pre-COVID due to rising cost of living. Investment companies can't just throw their money at absolutely anything and still turn a profit because the interest rates are much higher. And the companies all found their expenditure and growth unsustainable once the money dried up, which is why we've seen so many layoffs in gaming already this year.

On top of all that, we've seen game budgets just go up and up and up, to the point where some games are costing upwards of $200M to make. The price of games hasn't really budged that much, which means the only way for the increasing budgets to be sustainable is for sales and microtransaction spending to keep increasing. Obviously that's not happening, and until some novel tech comes along that draws in new gamers - like the Wii did, where people who didn't care about games at all were interested in getting the Wii for Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc - I think gaming's not likely to attract too many new people.

Microtransaction scandals and less and less innovation in the AAA(A) space obviously don't help, but they're not the big reasons why the industry has hit hard times.

Other way around: consoles are there to sell Game Pass. Microsoft wanted to put it on PlayStation, in fact, but Sony wouldn't allow it. It's been clear for quite a few years that MS has been prioritising software over hardware.

There's barely any profit to be made in console sales themselves. They often start out the console generation as loss-leaders, in fact, and then as the manufacturing scales and becomes cheaper they'll see small profits per console. But making $50 profit on a console sale is nothing compared to the cut they take on software (game) sales and subscriptions. A $70 game where the storefront takes a 30% cut means they take $21 per game sale. Not all of that will be pure profit, of course - there are some infrastructure costs and such - but let's assume the average person buys three games per year; that's ~$60 per year, rather than the one-off $50 from the console sale. And obviously that number goes up the more games someone buys, whereas the profit on the console is static.

Microsoft has stated that Game Pass is profitable in its own right.

Guys, don't fall for this propaganda video about the game, it's actually much better than he's making it look - Skeleton Bones Ghoulie just has a bone to pick with Will Smith.

While you're at it, it might be worth including a "canary" in these kinds of posts.

I'm aware of when to use "a" versus "an", but I wasn't aware that Americans don't pronounce the "h"! It makes a lot more sense now, thanks!

...well, a little bit more sense, anyway - I'm still not sure what calling someone "a herb" actually means...