Re: pretentious thinly veiled as intelligent ? typical shill pi
As ever, thanks for the insightful explanation of what was wrong with the article and why the opinion presented is incorrect. I'm sure this will change many minds of the people reading. /s
"There was a gun, and the police had an instant to decide."
There was a gun, because the person in question had the legal right to have one, and there's a large lobby that's been insisting for decades that the reason those rights are granted is because a person might fear that their home was being invaded.
The police had an instant to decide because they chose to invade a home that left very little time for the resident to determine if they were cops or criminals. Then he was killed in less than 10 seconds, without time for either party to determine what was going to happen.
The fault is still with the cops. It's bad that it's expected that a cop can be shot in moments while carrying out their job, but it's also bad that they choose to do that job in a way that leaves no time for a person to determine if the person entering their home unannounced is to be obeyed or opposed.
Re: I hear my door breach in the middle of the right
"I live alone, I am a criminal, so if you're breaching my door in the middle of the night, you ARE a criminal"
Then, the fact that you tried tried defending yourself will be used as evidence that being a cop is dangerous and they need to be armed more, before your body is cold.
Re: Re: Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much
"The death toll doesn't matter because it's not members of the public being killed, rather it's 'criminals'(since clearly if a cop kills someone they had it coming) and dead 'criminals' simply don't count."
You see it constantly. Every time there's a clearly unjustified murder by cops, people start digging and claim that because they came foul of the law before or simply acted like a "thug", they deserved what they got. Meanwhile if someone they agree with gets killed literally trying to storm the capitol building in order to overthrow democracy, they're an innocent snowflake who was killed because she was white and everyone nearby was just a tourist.
As for the second paragraph - yeah, sadly. It's proof of how they are justified in doing what they did because there was a real threat. Never mind that the threat presented itself as a direct result of the no knock in the first place.
Re: Content removal is never completely transparent
"both child pornography and "extremist content".
There really aren't any fundamental differences in the technical aspects of automated blocking of the two types of content"
LOL, no. Child porn is very well defined and easy to manage - there is no valid reason to be in possession of or be involved of the distribution of child porn. It's illegal no matter what excuses you have.
"Extremism" is much more wooly. Most of it falls squarely under the remit of free speech, and its nature changes depending on the audience. Some on the right are getting butthurt over extremism because they are acknowledging the history of slavery or that gay and trans people exist. Some on the left feel that certain types of political or racial rhetoric are leading to actual terrorist activities. Some of this is easily classified, but some is very much in the eye of the beholder, but they are extraordinary different on a number of fundamental levels.
"considering the number of people in positions of power and influence who consider any opinion with a hint of conservatism "extremist""
Name them. Then give examples of what innocent "conservative" thought has been labelled as "extremist". Hint: it's not the guys discussing tax reform and transport regulations.
Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much higher
"it sure would be nice if those people were asked point blank how many dead members of the public they consider an acceptable trade"
As Joe implied above, the problem is who they consider to be "members of the public". Whenever things like this happen, there's a rush to find something in the victim's past to suggest that he somehow deserved what happened. It doesn't matter how obviously wrong the cops' actions we, as soon as it's proven that the victim was not a saint, he joins the ranks of the "enemy", and because they're fighting a "war", any losses on the side of the "enemy" are acceptable to win the "war".
That's not how any of this does or should really work, of course, but it doesn't seem to matter. Similarly, it doesn't seem to matter how many similar instances happen, the same people will argue simultaneously that Americans need to be armed at all times to defend themselves against intruders, and that if cops come barging into your home in the middle of the night then you have no right to defend yourself if they don't identify themselves. Just as cops can be retroactively supported because someone dredged up some misdeed in the victim's part that the cop could not have known about when he pulled the trigger, so the victim should have psychically known that the person breaking down their door and shoving a gun in their face was a cop.
Not really. Most adults are capable of some kind of self-control or self self-(get ready for this word!)-censorship where they understand things like nuance, context and appropriateness. They naturally evaluate the situation, the audience and adjust what they say accordingly. That's why you don't typically start banging on about religion in an office setting or start talking about complex work issues when you're sitting in a bar with non-work friends.
The only people who seem to be having an overall problem with being "silenced" (which usually means "I encountered a situation where what I did was inappropriate and offensive, so it must be everyone else's fault") are assholes. Most people manage to live their lives without ever being told to leave a room because they're disrupting everyone else.
Also, when most people do accidentally come up against consequences for what they say, they typically go "sorry, I'll keep it down in future" and they're fine after that. It's only a problem when people demand they do and say whatever they want without consequence with no regard for the rights and feelings of those around them. Before the internet, I used to think those people were literally toddlers, but now I see some people never really grow past that state mentally.
As ever, feel free to provide concrete verifiable examples of people who have been "silenced" for merely saying something objectionable rather than being a deliberate asshole to the people around them. But, after years of asking for such things such an example has never been provided to me.
"I hate to use this word but in this context it's necessary"
I'll echo what others said - no, it's really no. There's other words you could have used and even if you were directly quoting someone verbatim there's ways to not use the uncensored word and get the point across. I think all you've done here is detract from your point and probably earned yourself some reports in the meantime.
"which in the judges mind is anyone not white"
Which makes it strange that you only used a slur associated with one of those groups.
It seems to me that some people approach electronics in cars the same way they do computers in other parts of life. If they don't understand what something does, then it's not doing anything useful, and if something similar existed before, then the new stuff isn't necessary.
They're not interested in understanding why the electronics are in their new car, they just have memories of working an a car from the 50s as a kid and lament the fact that they can't open up the hood and poke around on their new car.
Or, to go through your list from another point of views:
The Matrix - highly original movie with things that had never seen by mainstream Western audiences before (though yes, it did borrow a lot from Asian movies and comic book) - makes a huge amount of money and a huge cultural impact
Matrix Reloaded - generally considered to be overlong and overstuffed with things that actually had people mocking it (the Zion rave), but still good enough for fans to return to - lots of people saw it, boosted by love for the original and the multiple videogame / other media spin offs
Matrix Revolutions - interminably long effects sequences with a plot that chugs along at a snail's pace leading to a disappointing conclusion - seen by a lot less people because it didn't get much repeat business and a lot of people decided to wait for the video release because they got burned with Reloaded
Matrix Resurrections - sequel that basically nobody was asking for many years after the original, which has left most people lukewarm in general - people watch at home or just otherwise aren't inspired to risk their health watch it.
Why are you complaining that the latter is not being protected, rather than calling for more of the much lower budgeted first?
Do those figures include all revenue, including home releases, streaming, merchandising, etc.? Or just theatrical cherry picked without additional revenue?
Why do the films need those higher budgets if the criticisms of the films that fail is that they're too long and could tell the same story with way less effects shots in less runtime? Couldn't the same story be told at less than 2 hours with a lower budget and make a tighter film that gets better reviews and thus more paying customers?
"Y'know, I've been going to movies for far longer than 30 years. And in all that time, I've not seen even one mass shooting."
That's the majority experience, but it's obviously more of a possibility than if you stay at home. Hell, shooting isn't necessary, there's stabbings and other forms of physical abuse that happen occasionally in countries that don't have people armed to the teeth for leisure activities.
It's an extreme case, but the reason theatrical attendance has dropped over time has as much to do with the uncomfortable experience and high prices of going to the cinema as anything else. Sure, you might not be in great risk of being shot, but when the automated digital projector starts the film at the wrong aspect ratio and you have some idiots talking loudly on their phone during the screening, you're not necessarily going to have your experience fixed by the guy who's working the ticket desk, concessions stand (usually the same place now) and isn't being paid enough to risk physical assault by telling the idiots to shut up.
"The theatrical window is outdated consumer-unfriendly bullshit."
The theatrical window mainly exists because the major studios thought that home video would destroy the theatrical market. After they lost the Betamax lawsuit and it became clear that there was a vibrant market for pirated tapes, they eventually agreed to allow their movies on tape, first with gaps of several years, to a few months during the DVD boom. In return, they got a gigantic boost to their revenue that they have since been fighting tooth and nail to protect when people realised they'd rather wait till something come on their streaming platform than pay $20 for a disc they might not play more than once.
It's always been artificial and based in fear, we're just seeing the dying throes as they try to pretend that being available to people who can't/won't go to the cinema is a loss of revenue. Which, during the current state of things, is often not the case.
It seems to me that the current complaints over streaming are the same as the ones over piracy - that is, it's an easy scapegoat if things go wrong that allows the studio to escape criticism for making a bad movie or marketing it badly.
Re: one valid purpose to the theatrical release window...
"There's one valid purpose to the theatrical release window, and that's to protect an incipient new franchise like Dune, something that doesn't come along every day."
Or, during a pandemic when your audience really doesn't want to risk their own lives to sit in the middle of a bunch of strangers who might not necessarily take the comfort of those around them serious at the best of times, stopping access to streaming is what kills it.
"But the real solution is to look for what advantages the solution offered has."
You've already got problems if your idea of a quality movie is whether they can wring multiple sequels and spin-offs from it.
"We wouldn't have WandaVision or Loki otherwise."
There's other quality series that don't depend on the provider having bought a major franchise from elsewhere. Some of them get ignored because of the franchise mentality.
I almost went to see it at the cinema when I was visiting family in the UK. Other things came up and the amount of messing around I had to do to get tested, etc. in order to be allowed to see my family was a big enough hassle that I decided I didn't want to risk infection any further than I was already doing just to see a sequel to a great first film that let me down with the other sequels.
Apart from that, it wasn't compelling enough to see at the cinema when I had returned back home and I'll watch it eventually, but not until it's on streaming (here in Europe they didn't seem to have the simultaneous release that it had in the US, certainly not on platforms I already pay for).
I do know some people who chose piracy over going to the cinema because the streaming option wasn't there, so I'm not sure that Village Roadshow really want to prevent the legal option in the US if they know what's better for them. but Hollywood's history is littered with them trying to shut down lucrative markets because it doesn't give them the highest profit margin, even if they later come to make more money by accepting it.
Erm, that's stretching things somewhat. They've released around 5 games with Nintendo characters, but they haven't really released any ports of the actual games (not counting the Pokemon games which are technically not Nintendo). Some are fun, but releasing an endless runner with a Mario skin doesn't really count as fully embracing the other platform. Also, unless I'm missing something the last iOS game they released was Mario Kart in 2019. Have they released anything in the meantime I've missed? Because if not that seems to be more of an experiment that ran its course rather than a strategy to keep releasing iOS games.
I understand why they use this strategy - they don't want to cannibalise sales for their own handheld platforms that feature actual controllers that enable some different gameplay styles. But, them having a few games in a 2 year period then nothing for 3 years doesn't indicate any move going forward.
"Mario is blowing up the charts for iOS with Run and Kart."
Maybe things are different in your location, but as I look at the iOS chart where I am, Mario Kart is at #13 and Run is not in the top 200. That's not exactly blowing up the charts but even if we count the now-5 year old Mario Run as being a game where everyone who wanted it has downloaded it, how many are actually playing vs. people who played it for 5 mins because it's free and never touched it again?
It would be very interesting if Nintendo go the SEGA route, but I think it's rather unlikely since they're famously the only manufacturer who typically turns a profit on their hardware rather than use it as a loss leader. Even your number suggests they're fully in profit after selling a single game if not before, which most people obviously will do. We'll just have to see if the willingness to work with other platforms as we've seen with cross-play and licensing MS IPs is their future strategy.
"My website doesn't have any of the "nonsense" in it, and still users disappeared"
Yeah, court cases are not necessary to drive potential users away. Bad marketing, bad design, unusable interfaces, lack of any actual documentation, complete refusal to work with either other developers or the users themselves, not actually competing on any level with the sites you have identified as competitors... There's plenty of ways something can go wrong.
What's impressive with your complete failure is that not only have you insisted on doing all of these things at the same time, you're still refusing to address them years after you first started whining about them here and people informed you of where you're going wrong.
On the post: A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation'
Re: pretentious thinly veiled as intelligent ? typical shill pi
As ever, thanks for the insightful explanation of what was wrong with the article and why the opinion presented is incorrect. I'm sure this will change many minds of the people reading. /s
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Re: Re: Re: "Innocence" is not the issue
"There was a gun, and the police had an instant to decide."
There was a gun, because the person in question had the legal right to have one, and there's a large lobby that's been insisting for decades that the reason those rights are granted is because a person might fear that their home was being invaded.
The police had an instant to decide because they chose to invade a home that left very little time for the resident to determine if they were cops or criminals. Then he was killed in less than 10 seconds, without time for either party to determine what was going to happen.
The fault is still with the cops. It's bad that it's expected that a cop can be shot in moments while carrying out their job, but it's also bad that they choose to do that job in a way that leaves no time for a person to determine if the person entering their home unannounced is to be obeyed or opposed.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Re: I hear my door breach in the middle of the right
"I live alone, I am a criminal, so if you're breaching my door in the middle of the night, you ARE a criminal"
Then, the fact that you tried tried defending yourself will be used as evidence that being a cop is dangerous and they need to be armed more, before your body is cold.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Re: Re: Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much
"The death toll doesn't matter because it's not members of the public being killed, rather it's 'criminals'(since clearly if a cop kills someone they had it coming) and dead 'criminals' simply don't count."
You see it constantly. Every time there's a clearly unjustified murder by cops, people start digging and claim that because they came foul of the law before or simply acted like a "thug", they deserved what they got. Meanwhile if someone they agree with gets killed literally trying to storm the capitol building in order to overthrow democracy, they're an innocent snowflake who was killed because she was white and everyone nearby was just a tourist.
As for the second paragraph - yeah, sadly. It's proof of how they are justified in doing what they did because there was a real threat. Never mind that the threat presented itself as a direct result of the no knock in the first place.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Re: Judge Dread.........
Another reminder - Dredd was meant to be a satire, not a role model.
Add it to the pile with 1984, Brave New World, Snowcrash, Handmaid's Tale, etc. They're warnings not instruction manuals...
On the post: The Top Ten Mistakes Senators Made During Today's EARN IT Markup
Re: Content removal is never completely transparent
"both child pornography and "extremist content".
There really aren't any fundamental differences in the technical aspects of automated blocking of the two types of content"
LOL, no. Child porn is very well defined and easy to manage - there is no valid reason to be in possession of or be involved of the distribution of child porn. It's illegal no matter what excuses you have.
"Extremism" is much more wooly. Most of it falls squarely under the remit of free speech, and its nature changes depending on the audience. Some on the right are getting butthurt over extremism because they are acknowledging the history of slavery or that gay and trans people exist. Some on the left feel that certain types of political or racial rhetoric are leading to actual terrorist activities. Some of this is easily classified, but some is very much in the eye of the beholder, but they are extraordinary different on a number of fundamental levels.
"considering the number of people in positions of power and influence who consider any opinion with a hint of conservatism "extremist""
Name them. Then give examples of what innocent "conservative" thought has been labelled as "extremist". Hint: it's not the guys discussing tax reform and transport regulations.
On the post: Minneapolis Police Officers Demanded No-Knock Warrant, Killed Innocent Gunowner Nine Seconds After Entering Residence
Re: A number that should be 'zero' but seems to be much higher
"it sure would be nice if those people were asked point blank how many dead members of the public they consider an acceptable trade"
As Joe implied above, the problem is who they consider to be "members of the public". Whenever things like this happen, there's a rush to find something in the victim's past to suggest that he somehow deserved what happened. It doesn't matter how obviously wrong the cops' actions we, as soon as it's proven that the victim was not a saint, he joins the ranks of the "enemy", and because they're fighting a "war", any losses on the side of the "enemy" are acceptable to win the "war".
That's not how any of this does or should really work, of course, but it doesn't seem to matter. Similarly, it doesn't seem to matter how many similar instances happen, the same people will argue simultaneously that Americans need to be armed at all times to defend themselves against intruders, and that if cops come barging into your home in the middle of the night then you have no right to defend yourself if they don't identify themselves. Just as cops can be retroactively supported because someone dredged up some misdeed in the victim's part that the cop could not have known about when he pulled the trigger, so the victim should have psychically known that the person breaking down their door and shoving a gun in their face was a cop.
On the post: UK Government Refreshes Its Terrible 'Online Safety Bill,' Adds Even More Content For Platforms To Police
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. Most adults are capable of some kind of self-control or self self-(get ready for this word!)-censorship where they understand things like nuance, context and appropriateness. They naturally evaluate the situation, the audience and adjust what they say accordingly. That's why you don't typically start banging on about religion in an office setting or start talking about complex work issues when you're sitting in a bar with non-work friends.
The only people who seem to be having an overall problem with being "silenced" (which usually means "I encountered a situation where what I did was inappropriate and offensive, so it must be everyone else's fault") are assholes. Most people manage to live their lives without ever being told to leave a room because they're disrupting everyone else.
Also, when most people do accidentally come up against consequences for what they say, they typically go "sorry, I'll keep it down in future" and they're fine after that. It's only a problem when people demand they do and say whatever they want without consequence with no regard for the rights and feelings of those around them. Before the internet, I used to think those people were literally toddlers, but now I see some people never really grow past that state mentally.
As ever, feel free to provide concrete verifiable examples of people who have been "silenced" for merely saying something objectionable rather than being a deliberate asshole to the people around them. But, after years of asking for such things such an example has never been provided to me.
On the post: First Circuit Tears Into Boston PD's Bullshit Gang Database While Overturning A Deportation Decision
Re:
"I hate to use this word but in this context it's necessary"
I'll echo what others said - no, it's really no. There's other words you could have used and even if you were directly quoting someone verbatim there's ways to not use the uncensored word and get the point across. I think all you've done here is detract from your point and probably earned yourself some reports in the meantime.
"which in the judges mind is anyone not white"
Which makes it strange that you only used a slur associated with one of those groups.
On the post: Automakers Can't Give Up The Idea Of Turning Everyday Features Into Subscription Services With Fees
Re: Re: Re: Future Prediction
It seems to me that some people approach electronics in cars the same way they do computers in other parts of life. If they don't understand what something does, then it's not doing anything useful, and if something similar existed before, then the new stuff isn't necessary.
They're not interested in understanding why the electronics are in their new car, they just have memories of working an a car from the 50s as a kid and lament the fact that they can't open up the hood and poke around on their new car.
On the post: WarnerMedia Sued For Giving People Want They Wanted (The Matrix, Streaming) During An Historic Health Crisis
Re:
Or, to go through your list from another point of views:
The Matrix - highly original movie with things that had never seen by mainstream Western audiences before (though yes, it did borrow a lot from Asian movies and comic book) - makes a huge amount of money and a huge cultural impact
Matrix Reloaded - generally considered to be overlong and overstuffed with things that actually had people mocking it (the Zion rave), but still good enough for fans to return to - lots of people saw it, boosted by love for the original and the multiple videogame / other media spin offs
Matrix Revolutions - interminably long effects sequences with a plot that chugs along at a snail's pace leading to a disappointing conclusion - seen by a lot less people because it didn't get much repeat business and a lot of people decided to wait for the video release because they got burned with Reloaded
Matrix Resurrections - sequel that basically nobody was asking for many years after the original, which has left most people lukewarm in general - people watch at home or just otherwise aren't inspired to risk their health watch it.
Why are you complaining that the latter is not being protected, rather than calling for more of the much lower budgeted first?
On the post: WarnerMedia Sued For Giving People Want They Wanted (The Matrix, Streaming) During An Historic Health Crisis
Re:
Do those figures include all revenue, including home releases, streaming, merchandising, etc.? Or just theatrical cherry picked without additional revenue?
Why do the films need those higher budgets if the criticisms of the films that fail is that they're too long and could tell the same story with way less effects shots in less runtime? Couldn't the same story be told at less than 2 hours with a lower budget and make a tighter film that gets better reviews and thus more paying customers?
On the post: WarnerMedia Sued For Giving People Want They Wanted (The Matrix, Streaming) During An Historic Health Crisis
Re:
"Y'know, I've been going to movies for far longer than 30 years. And in all that time, I've not seen even one mass shooting."
That's the majority experience, but it's obviously more of a possibility than if you stay at home. Hell, shooting isn't necessary, there's stabbings and other forms of physical abuse that happen occasionally in countries that don't have people armed to the teeth for leisure activities.
It's an extreme case, but the reason theatrical attendance has dropped over time has as much to do with the uncomfortable experience and high prices of going to the cinema as anything else. Sure, you might not be in great risk of being shot, but when the automated digital projector starts the film at the wrong aspect ratio and you have some idiots talking loudly on their phone during the screening, you're not necessarily going to have your experience fixed by the guy who's working the ticket desk, concessions stand (usually the same place now) and isn't being paid enough to risk physical assault by telling the idiots to shut up.
On the post: WarnerMedia Sued For Giving People Want They Wanted (The Matrix, Streaming) During An Historic Health Crisis
Re:
"The theatrical window is outdated consumer-unfriendly bullshit."
The theatrical window mainly exists because the major studios thought that home video would destroy the theatrical market. After they lost the Betamax lawsuit and it became clear that there was a vibrant market for pirated tapes, they eventually agreed to allow their movies on tape, first with gaps of several years, to a few months during the DVD boom. In return, they got a gigantic boost to their revenue that they have since been fighting tooth and nail to protect when people realised they'd rather wait till something come on their streaming platform than pay $20 for a disc they might not play more than once.
It's always been artificial and based in fear, we're just seeing the dying throes as they try to pretend that being available to people who can't/won't go to the cinema is a loss of revenue. Which, during the current state of things, is often not the case.
It seems to me that the current complaints over streaming are the same as the ones over piracy - that is, it's an easy scapegoat if things go wrong that allows the studio to escape criticism for making a bad movie or marketing it badly.
On the post: WarnerMedia Sued For Giving People Want They Wanted (The Matrix, Streaming) During An Historic Health Crisis
Re: one valid purpose to the theatrical release window...
"There's one valid purpose to the theatrical release window, and that's to protect an incipient new franchise like Dune, something that doesn't come along every day."
Or, during a pandemic when your audience really doesn't want to risk their own lives to sit in the middle of a bunch of strangers who might not necessarily take the comfort of those around them serious at the best of times, stopping access to streaming is what kills it.
"But the real solution is to look for what advantages the solution offered has."
You've already got problems if your idea of a quality movie is whether they can wring multiple sequels and spin-offs from it.
"We wouldn't have WandaVision or Loki otherwise."
There's other quality series that don't depend on the provider having bought a major franchise from elsewhere. Some of them get ignored because of the franchise mentality.
On the post: WarnerMedia Sued For Giving People Want They Wanted (The Matrix, Streaming) During An Historic Health Crisis
Re: Re: My seeing Matrix Resurrections
I almost went to see it at the cinema when I was visiting family in the UK. Other things came up and the amount of messing around I had to do to get tested, etc. in order to be allowed to see my family was a big enough hassle that I decided I didn't want to risk infection any further than I was already doing just to see a sequel to a great first film that let me down with the other sequels.
Apart from that, it wasn't compelling enough to see at the cinema when I had returned back home and I'll watch it eventually, but not until it's on streaming (here in Europe they didn't seem to have the simultaneous release that it had in the US, certainly not on platforms I already pay for).
I do know some people who chose piracy over going to the cinema because the streaming option wasn't there, so I'm not sure that Village Roadshow really want to prevent the legal option in the US if they know what's better for them. but Hollywood's history is littered with them trying to shut down lucrative markets because it doesn't give them the highest profit margin, even if they later come to make more money by accepting it.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But the real solution is to look for what advantages the solution offered has."
Of which you're provided next to nothing. Hence the lack of customers.
On the post: Over 60 Human Rights/Public Interest Groups Urge Congress To Drop EARN IT Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This is the equivalent to a nuclear strike and makes SOPA and A17 look like child’s play in comparison."
SOPA? The bill that ultimately failed to pass because of the massive public backlash against it?
You've identified the point of fighting - are you going to be willing to put in the effort?
On the post: Consolidation Strategies Emerge For The Big 3 In Gaming: Nintendo Looks Like It Doesn't Want To Play
Re: Looking forward
"Nintendo games on Android and IOS"
Erm, that's stretching things somewhat. They've released around 5 games with Nintendo characters, but they haven't really released any ports of the actual games (not counting the Pokemon games which are technically not Nintendo). Some are fun, but releasing an endless runner with a Mario skin doesn't really count as fully embracing the other platform. Also, unless I'm missing something the last iOS game they released was Mario Kart in 2019. Have they released anything in the meantime I've missed? Because if not that seems to be more of an experiment that ran its course rather than a strategy to keep releasing iOS games.
I understand why they use this strategy - they don't want to cannibalise sales for their own handheld platforms that feature actual controllers that enable some different gameplay styles. But, them having a few games in a 2 year period then nothing for 3 years doesn't indicate any move going forward.
"Mario is blowing up the charts for iOS with Run and Kart."
Maybe things are different in your location, but as I look at the iOS chart where I am, Mario Kart is at #13 and Run is not in the top 200. That's not exactly blowing up the charts but even if we count the now-5 year old Mario Run as being a game where everyone who wanted it has downloaded it, how many are actually playing vs. people who played it for 5 mins because it's free and never touched it again?
It would be very interesting if Nintendo go the SEGA route, but I think it's rather unlikely since they're famously the only manufacturer who typically turns a profit on their hardware rather than use it as a loss leader. Even your number suggests they're fully in profit after selling a single game if not before, which most people obviously will do. We'll just have to see if the willingness to work with other platforms as we've seen with cross-play and licensing MS IPs is their future strategy.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My website doesn't have any of the "nonsense" in it, and still users disappeared"
Yeah, court cases are not necessary to drive potential users away. Bad marketing, bad design, unusable interfaces, lack of any actual documentation, complete refusal to work with either other developers or the users themselves, not actually competing on any level with the sites you have identified as competitors... There's plenty of ways something can go wrong.
What's impressive with your complete failure is that not only have you insisted on doing all of these things at the same time, you're still refusing to address them years after you first started whining about them here and people informed you of where you're going wrong.
Next >>