Gamepass is unsustainable, that's a trap to try bring customers back to the brand for future Microsoft consoles.
That's MS's problem, not mine.
Sustainable or not I will use it when I want to cycle through many games quickly. For people just want some quick experience in a game then move on to the next game it is a better way to pay than one time payment for the whole game.
The first doom game was great (2016), the 2nd one ruined the formula with stupid restrictions and started to get boring, it's too hard to tell if the 3rd one will great or not but if they keep pushing out the same game over and over it gets stale.
The setting is cool but I doubt the story will be all that good.
I thought I was the only one that thought the second one sucked.
I played through the first one on the various difficulty settings several times, it wasn't perfect but I thought it was engaging and well balanced even on the highest difficulty settings.
The sequel just...sucked. Who thought it was a good idea to put annoying platforming sections in a Doom game? It broke up the pace so much I quit halfway through and haven't thought about it since.
My main concern with the new one is they are going to overload it with mechanics, the shield looks cool, but I also worry they overburden it with too much going on and it becomes too annoying to play. We'll see.
If she lived in Calgary though, the stink comment would be HI LAR E OUS, since Calgary is under a heavy water reduction ban because a “primary water mane broke” and need to reduce showering, among other usages of water.
my noisy overpriced "gaming" laptop kicked the bucket just a few months after 1yr warranty ended, replaced it with a half price basic one that is quieter and just as good minus the dedicated gfx. wasn't even able to recover a lot of personal files including luas and all that ffxi stuff. if you ever see a windows box in an automatic repair loop, its infuriating.
Man, ngl I am happy for you. Because I understand 100%. I just swapped from an airplane-loud ROG to an HP and it quiet af, I'm a total believer in non-ASUS/MSI/Acer laptops now. There are deals out there. Especially for FFXI :|
It varies, except for acer, they're all garbage.
I personally haven't seen a laptop I liked in years.
I get the sarcasm, but the story is about how Jack becomes Chaos (that's literally how they marketed the game)
..not that you're missing out on much tbh. It's meh. Nojima should stick to FF7 and its endless spin offs
2 weeks ago i had a presenter discussing about a topic he was extremelly good at. So good that he made a joke that most people he talk to says all his teachings were esoteric.
Then i watched his presentation, and kinda got why people said that about him: most of his talks always tried to hint like there was a higher order to everything.
Well, then when i watched that russian teacher class, it was kinda a slap in the former ones face: the russian teacher mentioned humans always had to make up theories to explain the world. But as humans are so limited intellectually, there wasnt much room to ost of thing but using some very simple methods to anything.
And that was the basic of science: observation and composition: you observe things complex, decmpose it in small parts to solve them individully them compose them together to find the explanation.
And thats used to everything. Because its a true human method.
Thats way people can find so many similarities to unrelated things. But there is a vice on it: finding a only explanation to everything makes you think youre finding the true reason of the universe, that youre ascending to a higher lvl of knowledge.
Thats all good and well untill things… starts not comply with it! Thats why people develop quantum theories, because the human methods dont work anymore. All that stuff of decomposing and recomposing…. Dont explain the world!
So, its kinda funny how mislead some may thing they are actually reaching the a higher plane, when in practice hes just rediscovering what people do since they get out of caves
Gamepass is unsustainable, that's a trap to try bring customers back to the brand for future Microsoft consoles.
That's MS's problem, not mine.
Sustainable or not I will use it when I want to cycle through many games quickly. For people just want some quick experience in a game then move on to the next game it is a better way to pay than one time payment for the whole game.
In the past consoles wars were pretty simple (at least for the top 2), every new gen console was a slate wipe. That's not how it is now, now a console has a back catalogue of games that carry over, so PS6 will 100% carry over PS5 and probably even ps4 support. So ps4/5 winning the console war, will guarantee most of the people who owned those will want to get a ps6.
This means, if you can win one generation of console war you effectively create a lead that the competition cannot reach. Microsoft know this so they are trying to counter that with a load of "free games" on gamepass and buying all the developers to force them to bring their games to Xbox (which is a weak machine devs don't want to support), Epic Game Store are doing the same kind of thing by giving free games away.
Corporations only do things for their own benefit though, so if they are losing a ton of money they have a long term strategy to get that money back from people they lock in. They will get you in the end, which is why I never allowed myself to "take advantage" of these too good to be true deals.
It's like Google creating Google Chrome for free, they did that for a reason and that reason is countering adblock in the future and/or getting greater user data for their advertising business. Or Amazon giving free delivery, which they did purely to push the competition out of business, it's not free anymore and there is now nobody else you can buy from as they push up the prices.
If you're getting a deal that appears to be too good to be true, you'll pay for it in some way in the long term. We are very easy to lock into habits, and they know that. Gamepass will slowly get worse and increase in price, but people will put up with it cause they already trained them to think of it as a good deal and worth having.
Gamepass will slowly get worse and increase in price, but people will put up with it cause they already trained them to think of it as a good deal and worth having.
That doesn't matter. If they increase the price to the point that it become cheaper to cycle through games on a different platform or buying with one time fee then I'll use different platform or pay one time fee at that time. If they remain cheap then I'll use whatever the cheapest available.
I don't understand your "lock into habits" talk. It takes 5 min to check the prices on a different platform, compare prices, make decisions and cancel sub based on prices offered on different platforms. Unless Steam, PSN and Nintendo store all disappear(very unlikely in the next 10 years) there's nothing that can lock me on game pass when it comes to paying for video games.
In the worst case most mobile games are free anyways, I can still cycle through games on mobile paying $0 even if steam/PSN/Nintendo all die. The choice to leave game pass always exist.
Steam is also the winning game platform atm, and it is still growing. There are more and more gamers feel consoles aren't worth it . If there will be one platform that dominate all the non-mobile game market, that platform is probably going to be steam.
If that is your line of thinking then you should be avoiding steam, not game pass lol.
If people still choose Amazon, that's because it is cheaper to buy on Amazon than other stores, not because Amazon is the only store available lol.
Back around 2010, Amazon decided to take a hit by selling diapers at cost. They did this to driver diapers.com out of business, and there by gain a larger share of the online diaper market, also to prevent the parent company Quidsi from growing and becoming a threat. They had attempted to convince Quidsi to sell but Quidsi declined so they decided to force the topic.
Amazon allegedly took $200 million in losses to stop the growth of diapers.com
The undercutting worked, Amazon ended up forced the company to sell and later closed the site in 2017.
So yeah they were the cheaper option and then worked to become the only option. After that display of dominance they can set their price to whatever they want it to be, not like you can go anywhere else now. And it would take an idiot to challenge them again after that display.
After that display of dominance they can set their price to whatever they want it to be, not like you can go anywhere else now.
I'm not in the market for diapers but um...what? Can't go anywhere else now?
Target, Walmart, CVS, and a half dozen other companies are willing to sell me diapers and ship them to my house. I have no idea which one has the best price, but I could certainly shop around if I wanted to...
Walmart was apparently involved in the game of chicken, too. They made an offer for diapers.com, and amazon said that if walmart acquired it they would double down on undercutting until walmart had to cut their losses. Target and CVS can't compete on the same level as walmart, so irrelevant.
It's the same business practice walmart uses to force neighborhood markets out. It's the same reason large companies often lobby for greater regulation; it hurts smaller companies more and they stand to make more profit by taking market share than they lose dealing with regulation.
Edit: I'm not so sure how closely this relates to the issues with consoles, but it's absolutely a market issue.
If people still choose Amazon, that's because it is cheaper to buy on Amazon than other stores, not because Amazon is the only store available lol.
Back around 2010, Amazon decided to take a hit by selling diapers at cost. They did this to driver diapers.com out of business, and there by gain a larger share of the online diaper market, also to prevent the parent company Quidsi from growing and becoming a threat. They had attempted to convince Quidsi to sell but they declined so they decided to force the topic.
Amazon allegedly took $200 million in losses to stop the growth of diapers.com
The undercutting worked, Amazon ended up forced the company to sell and later closed the site in 2017.
So yeah they were the cheaper option and then worked to become the only option. After that display of dominance they can set their price to whatever they want it to be, not like you can go anywhere else now. And it would take an idiot to challenge them again after that display.
Classic monopoly capitalism. Not unlike Microsoft in the DOS days. You wouldn't believe the stunts Bill & co used back then.
I'm not trying to say they're competitive on volume, just saying it's odd to call it a monopoly when there are dozens of businesses offering the same product. This is the opposite of a monopoly. If you guys need help finding diapers for sale online I can help you, it's not particularly difficult despite the demise of diapers.com
If you guys need help finding diapers for sale online I can help you
The issue isn't the customer being able to find diapers, the issue is the provider(diapers.com) being forced out of business because their competition was selling at a loss temporarily specifically to run them out of business.
It doesn't have to be a literal monopoly to be bad for the consumer; if new companies are unable to enter the marketplace and other companies are effectively price matching, you have a price floor that isn't representative of a free market.
Suppose a new company finds a way to create diapers 30% cheaper, and sells them 30% cheaper as a result. This is great, that company is profiting off of their innovation and customers are getting a better deal! Everyone wins! Then, amazon drops prices by 35% for 6 months to run them out of business, buys them out, locks the patent, and returns to original price. Whoops, so much for innovation.
If you guys need help finding diapers for sale online I can help you
The issue isn't the customer being able to find diapers, the issue is the provider(diapers.com) being forced out of business because their competition was selling at a loss temporarily specifically to run them out of business.
It doesn't have to be a literal monopoly to be bad for the consumer; if new companies are unable to enter the marketplace and other companies are effectively price matching, you have a price floor that isn't representative of a free market.
Suppose a new company finds a way to create diapers 30% cheaper, and sells them 30% cheaper as a result. This is great, that company is profiting off of their innovation and customers are
getting a better deal! Everyone wins! Then, amazon drops prices by 35% for 6 months to run them out of business, buys them out, locks the patent, and returns to original price. Whoops, so much for innovation.
I find it very hard to relate to the whole diaper example because last time when I wanted to buy a diaper I spent 5 min walked the other side of street from my house and job done. I see no point to buy them online at all. They are literally everywhere in physical stores 5 min walk from my home.
But that's say this theoretical scenario is true, that Amazon undercutting diaper price so much to the point that all the physical store died. As soon as they increase the price to the point that physical store can compete they'll come back easily.
Amazon aren't diaper manufacturer. They are retail platform. They don't have monopoly on diapers because they don't make them. Diaper manufacturer can choose whatever storefront to sell their stuff that sold best.
Then, amazon drops prices by 35% for 6 months to run them out of business, buys them out, locks the patent, and returns to original price. Whoops, so much for innovation.
This is a silly thing to do for Amazon because they are not diapers manufacturer, they are retail. They are hosting storefront for manufacturers. What benefit do they have by killing another manufacturer who makes products that Amazon can sell for more profit?
If Amazon wants to kill another competitor they would be killing Walmart or physical stores, which are also in the same retail industry, not manufacturers who are the one that brought sales for storefront.
Personally I find the whole theorical example of diaper not available everywhere sounds overly negative.
This is a thread that I found on another website I post at. It can be really really interesting. I thought it deserved a place here.
Post your random thoughts for the day here, or anything else that intrigues you.
For starters, is it possible to give constructive critism to someone who doesn't have a neck? I totally just walked by a girl who didn't. Someone isn't getting a necklace for Valentines day!
And who decided black and white can't be colors? I want to say a racist. I really do.
