marvlouslie
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2021
Complaining sure wouldn't lead to another crash, but not buying shit products sure would. This is just them lashing out because no one's buying their bullshit anymore. Pay it no mind.
Sweet Baby Inc. and the Steam Curator Group Conspiracy - The company that is responsible for the diarrheic video game writing.
- Thread starter PHILLIP BANKS
- Start date
Complaining sure wouldn't lead to another crash, but not buying shit products sure would. This is just them lashing out because no one's buying their bullshit anymore. Pay it no mind.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2019
Funny thing is, that game didn't end up having legs at all. It was discounted all the way down to half price before two weeks had even elapsed, so if you preordered it and hadn't played it for two hours, you could refund/rebuy it for half price. I don't even think I've heard a single thing about it since it was new, and its been out for around six and a half years now.
Its legacy was two half-games, one VR, released on the same day five years ago. They were both very poorly reviewed, even worse than Wolfenstein II. That's it. I haven't heard any new announcements since then. I guess they went woke, went broke, and killed the franchise.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
In my opinion, it's because of (erroneous and plainly wrong) mainstream economic thought which puts consumer demand as the driving force behind the structure of production
Complaining -> less consumer demand -> fewer sales -> crash
Without econsperging too much, as plausible as this seems at first glance, this does not logically hold, and savings and investments are the crucial driving factor behind keeping an industry alive, not consumer expenditure
A relatively simple example straight from literature to make my point a bit more insightful
Imagine there is a product that sells for 100 USD. To produce this product, a capitalist of the first order expended 80 USD on capital goods and 15 USD on labor and land.
However, said capital goods are not "original" factors, they need to be produced in another production process. Assume the capitalist of the second order expended 60 USD on capital goods and 16 USD on labor for the production of the second order capital good.
Now trace this back and you might end up with a production structure that looks like this:
(the text in blue denotes USD income to land and labor, the other text denotes USD income to owners of capital goods)
In this example, a consumer expenditure of 100 USD is broken down into a total of 17 USD interest income to capitalists and 83 USD income to land and labor.
For instance, in the 2nd row from the top, a capitalist purchases a capital good for 20 USD (which has been produced for 19 USD which went to labor and land factor owners), alongside 8 more USD for land and labor, to produce a capital good which he sells to the next capitalist for 30 USD.
Capitalists of the first order pay 95 USD, of which 15 USD goes to land and labor owners, and 80 USD to capitalists of the second order.
Capitalists of the second order pay 76 USD, of which 16 USD goes to land and labor owners, and 60 USD to capitalists of the third order.
C of the 3rd order pay 57 USD, 12 USD land and labor, 45 USD to C of the 4th order
C4 . . . 43 USD -> 13 USD land and labor, 30 USD C5
C5 . . . 28 USD -> 8 USD land and labor, 20 USD C6
C6 . . . 19 USD -> 19 USD land and labor
A total of 318 USD was expended by capitalists, of which 83 USD went to land and labor owners (and this is net income) and 235 USD went to capitalists
The net incomes of the production good capitalists are as follows:
C2 . . . 80 - 76 = 4 USD
C3 . . . 60 - 57 = 3 USD
C4 . . . 45 - 43 = 2 USD
C5 . . . 30 - 28 = 2 USD
C6 . . . 20 - 19 = 1 USD
And the net income of the consumer good capitalists is 100 - 95 = 5 USD.
Total capitalist net income is 17 USD.
Now here's the decisive point.
It is supremely tempting to write off the various transactions among the capitalists as "duplications" and just consider net incomes.
If that is done here, the total net income is as follows:
17 USD to the capitalists (12 USD for capital-good capitalists and 5 USD for consumer-good capitalists)
83 USD to land and labor factors.
The grand total net income is 100 USD, which is exactly equal to the total consumer spending in this case.
If you use net incomes and net savings, you come to believe that the really important element in maintaining the production structure is consumer spending.
In this example, the various factors and capitalists receive their net income and plow it back into consumption, thus maintaining the productive structure and future standards of living, i.e. the output of consumer goods.
The inference is clear, capitalists' savings (from which investments are derived) are necessary to increase and deepen the capital structure, but even without any such savings, consumption expenditure alone is sufficient to keep the productive capital structure intact.
However, this is tragically wrong.
There is no simple automatism in capitalists' spending.
Because production is divided into stages, it is not true that consumption spending is sufficient to maintain the capital structure.
If you look at the example and consider it to be the entire economy, you come to the conclusion that there is 100 USD in net income and 100 USD in total consumer spending, meaning there is 0 net savings.
However, you must resist the temptation to just "cancel out" intercapitalist transactions, instead you must consider all the decisions that result in the supply of present goods on the market.
These decisions are aggregated, and not canceled.
The total savings in this example are not 0, but the aggregation of all the present goods that are supplied to owners of future goods during the production process.
In other words, the sum of the advance payments (supplies) made by C1, C2, C3, ... C6, which equals 318 USD.
That is the total gross savings and also total gross investment.
The total expenditures on production are thus 100 (consumption) + 318 (investment == savings) = 418 USD.
The total gross income from production equals the gross income of consumer-good capitalists (100 USD) + the gross income of other capitalists (235 USD) + the gross income of owners of land and labor (83 USD) which equals 418 USD.
If you look at it this way, the example is an economy in which 418 USD are earned in gross income, 100 USD are spent on consumption, and 318 USD are saved and invested in a certain order in the production structure.
Instead of 0 savings being needed to maintain capital and the production structure intact, we see that a BIG proportion of savings and investment (in this example, more than 3x of what's spent in consumption) is necessary simply to keep the production structure intact.
The popular net income theorists implicitly assume that the only important decisions in regard to consuming vs. saving/investing are made out of people's net income.
Since the net income of capitalists is relatively small, they allegedly play only a minor role in maintaining capital.
However, what maintains capital is gross expenditures and gross investment, not net investment.
Imagine there is a product that sells for 100 USD. To produce this product, a capitalist of the first order expended 80 USD on capital goods and 15 USD on labor and land.
However, said capital goods are not "original" factors, they need to be produced in another production process. Assume the capitalist of the second order expended 60 USD on capital goods and 16 USD on labor for the production of the second order capital good.
Now trace this back and you might end up with a production structure that looks like this:
(the text in blue denotes USD income to land and labor, the other text denotes USD income to owners of capital goods)
| 19 | |||||
| <- 20 -> | 8 | ||||
| <- | 30 -> | 13 | |||
| <- | --- | 45 -> | 12 | ||
| <- | --- | --- | 60 -> | 16 | |
| <- | --- | --- | --- | 80 -> | 15 |
For instance, in the 2nd row from the top, a capitalist purchases a capital good for 20 USD (which has been produced for 19 USD which went to labor and land factor owners), alongside 8 more USD for land and labor, to produce a capital good which he sells to the next capitalist for 30 USD.
Capitalists of the first order pay 95 USD, of which 15 USD goes to land and labor owners, and 80 USD to capitalists of the second order.
Capitalists of the second order pay 76 USD, of which 16 USD goes to land and labor owners, and 60 USD to capitalists of the third order.
C of the 3rd order pay 57 USD, 12 USD land and labor, 45 USD to C of the 4th order
C4 . . . 43 USD -> 13 USD land and labor, 30 USD C5
C5 . . . 28 USD -> 8 USD land and labor, 20 USD C6
C6 . . . 19 USD -> 19 USD land and labor
A total of 318 USD was expended by capitalists, of which 83 USD went to land and labor owners (and this is net income) and 235 USD went to capitalists
The net incomes of the production good capitalists are as follows:
C2 . . . 80 - 76 = 4 USD
C3 . . . 60 - 57 = 3 USD
C4 . . . 45 - 43 = 2 USD
C5 . . . 30 - 28 = 2 USD
C6 . . . 20 - 19 = 1 USD
And the net income of the consumer good capitalists is 100 - 95 = 5 USD.
Total capitalist net income is 17 USD.
Now here's the decisive point.
It is supremely tempting to write off the various transactions among the capitalists as "duplications" and just consider net incomes.
If that is done here, the total net income is as follows:
17 USD to the capitalists (12 USD for capital-good capitalists and 5 USD for consumer-good capitalists)
83 USD to land and labor factors.
The grand total net income is 100 USD, which is exactly equal to the total consumer spending in this case.
If you use net incomes and net savings, you come to believe that the really important element in maintaining the production structure is consumer spending.
In this example, the various factors and capitalists receive their net income and plow it back into consumption, thus maintaining the productive structure and future standards of living, i.e. the output of consumer goods.
The inference is clear, capitalists' savings (from which investments are derived) are necessary to increase and deepen the capital structure, but even without any such savings, consumption expenditure alone is sufficient to keep the productive capital structure intact.
However, this is tragically wrong.
There is no simple automatism in capitalists' spending.
Because production is divided into stages, it is not true that consumption spending is sufficient to maintain the capital structure.
If you look at the example and consider it to be the entire economy, you come to the conclusion that there is 100 USD in net income and 100 USD in total consumer spending, meaning there is 0 net savings.
However, you must resist the temptation to just "cancel out" intercapitalist transactions, instead you must consider all the decisions that result in the supply of present goods on the market.
These decisions are aggregated, and not canceled.
The total savings in this example are not 0, but the aggregation of all the present goods that are supplied to owners of future goods during the production process.
In other words, the sum of the advance payments (supplies) made by C1, C2, C3, ... C6, which equals 318 USD.
That is the total gross savings and also total gross investment.
The total expenditures on production are thus 100 (consumption) + 318 (investment == savings) = 418 USD.
The total gross income from production equals the gross income of consumer-good capitalists (100 USD) + the gross income of other capitalists (235 USD) + the gross income of owners of land and labor (83 USD) which equals 418 USD.
If you look at it this way, the example is an economy in which 418 USD are earned in gross income, 100 USD are spent on consumption, and 318 USD are saved and invested in a certain order in the production structure.
Instead of 0 savings being needed to maintain capital and the production structure intact, we see that a BIG proportion of savings and investment (in this example, more than 3x of what's spent in consumption) is necessary simply to keep the production structure intact.
The popular net income theorists implicitly assume that the only important decisions in regard to consuming vs. saving/investing are made out of people's net income.
Since the net income of capitalists is relatively small, they allegedly play only a minor role in maintaining capital.
However, what maintains capital is gross expenditures and gross investment, not net investment.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
Strat-edgy gave his thoughts on Sweet Baby. Basic gist of the argument is that video games are bad now because of brain drain and that the people pushing Sweet Baby and other consultation firms don't actually believe in the things they say or do because they're motivated by money. Edit: I'll just add in his rebukes to other people.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Why do they think anyone cares?
"We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn. Burn motherfucker burn!"
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2022
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
I'm very aware, I think I'd be a great candidate.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2015
Swedish Pc Gamer was always better than SuperPlay.
But this most have been over 15 years ago or so with the dvd thingy.
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
20 years ago even... DoA:BV was released 2003. Damn i feel old, but that and that lady (Lovisa?) that always stated feminism was her main interest (while others tagged recent games and niched hobbies) who always complained about Tomb Raider were the first signs of trouble for me, the "shame on you for having male interests" schtick. Will go through my old collection of SuperPlay some day and make menatl notes, since i remember vividly how Lovisa always tried to promote feminism in said gaming magazine.
Douglas Mortimer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I nearly forgot how terrible Strat-edgy is
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
The japs need to tard-wrangle their american branch HARD... basically pull a Miyamoto when he prevented the 1st mario movie from becoming a pile of shit.
Either tell them to cut the crap, or just cut the tumor out of Nintendo as a whole. Between this and the many examples of Treehouse fucking up, NOA can't be trusted to do anything right anymore regarding localizations.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
It's funny nobody's been able to dethrone those games yet. So much for these "amazing developers" that "no one was hiring".
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2018
Honestly it had some real shite in it and overall didn't like it. It wasn't captain Marvel levels of western lunacy, but it was still mildly annoying.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2022
I couldn't believe it when I went to a convention in HK, and these girls walked out.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
Explains why everything from Zelda to Pokemon to fucking Pikmin 4 of all things has new Shitskins walking around. Yar Har fiddle dee dee Nintendo, being a Pirate is alright with me. China will set Japan straight in a generation, once Americanda and its globohomo is removed from the shores of Nippon.
Carpenter Trout
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
"But this may lead to the videogame crash"
GOOD. We don't, and won't ever need, Live-Service/GaaS or Streaming (as in google stadia) in games.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
Honestly what he's talking about seems a lot more important than tormenting retards at Kotaku, wish the guy the best of luck.
Tormenting Kotaku is a lot more fun though.
Carpenter Trout
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2019
What he is talking is also one of the fundaments of the "Gamergate 2", journalists will cover publishers and publish their lies while consumers will always be threated like cattle, as he shows a Ubi's CEO's lunatic statement being published on kotaku which was basically a propagandistic article.
The consumers' rights have been denied for years now and nobody will bat an eye, yet people go up in arms if someone says "nigger" on a videogame's chat.
And this isn't even a generational thing, I've noticed some zoomers being pissed off at this too, as well as some retarded detractors from the Gen X and prior, talking like they were born yesterday (it's inexcusable when millennials and zoomers do that too, I'm just highlighting the nonsense, as it reminds me of something akin to Jewish Kapo in the concentration camps, which would be laughable if it wasn't so bullshit).
I also, want to highlight what GuruLarry (and some other people) have said:
Larry said:
anyways, you should probably visit the website about this issue: https://www.stopkillinggames.com
Battlefield 2 and 2142 official/EA's servers are long gone, yet people are able to keep playing it due to the work of users that don't have access to the source code. imagine what they could do if these retards started releasing the source code with the EOL patch.
Last edited: