Nexus Mods owners Chosen have acquired SteamDB from its founders, and say the latter will be "keeping its own name, brand, community, and identity" for now.
Because the masses that use Steamdb to make financial decisions on when to purchase games, the folk looking to save money, are the first to not pay for the research service they depended on. Take a look rn at the upvotes. If 229 people paid a dollar to crowdfund its independence, steamdb wouldn’t have been a financial loss. Yet months of pleading went unanswered, until Black Tree Gaming Ltd. offered to monetize the site. 80~% of the users caused the site to operate at a cost, 20% offered to monetize it as an investment. Black Tree Gaming Ltd. won the bid.
I don’t blame steamdb for choosing to sell it, I blame users for not financing it above costs.
Alright yeah, I agree with all that, but what does that have to do with the users that responded to reports about how game revenues are distributed by accurately associating it with the Pareto principle?
Theoretically even if the donation needs were met, it would be a small percent of users providing the majority of donations. So I don’t really see how acknowledging the existence of the principle changes whether it’s surprising that no one helped out.
Ask them that. I am using them as examples of political inaction. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit of your budget to support something.
Heck I read they are campaigning the politically incorrect way to stop killing games.
it would be a small percent of users providing the majority of donations
🤣 I am glad you’re also applying the principle even now. But you can reapply it to amount people unaware steamdb even exists🤣. Just like you were unaware the pleading was made for months, 80% of the population didn’t know either. We are the 20% knowledgeable base. I’m just part of the .001% that is too politically aware enough not recreate steamdb as a subscription crowdfund.
Okay, now I’m extremely confused. How is being aware of the Pareto principle and mentioning it in situations where it applies “political inaction”? And more to the point, how does referencing it in response to reports about game revenue distribution in any way related to a person’s willingness to donate to steamdb?
Because as of typing, both, !skg@lemmy.dbzer0.com & steamdb community have yet to accomplish their goals.
Political inactions in correct game conservations, inactions in financially stabilizing a community project.
I apologize if my language makes shortcuts in conclusions, I don’t want to be writing essays on how politically ignorance is the prime cause of gamers losing the political battles they set out incorrectly to achieve. It just gives me much dramatic irony to see history repeat itself. I take inspiration from Buddhists, and cope laughing.
But you can reapply it to amount people unaware steamdb even exists🤣. Just like you were unaware the pleading was made for months, 80% of the population didn’t know either. We are the 20% knowledgeable base.
Because the masses that use Steamdb to make financial decisions on when to purchase games, the folk looking to save money, are the first to not pay for the research service they depended on. Take a look rn at the upvotes. If 229 people paid a dollar to crowdfund its independence, steamdb wouldn’t have been a financial loss. Yet months of pleading went unanswered, until Black Tree Gaming Ltd. offered to monetize the site. 80~% of the users caused the site to operate at a cost, 20% offered to monetize it as an investment. Black Tree Gaming Ltd. won the bid. I don’t blame steamdb for choosing to sell it, I blame users for not financing it above costs.
In piefed, you can see my reaction.
Alright yeah, I agree with all that, but what does that have to do with the users that responded to reports about how game revenues are distributed by accurately associating it with the Pareto principle?
Theoretically even if the donation needs were met, it would be a small percent of users providing the majority of donations. So I don’t really see how acknowledging the existence of the principle changes whether it’s surprising that no one helped out.
Ask them that. I am using them as examples of political inaction. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit of your budget to support something.
Heck I read they are campaigning the politically incorrect way to stop killing games.
🤣 I am glad you’re also applying the principle even now. But you can reapply it to amount people unaware steamdb even exists🤣. Just like you were unaware the pleading was made for months, 80% of the population didn’t know either. We are the 20% knowledgeable base. I’m just part of the .001% that is too politically aware enough not recreate steamdb as a subscription crowdfund.
Plus, I hate capitalists.
Okay, now I’m extremely confused. How is being aware of the Pareto principle and mentioning it in situations where it applies “political inaction”? And more to the point, how does referencing it in response to reports about game revenue distribution in any way related to a person’s willingness to donate to steamdb?
Because as of typing, both, !skg@lemmy.dbzer0.com & steamdb community have yet to accomplish their goals.
Political inactions in correct game conservations, inactions in financially stabilizing a community project.
I apologize if my language makes shortcuts in conclusions, I don’t want to be writing essays on how politically ignorance is the prime cause of gamers losing the political battles they set out incorrectly to achieve. It just gives me much dramatic irony to see history repeat itself. I take inspiration from Buddhists, and cope laughing.
Yeah, sure, gamers are politically ignorant and fail to achieve their goals.
But what does any of this have to do with the Pareto principle?
I just said how: