Isn’t that an issue with the developers of those games? Steam is ultimately just a game library. If the book you check out of that library is only readable on Kindle that’s not on Steam lol

Production, most likely

I did. They reported $31.5 Billion in revenue for 2023.

Im not finding any concrete report on their expenses, but I did find some best guesses as speculated by users. This reddit thread from 7 years ago, is estimating about $2 billion in expenses.

Let’s assume that since this was 7 years ago things have gotten drastically more expensive for YouTube, and throw an additional buffer on top of that since we can’t be 100% sure. Let’s pentuple their proposed operating costs, and, hell, let’s also be VERY generous and say that they keep a work force of 5,000 people who each make… Let’s say $120,000/yr?

That would come out to about $10.6 billion/yr in business expenses. Even if you factor in the payments to top earning YouTubers, those only measure in the 10s of millions… Okay… Let’s be reeeeal generous to YouTube here and assume that this guy from r/theydidthemath 7 years ago was WAY off. Let’s assume he was off by half of YouTubers actual expenses. Following our (absolutely ludicrous) estimates of their expenses going up by a factor of 5 and their 5,000 employees averaging out to $120,000/yr salaries; YouTube would still be reporting under $21 billion a year in expenses. That means they are net profit $10 billion a year even with the insanely expensive operating costs we assigned them here.

$10 billion. Let me put that into perspective. 10 million seconds is about 115 days. So 10 million seconds in the past was just about the new Year. 10 billion seconds however was 317 years ago.

This idea that YouTube isn’t profitable is equal parts ridiculous and hilarious. I just sat here for 15 minutes waxing accountant at you, but none of that was even necessary. YouTube is a business (technically it’s Google but you get the point), if it wasn’t profitable, it wouldn’t exist. Period.

1. Old series that has a decent following of mostly niche dedicated fans is left to sit without a new installment for many years.

2. New title is announced. It’s sells gang-busters and flips the community on its head.

3. Corporate Executives prioritize short term profits and begin planning a quick and easy cash grab. !

4. Second new installment comes out. It is a shell of the previous title with the soul sucked clean out.

5. Fans are dissapointed and outside of a small niche following the game series falls into obscurity.

6. Repeat.

! we are here right now

Look… Maybe BG4 will be good. But after watching this exact cycle play out over and over again for the past decade I’m not sure how you can expect anything else.

Don’t… Don’t give me hope…

Can you though? Like the rules as presented in the books are just:

Snitch caught > get 1000pts > game ends

The only other way to get points is in intervals of what? 10? 25 maybe? Let’s assume it’s 25 because I can’t remember. That means you need to be up 40 fucking goals in order to tie if the other team gets the snitch. And that’s assuming your entire team doesn’t die from exhaustion seeing as the game doesn’t end until the snitch is caught lol

This is… A weird spread of awards…

Like BG3 winning GOTY and story rich makes total sense.

But RDR2 won labor of love? What? Lol. Have they been putting out massive updates lately or something?

Atomic heart won visual style… Sure? I mean I guess it’s atmospheric but I wouldn’t call it particularly stylized.

Lethal company getting better with friends is a solid pick

Hogwarts Legacy is best on deck? The fuck? Lol I suppose i haven’t played this one but I was under the impression the game was like… Fine? Kinda boring after a while but still playable? It’s not horribly offensive but how does a game like that win an award for being the most beloved steam deck game lol

STARFIELD WON FUCKING WHAT??? Okay, I was not as big a starfield hater as some. I thought it was boring as shit for sure but I don’t think it’s completely without merit on the whole… But Innovative? Fucking LOL! Starfield innovated exactly 0 things, hell it retroactively made things from 2011 seem new by comparison. I don’t think theres a single fresh idea in that entire game. Starfield winning most innovative game paints a very uncomfortable picture of the steam awards. There is CLEAR tampering going on here, either by bots vote spamming, or just a behind the curtain dealings with Bethesda. To be honest every single other award here feels tenuous at best just by Starfield winning that specific award. If that boring ass rehash of 2007 gameplay can be called the most innovative game on steam then I’m not sure I can trust any of these games actually got nominated by real players for any of their respective awards. What a fucking joke

Counterpoint: Warzone.

Did you even read my initial comment?

I explicitly said that I have never been let down by a GTA campaign. What I was saying was that RDR2 is a different series that plays by different rules. For that reason I don’t feel like it’s necessarily fair to use RDR2 as an example of how they will treat GTA with the respect the series deserves.

I agree. It’s just that this is the same series… Idk maybe it will kick ass, I’m just overly cynical I guess lol

Knowing Rockstar put off development of this game for as long as they did just so they could milk GTAO for every last penny makes me hesitant at best.

I have never been let down by a GTA campaign, but they know where the money is, I’m hesitant to believe they will give this one the attention it deserves after seeing the profits from GTAO. Or maybe I’m just pessimistic

Could you cite that law for me? Because last I checked there is no such law forcing Isreal to shoot back, school or otherwise.

Intentionally bombing civilians is a war crime. I don’t care how many of your “intended targets” you think you’re getting. If you are bombing civilian centers, like, oh let’s say a hospital for instance, then you are a war criminal, Full stop. There is nothing forcing Isreal to do that.

More likely a proud deviant first and foremost with like a 1 level dip into cinnamon role to get the “Parental Respect” feat. It’s Pretty busted in the middle levels when you need a loan to put a down payment on a castle.

Coward. Boot up huniepop and send your most introverted friend a game invite

I mean yeah but the point is that technological advancement was still a common occurance. Like, yeah a sensationalized article about self driving cars would blow some minds but to most i think it wouldn’t really make any bigger waves then basic cars already were at the time. How can they be blown away by the concept of self driving when the vehicle itself is so new and interesting you know? AI is so abstract that even today most people don’t understand it, 100 years ago it’d just be “another new thing” just like it is today… We are actually less accustomed to ground shaking new inventions so I’d argue that 100 years ago a lot of our modern tech would be less exciting given the regularity in which things were changing then.

Social upheaval however is ALWAYS a huge deal, especially for the time. Bear in mind that Progressivism is a fairly new ideology in the States. For literally hundreds of years social change came at a snails pace and took serious, concerted effort. Nowadays we are on average much more open to change and accepting of diversity in all it’s forms, but there’s a reason everyone remembers the name Martin Luther King Jr., versus… Ruth Bader Ginsburg I guess?

Gallows humor really does hit different when your 2 hours into doom scrolling lol

Someone who relates to employers as though they were benevolent would be incorrect in the case against unions though? Unions have shown to be nearly universally beneficial to the workers that participate in them. That is not my opinion. That is verifiable fact.

If a company was strictly benevolent as you’ve claimed then why contest the union? Why negotiate terms at all? Just hear what the employees en mass want and sign your name on the dotted line. The fact that this does not happen, and we constantly see company’s hire law firms to bust the unions or otherwise drag their feet to apply changes to company structure upon reaching a compromise is objectively evidence that the company is not benevolent.

If unions didn’t work then there would not be unions.

Are you trying to say that these videos work because most people do not know the truth?

If that’s your point then I agree. But it sounds kinda like you’re implying that everyone already knows unions are good and for that reason we should stop saying that they are. Which is patently false.

I have this exact same thing! My dentist reccomended it to me because I drink way too much coffee, which apparently causes like yellow orange film to form on your tongue

To be fair I feel like college is way less about teaching you anything specific and way more about teaching you critical thinking and abstract conceptualization.

Like I didn’t learn jack shit from my “American economical development in the 14th century” class but I did genuinely get good at telling good sources from bad ones while writing essays, and that IS a skill that has uses in life