Lord forbid they get the password used to protect the data that they stole!

Right, by design. But when your are talking about the phenomenon casually, because the purpose and result is the same, shrinkflation seems to suffice. Are you asking for the name of the phenomena in the context of a detailed study? For that i am not sure it has a term it’s own.

Its still referred to as shrinkflation as i have seen it used. Putting filler material is just hiding the shrinkage, but the motivators and the result is the same

I would say it’s worse than that. Like knowing that you are selling exp boosters changes the calculus on how exp is earned. If the game played smoothly, there would be no need to sell the boosters and creating the eco system to support it would have been wasted. A system where certain items are nft based would push for these items to be better then the non nft items both for expectation of value, and to raise the trade value to siphon from. This already happens with games with dlc cosmetics. The gear in the games looks increasingly shit compared to the DLC. And that is a natural consequence of polluting the game space.

But why honor other companies tokens? Hell why honor your old tokens? You make the effort to create assets in your new game, are you going to just give it to a limited number of players who play both game for free, or resell it to all players? If you buy an nft for a game that then gets ignored, was it any different then a DLC, or using the steam market place to trade the item? After all i have read i don’t see where this helps players at all, and for companies, the only benefit i can see is if they pump and dump their players.

Mine is biking, it was very hot for a few weeks, and so i stopped, but now that it’s getting to be the fall and perfect biking weather… i can’t. They found a cyst aggressively growing inside my jaw and i have lost 1/3 of my jaw bone mass. The surgeon installed a marsupialization and said it will take me 10 months to grow the bone back…assuming it even can. In the mean time, the surgeon is afraid of me even eating chicken, let alone doing anything that could have me fall.

Damn, i only just learned how to close the darn thing! Didn’t know the rabbit hole goes so deep.

If it’s early? One.

So for me, for larger things, i use Amazon to find which products i want and i hunt down the website of the store that makes it. For small stuff, or things that may be from a smaller site, or over seas i order on Amazon. I am sure the smaller sites need the boost even more, but Amazon gives me the extra layer of guarantee of satisfaction.

So what YouTube is now. But there will be a higher bar for entry. I said as much. I fully expect groups to form and would welcome them. And the hash tag system would allow greater means of finding content that people want to actually watch, and still allowing these content farms to operate.

But this is a discussion about possible YouTube replacement, and realistically i don’t see another company that could handle the infinite demands of free on demand video streaming that we would have been as our new masters. I took inspiration from the Fediverse in this regard. The FOSS collaboration may be able to stream line the hows and specifications expected to have creatives connect their content to the collective.

I would have the non live chat be built to resemble a forum more then the type used by YouTube now. Like with topic headers, and newer content floating recently discussed topics to the top. I have issues with YouTube chat being impossible to navigate or follow what anyone is talking about and who they are replying to, and i never know if anyone replys to me. So a more structured chat appeals to me…

I would also like to see if we can’t have embed 2 videos on the same page. So let’s say react videos. What if the reactor can que and control another video from the viewer. If you ever did a watchtogether it’s like that, but the reactors manipulation of the video is recorded like a Doom demo so it’s light weight, accurate, and most importantly of all… both creators get full credit for the views. No need to sue over copyright, a like button will be available for both videos. A juggernaut of a creator finding and reacting to another video will IMMEDIATELY have beneficial effects for the smaller creator. Colabs, head to head streams can share a chat. Weird art house effects can be used, ARGs made. On and on.

For the algorithm,i would recommend using a hash tag system (i know they are not called hash tags but I’m in a stream of consciousness here) give creators the freedom to label hashtags to their content. Though to avoid gaming them, the value of views/upvotes is divided equally amongst all the tags, so if you put #hollow_knight as your only tag, you get more weight on a smaller net. Or if you act like an Amazon reseller and dump every single hash tag on you video to throw the widest net, you get a more shallow weight in each tag. I would count views AND like for this. Likes would be weighted more due to needing engagement. I probably would recommend not having down votes weighted either way, but obviously shown. And subscribing just guarantees the viewer gets notified at the top of the page.

So i put more thought into this… assuming this was how a youtube competitor turned out. The negatives would begin to force certain human behaviors to mitigate risk. You would see guilds/channels form. This covers the weakness of the Wild West. Groups can bargain with more leverage from sponcers and demand more money in exchange for more consistency, these guilds/channels can also hire a lawyer on retainer if large enough to handle litigious tasks, and advise its members though copyright dangers. If it when it goes to court they can handle hiring of additional representation. The guild/channel would have say as to who they admit to the group, so they can expel risky members. But like joining an HOA creatives will have to adhere to the channels rules. But without a monolith controlling everything, you could find a guild/channel that has terms you agree with. This would bring a lot of the status quo youtube brings, but with everyone’s goals more aligned

Ok so first let’s go over what YouTube provides: Storage, community tools, search algorithm, add sense, authority over copyright, front end.

Realistically you could probably cover the front end, search algorithm, and community tools with FOSS collaboration.

Everything else gets harder.

For storage, the VAST swaths of data, and forever growing nature of YouTube storage nearly guarantee its market dominance alone… if they can contain that infinitely growing monster forever. Its their greatest strength and can also be its Achilles heel. I would propose that video hosting would be covered by the creatives. This change creates a ripple effect that effect all the other challenges, but immediately raises the bar for entry, and with the exception of the highest earning creators, videos would have to be cycled out when their earning capability falls below cost to host. But! This has good sides, like the best videos would linger and bad videos would fall off increasing the quality of what remains. Creatives would have more control over their videos. You could also have a system that rotates videos between a cold storage and live videos, where cold storage would use a torrent like system vs the streaming of a live system, which would allow cheap storage of low earning videos to still have them available for those who could wait.

Copyright, so with the creatives holding the keys to the content, this new youtube would only facilitate the connection and front end, but would not regulate it. So copyright claims would have to be handled by the creatives. This is a sharp as hell double edged sword! You won’t be copyright trolled as successfully any more BUT your odds of ending up in court could be higher as there is no way to appease the record labels and what have you so readily. There would also not be a method to scan the videos to easily find other people who are stealing YOUR content either. And you would have to deal with the person stealing your content directly.

And ad sense. Without a unifying front to bargain with advertisers, it will be like the Wild West. Most advertisers don’t have assurances of enforced standards and will be very timid to employ this new system. They would all have to vett creatives separately, and it would work allot like Sponcers do now, but ultimately i think it would be a boon, but for a wile the money won’t be there.

I got mine from MIRA. Though now i am getting their end of the world news letter…

Yes there is. Because it gives the games companies the ability to sell however they like. What to make the game sellable privately? No problem. What to sell an apple version, go for it.

So what part of the open market covers preventing the consumers from being able to choose which launcher they prefer, if any? Valve didn’t do that. EGS did. You should blame the competitors for failing to meet market standards

When you are upset at Valve for not doing for apple what they did for Linux, who you are really mad at is Apple for having terrible… everything, and game developers who don’t want to put the needed effort in for such a modest return.

You are upset at everyone BUT Valve. Or at least you should be.

Its the “if you build it they will come” type of scenario. I want to switch to Linux really badly, but my driver is for gaming, i don’t want to adopt a pet project of getting my games to run in the first place.

Though i know valves interest in Linux is not completely motivated in philanthropy. They want to be able to separate from the dependence of Microsoft, for the safety of their businesses future. But so far our interests align

I am not aware of any stream agreement with game developers that prevents them from releasing their game using any other method. Your argument about streams “” monopoly “” is 100% due to market forces working as advertised. They offer a service that no other company either can or will match. And that is not the fault of steam and was not achieved by illegal means. There’s dissent even need to be a launcher at all! Game companies can just sell us the game alone without a launcher. What other companies want is market dominance, not a fair market place. Because the fair market place gave steam the current win

What it does make invalid is the argument that valve is enshitifying because they don’t cater to apple users. You can put that blame on apple all day. Valve? Not at all. Its a huge waste of time, and all efforts tword Linux advancement is much better spent.