That FMV stuff looks pretty cheesy in spots, but I'm actually kind of into it. It just makes me wonder how many of those could they realistically have? And how the transitions into the band disapproving of you actually works. It seems seamless here, but of course it would.
It has to do with the FPS-style red tinge. You'll notice when the player does poorly enough the entire screen blurs red and that's when it switches to the other video track of pissed people. Once you do good enough, the screen blurs white and the video switches back.
The sad thing I see about all this is that people talk about GB as if it needs to be a specific thing or change to be something else. Giant Bomb doesn't need to be everything to everyone and that's OK! It's a small site that caters to a specific audience and that is one of the reasons why it is so successful.
Re: Jeff and the sites opinion, Jeff has spoken out many times about how people should be good on the internet. There is no doubting that he doesn't approve of harassment and death threats.
@turambar: As cool as your USA Today article is, it's not at all relevant to this discussion. That article discusses the deflation of goods that are tangible assets. Steam games are neither of those things and so the normal economic rules don't apply.
Steam games are worthless as assets. It doesn't matter whether you paid $50 or $5, once the game is in your library, it's worth the exact same amount, which is $0.00. For this reason, the only value it has is the amount of consumer surplus(the enjoyment you get from having it) you get from it. Based on this, the lower the game is priced, always the better, because more people will buy it, and more total surplus will be had in the economy.
Steam games are also intangible. For each game that Mr. Rohrer sells on steam, his marginal cost is exactly 0(since Steam pays for the bandwidth). Therefore he can theoretically produce and sell an infinite amount of the product since it costs nothing to produce(I'm not counting any contracts he's made to profit share since those are certainly percentage shares and therefore not applicable to this argument). So economically speaking, the world will best be served should he sell his product for as little as possible, generating the maximum amount of total surplus.
Leave it to Patrick Klepek to make this story about himself. Holy crap.
It's not really though. He's examining Fish's reaction to assholes on the internet through his own experience because, like he said, they're both public figures and they've both had some hate slung at them.
Basically, "This is what it's like when the internet is mean to you, here's how Phil handled it, here's why and why I can relate."
So, what is he supposed to pretend he has no connection to this sort of thing? His job and the things that have happened while he has done his job give us deeper insight to a situation, how does him mentioning he has had similar experiences make it all about him seriously? This article would have been a paragraph long without Patrick making into I don't know into something more interesting to read than "Beer Dumps on Fish, Fish Drunk on Rage, Cancels Fez 2" The End yay great read....
Sad assholes looking for a reason to be assholes. Sadly, it's nothing new.
I'm the asshole for pointing out something I don't like about the site that I pay money to use? I'm simply reacting to what I perceive as Mr. Klepek's unprofessional writing habits, of which this is not the first time. Just because some of us have problems with Patrick's writing doesn't make us assholes necessarily. I wish Patrick didn't piss me off with many of his articles, really! I would love to like him(in fact he was one of my favorites at first). Unfortunately he keeps giving me so many reasons not to! When Patrick writes a piece I enjoy, I will complement him on it, just as I do the other duders. The problem is, this very rarely happens!
Log in to comment