noble_yorik

My situation is the same as ara313, when I go to run live streams or giantbomb.tv the viewing window is black with no prompts although the normal videos run fine. This happens when I run goggle chrome Version 68.0.3440.106 on the pc.

I realized the reason for my problem as soon as i finished posting. For some reason, probably due to a chrome update, the adobe plugin for chrome changed its default setting to block all videos and ask for permission to play. I guess for some reason the request to load videos message does not pop for GB.

The fix is easy, go to the GB home page and click on the image of the green lock icon before the url then change the settings for flash and popups to always be allowed for the site.

I am now running into this issue as of two days ago. I did not have any problems before then other than some periodic buffering issues. I am currently running windows 8 using chrome as my browser (though I did try to running the videos through internet explorer and experienced the same issue)

So at the moment every video I try to run on GB either says "Loading Video" or shows no play icon/message at all.

Not sure what is causing the issue, I have not made any changes to my pc lately, and I can still play the same videos in question when I pull them up on Utube

That's true Spencer in that in that specific situation guilt can negatively play into the owner of the gift's personal investment into the product, but it does not negate the process of the owner investing the item with personal worth. The process in which the individual has received the product simply plays into the factor of circumstance, but if the circumstances revolving around the item were to evolve and if the owner were to invest time into the gift then it's personal value to him can increase.

While it is true that paying a higher cost for a product leads to a higher expectation and in turn can lead to a low level of anxiety when gauging whether the product has met those expectations, I would propose that there can also be a higher level of gratification in the purchasing of said product. A form of justification such as "This is expensive, but I work hard and I deserve this". In this way the act of making the purchase can be a release of sorts, a way of releasing oneself from personal feelings of financial misappropriation and granting self gratification.
 
However, once again the subject of monetary cost has become the primary focus when it seems to me that in the subject of personal worth it should be a secondary consideration. As you sixghost pointed out " in 5 years if I have 2 watches that are identical in every way except what I paid for them, I'll have no preference either way". After the initial investment has been laid money moves from the realm of the concrete to the abstract, in relation to the product in question it only serves as a mechanism toward helping the end user to establish personal worth (and in that way a bond with the product) in combination with other factors such as circumstance and the investment of time.
For example, in the analogy of the two watches lets say that while it is true that both watches initially cost the same in terms of price. However, lets suppose that watch B stopped working as the result of a car accident that you were in and that after you had spend time to recover from the accident you spend a week getting watch B fixed as a way to move on from the accident and get your life back on track. Now the situation has changed, due to the effects of circumstance and its motivation in the investment of time you have now invested personal worth into the watch. At the end of the five year period one would imagine that watch B would hold more value to you.  Monetary cost become irrelevant (in terms of the establishment of personal worth) after it has served its purpose in shaping the end-users perception of value and gauging their level of personal investment into a product.
 
In regards to Portal, I was just wondering if my associated level of personal worth would have been significantly different had I initially paid a monetary cost. Remember that the level or existence of a monetary cost is not necessary in the establishment of personal worth, but it can serve as a stepping stone given its association with one's perception of value and in its role in establishing a personal investment. Not having had that stepping stone my investment into portal was derived solely from circumstance and investment of time. In regards to circumstance I played through the entirely of Portal in one sitting while taking a break from a couple of other games. So circumstance served to neither add or detract from personal worth. In regards to time, Portal is a short game so not much was invested (though I do plan to go back through and hear the commentary). 
 
So that's pretty much it, in hindsight I found myself idly wondering if my experiance would have been differant had I originally paid for the game. Although as I had mentioned earlier in the postings I would have made the same choice had I to make them again (its kind of illogical to pay more for something if you don't have to). But I thought that exploring the topic would be fun, so here we are.

DrRandle, your question was indeed a little scatter-shot but you bring another important factor to light... perceived value. In fact that was the reason for the original analogy involving the three watches. In the analogy the three men obtain the same watch but their level of perceived value is different based on what they believe the market price of the watch to be. The difference in price also effects their level of personal investment and their investment of personal worth into the watches. So it is a combination of both of these factors that effects one's level of attachment to a product. In the analogy it is easy to understand that the level of expectation for the man whom paid $100 is much higher than the man given the free watch. The watch must now stand-up under a higher level of scrutiny, however as was discussed previously because this individual has invested a higher level of personal worth into the product he will also be inclined to be more forgiving in defense of said worth. If the watch can hold up to his scrutiny then it will likely hold a higher place in his esteem than the man with the free watch. However, because the level of investment is so much lower for the man with the free watch then so too is his level of expectation for the watch's performance and as such the watch is not held to the same level of scrutiny as the previous case subject. But once again the level of personal investment for the later individual is lower and so the only factor that can increase its personal worth to him are "circumstance and time".
 
For example in schizogony's post, it is mentioned that he bought The Club for $3.50 and enjoyed it quite a bit. Given that his level of personal investment is low, but that he feels fondly for the game it can be assumed that the circumstances in which he played the game were good (perhaps in play sessions with friends or enjoying a quite weekend on the couch with pizza) which encouraged his investment of time and therefore personal worth into the game. However, he brings up a good point in which he states that he would not have been happy if the game had cost $60. This is because his level of perceived value has been effected by the market price and reception of the game. As such his level of expectation was lower that it would be had the game been more expensive. However, the question becomes had the game originally cost $60 and his initial level of personal investment been higher would that have enough of an offset to change his feelings of the game?

You make a good point, spence_5060 and expose another insight into the investment of worth... circumstance. Take the previous example of a subject finding a large piece of wood and deciding to spend a week carving it into a bust, lets say that in this hypothetical situation the reason the subject decided to carve the bust is that while trying to wait out a thunder storm, lightning strikes a limb off of the tree he is sitting under and it is this timber he now wants to carve. In this way circumstance serves as a motivator toward instilling worth. You can also see this in the analogy you put forward of the kid whom only gets to play one new game a month. It is because of his/her circumstances that they are motivated to get the most value out of their game, and in this way instill it with personal worth. However, that presupposes that the inverse can also be true, such as the other circumstance you stated. In which as a result of having constant funds you are able to buy a glut of games and in this way devalue the personal worth of any one game due to less personal time invested and having a less impactful circumstance in their acquisition.  So it would seem that circumstance can be a powerful tool for both good and ill when it comes to instilling worth.
 
The other point you bring forward is justification. Based on the context you have coached this in, I would go so far as to also add vindication and validation and to surmise that all three stem from the same source. As to the source, I think you rightly named one of the contributing factors in circumstance. But remember that circumstance for better or worse is simply a motivator for the investment of personal worth. And so it is the defense of this valued commodity that so much vitriol is spewed. Think back to the lightning struck timber turned carved bust and imagine the lengths to which the carver would justify and defend his totem if others spoke ill of it. Once again, it is not  the item the man would defend (though you could have fooled him) so much as the personal worth he has invested in it.

I can see your point , but cost doesn't have to only relate to price. Price is simply the easiest way to associate the level of investment you the end user have applied  toward a given product and is universally relevant in the subject of worth. However, there are less concrete (though no less substantive) ways one can sustain a cost in order to invest in an item's worth, such as time. For example, lets say you find a large piece of wood and decide to spend a week carving it into a bust. Even when the week is over the object may still have no material value, but you have invested a substantial amount of personal worth into the item. 
So it is in this way, the investment of time (among other currencies), that the end user can imbue a product with personal worth. In a personal analogy I can think of a game I played years ago back in my sophomore year in collage. I had bought my older brother's Dreamcast and his stack of games for about $50, mostly I had just been interested in soul caliber 3 and San Fransisco rush 2049 so I never played many of the other games. One day I was bored and decided to play one of the games I had never touched before called Evolution. It looked like a game skewed to a younger audience and since it was not the reason I had bought the system the game had no personal value to me. However, I then preceded to play it for the next 24hours straight. By the end of that play session I had invested a great deal of personal worth into that game and it still holds a high place in my heart.
 
The reason I began along this train of thought was actually Steam related.  One of the games I had always meant to play but never had was Portal. However, when Steam offered it for free a couple of days ago I decided there would be no better time. While I enjoyed to game I didn't really feel a sense of ownership. So I wondered to myself, "had I purchased this game would I feel a stronger sense of ownership or worth?" Portal is not a long game, so I did not invest much time into it and establish worth in that way. So the question for me becomes "would I have been better of not downloading to for free?"  I know the question seems frivolous and I'm sure that in the same circumstances I would have done the same thing, but I am still curious as to whether my sense of ownership would have been different.  

For this digression I would ask you the reader to grant me one premise:
"Price is a factor that always plays into a product's sense of worth"
Granting me this premise, I would propose that the justification for this statement  is that the association of worth we convey to our products is primarily an unconscious process.  Hypothetically, lets say you have three identical watches of which you sell one for $100, sell the second for $20, and give the last one away. How much does this method affect the owners associated worth of there watches. It is not difficult to understand the greater sense of ownership that the purchaser of the $100 watch possesses over the owner of the free watch. 
 
Relevance: Have you the reader owned products in the past who's price has effected its worth to you? Perhaps an expensive item you splurged on, or an inexpensive product  which exceeded your expectations? How does games fall into this classification for you, and have you noticed pricing affecting you experience? Does the lack of cost effect the end user experience of  those whom pirate games given that they have not invested in a sense of worth?

I'm pretty sure the problem lies with the whiskey media server, since the video slow down seems to have also occurred on tested.com and the other whiskey media properties in correlation to Giantbomb. I would guess that something relating to the new quests feature is slamming the server since it is the biggest venue change that has happened as of late, and I would think that tnt is only a problem on Thursday's with  the worst of the cpu load  being shunted  to justintv servers) I imagine that a fix is on the way, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in Dave's shoes this week.