(untitled)

Hello. I was recently wondering about why both the internet and modern video games seemed so bad now (all that javascript and social stuff, ou those cookiecutter AAA or SJW indie pixel games). My theory is that, as the internet and video games came out of obscurity they both became "institutionalized": While they both used to cater to their specific enthusiast niches, as they became more popular and more massified, new people who were looking for social or economic profit entered the field. Because of the opportunities both video games and the internet are now overrun with either people or companies seeking an economic profit or a social profit (in the case of indie video games), who don't have any interest in what made these medium original and unique. I think the same could be said of the field of computer programming and the millieu of computer geeks (see The big bang theory and the "geek" pop-culture). What do you think?

It's something I like to call "roman christians" effect... for some obvious reasons. First, establishment that controls current culture is reluctant to adopt new technology or new cultural feature , to point that they ridicule it and socially ostricize it (by legal or illegal means). Then after they seee that this new cultural feature will be beneficial to their goals (that it will have better outreach and control over audiences) they change sides and start turning out propaganda for this culture. Basically Internet has been perverted from it's initial goal of information sharing into information gathering and centralized information control. Of course, I see this as just another step towards freedom (every time this "roman christians" thing happens, we are closer to actual freedom). What urks me is kind of the glacial speeds of development. I don't want people to just allow surveilance and privacy destruction day by day until they are angry one day and say quits. OP, if you want to accelerate cultural development start actively trolling and scaring people. That might get them towards our goal.

>>6168 >Of course, I see this as just another step towards freedom (every time this "roman christians" thing happens, we are closer to actual freedom) >OP, if you want to accelerate cultural development start actively trolling and scaring people. That might get them towards our goal. Please explain, I don't understand how this could bring us freedom. I don't see the "roman christian" thing as very positive and I don't see any "cultural development" in that or in what is happening now.

>>6172 I'm with you on this. Many people tend towards, for lack of better words, either futurism or luddism. Technological advancement is ALWAYS good or ALWAYS bad. The truth is we don't what the overall picture will be in 10 years or 100. I tend to see the future as a series of Apple and Google products being shoved up a human anus, forever, with the human praying that Moore's Law holds out and the machines get smaller. But I can't prove it either.

>>6172 Basically I see it as a backpedaling move in which the elites can't contain the swarm and flood but try subvert it. You can see that in a lot of 90s and early 00s hacker movies where hackers are portrayed as anti establishment bad guys that do good. They fear the change of culture that they can't control. That is why The Big Bang Theory was created. Why everyone pushing for more comp sci degrees... They are trying to piss in a pool we like swimming in, hoping that it will keep us bussy enough not to change their plans. They can't ultimately stop things, but they can postpone them until they regroup and garner support.

>>6178 > They are trying to piss in a pool we like swimming in, hoping that it will keep us bussy enough not to change their plans. They made TBBT and lame hacker movies because they thought they could make money off them, then these crappy franchises spawned a new niche to make more crappy media for. I wouldn't read much more into it than this.

To this very day, I will never understand why people are so obsessed with Big Bang Theory. I mean, the intense emotional response from haters and fans. I don't get why the show has so many fans because it's just not funny, like the rest of CBS's comedies. I at least found King of Queens somewhat funny and while it wasn't a CBS show and I personally don't find it funny, Seinfeld was enjoyable and I can appreciate it's brand of humor. TBBT on the otherhand is unfunny and not because I'm some butthurt nerd but because it's just general trash comedy. And I don't understand the haters for the same reasons, it's just a generic comedy. I also don't see how it's hurting nerds besides just being trash. Maybe I just don't have a high enough IQ to understand the fans and haters.

capitalism commodifies literally everything, given enough time.

>>6182 I was alerted to its existence by nerds crying about it on the internet, then spent a lot of time with my dad when he was in his last months. He couldn't move much so we just watched lame movies and cable TV. I sat through two episodes of that crappy show then and have to agree with your critique. It's not funny. I think I smirked once or twice, no more. I'd have forgotten it entirely except for the impression I had of "so this is the piece of rubbish that offends all the losers online". I was slightly dissppointed that the man who rented Blade Runner and Robocop for me so many years ago, and had all those Asimov and Heinlein books, had let his taste slide.

>>6190 And now a forgettable show is going to be a meme forever since it's a part of that "2007 was when everything turned into soykaffine" meme. Oh well, that's life.

Its just another way of the world evolving OP. Think of it in terms of evolution. I m sure that the first cave man to cook food looked like a retard to the other cavemen because he was using a new technology, but when it caught on, everyone started doing it. But you need to look at it from a different perspective too. people like technologies, especially when it makes their lives easier. this means that they will inevitably fall into cookie cutter life path #215 because it seems cool once it becomes mainstream, but they lack the technical proficiency to use technology. once it has been publicly implemented, it becomes another natural behavior that humans have. im ranting, but a way i look at it s this: my mom is a teacher, who was asking me all about technology, because her students (3rd graders) are using computers and learning coding as part of the curriculum (my mom last had computer training in the late 80s as part of a how to use modern work machines class). however, these students are taught that comp sci and other jobs are "cool and cutting edge" as they once were. the problem is that these jobs are the the same as the blue collar industry jobs of the 50s and 60s, where people would work in a factory, and go home to their white picket fence house with their 2 children and dog, the modern American is trained to be an independent xe/xim with a beard who likes Starbucks and social media, but works in a diversity friendly social industry. the prerequisites are to simply maintain the status quo of a more and more technologically dependent society. in terms of new developments, there are not quite as many as their were in the past century. for the most part "new technologies" are just new uses of old technologies (as most are) but when it comes to the media, it is all based on profit. think about cutting edge cinema made as art when movies first came out, it was something done for the sake of doing, until people realized that normalizing it and making it part of peoples lives was a great way t pacify crowds and make money. like the newest avengers/marvel/superhero/ strong female character movie that just came out and is totally the hottest movie of the season. so to answer your question OP, the internet seems "bad" now because much like every other form of social interaction, it is now constrained to the amount of freedom that your country allows you to have (be that by oppressive regimes, or ISPs or telecom corps) rather than the amount of freedom that you produce for yourself (i.e. by personally paying to run some homemade contraption across you and your neighbors lawn to demonstrate how you can send a message across a piece of metal) and video games are bad, because they are there for profit, rather than artistic expression. instead of movies like those by tarkovsky, where the central theme is the sublime and existential view of mankind from a personal and artistic angle, you have Disney where the central theme is flashy flashy boom action with a happy ending. also looking at the next generation, they will grow with computers and smartphones being a permanent part of their lives. but even with the great amount of information at their fingertips, they wont use it t its potential, because the focus is not on building new things, but making old things better. imagine if you gave the contents of wikepedia to tesla, einstein, or da vinci,they would likely have created some super advanced technology, because they would have understood the gravity of technology. modern people just don't understand it, and i know that there are a few other threads exactly on that topic

>>6179 >I am a dumb fuarrrk that doesn't know culture is partially controlled by mass media and press (that is owned by elites) KAY Next time you see coincidences lining up together don't think anything about it, IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF COINCIDENCES. All those illuminati symbolism in movies and songs? NAAAHH they are just using that to be edgy and to garner attention amirite? OHHHH what about those movies and songs back from late 80s and 90s that ALL TOGETHER, AT THE SAME TIME started having these symbolisms out of nowhere that NOBODY saw until early 00s? Oh , yea ur juss a dumb conspiracy tard xD Dumb fuarrrk. kys. Elites control media (few people own most of TV and hollywood and they are all good friends between each other). FACT. Media influences culture (most kids today just repeat what they see online). FACT. Internet is uncontrolled territory of media sharing and consumption where anyone can make a DANK MAYMAY and have it spread like genital herpes across the web. FACT. Elites have the desire to control this, partially for profit (as you mentioned). BUT LET ME ASK YOU. How much money does it take to satisfy a person that has millions and billions? That's exactly, they don't give 2 soykafs about money they get. They see money as driving tool of self perpetuating ideological machines they build. Have a political desire to destabilize the middle east? Sick your economic hitmenwatch the vid, pretty interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVsB07CcSNw to try and subvert governments or even sick US gov to fake some kind of "war on terror", going around trying to find "weapons of mass destruction" and people hiding in caves. Do you see? Money isn't the end goal TO ANYONE other than sheeple who think that is goal of rich people. Rich people don't really give soykaf about money. They see it as necessity of their operations (if anything you do isn't profitable, why do it?) but overall they either see money as: >power >control >tool Money making machines (companies, movie industries, music industries, media...) are meant to exist solely for reason of perpetual continuation of pushing their ideas onto the world. Want to create a better world that relies on sustainable energy and stop using gas guzzling cars? BECOME THE NEXT ELON MUSK, create automatons of biological nature that are hierarchy of companies he created. Want to push for all out gang war in ghettos in US? Create a profiting music industry that takes thug rappers with whom keeps pushing for violence between groups (and that's mainly how those groups were created, through manipulated culture Ignoring the drug problem that FBI created in black ghettos. And I am not just soykafting you, there is proof for what I am saying that FBI created drugs and distributed them in ghettos).

>>6205 just FYI >Create a profiting music industry that takes thug rappers with whom keeps pushing for violence between groups I was solely talking about shift between 80s and 90s rappers (and you see it precisely if you were to watch for it). Almost all big name rappers and puppets allowed to gain money and fame just to continue pushing gang violence between Crips and Bloods. After that you have few rappers that stayed in the game solely to continue the gang violence trend.

>>6206 >that stayed in the game solely to continue the gang violence trend which is why Snoop Dog hates the new wave of emotional rappers that "act gay" and "just slur their words" (think of Migos or lil Uzi vert or XXXTENTACION)

>>6206 >>6205 No one listens to you when you foam at the mouth like that. They have some tinfoil fedoras on sale over at etsy, maybe there's one in your size.

>>6209 why post such an inane comment?

>>6211 Nowhere near as inane as the posts Lain was replying to. The entertainment industry makes terrible crap because idiots lap it up. Anyone seeing TBBT and rap music as evidence of the trilateral commission or whatever that guy was on about, needs therapy.

This thread is going down hill. My vote has always been, creation of our own media and supporting any of the good AAA media, while choking out the trash by not even pirating their wares. That said, modern gaming as a whole isn't bad. Yes, you have the garbage micro-transactions and disrespectful developers, but we as the consumers have the power to inform and boycott. All of those companies have US to thank for being as big as they are. And if that fails, we should encourage indie devs who are cool and just let the trash rot.

>>6212 >trilateral commission Ideologically driven people creating perpetual autonomous money making machines called corporations is such a fuarrrking CRRAAAAZZZZY idea, right? Just look at Elon Musk. He had an idea and he created a financially viable company that puts forth such idea to the world. You're just another dumb fuarrrk that has fallen for counter propaganda of "ur jus a conspiracy nut". When you are talking about FACTS, not schemes or possibilities, but hard facts, then it isn't a conspiracy. >The entertainment industry makes terrible crap because idiots lap it up Then why do the owners of entertainment industry actively promote one style of "terrible crap" over the other? ACTIVELY PROMOTING. In 70s and 80s there was no such thing as "music industry" as we have it today. In those days people would make music and people would listen to it. Today you have whole production labels that coddle children from very young age to create "boy bands" or "girl bands" or pop icons (most of which are Disney singers or whatnot). Today the culture has been for most parts in control of elites who run these media venues. Internet is not in their control, that is why they want in on the game. >needs therapy And any sheeple that thinks they are standard of whatever they think they have the monopoly of judging others on NEED to have a hard honest look in the mirror. Also, look up word "normal" in the dictionary (spoilers alert, it just says "average"). Scratch that, just went over the dictionary online and it's different than what I have on my own. Basically it said "average", but now it says "standard".... and when you dictionary search "standard" it says "considered by authority" [appeal to authority] or "most common" [another word to say average] Orwellian speech will always produce Orwellian styles of thinking. Chaning the definition of word "normal" might not look like a really big change, but it will have ripple effects in culture and conversations like we are having right now. Think about that Orwellian speech when you hear terms like "pro-choice" or "pro-life" or "hate speech" or "eurocentric". There are a lot of people just stainding in big rooms around tables and talking about ideas and words, concocting plans for how words affect the world around them and how their ideas can be dispersed by carefully crafting discussions and words that surround them. >>6213 >This thread is going down hill At least be upfront and direct with your cowardly opinions. >My vote has always been, creation of our own media and supporting any of the good AAA media, while choking out the trash by not even pirating their wares. Has anyone said anything else ITT? >That said, modern gaming as a whole isn't bad Control has been creaping into gaming industry for a while now (ever since Gamergate) >Yes, you have the garbage micro-transactions and disrespectful developers, but we as the consumers have the power to inform and boycott See? And no, "boycotts" never happen. The sh1lls just say "if you don't like it don't buy it". The desentisized argument of "you have no choice" only furthers the slave mentality WHICH THEY WANT. What I think that it's somewhat good because those actions just furthers into cascaded outgrowths of culture on last epoch. The pressures of entraping money making schemes on basis of wide enough audience that will gobble up ideology in preplanned meals by the elites without consent of the said audience only allows for the said "outgrowths" or "aneuramistic outgrowth cultures". Overall this allows for more and more developments and different style of thinking and faster chaotic shifts, but overall it just destabilizes the region more TO ENSURE their control and submission. >All of those companies have US to thank for being as big as they are Initial boosts from the competition were pure talent and deication. After that the stagnation was inevitable. So what better way than have a state owned oligopoly? Of course, that is when you get into territory of doing things for elites and pushing ideology down the throats of your players (which why more and more people hate big name companies). >And if that fails, we should encourage indie devs who are cool and just let the trash rot At first the culture was controlled into saying "indie is for hipsters" (which is another tactic for them to buy more time) but as time went by people seen that indie devs actually put effort and heart into their games which makes some of them really neat. Now they are on "subverting" phase which you can see on game like Cuphead. A lot of game "journalists" came out talking about how they didn't like difficulty of the game. <-- infantilization of audience for easier control

>>6215 >neurosuggesting that I'm "schilling" >neurosuggesting that my opinions are cowardly Honestly, I see no point in engaging with you. My general point is we don't buy trash and we inform people as much as we can. Complaining about trash distracts us from actually getting better stuff and letting the trash rot. No need to sit around calling people sheep just because they may not agree with you 100%. Geez. Have a nice day.

Nonsense, video games have always been an extremely profit-oriented industry. If anything, the new accessibility to development tools has had a democratising effect on the diversity of games that come out now. Specifically those "SJW indie pixel games". People have a lot more newfound opportunity to create new things that stray from what is traditionally profitable. Video games have always been more niche, but the broadening of the medium speaks to more diverse interests. Cookiecutter AAA games aren't a new thing. In the past they were generic platformers and soykafty movie adaptations. but that stuff isn't marketable anymore. Yeah, there's a lot of bullsoykaf, but really there's just a lot in general. The one place I agree with you on is mobile and javascript games. That is actual trash that is cutting into the gaming industry. But really, would players of such games have been playing games in the past anyways? The only problem that poses to the general gaming audience is that it pulls away great studios (e.g. Konami).

>>6167 It's consumerism. 90% of such cases are consumerism. This guy gets it: >>6183

People getting analpained over this are hilarious. > Let's go back to the good old days when $0.25 got you three lives on some machine at the mall, and if you were good enough you got to enter your initials or some clever three letter word in the hall of fame Sound retarded? It is. You all sound equally as dumb.

What abour Mr. Robot?

>>6228 What about it.

i think this thread and the ones like it created constantly for the last decade are a result of the chans and their offspring becoming far too insular and self absorbed. i think we've lost touch with general media trends and the overall direction of the internet if we were ever keyed in to begin with.

>>6248 Certainly. Also I fail to see the difference between nerds raging at nerd culture being appropriated and what hipsters supposedly do. Cool, you were into video games and comic books before the mainstream raped them. For hipsters it's the same concept except usually with music, maybe a hairstyle.

>>6249 You mean you can't tell the difference? Video games were killed by those nasty cultural Marxists and SJWs that's totally different from hipsters with poor taste listening to their experimental nonsense. Video games were super deep now it's just pixel art for flannel wearing casuals who can't even play Mario 64. **I don't know if I can invoke Poe's Law very well here, I tried**

>>6250 I won't even go the "but it's true" route because you are so ignorant and arrogant at same time. And what do you have to offer to the table? Sarcasm and passive aggressive cheeky comments trying to have the laugh at the other guy? fuarrrk off m8 if you think that will get you anywhere other than people hating you, even those on the neutral ground. This way of talking, not even about this subject but in general will get you nowhere but attract horrible people looking for troubled angry discussions. On internet? Sure, you get the defense of few kilometers and a screen (some people don't find that a big obstacle and are still able to fuarrrk with you no matter the distance), but you are training your brain to think that this style of discussion is normal way of interacting with others. And that will bounce off your head next time a guy doesn't take your soykaf IRL

>>6250 > cultural Marxists A boogeyman invented by alt-retards. There really isn't a significant difference as far as anyone else is concerned. The point is in the end, raging nerds are just as annoying and irrelevant as hipsters. Your little hobby got popular, it changed, and you got none of the credit for being there first. Boo hoo.

>>6254 I was just making a joke, dude. You could have just left it at that. >but you are training your brain to think that this style of discussion is normal way of interacting with others. And that will bounce off your head next time a guy doesn't take your soykaf IRL Thing is, I don't talk like this IRL. I know how to interact with people without talking how I just did, do you react like this whenever someone mildly pisses you off IRL? >>6255 It's a common buzzword, it's the only reason I even mentioned it.

>>6256 Why use meaningless buzzwords if you don't even mean them yourself?

>>6257 Because I was making a joke, and I find the use of said buzzword funny.

>>6258 Honestly Lain, nothing about that post sounded like satire. You sounded just like one of those guys for realsies.

>>6260 I hear that soykaf so much, it's pretty easy to mock it. Any Youtube video that is remotely "alternative" tends to bitch about cultural Marxism and the ones who care even less about being subtle will even use terms like "degenerate".

>>6261 Where's the amusement in making fun of something if you're just going to carbon copy it? Usually the point of humour is to enjoy the absurdity of someone or something's contradictions or shortcomings, maybe by exaggerating them. Just repeating their words only works if we can hear the intonation used; not possible in text.

>>6167 Pretty much. Also Critical Theory/SJWs

>>6254 >Ubisoft is killing itself through feminism for no reason I'm referring to your image. More likely they are hiring competent women because the market is changing the companies need to change to keep up. Video games used to be for kids and manchilds but since the rise of the internet and the piracy that goes with it, the industry needs to gather more customers if they want to survive. As it turns out, man are pretty soykaf at understanding what women want. It's not some feminism conspiracy hire incompetent women to take away jobs from your "bros". It's all about the money. Also companies don't need to pay women as much money as men. It's the socially acceptable alternative to hiring curry niggers from India

>>6272 >for no reason You don't understand politics, do you?

>>6272 >Also companies don't need to pay women as much money as men WTF you on about? Ever heard about equal pay laws?

>>6250 >>cultural Marxists and SJWs Do you people only have two words to criticise the game industry now? Good lord, stop harping on it already, we get it. Video games explore a more diverse set of topics than ever now. What was so deep about older games? Hell, what time period are you even referencing? Mario 64? Amazing innovative gameplay, but far from story rich. Even the story centric RPGs of the nineties followed very common tropes. Life is Strange, Gone Home, Undertale, OFF, The Stanley Parable, Papers Please? These examples of games are displays of the benefit of the increased diversity in the game industry. So the entire market doesn't cater to hardcore gamers or what men typically enjoy, big deal. And more traditional gaming experiences are still plentiful: Persona 5, Nier Automata, Overwatch, Mario Odyssey, Zelda Botw, Ni no Kuni...

>>6276 > Life is Strange Actual soykafty SJW trash, boring gameplay, dumb story, nonsensical characters. > Gone Home Actual soykafty SJW trash, boring gameplay, dumb story, nonsensical characters. With an added dose of unnecessary glitterboyry, and a very quick runtime for the price! The two narrative games mentioned above aren't really 'new concepts' either, choose your own adventure type novels have existed for ages. And narrative type videogames were very common a few decades ago, ie games like ZORK, ZORK didn't push a bunch of glitterboyry and sjw morality though. > Undertale A decent game, terrible fandom, based on a classic Japanese game from the 90's you dumfuk. Not a result of increased 'duhversity'. Made by a man > OFF Never played, hadn't heard of it until today, fandom looks awful and it seems like another nikki/Earthbound riff tbqh. Made by a man > The Stanley Parable Never played it, seems awlright, probably because the entire dev team is male. > Papers Please? Made by a guy, seems decent I don't know what your point is. There have always been 'diverse' games (my personal favorites are the oddworld series from the 90's 00's) , they just aren't Diverse games ie: games manufactured by trannies, sjw's and glitterboys. I don't have a problem with interesting 'diverse' games, I have a problem with forced Diversity, I'm sick of the moralizing, and 'muh strong blue haired fuhmale protagonist' and muh 'white men are eevil' muh 'handcrafted pixel art gameplay experience' muh 'cool frizzy haired afrosexual main character' muh 'killing nazis'. If you haven't noticed it's not even a lot of 'indy' games pushing this kind of diversity, because most of those games are authored by genuinely passionate people. It's the big studios like Bethesda and Ubisoft hiring all the trannies and glitterboys to 'diversify' the gameplay for their stale ass arcade shooters and assassin games. It's all so tiring after a while. I think ultimately there will be a return to 'diverse' games, games like 'cuphead', 'pit people' present novel interesting gameplay and aesthetic experiences and they don't push a ton of faggy morality

>>6279 > ZORK didn't push a bunch of glitterboyry and sjw morality though A lot of the magic of those old text games came from the fact that they existed at all; a puzzle based game that you could play at your own pace. Zork had no moral or message because it had no proper characters and the technology of the time didn't allow such sophistication. A game device like the thief in Zork does not constitute a developed character. I suppose Planetfall would be "SJW" to you. (in b4 sjw didn't exist yet; something equivalent always has).

>>6274 >You don't understand politics, do you? I am not familiar with whatever political meme you are trying to imply. Try explaining it. >for no reason No reason given in the post I was responding to. If you think that feminists are ruining tech companies I wager it's the exact opposite - the tech are exploiting the feminists. If anything you should pity them. >>6275 >Ever heard about equal pay laws? It's not just feminist spiel. Tech companies do pay women less than men. But in our culture discussing salaries is more taboo than flagburning so they can get away with it. The feminists are not winning, they are just being used.

>>6279 >There have always been 'diverse' games Video games have always been targeted at boys and immature men. It's only recently that the industry has tried to move past that. >I have a problem with forced Diversity, I'm sick of the moralizing, and 'muh strong blue haired fuhmale protagonist' and muh 'white men are eevil' muh 'handcrafted pixel art gameplay experience' muh 'cool frizzy haired afrosexual main character' muh 'killing nazis'. Do you not see the irony of this? They use giant breasted females to attract male gamers and this "moralizing" "SJW" stuff seems to be doing a good job of attracting female gamers. You attitude is a mirror image of feminists or rage about half naked game characters. Hilarious.

>>6289 >Tech companies do pay women less than men Less work -> less money. What is there to understand? >But in our culture discussing salaries is more taboo than flagburning so they can get away with it Maybe that is your perception of it. But your perception doesn't dictate reality >The feminists are not winning, they are just being used. exactly, politics

>>6296 >Maybe that is your perception of it. But your perception doesn't dictate reality Ok, I have no idea how much money anyone outside my family makes. Are you saying that's not normal? Can you tell me how much the guy sitting next to you at work makes? Why don't you ask him tomorrow morning and let us know how it goes? kthx. >Less work -> less money. >What is there to understand? I'm talking about people doing the same job but being paid different amounts. I don't know what you are talking about.

>>6298 >Are you saying that's not normal? yes >Can you tell me how much the guy sitting next to you at work makes? I am in electrical engineering college, having scholarship based on my grades and for some extra cash working partly in company Muller (menial lifting and putting things down since most full time workers are female) and giving tuition for younger students. I know my competition on tuition field and adjusted my prices accordingly (lowered it generally because I can't compete with people with decades of experience and knowledge, but still can prove myself with my grades). Not only that but I also know that I earn more than average fulltime female worker in Muller because females can't lift as much (even though cashiers earn much much more than me and fulltime workers). Knowing your competition on labor market is normal. Having a easy friendly convo about money and investments and general tips and trick with cash with friends on job or your close friends is normal. Being a scardy pants who is scared of giving out his job market value to others because others would be angry at him IS ABSURD. "What? You earn more money?", "Well I better get your position" or "I better ask my manager for a raise" or something like that. Your salary isn't dictated by social status, but by hard work, abilities and skill. If you are so scared of others knowing your salary then you have to question yourself do you really earn it. >Why don't you ask him tomorrow morning and let us know how it goes? kthx Your passive aggressivness only shows how "socially aware" you are, in general. I do not fear your passive aggresssive comments or comments of my coworkers. In fact, I am on friendly terms with most of coworkers. Others I have purely business professional interactions with (talking about Muller). Me and my female coworker I am good with has said how angry she is at manager of store because of our salary difference, but said she understand it because I come on rush hours and do 8 hours of picking up and putting down 30 kilos of weight while she only does 8 hours of filling the store with few items in her hands.

>>6298 >I'm talking about people doing the same job but being paid different amounts. I don't know what you are talking about. And I am saying that even at two people having same position in company they can have different salaries based on how much hours they put in or how much effort and speed they put in. If someone is more efficient at same job and does more should they get bigger salary? And that is general statistics of it. Men less often call in sick for work. Men more often stay longer hours. Men have bigger wages. Don't understand what you think I am talking about?

I cannot believe my joke has been taken this seriously and effectively derailed the thread into intense arguing. >>6276 Sorry, dude, I was posting in jest. There was a reason why I referred to Poe's Law at the end. I was really worried that people would get the wrong idea and I was right. >>6272 >>6290 I have to completely disagree with attitude of "games have always been for boys and immature men" though. The market for female gamers has been there. Tetris is one example of a very successful game that women and girls played. Outselling several Pokemon games on the gameboy, another game that is pretty popular with women as well. And women, depending on the study, are said to prefer Match 3/puzzle games (Tetris, Puyo Puyo, Candy Crush) or Farmville type games more than men do. Both of these kinds of games are plentiful on smartphones. That doesn't mean that there aren't women playing FPSes or platformers but certain kinds of games won't magically attract women just because you tone down or remove the sexy women. Senran Kagura may never appeal to a massive amount of women even if you just make it a bunch of men because most people will see it and think it's a button masher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Game_Boy_video_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Genre_preferences

>>6279 I wasn't explicitly diversity in terms of who's making games, I mean diversity in the most general sense. The diversity in types of games being released at this moment is far greater than anything seen in the past. People are trying to do different things with stories, more abstract gameplay, etc. Of course, having people of different background developing games helps too. >>Actual soykafty SJW trash, boring gameplay, dumb story, nonsensical characters. >>Legitimately just further solidifying how shallow your critiques of these games are. Why do you care if they hire more diverse sets of people? How is this hurting the games? By making them appeal to a larger audience? >>present novel interesting gameplay and aesthetic experiences and they don't push a ton of faggy morality You can't avoid morality and you can't avoid politics in most story based games. Stop acting like any semblance of political speach in a game is killing video games.

>>6306 If we're going all the way back to Tetris, many games including and before that were simplistic enough not to be marketed to either gender or even a specific age group. A game became popular because the mechanics felt good, more than whether the sprites were male or female. Maybe Ms. Pac Man was an attempt to market to girls, including making one of the ghosts female, but probably they just wanted to put another game out with the Pac Man brand on it.

>>6283 > I suppose Planetfall would be "SJW" to you. I actually cried playing that game. #robotlivesmatter

>>6313 Yea, you do have a point about that. But if that's the case, then a lot of games aren't really meant for any one person. Unless we are defining gaming as gaming going from Nintendo and Sega's rise into mainstream consciousness through home consoles and not pre-crash gaming.

>>6302 >I am in electrical engineering college, You are not a working professional and I don't think your cute anecdotes about your minimum wage manual labor are relevant. It is not considered socially acceptable to share salary information in middle class US culture and that's why companies get away with paying people varying salaries for the same jobs. >Your salary isn't dictated by social status, but by hard work, abilities and skill. Oh my god. Read rule 0. >>6306 >That doesn't mean that there aren't women playing FPSes or platformers but certain kinds of games won't magically attract women just because you tone down or remove the sexy women. My point was the way >>6279 rages about moralizing and "DIversity" in games sounds exactly the same as how feminists rage about sexy women in games. Neither side is inherently right, it's all about who buys the most games. If you find the content of new games objectionable then I feel bad for you but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the industry. All they care about is making money. It just means you and your tastes are the new minority.

>>6319 Personally, I'm more annoyed by the DLC, micro transactions, and the complete control that consoles and to some degree some PC gaming services hold over people who just want to play games. But as you said, I'm a minority, otherwise the Xbox and Playstation brand would have been killed by PC gaming and I wouldn't have to hear about good games ruined by lootboxes.

>>6319 And why isn't it socially acceptable? Because sissies like you are fearful of their job market value. "Oh they might be angry at me" , "oh they might laugh at me", "oh they might pity me". If your work is proportional to your wage then you have nothing to be fearful of. And yea, companies use that fear. Why shouldn't they? If you fear how others in job market see you then you have to re-evaluate your value. It's "socially unacceptable" because people like you who are afraid of asking others how much they earn. You shouldn't fear that, your manager should fear that their employees are talking about their wages. And yea, my little life anecdote tells a lot, but you aren't a type for listening. >rule 0 I am 20. This just contiues to show how arrogant you are. Not to mention how oblivious and hypocritical you are. "Durr companies can get away with it because it's scoailly unacceptable" yet you're the only one who has that kind of perception about salaries. So, who thinks it's socially unacceptable? Who enables such a horrible system to continue? No one should be fearful of talking about their salaries, that is the way we equalize the market value of all of us. Only person who should fear it is our managers and bosses. ...yet you are only one here who fears it and finds it "socially unacceptable"? You are such a retarded hypocrite man, and to think you can shame me with "minimum wage" and "ur underage". Pathetic.

There are more computer/video games released before birth date of everyone's in this thread, and you won't even finish those in your lifetime. So why bother with discussing new games you don't like and not just play oldskool stuff? There are around 4 terabytes of PS1 games for example, download full bunch, fire up the emulator and go.

>>6322 >you can shame me with "minimum wage" and "ur underage". Pathetic. It's not shame. Obviously everyone knows how much everyone else makes if you are all minimum wage burger flippers. >>6272 was talking about high paying jobs in game companies. I asked you to go to the office tomorrow and ask your coworker how much he makes. You cannot do that because you do not work in this environment. In that case wtf do you know about what is normal? >Your salary isn't dictated by social status, but by hard work, abilities and skill. When you are 25 and making >$100k you can tell people how you got there. Right now you have zero life experience. I hope that in a few years you will be able to laugh at how naive you are now. >And why isn't it socially acceptable? It's socially unacceptable because then company can pay different people different wages for the same job. Especially women. And don't have to worry about equal pay laws because people don't find out. That was pretty much my point...

>>6331 >Obviously everyone knows how much everyone else makes if you are all minimum wage burger flippers. Not really. I actually earn quite more than average fulltime burger flipper. And no, not everyone knows how much you make unless you ask them. >When you are 25 and making >$100k you can tell people how you got there. It really gets under your skin that I think hard work, dedication and skill gets you bigger wages? Wow buddy. That says a lot about you and your environment if you think that I am wrong. Nepotism and giving salaries based on social status only slowly kills any company that uses such tactics to value their employees. Therefore its in their best interest to get hard working smart people, to make company more profitable. Oh yea, and soon I will get a paid "student helper" internship in Ericsson and ditch the Muller. Wish me good luck and much social status and male priviledge. I will need it. >It's socially unacceptable because then company can pay different people different wages for the same job. > because then company can pay different people different wages for the same job. WHAT A LEAP IN LOGIC. Jesus christ, do you have a STEM degree? Not "why" as in "what goal is happening with that being socially unacceptable" but "why" as in "why is it socially unacceptable in first place?". And answer is pretty clear, little sissies like you perceive it to be socially unacceptable because they are afraid of what others will think of them. And that is why I said you are a hypocrite. You perpetuate the system of social fear that companies just use? Why hate the conpanies then? They just use the situation that is in front of them to cut on the cost. Why don't you try to break their fear based one way salary knowing by talking about salaries with your coworkers? Ohhh, is it because you are scared? :/ Well, that is the life of hypocrite. Hating someone else for things you have done yourself. >And don't have to worry about equal pay laws because people don't find out I don't think at the end of the day that companies purposefully discriminate based on sex or gender. If you put as much work as a man of your position, if you put as much effort and speed as a man of your position, then at end of the day you oughta get the same pay. I understand how some men are more up front with their salaries and have no problem going to the boss asking for a raise(because it was shown statistically that more men do that than women), but that isn't bosses fault or mens fault or companies fault. Companies will want to cut on costs and they won't give you a raise until you ask them. If your male coworker that does the same speed and effort of a job but gets bigger pay because he negotiated for his salary, while you didn't... that's on you, not the company or boss or men in job market in general. But in the end I was thinking about your proposition.... in the end you want every position (for example janitors) in company to be payed the same, no matter how hard they work? If I am a game developer that puts in more hours than any other game developer and does my job extra quickly to get more job done, I WILL GET THE SAME SALARY AS ANYBODY ELSE? Why work hard and try to achieve something(male or female)? Lets say a female game dev puts out double the work load than a male game dev, but since salaries have been equalized by law they get the same wage? Or is it that you want salaries of everyone to be public? That will be more confrontational and will cause more chaos in workplace than you asking someone directly what is their salary. >That was pretty much my point... Weak point. My point is that you have to ask your coworkers for their salaries and then determine based on their job experience (years), working hours, effort, speed, salaries, skill and salaries if you are getting unjustufiably underpaid. If you are, then it is ON YOU to either negotiate your salary (ask for a raise and say you got a good info about how little you are getting paid, while not naming your coworkers) or change your job and sue them for discrimination based on sex and tarnish the brand or company online by being a role model for all the little feminists (which most companies don't want and are more than willing to settle out of court). See? It is that easy. Something is "socially unacceptable" and companies use that to underpay some groups of people? Make it socially acceptable. Talk about it with your friends and coworkers. Joke about how your boss is Ahole because he underpays Anna. Band together with your comrades and fight THE MAN.

>>6333 >It really gets under your skin that I think hard work, dedication and skill gets you bigger wages? I only meant that I hope you don't cling to those ideas for too long and will be successful enough in the future to look back and see how wrong you are now. >Nepotism and giving salaries based on social status only slowly kills any company Don't misunderstand. None of the things you listed are particularly important to corporate success. Especially in tech. >Not "why" as in "what goal is happening with that being socially unacceptable" but "why" as in "why is it socially unacceptable in first place?". Stop making soykaf up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/05/05/why-is-it-still-so-taboo-to-talk-about-what-we-make/ >I don't think at the end of the day that companies purposefully discriminate based on sex or gender... You've never had a tech job. Opinion discarded. >But in the end I was thinking about your proposition.... What proposition are you talking about? >in the end you want every position (for example janitors) in company to be payed the same, no matter how hard they work? I don't want anything. I'm reflecting on how the tech industry currently operates because gaming is a subset of that industry and this thread is about games. >My point is that you have to ask your coworkers for their salaries and then determine based on their job experience (years), working hours, effort, speed, salaries, skill and salaries if you are getting unjustufiably underpaid. You've never had a tech job. Opinion discarded. Since you haven't called me a sissy in a while I'm tell you what people actually do though. Every 2 years they go on interviews and collect a bunch of job offers. If they actually like their current job they use those other offers to negotiate a raise. Otherwise they just leave. Here is 1 tip for you kid, it doesn't matter how much overtime you do, companies will never give you a real raise unless you are ready to walk. Getting back on track, game companies are hiring women because they want their games to appeal to women and it's cheaper to employ women anyway. Nothing to do with feminism.

>>6334 >game companies are hiring women because they want their games to appeal to women and it's cheaper to employ women anyway. Nothing to do with feminism. I think it's also because, in the tech world at least, your job is pretty much your life, and if your life is a sausage party it kinda is like kicking dead whales down the beach.

>>6344 Have you seen the "girls" that work at software companies??? Of course it's a good strategy, these chicks pick up 50 beta orbiters who'll compete professionally for the hand of muh fair blue haired lady. I'd imagine it would increase productivity in the office. Sure you'll have a few cute asian chicks once in a while but your average female employee of a software firm are usually worse than the men who work in software or videogames. Pictured perception vs reality of your average female 'coder'. You're right though, for most men I would say that the prospect of a life without women is the saddest thing of them all. Women represent 'humanity' in a way that men can't, they carry our genes, bear our young etc. I think women should be treated differently then men, I think they have a different role to play in society, I feel like anything aside from this is abhorrent to the natural order.

>women are less productive than men >humans from east asia are more productive than local white-skinned humans You americans are weird. No other country in the world has these sorts of problems with ethnic/sexual diversity. >inb4 women earning less than men meme is true and corps are starting to exploit it by hiring more women

>>6352 Most other nations also aren't as multicultural and multiracial as the US or Canada either. Not saying that the alt-right people posting are right, but if we are going to compare nations to the US on the topic of race issues, let's make the comparison equal by talking about other nations with the same level of diversity. It makes no sense to compare the US to nations like Japan, Nigeria, or Poland on the topic of race. Not to mention, us Americans made a massive mistake in allowing corporations to export jobs to China. Now Apple makes stupid excuses why they can't let us stupid Americans build their iPhones. Meanwhile, those same workers just buy their Chinese branded phones.

>>6354 The issue about nationalizing production of consumer goods is that the average American consumer would have no way of affording the clothes, electronics, etc. which would be produced in the US. According to an estimate, an American made Iphone would cost as much as 2000$, not to mention that no American city has the kind of infrastructure to support a factory necessary for that kind of thing. There are examples of countries that were economically isolated (a path Trump wants to take). Products were usually extremely soykafty and things like cars, electronics etc. were unreachable for the average person. Even American car companies today are absolutely dependent on international trade (for parts etc) in order to deliver their product.

>>6354 Nigeria is actually vastly more multicultural and multiracial than the US is with the majority Hausa only being a quarter of the population. Diversity itself isn't really what causes the US's problem on race. It's the deliberate result of 17th-20th century pseudoscience and post-colonial fallout.

>>6272 >I'm referring to your image. Not only what you said, but also that image isn't accurate. A quick google shows that Ubisoft's 2014 team was mostly men (https://twitter.com/ubisoft/status/465876984091127809), and that the picture of the women was a women's day thing, where they probably just rounded up all the women in the building and snapped a pic. >>6333 >Or is it that you want salaries of everyone to be public? That will be more confrontational and will cause more chaos in workplace than you asking someone directly what is their salary. I've worked in an environment where this was the case. Nobody really cared, and although I'll concede that such an environment does inherently select people who don't mind if their salary is shared, it didn't cause any chaos when it was introduced, from what I heard. >>6351 >Have you seen the "girls" that work at software companies??? Of course it's a good strategy, these chicks pick up 50 beta orbiters who'll compete professionally for the hand of muh fair blue haired lady. I'd imagine it would increase productivity in the office. Sure you'll have a few cute asian chicks once in a while but your average female employee of a software firm are usually worse than the men who work in software or videogames. Pictured perception vs reality of your average female 'coder'. Have you ever worked in software development, or are you basing this all off of pictures you've seen of dev teams in women hate threads on /v/? Even the "beta orbiter" men who work in software development figure out pretty fuarrrking fast that they're making enough money that they can start getting attractive women without jumping through hoops. Men in tech don't need to compete professionally for girls' attentions because we can easily get that attention elsewhere, without risking HR scolding us for trying to bang a co-worker.

>>6401 >Not only what you said, but also that image isn't accurate.... Um thanks but only discrediting the post I responded to doesn't transitively discredit my post too.

>>6401 > Have you ever worked in software development, or are you basing this all off of pictures you've seen of dev teams in women hate threads on /v/? Yes I work in software development, primarily business software, not at a video game studio though. > Even the "beta orbiter" men who work in software development figure out pretty fuarrrking fast that they're making enough money that they can start getting attractive women without jumping through hoops. Men in tech don't need to compete professionally for girls' attentions because we can easily get that attention elsewhere, without risking HR scolding us for trying to bang a co-worker. Using an anecdote was a mistake on my part. If you actually did work in software in a first world country you'd agree with my assessment though, most of the women who work in software are sorta 'off' looking white 'girls', asian girls and occasionally you'll have a poo female. This is the same in every company I've worked at. Mind you this is me generalizing about the average structure of a development team, not for example the structure of design, marketing, or project management teams.