Notices by forrest (buru5@mstdn.games), page 3

@NaClKnight that's a great question. and a hard question, too. i'll try to tackle it, although my answer will likely be insufficient.

unconstructive negativity. genuinely offensive. "obvious" cash grab. low effort (vague, have to work on this one). critique that doesn't understand what it's critiquing. real personal preference that isn't tainted by the aspects mentioned in the previous post (music example: i seem to have a preference for certain time signatures and chord arrangements).

i am going to watch FLCL: Shoegaze as it airs on September 30th at midnight on Toonami with commercials and i will like it, and i do not care what any hopelessly-recursive fanbase has to say about it -- OK?!

i used to think i had all these complicated nuanced reasons for disliking stuff; as i thought about it more it became obvious that i just didn't want to like stuff: the thing was too new, it wasn't similar to other stuff i believed i had complicated nuanced reasons to like, or certain groups/people i didn't like for what i believed were complicated nuanced reasons liked it so (of course) i couldn't like it. it's superficial cooties tier stuff.

got good reasons? if not, you may be missing out

@spinning_bird

i don't have a *need* to own computer games; however, if i'm paying for something like a video game, i would like to be able to continue using that something without a big corporation between me and that something (within reason). mostly because this autonomously ensures that i can use that something in the future if i desire.

@spinning_bird

Netflix could make the argument that "you're paying for the access, not to keep" and that's a fine argument, but that's also not a service i'm interested in.

there's also a bigger conversation here about game preservation as a whole, or even further: the preservation of art. i don't see how Cozy Grove 2 can be truly preserved if it's behind lock and key with the initials NF on them. i've had this concern about MMOs as well, and as such am a huge proponent of private servers.

@spinning_bird expanding on "you're paying for the access, not to keep" bit -- if this model is successful enough, there's no reason publishers would not go for this model en masse, as it would be more lucrative in the long-term (no need to press physical copies, no need to give out digital copies that can be easily reproduced; means they can sell the game again in the future as a "RETRO CLASSIC!" etc.)

@spinning_bird much art has been lost, but this does not mean we should be OK with art being lost. we ought to preserve art and support initiatives/programs that promote this goal. much like there is much suffering in the world, we still ought to support things that prevent that suffering; not resign ourselves because suffering still exists.

@spinning_bird you don't have to defend the suffering piece, obviously we both agree on that point; the comparison was to show how the logic does not follow. in short, i think art preservation is necessary for some complicated historical reasons (understanding the past, continuing to build on the past, etc.) and for the fact that art improves overall well-being for society as a whole -- this is why i believe we ought to strive to preserve art.

@spinning_bird there's a level of idealism at play here, which is the basis of all progress (i think?)

ideally, i don't think there should be a selection process; nor do i think that "how popular" or "how much money" something makes should be the selection criteria if there happens to be one (which is, like you said, how it is now). you could say that individuals vote with their wallet, but i think our wallets are heavily manipulated by corporate interests so it's not a fair election.

@spinning_bird sadly, i can't solve the problems that may extend from here. what should the criteria be, for example? well, i don't think there should be any; if the artist wants to preserve the work, it ought to be preserved. maybe if the work was created solely to line some dude's pocket, it shouldn't be preserved? even then, i would say it should be preserved. how do we get all the space to preserve this stuff? idk.

@spinning_bird

having open access to the game and being able to reproduce the game lends itself to increased preservation of the game in question unbeholden to some corporate interest that may or may not choose to preserve the game. i would prefer to arm individuals with the power to preserve rather than leave it in the hands of corporations.

@spinning_bird i see your point, and what you say does resonate with me. i, personally, have an aversion to collecting old plastic, and see it as a bit too greedy and consumerist; in fact, i criticize this behavior severely in several OCG essays (the Romancing SaGa one especially iirc) and i also agree with the view that things are ephemeral, especially physical media. it's a nihilistic perspective that can be taken two different ways:

@spinning_bird

1) life is ultimately meaningless therefore we can run this back to everything else and should just let stuff go. who cares about art, video games or otherwise. live in the moment.

2) life is meaningless but people clearly believe their life has meaning so it seems that we make our own meaning; therefore, we should consider this moldability of meaning when deciding to let things go. does it benefit us to preserve art, for example? (which I believe yes, which i covered already)

@spinning_bird i think number 1 leads to some poor outcomes for humanity downstream, but I also think we should live in the moment. number 2, on the other hand, is sappy and subjective but there's no reason we can't simultaneously live in the moment, let things go, and strive to support practices that preserve art (if not for ourselves personally then for others). this does not mean we should revel in our ancient plastic, which is taking it way too far (and is omega cringe).

@spinning_bird i don't see your two points as mutually exclusive. i can both accept that things don't last while trying to preserve those things; the latter does not undermine the former, in my opinion.

netflix is publishing single-player games that require a subscription to play, with no option to own a physical (or digital) copy; this is a massive leap toward exactly what the gaming community has been doom posting about for over a decade. it's really no surprise, as this is a natural continuation of models like GamePass/PSPlus, which provide "free" games as long as the subscription is active. the gaming-industrial complex sneaked this on us under the guise of "but it's a good deal!"

and now they're taking the next step in their literally-you-will-own-nothing business strategy. what can we do? stop giving them money. we are at a turning point; if Netflix is successful with this model, other major gaming publishers will adopt the model and then we'll truly find ourselves in the apocalyptic gaming wasteland that SlayerFan87 soothsayed about on GameFAQs back in 2006. imagine current state of television/movies, all the streaming services you need, now imagine that with games.

@NaClKnight i'm partial to Duke Nukem's "Confucius say ... die."

@deadsuperhero it's a chicken-egg situation, surely.

@deadsuperhero but i am inclined to think that the psychopaths came first, and that the "dog eat dog" world exists because psychopaths (like those you're describing) built it from the ground up. they thrive in the cesspool of their own making; decent people begone.