Interesting perspective. I think a lot of what you've said is true. I was around for GG, and I remember all the similar arguments. They only ever have one. If they don't like you, you're not their audience, you don't matter, but every single thing you do they don't like. Nothing has changed.
Another problem is, they don't even know what their problem is. Their arguments hold no water the second you think about what they said.
They'll say 'lol you're not the audience anyway' ... then why the fuck are you mad at people who will never buy your game anyway, that you don't even want to buy your game. That's what the curator is for. None of that should matter to them. And yet they mald over it every time. "Ugh, what are those people I can't stop thinking about doing now? I don't care about them, and gosh they have bad opinions, but here's me, constantly upset about them pointing out that I'm wrong. Better antagonize the people I totally don't think about at all!" The self own just makes it pathetic.
I saw someone, Ian Hamilton (I think) on twitter mention that the 200k+ people on the sweet baby curator has is not a big number when you consider the number of people who want diversity in games.
So let's check his math
SBI Detected is over 254k now, but lets drop that to 200k because my math is complete ass.
He said that 200k people is .007% of gamers. Somehow he had these numbers from a survey. Lets take a closer look.
Using those numbers, 2 million would therefore be .07%, 20 million would be .7%, and 200 million would be 7%.
So 100% of "gamers" would be 3.2 billion people. Am I doing this right? Feels like way too fucking many people.
Is this guy really trying to claim that almost half the world's total population are computer gamers, use steam, and took a survey that said they want diversity in gaming? I find that a little hard to believe.
Beside the fact that 254k is more than the total number of people living in the city I live in. It's a big fucking number.
Interesting perspective. I think a lot of what you've said is true. I was around for GG, and I remember all the similar arguments. They only ever have one. If they don't like you, you're not their audience, you don't matter, but every single thing you do they don't like. Nothing has changed.
Another problem is, they don't even know what their problem is. Their arguments hold no water the second you think about what they said.
They'll say 'lol you're not the audience anyway' ... then why the fuck are you mad at people who will never buy your game anyway, that you don't even want to buy your game. That's what the curator is for. None of that should matter to them. And yet they mald over it every time. "Ugh, what are those people I can't stop thinking about doing now? I don't care about them, and gosh they have bad opinions, but here's me, constantly upset about them pointing out that I'm wrong. Better antagonize the people I totally don't think about at all!" The self own just makes it pathetic.
I saw someone, Ian Hamilton (I think) on twitter mention that the 200k+ people on the sweet baby curator has is not a big number when you consider the number of people who want diversity in games.
So let's check his math
SBI Detected is over 254k now, but lets drop that to 200k because my math is complete ass.
He said that 200k people is .007% of gamers. Somehow he had these numbers from a survey. Lets take a closer look.
Using those numbers, 2 million would therefore be .07%, 20 million would be .7%, and 200 million would be 7%.
So 100% of "gamers" would be 3.2 billion people. Am I doing this right? Feels like way too fucking many people.
Is this guy really trying to claim that almost half the world's total population are computer gamers, use steam, and took a survey that said they want diversity in gaming? I find that a little hard to believe.
Beside the fact that 254k is more than the total number of people living in the city I live in. It's a big fucking number.
he's lying. he's a lying faggot who wants to ruin something created by those infinitely his greater.
IIRC, Ian Hamilton is an "accessibility" grifter. I wouldn't believe anything that guy says.
Makes sense, since nothing he said made any sense in that tweet.