By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pachter goes berserk. Insults questioner. "scumbag" "Idiot" "bastard"

MoHasanie said:

I didn't mean it in a bad way. People that DVR shows aren't stealing anything, but its better for the networks and the future of your favourite shows if you watch your shows live. Well actually it doesn't matter what you or I do, because unless you are a Nielsen family, what you do doesn't affect anything. 

Yes, the TV networks have to adapt now but still they haven't. 


It may be better for TV networks that people watch shows live but is that they still don't understand technology. People are still prepared to pay for content and are paying just to get rid of ads even if content itself wouldn't change. That is why people pay for Netflix and other streaming services which have no ads.

Heck, people have a long time paid extra money for cable channels which don't have ads. I'm not from USA but I think for example HBO doesn't have normal ads at all and they still can afford to make expensive quality TV shows. If you can make big-budget TV shows without any ads, it just shows that something is wrong with traditional TV network thinking...



Around the Network
MoHasanie said:

I didn't mean it in a bad way. People that DVR shows aren't stealing anything, but its better for the networks and the future of your favourite shows if you watch your shows live. Well actually it doesn't matter what you or I do, because unless you are a Nielsen family, what you do doesn't affect anything. 

Yes, the TV networks have to adapt now but still they haven't. 


My bad then, I thought you were attacking me personally because I use a DVR. I can't praise the DVR enough. I watch way more programming than I ever did without it. And instead of just milling around the crap I can have quality viewing of programs I choose whenever I do watch. Sadly, even with hundreds of channels, whenever I try browsing the guide there is very rarely anything interesting to me on. So not missing any of the content I do like is very important.



Untamoi said:
MoHasanie said:

I didn't mean it in a bad way. People that DVR shows aren't stealing anything, but its better for the networks and the future of your favourite shows if you watch your shows live. Well actually it doesn't matter what you or I do, because unless you are a Nielsen family, what you do doesn't affect anything. 

Yes, the TV networks have to adapt now but still they haven't. 


It may be better for TV networks that people watch shows live but is that they still don't understand technology. People are still prepared to pay for content and are paying just to get rid of ads even if content itself wouldn't change. That is why people pay for Netflix and other streaming services which have no ads.

Heck, people have a long time paid extra money for cable channels which don't have ads. I'm not from USA but I think for example HBO doesn't have normal ads at all and they still can afford to make expensive quality TV shows. If you can make big-budget TV shows without any ads, it just shows that something is wrong with traditional TV network thinking...

That is true. The 4 main broadcast networks in the US are CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox. Both Fox and CBS have said that they would prefer to operate as a subscription based tv channel but they can't just become one so easily. 

The production and licensing costs of TV shows for the main networks are considerably higher than for a cable channel or anyone else to make and air shows. A show which can cost $1 million per episode for a network like HBO to make would cost $3-4 million for the main broadcast netoworks to produce. Its very strange but this is the system currently in place. I remember in 90's, the most expensive show ever to produce was ER. The show was in its 6th season, and NBC was paying Warner Bros. $10 million per episode to air the show. Before the new deal was negotiated, there was talk that the show could even move to another channel. But NBC wasn't willing to lose TV's No.1 show, so they decided to pay that much to continue airing the show. 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

Untamoi said:
MoHasanie said:

I didn't mean it in a bad way. People that DVR shows aren't stealing anything, but its better for the networks and the future of your favourite shows if you watch your shows live. Well actually it doesn't matter what you or I do, because unless you are a Nielsen family, what you do doesn't affect anything. 

Yes, the TV networks have to adapt now but still they haven't. 


It may be better for TV networks that people watch shows live but is that they still don't understand technology. People are still prepared to pay for content and are paying just to get rid of ads even if content itself wouldn't change. That is why people pay for Netflix and other streaming services which have no ads.

Heck, people have a long time paid extra money for cable channels which don't have ads. I'm not from USA but I think for example HBO doesn't have normal ads at all and they still can afford to make expensive quality TV shows. If you can make big-budget TV shows without any ads, it just shows that something is wrong with traditional TV network thinking...

Kind of related but that is my major complaint about the Xbox 360 dashboard. I paid for the console, buy a bunch of games, pay a yearly xbox Live subscription and then when I load up my system BAMPH ads all over the place. At least HBO realizes a subscription fee should negate the need for advertising. Although technically you could call those 20 minute long "coming soon/making of shorts about major Hollywood movies" kind of advertising.

Anyway, we have advertising overkill in this country. Every internet screen, email inbox, telemarketer, physical junk mail, television and radio commercial break. I understand it's a necessary evil to an extent but they push it too far. I've probably seen 50 advertisements and it's 2 in the afternoon. Not a single one convincing me to buy or do anything. If I want a Big Mac then I know I want a Big Mac. You don't have to remind me they exist. 



PDF said:
Nicklesbe said:

There is plenty of proof. He works with stocks every day, he talks about stocks every day. Why wouldn't he own stock in the channel that hosts his show? His entire career and lifestyle indicates he owns stock. I've already proved he's received compensation when he accepted games from publishers. Games he received directly due to the fact he hosted the show on GT. I can direct you to a tweet where he flat out lied about Viacom selling GT. Sure he tweeted he got bad info later from a disgruntled employee but it doesn't change the fact that he didn't double check before he blasted a blatant lie all over the net as if it was the truth. I've already proved he's gotten compensation and I've proved he's lied before. I already asked him the question http://forums.gametrailers.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1330968&p=38409004#p38409004 because unlike you I'm not afraid of the truth.

No all you've done is made a fool out of yourself.  People don't buy stock of IGN ang GT.  They can't, they would have to buy stock of their parent companies.  He probably owns stock of viacom but thats not the same as owning stock in GT.  GT was sold off long before he got his show, so its extremely unlikely he was offered any part of the company.  Receiving games from people unaffiliated from GT does not prove he received compensation from GT.  That just stupid to think it does. He had relationships in the industry before he had his show on GT and was likely already receiving free games.  Even if he made those connections thanks to GT, that still does not equte to GT compensating him.  They did not give him anything.   As for him being wrong about GT being sold, its not much of a lie if you believe it, its called a mistake.  One he openly admitted too.   

I doubt your question will get picked up but I hope it does.  Either way I'm done, talking past each other does no one any good.


Any LLC has stock. You can get stock in a subsidiary without needing to get it from its parent company. Just because it's not publically traded doesn't mean there is no stock. It is just handed out by the company. The only fool here is you since you've shown you have no idea how stocks and corporations work and you have no idea what qualifies as compensation.  It's just stupid to believe he's received no compensation. Even if you believe he does it for fame and popularity that still qualifies as compensation. Since you struggle with what that means I suggest you read this. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compensation You cannot say or even prove he got nothing especially when you said earlier that he did get something even if it wasn't money. As far as the lie goes believing it doesn't make it less of a lie. It just makes him deluded. Especially since all he had to do was literally talk to one other person at the company to find out it wasn't true. Yes it was a mistake, a mistake that he spread a lie, it doesn't make it less of a lie and it doesn't change the fact that he did lie. If you're tired of talking past each other maybe you should start listening instead of deluding yourself. I've been listening to you, the problem is you've been wrong and upset and instead of listening and accepting reality you ignore it and delude yourself and talk past me. If he does answer the question and the answer is yes which I know it will be then you owe me an apology. It doesn't change the fact that he receives a form compensation for what he does. It doesn't matter if its stock options or games or connections from third parties or simply fame and attention. He gets compensation, He wouldn't be doing it if he wasn't. 



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

Around the Network

tbh we need AFK/Idle ads. Let the sites come up with ads that just play when the person is not at the computer but dont tell the advertisers haha.

I would not mind if my PC is showing some ads while I am taking a shit. Or while I am playing a game (as long as I dont get kicked out of the game and as long as it wont take 10% of my CPU power for flash shit)

Or when I am going to cook a meal let the PC play audio ads like in the radio. I never switch the radio channel when I hear a 30 second ad because It does not hinder me in any way. Its just there it does not prevend me from viewing content I want to see or anything it is not an obstacle at all. Its also not complete bullshit like a Transformer Citroen car that is skating down the hills etc. (what purpose does that have rofl)

I mean there is a whole industry connected to advertising and yet a handful of people in a thread have better ideas than the whole industry. Shows how dumb it is....



padib said:
DerNebel said:

I have actually tried, yes. And I'm telling you it works like I've told you, Youtubers get paid for monetized views and views are only monetized if there is an ad playing at the beginning, if you use adblock there'll never be ads and thus your clicks will never make the Youtubers money. The only way Youtubers can get paid just by views is if they advertise in the video itself.

Some artists use patron. It's not because our internet is now infested with ad being one of the only sources of revenue that it really is the only source of revenue.

As for naive, I'm not sure it's a question of naivety, only of limited horizons.

So the solution in your opinion is just letting other people pay money so you don't have to watch ads... that is so much better, damn these content creators for maybe not wanting to ask for money from a certain part of their audience so the rest can enjoy their stuff unobstructed and for free.



What Pachter said regarding  Nintendo going 3rd party was very silly, but I still wouldn't call him a "bastard"..... mostly because that would be an insult to the legit bastards!  



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

padib said:

No, that's not the solution. The solution is for me to pay money when I want to pay money. If I like an artist, I buy their music on iTunes or support them on Patron.

See, not as naive as you thought.

Right and if you don't like an artist enough to give him money but still want ot watch his/her stuff on Youtube you can just do that without worrying if he ever gets compensated for his work, after all the other people can just deal with that.

That is the problem here, if people aren't even willing to watch an ad to support a thing they like, what makes you think that they'd actually be willing to pay money for it?



Cool story bro. I still couldn't imagine using my PC without AD Block.



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.