Wait, you link three examples where Lemmy users point out that the Pareto principle explains data showing the way that engagement and revenue are distributed between games on Steam. I’m failing to see how that’s relevant to whether people would be willing to assist or take over the steamdb project. Obviously we can see in hindsight that they didn’t, but how do these links address whether that’s surprising?
arules@retrofed.com 4 days ago
Because the masses that use Steamdb to make financial decisions on when to purchase games, the folk looking to save money, are the first to not pay for the research service they depended on. Take a look rn at the upvotes. If 229 people paid a dollar to crowdfund its independence, steamdb wouldn’t have been a financial loss. Yet months of pleading went unanswered, until Black Tree Gaming Ltd. offered to monetize the site. 80~% of the users caused the site to operate at a cost, 20% offered to monetize it as an investment. Black Tree Gaming Ltd. won the bid. I don’t blame steamdb for choosing to sell it, I blame users for not financing it above costs.
In piefed, you can see my reaction.
davitz@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
Alright yeah, I agree with all that, but what does that have to do with the users that responded to reports about how game revenues are distributed by accurately associating it with the Pareto principle?
Theoretically even if the donation needs were met, it would be a small percent of users providing the majority of donations. So I don’t really see how acknowledging the existence of the principle changes whether it’s surprising that no one helped out.
arules@retrofed.com 4 days ago
Ask them that. I am using them as examples of political inaction. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little bit of your budget to support something.
Heck I read they are campaigning the politically incorrect way to stop killing games.
🤣 I am glad you’re also applying the principle even now. But you can reapply it to amount people unaware steamdb even exists🤣. Just like you were unaware the pleading was made for months, 80% of the population didn’t know either. We are the 20% knowledgeable base. I’m just part of the .001% that is too politically aware enough not recreate steamdb as a subscription crowdfund.
Plus, I hate capitalists.
davitz@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
Okay, now I’m extremely confused. How is being aware of the Pareto principle and mentioning it in situations where it applies “political inaction”? And more to the point, how does referencing it in response to reports about game revenue distribution in any way related to a person’s willingness to donate to steamdb?