Yes. And the original commenter was giving his opinion. This is really not a deep or complex conversation and it’s profound that so many nerds are intending on making it one, presumably just because they at their core disagree with the guys opinion.

I mean yeah sure man if you want to make utilizing basic phrases and concepts into a “normal people vs pussies” type of dynamic where you are putting yourself in the latter camp sure dude, go ahead.

Whatever helps you

It does change. But it doesn’t change when a subjective statement is a subjective statement. “This movie is 4 out of 5 stars” “this game isn’t worth $6 or $8” are never ever going to be objective statements regardless of if it’s 1150 or 2991

I don’t ignore it. You’re just wrong lmfao. Objectively so. Not an opinion.

Goodluck out there kid. You’ll need it

Because there are multiple ways to say a particular sentence and some people opt to not use the most passive voice possible when speaking (taking an active voice).

Try it out sometime.

Yep. The intended meaning of the original comment is a subjective opinion. There is literally no way for it not to be.

Hope this cleared things up for you. Really hoping you’re not a computer programmer or like… someone who has to talk to people in your day job.

So under your grand interpretation, you should default to just saying “no, when they said that they actually meant it in the wrong way”.

You might just be too cynical and online to read man

Yes they literally did. “This is not an $8 game” means “I don’t think this game is worth $8” when talking about a game that is in the real world price at $8.

No offense, but if English isn’t your second or third language or something you might genuinely have a reading/cognition problem. This is not like a strange use of language, this is just basic sentence structure that should be easily understood by middle school. It’s like the easiest question on the SAT

No he didn’t. He said “this isn’t a $6 game, let alone an $8 game”. Both of those are subjective opinion statements. He is referring to the perceived value of the game being lower to the actual costs of the game ($6 and $8 respectively)

This is really not a difficult thing. I’m not sure why so many Lemmy users are struggling with it

Okay, no, that’s fine. You can double down and say that you firmly believe someone saying “I don’t think this video game is worth $8” is an objective statement. Not exactly the move I would make but yunno you’ve got an uhh… interesting noggin on ya (don’t get too mad, that’s a subjective statement).

You can just say you goofed up and said something silly lmao. It’s more embarrassing to suddenly go “uhm, actually…. Have you considered I suddenly don’t want to talk about this anymore?” When confronted with an error on your part.

Well, one, Jesus Christ, it’s not even my statement. Two, the guy saying “this game isn’t worth $8” is obviously a subjective statement because it literally cannot ever be an objective statement.

Like. By definition.

When you see a movie rating and someone rates it four out of five stars, you understand that’s not them declaring a universal constant, correct?

Like interpreting obvious opinion statements as objective fact?

Well. Thankfully he never said that his statement was an objective fact.

Seriously, what’s up with you people? Do you need every single statement prefaced with “this is only my subjective opinion and not concrete fact but-!” Or you’ll take it like they’re trying to preach the word of god?

You’re not a computer. Why are you acting like one?

That’s fine. It’s not really a flaw in my statement. I assume you’re also fine with increases on most goods and services then on a somewhat “at will” / free market basis. My comment only refers to people who are often staunchly against such practices but make a “hole” in this view specifically for video games / media

Yeah, I dunno how fairly to price a video game. But it’s kind of interesting that price increases on some things are universally seen as bad, but when a video game developer does it (irrespective of how much money they have), everyone suddenly becomes the most staunch Ayn Rand free market capitalist in a way I don’t think they would be if their local plumbing company or restaurants suddenly raised prices 20% and said “no fucking shit, I do this for a living”.

It was a big thing with the Disco Elysium game, wherein the creators by all means did every single possible move to maximize their personal profits and ended up having it come back to haunt them, and basically everyone said they were being exploited by this horrific system because they’re vaguely communist game developers.

Again, it’s not to say that David shouldn’t price his game at $8 or that the DE guys didn’t get fucked, but it’s interesting how political views become flexible based on how much an audience likes a guy.

I realize this is grounds for the most downvoted comment on Lemmy. That’s fine. It is what it is.

Well, true for some words. OP checking out how to spell “consistently” and me trying to figure out effect/affect for a specific case…. Probably less so.

Yeah, it’s advertising. They want to be able to sell you clothes you’ll probably actually wear, video games you’ll actually play, etc. They probably don’t care about your google spell checks as much as they care about what posts you’re liking on your Instagram reels.

On one hand, it sucks to not really have that privacy. On the other hand, people act like if you don’t use a VPN for every single online service today that in 5 years data brokers will sell your exact address to the Islamic Jihad for ten dollars.

Memmy

You haven’t said ‘at first’ at any point in talking to me.