I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads... I think John Oliver gave a really good summary of the problem with sponsored content AKA native advertising:
He answered your question in the video. Content is something people want to have, but don't want to pay for.
Reddit is hypocritical, sure. They shouldn't allow any of it, or all of it and face the music. I'm in favor of the first. Away with all those haters. Let them set up their own site where they can spew their venom.
Sounds like you're hating on haters and as such should be banned/censored.
Settled? Hardly...
and until we're able to have a parallel Earth and tell everyone on one Earth "pollute all you want" and the other Earth "don't pollute at all" and leave it for many years it never will be settled.
Why do people STILL refuse to vote for anything but a repug or demoncrat? Just keep this shit up, voting R or D and you'll keep getting more and more tyranny.
Because it's been one vote per person for a while.
Oh, was a magical third Bush term going to make this any better? Or a McCain or Romney administration?
Considering that R-Money recognized the difference between a state-run healthcare law and a federal-run healthcare law as a constitutional issue, I think he would have done much better in respecting the balance of power, rather than Barrack "Fuck the Constitution, Fuck the legislature, Fuck the courts, I'm in charge here, eat my shit in the form of Executive Orders" Obama.
R-Money recognized that before becoming President.
The bigger issue that GP is pointing out is that candidates (of any party) say one thing while running, then do something different once in office.
Now it looks like a bureaucratic corporation struggling to have enough revenue pay for the perks of its executives.
Or enough revenue to pay its general employees since every time they try to do any sort of monetization, people throw a hissy fit.
That's a dumb argument. I asked you why you would spend $50 for shit like Angry Birds, as the context of the initial comment was:
Put more than 2 hours of content in your game. Your game sucks. Sell your game for $2 and lobby Skype to not refund games costing less than $2 or something.
I suggested a low price for low-content games, and you come back talking about
So, because you prefer an epic gaming experience, all other gaming forms should be ignored?
Would you pay $50 for shit like Angry Birds?
Angry Birds *is* 1/10 the price of what I said. Would you pay $50 for it?
No?
Then maybe these fly-by-night, valueless, contentless game providers should sell their games for $5 and not $50, instead of expecting us to pay $50 for shit like Angry Birds.
Your entire line of argument has been stupidity, up to and including ignoring a propositional question ("Would you pay $50 for shit like Angry Birds?") and instead treating it as a declaration ("Angry Birds is like $50, why would you pay that much for something with so little content?").
I never said any of those things, aside from the last one, you're thinking of Immerman.
Immerman never mentioned "$50" nor "Angry Birds" so I'm not sure where you go them from anyway.
It could be games that are less than $50 and larger than Angry Birds (but not the large epics you originally cite) would be affected by this.
Just because something isn't $2 doesn't automaticaly make it $50, nor does something not being one of the games you cite make it Angry Birds.
What's in it for Microsoft, when the upgrades are free?
As AmiMoJo says above. The Windows Store. The more people running Windows 10, the more people using the Windows Store, the more people using the Windows Store, the more money for Microsoft there.
Similar to how the console manufacturers (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and when they were making hardware, Sega) sell their console at a LOSS because they may up for it in selling games.
Phones with a better ability to leverage integrated storage
What does that even mean?
Using an SD card for GBs of 10-bit anime and sideloaded APKs all gotten totally legitimately
"I don't believe in sweeping social change being manifested by one person, unless he has an atomic weapon." -- Howard Chaykin
