Agreed. We can both appreciate the good that comes out of their battles, and still dislike them as a company. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Once you factor in how big the diameter is it's actually a good deal, though.

"Reddit signs historic billion-dollar deal with Reddit for access to their own data set"

Ah, merci pour le correction. 😄

Merci pour le réponse! Je ne le mange jamais.

Yeah that made it feel better once I knew that too. It just needs to be made optional I think, in the sense that there should be a "give me a random server with good ping and stats" kind of thing maybe.

Quelle est le type de pêche? Il a l'air bon!

Pardon mon francais, c'est ma deuxieme langue

This is absolutely a thing. I barely got onto Lemmy in the first place because having to choose a server is such a barrier to entry. Having to pick a community when you don't even know what the service is like yet is a major turn off for some people, myself included.

"Nuh uh!" said the Microsoft representative contacted.

Good for them! Hopefully they can set an example for others.

Nice to see an official sounding term for it honestly. It's a scourge these days.

I don't mean to insult anyone who really values being there day one, but for me I just don't care about early access at all. Playing a game a few days early is so unimportant to me I would never even consider paying extra for it.

Then you should do it. My point is that if you think you're going to change someone's mind who just wants to argue, your energy is better directed elsewhere.

Yeah, don't waste your time looking up sources for people who aren't interested in changing their mind.

I think the word I should have used is coordinated, not concentrated.

While I can appreciate your definition, it doesn't match the definitions I've heard or that came up when I looked it up. What you're talking about definitely falls under the umbrella of review bombing, but the broader definition is more inclusive than that. It also doesn't imply the bombing is unjustified or without merit, simply that it's a coordinated disruptive tactic to try and force a change. I think review bombing is a good thing, and is one of the few tactics consumers have to force shitty companies to listen.

You might argue that these new reviews weren't coordinated, and I think that's possible. There's no way for me to know that for sure, but it's hard to imagine that many negative reviews happening all at once without some amount of coordinated effort.

Ok, I can see that distinction. I'm definitely not dismissing their opinions. I don't personally see any issue with the term being used like this, and I think people are review bombing it for a good reason. I can understand where you're coming from though now that you've explained it.

I guess I just don't agree that the word invalidates the sentiment behind it. It's just a term to describe the behavior. Maybe I'm naive about that, but there it is.

People post negative reviews all the time, like if you tried the game and didn't like it. The bombing part is the concentrated spike.

I'm curious why you're reacting to the term so negatively? Do you feel like it undermines the message being sent to call it review bombing?

Isn't it the definition of review bombing? Review bombing is a concentrated spike in negative reviews due to something the community doesn't like usually. It doesn't have to be a negative thing and in this case seems quite justified. That still doesn't make it normal organic review behavior.

Quick, survey the people who like swimming with dolphins and see if they disproportionately hate puns!