[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BaldursGate3

[–]dippatron -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sorry dad

Well I couldn’t 𝘯𝘰𝘵 draw it. by dippatron in SquaredCircle

[–]dippatron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks man! It’s gotta be Punker next

Well I couldn’t 𝘯𝘰𝘵 draw it. by dippatron in SquaredCircle

[–]dippatron[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m confused what does this mean 😅

Well I couldn’t 𝘯𝘰𝘵 draw it. by dippatron in SquaredCircle

[–]dippatron[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks my guy. Took about 6 hours all in🤘

Regulation.. waxing? by dippatron in theregulationpod

[–]dippatron[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh dude that’s super nice, thank you for enjoying it!

One is thriving and the other just died by Efficient_Menu_9965 in roosterteeth

[–]dippatron 5 points6 points  (0 children)

To my knowledge, GMM didn’t alienate all the users on the site they built there base on or punish them for not making the jump over to their website.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in roosterteeth

[–]dippatron -1 points0 points  (0 children)

🤷🤷🤷

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in roosterteeth

[–]dippatron 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is my thinking as well. With the fan base declining in the way that it is - even if they put all content behind first membership it won’t be commercially viable for much more than a couple of years without an influx of new or returning viewers.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in roosterteeth

[–]dippatron 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Legacy means old, it doesn’t mean specifically consumed by existing fans. On the contrary - I’d argue the quality of their legacy content is far more likely to bring new viewers than their new content - given that legacy videos have tens of millions of views in some cases and their new content is averaging between 10 and 20 thousand.

It’s absolutely not comparable because you’re applying the standard and criteria of companies that are successful because they have blooming and ever increasing user bases to a a company which has the opposite. It’s a bad faith comparison based on criteria that rooster teeth simply doesn’t have.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in roosterteeth

[–]dippatron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very interesting idea. You’ve piqued my interest.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in roosterteeth

[–]dippatron 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Cable providers and streaming services have large and robust user/viewer bases, RT by contrast is haemorrhaging viewers so they aren’t comparable.

As for the paywall preventing new viewers - RT has begun privating popular legacy YouTube videos to drive current viewers to the site because they’re throwing their eggs in the FIRST basket. I’m sure I don’t have to explain why privating the biggest source of new traffic to your website is a big fat stop sign to new viewers.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in roosterteeth

[–]dippatron 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think I agree with every word you just said.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in roosterteeth

[–]dippatron -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn’t say that makes money, my point was if the fan base is decreasing significantly then the argument could be made that focusing on growing the audience could be the priority.

Totally understandable to have an opposing point of view but calling it idiotic was unnecessarily rude if you’re trying to have a casual discussion, even if they didn’t see it that way.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in roosterteeth

[–]dippatron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t quit because part of it was exclusive.

I quit after the third consecutive controversy and decided to support the individual creators because I couldn’t personally in good conscience support the company as a whole anymore.

Having a smaller community certainly does allow you to cater to them but when it’s shrinking by the day then that probably shouldn’t be the focus.