Poll of the Day > someone update me on the gfaqs lore

(+) Yeah! (+)

helIy posted...

that isn't the ceo lmao

In 2020, Business Insider reported Kelly to abuse drugs and staff.[8]

It'd make much more sense if he was though.

---

wydrah posted...

I shouldn't say dead. I meant it subjectively. There's a steep decline. Although, many boards on my favorites list from 15 years are, in fact, dead. Not just older game boards, but those too.

I agree there has been a decline. But when games first come out, its pretty active. For the amount of people that still use the site. And it can gain more traffic after certain things, like DLC, or an event
---

wydrah posted...

The boards are dead. They are nothing what they were 15 years ago. Not to suggest things were better then, but more active. I think it's pretty obvious that gfaqs is not a competitive community to social media, and the fact that gfaqs activity declined as social media activity increased is compelling to me.

I don't need some asshole yelling for 15 minutes straight when it would take literally 30 seconds to show the location of a treasure chest.
---

Revelation34 posted...

I don't need some asshole yelling for 15 minutes straight when it would take literally 30 seconds to show the location of a treasure chest.

That doesn't mean walkthroughs are competitive to YouTube, and GFAQs is ultimately a business.

---

wydrah posted...

That doesn't mean walkthroughs are competitive to YouTube, and GFAQs is ultimately a business.

Most of the time it's easier to just read a guide for that stuff on here.
---

I think you're missing my point.

My point was that this place's activity has plummeted, and the correlation I notice is YouTube has usurped walkthroughs. I think that's a fair correlation to note, and I'll just make the jump to causation. Once Let's Plays started happening, people realized they don't need walkthroughs.

And even if you like walkthroughs, are you alone enough to make the site profitable?

How much activity is needed to make the site profitable? Where is the site compared to that threshold? What happens if the site becomes unprofitable? Your individual patronage is irrelevant to these questions.

---

Revelation34 posted...

I don't need some asshole yelling for 15 minutes straight when it would take literally 30 seconds to show the location of a treasure chest.

Spending 15 minutes to scroll through multiple FAQs that don't really answer your question or show you what you need to know, or that poorly describe locations verbally so you have a hard time finding what you need really isn't a better alternative either.

I almost never use FAQs anymore, and on the few occasions I try they're almost always useless. Even aside from YouTube playthroughs (and there are plenty where you either don't have to listen to the person talking or where you can just mute the audio and watch the visuals), there are tons of game-specific wikis or walkthroughs on sites like IGN that explicitly walk you through whatever you need to know and show you exact pictures of where you need to be looking.

And the game boards themselves are generally useless because if there's anyone there at all (which is rare for older games), most of the people there either won't answer your question, will answer in ways that are completely useless, or they'll abuse you for asking it in the first place.

Younger people who've basically grown up with social media see zero reason for a site like this one to exist. It's a large part of why this site doesn't actually attract new users, and why most new accounts are just old troll users making new ones whenever they get banned.
---

Wikis are a really good point as well. GFAQs really missed the boat on that, but the userbase is probably too immature to rely on for free labor in maintaining those.

---

They have that counter of active board users, I just checked and it was under 1300 right now. Yikes. Back in the day I think it would usually be like 5000+. Maybe even more, looking at polls. Polls today routinely get under 10k and in 2009 they'd get like 80k votes

CoorsLight posted...

They have that counter of active board users, I just checked and it was under 1300 right now. Yikes. Back in the day I think it would usually be like 5000+. Maybe even more, looking at polls. Polls today routinely get under 10k and in 2009 they'd get like 80k votes

Yeah, we have clear data that shows the declining activity.

---

I stopped responding to the polls like 10 years ago

---

You can't make a perfectly justified walkthrough on YouTube https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/snes/588741-super-metroid/faqs/10114

---

whoa i was drunk last night

---

agesboy posted...

whoa i was drunk last night

Yes. Yes you were.

---

agesboy posted...

whoa i was drunk last night

How drunk?
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I almost never use FAQs anymore, and on the few occasions I try they're almost always useless.

For the older games it's great (Final Fantasy and such) but a newer game like The Witcher 3, its not the comprehensive definitive answer for how to get all the game endings. I would hate to lose the extensive database for the old games, but if the quality of the content for new games is not on par with expected performance, I could see a business decision being made that would mean the end of the site.

---

I rarely play a new game long enough to ever need a guide or FAQ

and when I do I rarely care about it enough to want to do any kind of completion beyond maybe the main plot or primary content

---

I sometimes use video guides for puzzle heavy games but it always makes me feel like a quitter (Limbo got me stuck I think twice).

---

KodyKeir posted...

For the older games it's great (Final Fantasy and such) but a newer game like The Witcher 3, its not the comprehensive definitive answer for how to get all the game endings. I would hate to lose the extensive database for the old games, but if the quality of the content for new games is not on par with expected performance, I could see a business decision being made that would mean the end of the site.

They would probably give us an announcement if that is going to happen. We could download the faqs or something.
---

Revelation34 posted...

They would probably give us an announcement if that is going to happen. We could download the faqs or something.

The writing is on the wall I guess, all things must come to an end, and Reddit is a thing, but some of the boards for the older games has information that isn't common elsewhere.

---

BlackJackCat posted...

The writing is on the wall I guess, all things must come to an end, and Reddit is a thing, but some of the boards for the older games has information that isn't common elsewhere.

Reddit is terrible though. The format sucks. You have to know the exact link to find comments in a long thread.
---

wydrah posted...

Once Let's Plays started happening, people realized they don't need walkthroughs.

Depends on what youre looking for, though. Sometimes, its easier with a guide. Or quicker with a guide Or the board in certain cases
---

Revelation34 posted...

Reddit is terrible though. The format sucks. You have to know the exact link to find comments in a long thread.

As a forum it's useful for a variety of things, but for video game stuff, unless you know exactly what to look for, you're probably going to miss a lot of good community information.

---

Revelation34 posted...

They would probably give us an announcement if that is going to happen. We could download the faqs or something.

Technically you wouldn't be able to rehost them. A lot of older FAQs have disclaimers like "This was written for GameFAQs, don't post elsewhere." And even for ones that don't have that, you'd be legally obligated to ask the writers for permission. If you just grabbed everything (or even just some stuff) and tossed it somewhere else, you'd open yourself up to potential issues.

There's also the problem that if you just rehost stuff somewhere on a random site, people wouldn't necessarily be able to find them easily (or at least not as easily as they can here).
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Technically you wouldn't be able to rehost them. A lot of older FAQs have disclaimers like "This was written for GameFAQs, don't post elsewhere." And even for ones that don't have that, you'd be legally obligated to ask the writers for permission. If you just grabbed everything (or even just some stuff) and tossed it somewhere else, you'd open yourself up to potential issues.

There's also the problem that if you just rehost stuff somewhere on a random site, people wouldn't necessarily be able to find them easily (or at least not as easily as they can here).

I'll remove all mentions of Gamefaqs.
---

It's still copyrighted, but copyright is also bullshit, so I support your future crimes

---

wydrah posted...

It's still copyrighted, but copyright is also bullshit, so I support your future crimes

They would be copyrighted by the owner but not the writers of the game faqs.
---

They are copyrighted by the writers. Receiving permission to publish from thousands of FAQ writers seems impractical

---

Giving permission for GFAQs to host the FAQ doesn't transfer ownership of it. It's like any anthology book, right? Permissions are giving to publish, not to own. I just looked up some FAQs, and many writers give permission to other sites to host as well. The only FAQs this site might own are bounties since they are paid for, but idk much about them. Anthologies also pay to include the work of others without transferring ownership.

---

wydrah posted...

Giving permission for GFAQs to host the FAQ doesn't transfer ownership of it. It's like any anthology book, right? Permissions are giving to publish, not to own. I just looked up some FAQs, and many writers give permission to other sites to host as well. The only FAQs this site might own are bounties since they are paid for, but idk much about them. Anthologies also pay to include the work of others without transferring ownership.

Those bounties are more like a promise for rewards, except "lol sorry you didn't win the bounty reward this time despite you doing everything right." Otherwise I'd have received a few Amazon gift cards by now, and maybe I'd have written a few more for this site to share by now. I'm not sure how many other guide writers have felt the same sting of receiving nothing but unfulfilled promises for their efforts, but if they had, then maybe that is a fair contribution to why guide writers are too happy to go elsewhere.

---

wydrah posted...

A far leftist would not so eagerly support the DNC. Also, how many millionaire far leftists are there? That would be literally against their self-interest. NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE

bernie sanders comes to mind

---

Revelation34 posted...

I'll remove all mentions of Gamefaqs.

That would actually place you in a worse legal/ethical position, not a better one.



wydrah posted...

They are copyrighted by the writers. Receiving permission to publish from thousands of FAQ writers seems impractical

The individual writers retain ownership and merely give permission to GameFAQs to host. GameFAQs itself cannot transfer that permission, and you'd technically be obligated to seek permission from every single FAQ writer to host them anywhere else. That's what makes it a difficult proposition.

Granted, you could just rehost everything without permission, but that opens you up to any of those FAQ writers coming after you for it if they wanted to.

This sort of thing mostly came up in the old days, when FAQs were actually popular and upstart sites would just steal FAQs from GameFAQs and rehost them on their own sites without credit or permission. A lot of sites got in trouble for it. By this point it's possible no one would care, but it's still a risk.
---

<a onclick="return show_quoted_message(3, 79589758, 956700780, 'ce886e0c');" href="/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/79589758/956700780"><a onclick="return show_quoted_message(3, 79589758, 956700780, 'ce886e0c');" href="/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/79589758/956700780">Wanded posted... </a></a>

bernie sanders comes to mind

And he also does not eagerly support the DNC, sooo

---

Wow, wtf happened with that quote

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That would actually place you in a worse legal/ethical position, not a better one.

They'd have to prove it first.
---

Revelation34 posted...

They'd have to prove it first.

No. Street justice.

---

Bernie Sanders has worked high paying government jobs into his late 70s, it's laughable that people think him being worth like $3 million is a big gotcha. He'd have to be pretty fiscally irresponsible to not be worth that much. And don't be like "well he could put his money where his mouth is and give it away" as if 3 mil is really going to make significant social advancements

CoorsLight posted...

Bernie Sanders has worked high paying government jobs into his late 70s, it's laughable that people think him being worth like $3 million is a big gotcha. He'd have to be pretty fiscally irresponsible to not be worth that much. And don't be like "well he could put his money where his mouth is and give it away" as if 3 mil is really going to make significant social advancements

Exactly. Charity is a bad solution to systemic poverty. Seizing wealth through a wealth tax and redistributing it through government programs is the only way to systemically lift people out of poverty.

---

Bernie has been working for so many years. Invest $700 a month for 59 years and you, too, could have the equivalent of $3M in today's dollars

---

Clench281 posted...

Bernie has been working for so many years. Invest $700 a month for 59 years and you, too, could have the equivalent of $3M in today's dollars

Which amounts to what? 935 grand around 1990? I'd need to calculate this properly. Mind you that that is just 31 years ago, not 59. So if someone can calculate 3mil in today's money for whatever the equivalent was in 1962, then have at you.

---

Entity13 posted...

Which amounts to what? 935 grand around 1990? I'd need to calculate this properly. Mind you that that is just 31 years ago, not 59. So if someone can calculate 3mil in today's money for whatever the equivalent was in 1962, then have at you.

$333K in 1962 ~= $3M today on https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

---

Clench281 posted...

$333K in 1962 ~= $3M today on https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

And with that, I picture people who are privileged enough to even save up 3 million dollars over the course of a few decades, making that amount their only goal instead of adjusting for inflation, and basically having 333k in today's dollars in 2080. Or maybe less than that; however much 3mil will get them by that time.

Kudos to those JUST privileged enough to save up money who can account for such things and be able to retire after 59 years of work. <_<

---

Entity13 posted...

And with that, I picture people who are privileged enough to even save up 3 million dollars over the course of a few decades, making that amount their only goal instead of adjusting for inflation, and basically having 333k in today's dollars in 2080. Or maybe less than that; however much 3mil will get them by that time.

Kudos to those JUST privileged enough to save up money who can account for such things and be able to retire after 59 years of work. <_<

You would have $333K in today's dollars by investing $80 a month until 2080 (under the same assumption of 7% annual return with 2% annual inflation)

You could retire on $1M of today's dollars while infinitely "paying yourself" today's equivalent of $50K a year. Even more if you start letting your account go below $1M.

You get pretty close to $1M ($873K) off $700 a month for only 37 years, or from 20 until a pretty typical retirement age. Starting at 30 instead of 20 years old, you'd only end up with $469K, underscoreing how important time is too the equation.

$700 per month is what a lot of people could save in rent alone if they went from living alone to living with a roommate or partner.

---

Sorry for turning your topic into one about retirement planning

---

I doubt any of us will be alive in 2080.
---

Revelation34 posted...

I doubt any of us will be alive in 2080.

idk man, i've been alive every year since i was born. that's a strong pattern to break

---

I saw Haley's Comet when I was 9, and 9-year old me predicted that I'd never make it to the next go-around.

So I'll probably be dead by 2060.

44-year old me suspects I might not make it to 2040. Possibly not even 2030.
---

My family is notoriously long lived, so there is a good chance I will make it to 2080.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I saw Haley's Comet when I was 9, and 9-year old me predicted that I'd never make it to the next go-around.

So I'll probably be dead by 2060.

44-year old me suspects I might not make it to 2040. Possibly not even 2030.

I mean, the way things have been going the last couple decades, I'd be more surprised if humanity in general was around by 2040, leaving some post-singularity AI to speculate about their creators, why they exist, and why there's such terrible music on the broadcast network they all share.

---

Entity13 posted...

I mean, the way things have been going the last couple decades, I'd be more surprised if humanity in general was around by 2040, leaving some post-singularity AI to speculate about their creators, why they exist, and why there's such terrible music on the broadcast network they all share.

What if they discover Vtubers?
---