4 ms·
> But on some level, we have to try to be objective as well. That's not untrue, but it's all about marketing now. Marketing really is all there is — some peopl
by sombremesa 6y ago
> But on some level, we have to try to be objective as well.
That's not untrue, but it's all about marketing now. Marketing really is all there is — some people call it 'growth hacking', but in the end it's what separates the wheat from the chaff. Having knowledge or skills is all well and good, but having perceived knowledge and skills is better for all extrinsic intents and purposes, so long as you've got enough to sustain the facade.
Objectivity in self-assessment isn't a bad thing, but success nowadays is defined by what you can make others believe.
Of course, there's the other kind of success - the kind Saitama in One Punch Man enjoys - getting good at something almost by accident, just because you love doing it. If you can make a living just doing what you love, who gives a damn whether other people know of you?
- username90 6y agoWhen you are an individual making games then it doesn't matter how much people perceive you to be a genius, people don't play games they find boring.
- jka 6y agoThe ability to sustain a facade thanks to marketing may be possible currently, in some circumstances; but that might not be true forever. It's also true that success doesn't require marketing; plenty of popular software and libraries, for example, have achieved their position not by advertising themselves, but by providing the correct solution for the task at hand.
- sombremesa 6y agoI should clarify that I meant success in the context of personal status. Even the authors of popular software and libraries usually remain obscure unless they choose to market themselves. For example, take the author of Flappy Bird who I can't even name offhand vs. Jonathan Stroud. The difference is in the marketing.
- jka 6y agoThanks for the clarification, that makes sense.