4 ms·
The ltt video didn’t suggest it was intentional, it was careful not to. But Nintendo were certainly aware of it before release.
by hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
The ltt video didn’t suggest it was intentional, it was careful not to. But Nintendo were certainly aware of it before release.
- snailmailman 1y agoIt was certainly heavily implied to be intentional. With the title referencing "Nintendo’s greed"[0] and in the first minute they call it “locking down a product, not for a good reason, but just because [nintendo] can, or […] because <bleep> you” It’s not until much further in the video that they backtrack a bit and call it “tactical laziness” by Nintendo. Honestly, I did not get that far on my first watch. [0] YouTube now confusingly shows different titles randomly. I’m seeing “Nintendo’s Greed could Change the Tech Industry” but that may not be its real title for all I know.
- Barbing 1y agore: [0], that’ll likely be the uploader modifying the title - they test titles and thumbnails until one grabs attention See Tom Scott video, “this video has 74 million views“ (quantity subject to change in future)
- Gigachad 1y agoModern youtube has uploaders submit multiple thumbnails and headlines, then it AB tests them and selects the one that performed best. Pretty much every news website seems to do the same thing these days too.
- avianlyric 1y agoThe early comments are all clearly qualified as their opinions, rather than factual statements. The final conclusions are factual statements, with conclusions that avoid at cost saying anything could be considered libel.
- masklinn 1y agoThe video did very much suggest it was intentional but did so implicitly. It explicitly stopped short of explicitly suggesting it due to a lack of evidence.