If you are absolutely locked in to someone else's service, then there really isn't anything you can do if they do something object able, better to rip off the Band-Aid now than later.
X Formerly Known As Twitter isn't functionally irreplaceable, and I do hope the higher up at Nintendo will realize the only way that the only way to make sure they have full control of their publishing platform is by owning it and start a Misskey instance or something.
Musk probably thought calling it "X" made it sound edgy and cool. I bet it really annoys him every time it's called "the social media platform formerly known as Twitter."
Apparently he has been obsessed with the letter since before the PayPal days. He owned X.com before joining PayPal. It was even named X for a little bit. Before it went public the name was changed to PayPal. Because of course X is a terrible name for brand recognition and marketing. I think part of this just fuck you to all the guys who started PayPal
Oh and remember the only real thing Musk brought to PayPal. Was his daddy's money.
I don't understand the mindset in this thread. Functionality is neutral. Withdrawal of it is not a good thing - people should be able to comprehend that even if their vision is partially blocked by their hate boner for X/Musk.
Put it this way: If you took a thread talking about some tech from a joke community, and a thread about the same topic from a generic technology community, you won't be able to tell them apart. People will bring the same energy and mindset to both. Jokes and "lol get rekt company I hate" will be pushed to the top, because they totally contribute to the discussion, while basic observations like "removing functionality is bad" will be pushed down. 👍
Everything has a cost. I would have cheered them removing twitter from a game console before it was ruined. Nobody really needs that. And the resources can go to something that supports the core functionality of the device.
I see what you're saying. As an isolated event it's pretty meh. Maybe it sucks for the two people who used it.
In a sense, Musk was betting that Twitter's API was undermonitized, and by raising the price, he'd make more money than he'd lose in people leaving the platform. He bet Twitter's relevance against some money. Yeah, not a lot of people used it on Switch, but every rejection of his bet, that Twitter isn't worth the price, hurts Musk's bottom line. And it's kinda on him; Nintendo isn't defying him, he was just wrong.
Brand integration definitely is not neutral. Functionality to make it smooth and easy interact with nazi-central lends Nintendo's credibility to that platform. It's not a neutral feature.
Yeah, I will. These decisions don't just come out of nowhere, and I think its always a good idea to try to understand why things happen. By understanding the reasons for things, the world is less likely to feel arbitrarily hostile and unfair - and I can make better informed choices for my own life.
This would be great if Nintendo was genuinely concerned about encouraging the usage of a hostile platform. Sadly odds are that it cares about its brand way more than "those things" playing their games.
Nintendo didn't provide one [reason], but it's likely due to X's increased API costs
I don't think so. Even with the abusive costs the price would be rather small for Nintendo, in comparison with the advertisement of its games in Twitter. I think that it's mostly a "eeeeew, Nintendo has X integration? Nintendo must be fascist."
I think that it's more like "Mike got a promotion *for saving our brand from unnecessary damage". The whole thing stinks "muh brand" from a distance for me.