Right, did you look up if they sold because of financial hardship? Pretty sure everything I’ve read has been about its owner personally suffering burnout and disillusionment with the current tech and internet landscape.
Guy was even apparently looking for a replacement for himself for years before deciding to sell after burnout. So yes, saying it is because people did not donate isn’t really consistent with the evidence and explicit reasoning the owner gave. You are not only expressing an opinion, but an unsubstantiated one.
Also, yes, it is hardly fair to say that people don’t have a right to feel upset that a free service has the potential to no longer be free. In fact, what you’ve described, the need to spend money to do so, is antithetical to the philosophy behind that model. Chill out and adopt a more understanding perspective, it is seriously less work and more effective.
I meant the opinion to feel upset about the owner selling if I didn’t invest any resources, time nor money, into the provided service. I wasn’t talking about usage of said service which shouldn’t be gatekept if one opts out of donations of course.
You’re still wrong even if it made sense to suggest those aren’t interrelated. They’re of course free to have that opinion because they’re just taking the creator’s own words as honest.
Well if the opinion is „they shouldn’t be bought to sustain themselves financially“, yes.
Right, did you look up if they sold because of financial hardship? Pretty sure everything I’ve read has been about its owner personally suffering burnout and disillusionment with the current tech and internet landscape.
The owner can do whatever they want with their platform. I don’t feel entitled to an opinion because I never donated one cent to them.
Dude…it isn’t an “opinion.”
https://80.lv/articles/nexus-mods-owner-acquires-steamdb-after-co-founder-struggled-with-burnout
https://kotaku.com/nexus-mods-steamdb-steam-2000730486
https://www.techspot.com/news/113712-steamdb-acquired-nexus-mods-after-13-years-independent.html
Guy was even apparently looking for a replacement for himself for years before deciding to sell after burnout. So yes, saying it is because people did not donate isn’t really consistent with the evidence and explicit reasoning the owner gave. You are not only expressing an opinion, but an unsubstantiated one.
Also, yes, it is hardly fair to say that people don’t have a right to feel upset that a free service has the potential to no longer be free. In fact, what you’ve described, the need to spend money to do so, is antithetical to the philosophy behind that model. Chill out and adopt a more understanding perspective, it is seriously less work and more effective.
I meant the opinion to feel upset about the owner selling if I didn’t invest any resources, time nor money, into the provided service. I wasn’t talking about usage of said service which shouldn’t be gatekept if one opts out of donations of course.
You’re still wrong even if it made sense to suggest those aren’t interrelated. They’re of course free to have that opinion because they’re just taking the creator’s own words as honest.
Why shouldn’t the owner sell if they are burned out?
What the fuck do you think you’re saying rn?