The article feels a bit over the top, if I'm reading this correctly this is just Discord becoming a direct competitor to Patreon (as many Patreons already basically boil down to "get access to my Discord server")
Man, really? That sounds great. Patreon sucks really, really hard. It's one of those websites & apps where you're amazed someone managed to screw up that badly. Like, you have to put serious effort into making software as bad as Patreon is. Quibbles about their business model aside, Discord actually knows how to make functional software and a usable UI. I would happily start giving money to Discord if they make a full-featured Patreon competitor.
In fact, I am extremely hesitant about starting any new subscriptions because of how bad it is. (and I do not look forward to reading all the catchup chapters on that interface, not to mention trying to search through where I left off on the publicly posted content without getting spoiled by chapter titles.)
It takes ages to load, content is not on pages, its all streamed in order, and there is just a ton of lag trying to scroll through and find things.
If you click away and try to come back, welp, good luck finding where you left off, better hope you had that chapter number memorized.
Did I mention the lag? It takes like 10 seconds to load a text only section.
There is search, but again the lag is aweful.
Let's call a spade a spade - this is them knowing their customers, yes, but I'd hardly say they're just making things easier. It's Discord saying, "Oh, people pay for this kinda thing through Patreon? We'd actually like that money instead, please".
Discord, thus far, has generally been monetizing in ways I find pretty generally positive. I'm going to celebrate that until they actually start monetizing in shittier ways.
I'd argue that's why we end up in the position we often end up in, as users. We take it little by little until it's too late.
The "Well yeah that's capitalism and it sucks so /shrug, right?" argument feels kinda weak to me. If Discord's profitable and users are happy, why beat them for even more profit? Why can't we just go, "Welp, this is working, let's maintain where we're at"?
If you think this is "well the company should die then" territory, I'm not sure how that's a consistent way to interact with modern capitalism at all. Almost every company has loss-leaders or cross-marketing or vertical/horizontal integration. If we're bailing on companies and services at the first encroachment of them maybe seeking to be more profitable, then I have bad news about ads on Hacker News...
All I am is pessimistic about Discord in the long-run, as it tries to become profitable, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I'm very aware of the pessimistic part of my approach to the world and how it shapes my view, and perhaps could even be clouding my judgement here. I'd be equally curious about what makes you so staunchly defensive of Discord when it comes to some random dude going, "Hmm, I dunno, I feel like I've been here before and it hasn't ended well".
>If you think this is "well the company should die then" territory...
I don't think this specific move is, no. I don't feel like repeating that I'm simply pessimistic long-term.
>If we're bailing on companies and services at the first encroachment of them maybe seeking to be more profitable, then I have bad news about ads on Hacker News...
Again, see above, re: long-term pessimism. After all, I'm aware of ads on HN and I'm still here, aren't I?
> 'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, 'I want some more.'
> The master aimed a blow at Oliver's head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.
I suppose I'm defensive of Discord because I think they have and are generally acting in better faith and with a better model that is intentionally avoiding a lot of the worst problems that many of their peer companies have run into. It's grating to feel like you've found somewhere that's doing better than average, and then constantly have people show up and go "yea, but everyone else sucks and it'll probably be bad anyway."
It's also that it's not actionable. It's just doomsaying. It reminds me of the old saying that economists have predicted 8 of the last 3 recessions. It's not that I don't think there's a chance Discord will run off a cliff in the future, but it doesn't feel useful to abstain from praising their good moves now because there's always a chance they could ruin it later.
I mean, you are. Literally. I never said Discord was the equivalent of an abusive orphanage owner, and I even explicitly highlighted that this does, in fact, benefit the user. Not only that, but I also did not "literally" reference Oliver Twist, and it feels weird for you to say that I "literally" referenced it when the quote you posted is quite literally not the quote I posted. My quote was, genuinely literally, an Animal House reference[0]. But perhaps I'm being pedantic.
Perhaps I should've been a bit more clear, in that the sentiment I was trying to convey with that quote/comment was more generalized. It's great that we have tools like Discord and others, but if we find that these tools have to become bastardized and user-hostile in order to be financially viable long-term, should they even exist?
>It's grating to feel like you've found somewhere that's doing better than average, and then constantly have people show up and go "yea, but everyone else sucks and it'll probably be bad anyway."
I can see how that can get pretty annoying, but given what we've seen happen to so many tech companies, can you really blame people for having that sentiment? For being burned in a similar manner enough times that we're not really willing to go all-in for a company that has all the signs that it could very easily/likely head down that path? Nobody's trying to stop you from using it, and if it benefits you, go for it. Like I was trying to allude to in my previous comment - fuck what some random chud deep in the HN comments (that's me!) thinks about it. You dig it, that's awesome, go enjoy it! I don't want to ruin it for you, but, if we're having a conversation about this sort of thing then I'm gonna speak my mind.
>It's also that it's not actionable.
Sure it is. It's a reminder to proceed with caution if you're going to use the product. Use it, but don't become so dependent on it that you're lost if the rug gets pulled out from underneath you.
But like I said in a separate comment, I'd be more than happy to eat my hat down the line if it turns out my pessimism is wrong.
As someone who used to pay for a Vent/Mumble/Teamspeak server, as well as hosting for chat apps, Discord is currently giving me that for free. I understand that that's costing them money they need to make back some way, so if they can do that by stealing Patreon's business, or making a better Steam, or a better Jackbox, or charging companies for better server features like higher bitrate audio/video, then that's fine by me.
I'm just not seeing how this new feature is obviously worse for users where we have to "take it little by little until it's too late". You're acting like Discord is removing features and doing clearly malicious things that we're all just tolerating. The name changes are a misstep, but doesn't seem malicious. Them adding new features and trying to sell them seems like just an extension of the brand, which as long as it doesn't degrade the core product, is pretty much the best way for a company to grow.
Huh? In my first response to you I said, "I'd argue that the improvement for the users is just a byproduct in Discord's eyes". I've never said that this particular move is an inherently negative one for users who use Patreon. Two things can be true at once - a move primarily motivated by fiscal reasons can also be good for users. Because sure, as you and another user in this comment chain (their quote is the second quote below) have said...
>If they're not profitable now, and I doubt they are...
>There's no way Discord is profitable.
... I get that they need to make a profit. But as I've also said, I can't help but be pessimistic. This change may benefit users, but if they're still not profitable after this change, what next? Yeah, this might not "feel like they're beating users for more profit here as much as just eating Patreon's lunch", but that's the whole point.
Again, "pardon my pessimism"...
There's no decision you can't make that statement about. It's always true that a capitalist company will have incentives that cut against the user. Pessimism is what it is, but at some point it feels like texting your friends every morning with "another day closer to dying." It's not wrong, but why do you feel it's important to bring up?
If anything, the part of your original statement that I most disagree with is that this is "the encroachment of enshittification". It's only an "encroachment" if you see pretty much any decision by any company as being a step towards enshittification. The only thing that wouldn't qualify is closing the company down.
I tend to think that, yeah, more often than not, capitalism ruins good things. The only difference is...
>... it doesn't feel healthy or helpful to look at every banal or even positive thing a company does and immediately jump to "but because of capitalism, they're probably going to ruin it all later on."
... I don't do that for every company all the time as some kind of "blanket take". I take it on a case-by-case/circumstantial basis and, in this instance, Discord's current situation (VC-backed tech company taking losses for user growth but will ofc need to profit at some point) makes it, in my eyes, a stronger candidate for the enshittification path than many companies.
>... at some point it feels like texting your friends every morning with "another day closer to dying." It's not wrong, but why do you feel it's important to bring up?
Because I initially commented only taking issue with someone's use of the word "just" when they said this was "just Discord making it easier to set things up and manage" - "just" is disingenuous because it's obvious that Discord would like (needs?) some of that money.
It would only be the equivalent of waking up and texting my friends if I were to have made my own freestanding comment that said, "Hey everyone, this is enshittification!". I didn't do that - I only used that word once you responded to me and prompted me to expand on my thoughts.
For users? 100% it just makes things easier. This just makes it easier for users and hopefully overcomes some of the issues with Patreon's integration with Discord.
But from a user's perspective (which is what my POV was from and the only one that matters in this context), whether you are paying Patreon or Discord, it doesn't really matter.