So here's a semi-off-topic reply. I was thinking about the
advantages of homogeneity. And while the article was really more about the poor process that leads some song/show/game to become popular, I was thinking about the
effect of having a universally popular or known song/show/game rather than fragmentation.
Thinking of TV, I guess I'm comparing the situation today to that when I was a child, and there were four or so networks in everyone's home. You could go to work, and everyone would have watched "the game" or Bob Newhart or MacGyver or whatever, and there was a shared cultural (if I use the term broadly) experience. Similar, I'd like to think, to the folks in Cliffski's article who all heard the same lutenist.
Now I go to the barber and the conversation goes like this:
"So have you seen {random Netflix show}"
"No. But I was watching {random other Netflix show}. Have you seen it?"
"No."
"How about this weather?"
So I'm happier when I'm consuming media - I'm watching what I want, on my terms, because of the huge profusion of choice. But I miss the opportunity to connect with other people as a result.
Likewise, my sister-in-law is a gamer. It is literally the only thing she and I have in common. And I follow RockPaperShotgun often enough I can engage with her in conversation. But we have very rarely played the same game. Yesterday I opened "Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight" and "Cities:Skylines." She posted on Twitter about NBA2k, a game I can't really talk intelligently about.
So I think to some extent the segmentation of media (for example on Steam, as mentioned by Cliffski) has served to segment
people. And I'm not sure that's all good. Maybe if we all played flappy bird we could connect a little better with fellow humans, instead of (as I'm likely to do) feeling smug and superior for making better, less popular choices.
Anyway, that's not exactly what he was talking about, but the article was a jumping-off point for all those thoughts.
Eric
