The Asinine Boyfriend Expectations List Breakdown

This entry is part 10 of 13 in the series Dave's Breakdown

I found this ridiculously asinine list of apparent requirements that some random stupid girl threw up on her dating profile.  Since it was so terrible, I decided to break down each line of it.  It should be noted that this was found on a not-very-attractive “high skool” math teacher’s page.  I doubt she actually wrote it, but who knows with these things.

The original image is attached at the bottom of the post.

I want a boyfriend who:

– “Isn’t going to call other girls cute.”

Wow, how paranoid and/or low self-esteem do you have to be to actually put a stranglehold on whoever you consider to be your actual boyfriend to restrict them from ever calling another girl “cute.”  Wow.  CUTE is the barrier?  A 10 year old could be construed as “cute” — is this person going to become super jealous if that happens?  I assume the obvious point of stating this to begin with is that they don’t want their theoretical boyfriend to look at other girls, but the catch-all low-standard requirement just seems like a good way to be controlling of said boyfriend rather than being more afraid about having them, at worst, cheat on you.

“Isn’t going to like other girl’s facebook photo.”

Despite the terrible grammar, that this is #2 on the list absolutely boggles the mind.  Note that half of this world is made up of women, and most people in this world at least know one person that is a girl that they might be a Facebook friend with.  I would guess that simply being a Facebook friend with a girl is an infinitely more expressive notion to having some sort of infidelity going on with friends that are girls you might have, let alone liking some stupid fucking picture.  It’s okay to have cyber sex in private messages and talk about how many handjobs you would give in 30 minutes, but if you’re liking a photo, HOLY SHIT WATCH OUT, THE GIRLFRIEND IS GOING TO SMOTHER YOU WITH THAT PILLOW WHILE YOU SLEEP.

“Would text me good morning/goodnight texts :)”

Boring.  Every single fucking day?  Come on.  Don’t people have different sleeping schedules, anyway?  I would assume that someone who is this controlling would want to be with their boyfriend 100% of the time anyway so wishing for these texts are irrelevant in their very basic logical form.

– “Actually makes an attempt to spend a day with me.”

I like that “makes an attempt” is the standard.  I guess it excuses anyone from actually having to spend a full day with this idiot.

– “Doesn’t want to rush things and isn’t just after sex.”

I already feel like this person wants to be married after the prior requirements.  Who’s the real person rushing things?

– “I can be my complete self around.”

Because there are apparently multiple “selves” running around separated and once they are completed they shall combine into the Slime Lord, a hopelessly clingy and needy ultimate biological girlfriend that you don’t want.  And Slime Lord is apparently in an “around” shape.  I guess.

– “I can take silly pictures with.”

Isn’t that cute.  WHOOPS!  Let’s just take some silly pictures, girlfriend!  It’ll be lots of fun!  Never mind having any sort of commonalities in our interests or personalities.  Just as long as we can take silly pictures, it’s good!

– “I can play xbox with.”

Despite the fact that Xbox sucks because you have to pay an additional fee to access any online fees, this girl probably only likes to play Call of Duty or at best Halo.  Considering the rest of the list leaves no room for imagination in perhaps other types of games that might actually be more complex than “shoot the bad guyz” I could see this as a string of very painful experiences.  Most of the pain would come from split-screen multiplayer.  Yuck.

– “I can wrestle with.”

Wow.

– “I can cuddle with.”

Cuddling is less important than wrestling.

– “Respects me and my decisions.”

What this actually means is:  “Here’s my fucking list and if you don’t fucking like it you can go fuck yourself.”  I think I’d rather fuck myself, thank you very much!

Also, it might be a bit of irony that this is the last in her list.  I guess being able to wrestle and take silly pictures with someone is more important that having respect from a theoretical boyfriend.

I want a boyfriend who

 

Hardware vs. Software Backwards Compatibility

There is a lot of debate currently over if the next generation of hardware from Sony (and maybe even Microsoft?) will support backwards compatibility.

In a word, yes, they most certainly will.  As I am favorable to the Sony line of video game consoles, I am obviously more educated on their practices and the user experience I have with them, not to mention the long-term investment of my gaming collection in the PlayStation brand.

But, “in what form?” is the question that should be asked about backwards compatibility — not whether or not it will be around… Backwards compatibility comes in two fashions, looking forward:

1. Disc-based (hardware) backwards compatibility.
2. Software (storefront/online/digital) backwards compatibility.

Disc-based BC is less appealing to Sony as they can’t continue to make profits off discs after the fact, besides downloadable content, and that, at best, is probably not as profitable as we might think for most games.

By making consumers’ libraries of disc-based libraries incompatible with a potential PlayStation 4, it has the following potential benefits for Sony:

1a. Consumers will repurchase games they have.

This is obviously very attractive to all the businesses involved. The repurchasing of games that are “re-mastered” via disc, and also “re-mastered” (aka “made compatible”) with the current generation of hardware. People get to rebuy the 30 dollar/50 dollar/60 dollar games they bought in the past for varying amounts of money and benefit from software BC, which is explored below.  This will also get them “new” sales from consumers who only bought games used to begin with.

1b. Consumers will “switch to Xbox” if their current libraries are cut off from them.

This is the counterweight to 1a. However, this is not the only option presented to gamers who are suddenly cut from their existing libraries. A portion of them will obviously become floaters, but they may also come back later in the generation when the hardware is cheap.

There are some that will undoubtedly choose the next Xbox (or Wii U?) as their “main console” for this reason alone, but whether or not Sony actually cares about this depends on how much focus grouping they can do and whether or not disc-based backwards compatibility actually IS a factor to keeping existing consumers who own a PlayStation 3.

I personally would assume that 1a > the losses from 1b in the long-run plus the costs of accommodating disc-based backwards compatibility (which may or may not include actual extra hardware in the box).

The result and purpose of the loss of disc-based backwards compatibility is decreasing/eliminating the confidence in optical media severely due to its resulting loss of one of its greatest benefits — longevity of ownership (aka the selling of games back as used games and resold to a new consumer), and giving more confidence to online media.

Now, exploring online-only backwards compatibility, we can almost be 100% sure that anything bought online will be made to work with whatever future PlayStation 4 is available, whether they have to update all the games with a new build or software-based solution. The benefits that come from this are (assuming all the points I brought up above are true):

2a. Customers repurchasing games online — aka “more control.”

Customers “rebuy” games that cost little to nothing to create and service. Not to mention they are cutting out the middle man — the retail store. Sony and the 3rd party get a second income from this and at a greater rate due to less hands in the pot.  This also obviously eliminates used games.  You can’t sell a used digital game.  That makes no sense!

2b. Confidence increasing in Online purchases vs. Retail Purchases

Customers will be less apt to buy disc-based games at a retail store due to the fact that their disc may or may not be backwards compatible in the future. This probably only affects about 30 to 50% of the gaming community that actually enjoys playing old games on a new system. I’m sure that most of the people who buy games sell all of the games they buy once they’re done playing them.

The result of supporting Software BC is BENEFICIAL for the following reasons:

1. Boost confidence in online purchases, which leads to:

  • 1a. elimination of retail new games
  • 1b. elimination of used game sales

2. More long-term profits by having an increasingly larger selection of games available online at a more favorable cost to profit ratio.  There is never a “lack” of games to buy and play, even when a new console is launched.

The most clean example of what is happening is the transition from PSP -> PSVita.  People are buying PSP games to play on their PSVita, and all of the UMD games that consumers may have bought have become unusable on the new system, yet everything that was available/purchased online works on PSVita for the most part or will be patched to be able to.  Anyone who has a UMD game that they want to play on the PSVita will have to repurchase it, no exceptions.

We all know video games are going to online distribution systems exclusively within the next 10 years. Sony’s 10 year plans include outlooks like this, I’m sure.  PS4, coming out in 2014, sticking around until at least 2024 as an actively-developed-for platform. I’m sure every single game that is ever released on the PS4 will be mandated to be released online as well.  If it gets to the point of games being streamed from some server somewhere, you won’t even have a copy of the data you buy anymore. Poopoo on us if those servers go down one day, or the rights to stream those games disappear and you no longer have the right to that software once it happens, even if you did pay for it.

The super long-term plan for Sony is to eliminate disc-based backwards compatibility.  It is simply unfavorable to the industry as a whole to keep it around. It is a wholly consumer-positive practice and during this transitional period we are making into Online-only purchases (and soon cloud gaming) there will be growing pains for consumers who think they own something when they buy it.

The loss of disc-based/hardware backwards compatibility is bad for the consumer.  To promote or not care for the loss of disc-based backwards compatibility is to be anti-consumer.