July 2019

Open source gamers are in denial of technological progress

Submitted by Duion on

This is kind of a part two of the open source gaming community in denial. There are so many aspects to this problem, that I probably need multiple articles about it. The last blog post covered the problem that the open source gaming community is in denial of them failing in terms of market share and this one is more about how they do not even understand the concept of improving in technological progress, like most of the rest of the world does. You understand? One primary method of improving your market share is in technologically improving your product, besides marketing of course, which is probably more important, but after marketing, you need to focus on actually developing something that can be marketed.

To me it looks like almost all open source games never progress technologically in a significant manner, some even seem to get worse over time. Why is that so? Well a long time there was no big way on having open source tech available to make up to date games with, then some quake like engines got open sourced and the community went with it, but it never got developed further. Then there was a long time nothing and then more up to date engines were open sourced or developed and the open source gaming community did not even bother to pick up the latest tech to develop with, which is the definitive proof of their denial of technological progress. Among normal game developers it is one of the most common thing to see people switching tools, often without thinking much about it, since the temptation of having a technological advantage is so big. There is a real race for everyone to get their hands on the latest tech and stuff, but not so in the open source gaming community, where it is almost the direct opposite, not only do they not care to get better tech or technological improvement, some even intentionally seek to downgrade the horrible backwards technology they already have, which looks like total insanity to me.

Let me tell you my story into game development, it started back in the day with Half-Life 1, that shipped with a level editor, which I used to make my own levels with and it quickly became more fun to make my own worlds and play them, than to play the original game. So I tried to improve my skills and what is technologically possible with the engine, but I had to soon realize the extreme limitations of the engine and old tech and I dreamed that in the future with more powerful computers and more modern game engines there would be so much more possibilities to create realistic looking game worlds on a large scale. Due to the closed source nature of the old Half-Life 1 engine, it quickly became outdated and it became impossible to improve with it, so I stopped making levels and modding and kind of gave up.

Later Half-Life 2 was released, but it did not offer significant improvements, so I did not even bother with that. Around the same time however another game was released called Far Cry 1 which offered significant improvements regarding game world size and graphics so I picked that up and made a bunch of levels for it. However observing the mapping and modding scene of Far Cry 1 I noticed it was already significantly smaller than the one for Half-Life 1. Overall the total amount of custom maps made for Far Cry 1 was about 1000, but 95% of them were outright useless crap, so you were left with like 50 playable levels and mods were almost nonexistent for it. Compared to Half-Life 1 this was almost nothing, I never counted it, but it was easily more than 5000 maps and over 50 mods made for it, it was a whole universe for itself. So then Far Cry 1 became outdated and hard to work with and later Crysis was a huge improvement graphics wise, but it was a pain to work with and its proprietary nature made it even harder to work with, so I gave up on that as well.

The whole open source shooter world I did not even bother with, since it did not even meet Half-Life 1 quality, so it was completely uninteresting for me. Later Torque3D was released as open source and I immediately knew, that this was the chance of the lifetime to finally realize the dream of having open source realistic 3D shooters. It seemed that I was the only one in the world to realize that one in a lifetime chance, since the whole open source community totally ignored it, not only that, but they ignore any new tech newer than Quake3 level or so, so they were already in denial long before. To me it was a total no-brainer and it objectively it is a no-brainer as well, however the open source gaming community was totally blind to this obvious fact that new engines could harness more processing power putting out much more quality.

I cannot even count the amount of times I tried to have debates with those people trying to convince them about the obvious benefits of newer technology and harnessing more processing power. Modern engines using modern hardware are not only a little bit better than old ones, but they are better by orders of magnitude. I remember back in Half-Life 1 days you had a polygon limit per scene of 600-1000 for level geometry, which was really not much, but nowadays you can easily put a million polygons onto the screen and there is no problem with it. That is an improvement by factor 1000. The max level size with Half-Life 1 and other Quake derivative engines was I think around 200x200 meters and it never really improved up to this day, which results in 0,04 square kilometers. The default level size in Far-Cry 1 was 2x2km which resulted in 4 square kilometers, which is a 100 times larger and today this is still kind of a standard size, you can also go up to 4x4 which is 400 times larger or even 8x8 which is 1600 times larger than using old Quake engines.

However I do not bother here do bring up more proofs and math to back it up, since I noticed my debate partners would just deny basic reality and claim Quake 1, 2 or 3 engine can do the same and is just as good, even though nobody in the world ever demonstrated any of it. It went so far, that if you show those people screenshots of old games vs new modern games that have a thousand times more polygon complexity, they would say, that there is no difference between those two games. They literally cannot see the progress that was made in the last 10-20 years. They think all those millions and billions of money spend and thousands of people working over the years, even over decades, cannot do any better, than a few guys with no money in the garage back in the day of the first PC games.

Even after you admittedly destroyed all their arguments, they would switch to other irrelevant arguments or topics and would start to argue about software freedom and morality, or how those new games are not compatible with old hardware and that they are so poor they cannot afford new hardware. Some guys I talked to even went so far saying, that yes they could afford new hardware, but they chose old hardware, because it will save them electricity, because hey, why would you waste electricity, when you can have "fun" with retro games.

I don't even know how to help those people, they are so in denial, they are completely disconnected from reality. They fool themselves into thinking they are having the same fun with the games now that they played 20 years ago, ah I have to correct myself, not the same games, but open source ripoff versions of those games, that are often even inferior to the commercial versions that existed 20 years ago or so. That they are having fun with that, can easily be easily disproved, since fun comes when you experience something new, you get a dopamine kick out of it that over time decreases, then you need something new or better again. Almost all halfway sane people operate on this basis, they always seek the latest and best entertainment they can get, to have the most fun, but not the open source people, they don't do anything other than being in denial and getting stuck in a loop where they do the same boring thing over and over and denying the real world around them.

The dissonance between them and the reality becomes so big, that many of them have to admit, that they are far backwards, but then they excuse this by justifying themselves with that they are so much more moral and that the past was better anyway and that intentionally going retro is cooler, this means intentionally producing degraded products to consume is better.

You see the difference between me and them? I was going for open source for practical reasons and to improve, but almost all other people in the scene just go for it for ideological reasons and to get off on the fact how moral they are, not caring about reality and making any actual progress, which then in return hurts their cause more than it helps them, because outsiders will look at the scene thinking "Those people are all insane, I don't want have anything to do with those weirdos, they are all backwards".
I know this for a fact, since I was also called a weirdo, when I tried to argue for open source, because people thought I was one of "them", but I'm just a normal person going for open source, because it is superior for my case for practical reasons.

I had to write this down into the internet, in hope to find a sane human being who is also able to see this obvious problem, otherwise we will never get over this.

Blog Reference: 
Open Source

The open source gaming community is in denial

Submitted by Duion on

As an open source game developer I needed to search for methods to market my game and since the mainstream market is not my main target group I needed to search for alternative ways for marketing. So I searched what open source gaming communities there are and also what Linux gaming communities there are, but there were not that many active ones and the "active" ones I found basically all live in denial and therefore are as good as inactive.

Let me explain some of my experiences, for example there was a Linux gaming community I joined and thought "Hey that is exactly what I need, maybe I can reach some new target audience there and make some friends to play games etc". After I joined I tried to talk to people and created a page to promote my game, but after some time I noticed that this whole undertaking basically gave me close to zero new visitors. I thought, maybe I was not good enough or made mistakes in my presentation etc, but then went to some analytic tools that you can use on other peoples websites and they give you rough estimates about the traffic and relevance and I found out, they had almost no traffic.

My next logical conclusion was to tell the people running that website and community about my findings like: "Hey guys did you know that you have no traffic? And did you know that your community did not grow in almost a decade? Have you ever considered doing something about it?".

The replies were quite irritated, some ignored it and others tried to justify things like: "Oh we do not need doing advertising, we are doing fine" or "Oh we do not need to do anything, because we are not commercial".

That amount of insanity and denial just struck me, I mean commercial or not, you are running a business or something similar to a business and you still have a goal to achieve something and if you are not achieving anything over many years, then maybe, just maybe it is time to reconsider and do something about it. For people in denial however there is no problem with that, they can run a failure project basically forever and still pretend everything is fine, but I'm not in denial and want to achieve something for real. However most other people do not seem to want to achieve anything for real, they seem to be satisfied with pretending to have achieved something. In the end I think they even banned me, I don't remember exactly, but what I know for sure is that they were pretty pissed off and did not want me there anymore, so I left.

Oh I just realize I already wrote about that problem here: https://duion.com/blogs/why-most-open-source-communities-never-grow you can read that as well, since it is related, but I will keep on writing on this one, since that topic is really important, but I will not make all the examples I made again.

So what other communities you can go to to advertise your open source game? Well there is this "certain" open source gaming community that controls almost all the open source gaming communities, the only problem with them is, they also have no visitors and do not grow. They are even worse than the Linux gaming communities, since they are even more in denial and are very motivated to censor you, if you mention the uncomfortable facts, as they banned me multiple times and even deleted or modified some of my posts.

Almost all of the open source gaming community also suffers from a zero growth in customers, but even worse is, that they cannot see the problem. I mean you can try to tell them and back things up with statistics and such, but it seems they literally cannot see it. If you get too obtrusive they will just censor and ban you. Those open source gaming communities also die from time to time and they disappear, but the people from the community cannot even see that.

I then tried to at least find people I can play some open source games with, but this was also a close to impossible undertaking. What are communities then good for, if you cannot do anything with them? I think those people just like to be in a group and validate each other and don't really care to actually achieve anything.

I'm into open source game development for almost 8 years now and I never witnessed anything significant happen in the scene or received significant help from any of them, but the worst part of all that is, I also never met anyone who is even able to see the problem and try to do something about it.

In the commercial real world this is the most obvious and logical thing to do, you try to achieve something and measure your results and when they are not good, you try to do something to improve your results, since they are not in denial. Of course many business owners are also in denial, but they don't survive long, since they will go bankrupt soon.

Imagine the insanity, in the real business world big companies are investing millions and billions to make progress and employ hundreds and thousands of people and they try every dirty trick in the book to get ahead and what do the open source communities do? Nothing absolutely nothing and the most insane part of all is, that they don't even see a problem in that and keep saying "We are doing fine" and that after they have been beaten by the enemy so hard, that they are well below 0.1% market share.

I did some research into psychology, because I just could not grasp that amount of insanity, but in psychology it is described that people in denial are like that, because they are faced with facts that are too uncomfortable to accept, so they just deny them and deny reality, no matter how much proof you give them. Now I can understand a bit why being in denial is so rampant in the scene, because the commercial companies are just too big and powerful to compete with, so they just deny that there is competition, even though those companies are explicitly hostile towards for example open source and try everything to destroy it.

Open source gaming is a bit like being an alcoholic that is in denial about him being an alcoholic. I mean I was partly in denial myself, I thought for a relatively long time that open source gaming does exist and makes progress, but slowly over time I came to the realization that it is basically nonexistent except for a few insane people that still play the same games from 10-20 years ago, with the same people, making no progress and pretend they are having so much fun and open source gaming is relevant in the world.

I mean what can be so hard with that? I'm not doing serious politics or so, where people deny really serious problems. I just want to have a little escapism now and then and those insane open source people even destroy that through their denial and on the other hand the commercial industry destroys it through their corruption. There seems to be only the choice of corruption or denial for some weird reason I don't understand, since I can be not corrupt and not in denial at the same time with no problem.

Blog Reference: 
Open Source

How social media helps to promote insanity

Submitted by Duion on

This is a follow up to the follow up of the last posts. I thought more about the whole thing with the modern internet, social media and how algorithms now decide what people get to see, even what they like and what they consume and came to the conclusion that this all may be a huge contributor to the insanity of humanity.

So let us break down what insanity even is, since there are different definitions, since insanity is usually defined as deviance from the social norms, but this cannot be used as a full definition since social norms change and are not objective. Social norms may be a relatively good measurement of sanity for the most part, just through probability, but they are not a definitive way of determining insanity, since insane behaviors can become social norms and then avoid being detected as insanity. So what is really meant with deviating from social norms, well in reality it is deviating from correct function of your brain, psyche and perception, since insane people often see things that are not there or make conclusions that are illogical.

Now to how the internet and especially social media changed the perception of reality for many people. Social media helps to connect you to like minded people and helps to promote like minded content to you, it is commonly known as the filter bubble in search engines, but this phenomenon goes further than just the search engine, it can translate to your whole life. So now with the internet you can find like minded people and can get validation for all kinds of deviant behavior or thought. This is good on one hand, but bad on the other hand, since I believe most deviant behavior is in fact deviant and not an improvement to the social norms that currently exist. Social norms were created over hundreds or thousands of years of evolution and even ancient cultures had often similar definitions of sanity and such. Now with the internet, we throw it all over board and everyone thinks he figured it all out. Now everyone can become a guru for everything, no study, training, qualification, tests, certifications etc are needed, nothing is needed at all, you just have to claim it and you will easily find people who will like and promote you.

The insane internet guru or followers now create their own reality and social norm that is then used for sanity check and the social media platforms help through algorithms to promote like minded people and content to them, since the algorithms figured out that is what people like. So whatever you want, you can get more of it and not only more of it, you can avoid being exposed to content or people that may question your imaginary world you live in. Social media also offers great tools to censor and ban people in case they still figure to find their way into an area where not everyone agrees with each other. It happened to me so much that I got banned, before I could even start a debate. You can try for yourself, go into a christian community and argue from the atheist standpoint and then go into an atheist community and argue from a christian standpoint, in both cases you will most likely not be welcome and may be even banned long term.

Such behavior like censoring and banning people is so normal to most people, that they don't even realize how insane that is. One of the easiest ways to show this is an allegory, so let's make one: Imagine you live in the real world and not on the internet. What is the real world equivalent to a chat room? Well maybe your local bar, park or marketplace etc, wherever people gather and talk to each other. Now imagine people talking with each other and someone in the group starts disagreeing and then the others quickly call security guards to physically remove him from the scene and physically prevent him from speaking words that do not agree with everyone else. Have you ever witnessed that? Of course not (hopefully not), but in the internet it is very normal, since you can just press a button and remove people you do not like or their opinions from your chat room or your group or completely from your social circles. Like you can build your reality how you want and social media gives you the tools and technology for that, just that fact alone is already a proof for insanity.

Sure social media can be used for good purposes, but the way it is designed it also promotes insanity, the computer cannot distinguish between that and the companies behind that do not care either, they just want to satisfy the customers so the customers gets anything he wants, but a lot of times he is also told what he wants and then he wants it and then he gets it and then he gets more of it, since the computer algorithm found out he likes it and so on. A life guided by computer algorithms may make people pretty stupid, since the computer cannot adapt, but the human can.

There was a funny experiment I once made myself, well it was not really planned as one, but it turned out as one. I setup a chatbot that would talk random things depending what people tell him and then he would "learn" from it and "combine" new sentences and talk back to people. Of course after some time the chatbot spilled just nonsense, which was funny to some degree, but after some time I noticed the people chatting to the chatbot for a longer time learned to learn the language and grammar of the chatbot, which was of course guaranteed nonsense, but the people were able to somehow learn to speak like that. Well in the end it was all an algorithm and people may subconsciously learn that. So I thought to myself, that if people would get exposed long term to this insane chatbot, they would turn insane themselves, well and this is what I think is happening with social media and their algorithms that they run on people. Seemingly they are designed to be very intelligent and may give great results at first glance, but there just needs to be one error and it could turn into a chain reaction, since it can spread very fast thanks to the internet.

These chain reactions already happened many times, where there was some glitch in a system and people figured it out and exploited it. They knew what the algorithm was looking for to determine good quality content and build content that would only fulfill the data points the algorithm was looking for and not much else. So to the algorithm such specially tailored content looks like the best quality content ever, but in reality it is all nonsense and most humans can even tell that by just looking at it for a few seconds, but the "intelligent" algorithm is 100% blind to it.

The key point to promoting insanity is probably that the internet and social media manipulate the perception of reality, since everyone's reality is now "individualized" and tailored to them. I still have memories from the times on the internet before social media, it was all different, people were more open and easier to talk to, I had lots of debates of controversy topics, like christian vs atheist and such stuff and it was possible to do to, there were no buttons to just remove comments or ban people with a click of a button, sure those methods existed back then, but usually they could only be used by admins and they used it very sparsely. With social media everyone gets his own realm where he can be his own dictator. Another example is that now, you somehow cannot be friends with people if you do not agree with everything they say or like. In my childhood it was no big deal, I was friends with people who were into stupid things from my point of view such as soccer or wrestling, but I still could be friends with them and I was open to their interests. Now when I find new friends it is almost always the same process, you talk to them until a topic comes up where you disagree with them and they often instantly get extremely angry and quit the friendship immediately. Such behavior is highly insane, a normal sane person is able to deal with reality, even if he is exposed to people that do not agree with them. Such normal sane behavior was much more common in the times before social media or even before the internet. There may be different reasons for this phenomenons, but I'm pretty sure social media plays a key role in that. You can directly see it by yourself, since most popular social media stars have some kind of mental issues and I can understand why that makes them more popular, since it has entertainment value, but apart from that it has not much value for humanity and it is also morally wrong, since normal people will go and try to imitate those people and may emulate their insanity themselves.

Blog Reference: 
Internet

Intelligent Algorithms are stupid

Submitted by Duion on

This is kind of a follow up to my last blog post about how promoting popularity is insane. I thought more about this and the whole problem goes much deeper, since popularity nowadays is not even decided by humans anymore for the most part, but by machines, that supposedly know better what humans want, than the humans themselves. The algorithms itself may be intelligent, or let us say, they do what they do, the problem is more the human error that made them and the human error that is put into them, which then is turned into more human error by the computer.

It began when I was doing research regarding how I could promote my game or in general what decides what becomes popular on social media and what not. I read a bunch of articles and watched several talks and the gist of all seemed to be that it was all about algorithms that run social media platforms that decide almost everything. For example a game store would be run mostly by algorithms that decide what sells well and since the store wants to make the most money, they would promote what sells best. The problem with that is that you don't really need a good game that really sells well, you only need to make it that way, that the algorithm will think it is. When you made the algorithm think your game is good and sells well, it will get promoted and it will really sell well because of that and because of the fact it sells well, people will really think it is good and it will become popular. This does not work with everything, you need a minimum of potential, but I would say it works with almost anything, if done "right". Alternatively you can just become a copycat and just copy what sells well and because of the popularity it generated, you automatically gain something from it when you copy it.

The same seems to apply for most social media platforms that have some kind of recommendation feature or front pages that promote certain things. How often did I catch myself clicking on some clickbait, just because it was recommended and then becoming angry, because it was total crap and I did not really want to watch it, but because I watched it, the algorithm probably thought "Oh he watched it, so he liked it, lets give him more of the same stuff". So clicking on something I did not want to watch was interpreted by the algorithm, that I liked it and would result in it getting recommended more, which then increases the likeliness that I accidentally click on it again which perpetuates the cycle of insanity. This is of course just one example and some algorithms even may account for that, but I just wanted to give an example where a supposedly intelligent algorithm returns stupid results.

The most obvious way of beating the algorithm is cheating, somehow this is the least obvious way to normal people, since they somehow cannot believe that their favorite companies or gurus really just cheat the system and are not that special. One of the most common ways of cheating the algorithm is by faking view counts, which makes the algorithm think something is popular and recommend it more, which then results in more real viewers. This is also probably one of the best cases where the algorithm is stupid, but humans can spot the fake pretty easily, however this does not matter as the damage has already been done.

Another way of where the algorithms fail is irony, which is very common among people giving reviews on the internet, the algorithm just thinks a positive review is a positive review, but a human can spot pretty quickly in most cases when it is meant seriously or not. Detecting irony is probably one of the cases that will be hardest to learn for machines and this problem will probably prevail long time into the future, while other issues may get fixed relatively soon from now on.

The algorithms themselves may not be that bad or even very intelligent, the problem is more that the developers probably assumed the data that is fed is legitimate. So in an ideal environment without disruptive factors they even may work pretty well, but this of course is not the case in the real world. Some people even do it as a sport to find loopholes in the system and then exploit them. Even in an ideal environment you still have problems of philosophical nature, since it is not clear if humans really make the decisions they do themselves or voluntarily make them or can even want what they want and then do what they want.

Imagine a person with psychological issues who cannot do what he wants, the algorithm will then enforce him in his self deceptive behavior.

Or maybe the algorithm thing is just a scam and on top there is just a human who decides things by hand, or it is just a random generator.

There are so many possibilities and problems and of course I don't deny that modern recommendation algorithms can be really good and help me with what I'm searching for or help extending my horizon by recommending me more of what may interest me, but as said, it also can and often does go wrong. Often I can imagine how the algorithm works and therefore can decide, if I want to engage with it or not, but most people are not high enough in conscious for that and probably never will be.

In the end I probably make my decisions mostly based on recommendations of real people that I deem qualified for that, but I fear that the trend goes to that machines will decide more and more things in our lives, since most people are not high enough in conscious to even realize what is going on. Maybe in the future all humans will turn into mindless robot like creatures stuck in an infinite feedback loop, because the algorithm has no more new data to process, because the only data it has, is what it feed to itself, because why would you need other data if you already determined the most popular data.

Blog Reference: 
Internet

The insanity of promoting popular things

Submitted by Duion on

There seems to be a strong and rapidly growing trend in our current society and on many platforms to promote only "popular" things or content. To many people this may seem normal and logical, but if you think about it more it looks more like total insanity.

Most platforms today have some kind of front page, that are in most cases used to advertise "popular" content, like a store that has featured products or a social media website that shows what users have created. This may have always existed to some small degree, but in the past it was more like a secondary feature. Mostly it was about content that was recently created, like a feed that would show the latest additions in a neutral way, just a list, so that every creator had an equal opportunity to gain visibility. So eventually after some time some creators or products tend to be more popular and higher quality than others and of course became more popular. Over the years the platforms became bigger and bigger and because of the amount of content the feed got adjusted because it could no longer grant everyone visibility, since the space was limited. The idea behind that was probably some kind of quality control and to give users what they wanted.

The big issue with manipulating what users see is, that you also manipulate what is perceived as popular and quality content and you end up with an infinite feedback loop, where previously popular things just get more popular, because they are advertised because they were popular. So in the end everything becomes meaningless, it does no longer matter if you are popular or your content is high quality or whatever, since whenever you manage to enter the feedback loop, you will automatically become more popular. Some time ago I read a study regarding that where they tested what content on social media becomes popular and what not and the result was, that it was mostly arbitrary, the biggest factor was only, that after the content was posted it had to be up-voted. Just a few up-votes after it was posted already increased the chance of the content getting more up-votes by around 30%. So imagine even when totally inferior content was posted and somehow managed to get up-votes through luck or cheating or whatever, then it may start a trend that almost cannot be reversed. Even when many people realize they have been fooled, through the big audience the content may have gathered real fanboys that will defend it stubbornly.

Knowing about this psychological effects it may become more clear why it is insane to promote popular things, because you cheat people with it and ultimately also cheat yourself, because you as well no longer know what really is popular and what not. Imagine a store who only promotes certain products, which of course will be more popular because of all the promotion and the store owner will argue "why should we not promote those things, those are the most popular, people buy it and they want more of it, so we give them more". Normally the store owner decides what gets advertised and it is the stuff the store owner wants the people to buy, because it gives him most profit or the product is new and unknown or he simply needs to get rid of the stock, well in our "modern" time, this is often not the case anymore, thanks to "intelligent" algorithms that figure out what people like and advertise to people what people like. So whatever people do, "intelligent" algorithms help enforcing people in their behavior, making no distinction between wrong or right.

The question now is, how you get into the popular recommended lists. Well the first criteria is, you need to be popular. It is a chicken and egg problem and can hardly be solved, probably only through cheating. However there is or was a method you could legitimately become popular and it was the time where there was a neutral feed of new content, where everyone had an equal opportunity to get a roughly equal amount of visitors. After some time of equal opportunity, some would turn out as the winners and become more popular and I believe most popular things today came from that time where there was some kind of equal opportunity and the market was still fresh. However now this selection process is totally undermined, where new content creators get no default visibility anymore, so even if there is better content you could consume, you will never know about it. Of course there are workarounds mainly if you come from another area like mainstream media or industry or just have lots of money to simply bribe people or buy advertising, but these are not available for normal humans.

Promoting popular things is even bad when you don't believe in psychology and market manipulation because you are not intelligent enough to understand those matters, because at some point everything that is promoted is already known by anyone and promoting it further will have no effect other than to make people fed up with it and probably even make people hating it.
If you still cannot understand it, let me make an allegory: Imagine you go into a supermarket and all advertisement you see there is to advertise bread, because some very "genius" manager found out that 90% of people there buy bread, which makes it by far the most popular product. Now he thinks he is very intelligent and says that compared to bread all his other products are kind of irrelevant, so he needs to invest in promoting bread, because it is what most people buy.
I hope this helps you see why this would be not a good idea, because bread is already known by anyone and advertising it will not make it more known and it will also hardly make people buy more of it, since they buy it anyway. What will happen otherwise is, people will get fed up with it and buy less of the products they don't know, because they don't know those products even exist, which applies to new products that only recently got introduced. Maybe people will even buy less bread, because they are so annoyed by it.

This is at least how I think and react to that problem, some people seem to be not normal and are able to consume the same product over and over again and never worry to search for anything else and will always be happy with the same thing, like eating bread only and they will not worry if every advertising will be about selling him bread, since he knows that is what he likes and he does not even question that the sole reason he likes bread so much is because it gets advertised to him every day everywhere he goes. I at least find it extremely annoying to not be able to find the good things, because everything is blocked with advertisements for bread. Some people may argue "but you don't have to consume what is advertised", well even I fall for it sometimes and I would say I know very well that it is manipulative and how the psychological tricks behind it work etc, so I would say this problem affects almost anyone.

Of course there is also the attempt of censorship going on there, since by promoting only things that are already "popular" you make sure, that nobody thinks different, but this is a whole other area and probably deserves it's own article, but however this is still insanity and the perpetrators are also cheating themselves with it as I already explained before.

So it seems people may not realize this problem even exists. Maybe only I realized this problem exists, because I'm an artist and try to "sell" a product to people they don't even know exists. The problem with being an artist is, an artist makes something creative, which means it is something new and unique, then the problem with something new and unique is, nobody knows it exists or if it exists, people cannot even understand what it is and this makes it really hard to advertise to people, especially if there exists no place where you could advertise it, because all advertisement space is already filled with the same non unique things and everything new and unique has no place there.

Blog Reference: 
Internet