Not everyone enjoys every type of game, either. Just because theres millions of hours of gameplay available doesnt mean that those hours would be worth trading in.
Personally I'm not a fan of how some games want to add conflict to gameplay that had no need of it. Sometimes i just want to have fun building through an interesting automation game without having some random alien horde messing everything up.
How much is it telling others not to have fun, and how much is just expressing disappointment? Not everything is a contest on how much we can sway someone to our side, sometimes we just want to express how something could be better.
Not everyone has fun buying the same thing over and over again while most anything new and original languishes in development hell.
There's not really any one thing any one person can do to fix everything. Any act to make the world a better place is worthwhile, even if you never even see its effects.
"Normal"?
"Oh darn, someone has something nice but I can't use them for it"
Sometimes it's good to be happy for other people without getting something tangible out of it.
4th option, try and make the world a better place for everyone instead of focusing just on our own comforts.
Sure, if you remove the profit motive they wouldn't provide resources.
Certainly not morally defensible... but also not outright evil either. Just absent any ethical compass.
Or my definition of enacting.
As far as I'm aware, google isn't enacting a genocide... as far as I'm aware
They are not mutually exclusive.
They turned into a pickle, funniest shit I ever seen.
You dont notice the average person. The average person keeps to themselves and doesnt try and bother other people. Those you generally come into conflict are the ones those that buck trends.