I remember playing Dota 1 and 2 in parallel for a while because so few heroes were in the beta and I wanted to play new hotness like Ember Spirit. Fun times.
Quitting Dota has been great for my mental health, though. But I guess I’m at least curious enough about what the frog is cooking to risk getting addicted to something new.
I don’t know man, I had my fair share of fun with a pair of Nyan Cat games, the original Plants Vs Zombies, Nimble Quest (I just got this again on Android and cracked the heck out of it with Lucky patcher, and still suck lol), Tiny Wings, Angry Birds and I could be missing some others.
No they didn’t. I have a 1st gen iPad loaded with old versions of popular games (e.g. Jetpack Joyride, Angry Birds) and there are literally zero ads and in-app purchases.
True, but I would rather buy a dozen quality $0.99 games with high replay value (still fun 13+ years later) than several dozen “””free””” ad-filled games that constantly bug you for a $3.99/week subscription to get more BullshitCoins
I mean the high quality paid games are still around, and I’m reasonably sure new ones are still being made. They’re not a lost art, just not as popular as free games
They’re making the same argument people make about music. There’s plenty of good music out there of all genres. Radio just doesn’t play it and you have to go out of your way to find what you like.
That’s just the wages of living in a huge postmodernist society that produces a vast amount of media. We no longer have centralized institutions (or rather they’re losing relative importance) so you have to go looking through the depths of either recommendation algorithms or topical forums
I find that to be a good thing. The less centralized institutions that can control what we do the better. I say that while social media is the biggest it’s ever been.
I’ve actually looked into this a little bit, and it seems that the best strategy is to have a lot of money. It doesn’t actually decrease the rent at all, and in fact makes it worse in the long run, but it keeps it from becoming a problem for YOU.
I honestly just don’t get the point of these screens.
It lets the game see which controller or input method you are using. This screen was (and maybe still is? I’m not sure.) a requirement for certification on consoles going back to the Xbox 360, when wireless controllers became ubiquitous.
Having to press a single button at the start of a game is a pretty minor complaint.
Personally, I think if I cant just use both at the same time it’s kind of shit. Only a handful of games actually work like that, and it’s insane. I shouldn’t have to go into the settings and switch control types. I should just be able to use them if they’re plugged in, like GTA or BG3.
Wouldn’t that be just as applicable from the interaction with the main menu? When the player selects a menu entry (eg Start, Load, Options), that tells the game what you’re using.
Plenty of games are able to determine what you’re using without having such a screen. The “press any key to continue” screen has been a thing my entire life (born in 85), and it has never been necessary for anything other than simulating the “insert coin” screen for arcade games.
BG3 can use both at the same time, and yet it still has two of these screens. If you’re playing with a controller, it will say press any key then you press a button and it changes to “press A to continue” before you actually get to the main menu.
And it’s even dumber because you can see the game detects your controller before the first logo screen ends when the cursor is auto hidden.
No bro, Xbox isn’t evil anymore. Phil Spencer is a good guy and Gamepass is the “best deal in gaming”./s
On serious note there is some legit reason to do something like this. Things like the Cronos Max or Rapid fire controllers are a legit problem in multiplayer games because they are hardware cheats essentially.
But they could have created an API that allows games to check if a unoffical device is detected if that is the reason.
The problem seems to revolve around brands that haven’t acquired this licensing
It seems to just be rent seeking? Since it’s retroactive there probably isn’t a security change and malicious hardware can spoof being licensed, though this is unclear. So it probably only hurts legitimate small brands.
absolutely, hence why I put forward the idea of an API that would allow games to stop people from joining multiplayer matches or flag their highscores if sketchy hardware is involved! For Single Player games, who cares!
But deep down we all know that this first and formost is a money grabbing scheme from micro$oft
fun fact, whenever a game has crossplay - and has a big enough player base that i can do this, i will turn it off 100% of the time purely because I have experienced sooo many cheaters from the pc side of the crossplay.
a very common complaint about crossplay over on the consoles side of thing is “let us do just-console crossplay”
it is what it is, but it’s also funny to see someone say what you said there. One of the great things about pc gaming is the freedom you have to do what you want, which unfortunately makes it 1000000x easier to cheat.
I don’t think cross play for competitive is worthwhile because either PC players have an advantage in the form of mouse aim, or console players have a wagon-dick-sized advantage in the form of aim assist. Competitive cross play only makes sense if you have input based match making.
What’s frustrating for me is when the PC side cripples mixed-input entirely even though I just want mouse-look, gyro aim, and analog movement from my controller without any aim assist. (Looking at you, Destiny 2 and Halo.)
As an avid modder I can tell you that’ll make it harder but not impossible, I was halfway to hotwiring an xbox controller so I could run my xbox over parsec
Occult Crime Police is a fantastic free offering for those looking for a bit more Ace Attorney. It mostly follows the gameplay of Ace Attorney games, in which you investigate murder scenes involving strange, paranormal phenomena, and then discover contradictions in people’s witness accounts to uncover the culprit. It’s a bit easy, but maintains some great humor and charming animation production value.
Continuing this in the same thread as it’s a bit topical:
Are you a fan of Love Live! School Idol? Me neither! I basically knew nothing about it at all. Regardless, Gyakuten Live is an incredibly detailed cutesy Ace Attorney style game, in which the characters of the show gather for “school trials”. Though you may need to put up with a cutesier all-girl cast, and the stakes are much lighter and involve things like stolen possessions rather than murder, the mysteries end up having a surprising number of twists and even some heartfelt motives at the end. Features a fully custom soundtrack and LOTS of custom artwork, matched with some traditionally silly Ace Attorney humor.
So far, THREE cases are available, and each features a different prosecutor. The game’s page lists plans to continue up to 6 episodes.
In ItchIO’s standard, the game is “name your own price” - so you can choose to download it for free. It’s unlikely to come to Steam since it technically infringes on an anime/manga without permission.
One more coming if my AA recommendations are well received.
Adding one more to the Ace Attorney spinoff block:
Tyrion Cuthbert: Attorney of the Arcane is a well-written fan spinoff of the AA formula, taking place in a fantasy universe where magic is real, but mostly the domain of the nobility. Trials are a form of theatre, where the nobility knows how to tip the scale, but your mentor knows how to tip them back.
It introduces some very enjoyable mechanics, in which knowledge of each spell’s effects and conditions constitutes its own evidence. Tyrion bears his own magical ability that lets him view the thoughts of witnesses. He is also accompanied by the defendant of his first case, a mercenary-mage named Celeste, who gets a lot of investigation banter with Tyrion, much like Maya and Phoenix.
Five cases in all, and none of them are shortened crapshoot cases, nor is there a downer ending; all the major threads conclude with satisfying endings, and the developer hopes to make a sequel from the world they’ve built.
Oh, and as is common for AA games, take a listen to “Eye of Horus”, the game’s equivalent of the “Objection!” theme when Tyrion nails a contradiction. The game’s soundtrack as a whole has some real bangers, for both the high points and the emotional pulls.
Having the game streamed by all these huge channels before it’s even officially announced is kinda crazy. Everyone wants to play Valve’s “secret game” of course, so it’s free marketing. Pretty clever.
I recently bought stardew valley and its fun but the farming grind feels kinda forced, no? I feel like I need to pay attention to not loose myself in the game which defeats the purpose.
I can imagine it gets better but the grind is kind of not for me. The mining and farming grind in minecraft I understand and the grind in factorio as well. Maybe its heightened due to the saving cycle that seems to want you to keep going.
I used to find it kinda stressful until i realised there was no time limit to the game like the usual harvest moons so once I realised that, I never find myself rushing around or overextending my ability to farm to grind more and just focused on what I was enjoying in the game which was a bit of everything.
There is sort of a time limit though, you get your “review” at the end of the second year (at which point no new events happen). Also getting things planted in time for when the seasons change etc is kind of time-limiting.
But that’s all detail, it’s great that people can enjoy it without time pressures!
I only really played early on, not dabbled with it properly in years but I do remember things happening. It’s not like I could only get things to happen in the first two years in game
There are ways to play (besides mods) where you barely have to grow crops. Unless you’re trying for all the achievements there’s not really a wrong way or a time limit to play.
I’ve been boycotting Ubisoft for years, haven’t missed a damn thing.
Yeah, there are so many great games by non-shitty developers. Skipping Ubisoft, EA, and Activision entirely is not only possible but there are more great games left than one can play anyway.
Yeah, I think it was in Assassin’s Creed 2. At the time, people were unable to play the single player game they bought at launch because Ubisoft shitty authentication service couldn’t handle the load.
I can already hear my business administration professor scream that everyone in the free market tries to screw each other from that statement lol. Why yes of course, money. Planned obsolescence is the only logical choice, people! I bet nobody will source old, but durable products and repair them instead, no no. That’ll never happen!
Cyberpunk winning best ongoing game is such a joke. Yes, I enjoyed the DLC but if any game with DLC and updates can be part of that category then that category has no meaning at all.
Friends Per Second podcast had an interesting discussion around it. The term Indie isn’t well defined. Maybe never was. Most people probably see DtD as indie even though it had a publisher. A new category could be “independent” which actually has games that were published independently.
It has nothing to do with DLC. I think it deserved the award. Instead of just letting the game die that it shouldn’t have released in the first place. They fixed it.
I think we might have different expectations here. I think if a company sells a broken game, they should fix it without praise. The consumers paid for it. Specially should they not get an award for that. There should be a category for “most stable release” instead.
Yeah, what actually happened here is they put out a broken, unfinished game 3 years ago, have spent the last 3 years on damage control and fixing it (which means it never changed overall price on the store like a 3 year old game should) and now they want you to buy an Xpac and the ultimate edition so they can sell it again, still for full price. It’s not worth an award, it’s scummy.
I think the reason it gets praised is because it’s very rare that poor games get as much time and investment into fixing in this day and age. Most companies will just move on to the next game or even use AI to write their apology letters and then abandon the game entirely.
Awarded to a game for outstanding development of ongoing content that evolves the player experience over time.
Its best ongoing game, not best live service game. I think things like Stardew Valley or No Man’s Sky fit into this just like Cyberpunk did because devs should be praised for when they go above and beyond. I’d argue CDPR owed that to their fans but still, they mostly pulled it off.
Yes, Cyberpunk, sorry I didn’t clarify. And I agree with the 2024 take too.
As someone who is industry adjacent and has worked with people who work on games that are actively updated and improved for years…idk the Cyberpunk win doesn’t sit right with me. I have all the sympathy for the devs at CDPR and what they went through during the initial launch of the game, but this win just shows upper management at dev companies that they can get rewarded for releasing unfinished projects and finishing them later.
It’s also funny that they won against FFXIV, an actual good example of a game that was nuked to the ground and rebuilt with continuous support because of it’s initial failure.
There’s a huge indie scene with loads of ongoing games that would be far more deserving of the award than Cyberpunk. Cyberpunk literally stopped major developments with 2.0, the rest you’re going to get are easy to include content and QoL. Compare that to Dwarf Fortress that has 20+ years of development and is only 50% done with the final vision. You could probably also stick Terraria there because despite the devs saying multiple times that they’re done they’re still updating the game. I’m sure there’s more but those two were just at the top of my head.
The only merit CP77 has to be on that list is fixing a broken game. Do you think CP77 would’ve won the award if it had release in the 2.0 state and gotten 3 years of additional development? Would it even make it into the nominees list? I don’t think so.
I’m convinced they had Cyberpunk win it because they don’t have a “Best DLC/Expansion” category (yet) and felt like Cyberpunk deserved to win something for the way 2.0 and Phantom Liberty revitalised it.
Also, fixing your fucked it game isn’t ongoing either. CP2077 in this category is a disgrace. They shipped a buggy game, released DLC and actually finished the game and then won an award for it. Bullshit.
No. Intellectual property is not real, so nothing is being stolen by you.
If it’s a small developer, and you like the game, make sure to support them if you can. If it’s a mega studio, don’t feel bad about not paying anything.
If intellectual property is not real, then why do you support the idea of paying small developers instead of large developers? Their intellectual property is just as fake as large studios, right?
I really wish pirates were more honest with themselves. Just admit that you're taking something that doesn't belong to you and own it. I pirate content all the time, but I don't do the mental gymnastics to justify it. Just admit that you stole something and that you don't care, it's not that hard. I have an old PC in my closet that has about 200 movies and a bunch of cracked games on it that I've pirated over the years, and I don't care that I stole them. The Robin Hood complex some pirates have is just weird, imo. You're not sticking it to The Man; The Man is still bankrolling more per week than the team who made the content you stole is making in a year, regardless of your seed ratio.
By the way, large studios also have developers who rely on their jobs to put food on the table, just like the small studios. If you think anybody at EA aside from the C-Suite execs are significantly richer than the average indie dev, you'd be mistaken. Next time you're playing a pirated AAA game, look at your character; the guy who spent several weeks of his life sculpting and rigging that model is probably just as concerned about paying his rent on time as you are.
By the way, this isn't entirely directed at you, specifically. Just my thoughts on the general attitude I see in a lot of piracy communities lately.
It’s the same with FOSS. IP is just as fake as physical private property, but that doesn’t mean we can’t pay people for their labour.
If I find a really useful open-source licensed app developed by one or two people as a hobby, and they have a donation link in their repo, I might send them something.
If it’s a really useful open-source licensed app developed by some corporation, there’s no way I’m giving them money. The company has invested in developing the app as open source; they chose to (or were forced to by virtue of open source dependencies) make it public. The devs were already paid by the company. Whether the company takes in enough revenue by other means to pay for this open source project isn’t my problem.
Just admit that you stole something and that you don’t care, it’s not that hard.
You are not wrong, but maybe just a bit of perspective:
In my city, you can go to the public library, borrow a DVD, take it home, watch it. 100% legal. 100% free. No library membership fees. And they have multiple copies of most DVDs, so it’s not like it’s some lottery to use the service.
It feels a lot like downloading a movie without paying anyone to watch it. The only difference is you gotta go outside. Oh, and no guilt tripping.
Anyway, what’s my point? Well piracy is only illegal because some people (not everyone) decided that everyone is going to pay an equal, but not necessarily an equitable, share to fund the development of said IP (unless you have a library in your area to counter this, partially). Worse, that everyone will keep paying a very small group of people money we’ll after the development of said IP has been paid off. Even worse, that small group of people will use their profits to corrupt the legal system to ensure that that protectionism continues to serve their benefit, not others… Point being, you can pirate, and care… care a lot.
Victims are created when piracy affects small production houses struggling to make ends meet. Victims are created of everyone else when the law is abused beyond it’s original purpose to squeeze consumers.
So you too should be honest and not call it theft. Piracy is piracy, good or bad. To compare it to the crime of theft is to perpetuate the marketing of those to stand from a black and white view on the matter.
No, the difference is that you're expected to return it. You're not supposed to keep it forever. That's why there's a "due by" date on checked-out materials.
Absolutely wild how stuff like this is downvoted here. People are disconnected from reality as if the world is a little hippy community. reminds me of this, have fun reading.
It is theft, but the argument is better framed as to whether or not it’s moral theft. Most people who pirate feel comfortable pirating from larger corporations over small time creators/groups, with the usual justifications you’ve provided above. Personally, I’ve justified it at times because I couldn’t afford to purchase the thing, which leads to another argument of “if I wasn’t going to buy it in the first place, is it actually effecting them”.
There is no argument to be made, however, where it isn’t true that if you were to have purchased it, the owner of the idea will make more off of it. Whether you care or not about that owner getting more is a different argument, but you are robbing them of value for the idea, however little that value might have been.
I’m not arguing for or against pirating, but people in the comments saying it isn’t theivery really seem to be arguing whether stealing is wrong or not. Call it what it is and go back to the argument people have been having for thousands of years.
Which, I realize I didn’t address libraries. Taxes pay for libraries to operate, and then the library pays to have copies of the works. If no one wants to read my book, libraries aren’t going to just go out and buy thousands of copies. And trying to tackle libraries would also start to erode arguments for reselling something. And to bring it back to the OP, I’ve read books in a library before that I enjoyed enough to purchase a copy of my own. I’ve also read books I haven’t. But someone purchased that book for me to rent, and in a small part, I’ve paid for that book myself by paying taxes.
It’s not mental gymnastics. Why is it so hard to believe that people genuinely don’t believe in intellectual property? It has nothing to do with “sticking it to the man.” I just do not believe in IP, full stop.
And piracy is not stealing, it is making a copy. When you steal a physical item the original owner is deprived of that item. When you copy something the original “owner” still has access to it.
Not everyone thinks the same way you do. In fact you sound like a terrible person if you genuinely believe that what you’re doing is wrong but you’re doing it anyway.
So if someone spend thousands of hours and a lot of money on researching a new invention that would benefit people, you don’t believe they should reap the rewards of said invention without a competitor stealing their idea? You’re basically advocating for people not to be paid for their work
So unless I make something physical I am not making anything real? So all my work up to the point of a plant being actually built is not real?
Doing anything on a PC or smartphone is not real.
Inventing a train of thought that cures every known desease and mental illness is simply not real - because you can’t touch it. This is the equivalent of dark ages church logic.
You are being intentionally obtuse. It’s not that the thing itself literally does not exist at all, it’s that the ownership of ideas is not real. When you steal a physical item the original owner is deprived of that item. When you copy an idea the original “owner” still has access to it.
I find it funny you’re calling him intentionally obtuse right after you seem to just simplify theivery at whether something physical is stolen. If you’re basing it off of something being stolen or not, IP is used to protect the realized gains off of an idea. Yeah you aren’t stealing a physical something, but you are robbing the creator of what the item is valued at. It is exactly the issue that you can’t own an idea that IP is usually heavily protected. Ironically, the intention is to help new ideas(and their profiting worth) from being stolen by someone (or something ie Coporations) with better means to distribute and profit off of the idea. Otherwise, why wouldn’t I just get a copy of a game, underpriced it, and sell it as cheap as I wanted? I’ve put no thought or labor into actualized the idea, so I have no reason to price it beyond my initial investment. It why when someone (or something) sells full rights to their IP, it can be worth millions. They don’t care about the idea. They care about what the idea can provide in the future.
To draw a parallel, saying IP isn’t real is like saying currency has no worth. On the surface, duh of course currency isn’t actually worth anything. It’s not like people can (practically) eat a dollar or make shoes out of a dollar, but we’ve (generally) collectively decided it’s worth something. It instils confidence that when I walk into a store, my currency has a conversion rate of so many dollars per good. If thousands of people added millions of dollars into their bank accounts by just “copying” the electronic money, no one has lost money, but the value of the currency is deflated by those actions because there’s nothing stopping everyone from from just adding millions to their accounts. The confidence that people will be harshly dealt with for deflating the currency like that is one of the innate things that gives currencies (and IP’s) their value. Handwaving it away by saying it isn’t actually real is also just being obtuse.
you are robbing the creator of what the item is valued at
If I value the item at $0 then I have robbed them of $0.
why wouldn’t I just get a copy of a game, underpriced it, and sell it as cheap as I wanted?
We already do that. It is called piracy. We take it and sell it for as cheap as we want ($0).
the value of the currency is deflated by those actions because there’s nothing stopping everyone from from just adding millions to their accounts
I don’t care if the value of IP is deflated. I already believe it to be zero so that doesn’t change anything. Ideas should be free to be shared.
And before you say something like, “then nothing new will ever get made” just remember you are on Lemmy. The developers make it because they want to, not because of the money. People can still make things without profit incentive. In fact I think the world would be a much better place if we had less creations focused on making money and were left with only creators who are driven by passion rather than profit.
FOSS is made because people want it to be made and made available. People who make games and art vary between it purely wanting to be made and wanting to make a profit off of that. If you’re dense enough to think saying you value something at $0 and then still enjoying it like the other people willing to support the IP, then you’re an asshole.
There is a balance between what the creator is allowed to value their idea and what people are willing to pay for that idea. If they can’t find a middle ground, then the transaction shouldn’t occur. If you force that transaction by stealing their idea and efforts, you’re being a thief. What you use to justify your actions is up to you, but you’re a thief nonetheless.
If you’re dense enough to think saying you value something at $0 and then still enjoying it like the other people willing to support the IP, then you’re an asshole.
This isn’t even a coherent sentence. But I’m assuming you mean I’m an asshole for enjoying something without paying when other people do pay? Except if I enjoy something I do pay for it. Just because I don’t think people should own ideas doesn’t mean I don’t support creators when I enjoy something.
If you force that transaction by stealing their idea and efforts, you’re being a thief. What you use to justify your actions is up to you, but you’re a thief nonetheless.
And no, by law I am not a thief. A thief is someone who commits theft, and theft is “the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.” Copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of it, it is simply a copy. At least in the United States where I live copyrighted works are not considered stolen property. You can call me an asshole if you want but by definition I am no thief.
He says it is not real, so it can not be stolen. That is a pretty simple message. What am I getting wrong? He says nothing about ownership. It just does not exist. So don’t tell me I am obtuse when the maximum is that the person was ambiguous.
The results of your ideas are real, the outcomes and impacts are real. The mental labor you do is valuable, but none of it is “property.”
If your thoughts and ideas and concepts are property that can be stolen, then please explain how you can be deprived of them.
Thinking hard about something is labor, but it’s not property, it can’t possibly be property, because it lacks all of the aspects typically required to define property.
Ironically by not advocating for IP you are depriving people from earning from their valuable mental labour.
If I invent something and spend time, effort and money into developing it, I should be allowed to be rewarded for that effort. If a competitor comes along and steals my idea without putting the wok in, I am absolutely being deprived of all the value of my hard work. That’s how someone can steal your intellectual property.
IP laws are not the only way to ensure a creator is compensated for their work. Money isn’t the only possible compensation, and modern IP law doesn’t protect most small time creators. It protects mega-corps and their monopolies on content/products/services.
It stifles competition and progress, not enhances it.
I used to think this way, then I realized physical property is not real either. Both are defined by the state, recorded on paper somewhere, and protected by force.
Just because you can actually physically go to my property does not change the fact that it is only my property because I have a deed.
I’m still not sure how to feel about IP but I’m less dismissive of it for now.
Possession of property isn’t the same as property itself. Although I agree with you that I am sceptical of property in general, at least physical property makes some sense when defined. Intellectual property just makes absolutely no sense.
With intellectual property there is at least (by default) a direct link between the work necessary to create an item and its ownership. With physical items the initial ownership is necessarily predicated on having controlled a means of production.
I can create an IP and I do not need to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to do so. But I cannot create a substantial physical item without paying the people who own the materials and the factories for the privilege of doing so. Why is previous ownership such a critical factor in ownership of new items, separate from the work to create them?
Intellectual property laws have their own issues but at least with regard to them conceptually, intellectual property is more “pure” than physical property.
Let’s word it differently then. Physical property is literally real, like, you can go to it. IPs are not a resource. The game devs do not run out of copies of a game because OP pirated them. They remain at an infinite supply. If someone breaks into your house and makes off with your microwave, you are now short a microwave; If you pirate software, the developer is not short in any stock of software
As someone who works in intellectual property it is very much real. Unless you think people shouldn’t receive rewards for their mental efforts in much the same way as physical labour?
People should be rewarded for their mental labor, but that’s not the same as saying they have created intellectual property.
A thought or concept is not an object that can be stolen. An idea cannot be a scarce resource that is used up.
If concepts or ideas can be “stolen” then that means somebody is being deprived of them. But unless you somehow erased the idea from all parts of that person’s brain and transfered it into yours, nobody has been deprived of anything, and thus nothing has been stolen.
Ideas certainly will become scarce products if people aren’t protected for having them.
Of course you can steal someone’s intellectual property. If you copy someone’s idea you are depriving that person from profiting from said idea and depriving them of income. There is a limit on how many people can profit from a given idea.
Intellectual property protects those who innovate against predatory practices. You are displaying naivety for who intellectual property is seeking to protect. By not enshrining IP in law you are literally stopping people from earning money from their mental labour.
If IP law didn’t exist why would anybody spend their time and money researching and creating new inventions if someone can come along and steal their idea?
You cannot be “deprived of profit.” That makes no sense. Nobody is owed any profit for simply trying to sell something.
If I create art to sell, and nobody buys it, I haven’t been robbed of anything at all. And that fact doesn’t change if somebody walks past my art booth, looks at my painting, admires it, and then walks away. They didn’t “steal” anything from me. I haven’t been deprived of anything. Unless you want to make the claim that they are a thief now that they enjoyed my painting without paying my anything for it.
If that’s true, then everybody who walks through an art fair or gallery but doesn’t buy any art is a robber and should be arrested and charged.
The idea that IP protects the little folks who are struggling artists is a capitalist myth perpetuated primarily by corporate advocates that are the actual beneficiaries of IP laws. It’s used by mega-corps to lock down massive amounts of content, make billions off of it, exploit actual artists to perpetuate their monopoly on creative expressions of characters.
It’s also used by pharma corps to artifically restrict supply of critical drugs to the population in order to make billions in profits and enrich their shareholders.
And the whole, “nobody would create anything if copyright/patents didn’t exist” is yet another capitalist myth, disproved by countless examples. As if the entire internet doesn’t run on the back of Linux, a free and open source project spanning literal decades, Wikipedia, the largest single encyclopedia of human knowledge in dozens of languages, all the millions of pages of fan fiction and hobbiest artists that have created passion projects with no expectation of making money. Etc etc.
It honestly made my night to see Neil Newbon win the best performance for Baldurs Gate 3. With him talking about how he pretty much gave up on acting and went through some pretty rough times and discrimination before getting into voice acting, it’s amazing to see him finally be seen.
And let’s be clear, he wasn’t just a voice actor in BG3! He had to mocap as well as read his lines. His likeness was captured in Astarion perfectly. He was a full actor here and did an incredible job. Best performance was well deserved.
Ben Starr was my personal pick, as he poured his everything into the role and has continued to do so on social media. He’s so incredibly proud to represent such a character. All of the nominated performances this year were spectacular and it was a very hard choice
I just wish they have the man enough time to give a proper speech!! He was barely half a minute through his thank yous before they were shooing him off stage. It was so disrespectful. Let him have his moment, this is a huge deal. It’s not like he was rambling on.
All that just to make room for more fortnite ads. Disgraceful.
bin.pol.social
Ważne