This doesn’t strike me as a bad move on their part. From the way the responses are worded, this feels very much like it’s intended to counterbalance negative impressions specifically for potential buyers who might otherwise be swayed by negative comments.
If I’m on the fence about something, I can be pretty easily swayed by a negative review that enumerates things that I’m specifically on the lookout for. Like if I saw one of those reviews that said bad story and boring gameplay, I would find myself think “sounds like the Bethesda formula hasn’t updated enough for me,” but I could be swayed back then other way by a dev response that enthusiastically mentions the exploration and crafting. “Maybe there’s enough here for me that I don’t need to bother with the story.”
Is it underhanded? Maybe. But it seems like a no-lose scenario either way for Bethesda.
I would agreeish, but from a different perspective. However,
“consider the amount of data needed to load procedural assets in under 3 seconds” is a laughable response considering the very real criticism of having so many god damn menus, all of which revolve around picking things on a map.
They have the tools to make the game however they want. I find it pretty insane that there’s no consistency in how the game allows you to fast travel in space - sometimes you can select a solar system/planet and travel right from there, no map required. Other times you get to a planet and then you can’t land on the planet until you open the map and “fast travel” to it, even though you’re right there.
And the response says “consider” no, no I won’t consider something you should have optimized before release lmao. It is how it is now and that’s what I’m considering, and I’ve decided that it’s got potential and in it’s current state it sucks.
And I actually liked the game. I did not like NG+ whatsoever though. Disappointing
Letting anyone with a "horse in the race" do this would be silly. It would end up like how MSoft recommends you Edge when you interact with another browser, but even more stupid; "Hey you are watching Resident Evil 4! That means you like action games! I have a great one to suggest: CoD MW3!"
Also if you read the thing it gets even sillier
uses that data to dynamically recommend a video game for the user to play, generate a video game for the user to play, or modify content of the video game being played, as the user experiences the video stream or broadcast video.
This has the same DNA of those claims that video game NFTs would be magical things that would be shared between games without any issue. Is it too much to ask that the discourse about the industry is somewhat rooted in actual immediate reality? "oh it sees that you are watching FFXIV and generates a new dungeon in WoW based on what's happening on stream" like no. Come on. Dial it back to the current decade.
More specifically, there is a need to contextually integrate video games being concurrently experienced with a video stream
No. There isn't. Nobody wants to be "recommended" something else while watching their stream of choice. If you want to use streams to bombard me with your "hey hey our game just came out" there is already a way to do it, it's called "pay top streamers to pretend your new game is the best thing for an hour".
Also I was checking what my man has patented in the past and his level of taste and priorities is "Wanted to make a Silent Hill Ascension before Silent Hill Ascension":
Systems and methods for enabling audience participation in multi-player video game play sessions
Patent number: 10596471
Abstract: The present specification describes systems and methods that enable non-players to participate as spectators in online video games and, through a collective voting mechanism, determine the occurrence of certain events or contents of the gameplay in real time. Game event options are generated and presented to non-players. A specific one of the game event options is then selected based on a collective vote of the non-players. Once selected, the specific one or more of the game event options are then generated as actual gaming events and incorporated into a video game stream that is transmitted to the players as part of the gameplay session. In this manner, non-players may be able to directly affect the course of gameplay.
Type: Grant
Filed: August 3, 2018
Date of Patent: March 24, 2020
Like, nah. Go take your cafeteria napkin ideas somewhere else you buffoon.
Wait you are totally right, I thought it was merely about big time stuff like where the story goes next, but when you look in the details, it is so wide that it is also basically a patent for twitch crowd control style integration:
Optionally, the plurality of game event options include an occurrence of one or more earthquakes, meteor showers, storms, rain, wind, fires, lightning, or other natural disasters.
Optionally, the plurality of game event options include a placement or existence of armor, weapons, treasure, or other resources available to specific players in the gameplay session.
and so on with more of this type of stuff.
Uuuuh didn't Crowd Control launch before the filing of that patent? I'm kinda lost here.
Damn I must be misunderstanding something then because that makes it sound like my man gets to be called an inventor and activision gets to potentially benefit financially for what amounts to describing in legalese the utility after someone else did all the real technical work of making it a reality
I would hate it if games changed based on what they thought I wanted - I want to choose my content but if the content morphs underneath my hands according to a marketing algorithm then it’s not respecting my choice. There seems to be some assumption that each person enjoys exactly one emotion.
I’m pretty sure people can like more than one thing. Like if I’m playing Resident Evil and some algo decides that because I watched When Harry Met Sally last week, it should replace the zombies with awkward dates 🤣.
Gaming NFTs are a great idea. If I’m playing chess I want to be able to transfer over my items from other games, like a portal gun, to enhance the experience. NFT technology will permanently improve the gaming industry.
Back then, we really couldn’t engage with a display manufacturer to do exactly what we were after because they didn’t really understand the product category, or who would be buying the screen, or why it would matter. Now that picture has changed and we’re able to get custom work done.
Why would literally any of those questions be of concern to the screen manufacturer? And I don’t understand, did Valve begin work on this in 1918? How could anyone not understand the product category?
Display manufacturers may understand what Valve might want in a screen, but they might not understand how many units of a screen of such a specification they would be able to sell — is it going to be a custom job for just a few thousand of valve’s experimental console (which may have different degrees of success), or is it going to be something that they can sell to more people and a wider audience.
He heavily endorsed the bad decision made by Unity and his comments really didn’t help the situation so this is a welcome decision. Of course this will likely not change Unity’s direction.
eurogamer.net
Ważne