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.
That isn’t for lack of trying on Godots part, but there are parts of making a Switch game that are incompatible with an open source engine. It is possible to have a closed source export profile that targeted the switch, but someone would have to make it, and that someone would charge money for it. Which is almost exactly what has happened.
It is interesting how free it is to build games for consoles these days. Now that everything is on pretty standard hardware, gone are the days of needing a dev kit and special knowledge of how the CPU or other hardware worked. Even the switch is standard ARM hardware, the proprietary part is the OS integration parts, not the hardware.
I haven’t enjoyed a “pokemon clone” as much in a very long time, coming from both a lifelong pokemon fan and a competitive battler. It respects your intelligence, buildcraft is fun, the monsters are cool, the story is surprisingly good (not incredible but still well done and touching and fun, big pokemon black/white and black2/white2 vibes in that regard just a bit more adult). I loved it
It's so much fun, I legitimately enjoyed it more than the last few Pokémon games. I haven't enjoyed a monster collecting game that much since Heart Gold and Soul Silver. Highly recommend it.
There are millions of reasons, such as people in rural areas with bad internet can't download large game, none of which matter since I am paying customer lol
I guess if I am alone then fine but I am pretty sure many others wants physical copies of games.
Oh, ok. I thought you were preparing some kind of internet down / zombie apocalypse scenario. But patches can be big too (I think? Haven’t even paid attention to that for some time).
“OK” may not be the concession that you appear to think it is. Perhaps you meant “oh, I see,” but clearly it is being interpreted as “okayyy, what-everrrrr.”
I’m okay with the PSN being down from time to time, nothing is perfect… but WHAT? you can play BG3 offline, but you cant buy it offline? now I am more pissed they won’t sell a disc.
Also, release the physical copy assholes… You did it in Japan, why is US consumer getting treated like second class gamer?
Japanese people by and large demand physical media. In the US, developers have figured that they don’t lose a meaningful amount of money by only providing digital downloads. The typical US customer doesn’t care enough.
While the OP meant it the way he answered you, the way I see it used most often colloquially is that when someone or something does the heavy lifting especially in gaming, they are providing the bulk of the work. Like doing the heavy lifting in a team game equates to carrying the team, or saying a character does the heavy lifting instead of the player, means the character is overpowered and carrying the player (or vice versa).
I find it quite interesting that Ubisoft Montreal chose the same day as my employer to enforce 2 days in the office every week.
I’ll accept that there is a 1 in 356.25 chance that any employer will pick a specific day to enforce a return to office, but it does seem interesting that there would be 2 employers in different countries picking the same day. Is there something special about that day that makes it a special day to change where and how people work? (I know that there were events on 2001 that took place on this day, but that doesn’t seem too likely a reason to pick that particular day to enact this change)
It's a monday. So that's already more like 1 in 52. There's been like 5-20 news worthy "return to work" announcements in the past year, I'm guessing half othem have mandatory 2 days, the other half have mandatory 3 days.
Multiply that by the number of things that happen in your life where a coincidence of this level could happen and you should be seeing this kind of coincidence a many times each year.
These idiots are totally destroying work life balance but honestly, they do not care about our welfare or mental health. We are just human machines that they think they own.
What is completely laughable is how they have become advocates of the environment and reducing carbon. Yah, my unnecessary shitty commute is really not contributing! They turn a blind eye to that yo.
We recently went from 2 days to 3 days, and I chalked it up to our new CEO (old one replaced for unrelated reasons). Granted, many departments were full remote, in violation of company policy.
I’m hopeful that we can get back down to 2 days in office. However, if the industry goes for 3 days as standard, the might not be realistic.
As much as I can't stand John Riccitiello, anyone with RSUs will have vested stocks sold on a fixed schedule to cover taxes. They don't get to choose when or how much is sold as long as they have their RSUs configured as sell to cover. The executives are no different in this regard, except they have a great deal more stocks than the average employee. However, this doesn't absolve them of the awful new pricing structure. That shit should have been walked back before it ever left the planning stages.
Don't get me wrong, the timing was fucking abysmal. They really should have thought about that ahead of time, but these executives rarely think about anything other than how to line their own pockets.
So your saying they didn’t time the share sales with respect to the announcement- they timed the announcement with respect to the fixed share sales date.
If you’re selling shares monthly it doesn’t matter when the announcement is, you’re going to have people questioning your sell anyway. They would not have thought about the timing in relation to automated share sells at all because it’s a non issue.
eurogamer.net
Ważne