Exactly what Nintendo was hoping for. I can’t blame the developers, though. But this sucks.
Old ass game systems where it’s practically impossible or expensive to get the physical games anymore, let alone the console, with some titles locked to those systems, never to be enjoyed again except through emulation.
Old ass game systems where it’s practically impossible or expensive to get the physical games anymore, let alone the console, with some titles locked to those systems
And if you do manage to acquire a physical copy Nintendo isn’t go to see any of the money you spent on it anyway
I did enjoy it but I only maybe put 10 hours into it or so. I think it tried to be more than L4D with all the perks/cards or whatever but IMO people just want a simple replayable zombie survival game you can spontaneously jump in and out of with some friends
I just generally need more games I can just quickly play. Why do I have to spend 30+ minutes just to play anything? I love Rocket League for the ability to quickly do a few games with the friends while we consider what to play.
Even as someone who generally enjoys games adapted with similar rules, I HATE videogames with cards or a board as their main logical center. It’s a VIDEO GAME, not a table top… FFS, at least hide it behind a minimally intrusive UI… That’s the fucking point in having a computer and interface involved: it doesn’t have to be reduced to a small set of human-parseable rules presented as text.
I didn’t enjoy it at all, but you’re right about what people wanted. L4D is so simple in its core concept and streamlined in its gameplay, but it still has a ton of depth. That’s what people want.
It had the worst gunplay ive felt in a long time and the atmosphere of the game was destroyed by all the rainbow coloured glow effects and animations. That game was so full of really weird design choices.
The utter lack of polish and adding in too many mechanics while not tightening up the core gameplay. They also did not have a versus mode where you could control the zombies while the survivors made their way through the map, which was in my opinion one of the most fun versus modes in any game.
That video is completely out of date. I watched a sampling of the bugs they were showing, and none of them appear for me, even when playing with bots.
I remember it being shared on release, and its focus on things like physics within maps was a very specific thing - after Half-Life 2 many games gave up on physics especially in online, because it was more likely to lead to glitchy and unexpected behavior than emergent gameplay.
There’s so much in that video you’d have to pick out what matters to make your case, but to take melee reactions: B4B didn’t want the shove to be so powerful or delay the horde much, so it made sense zombies wouldn’t fall to the ground from one shove; the animation length would end up locking up the difficulty.
Death reactions is another gameplay choice. With automatic weapons, I wasted alot of ammo in L4D2 simply because it wasn’t instantly clear an enemy was dead - they were just playing out their lengthy Oscar death. Sometimes it’s a tradeoff between showcasing the enemy design, and showcasing the weapon’s effects when dozens of other enemies are bearing down.
God I was so excited and I liked the idea of the random card difficulties, but fuck I couldn’t figure out how to get into it. Bought that shit cause I have like 5000 in L4D 1 and 2 and love them. But B4B dissappointed me so much.
I got B4B because some friends and I were really into L4D2. The cards were cool and different and I can appreciate that they tried something new. But they would regularly nerf anything that worked or was fun into the ground, which really sucked because it was a PvE game. And they changed the game so that you would start a campaign with your entire deck, and didn’t balance any of the early levels since they were designed to give a single card per level or segment or whatever they were called. I really wanted to like the game, but I just couldn’t
Exactly the same. I think them using Left 4 Dead as a selling point is what ruined it. It should have just been its own game should not have even mentioned Left 4 Dead
It’s the classic thing that happens to all these movies and TV shows that are written by people who purposely avoid the source material and brag about “we didn’t play the game or read the books” like that somehow is going to make the content better?
Offhand I can only think of one movie (and sequels) where “didn’t read the book” made the movie significantly better: The Bourne Identity. Those books really were awful!
Not only that, they probably would have been better off not using the original 4 playable characters since every game comes with a new set. Just make sure the side characters are done well and you keep the same feel as the games and it should have been an easy win
Workers rights absolutely. Pay your human workers even while using ai to make a great product. AI didn’t do anything to me, it’s how the companies decide to use it.
Oh yeah I’m sure they will use the ai to pay human workers as well. You definitely know that if they are allowed to use ai they won’t use it in a way that means they can stop paying humans and can just have ais generate everything all whist delivering a lower quality product to the customer.
It’s a win win, as long as you are an executive or a shareholder.
I am potentially okay with this. The entertainment industry has been creatively bankrupt for too long. Actors will move to more independent work, more interesting and experimental content will get made, corporate will advance AI technology. Win-win?
Or more Ai as a cash incentive. It’s already an industry that creates npc’s, Ai will improve this, Indy’s might just sit there and craft perfect Ai actors and license them out.
Hey voice actors, take this five bucks today so we can make your job vanish tomorrow, it’s a win win! For us. Not you. This guy thinks you should do it though because we already… make npcs? That you currently voice.
I just think it’s inevitable that we will see fully voiced and interactive ai npc companions. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, I’m in a union and I’m pro worker but this is tech and I think tech is gonna tech.
It’s inevitable if you give up and let companies do whatever they want yes. It’s not if you get them to sign papers and lobby for regulation to protect workers.
I don’t understand this defeatist mentality at all sorry.
They are ok with murder and war simulation then? ROFL Smells like another religious pressure group tbh, haven’t looked into them yet.
They should go after all violence in games and media then; we’ll see how well they can fend of the pressure… Not sure if they have the ressources to survive that, so I would LOVE to see them try.
By all accounts they aren’t religious, we don’t have gestures broadly to American Evangelicalism going on here in Aus. They just seem to be TERFs and SWERFs.
That’s gonna be the next major Gamer lack of media literacy:
“I didn’t know I had the option to just shoot at the russians who were being racist toward me, uninstall the game, and masturbate for weeks at a time. This game is trash and full of plot holes”
fyi, in case someone isn’t clear on the difference:
stakeholder ≠ shareholder
stakeholders are basically all people involved, including staff, and even stuff like landlords, janitors, citizens (sometimes things like parents), etc.
it’s anyone with a stake in an organizations operations!
example: a city decides to create a new bus route. in this case, stakeholders include the local residents, the companies involved in creating the route, the companies supplying the buses, the mechanics needed to keep the fleet running, etc., etc.
there’s a usually a LOT of stakeholders, and typically you don’t always include everyone in every little decision because it quickly becomes unmanageable. so only the most relevant ones are included in most decisions, and who exactly that is depends on the project.
shareholders on the other hand are what everyone is probably thinking of, and that’s the people (“people” being used generously here) only interested in next quarters profits. you know! the parasites!
of course the message is still bullshit and nothing but coded corpo-speech for “shareholders”, but i thought some folks might be interested in knowing the difference anyhow.
even if, in this case, it’s only important to highlight the extra special bullshit they put into the statement…
If you are bad at your job, you lose your job. If the CEO is bad at their job, you lose your job. If the CEO is REALLY bad at their job, they get a golden parachute.
These stories are so dumb/intentionally misleading/outrage bait.
Executives have predefined stock sale schedules at regular intervals. This allows them to convert their equity to cash and avoid conflicts of interest. That is, it’s hard to gain an advantage over the market when you sell exactly the same amount every month for the next 4 years.
Where was everyone’s outrage the other 99% of times this guy sold exactly the same amount of stock?
Seems like if they wanted to avoid this sort of suspicion, they’d time the announcement for either right before or nowhere near when the scheduled sale would take place.
But then they wouldn’t get to feel like a Bond villain, so…
Yes, hypothetically the CEO could influence the date an announcement is made for their own personal gain, but it’s not worth it and there will be many more sell events in the future.
Long run, trying to scheme an announcement to gain more at 1/100 sales isn’t worth it.
CEO John Riccitiello shifted 2000 shares last week on 6th September, … part of a trend over the past year where the exec has sold more than 50,000 shares in total and bought none.
This is a drop in his equity bucket and any gains this article implies are due to “insider trading” will disappear in subsequent events.
Having the scumbag of a CEO in the headline may have been a mistake. Riccitiello sold the least shares in the recent transaction history of the company. Also, I don’t know where you get your "retaining over 3000000 shares’ from. The source says Riccitiello sold all his shares in his possession.
The article mentions two others:
Tomer Bar-Zeev who sold 37.5k shares on 1st September, for around $1.4m. Shlomo Dovrat, meanwhile, sold 68k shares on 30th August for around $2.5m.
Bar-Zeev sold 37500 shares of ~1300000 owned on automated sell. That’s a factor of ten and a fair bit away from 2k sold from 3 mil, but that might be normal. It was automated, after all.
Dovrat’s transaction is mostly the same, roughly double the shares sold and roughly double the shares owned. However, it was not automated.
I believe the article mentioned them because they sold the most, but they clearly weren’t taking the amount retained into account. The third most sold, however, by Robynne Sisco was a sell of 25768, retaining 14700 (sold ~64%).
There are a fair number of other sells, but if the Bar-Zeev and Dovrat sells don’t look suspicious, nothing else will stand out.
What does seem a little odd- and I have no idea if this is at all unusual- is that in the last twelve months, more shares have been bought than sold (net shares almost 10,000,000), and in the last 3 months more shares have been sold than bought (net shares almost 3,500,000). In the last 3 months, the number of insider traders is a little over 1/3 of the amount of insider trades over the last 12 months (under the assumption it should be about 1/4). All of the insider buys seem to be the options granted for working for Unity. I assume it isn’t too odd for the board of directors to sell and never buy, but they have increased selling a fair bit in the last 3 months, and it seems specifically the last two weeks.
More confusing accounting that I’ve never learned, and probably never will.
At first I thought it was because of direct/indirect ownership. But what is the point of “5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 3 and 4)” being 3mil with no transaction, but the 2000 stock transaction showing they owned none? I see nothing on the form or in the definition showing that direct or indirect ownership show be reported differently. They are all owned by the ‘reporting person’. But clearly this is all me just not being able to read how they filled it out.
I agree $80k is nothing to $100mil, I do believe that if they have 3mil of securities, then it doesn’t matter, no matter how high or low the securities are worth. I disagree with the idea that automation makes it not suspicious, though. If the stocks were all automatically sold off, then the company devalues itself afterwards, it has the same intent and outcome as any other insider trading.
Ok, so the report is on the person (CEO in this case). Only directors and certain executive levels are required to report.
Table I shows ‘non-derivative securities’ (regular stock). The CEO holds in their own name 3 million+ shares. No transaction was reported for those, but they have to be listed.
The CEO’s spouse aquired 2000 shares at a cost of $1.425 each. After this transaction, they had 2000 shares total (column 5).
They then sold those shares for $40 each. After, they weren’t holding any stock, so column 5 shows 0.
The CEO financially benefits from this, so the transactions are listed on their form, as (I) for indirect. If the spouse also had a position within Unity which required reporting this would be listed on their own SEC form as well.
Yeah I just had a scene where wyll asked me to dance and I was ready to dunk on him with my skillz but instead they danced and make out and the game didn’t even ask me if I wanted to
Ugh, I hate bad PC writing. It's bad enough when it's "I agree 100%," "I agree 100% and wanna s your d," and "You're the stupidest, ugliest, evilest piece of absolute crap I have ever seen in my life and I'd kill you myself if it wouldn't get your blood in the carpet" but then some games just insist on somehow making it non-obvious which is which >:|
It’s a fun wrap-up to act 1 before you dive into the underdark or the mountain pass. It also serves as an important relationship set-up - it’s where you’re meant to establish who you want to romance, if anyone.
Not a great first impression when the first thing you ever see/hear about a game is the CEO of the company that made said game’s conspiracy theory about why people are saying their game sucks.
eurogamer.net
Ważne