What the fuck are you on about? They’re talking about using AI to replace the incredibly talented human labour at studios they own. Y’know, like the people who made Valheim, Deep Rock Galactic, Satisfactory, the new Tomb Raider titles, Metro Exodus…
Embracer are shit, but what makes them shit is that they’re fucking murdering a lot of genuinely talented studios that produce great work.
Listen, if AI was replacing executives instead of hardworking creative types, I’d be all for it.
Christ, with how limited the brainpower of your average c-suite is, you wouldn’t need “AI”. I could probably replace most of them with an excel spreadsheet.
Initially I had some hope when Embracer bought a bunch of studios from Square Enix, because Square Enix sucks and it could only get better, but once their funding dried up it turned out Emberacer sucks just as much as them.
Nintendo: Actively standing against game preservation and ownership in an attempt to rent you their back catalog forever; their outdated hardware exclusivity model also stands in the way of future-proofing preservation. They hate their fans, and don’t forget it. They’ll sue you for playing Super Smash Bros.
Riot: They normalized rootkit anti-cheats, and for something that extreme, it had better render cheating impossible, but it doesn’t. Purveyors of live service games, which also stand in the way of preservation and ownership by putting an expiration date on the game. For the sake of brevity, I won’t expand on the live service concept again in later bullet points.
EA: Making billions of dollars off of legalized gambling for children. Always-online DRM on games that otherwise never even need to touch the internet.
From here, you can put most companies that have reduced their library down to live service games for similar reasons as the above.
These companies piss me off, but…:
Sony: Clinging slightly less to the outdated hardware exclusivity model and pivoted largely to live service games, but the writing is on the wall, so they may abandon one or both of those things in the not-too-distant future. Their new shenanigans with requiring PSN accounts on PC shakes my faith in that though.
Microsoft: Layoffs to rival Embracer, and not even a successful, acclaimed game will save the developer. Purveyors of live service games, not just from classic Microsoft studios but also from Activision, Blizzard, Bethesda, etc. Still, they eventually bent to the whims of the market rejecting their Windows storefront for anything outside of Game Pass, and they did a ton to make PC gaming as good as it is today, including standardizing a good controller for it.
Epic: Exclusivity that’s actively hostile to what customers really want, purveyors of live service games, removing their classic games from sale from other stores and their own for basically no reason. But Tim Sweeney, in pursuing his own self interest to become king of the world, sometimes cries loudly enough to score a win for consumers, and Epic is going to be instrumental in any kind of change, in any country, for destroying walled gardens in tech.
Valve: Making untold amounts of money off of legalized gambling for children, purveyors of live service games, but they’re also basically the only ones creating open ecosystems and allowing them to flourish.
Embracer’s pretty low on the “piss me off, but…” list. They made a horrible gambler’s bet and were surprised to have to pay the bill later, and they do have a few live service games in the bunch too, but outside of that, what they were going for is something I really wanted to see succeed. The big publishers stopped making a lot of types of games that they used to make as they honed in on a select few money makers, and Embracer was picking up old, discarded, forgotten properties or subgenres and trying to show that there can still be a market for those. The fact that the bet has failed could be up to their execution, since as Keighley reminded us at SGF, customers do in fact respond when the right games show up outside of those AAA publishers, and Embracer had a vision. They pursued that vision irresponsibly.
That was a really excellent write up, thank you for elaborating. It’s helpful to know the truth of how these companies are acting, and important for consumers to try not to forget. They will continue to take advantage, if we allow it.
Ignore the thousands of employees we’ve laid off, we have AI that is going to QUADRUPLE our productivity. I’m talking AAAA-AAAA games here, folks. The best is yet to come, it’s going to be fantastic.
With all the news coming out the past couple days about The Veilguard, I’m starting to piece together a suspicion that Bioware is picking things back up where they last had decent ideas: early to mid 2010s.
I think Veilguard will feel like a stuck-in-time successor to Inquisition, stale by that period’s standards and grossly outdated by today’s, especially in the wake of Larian’s enormous success reinvigorating the kind of game Bioware has forgotten how to make.
I’ve been a fan of Dragon Age since Origins and this game looks like another step towards the kind of simplified gameplay that every game has made. It’s disappointing that the series has gone from an RPG to a generic 3rd person action adventure game, but given the gradual evolution of the other games it’s not really surprising.
kind of game Bioware has forgotten how to make.
Such a nice way to sum it up. You would think that the success of Baldur’s Gate 3 would show publishers that there is a (large) market for actual RPGs, but that’s maybe too much to hope for.
That is what their marketing wants you to think, the reality is going to be its just another soulless shallow designed-by-committee AAA rpg. Nothing ive seen so much has led me to believe otherwise and they have quite a streak of bad games to break.
I’m curious to see how the combat mechanics will be accepted. Reads like Mass Effect in a high fantasy setting. Could be cool, but at the same time, Dragon Age fans will come to expect something more strategic.
My impression from the trailer was that the combat lacks any weight. The player character floated all over, the attacks looked like they didn’t even make contact, and the enemies seemed to be on the spongy side. That makes it look and feel bland. If that is the case the reaction won’t be great even from players who like action games.
And yeah, I think making this the first Dragon Age game after so long is a mistake. People will expect a game that follows on with same or similar gameplay. This feels like a spin-off game. That’s not inherently bad, but you do want mainline games to also release to keep the main fan base happy. Right now it’ll just be judged compared to mainline expectations and will obviously not meet most of those.
I did some cursory searches to find the actual arguments and came up blank. It’s important to note this isn’t the standard “video games cause violence” lawsuit that has absolutely no merit. This is different. The summary presented in articles is that this gun manufacturer explicitly marketed their product for things like this using a sophisticated campaign. If I understand the summary correctly, it therefore hinges on both the marketing of this specific gun and its presence across the digital landscape. The parents aren’t going after shooting in games; they’re going after a company that actively markets its products on social media and in video games.
It’s novel. I’m kinda skeptical because the solution would have to limit product placement and advertisement which has a massive lobby. There’s also nothing that really says “this specific gun leads to violence” without implicitly relying on the whole “video games cause violence” which is bullshit.
There’s precedent though. Alcohol and tobacco have significant restrictions on marketing material. I would argue that firearms should fall into the same category.
My impression was the same- eye roll at the “videogames cause violence” argument that’s been beaten to death, but I actually think they may have a point when it comes to marketing.
Sadly, I also think that COD is a military recruitment strategy (Boy Boy did a video breaking down the way the American recruiters use COD to capture a certain demographic) so I don’t think this lawsuit will go anywhere. Thought-provoking though.
I’m not sure I understand. When was the last time a video game was used to go on a killing spree?
The same argument can be used in one context and be wrong, yet used in another context and be right.
The object in the argument matters. For example, the argument that punishment reduces undesirable behavior. This could be true in criminal justice, but it’s absolutely not true when applied to early child development. It just teaches them to be scared of you if the child isn’t old enough to understand.
There might be an association between guns and violence. Is that even true for video games?
Guns may not cause the mental health issues that make people turn violent, but they do allow violent people to become mass murderers. Video games do neither.
Sorry, you can’t propose an analogy and expect others to think about it for themselves, but then when presented with a nearly identical analogy, expect others to spend time explaining it to you.
“Drinking and driving doesn’t kill people, people kill people” oh wait, that’s senseless and they’re not identical… Maybe you responded with this instead of answering my question because you know that.
“Cars and alcohol don’t kill people people kill people” yeah that’s why it’s drinking and driving that’s illegal, not cars and/or alcohol. But you thought of that already and realized your mistake, which is why you’re dodging.
No no, keep going, you’re so right. It sounds like you agree that demonstrating competency before being granted a driver’s license is useful? And you agree that revoking these licenses when they have demonstrated that they are a risk to public safety is also working out for us?
They voted back in all the same leadership at an election not long after. Having made that decision, I find this to be less surprising than it might have been.
I remember reading about that. All I could conclude is that the voters must approve in some sense of those actions. In which case, I’m afraid your peers have spoken and clearly indicate that it’s not a priority. It’s a shame.
What about all the movies with guns? It’s much more normal to see a movie about someone getting shot or otherwise killed than see even a titty, much less any genitalia. I’d argue that many more people watch media than play games, if that’s the logic they’re going for.
Their frustration is completely misdirected also because it’s friggin’ Texas! What do you need to get a gun in that state? A pulse?
Edit: the dude was 18, how did he even get a gun? You need to be at least 21 to have one. How did he even get an semi-automatic weapon? The fuck?
There’s no classes of licenses like that in the US. If you are 18 and meet the minimal legal requirements, you can buy a long gun of any type in most states. (Some states are trying to move that age to 21.) That means a single shot, break action, lever action, bolt action, pump, or yes, semi-automatic. Once you hit 21, you can buy handguns. Again: that includes break action, revolvers, and normal semi-automatics.
The only real restriction in all of this is machine guns; to get those, you need to come up with the $20,000+ that a legal one will cost, and file a transfer application with the BATF, pay a $250 fee, and wait to see if your application is approved or denied. There are some states that prevent individual ownership of machine guns entirely.
I hear what you’re saying, but how many hours are logged by some swimming in images of fps games? I’d argue, from my interaction with teens, that there are far more hours logged than passively watching any media. But that’s not the point anyway.
Our American society is swimming with a gun obsession. Whether it’s via video games, movies, social media, politicians, the NRA, “2nd ammendment cities” (wtf), and too many more avenues to think of. Games are just one vector of marketing guns to a maleable population. The core of this suit is that a manufacturer was pushing their models within the game in collusion with Activision. I believe advertising guns to a kids demographic is prohibited. I’d search it, but I’m lazy and the AI results would be wrong anyway.
Certainly. Hence, steps. Although, video games is probably not where I would begin if we wish to take this problem seriously. It should be part of a complete plan to address violence involving guns.
Those arguments were weak then and they are no better now after years of research trying to test whether video games cause violent behavior. I don’t think there’s a need to revisit the same argument — unless of course new information or context that changes things has been found.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing at all. Even with all the evidence that video games aren't the problem, it's a convenient scapegoat to point a finger at while ignoring those who actually need to be held accountable.
Do we really think video games are promoting violence?
No, that’s not their argument. They are saying the gun manufacturer advertised their real life gun in the video game. They don’t have an issue with video game violence, they have an issue with advertising weapons to children.
I get what you’re saying, but in the case of the games in question, it’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, don’t you agree? Get them while they’re young and impressionable?
Oh, I completely agree. There is no single thing that is the “magic cure”. There are a bunch of factors that add up to a fetishization of guns and gun culture / violence in the US. And the incredible availability of guns makes gun violence inevitable.
Other countries also have Call of Duty, but not such a big problem with mass shootings. So I don’t think its that easy. I think it is more interesting, what the NRA is doing. Such a big and powerful lobby organization should have way more influence, than a video game series.
As I mentioned to the other replier, other countries don’t have the mass promotion of gun violence coupled with the ready access to an incredible variety of firearms.
You mean the organization that is basically bankrupt and at it’s peak spent 5million dollars over a year lobbying? You think they have more influence then a “video game series” that is owned by a company that has around 25billion in assets?
That, and probably a lot of untreated and undiagnosed mental health issues. Honestly, I think guns are pretty cool (from a mechanical standpoint) but I would never even want to own one irl or kill anything with one. 'Cause, you know, I’m somewhat sane.
gamedeveloper.com
Aktywne