some of y’all definitely aren’t reading the article. this isn’t a “video games cause violence” thing. they are suing Activision and the gun manufacturer Daniel Defense for marketing a specific model of gun in Call of Duty, and maybe? that the Uvalde shooter used that same model of gun in the shooting. i dunno if there’s merit to the argument, but like, categorically, this isn’t the “video games cause violence” argument y’all seem to think it is. its about a gun manufacturer advertising their product in a video game.
So I did read the article, and… I’m not understanding a word you are saying. The families are suing a video game company for a gun in their video game. Also the article is not at all making the emphasis that you are making between marketing a specific game and video games writ large (the article kind of speaks to both of those at the same time and isn’t making any such distinction), so I don’t know what you are talking about. As far as the article is concerned this has everything to do with the fact that the gun was in a video game, and even Activisions statement in response was to defend themselves from the idea that their video game is a thing that pushing people to violence. So even Activision understands the lawsuit as tying their video game to violence.
I’m not saying I agree with the logic of the suit, but I literally have no idea what you think in the article separates out video games from the particular model of gun because that is just not a thing the article does at all.
that makes two of us, i guess? i don’t know what it is you’re trying to say i was saying. to be more clear, i’ve been seeing a lot of talk in this thread arguing against the “video games cause violence” claim, as if that was what the lawsuit was about. i don’t think the contents of the article present the families’ lawsuit as primarily concerning that particular claim. i then attempted to describe what i believe their actual claim to be.
i’ve emphasized the words i think are relevant here:
These new lawsuits, one filed in California and the other in Texas, turn attention to the marketing and sale of the rifle used by the shooter. The California suit claims that 2021’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare featured the weapon, a Daniel Defense M4 V7, on a splash screen, and that playing the game led the teenager to research and then later purchase the gun hours after his 18th birthday.
that Call of Duty’s simulation of recognizable guns makes Activision “the most prolific and effective marketer of assault weapons in the United States.”
the fact that Activision and Meta are framing this as an extension of the “video games cause violence” thing is certainly what they’ve decided to do, but it seems to be talking past what the complaint and lawsuit are about, which is the marketing of a Daniel Defense M4 V7 in 2021’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.
the reason i emphasized the gun model is that that seems, to me, to be the core feature of the case the families are trying to make. not that video games cause violence, but that Activision bears responsibility for the actions of the shooter because the shooter played their game, then proceeded to kill people with the specific model of gun that was being advertised in that game. the fact that the article takes the time to reference another case where the specific naming of a gun model lead to a sizable settlement, and says this
The notion that a game maker might be held liable for irresponsibly marketing a weapon, however, seems to be a new angle.
seems to support my reading. that isn’t the same thing as saying video games make you violent, which is the claim a bunch of people in this thread seem to be shadowboxing.
i dunno, maybe there’s some ambiguity there? are you arguing that the lawsuit is about rehashing the video games make you violent claim, or what? i genuinely don’t know what you’re trying to communicate to me. i hope this clarified my stance.
Gun makers in the USA cozying up to government law makers to keep gun laws loose especially with respect to export and control is the force driving gun violence in the USA. Follow the $$$.
Next time I read about a mass killing by someone firing fully automatic digital downloads of COD in a room full of children I will come back to this thread and apologize to you.
Until then, I will consider you to be an absolute twat waffle defending the vague wording in a “living document*” that promotes profit over mass murder.
(* back in the day we were taught in Civics class that the US constitution is a living document, meaning as society changes it too shall reflect the will of the people. At some point the education system dropped Civics classes because it gave way too much information to the masses and keeps the common person ignorant & therefore keeps them in place)
They’re not saying people are killing people with videogames, and you know that, so you’re being disingenuous. You’re creating an equivalency I didn’t make and arguing with it, not me. When you do this you only look smart to stupid people.
Its about time someone held these corporations accountable.
For the peanut gallery: it’s not about the violence in games. It’s about not getting data tracked on every purchase. Just because someone bought a violent video game doesn’t mean they should be tracked and exposed to more guns just because the gun manufacturers want to sell a few more units.
It’s exposing the mentally ill to targeted marketing campaigns and pushing them down the extremism pipeline that meta has created.
“In terms of the Call of Duty publisher’s alleged responsibility, the lawsuits seek to connect the promotion of real-world weaponry to “vulnerable” young men who are "insecure about their masculinity, often bullied, eager to show strength and assert dominance.”
“The suits reportedly paint a detailed picture of Daniel Defense’s aggressive marketing, using Facebook and Instagram to “bombard” Ramos with material glorifying assault rifles after he downloaded a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare game in November 2021.”
It’s targeted data stalking on the mentally unstable and pushing them to extremism.
There needs to be accountability and a stop to targeting people for the sake of profits.
There have been numerous studies debunking links between violent video games and violence. This is the 80’s Satanic Panic all over again with a different wrapper and target.
400 police failed them, not activision. Then they voted for the same leadership at the next election. It’s like everyone from the first responders onward just takes turns reacting to this shooting in head scratching ways.
I’m not complaining about violent video games like some Christian boomer. I’ve played them all my life and have no issues with realistic violence.
It’s the companies marketing them using data tracking and social media. Them getting directly connected to gun manufacturers through targeted ads is the issue. It’s exposing the mentality unstable to a barrage of targeted ads and pushing them down the crazy pipeline that social media has created.
Meta needs to be held accountable and if it takes M$ and gun manufacturers with them all the better.
Ah, I misunderstood the point you were making, I apologize for my assumptions.
Much as I hate ads (and especially targeted ads which involve datamining by corporations), I’m still not convinced this is something that can win in court, but I do see the distinction you are drawing.
They’re not intentionally targeting the mentally ill to sell them guns so they can perform crimes with them.
What’s happening is this mentally ill person was searching things, the algorithm caught on and sent them advertisements to persuade them to purchase more of the things he was looking at.
The algorithm doesn’t really care what it is as long as it qualifies in whatever marketing parameters they have.
Did the algorithm persuade or affect the person’s actions and promoted the crimes that they committed. Probably not. Do these predatory marketing firms have some kind of accountability? They probably do.
And I’m telling you that the algorithm isn’t causing this.
The underlying root cause of these things have nothing to do with marketing or any algorithm that any marketing firm employs.
The underlying issues are mental illness and a lack of mental health Care in America Not to mention the basically suggestions we have for gun control instead of laws.
Marketing firms cannot and should not be held accountable for people freely using the internet or any other service that also have mental illness
The relevant conundrum is that they should regardless take some kind of responsibility for this Even if they have no liability.
The fact that you are even talking about stuff like this even if it is out of ignorance and probably naivety is that you are detracting from the underlying issues causing these things to occur in the first place.
This whole thing is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit specifically designed to make a little bit of profit from a settlement preying on the grief and torment of people who lost a child in that terrible shooting.
I was concerned about this business model from the onset and my worries have proven accurate! Buying the game while in early access would’ve given them more funding to work with instead of going with a free to play with cosmetic only purchases. I hope the affected developers are going to be okay in this layoff heavy year. 😭
Cosmetics are expensive too. I’m afraid a majority of players won’t pay those prices. If they offered some lower priced items they might have more consistent income.
That’s what I thought too…In addition, needing to buy a fake currency with real money before being able to buy a skin pack has a dark pattern vibe to it! They would’ve been better off making the skin packs cheaper (using real world money) and listing their game for a reasonable price during early access. However, their staff is paying the price for the leader’s poor decision and that honestly sucks!
Activision wasn’t just a studio, it was a huge publisher with several studios, that’s why they needed approval from competition regulators. I doubt they will stop buying studios over this in the short-term.
I just want games made by people who are trying to make a good game, and not games made by people or companies that are only trying to make money. Not one GaaS game is actually special enough to warrant spending more than the base price of the game on (and many aren’t even worth that when their next best competitor is fuckin’ free to play.)
How independent is Relic really if they got bought by an unnamed external investor? Still better than getting axed and hoping the same kinda layoffs won‘t just come later („The studio hasn’t indicated if it will lay off any workers as part of the shift“).
The investor has a stake in the company, so they share in the successes and take on the risk of failure, but they provide capital to make this purchase from the parent company in the first place.
I mean that’s how most independent studios work. There’s always someone with money investing into the studio, be it an external investor or sometime at the studio.
Well, the studio that brought us TS had been closed down in 2009 already. Deep Silver had opened a new studio under that name in 2021 (admittedly employing parts of the “old gang”), which is the one we’re now seeing getting shut down.
After Crytek had thoroughly fucked them, yes. Much of the key people were the same and thats really what I referred to. The Old Guarde did not survive a second fall.
More importantly, people who directly influenced my childhood via Goldeneye and the original TS were in there when it went down again. To them, I give the mightiest of salutes.
That’s because it actually is the exact same image
Whoever wrote this article messed up and pasted the same image twice for the Au Ra race, which is the first one shown here. The actual before and after shots are pretty obvious
Edit: this is not true, I was recalling a different event. Links are down the thread
I'm not sure if the image has since been updated, but the horn-y boy before/after isn't the same image twice despite looking very similar. The left image has light-colored areas on the horns and some other similarly minor differences which are more noticeable when flicking between them but kinda hard to spot in a side-by-side.
Ah, I do see what you mean upon closer inspection. You have a keen eye
However, this is most likely due to the author grabbing the two images from a different source which subjected them to different compression artifacts. They definitely both are the same model, even if the actual image files are not 1:1
I play the game and have followed these updates as they came out, so I was able to tell very quickly from looking at the hair and eyes. But don’t take my word for it: I quickly tracked down the actual before/after shots. Sorry for reddit link
It is the same model, but the difference is in the horns and scales. Those pics don't do a very good job of showing it, though. From the paragraphs right above the pics:
Following community feedback after the announcement of the graphical update back at the fan festival event in Las Vegas, he shared an update of the Au Ra race, whose updated horns and scales had been initially revealed as looking very reflective but a little too much like enamel.
“This reflectivity looked very high quality so it was good for showing off, but it didn't really match our vision of what we wanted the Au Ra to look like from our original design back in 3.0, so we continued tweaking,” Yoshida admitted before sharing a new headshots of a male and female Au Ra where their horns look less reflective and more natural. “This goes for all of the updates for the other races as well. What we showed in Las Vegas wasn't the final product but a work in progress.”
It’s all a bit tangled up now, but the second set of pictures in the article shows the current in-game models and then the remade models, where you can clearly see the difference in the hair. The first set (the one in question here) shows the remade one, and then the remade-remade one with the muted horn texture.
I remembered this particular Au Ra from the slideshow about 4 months ago, so when I noticed the distinct hair being the same in both and found the original slides I tunnel visioned on that. But in truth, what we are seeing is a second pass after player feedback from the event I incorrectly believed the shots were from.
I apologize for not being as in-tune with the game’s news as I had assumed. I do not play an Au Ra myself so I had been kind of tuning out the drama around the scales and their luster. But it (and the changing of the glowing eye rings) has been an ongoing pain point for many. People get really attached to their look
As someone who has put countless hours into various MMOs (including FFXIV), I totally get people getting anxious about their characters looks potentially changing. I remember when WoW had their character model update as the feedback from players then. Blizzard resolved the issue by adding a client-side option to toggle between old and new character models.
Hmm, they aren’t clear whether it’s fully voice-acted or whether he provided phonetic sounds for them to synthesize according to the text, but in either case, it’s not AI whatsoever.
Important to note that ESS Technologies (the company cited there) was literally a company who made synthesized speech for video games.
Electronic Speech Systems produced synthetic speech for, among other things, home computer systems like the Commodore 64. Within the hardware limitations of that time, ESS used Mozer’s technology, in software, to produce realistic-sounding voices that often became the boilerplate for the respective games.
gamedeveloper.com
Ważne