Unity, as a business, as a stock investment, as a C-suite and board of directors, is rotting in its casket for all I care. I have committed to never buy game built in Unity whose development started after September this year.
This whole debacle wasn’t an engineering problem; it’s not the software development staff’s fault.
Don’t worry y’all. By cloud it’s just gonna be dynamic ads.
But for real, background animations and details could be streamed through another device having to render that something. Anything that doesn’t revolve around the gameplay itself.
This is from the culture where don’t show you outsourced some of your work and claim that you did everything internally. There was a time where players think outsourced anything is bad but we have since gone way past that. Many big studio out-sourced their asset making/audio etc cause it’s simply too much work to do the up keeps if you don’t have a library of them from your past games.
As far as I know some Japanese company still operate this way and the out-source partner are contractually not allowed to disclose what they worked on. You would be considered lucky to even make the partner list with company name only. It’s a really bad standard and I hope we just get rid of that entirely. (If you are not aware, China’s asset outsource companies makes a lot of assets for AAA industry for a long time. )
Honestly my biggest problem with embracer group is they don’t have a “real stake” in gaming or actual interest like Xbox does when they buy studios. (Please correct me if I’m wrong) but all they do is buy companies and then when they see profits go down they just lay people off.
Not great news for embracer as they just shut down their other games studio volition studio too . Layoffs at gearbox doesn’t seem good and they will probably have to sell it off next year
Is there something to be worried about here with the Unreal Engine being the only big business in town in terms of indie game development for 3d game engines?
I mean obviously yes, but how worried should we be of this becoming a bottleneck?
Godot has been making leaps and bounds. Obviously not close to UE, but if it maintains its rate of improvement, I can see it becoming a more and more common choice in the indie space over the next few years
Nah, it definitely is, in fact I have noticed a disconcerting number of indie games I REALLY like especially 3d games with physics engines are on the unreal engine.
I have always been a massive fan of at least the creative output of projects on the unreal engine, I don’t know much about the politics and details around how it is to actually create games on the unreal engine or anything though. I just don’t trust Epic honestly or whoever owns them now or rather I don’t trust the incentive structure… but yeah I wish the unreal engine success I am just asking how people see the state of similar engines in this moment.
“This employee took screenshots of ABK wide discussions about the safety of our protected information (like name changes and visa statuses) and sent them to an an extremely racist, sexist, and transphobic individual on Twitter who has over a 100 thousand followers,” they added.
Like really? Concord went bust because of woke? It can’t be an overused genre and a bad game? It has to be “wokeism”?
Like, please think.
And ask for marvel rivals I think you’re confusing that with multiverse.
Edit: like I’m not even against a game that is just trad wives and big tits or whatever, it’s up to the customer if they want to buy that. And if they do there will be a market for it.
Edit 2: didn’t notice the poster deleted his comment, here it is:
“What happened to Concord? And what happened to Marvel Rivals?”
Seems to me like names were censored in the released slack screenshots (except the CEO). Were there uncensored screenshots that I missed or that were deleted?
Easy there, I’m already planning on not buying it, just like I’m sure plenty of others are planning not to. Just need to get the word out that the company isn’t one to buy from.
They are not doing anything wrong, dipshit. What is the horrific thing they are doing? Protecting trans colleagues? Protecting people of color they work with? Just because your fuhrer wants a white straight male environment, does not mean everyone else does. Go outside for once in your life. Maybe you will gain some empathy for your fellow humans.
Being left wing is not wrong, just like being right wing isn’t wrong. Further more, nothing wrong with customers being more informed about the company they’re buying from.
What, are you upset that the multinational corporation might lose out on a few sales?
Lol, yes it is, you brainrotted simpleton. Your continued attempts at normalizing psychotic behavior under the auspices of consumer protection proves as much.
Go do a few cartwheels through a busy intersection, chud.
Activision is a lefty company with a lefty culture. Dear fucking lord, that has to be one of the worst takes I’ve read on lemmy. What’s next, Mark Zuckerberg is a deep cover lefty librul?
I've got an Xbox One X and there's just not been anything on current gen platforms that excites me. Lots of live service games that are of zero interest to me, coupled with subscriptions that end up imposing FoMo.
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.
gamedeveloper.com
Ważne