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.
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.
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.
gamedeveloper.com
Ważne