For The Crew especially, an offline version would’ve been easily doable, as in, most online feature of The Crew feel optional to begin with. To just drive around the map or race against AI, no online features are required.
an offline version would’ve been easily doable, as in, most online feature of The Crew feel optional to begin with.
I never claimed that it was easy in a technical sense, just in a mechanical sense. But to double down on my point, if Ivory Tower had created The Crew with the possibility of ripping out the online mode entirely in mind, then the structure and the mechanics of the game would’ve made it very easy to do so.
the time in which the TV is on but users aren’t doing anything is valuable
Ads are making everything worse. Yes and ads are disturbing the doing nothing. Doing nothing is very valuable to me. It’s the time when I have some time for myself.
Ads have funded a lot of content in the past. I don’t mean just in the Internet era, but in the TV era and the radio era and the newspaper era. We’re talking centuries.
Unless you’re gonna get people to pay for your content, which can create difficulties, attaching it to ads can be a way to pay for that content.
Now, all that being said, that isn’t to say that one needs to want to choose ads or needs to want to choose ads in all contexts or can want unlimited ads. I’d generally rather pay for something up front. Let’s say that it takes $10 to produce a piece of content. For ads to make sense, it has to make the average user ultimately spend at least $10 more on some advertised product than they otherwise would have, or it wouldn’t make sense for the advertiser to give the content creator $10. I’d just as soon spend $10 on the content directly instead and not watch the ads. Ultimately, the average user has to pay at least as much under an ad regime as if they just paid for the content up front, and doesn’t have to deal with the overhead of me staring at ads.
But for that to work, the content provider has to be able to actually get people to pay for whatever content they’re putting out. If it gets pirated, or people disproportionately weight the cost of that up-front payment, or people are worried about the security of their transaction, or what-have-you, then the content provider is gonna fall back to being paid in ads.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with advertising in general. I kinda hate that too. What I have a problem with is super invasive advertising where it collects a monumental amount of personal information, maliciously and often without your consent, to target ads for specific products.
And anyone who says they’re not doing it, I don’t believe them anymore.
Roku is capturing everything that’s on your TV and processing it as personal data.
Could it not be turned off when it’s not needed (I.E. The game is unpaused.)
And what specifically do you mean by overlay?
Monitors and TVs have been able to overlay some interface elements over the HDMI input since forever. I have never heard of an overlay degrading quality but maybe there are some poor implementations.
note: this is just a patent
patents usually don’t mean shit, sony (?iirc) has a patent for an ad system that requires users to say the name of the brand to continue, but we’re not seeing it around yet eh?
I bet this is a falling out with Hasbro execs on royalties. BG3 royalties were a cash cow this year for Hasbro, pushing Wizards (as a division) to be quite profitable, while almost all other divisions in their company lost money.
So now the agreement is over, and Larian is like: we will own the IP on our next project instead of paying $90M to Hasbro… And fair enough – they’ve shown they can kick ass. Hasbro is probably gambling that it’s the IP that made the money, and not Larian being magic in a bottle as a developer. So they’ll kick tires on selling BG4 to another studio.
BG3 will go down in history as the legendary game before enshittification. Larian will make a few great games that don’t sell as well – before selling out to a whale that dumps money on the owner’s front lawn (see also BioWare). The devs who made BG3 will found indie studios and make cool shit for a decade or two. So the wheel turns.
Same. It bugs me that people think larian only existed when making BG3. When DoS2 released on steam that game hit overwhelmingly positive in no time and I bought it day one with no idea what it was because the reviews were so good. Larian will be fine because they stick to what they’re great at and they’ve been around a long time.
I feel like this was part of their plan though. Get the limelight with dnd and show the kind of games that they make to people that wouldn’t have known beforehand. Now their next fully owned game is going to make them absolute bank in both money and good faith I think.
This. If you like the mechanics of bg3, go play Divinity Original Sin 2. It has a lot of the same enhancements that Larian added to dnd for BG3. Including more comprehensive elemental fields and height mechanics.
And it has a great modding community.
The sad part about Larian and BG3 is I was hoping for a definitive edition that gave Karlach her good ending.
Nah, that's her kinda bad ending. They cut the good good ending.
There is another ending for her involving the upper city(cut at the last minute due to performance issues) and I suspect the purified metal you get at the factory that involves her staying.
I don't think we're going to get the dos2 level of tools, simply because it would become a competitor to wotc's fabulous virtual tabletop microtransaction simulator.
DOS2’s fatal flaw for me is that you really can’t have an optimal mixed-damage party because you have spell shield and armor, which each block one of two kinds of damage. If you go all physical, you can just blast through armor and then kill people that way. All magical and you can do the same thing for people with shield. Mixed damage parties just kinda suck by comparison because you’re effectively splitting your damage output.
It’s true, you should go either full magic, or full physical within a specific character, however a 2magic/2physical party is great as well since almost all the combat encounters will have a mix of heavy physical armor guys and heavy magic armor guys.
But really once you learn how the action economy works, as long as you don’t gimp your characters by putting dex on a mage or whatever, you can blow up most encounters regardless of the magic/physical make up of the party.
And of course you can also go lone-wolf archer and single handedly win all encounters on your own ;)
Hasbro is probably gambling that it’s the IP that made the money, and not Larian being magic in a bottle as a developer
This is probably true, but how can executives be so stupid? Every review I read praised Larian specifically and how the made a huge game with no microtransactions and tons of little loving touches. You have to be willfully ignorant to think it was the IP and not the developer and their work that people were responding to.
Jack Welch is seen as MBA-Jesus and they all strive for similar stockholder returns as to what happened under him with GE. If you want a good read, GE under Welch is the OG enshitification story. He took a juggernaut of a company and completely destroyed it for short term shareholder gain.
Now it’s just a shell of its former self, but those guys at the top sure made alot of money.
Screw Hitler. If I invent a time machine, Jack Welch will get a tommy gun to the back of the head before he can lay off one worker, or gut a single workers protection.
I think it’s probably more a situation where they are not a good fit for each other anymore. The D&D license has value and Hasbro rightly wants to capitalize on that. Larian is a hot commodity right now and they don’t need to borrow the credibility that comes with a big license like D&D. There’s also a timing issue. BG4 is unnecessary when BG3 will continue to sell for years to come. Larian will put out at least a couple more games before BG4 makes sense.
Larian is in a position where they can make whatever game they want and it will sell like hotcakes. Why the hell would they want to pay enormous royalties again when they can bring the writing in house? Sure, Hasbro could reduce their fee, but they can’t reduce it to the point where it’s worthwhile for both them and Larian.
If I’m running Larian, there’s no way I’m making another D&D game. The lore is great, but the rule set sucks. There are better systems in the tabletop space and there’s no reason to even be limited to that after you’ve already made the decision to not make D&D. Wizards isn’t exactly a paragon of reliability and stability either so there’s risk there. Not to mention, it was Larian who helped pull Hasbro’s asses out of the fire. They were facing massive backlash from their core customers until a kick ass movie and BG3 made everyone forget about it.
In short, Larian is riding high and Hasbro is not. There’s a lot more money for Larian doing something else and probably good money for Hasbro licensing to another developer.
I think it’s more that executives think the average consumer is stupid and cares too much about IP branding. And I feel they are not completelly wrong. Though I think the OGL fiasco showed the D&D fanbase might be smarter than that …hopefully.
There was a really interesting interview on The Verge with the CEO of Telly. Basically, TVs are so cheap now because they make all of their profit selling your data. His pitch is “why pay for a TV and then also have your data mined. They should at least give you the TV for free.”
It’s frustrating because even if we buy a “premium” devices like an LG C3 or one of the nice Samsung TVs, they’re still going to spy on us. (PiHole FTW).
He’s right, but I don’t like the framing of TV companies are going to spy on you anyway so we’re the best option since you get a free TV. I would like the option to not be spied on. In fact I’m choosing that by not having a TV to begin with.
That’s one of the reasons i’ve stayed with a TV from 2009 for so long. It was just before they started doing all that Internet TV bullshit, so no spying possible.
You can still do that and get a TV (for now), you just have to not connect it to the internet. Mine has never seen Ethernet cable nor my wifi password and gives me zero problems. I don’t even use the TV interface since I have an HDMI switcher that auto switches to the most recently powered device.
isnt that why if you value privacy (or customization) youre supposed to not plug the tv to the internet and use your prefered streaming setup connected over hdmi. its ultimately a self inflicted problem of people using the built in stuff rather than take the time and setup an actual setup (that would stay the same between tvs as long as said device doesnt die on you)
then convenience is sold, especially if its free, then your data is going to be sold with it.
which is why ones better off with a modified Nvidia Shield or Apple TV to minimize data collection, if you arent using an HTPC for a streaming server. Not a binary system, its a game of whose doing it the least, and the TV companies have a huge incentive to collect money off the integrated stuff vs companies whose cost is moreso on the hardware, and make money off their intended subscription services (Apple One for Apple TV, Nvidia Geforce Now for gaming on the Shield)
Should be able to with Roku since they are also Android based. I’ve found a bunch of things to side load or modify any TV running on Android or based on Android… Which only sucks because I was looking for that kind of stuff for my shit-ass Samsung TV which isn’t Android based 😩
As far as I’m aware they can only be used on Android. I did a search for APK on Roku and I all found were some articles erroneously calling custom channels APKs. Roku does let you side load custom channels in developer mode, but you can remove software like you can on an android box, so you’re always stuck with Roku’s ad riddled home page and whatever injects ads into HDMI
Cars have cell radios now and transfer data about you using those.
I would imagine that as long as it can generate enough of a return for it to make financial sense, manufacturers of other devices might start doing so at some point.
Did you reply to the correct comment? I’m not sure what that has to do with mine?
Edit: oh, you mean we might not have a choice about it connecting soon? I hadn’t thought about that because that is not a current reality. But, that is a terrifyingly possible future
Home entertainment is such a closed system that all these companies are just beta testing shitty ideas for each other. Eventually they all do the same thing as long as any backlash was neither too destructive to revenue nor sustained. See endless streaming services price hikes, account sharing lockdowns, or the fact that you just can’t buy dumb TVs anymore.
This particular idea probbaly has technical limitations.
A device can only monitor and analyze and modify what a user is viewing if it’s being used as a pass-through device in a daisy chain of devices.
As long as there is any device out there that can take multiple video signals from different inputs, let the user choose which they want to use, they can just not daisy-chain them, have them connected in parallel to different inputs. And even if one could try to get manufacturers colluding on creating a world where daisy-chaining is the only option, they have no incentive to do so on this point – in doing this, they’re trying to steal eyeball time from each other.
Now, that being said, I suppose that device manufacturers may not care, if 95% of users are going to just daisy-chain their devices. If it’s only a few privacy nuts out there who are constantly keeping on top of the latest shennanigans and figuring out how to avoid them, if the Roku manual says “daisy chain” and most users just follow the pictures there…shrugs
kotaku.com
Aktywne