To be fair, it’s a pretty common play. Company makes unpopular decision, walks it back, tries again a little later once the novelty has worn off and the MSM doesn’t care to pick it up again.
I think this particular move is pretty ballsy with how egregious it is (especially considering that starfield didn’t do anything particularly outstanding to overshadow it), but I don’t doubt they’ll try it again. If people keep buying their games, where’s the risk? At worst they’ll still get a few dollars from those who, for whatever reason, buy it, and then it’s forgotten by the next time a game comes out.
They definitely did learn. They learned that they could charge for mods and people, sadly, will pay. They’ve learned that they can make more money by paywalling what should be essential patches and bugfixes. They learned that the average gamer is willing to be fleeced. They learned that they can run an IP into the ground and still extract maximum cash from it.
They’ve learned. They just didn’t learn the lesson that we here on Lemmy wanted them to learn. That’s a sad fact of being part of a minority community.
Why would you choose now of all times to double down on Bethesda??
Why not do something useful with Starcraft, Warcraft, or an Activision property like Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk? Bethesda has been proving for the last 8 years that they can’t keep up.
Look, it all looked great on paper years ago when Zenimax Media gave them an evaluation report on the company that was so overvalued it was lawsuit-worthy.
TL;DR: Devs asked their Twitter if they wanted to see 150% breast jiggle physics, deleting the tweet and apologizing after some backlash, which in turn got them more backlash from the other side for caving in.
It was rather obviously meant as a joke, so I’m confused about what people were mad at. Did they think they actually intended it to be included in the game? I would’ve just liked to see that gif, sounds funny af.
It seems pretty clear to me that they definitely intended to include breast jiggle physics at some level, and they decided that that was something that should be decided by the community. That would indicate to most casual readers that it’s a priority for the devs. If they didn’t realize that would strike a chord with both the pro-sexualization and anti-sexualization people, they weren’t thinking at all.
This looks like a cutesy, cozy game that probably shouldn’t even have jiggle physics. If they really wanted it in there, they should have just done it and said nothing. The “nasty people” they don’t want to “attract” would have appreciated the jiggle, and everyone else would have just ignored it.
The devs brought it into the spotlight and it got talked about. I’m not surprised at that outcome at all.
Probably wasn’t clear on that. I meant the 150% thing being a joke, not the jiggle physics. People having a problem with the inclusion of realistic jiggle physics is something that I didn’t even consider tbh…
Yeah, I got that the 150% was a joke. But I think the meat of the uproar wasn’t the joke, but the whole situation of posting this for the community as if it’s an important thing to decide. The joke didn’t help, either, as it shows they weren’t taking this seriously, further enraging people.
Sweeping it under the rug then rubbed everyone the wrong way.
Done well, I think “jiggle-physics” actually call less attention the chest, as it doesn’t look unnatural. The games that get noticed aren’t implementing it that way, though, so it gets a bad rap.
Anytime I see unrealistic boob physics I just point out that they need a sports bra, because that usually fixes the issue in real life. It is distracting but I don’t care.
The amount of fucking hate and vitriol that appearance and shit like this gets from everyone involved on social media is the literal definition of “pointless squabble” and people can act like, well, people are passionate about games like any other media. No they aren’t. Gamers are dumbasses, and they’re being played like fiddles by someone. If you don’t like it, you can play so many other games.
I think you’re on to something actually. Back when Saints Row 3 came out I read an article explaining how it’s childish irreverence toward gender was actually sort of progressive. In character creation there is a boob slider and a dick slider (with insane proportions for both), character voice doesn’t have to match the body type, there are no gender restrictions on clothing, characters are available to romance no matter your gender, etc.
Basically the game was so unrestrained and goofy that it subverted some uncomfortable gaming tropes like boob sliders by just letting players do whatever they wanted and not taking it too seriously.
The fact that they keep improving this game is just gold. And here i was, thinking of doing a full evil durge playthrough on honour mode. This update will add a new motivation to do so, if i don’t spoil myself by watching the new endings of course.
I played once as a goody-two-shoes, trying to keep all my followers in check (even the vampire). Are there any companions that stick with you on evil playthroughs?
Buying a CD/DVD was never ownership of the media that’s on it. It’s ownership of a piece of plastic and a license to play to the content on the plastic within certain limitations. If it was ownership, you would be allowed to project the DVD on a wall and charge patrons to view it, but legally you can’t, because you don’t own anything but the plastic. Buying a CD/DVD was always just a more convenient version of buying a ticket to a concert/theater to see the same thing. You’re paying for the experience of viewing their artwork.
So, as long as you also agree that sneaking into a concert/theater to view a show without paying also isn’t theft in any way, then I can’t argue.
Blah blah blah. Shove that copyright-maximalist take. You own things, god dammit. Even if you only own your copy of a book, it’s not somehow an ink-and-paper license to a copy, it is your copy. That’s what ownership means.
If you don’t know the difference between individual property and intellectual property, stop spitting at people who do.
Just want to highlight how unnecessarily antagonistic your response was. Not sure if that was your intention, but I don’t care to engage with it. Cheers.
I respectfully disagreed with the top level post, and stated facts about why. If that was interpreted as not in good faith, I’m sorry, and I’m open to any counter arguments. So far, two people have pointed out that physical media can’t remotely have their licenses revoked, and I agree, that is relevant to the discussion. If you have anything relevant you’d like to contribute, I’m all ears.
You’re replying to everyone in this thread with half-assed insults and underhanded comments and then playing victim and complaining about how “nobody wants to discuss this in good faith”.
although I could picture you wanting to be if that makes sense.
From my perspective, it sounds like you’re reading my posts with an unwarranted intention behind them. I have to assume this stems from you disagreeing with what I am saying, but to my knowledge, nothing I’ve said is incorrect. If you could point to something I’ve said that’s incorrect, I’d be glad to discuss it. Also, if you could refrain from the namecalling, that would also be appreciated.
I think his point in this case is you own the physical item but not the information on it. If not then I could buy some musician’s cd then I could say “Now I own their music” and start selling copies of their cd, publishing it, stealing their rights to it, etc. I think we can all agree that would be bad.
‘No, see, he meant exactly what you thought he meant.’
Again: I know the difference between individual property and intellectual property. I am condemning the corporate word-games that would deny one of those exists, and the the tutting of people who take that for granted. I don’t need a fucking primer.
Yes, you own the information on it. You don’t own the rights to distribute it to others, but you bought the information and the right to personally use it. When you buy a painting, do you only have a licence to view it?
When you buy a painting, do you only have a license to view it?
That’s a good question. My guess is that the rights to create prints of the painting usually remain with the artist. You own that painting, you probably even own the right to display it for an entry fee, but unless the artist has granted you a license to the artwork, I don’t think you can freely create copies.
Indeed, the right to make copies are often licenced (although you can also sell that right) because it is explicitly written in some conventions (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention?useskin=ve…) that the copyright resides with the creator to begin with. I don’t think the Berne Convention deals with the option of transferring intellectual property and the copyright to them, but I’m assuming it’s mostly defined well enough in some contract law or other.
You’d be surprised. There seem to be vanishingly few people here willing to honestly discuss the legal questions around piracy and copyright. The vast majority are just here to circle jerk about how much corporations suck, completely forgetting about the rights of artists they’re defending in the anti-AI circle jerk one thread over. I honestly think they spend more time flaming anything they disagree with than actually putting any thought into the matter. The dogmatism rivals that of conservative forums.
If I’ve said something false, let me know. As far as I’m aware, what I’ve said is how the law works (at least in the US). I understand if you don’t like those laws, but that doesn’t make them not exist, nor does it make them irrelevant when someone makes a reductive statement like “if buying isn’t ownership, then piracy isn’t stealing”. The fact is, in some cases, it is.
Yep, this is a valid point. The volatility of access seems to be a convenient side effect of modern streaming technology. I agree that there needs to be regulation around this as it’s currently too easy for a company to suddenly say “we’re pulling access to the thing you paid for right now, sorrynotsorry”.
It’s not reasonable to expect that they have to have servers available serving the content 24/7 indefinitely, but either govts need to force companies to clearly label access to digital media as some sort of “rental agreement” similarly to how renting a video on youtube or amazon works, and making it clear that the user will only be able to access the stream for a minimum of some specified amount of time, and/or they should be required to offer a download of the media for a certain amount of time.
This isn’t a side effect of streaming technology, they could let me download content on my NAS and burn my own discs but they don’t because their goal is profiteering and NOT serving the best content in an open technological environments.
“Corporate enshittification and commodity fraud” is a more apt term.
“Fraud” would imply a crime. I’m always happy when some european country has a law on the book that enables people to hold a company accountable for their shitty behavior, but in the US, we have some work to do there.
“Enshittification” is a…surface-level description of what is happening. I’m more interested in the “how we got here” and “what needs to happen to prevent it”. Because no company has “make the experience objectively shittier” on their list of new features. Blaming “enshittification” holds as much weight to me as blaming “the deep state”. It’s not a real thing, it’s just how you perceive the emergent result of a system with certain rules and incentives. The real question is, which rules and incentives should we prioritize, and how can those changes most effectively be implemented.
Not true. You get personal ownership of the media in it, and even if ripped, you can personally keep it without “unauthorised distribution”. These were the 2 keywords they used to use on the rim of every disc. DRM implementations were a method to prevent ripping, but ripping always happens with DVDFab.
Streaming prevents that ripping part, or having it on your personal storage, and the ability to play it forever without an expiration date. The obvious purpose behind it is to gatekeep any media to repeatedly buy it and “consoom”. And some of the streaming DRM these days (fuck you Netutv/hqq) prevents 1:1 stream ripping, so screen recording is the only way, or using a HDMI cable with recording output capabilities.
Doom wads and hacks in recent years have been doing some absolutely insane things, and it’s only been getting better as more and more people are realising the things they can do with it. I’m not surprised in the slightest.
Total Chaos has got to be the most mind-blowing to me, it’s a total conversion mod built of GZDoom. youtu.be/L7IITZDBvqE
Here’s another one, Solace Dreams youtu.be/IcrYfmkPl-E also really impressive, though the game didn’t seem all that balanced when this video was posted, not sure if it’s been improved since or if the creators moved on to another project.
I know this is a couple weeks old, but I just got Supplice and Incision, along with Hedon based on a recommendation in this thread. They’re all boomer shooters that honestly look absolutely bonkers and I’m excited to jump into them.
Supplice looks to be kind of a mix of classic Doom with OG Half-Life on an alien planet you’re terraforming.
Incision looks like a crazy nightmare.
Hedon is thicc orc women with flamethrower machine guns.
kotaku.com
Ważne