Depends on who you talk to. I always thought the atmo was pretty chill. When I was there around 2010 as a contractor for a couple years they had a strange work schedule: 9-hr days Mon-Thurs and half day Friday - which was almost universally regarded as a screw-around day, along with at least half of Thursday.
From my understanding, they used to basically be the same as Games Workshop is today: If you talk to people who work there “off the record” (or they are pushing the equivalent of a youtube channel… shout out to Rogue Hobbies) you’ll either get outright condemnation or LOTS of vague posting of a culture of theft and abuse.
But recent years have seen people get annoyed enough at the products that they now care about labor and we start to see a LOT more complaints.
The problem for Hasbro is that, right now, the company doesn’t have that much in non WotC moneymakers and hasn’t had it for years. There have been attempts by activist investors to push for having WotC demerged from Hasbro so WotC isn’t subsidizing the rest of Hasbro. The across-the-board cuts were Hasbro leadership trying to placate investors, but they cut muscle and bone from WotC for some reason instead.
People have been complaining about WotC’s executive meddling in D&D and MTG for as long as I can remember, since before the 1999 Hasbro purchase. D&D 3e, mostly written after WotC acquired TSR but published shortly after Hasbro acquired WotC, was panned so badly that they dropped 3.5 just a couple years later. And 4e (including the first OGL fiasco) happened when Hasbro didn’t care about WotC because they were all-in on the Michael Bay Transformers movie. In fact, up until Stranger Things and Critical Role, Hasbro seems to have considered WotC the “Magic: The Gathering Money Printer” and done most of their meddling on that side of the house.
And Crawford is an incompetent smartass. I honestly don’t know what any TTRPG would have to gain from including him in the team.
If they hope to chase 5e’s success by following in its footsteps - piss poor adventure modules, nonexistent DM support, unbalanced player options, and a game designer that contradicts himself on Twitter every other post while attempting to explain why he isn’t wrong - then good luck to them, I guess.
I very much doubt that 5e became the juggernaut that it’s now because of Crawford. If anything, it’s despite of him - mostly because of the free publicity granted by things like Critical Role and Stranger Things, and DnD being the default option for anyone who develops an interest in roleplaying for the first time.
How much do we actually know about what Crawford is like outside of the WotC machine? He might be perfectly competent but held back by executive mismanagement.
I would put money on the downfall of WotC being exclusively due to being owned by Hasbro and their executives forcing their greedy practices onto the team.
Internally, yea, but I was speaking more towards the decline of their products, not the treatment of staff, that was being discussed in the top comment.
Ok, I’m not familiar enough with any of those to know what that means in this context. But in any case, weren’t his contributions to those games all ages ago? M&M in particular came out almost 30 years ago, right?
Everybody who was passionate about games have left and been replaced by money-grabbing opportunists who only want to inflate the stock value, bail out and get their severance pay.
I don’t have links to it at the moment (I’m prepping dinner… so excuse the laziness 😅) but if you search “D&D controversy” or “OGL” you’ll find plenty of discussions and analysis.
In short: they tried (but are still attempting to) bring micro-transactions and loot box mechanics to tabletop games.
So if I’m reading it right they basically just tried it out and then decided to not use it, removing anything that used it? I can see how technically that it ‘was used at all in development’, but also seems a lil silly to pull the awards based on it.
They probably should have clarified how they used it a lot earlier, but I also don’t blame them for trying out a new tool.
The game was released with AI assets. The rules required disclosure, and they failed to properly disclose. Whether this was on purpose or by accident, they were disqualified quite fairly. It’s a shame, but fairness must apply equally to all studios.
This is where I am confused. I hear this, but I also keep hearing they used AI to create assets when it was first started development as placeholders for future assets. They were all replaced long before the game was ever released. I also heard that the assets used were stock unreal 5 assets which were AI generated but again replaced later long before the game released. So which is the real story?
They used them as placeholders, they may or may not have been stock ue5 assets, which is another problem altogether. But a few of them were left in game at release, presumably by accident since they were removed 5 days post launch. The game did release with AI assets, even if mistakenly.
Given the test, release and publishing timelines, the 5 days patch was already being actively worked on before the game was released. Had it be a few positions higher on the backlog, nobody would have known.
If this is against Indie GA, then for sure drop the award, but that makes me value less the IGA than the game.
The AI assets were only patched out at day 5 because fans noticed them. The devs likely rolled it into that patch because of the fans catching it in the live game.
The issue at hand, as the article above goes into, is that the devs said that they used no AI at all in developement, which is a condition of the award. They did however, as these assets and the devs themselves comfirmed in various interviews. They lied or at least misled the Indie game awards and violated its conditions.
Revoking the award seems like a pretty reasonable response on the IGA’s part. The game itself can still be a masterpiece, but not one eligble for this award.
It was released with the original placeholder AI assets, but patched out within 5 days. It’s pretty clear that they just missed replacing those assets prior to release.
I don’t know exactly which assets, or exactly how many… but from several article it seems one of them was a newspaper only used in the prologue, that no one would notice without directly looking at it up close, which 99.9% of people would never do, and could easily be overlooked doing final testing for game breaking issues prior to release.
And the failure to properly disclose could easily be explained by them messing around. Early in development, deciding not to use AI, and then forgetting about it. Which also explains it being left in for release accidentally. Updated assets were clearly made, just never replaced.
The disqualification had nothing to do with the assets being there for the release, it was solely about development as mentioned in every statement from the awards. Meaning even if it hadn’t been there at release, they still would have been disqualified. Hard criteria like that which disqualifies any sort of context or consideration is not fair. Especially when we’re talking about cutting edge technologies that teams will obviously be experimenting with before making decisions.
It was only the "indie’ games award. A small ragtag group that was completely in niche discussions online until they pulled this stunt to get all the gaming outlets to bait about
"omg E33 got an AWARD PULLED???!
Nobody knew or gave a fuck about the “indie” game awards until this happened.
Because this paid off, expect more smaller groups to pull similar ideas to feign “outrage” for exposure
Except that they used the placeholder AI textures so that they would have a functional build to test on. They didn’t just try it and decide it didn’t work. They literally used it produce part of the rough draft and even shipped the game with some of those placeholder textures accidentally still in there. It was actively used in this instance to “do work”.
It wasn’t “well let me see what this looks like… No that’s all wrong… Nevermind”. It was “well let’s get this AI to make some placeholders so we can continue working on this and we’ll slap the real textures in later”. Literally removing work from a human(concept artist), which is the complaint of anti-AI people. Funny enough, I’m pro-AI and even I’m agreeing with the anti-AI people here. You want a “no AI was used” award? Then don’t ever use AI. Simple.
We’re not talking about a development team of 100+ artists here and a company forcing them to work 80 hour crunch weeks leading up to launch like much of the industry.
I don’t know exactly how their 30 or so team members break down for specialties, but I’m willing to bet we’re talking maybe 5 asset artists. Making the tens or hundreds of thousands of concept art pieces, and in game assets. Their time is finite and much better spent working on final assets than making placeholders that will just be replaced later. Experimenting with AI and dripping a placeholder in during month 6 that never gets touched again, and the final asset is made but missed when swapping them in at the end of development isn’t exactly damning
Literally removing work from a human(concept artist)
It’s not really “removing” work from a human, it’s utilizing the time of a very small and limited team more wisely. The AI didn’t replace a human, there was never going to be an additional person hired just to make that placeholder, at worst it just let the existing artists spend more time making final assets.
It is exactly replacing work. Your argument is easy to extend to teams of one solo developer who has finite time and money and it’s easy to see the appeal of AI in general.
I’m also in the AI isn’t that bad camp but it’s pretty clear here they used AI, and rightfully disqualified.
Exactly this. I’m not making a moral judgement, just a logical one. They used AI, thus don’t qualify. Feel free to debate whether that award should be that way, but that’s how it is right now.
That’s not what a concept artist does, concept artists (if they had one) did the work before, game artists are still doing the work while the generated placeholders are in place, no person’s job was compromised by using generated placeholders. That being said, if any placeholder made it into the final game then fuck them.
Dude, it was 2022. AI was nothing back then. Certainly not something that people were debating the morality of at the time. It was a new tool. A developer tried it out for a few very minor assets that were only meant to be placeholders. This was’t “literally removing work from a human(concept artist)”. FFS, it probably was the concept artist who used it!
Like imagine a new type of paint comes out that’s supposed to spread on canvas better. An artist gets some and tries a few test strokes on a blank canvas, goes “huh, interesting”, and then paints over it entirely with traditional paint. Then, the public turns against the new paint. Maybe it’s made from orphan blood, maybe it causes cancer; it doesn’t matter why, but it is now heavily frowned upon to use it. An art studio displaying the original artists work puts out a claim that none of their art uses the new type of paint. Were they lying? Like, ya technically I guess, but if you can’t see the nuance and understand how such a thing could happen, then your logic is less that of a human, and more that of a machine.
No, I said nuance is important. That’s why I don’t think the devs are villains. But logically you can’t get a “no AI” award if you used AI. It’s be like entering a handknitted blanket contest and using a machine to start the first row. It’s not “100% handmade” anymore.
They used it to create placeholders during development. It wasn’t something they decided not to use before. It’s just something that was meant to be replaced. Usually these placeholders are a missing texture image or just a magenta texture, but they used generative AI to create something that fit into the world. Because it fit they forgot to replace it.
Honestly, I’m not opposed to this usage. It’s not like it’s replacing an artist. No one was going to create a placeholder to be replaced. However, it is obvious to see that occasionally you’ll forget to replace items with this technique, like we saw here. The old style of incredibly obvious placeholders were used for a reason; so that you can’t forget to replace them. It’s probably smart to keep doing this.
I agree with almost everything here, I think using LLMs to generate placeholders is fair game and allows studios to nail down the feeling of the game sooner. That being said there’s one thing I disagree:
However, it is obvious to see that occasionally you’ll forget to replace items with this technique
There are ways to ensure you don’t forget, things like naming your placeholders placeholder_<name> or whatever so you ensure there are no more placeholders when you make the final build. That is the best way to approach this because even extremely obvious placeholders might be missed otherwise, since even if you have a full QA team they won’t be playing every little scene from the game daily looking for that, and a few blank/pink/checkered textures on small or weird areas might be missed.
I think it’s okay for studios to use generative AI for placeholders, but if one of them makes it to the release you screwed up big time. And like I said there are ways to ensure you don’t, it’s trivial to make a plugin for any of the major engines (and should be even easier if you’re building the engine yourself) where it would alert you of placeholders in use at compile time.
That’s just ridiculous standards when you apply them to a small team doing their best to pump out a unique piece of art. Yeah sure you can add a million processes to avoid inconsequential things like that but that’s time you can’t spend on making a good game. Zero value except for appeasing superstitious busybodies…
Dude, naming the textures placeholder_<name> doesn’t take any more time and ensures you won’t ship a game with a placeholder. This is, or at least should be, common practice even without using LLMs, and only takes a couple of seconds, not enough to cause any inconvenience.
Every process can be theoretically simple but they never have zero impact. So you come up with this process and some other guy comes up with another, there’s an infinity of things that are simple and quick. Imagine the uber-crunch a small team needs to go through to produce an AA title. It’s just cruel to just come up after the fact and be like “oh yeah you could have done this and that on top of your actual work, it would have added zero quality to the finished product but it’s oh so important to a few people”.
Like… When will gamers ever respect workers giving it their all? They’re just human ffs.
The solution I’m talking about should already be the standard by most devs (especially small studios), even before LLM was a thing. See, small teams can’t afford QA, at least not to the same extent as big studis, so they need to add checks to stuff in a way that catches large problems, and a placeholder making it into the final game is a big problem. Even before generated images were a thing devs would just use any random image they had that more or less worked, and those images could have copyright or be problematic in any other way, so ensuring none of that made it into the final release has always been important.
I mean, it’s a completely reasonable habit that prevents issues of this kind, i’m not disputing that. It’s part of a million little discipline things that will make your life better for an insignificant cost. But it’s also not a big deal and if you start caring about that then you should also care about all the other things that “should already be the standard by most devs”. And then where will you find the time and energy to punch above your weight class and release a masterpiece ? When you engage in that sort of task, you always have to neglect stuff that “should be the standard”. It’s cool and people should be cool about it IMO. Nobody’s gonna love you for being super rigorous about your file naming schemes and never being lazy, they’ll love you cause you have good ideas and work them hard.
I don’t find it nice when the internet is always back-seating every little aspect of what creators do, and being super demanding as if they were a mega corp with infinite resource and not a small group of every day people trying their really best to push out something great in a reasonable time-frame while not burning out. Maybe that’s not what you’re doing, man, it’s just one of my pet peeves.
I guess that’s where we disagree. I’d rather have sloppy talented bastards than little robots. One Kurt Cobain over a million Joe Satrianis, any time of the year.
You can train a monkey to be rigorous, I’m sure at EA sports they’re really disciplined with their file naming but I’m not gonna play their games to find out.
I don’t disagree that there are ways to add protections. It’d require strict compliance still though or things could fall through the cracks. Even when using the classic placeholders things have been missed on occasion. The only 100% reliable way to avoid shipping any generative AI content is to never include it in the project.
Again, I don’t think the usage here was bad. I think the reaction to one piece of generative AI art, which was replaced within a week, has been too severe. I’m just saying that if you really want to make sure you don’t ship any of it, just don’t ever include any. The old methods were perfectly fine, even if they made development look less pretty.
If you’re an EU citizen, please take the time to sign this citizen initiative to stop killing games. It could be our best chance of preventing such situations in the future.
This guy’s strawman arguments have already been destroyed by plenty of people who actually know what they’re talking about and don’t have an interest in keeping the current situation.
The guy who won’t go 5 seconds without flashing his “20 years of service to Blizzard” badge also was dumbfounded at the possibility of people self hosting game servers like World of Warcraft, even though they’ve been doing it for years. Dude seems like a MASSIVE know it all.
Excluding steam because even playstation release exclusives on steam now, Starfield is (was? I don’t know if it released on ps later on) xbox exclusive. Out of Zenimax’s library, that is probably the game that you would want the least as an exclusive but at least it is something (they needed something after spending US$7.5 billion on them)
You don’t spend 8 billion dollars on a company to then shrink their market. Microsoft was never planning on making any of these properties they bought fully exclusive. The transition to third party you’re seeing now has been in the making for 5+ years at this point. Youre all just looking at this through the old console war lense when they’ve been over that ever since Gamepass released and they realized they make more money putting that on everything (larger market) than playing the exclusives game (smaller market)
Yes, it did eliminate competition. They’re no longer competition once Microsoft buys them. They’re employees, possibly if a subsidiary, who contribute to Microsoft’s profits.
one of PayPal’s acquiring banks decided to stop processing any Steam transactions, which cut off PayPal on Steam for a number of currencies
As of early July, the currencies that can still use PayPal on Steam include EUR, CAD, GBP, JPY, AUD and USD.
It seems like a bank that processes PayPal payments in minor currencies has stopped processing transactions for Steam because of the content it hosts. Shouldn't people be mad at this bank, not Steam?
Steam should implement direct bank payments to decentralize the payment infrastructure. Steam is not blameless in this, they could solve this and have simply decided not to do so for the past two decades.
Can you please explain what is wrong with an idea of paying with a direct, fast, cheap payment option that half of the world already uses on a daily basis?
Handling payments like this puts the responsibility of dealing with fraud at Valve’s level and significantly increase their workload, instead of being the payment processor’s responsibility.
I don’t blame Valve not wanting to deal with this.
I'm not gonna tell you this is impossible to set up for a worldwide online company because unlike the OP I have no problem acknowledging that I don't know enough about something to understand how hard it is.
I will tell you that it's absurd to propose that by working with the three biggest payment processors in the world, covering a huge share of all online payments, Steam has somehow been negligent.
That doesn't follow even a little bit. It's an absolute non-sequitur. It's someone trying very hard to be mad at somebody they know for a thing they don't fully understand.
Hey, I'm all for creating a public online payment processor. An international one, even.
I'm not even pulling any punches. There are no reasons to leave this in private hands.
But this reeks of people being mad at the thing they know and feel have some influence with instead of with the actual problem, and it's a bummer because it encapsulates Internet outrage and why it's so often ineffectual.
Why? I am fucking sick of companies relying on private, third party companies as unneeded intermediaries for my financial transactions. Plenty of websites give you the ability to pay without them, so Valve not doing so leaves nobody at fault but Valve. They are a company, they should know that companies act in their own best interest, so if they want to prevent interference in the business model that is Steam, they should make their payment systems as independent as possible.
Valve is not a lost puppy that just happened to be run over by the truck that is payment processors. They know exactly what risks are involved and they did not care enough to prepare for them. If you make a deal with the devil then you shouldnt be surprised to get burned.
Valve works with the same handful of payment providers everybody else does. Literally everybody else. I don't have a stance on how feasible it is to handle your own payment processing, but claiming that any company on the planet is negligent for not doing so is insane.
I am all on board for taking regulatory action against anticompetitive practices in this space from the oligopolistic few companies available in it.
My educated guess is that seems too remote for you to feel righteous by being angry at someone specific so we're talking about Valve instead.
Hell, I'm all for taking regulatory action against Valve for their own monopolistic practices. I'm just not here to posture ineffectual anger.
What in the world would you know about how money is moved from one place to another? Seriously?
You imply its easy by way of hand waving while you say your irritated and they are the reason for it. So tell me exactly, how should they make it function in relation to the actual LAW and the current banking/monetary environment? Hell how does it even work right now? Cause thays something you might need to know to pretend this much 👍
Well? You got time to be placing blame like it’s so freaking easy. Let’s see it 😗
Steam should just have immediately invented its own PayPal, its own payment processing system, that works everywhere, near instantaneously.
I mean… I do think this is something they could actually do, but its kind of nuts to just frame this as if they could have just flipped a switch and such a system would exist, blamo.
No, this would be a huge undertaking, which would, as many other Valve projects and concepts, take time.
You can’t just instantly implement what you seem to think you can. None this works that way, at all.
Hence the “past two decades” part of my comment. Sure it would take time, but looking at valves investment into linux gaming, tbey are no stranger to long term gambles. The status quo being the status quo doesnt absolve people from things. If it did, we could never improve anything in the world.
“My local grocer stopped selling meat for some reason, but really its my fault for not having a 100 acre cattle farm already in the works, since I’ve been eating meat my entire life”
Why would valve have any reason to need their own payment processing? thats why these services exist, to use them and their infrastructure instead of having to make your own. That’s the foundation of an economy your are arguing against here.
I don’t think anyone really thought that what is happening right now was a likely thing that would happen, going back 20 years.
Payment processors had never had a problem with this before, and then blam, they become political/cultural activists in a huge way, an unprecedented way.
Its… dubious to frame this as if this foundational business infrastructure that had never before shown any cracks or signs of wear… should just have been reasonably expected to suddenly shatter into a thousand pieces at some point.
Sure, yes, they could have been more forward looking, but you’re already talking about one of the most innovative and forward looking companies in gaming.
Payment processors had never had a problem with this before
Thats what i dont understand, because yes of course they have. Payment processors and banks cutting off individuals or groups for political reasons is like the oldest fucking trick in the book. The payment system oligopoly has been a ticking time bomb in the eyes of any person actually paying attention. Centralized global infrastructure will always fail, its just a question of when.
This time it was caused by some random weird anti game group, but what do you think will happen to all the US based payment systems once Trump fully manifests his hold over them?
In general, yes, payment processors have in the past essentially ‘debanked’ specific people or businesses.
To the best of my knowledge, this has never before occured to … something on the scale of the worlds largest digital marketplace for a particular kind of product.
I do not disagree.with you that the current status of things is bullshit, that there have been instances of usually very small businesses getting thrown off…
But the outright scale of dictating Steam around is … almost as insane as dictating Walmart around.
Up untill this point, yeah, I am again not aware of any prior ‘enforcement action’ of this magnitude, and… the way corporate America works is that if you are bringing enough money to the table, you get some leeway on this kind of thing, you handle it behind closed doors, in a fairly involved way.
The way MC, Visa, PayPal have gone about this represents a huge breach of those unspoken norms, a massive, flagrant, naked power grab.
What I am trying to say is not that this system has ever been fine, flawless, or good… what I am trying to say is that this is akin to engaging the nuclear option in a MAD scenario, its a thing that would be entirely reasonable for someone like Valve to … not assume they’d need to worry about this…
… precisely because the alternative actually is for Valve to develop basically its own PayPal, which would be a fairly large loss of business for other, former partnered payment processors.
Apparently the calculus of the situation has changed, in their minds, such that the payprocs seem to no longer fear Valve playing its nuclear option as a response to their own, seem to no longer value Steam as a marketplace.
Either that, or they have massively miscalculated.
…
So, to bring this back around to my original critique:
It is thus still pretty disingenuous to frame this all as if Valve should just reasonably expected these actions from payprocs this whole time, that they could just flip a switch and debut ValvePay.
A whole lot of corporate relationships follow very similar rules as do nationstates… a whole lot of things are based on an expectation of reasonable negotiations and relations, built up trust, and thus one party suddenly abandoning all of that for… what appear to be very confused and counter productive reasons…
No, thats not a reasonable thing to expect to happen.
They already implement instant bank payments in a lot of countries where there's a reasonable consumer-to-business solution for it. I know at least Sofort/iDEAL/Bancontact are supported just fine in their respective countries.
Stores are supposed to then take what they’ve received and donate it to a local charity. The workers have to figure out what charity they’ll partner with, and have to do the leg work of coordinating the donations themselves.
And let me guess, they’re either expected to do this in their free time or not miss their targets if they do it during work
Last week I downloaded Dark Age of Camelot which I have not played nor paid for 20 years, and my character was still there. I was really not expecting them to keep the data for so long without any payment.
I understand why most companies wouldn’t do that, but they should be forced to open-source online games that get shut down or otherwise made non-functional.
At minimum they should provide copies of the software to anyone who paid a subscription, and then enterprising individuals would figure out how to get private servers running
I see no issues here. These AI tools came out during the game’s development. Its not unreasonable to try using new tools upon release. And its reasonable to be unaware of the harms of these new tools before the harms are widely reported on.
If things were as described, this seems fine. They now have a clear policy against AI. People, even in groups can be mistaken and learn and change their ways, which is what appears to have happened here. I can’t fault anyone for making the occasional misstep.
So long as they stick to their commitment to not use AI.
Yeah this is something that keeps getting completely lost in this conversation.
The assets in question were from development during 2022-2023 at the latest. GenAI image tools at that time were extremely primitive compared to what’s out there now - remember DallE-Mini? That’s the kind of thing they were using. And because these tools hadn’t breached containment yet, literally no one was talking about ethical issues yet. Sandfall was basically just experimenting with brand new tech long before it was “good” and long before anyone was talking about it.
Now? It’s good to see them committed to avoiding it. GenAI is a plague and should be treated as such. But 2022-ish was totally different than today.
Want to mention that I really appreciate this reasonable, nuanced perspective of the situation that takes pains to see the humanity in the devs, that they are humans who make mistakes, and not ascribe malice to what can easily be ignorance.
The benefit of the doubt is lost in modern day and it’s nice to see it still being given.
Look I’ve seen the hours those studios and devs put into design… If they want to prototype using a tool? Nobody’s losing a job over that. Its a couple hours saved from doom scrolling though your existing assets looking for something temporary.
Yeah, it slipped out though the cracks. But then how many games are loaded with “Unintended Easter eggs” because people are human. I don’t get it. The event is no more novel than finding an untextured brick off the beaten trail or a picture of a dev left in following an in joke amongst the team.
AI as a monolithic “thing” is bullshit. Fugazi. We relabled a ton of tools like OCR and other pattern recognition engines: “AI” to capitalize on the sheer stupidity of the average investor. Artificial intelligence indeed.
I digress. Tools save time and energy. If a team can prototype a space and become more immersed in their project faster and with less effort - so much the better.
I’m for tools as effort multipliers. My initial statement implied as much. I don’t see us running back to rooms full of women doing math at NASA and discarding the digital equivalent.
Look - everyone is absolutely sick of “AI” being jammed into everything. I get the raw response to it… But the concern isn’t about renamed tools; it’s not about a glorified chatbot being an “ok” facsimile. No company would spend billions on that. If by some chance they could make an automiton that was good enough… That could work without stopping, have no rights, for free. Literally they are gambling everything on a shot at replacing every single worker they currently employ. They don’t want workers. They want slaves. That is short sighted, ignorant, bullshit… which deserves all the hate it gets and more. But that - ain’t this.
What does NASA have to do with the creation of art? Art and science are not the same thing. What might be good for progress technologically, like flying to the moon, might not be good for a different field.
Art is all about the time and energy spent. If Clair Obscure came out of an AI machine that took 3 minutes to create it, most people wouldn’t play it and it wouldn’t have won any awards.
Cutting corners or “saving time and energy” is the opposite of exploring creatively, and these tools are not capable of unique thought or inspiration.
What does NASA have to do with the creation of art? Art and science are not the same thing. What might be good for progress technologically, like flying to the moon, might not be good for a different field.
Reread the comment instead of irrationally reacting before you understand the context. Calculators used to be people. Literally. It was a job. I brought up NASA as an example because, very famously, their “calculators” were part of history… So it should have been well known enough for people to see the parallel. But then I guess ever since moving to digital boards for math we can just downplay all subsequent achievments because the scientists didnt work hard enough.
Art is all about the time and energy spent. If Clair Obscure came out of an AI machine that took 3 minutes to create it, most people wouldn’t play it and it wouldn’t have won any awards.
If I’m not mistaken those artists’ art was well recieved. I find it interesting that so many people seem intent on defining a world they aren’t part of. Wacom tablets are tools, are digital artists not real artists because they don’t use paper?
Know any artists? I know quite a few. I wouldn’t dare inject my preconceptions on their process. Who the fuck am I to tell somone what is or isn’t part of their process. Traditional media, music, …even architects use tools to help iterate on their ideas - and their lives are easier for it.
But please, explain to the class why your ideals supercede their own.
Cutting corners or “saving time and energy” is the opposite of exploring creatively, and these tools are not capable of unique thought or inspiration.
Speaking for everyone? That’s bold. Is that your process or are you just a bobblehead parroting what someone else told you to say?
Oh cool, now I’m an irrational person who reacts quickly. Thats a good start.
Do you even know the point you are trying to make? You make a bunch of preconceptions and then claim you won’t do that, so thats fun too.
You can keep writing nonsense arguments all you want, you aren’t an artist and should probably do what you said and shutup instead of making a bunch of assumptions.
Oh cool, now I’m an irrational person who reacts quickly. Thats a good start.
The full body of your response disregarded the core meaning of what I was saying. You didn’t understand something but just powered on through with your opinion. Which if we can appreciate the irony:
You, like many, are looking to burn a company at the stake over what I would clearly describe as a very polished product… Over an asset that they mistakenly left in. Can you comprehend how batshit insane that is?
My response was measured and pretty on the nose I’d say.
Do you even know the point you are trying to make? You make a bunch of preconceptions and then claim you won’t do that, so thats fun too.
Considering the consistency in what I’ve said in this thread … I’d say I do. As far as me making preconceptions: again I’d recommend you take a look at what I wrote and read it again. (We have a trend developing) I gave my reasons: and I provided the logic behind it. But if you’d like to drag this out: go ahead and show me what my “preconceptions” were. I’ll wait.
You can keep writing nonsense arguments all you want, you aren’t an artist and should probably do what you said and shutup instead of making a bunch of assumptions.
I posted facts, I provided commentary on them, and even provided an example as a parallel. You, by your own words: didn’t understand the example (and made no attempt to), you ignored the nuance of the commentary, and preceded to put your ignorance on full display here.
And apparently you want to complete this nonsense by implying you know me or what I do. I dont recall knowing anyone as dull as you that suffered a headwound … But I’ll jog your memory:
Staring with the key topic:
I’ve signed more NDAs and non-competes for multiple, well known, gaming companies … Than years you’ve existed on this planet. So let’s just say I have “some” industry knowledge.
You mentioned I’m not an artist: another bold claim but… Its broad so let’s cover the bases.
I started my career in design. I’ve worked with 5 color printing presses. I’ve been paid for my work, although digital art, which has been seen by “roughly a country of people” around '04. Not enough for you? I maintain a circle of artist friends, who - over time have filled my home and consequently one of my closets with their works. I am honored and grateful that I’d be trusted with someone’s original blood sweat and tears condensed into a single medium. I’d be forgiven, I think, for speaking on their behalf. If not? They know my handle - they have my number - and know where I live…
They can @ me and tell me to shut up. You can’t.
I could go on but I think I’ve made my point sufficiently in this long post. Go crawl back to the echo chamber from whence you came. If you are capable of critical thought - it has yet to be demonstrated.
Maybe I do. Who’s to say - unless you want to tell me what I do again?
Its been rare to see somone so utterly dismantled that their only response is to repeat the observation I made at the end of that thrashing. It is almost comical how you just set yourself up for a callback to the parroting and echo chamber comments.
In closing:
Even if I did have a blog, I think it’s apparent, by now, you’d just wait for somone else to read it and tell you what to think.
That was obvious from the get go. That’s exactly why I said you were dull and made the comment “that you let somone else read things and tell you what to think.” I appreciate the confirmation.
Maybe you can save even more time by not bothering to post next time too.
I haven’t needed to insult you yet. Why would I? You, by your actions and responses have been more than sufficient. I just pointed it out.
The hope was to drive home that parroting (ey! callbacks) an opinion that isn’t yours isn’t wanted or useful.
And I know, I know - you don’t read much:
I didnt read your posts.
So let’s use your words to have fun:
I think its funny that you keep talking to yourself. You probably feel like you need the last reply too.
I think it’s funny knowing how many times you’ve set yourself up in this thread. See that quote? That’s me using your words as bait.
I could just copy and paste your own quote repeatedly and you’d either be compelled to respond - making yourself that exact thing… Or being the one that was forced out of the exchange: beaten with your own words.
No artist gets paid to create placeholder art during development. They get paid for the final art pieces that are used in the game itself. No actual AI art was used in the final game except for a few accidentally included bits that were not correctly replaced with the final art and that issue was corrected. No artists were harmed in the making of this game.
Any projects i have been on, if i need quick placeholder i take it from some existing library that is filled with free to use textures or i create some bullshit texture name temp.png or removethis_brown.jpg and some real artist comes and makes the final one somewhere down the line, 10-1000 hours later.
I have hard time understanding how creating the temporary texture that is never meant to be seen by end user is different when using generative tool versus paint. Especially when no artist looses their pay check or their spot in the credits.
However I do take offence if somebody uses ai to replace writer, designer, voice actor, or artist of any kind in the final product.
Because the people they want to sell their game to have overwhelmingly stated they don’t want this new generation of AI technologies used when creating art. Its sorta like arguing that using corn syrup is cheaper and quicker than sugar or honey, so why not use it? Things aren’t so simple as “nicer” and “faster”, and only a small subset of people seem in favor of AI technologies used creatively.
Of course if you are making art for yourself, by yourself, then who cares what you use for anything.
Placeholders are never meant to be part of the meal. They are there in the development stage when there needs to be something on the screen. They dont go trough the art department. Visual director wont review them. They are not representing the finalized game. They are there just as placeholders so people can see things work and not to need to look at wireframes when they work on the project. Often at parts of the game that has no quarantee to even be at the finalized game.
Generally graphics are one of the last things that is finalized in games. There is no point to use artists time for making placeholders, when they can spend that time doing something meaningfull.
In the end it does not matter if the placeholder is done by artists hand, is photoscanned from the doodles janitor made on toilet paper or if its done by AI. Hell, it could be pictures of spongebob fan art stolen from google search. It does not matter what people feel like is best and fastest way to get the texture, because its not representting the game and its not meant to be part if the finished product.
If you want to keep the food analogy, placeholders are the toothpicks holding your meatrolls in shape while they are in the oven. They wont end to your plate and if they do, somebody somewhere did a mistake.
Also i want to point out that not you nor i can say anything about overwhelming opinions. Clair Obscur for example has sold over 5 million copies. How big procentual part of those 5 million people you think has even read about the whole dispute, or put any meaningfull tough for the matter? Places like lemmy, steam reviews and comments on youtube videos are mostly from loud minorities that generally wont represent the whole fandom at all.
They are the reason WotC canceled all those in-development d&d games a year and a half ago. All WOTC published games were canceled because their CEO passed away and they scrambled to find a new one. This new CEO saw all these in-development games and canceled them in an attempt to save money, and with the Dark Alliance game released the year before, they felt there was no recouping development costs.
Overall a huge bummer. I would have liked to play an immersive sim d&d game.
I'd like to live in the world where multiple devs are making D&D games in Larian's engine the way there were a handful of Infinity Engine games 20 years ago. Replaying BG3 is great, but it would be nice to have new areas, characters, and calls to action while still having the freedom to just "verb a noun" the way you can in BG3.
Larian isn’t sharing it’s engine and I feel like even if it did, a lot of studios want the creativity of building their own thing. Not just another D&D crpg top-down isometric game. A lot of the D&D games in the works were unique and took interesting risks that might have paid off.
I doubt they would sell the engine but it would be nice if we had good modding tools and map editors like in NWN for example, custom maps and campaigns could keep bg3 alive for a long time - especially considering that they have no plans for expansions afaik
I think they were implying they like their instance but wish they could downvote sometimes. My instance doesn’t allow it either, and coming from more than a decade on Reddit, it can be frustrating at times. Still, I wouldn’t leave Blahaj because my interests align with those of the instance’s owners.
I didn’t even notice this comment until now. Looking at the comment I wrote late one night, there are tons more issues than that. Hell, I spelled ‘canceled’ with 2 Ls. I appreciate it though, reminded me to run my grammar checker.
I am just an annoying grammar stickler, friend. I assume most mistakes are from typing on a mobile device or being a non-native English speaker, many times both.
My most severe gripes are the misuse and/or overuse of words like “like”, “literally”, “aggravate” and “jealousy”, or when I see “would of” instead of “would’ve”.
In a couple hundred years, the precision in English usage I pompously strain to uphold will be antiquated to the point of incomprehensibility. I admit that dying on this hill is a fool’s errand.
This, the OGL, the Pinkerton incident, the continued decline in quality products. Talk about squandering the opportunity of a lifetime with the renaissance of D&D.
MS is in the subscription selling business now. Their entire gaming future hinges on GamePass, and while I like the idea of games on tap (I’ve basically bought BG3 for my PS5 and nothing else in the year since I bought it, enough on PS+ to keep me going and I can barely catch up let alone keep up), I suspect the big devs that spend hundreds of millions on making AAA games are less than enthralled with the idea and if GamePass and day one “free” games win, the outcome will be more games that I’m not really interested in.
PS+ is not as good a product as GamePass, but I believe it’s healthier overall for the gaming industry.
When you say PS Plus, do you mean the Essentials tier which is (was) equivalent to Gold or the other tiers?
For the record, I think PS Plus Premium and Extra are great (until the price hike). The vast majority of time when I want to play a game day-1, it’s not something that’s even on GamePass. So their day-1 stuff means nothing to me.
But also, Essentials has given me enough to play I could just never run out of games.
The higher tiers. Not sure about the top one (Premium) any more. I got it because I thought I might want to play the older games, but it turns out there’s plenty of PS4 and PS5 games to keep me going, and frankly not enough choice of PS1 and 2 games to tempt me. A more complete library would have made sense, but I’ve literally got more on my shelf than they’ve got on PS Plus Premium.
And my internet is too rubbish for me to want to stream the handful of PS3 games either. It hasn’t even got MGS4 which would be the one interesting thing that hasn’t been anywhere else.
The reason it’s not working out is because they had no exclusives, now they do and the people on the platform that always had exclusives are suddenly upset.
It's outselling is what caused Microsoft to not deny it. It originally denied it because they had a rule that games needed feature parity with both Series X and S. BG3 split screen couldn't be done on S. The massive success is what led them to relax the rule. And virtually no one saw this level of success coming from within the gaming industry, including the developers themselves.
Edit: I just realized this is being upset about Starfield.
That is totally the fault of gamers. The biggest reason given for buying a PS5 over Xbox was exclusives. What the fuck did you think was going to happen? Sony started the exclusives battle and continually came out ahead. Obviously MS is going to fight. Making exclusives such an important decision in console purchases drove exclusives to be important overall. There's no sense in being upset that the industrynis literally responded to gamer's actions and stated motivations.
Microsoft would develop their existing first party studios and improve the quality of their first party titles, invest in third parties that they already had exclusive relationships with, or invest in up and coming studios?
Had Bethesda published a Microsoft exclusive since Morrowind?
You don't expect that from Sony so why expect it elsewhere? Sony started this game, gamers lauded them and rewarded them for doing it. Microsoft tried to not do that, and got beat down further than they had when they tried playing that game against Sony. Gamers wanted exclusives. Microsoft is providing that. You voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party and now are surprised leopards are eating your face.
This was a forgone conclusion for awhile now. Folks are just upset because Microsoft has an exclusive that Sony gamers want to play. Boo fucking hoo. I'm pissed it came to this, but gamers did this. I'm angry about it, but I don't feel sorry for gamers as a whole about it.
Did they, though? I think exclusives predate Sony and even the PS1. They’ve been a part of the console space since basically the inception of the medium. Xbox itself launched with an exclusive “killer app” in Halo. Timed third party exclusivity and exclusive Map Packs were very popular with the 360 when it was on top in the seventh generation as well.
I don’t think Sony has ever made an acquisition of the same scope as Zenimax either in price or in how much of the market was fenced off from a studio they previously had access to. That’s not even going into the Activision deal.
Maybe we can now point to Bungie, but that was still half the price. Most of Sony’s acquisitions over its time were studios that were already de facto developing exclusively for their consoles. Even Insomniac. If you look at their history, Sunset Overdrive is a lone anomaly.
Exclusives suck, but I don’t see them going away as long as consoles and capitalism exist. You’re basically throwing shade at Sony for daring to fund the development of critically and commercially acclaimed games that gave them the reputation of having a quality first party library. Starfield on the other hand was developed as cross platform title until Microsoft paid 7.5 billion to acquire a major publisher. Wasn’t this confirmed this week by the document leaks?
Few complain when Halo is released exclusively because no one is being surprised that those games are now exclusive titles. That isn’t the case with the new Bethesda deal.
Sony and Microsoft used to pay for exclusives without buying the studios. So there's no real meat to the argument that "oh, the games were always exclusive because first party" or whatever. The consoles didn't really buy that many game studios until relatively recently in gaming history. They would pay a studio to not release on other platforms. This whole buying studios thing was just cheaper in the long run. So there's no real argument to be made about Sony just making better first party games. That's what they do now given that they own the studios. Both companies are guilty of buying out studios.
Exclusives pre-dating the PS1 was more out of lack of technology. No cross platform tech really existed. There wasn't a lot of crossover. Many platforms didn't last more than a generation or two. There wasn't even much cross over in the kind of games. If you liked fighting games, you bought a Sega over Nintendo for example. With the PlayStation, they competed against Sega first, Nintendo as more an afterthought. Xbox came in later to compete against PlayStation 2. The Nintendo 64 was just a different class, and even later, the GameCube. With Xbox and PlayStation, they had similar amounts of power and restraints (an N64 cartridge could not compete from a technical perspective against the storage of discs, plus multi-disc games could exist, not really feasible with cartridges) plus abstraction technology was more advanced and one could more easily write cross platform code. Now, you either had to pay for an exclusive or simply hope they only had the intent to target one platform (whether through preference or resource limitations). So the console wars really started to heat up after the death of Dreamcast and mainly between Sony and MS. Exclusivity wasn't via first party existed, but not to s great extent beyond their flagship games.
So, tldr, exclusivity has always been acquired via money and buying them. It's easy to say it's about developing better first party once those studios were bought outright to begin with. That's how most first party titles exist now.
No, but Oblivion came to PS3 later and Skyrim was outright broken on PS3, then Sony scuppered their console mod plans by not allowing deep enough system access. Safe to say they probably didn’t have the best relationship.
Sony doesn’t buy IP and deny it to other platforms. Their IP starts on Sony. If Microsoft never wanted to release Halo to Sony, it’s their decision to do so, but buying something that don’t had access to, then denying it is a shit move.
Gaming isn’t bedroom coders knocking out games in basic for microcomputers any more, it’s a huge entertainment industry and that’s how those industries work.
This is no different from Disney pulling Fox properties of other steaming platforms to put them on Disney+ since they brought them out.
Yes they do. They used to buy exclusive rights back during PS2 days but eventually both MS and Sony realized it's cheaper to just buy the studios. Sony has only a small number fewer acquisitions than Microsoft. Both companies have always bought exclusivity.
My reason for buying a PS5 is my Xbone bit the dust, and my Xbox 360 also had issues when I traded it in. My ps2 and ps1 still work. There was also the fact that the only available options were PS5 or Series S. I didn’t buy the console for exclusives, I bought it because it was the better available console and my previous one was dead.
No I didn’t. The announcement of their intentions to fully absorb Bethesda didn’t even come out until around the PS5’s release, and wasn’t completed until like 6 months after. Not everyone pays close attention to gaming news. And if you bought the console early on, there is a chance you never would have even heard about it, let alone completely understood the implications of the purchase.
Ok? But your experience doesn't change what the number one reason given is though? Sure, I don't get Pixel phone anymore either because two in a row failed on me, but I don't go around telling everyone "no one buys pixel phones because they die easily"
Yeah, but MS games aren’t console exclusive. They come out on PC day one two which is a bigger audience than both consoles combined. Given the player numbers Starfield really hasn’t suffered due to not being on PS. In some countries it’s doing exactly what a console exclusive should and getting people to pick up an Xbox.
If you don’t think a company as big as MS did a cost/benefit analysis before they made the decision I don’t know what to tell you. Of course any product available to more people sells better, but MS are playing a longer game. If previous Bethesda games are anything to go on, people will be talking about, modding, posting clips, etc of this game for a while and that’s tons of free advertising for XB and Gamepass.
ROFL… if you don’t think a company as big as Microsoft can’t make mistakes, I don’t know what to tell you.
And talking about a game isn’t selling copies. Nor is modding. People are pirating it and for good reason. It’s not worth the cash spent to donate to a company that thrives based on free labor to fix the bug ladened disasters they release.
How do you think marketing works? Someone posts a cool thing they’ve done in Starfield, and someone else gets some FOMO and decides to buy the game, sub to Gamepass, get an Xbox to play it, etc.
No not everyone is pirating the game, a lot of people on Lemmy may be as this is an echo chamber of techie types, but the general audience don’t even know how to, and if they prefer to play on console, can’t.
Clearly you have beef with Bethesda, and are letting it cloud your judgement here, but the fact of the matter is lots of people are playing and enjoying the game as is, out the box before any mods are officially available.
Over one game? I thought Fallout 4 was a disappointing step back from New Vegas and 76 was a misjudged project that turned up messy and broken and I’ve never even looked at playing. The last game of theirs I truly enjoyed pre Starfield was Skyrim, over a decade ago. I’m not white knighting them, you clearly have an irrational hatred of them and are unable to admit when they do something positive, a common issue today when people turn hating something into their identity and are unable to ever move from the stance. Like most Devs, they’ve had their ups and downs and the ups should be praised and the downs criticised.
Well there’s the fact that you omitted Sony and Nintendo from your criticism entirly, despite the fact that both companies have bought numerous studios and paid other studios to make games exclusively for their respective platforms for decades, thereby reducing their potential revenue for some benefit that’s clearly obvious to those companies.
And yet, when Microsoft does it…they are just limiting their potential market for no reason and it’s obviously a stupid business move. Sure. Seems a little sus, is all.
Either the entire fucking industry is guilty of this “bad business practice” or maybe there’s a calculated reason for it. Pick one.
You don’t see me complaining about Halo, do you? Do you wonder why? It’s because Microsoft did it with an IP that was already widely popular across all platforms, and then pulled it. And if I remember correctly, told everyone they wouldn’t pull it.
Sony hasn’t don’t that. Again, as I’ve said, they begin with their own IP. And that IP from creation is Sony exclusives.
Um…Sony was in talks to pay for Starfield to be a PS exclusive - which would have taken it from PC for a year and from xbox permenantly - until MS bought Beth.
Also, Starfield is a new IP, not an “already existing and widely popular” one…
I’ll also mention that Phil Spencer publically admonished and fought against exclusivity agreements for years. He has said in interviews both private and public that he prefers a world where there are no exclusives. Until the market spoke and declared “exclusives” to be the measuring stick of a platform’s health, thus forcing his hand. And now here we are.
And here we finally have the primary motivation for this comment.
Well we won’t know for sure on those for a few years. All we have are old FTC docs and no public statements. Regardless, existing games aren’t going anywhere. But even if it happens for future games, well, Sony’s been sowing this harvest for some time.
The Deck is targeted squarely at enthusiasts. While it's a fantastic product for that niche, anyone who thinks it's going to capture a market the size of Nintendo's any time soon is living in a fanboy bubble.
Hell, right now Valve isn't even capable of manufacturing half as many Decks as Nintendo will manufacture Switch 2s. They literally can't sell that number because they can't produce that number.
Maybe it’s from huffing too much copium; but I think that Valve’s eventual Steam Deck successor will probably have mainstream console levels of appeal.
By that point in time, compatibility should be nigh-sorted (thanks to all the hard work currently happening), and users won’t need to interact with the Linux desktop mode at all. It would be completely transparent, and only enthusiasts and power-users would ever want interact with it.
The biggest thing going for the SteamOS platform is the immense library that it brings forward; no other console can compete with — even with full backwards compatibility (which even the Switch2 is struggling with).
Probably not the Steam Deck successor alone, but the PC handheld ecosystem as a whole might be able to get there at some point (preferably mostly running Linux).
Though it’s kind of insane how much progress was already made over one generation: It went from a Kickstarter grift (Smach-Z), to the Steam Deck, to multiple competitors already.
Eventually, perhaps. I do not claim to have a crystal ball powerful enough to peer decades into the future. But right now, for this generation, I can say we're a long way from that point just yet.
What is it about backwards compatibility that the Switch 2 is having issues with? I thought it was all games that brought their own hardware, or depended on a feature that the new Switch doesn’t have (IR camera on the Joycon for example)
From my understanding, even though they both run Nvidia-designed ARM processors - there are enough differences between the two SOCs that a direct 1:1 translation is not possible for all titles, and those will need to go through an emulation layer.
Additionally, there are certain titles won’t be compatible due to hardware changes (Ring Fit Adventure for example, and probably all of the LABO stuff?).
I'm not really all that bothered. Unlike movies, new start ups for making games happen a lot. When the greedy giants topple, like a forest something grows in the new patch of sunlight.
i don’t believe the next video game collapse is going to be very pretty for anyone. also, most independent studios and developers make little to no money at all
Tell that to all the smaller studios that have already been decimated and forced to close because of their publishing/funding deals falling through over the last couple of years.
You don’t hear much about it because they’re smaller and/or working on things that hadn’t released yet, vs the occasional big media splashes from companies like MS doing more layoffs, but indies and AA are being gutted too.
It’s comforting to believe that only the biggest companies are struggling, but the industry as a whole is currently in active collapse from the inside out.
i know it’s not the important part of your comment, but I must point out that indies will be fine because indies do not have publishing deals. If your studio is beholden to a publisher, then you are by definition not independent.
The definition of indie is always contentious, but there are definitely studios out there who are independent (as in not owned by a larger company) but work with a publisher for funding, marketing, and other support.
Even beyond that bit of semantics, many indies rely on funding from investors of one sort or another, be that angel investors, startup funds, or even just small business loans.
Many of those investors have lost their appetite for games, making it extremely difficult to pay the bills unless you’ve already got a sizeable cash reserve to cover costs.
Personally I agree. I’ve seen way more startups kicking off with these waves of layoffs. It’s a silver lining, not much more, but I’m happy to see people finally realizing they don’t want the big tech solutions anymore.
I mean sure but just like with movies, the rights dont change hands very often, even if they’re not being actively used or the rights holder goes out of business. This means a ton of promising franchises either suffer by getting terrible sequels or no sequels at all.
I wish that was true, but funding has dried up across the entire sector and that affects the viability of smaller studios more than it does the mega corps with bottomless warchests.
Indie developers are not immune to being bad people or making bad choices.
Saying “indie devs keep being the best devs” gives the impression that people can automatically trust all indie developers, which I am cautioning against. While it may be true right now that most indie developers are more likely to be “better” than AAA developers, that is not always true and can always change very rapidly.
polygon.com
Ważne