Mmm, nah. I’m not giving money to EA for the sims. I will continue to get every new install of sims and sims 2 from the open seas and play them with WINE without issue like I have been.
I see you EA, trying to get an emergency cash injection via nostalgia after flopping with the veilguard. This won’t keep you off the chopping block forever.
Large corporations, just like any large organization, have significant institutional momentum. I would bet good money that this move was planned for months, if not longer, and was not a reaction to Veilguard underperforming.
Couldn’t have happened to nicer people. Reap what you sow.
If you’ve ever had to deal with a Gamergate dogpiling campaign, you are probably high as a kite on schadenfreude right now. You are probably knocking back a huge mug of crocodile tears.
As much as I don’t care for DEI as a guiding “doctrine” for hiring, I also think companies shouldn’t be anti-diversity by law. Like intentionally hiring people because they aren’t white, no (and feels like tokenism/racism) but also intentionally hiring only whites (or the majority race) is a bigger no. Especially if more qualified candidates are being passed over solely because they’re PoC. Also companies should be inclusive so as to not be shit companies in general? Can someone tell me if/why my take is dumb or poorly thought out?
Because DEI is intended to (and very often successful at) help hire the most qualified people. No one is color blind, and pretending people are only perpetuates inequality.
DEI is the reason phones can take pictures of black people now. Once Google started hiring more black people, they could make changes to the software that used to always default to trying to adjust exposure for white skin. Now everyone’s skin tone looks good on Google phones. And all because Google hired a few black people who actually knew it was a problem in the first place.
The same goes for any representative technology. The internet didn’t just start working for blind people automatically. Companies had to start hiring blind people before they knew it was an issue. We had a blind engineer come in to our team at Google and tell us how shitty our product was for him to use and how to fix it. Most people wouldn’t think a blind man could be a good software engineer, but he helped us make our product work for millions of additional people that wouldn’t have been able to use it otherwise.
Everyone has different experiences, and just because someone knows how to build what you tell them to doesn’t mean they can make a good product. It’s only when you have diverse input throughout product development that the product you make will truly be good.
Hell yeah, thanks a lot for taking the time to spoon feed my ignorant butt. Very informative reply, thank you. I guess a reply would be “that can be done without DEI” but then that just circles back to your no one is colourblind remark. If google wasn’t diverse organically without DEI, I don’t have much optimism other corporations would be.
Piggy backing off of this, the DEI council at my job ensures that everyone has what they need to succeed in their role. For example, the All Gender restroom didn’t have feminine sanitary products which was troublesome for some of our non binary staff. Instead of forcing them to use the women’s bathroom, we installed a dispenser in the All Gender restroom.
Also, many of the field employees shower at the office after their shift because it’s dirty work. But the shower facilities were just one big room, high school style, which made several LGBTQ employees uncomfortable. We pushed for individual shower stalls as a DEI effort and now everyone feels more comfortable showering.
These are things that straight, white, cis people probably wouldn’t think of. The DEI council allows minority voices to be heard.
I posted above a few studies that show unconscious bias in hiring practices against people of color. There is a reason why DEI exists. It’s like OSHA laws. Every rule for these programs has a great misfortune behind it.
Did an AI write this? Completely mixing up history and the present in the same sentence
Developed well over two decades ago, the original Silent Hill 2 is the magnum opus of Polish horror stalwarts Bloober Team. Running on then-innovative “Unreal Engine 5” technology created by Jazz Jackrabbit publishers Epic MegaGames, it’s a wonderful abyss of a game that remains perfectly playable today,
I’m writing about the Silent Hill 2 Remake in this scrambled, back-to-front, obnoxious way partly to piss off whoever edits this (to be 100% clear, Team Silent are the creators of the original Silent Hill 2, which Bloober are remaking), and partly to make a point about remakes: that they tacitly or openly position the original game as an “obsolete” museum piece in need of replacement, dismissing the old artistic choices as primitive and incomplete, re-defining the old creative parameters as constraints that need to be lifted. It’s all in the service of the market’s cannibalistic mania for the new, its structural need to ceaselessly bury “the past”, often by directly obstructing non-commercial preservation efforts, and sell you Progress that starts to wither and fade the second you peel away the cellophane.
Same. Elden Ring’s biggest weakness is its open world, in my opinion. It makes the first playthrough great, but it makes subsequent playthroughs a chore. Especially when you’re aware that 90% of dungeons/side areas have completely worthless gear and runes. Your subsequent runs just end up being you riding Torrent for long stretches of time from point A to point B.
My disappointment isn’t with the enemy variety or gear drops. It’s with the dead world. My first hours in the game I saw a wolf walk through a herd of deer both ignoring each other. When you’ve just come off RDR2, seeing wildlife as decorations running 2 scripts that both depend on player interaction is lame.
Even FarCry3 had emergent game-play through enemy/wildlife AI.
True other games have had that, but it really wasn’t a goal for Elden Ring and I don’t think it really hinders it. The immersion into a real world was clearly a tentpole design decision for Rockstar in RDR2, but not Fromsoft. Which is fine for you to miss in Elden Ring, I just think we gotta manage expectations sometimes where not every game can have every thing.
They embarrassed EA, but more importantly Ubisoft. Open world games are pretty much all Ubisoft is known for these days.
I certainly think they can compete with Rockstar. Elden Ring is just a different genre from RDD or GTA. Had Elden Ring not been so difficult and had all the normie garbage like quest markers and other hand holders, it likely could have outsold GTA. But because From makes hard games (even though Elden Ring is their easiest game) and because they didn’t hold the players hand, people passed on some sales.
I don’t think this is a bad article - or discussion - altogether, but this excerpt really brings out the most crucial aspect, or rather how its missing:
Missing from the discussion is a sense of how much cash Slavic Magic and Hooded Horse need right now to sustain on-going Manor Lords development.
The point being, major games owned by large studios are driven by infinite growth because that’s how their business model has shifted heavily into for the past few years. For minor developers, indie, solo or otherwise, the matter is far simpler: Can they afford their livelihood plus keep working on the game with how much they’re making? If yes, good, keep at it. If not, then we have a problem.
Given how that’s not detailed at any point, its impossible to really pick a side. If Styczeń has made enough money that he can afford to work on the game slowly for several months, this discussion is a non-issue. If he is struggling to make ends meet, or if he foresees struggling soon due to revenue slowing down, it might be time to work on rebuilding that publicity.
I believe Steam’s predatory cut is very important to the discussion and not a light matter at all, although that’s a discussion for a different thread.
Those should still a good amount of earnings, even if we aren’t aware of how much it goes to HH and how much to Styczeń, so they do have good reason to take it easy.
Not to go down a rabbit hole that’s off topic, but I’m generally not offended by Steam’s cut. The platform, advertising, centralizing, hosting, and cloud saves, etc etc, seem like a major benefit, especially for smaller developers, that would allow them to get to market faster, and with a much larger audience.
I don’t see the sales numbers in the article but even then we don’t know how much it costs for Styczeń to operate, or how much of the profits go to the publisher. I assume they are doing well, but the point is for how long in the foreseeable future that will continue.
Half of this article’s word count seems to be the writer snarking about how he doesn’t care about these games and doesn’t know much about them. I guess it’s good to show contempt for your audience…
I guess it’s good to show contempt for your audience…
I don’t know. There have been plenty of times I’ve wondered if people in gaming communities actual enjoy games at all, instead of just talking about how bad they are.
You should’ve seen the article they did on the Valheim update. The journalist said he only played the game once and just copy/pasted patch notes interlaced with stories about his CNC machine.
lol yeah that’s the one. It was a washing machine.
However, I don’t like the idea of doing a dry news post, so I’m going to interject information about the washing machine malfunction I’m currently dealing with, so that the quoted press release seems incredibly colourful by comparison.
Meh…I’m sure it’s still NMS. Feels so empty and boring anytime I’ve trying to replay after getting screwed over with buying this game after I was lied too.
Won’t be trying this new sticker or whatever new thing they are working on. No thanks.
I kind of feel you on this. I can build amazing things, find cool ships, kit out my freighter, and all that lovely stuff but theres no point to it. Theres no evil empire to fight, no galaxy to save, no dungeons to raid. Its a great sandbox, but not a lot of reason to be in it after a while.
Yeah, I’m glad they put the work in and I’ve gotten a lot of hours, but…certain things about the game seem broken by design. I just don’t feel like buying a more expensive ship is letting me do things that I couldn’t do without it. So personally I’m looking forward to their next game, and seeing what they do with all the lessons they’ve learned here. But I’m probably done with NMS.
I don’t give rats ass what the ‘news’ says about this game, or any game. That’s the damn reason this game was sold on lies in the first place. Bullshit news. I make my own opinion based on actually doing the thing. I replayed (the words you still didn’t read) and made the opinion that it’s still a boring crappy game that makes me want my money back still.
The point is, the game is boring and has nothing to do. Why bother getting bigger ships. There’s literally no point. Gameplay is not fun in any way and I will not force myself to get enjoyment out because that clearly defeats the point of enjoyment.
The only good thing this game and Sean ‘give me my money back’ Murray did, was make me not trust any developer until I get their full game for free and test it on my own time and finding out where the company is full of shit and lying to its userbase.
I remember playing this game when it first came out as a mobile game. Super cool concept, but I also remember hearing the drama from the start. I definitely thought this game had been abandoned a looong time ago.
I remember loving it when it came out for mobile and really liking the updates for a while. Then I didn’t play it for some time as I had done most stuff and when I came back it had had some big update that completely changed it and I really didn’t like it.
Aka “we don’t know the engine well enough yet to be aware of bottlenecks during our concepting phase and that’s challenging.”
They haven’t even seriously started on implementation with the engine yet for Cyberpunk. This is somewhat of a nothing article that’s trying to get clicks by making a very normal thing seem like a potential controversy.
I don’t see where it’s trying to make it sound controversial. Switching game engines isn’t a “normal” thing developers usually do very often, especially after releasing such high-profile games with an in-house engine.
And with how often you see gamers demand developers “just use a different engine” to solve some specific complaint I think it’s reasonable to remind people why that isn’t usually a good idea.
It’s not completely uncommon for a company to transition to a new engine between games when one fails to provide a sufficient solution for where they want to take the sequels.
Or just if daddy EA decides everyone needs to use Frostbite.
rockpapershotgun.com
Ważne