Cannon Brawl is a unique kind of RTS where it’s sort of like StarCraft meets Worms. You need to expand something like “the creep” from the Zerg in StarCraft in order to build, but you can also destroy the terrain under your opponent like in Worms. I kid you not when I say this has been one of my go-to local multiplayer games for a decade, and it rules.
I managed to soft lock the new Pokemon Snap game in the tutorial where they had you take a picture of a Butterfree (I think is the right Pokemon). Somehow when I took a picture, it flapped its wings and turned enough that it was flat in the picture and couldn’t be selected when you were at the next phase of the tutorial selecting the shot to show the Professor Oak stand in. You couldn’t go back to take another picture, so I was effectively unable to continue the game from there. I was pretty proud of my bad picture taking skills.
Oh right, I forgot that people insist on humoring that change. I feel like if everyone keeps just calling it Twitter, he’ll just quietly change it back.
Regardless, X was used to represent a variable for about a thousand years longer than Musk has been using it, so I will keep using it that way too.
Keep it up. For me, that confusion is part of the entertainment. No one will know what the fuck anyone is talking about when they say “X”, necessitating an overly complex explanation every time. Fuck everything about X.
it’s not that I want to think of that loser more than we have to, it’s that i see the title of your post on the feed and for a brief moment i think it’s a headline from a news community. Like @MagicShel said, keep it up.
Wasn’t it obvious when that datasheet was released in one of the lawsuits. They paid Rockstar hundreds of millions for GTA V. Of course it’s unsustainable. Not to mention the pricing of GP is too good to be true. MS is hemorrhaging money on GP, on purpose. They basically play the standard Silicon Valley play book. Instead of making things yourself just sell access to customers to producers and price out the competition by undercutting them and incur heavy losses, so you become the only gatekeeper in town. And instead of a store like Steam where the studios and publisher can set their own prices they use a subscription model so they can not only gatekeep access to the customers MS can decide what they want to pay these game devs before the product even hits the service. And if they ever achieve a monopoly the game devs basically have no choice but to accept whatever MS offers.
They paid Rockstar hundreds of millions for GTA V. Of course it’s unsustainable.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Best estimates for their subscribers are north of 25M and as high as 35M. The $1 subscribers have dried up by now, but even if we assume an average of $10/month/user, in the current world where there’s a $20 tier with the really juicy stuff, that’s at least a quarter of a billion dollars per month in revenue. Now that’s revenue, not profit, but those several hundred million dollar deals also died down, as well as their willingness to license outside content anywhere near as much as they used to, which they can feasibly afford to do because they’ve built up a portfolio of games that they own in perpetuity, not unlike what Netflix did.
MS may not have invented it (although I’d argue they essentially did) but they did perfect it. That was the whole idea behind windows and IE, market share dominance at any cost.
Depending on how you do accounting, they may or may not have paid off the $70B. They’re firing people and cancelling projects, according to reporting, because they want to free up $80B of capital across the organization to invest in AI. Whatever money these other sectors are making, the money AI could make is seen as being way higher.
Giant corporations have proven no amount of profit is too much. There needs to be some guardrails. And some form of preservation of the games your loyal customers have enriched your company to access.
I mean, big YouTubers like Charlie and others covering Thor’s bullshit is what drove this huge spike in signatures so maybe we should be thanking Thor lol
Nah, fuck Thor — he could have been the YouTuber pushing for coverage of Stop Killing Games, instead he decided to double down on his stupid bullshit.
Reminder — he was a Blizzard employee for 7 years. I think that, plus his ‘my shit doesn’t stink and if you think it does, you’re wrong and banned’ attitude should give you all you need to know.
Thor reminds me a lot of chatgpt. Subjects that I am not an expert in, he sounds intelligent and like he is providing good advice. The second he provides advice in an area where I am a subject matter expect, it makes me realize how full of shit he is.
Unless someone corrects me, I think his argument boils down to, “we shouldn’t allow the release of server binaries for online-enabled games because it’s too hard for the developers”.
Well, if that’s the case, then Thor, that’s a “you” (the company) problem. Not a “me” (the consumer) problem. And if you’re not going to release a server binary but we’re “buying” the game, purchasers have legitimate moral and legal grounds to demand that they be informed that they are buying a license, or renting, the game; they are not owning a functional copy of the game outright.
Addendum, for clarity:
My beef isn’t even with a games-as-a-service premise at all. It’s the corporatist trend in arguing that single-player experiences need perpetual online connectivity, or that releasing self-hosted PvP server functionality is prima fascia “unrealistic in every scenario”.
Some games, like WoW, no way. I understand the depth of the server stack for MMOs. Other games that are PvP-competitive could easily be self-hosted.
The irony is that these companies could still make a boatload of money off of these old competitive online games with more maps and skins, even though they’ve deprecated their own server stack and cloud-back-end. Essentially, they’d pass the burden of hosting to the players, but still sell content sporadically.
“Stop Killing Games” needs more refined language about what it’s asking for, no doubt. There are many scenarios where blanket statements about demanding source code are just not feasible.
I’m turning 42 this summer. I’ve been a software developer for 15 years now. I’d like to even say that a few of those years I even came across like I knew what I was talking about. But this basic issue is not about software development. This is about consumer advocacy, and it was a huge turn off to watch him perform the mental gymnastics on why people should be screwed over why false/deceptive advertising by the industry is acceptable.
Require it; if I buy something I require every feature of my own product, if I purchased it
Too hard? Fine.
Then the law should require the fact that you the seller must say I’m renting a game or product, or purchased a limited license. They can’t say I “bought it and own it” if they can prevent me from using it however I want whenever they want. Force them to be explicitly clear about what I’m getting for my money.
purchasers have legitimate moral and legal grounds to demand that they be informed that they are buying a license, or renting, the game; they are not owning a functional copy of the game outright.
I’m pretty sure that’s already the case, if you read the ToS of most games.
The typeface must be 16pt, bold, and the copy itself should be on the front page and be required on the cover description(s).
My beef isn’t even with a games-as-a-service premise at all. It’s the corporatist trend in arguing that single-player experiences need perpetual online connectivity, or that releasing self-hosted PvP server functionality is prima fascia “unrealistic in every scenario”. Some games, like WoW, no way. I get the depth of the server stack for MMOs. Other games that are PvP-competitive could easily be self-hosted. These companies could still make money off of these old competitive online games, even though they’ve deprecated their own server stack.
“Stop Killing Games” needs more refined language about what it’s asking for, no doubt. There are many scenarios where blanket statements about demanding source code are just not feasible.
However, let’s not pretend that the industry is not pushing enshittification tactics used by almost every business that’s publicly traded. That’s the spirit in which this movement is fighting against.
The fact N64 games are behind a subscription is what really irks me. I wouldn’t mind paying €5 for Harvest Moon 64 - the way you could buy retro games on the wii - but having to pay yearly, for a bunch of games (many of which I might not even be interested in) that you can’t play anymore once you stop paying? Fuck that
I dislike game subscription services on principle, but at least the other guys have new games on their subscription services, not just ancient ones. Nintendo being the first to charge $80 makes it an extra kick in the balls.
Devil’s advocate here, I subscribe to movie services that are much more expensive to watch movies I’ve already seen. If playing these old games is important to me, that doesn’t seem too bad. $80 for Mario kart on the other hand… never.
I have my issues with Nintendo recycling Mario Kart ad nauseam, but Mario Kart was $66 when it launched in 1996, which is like $130 today. The prices haven’t really kept up with inflation. It’s cheaper to buy Mario Kart today than it was back then.
I don’t know about that, there are other hobbies people participate in that women find “attractive”. So far my hobbies of video games and programming have scared away any partners…
Yeah I almost had that happen with me but I think I ended up watching someone play it. Still kind of regret it but at the same time probably wouldn’t have finished it on my own otherwise and I atleast have Deltarune to look forward to now.
It’s good in a way that isn’t really expected - the only thing I can say without spoiling is it did something really different with things that had been there a long time.
Undertale is such a bolt of lightning. It both depends on its player having experience with traditional JRPG and having no fucking clue what it is. But when the conditions line up, as it did for many people at release, it was such a master fully crafted experience. But even the slightest amount of “it’s good because…” really siphons part of the experience away.
Or at least don’t do anymore than choose your preferred platform and then buy it. Its available on Windows, Linux, Mac, PS, Xbox and Switch but not on Android or iOS.
Its a couple of bucks on steam at the moment, included in PSN if you do that, or full price everywhere else.
Tbh, I played it for a few hours, didn’t like it and don’t understand all the fuss about it. Does it get good later?
I was at a point, where I was going through a cave with a castle in the background (it was a few years ago), it was probably some kind of riddle, but I couldn’t be bothered.
Is it worth going forward or did I see enough to just say “it’s not my kind of game”?
To the people who come into point-of-view threads like this one and downvote what other people took the time to share, how about describing your own experiences instead? It would make Lemmy a nicer place to be, and might even add something of value to the discussion.
As with nearly everything in astronomic optics, it’s named after people associated with its creation. Robert Jones and Thomas Bird are the two in this case. Here’s a thread on Cloudy nights with good info.
my fav from that thread (and i propose to make this a copy pasta):
My entire gripe around these scopes is the instruments being offered today, the sub-aperture lens arrangement is not doing any corrections. The lens is a straight up Barlow, nothing more.
If you look at the Bird-Jones design, the design is very specific in the design of both the primary & correcting lens. This means that both elements need to be not only matched but also well manufactured in order to work as designed. When you then look at the few true Bird-Jones instruments that were manufactured, such as the Tasco 8V (which was manufactured by Vixen), the Celestron G8-N and one other (escapes my mind right now but I’ll add it when I remember), these scopes were not cheap but pushing flagship status for these brands & supplied with swish mounts. And none of these scopes can be readily collimated by the end user as the alignment of the optics is so precise it is done in-factory. The 8V alone still maintains almost cult status.
The Bird-Jones design is not without its own shortcomings. It is not perfect without aberration. It is important to remember the ideas behind its design, to provide a short tube OTA option with what was able to be readily manufactured at the time, that being good spherical mirrors.
What is made today is a far cry from what a Bird-Jones offers performance wise. Made cheap with a poor spherical primary & that they are totally collimateable by the end user shows these are not a precision scope. Add to this that not a single Bird-Jones instrument is to be found anywhere else besides these cheap things. Doesn’t this say something?
These cheap instruments, really all cheap instruments are a double edge sword. They make astro more accessible, yes, but their poor quality ends up killing off more people’s enthusiasm for astro than firing it up. Add to this that for many novices if the mount is not a complicated equatorial one then it isn’t an astronomical instrument, & the difficult manner of using a wobble-tron mount & tripod with the mental gymnastics required just too much for most people who buy these and just give up way too soon.
Yes, there will be a few people who will be able to make these scopes work, being all they can afford, and all power to them. I will support such persons. But these are very few compared to the overwhelming number of people who just give up after the poor experience they get from these instruments. Too them astro is just all too hard, and mainly because of a poor instrument.
Call these cheap instruments what they are, a barlowed Newtonian.
bin.pol.social
Ważne