I'm not a fan of games that are designed by committee, and I fear AI-generated games would take that to the 11th degree.
Given that, I feel very specific aspects could still be vastly improved by AI, like games that implement procedural generation; I feel like his mention of procedural fears more of everything becoming procedural, instead of it supplementing the pre-existing applications of it. Those kinds of games hit a plateau at a certain point in the gameplay loop - the limitations of the tiles or combinations of assets starts to become very predictable and doesn't achieve the purpose it sets out to at that point.
Also to take into account, AI needs a dataset to train it, and to avoid the homogenization he fears would involve producing datasets for specific tasks, and differentiating them from one another; to me, devs producing these unique datasets to sell is inevitable, and there's definitely going to be a lot of "shovelware"-quality datasets being thrown around. The ethics of the data contained in a lot of those kinds of ones will definitely be questionable.
Let’s say I’ve got a friend who bought a PS5 back in March, and this friend decided that she wanted to take part in this giveaway.
What are the pros and cons of this friend purchasing a new PS5, getting her free game (possibly Ghosts of Tsushima), and then returning the PS5 afterward? Because this sounds like a savings of $70 or so once it’s all done…for my friend.
Calling Devolver Digital the “Cult of the Lamb publisher” is like calling Pixar the “Toy Story 4 creators”. It’s not untrue, but they’re also known for publishing a lot of other things. But I get why they picked this game for the headline, it’s in vogue right now.
I only played Days Gone and it was ok, but kind of glitchy and exploitable. It was one of those games where the boss battles have basically nothing to do with the regular gameplay loop which was super frustrating. Got stuck on the mega zombie boss fight and stopped playing.
Glitchy and exploitable how? And I’d say the boss fights fit perfectly in the regular game loop because every time you’d come to something like a boss fight it was really just introducing you to a new regular enemy type.
I remember the first time I fought the breaker, roid rage freak, and I burned through my entire stock of ammo and molotovs. And I never wanted to see one of those things again. But then they were added to the regular enemy spawns. Driving around at night, oh shit it’s a breaker. Cleaning out a nest, fuck it’s a breaker. The game kept the tension of exploring and fighting high by continually adding new challenges and as long as you kept going you’d get new ways to deal with those challenges.
Almost definitely true. The type of games that devolver publishes are often fantastic, but they are smaller experiences that a subscription pay model would nigh certainly never pay for fairly.
I was actually wondering if anything like this had happened before when I bought starfield. Starfield and a lot of games will have a deluxe version that you can buy that includes the dlc when it comes out, for cheaper than buying the base game and dlc separately. I was curious if any game that pre sold dlc like that failed to release the expansions and if so, what the outcome was.
No they don’t lol. GOG doesn’t even have a client, you have to use Lutris or Heroic Launcher that support it.
Itch has a half implemented Linux client that they gave up years ago and is straight up unusable/broken. The client is worse then a web wrapper and nas no support for Wine, so if the game doesn’t have native Linux support, it just won’t run through the client. It will download exe’s that won’t actually run and silently fail, and doesn’t have any wine support.
They don’t have a client but both allow you to just download the game and run it from a .sh that installs it in the local folder. That’s enough for me but I agree it may not be for everyone.
Lol, Epic cut Linux support when it bought Rocket League.
But you are right, no one even tries. Everyone wants to have Valve’s income, but no one wants to do the legwork of innovation that Valve does. If someone would compete with Valve where they don’t already have a massive foothold, there might be some better results. For example, Linux. If any of these funding-gorged companies were to put serious money into competing with Valve in the Linux space, it’d be a real competition. Then you could leverage your stake in that to compete in different sectors. But the Linux market is small, and averse to paying for things (userwise) so not much to gain. But Valve understands that if gaming parity with Windows happens, then it will have a compounding effect. It would unshackle the PC market from Microsoft. It would make spending funding on a gaming device that DOESN’T have to have Windows involved a much more appealing prospect. Hell, the phone gaming market. No need for these re-skinned Skinner boxes when you can have the actual PC version on your phone. Whole new market, right there.
The companies that innovate tend to lead. And those who follow the coin and not the music, do not.
That honestly sounds reasonable. It’ll be impossible to troubleshoot legitimate issues when they can’t even determine if the issues are being caused by a mod that the user installed years ago and hasn’t touched since.
Having the scumbag of a CEO in the headline may have been a mistake. Riccitiello sold the least shares in the recent transaction history of the company. Also, I don’t know where you get your "retaining over 3000000 shares’ from. The source says Riccitiello sold all his shares in his possession.
The article mentions two others:
Tomer Bar-Zeev who sold 37.5k shares on 1st September, for around $1.4m. Shlomo Dovrat, meanwhile, sold 68k shares on 30th August for around $2.5m.
Bar-Zeev sold 37500 shares of ~1300000 owned on automated sell. That’s a factor of ten and a fair bit away from 2k sold from 3 mil, but that might be normal. It was automated, after all.
Dovrat’s transaction is mostly the same, roughly double the shares sold and roughly double the shares owned. However, it was not automated.
I believe the article mentioned them because they sold the most, but they clearly weren’t taking the amount retained into account. The third most sold, however, by Robynne Sisco was a sell of 25768, retaining 14700 (sold ~64%).
There are a fair number of other sells, but if the Bar-Zeev and Dovrat sells don’t look suspicious, nothing else will stand out.
What does seem a little odd- and I have no idea if this is at all unusual- is that in the last twelve months, more shares have been bought than sold (net shares almost 10,000,000), and in the last 3 months more shares have been sold than bought (net shares almost 3,500,000). In the last 3 months, the number of insider traders is a little over 1/3 of the amount of insider trades over the last 12 months (under the assumption it should be about 1/4). All of the insider buys seem to be the options granted for working for Unity. I assume it isn’t too odd for the board of directors to sell and never buy, but they have increased selling a fair bit in the last 3 months, and it seems specifically the last two weeks.
More confusing accounting that I’ve never learned, and probably never will.
At first I thought it was because of direct/indirect ownership. But what is the point of “5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 3 and 4)” being 3mil with no transaction, but the 2000 stock transaction showing they owned none? I see nothing on the form or in the definition showing that direct or indirect ownership show be reported differently. They are all owned by the ‘reporting person’. But clearly this is all me just not being able to read how they filled it out.
I agree $80k is nothing to $100mil, I do believe that if they have 3mil of securities, then it doesn’t matter, no matter how high or low the securities are worth. I disagree with the idea that automation makes it not suspicious, though. If the stocks were all automatically sold off, then the company devalues itself afterwards, it has the same intent and outcome as any other insider trading.
Ok, so the report is on the person (CEO in this case). Only directors and certain executive levels are required to report.
Table I shows ‘non-derivative securities’ (regular stock). The CEO holds in their own name 3 million+ shares. No transaction was reported for those, but they have to be listed.
The CEO’s spouse aquired 2000 shares at a cost of $1.425 each. After this transaction, they had 2000 shares total (column 5).
They then sold those shares for $40 each. After, they weren’t holding any stock, so column 5 shows 0.
The CEO financially benefits from this, so the transactions are listed on their form, as (I) for indirect. If the spouse also had a position within Unity which required reporting this would be listed on their own SEC form as well.
Mad Max was decent, but it chose setting over gameplay with how insanely empty it is, and while car combat is fun, driving without the combat really isn't and there's a huge amount of it to make the big empty desert feel like a big empty desert.
Still, there are a few things getting in the way of the plaintiffs being successful here. For starters, games and in-game content are often cancelled - an unfortunate reality of the industry. Furthermore, even if refunds weren't granted, Aspyr did offer affected fans a copy of KOTOR 2 on Steam - where the mod can be played for free - or another Star Wars game altogether.
How is this relevant in any way?
I don't think they're legally entitled to a refund for buying a game with content that didn't exist, but neither of those are even sort of substitutes for the content or a refund.
I don’t see how it being software makes it different than any other good.
If I advertised a car with GPS and promised next year it will be updated with live traffic data. Then I just sold a bunch of cars and decided, nah thats expensive, I am just going to leave it as is. You better believe lawsuits would be headed my way, I don’t see how this is much different. In both examples you can still use the product, it’s just not the product that was ultimately promised. Maybe I would have bought a different brand of car that already offers live traffic on their GPS, maybe I was willing to spend more on the game/car because the feature that was promised, never came.
Because they knew it didn't exist when they bought it.
You would win your example lawsuit, too, unless you had a contract explicitly promising future services. Talking about future plans when they're clearly future plans isn't legally false advertising or any kind of legal obligation.
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.