aSingularFemboyHooter

@aSingularFemboyHooter@sh.itjust.works

Profil ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.

aSingularFemboyHooter,

Man am I tired of being shafted for not having kids, the when it comes to holidays, covering for other staff and things, employees with kids always take priority and employees without don’t have an ‘excuse’. Extending that to layoffs is extremely toxic and punitive to younger workers.

aSingularFemboyHooter,

That’s how employment works. Calling them slaves is ignoring the fact that they have agency and compensation, unlike actual slaves.

No job is permemnent, it would be ridiculous to expect otherwise, but it varies between industries. Gaming is a low-frequency project-based industry, you know there will be lots of work while in development, and once that’s over, there’s not going to be as much work to do.

How else should this work?

aSingularFemboyHooter,

I mean, what are their salaries? I genuinely don’t know, one would assume that a specialised job like that would command a pretty solid salary, and the assumption would be that working on a project like this would get them to the top of the list for applications to other companies.

I don’t know how the job was advertised, but seeing how the industry works from the outside, I would never assume a job for life at a game studio, but you could still count on security after working on a project like this.

I work a steady job, it’s hard, and the pay is okay for me, I suspect a game dev will earn several times what I do, part of which is due to the short term, or at least risky nature of the roles, the rest would be down to the specialist skills.

I don’t really think that forming a union signifies that at all, I’d say it’s more likely down to the ongoing working conditions.

Because you can always go and get a warehousing job or similar, it’s steady, but kinda boring and lower pay.

The money may keep rolling in for those who invested the most and took the largest risks. But that’s irrelevant IMO. You take a job for the pay that’s offered, and it lasts as long as it does, how long that is depends on the kind of role.

I’m making assumptions, but I think everyone here is too. But I do particularly resent the ‘slaves’ comment as it is disrespectful of the employees, and diminishes actual slavery which is bigger than ever.

aSingularFemboyHooter,

Because useful tools that generate income are more valuable than things that make games look more better.

AI is what’s justifying pumping over $7bn into R&D per year, which drives improvements to gaming cards too.

Every card they sell makes a CEO richer, among a huge swathe of other effects.

aSingularFemboyHooter,

Huh? They don’t have a monopoly in any space, and have significant competitors. And I don’t really see how they are slowing down innovation. I think it’s fair to say that Nvidia are investing significanly in R&D, and is driving innovation more than anyone else in the industry for the moment.

Blizzard on Steam Overwatch 2 review bombing (news.blizzard.com) angielski

We also launched on Steam last week, and, although being review-bombed isn’t a fun experience, it’s been great to see lots of new players jump into Overwatch 2 for the first time. Our goal with Overwatch 2 has been to make the game more accessible than ever for more people than ever before....

aSingularFemboyHooter,

Then I’d argue that reviews don’t give a complete picture, if that’s the case. Because it’s hard to argue that Overwatch is really the worst game on Steam.

aSingularFemboyHooter,

Honestly this seems a bit much. I recently started playing again after years and am generally enjoying it. I guess I already have most of the skins I want from OW1, so I don’t really think about the cosmetics of it. But the gameplay is still just as fun as far as I can remember, the balance seems fine.

But I think lets take off the rose-tinted glasses on OW1. You know what I don’t miss? Needing to buy tons of loot boxes during a specific period in order to get one skin that you particularly wanted. At least now it seems you can just buy what you want, if you care.

Not a fan of Blizzard, although their customer service has been great. And while I think that Overwatch is more deserving of criticism than most, I really get the impression that people at the moment just seem to default to ‘outraged’ unless proven otherwise when it comes to game companies. I don’t know, I just kinda feel like people need to chill just a little, because this is basically all about a slightly different way of selling cosmetics.

I think what’s more important is a real shift towards your ‘type 3’ games. Overwatch is a competitive FPS where users expect new content, which is a big part of the issue. My favourite game to play in the last few years has been Pavlov VR. I bought it for like £15 2 years ago. Since then it’s had a major update, more like an expansion pack that many companies would sell as a new game, and has more recently had a large overhaul. Tons of community maps, content and gamemodes, and just a blast. Before the recent update, the devs were getting lots of hate because the game was ‘dead’. I was like, mate, the game is finished. What more do you want? What more do you think you deserve, did you not get your money’s worth? Why does a game need to constantly change to not be ‘dead’?

Anyway, Overwatch is always going to be that kind of game, but what I’d love to see is more of a move towards the type 3 model for games where that makes sense, that’s what will actually make a difference, it’s what’s actually important. Not wanting microtransactions to be structured slightly differently.

I miss proper expansion packs. The whole 'you liked game? We’ve basically made another game on the same engine and using lots of the same assets as the game you liked, so you can play more game. It has about as much content as game, and is like 50% of the price.

aSingularFemboyHooter,

What was promised where? Because yeah, get capable technical team together who are excited to share a project they’re working on, and they are bound to be optimistic about what could be realistically implemented over a long timeframe. Nothing but the official release product information should be considered a promise, and nothing but unsponsored, unaffiliated reviews should be taken as proof.

I highly doubt that any pre-launch ‘promises’ were made with an intention to decieve.

aSingularFemboyHooter,

But it’s pretty realistic and happens all the time. I don’t see what’s ‘bootlicky’ about not trusting ‘promises’ by corporations years before release that are not protected under laws like the Trades Description Act.

I don’t know what was supposedly promised, because I didn’t follow interviews and stuff leading up to it, I just bought the game based on what was actually delivered in the end, which is how all purchases should really be made.

Stuff mentioned during development should never be taken as a promise, no matter how trustworthy or honest the developer is. This is just the simple reality of long projects.

It’s also why we don’t hear from devs as much these days, instead it’s mostly PR people, as too much weight is put on off-hand quotes.

Studios like CDPR have nothing to gain, and lots to lose, by deliberately over-promising.

  • Wszystkie
  • Subskrybowane
  • Moderowane
  • Ulubione
  • Spoleczenstwo
  • rowery
  • esport
  • Pozytywnie
  • krakow
  • giereczkowo
  • Blogi
  • tech
  • niusy
  • sport
  • lieratura
  • Cyfryzacja
  • kino
  • muzyka
  • LGBTQIAP
  • opowiadania
  • slask
  • Psychologia
  • motoryzacja
  • turystyka
  • MiddleEast
  • fediversum
  • zebynieucieklo
  • test1
  • Archiwum
  • FromSilesiaToPolesia
  • NomadOffgrid
  • m0biTech
  • Wszystkie magazyny