Eh, I’ll wait for reviews at least. It wouldn’t be the first sequel to drop the ball. I don’t have any loyalty to a company. Even though I think every game they’ve made, from Natural Selection 2 on, including Moonbreakers (even if it didn’t do well it was the best model painting simulator I’ve seen), has been worth playing, that doesn’t mean it always will.
Hanlon’s razor applies here. It could be, but I doubt it. It’s just yet another stupid CEO who thinks he, and his AI chatbot, are smarter than everyone else.
However, internet users are also stupid. They think buying the game will hurt them. In what world does that make sense? They company made the purchase with this deal, assuming they’d pay it. They expect it to make them money. The CEO just thought he could just squeeze extra profit out of it by getting out of the deal. It doesn’t mean they’ll lose money by paying it. It just means the game is making them a ton of money, but they’ll have to give some of it back to the studio.
But it also helps the game sell better. I’d bet, if the game does well, Kraft on will make far more than that back. They didn’t purchase the company to lose money. They just thought they could get out of paying that money and make more profit. It’s not that they’d not make a profit by avoiding this, just less.
Emulating the former is good enough for games preservation (or whatever you decide to do with the games).
Well, that’s the excuse at least. The law would have to effectively kill 3D printing. Is that the goal? Idk.
Wait, they made a second one?
Almost certainly an economic one. Most of our “economy” (stock value, but the media and owners treat this as if it’s the economy) is tied up in just a few companies, and all of those company’s value are most AI. I’m reasonably confident there will be an AI crash, which will tank stock values and everyone with investments in these companies.
I’m not so sure if there will be a housing market collapse.
More of a reason to do it then. That’s scummy. I guess I’ll be avoiding them like the plague.
I’m skeptical, but it makes a lot more sense. You don’t just “learn to code.” Writing the text is the easy part. It’s about solving problems. This is next to impossible to do reasonably without actually understanding what the solution needs to do and what capabilities you have to do it. That’s why the LLM method has produced such shit code. It’s just reproducing text. It doesn’t actually understand the problem or what it can use to get it done.
Yeah, I know of that, and I’m aware it happens. Even still, those designs have the concept right. I don’t see how anyone draws the smoke stack on the front of the engine but then, for some reason, draws the Steam coming out the rear. If they didn’t draw it at all then I think it’s reasonable. I just don’t see how you get to the point of the OP.
It’s like drawing a bike and drawing the pedals, but the chain connect the handlebars to the wheel or something. It’s just not something someone’s going to do. (On that page, literally everyone who included a chain connected it to the pedals. It maybe do weird things, but that basic thing is consistently correct, because you don’t draw pedals and not understand that that’s where the chain connects.) They’ll draw something that doesn’t function, because the don’t understand how a bike works maybe, but there are some basic things everyone knows.
I agree, it doesn’t resemble typical AI generated content in appearance. It does in form though. It’s like the most “I’ve seen pieces of a train, but I don’t understand what a train looks like or how it works” drawing I’ve ever seen. If the flame is at the back, how would that work with the entire rest of the engine (the cylinder at the front)? Why do the linkages not make sense.
If this is made by an autistic train fan, this is incredibly wrong. If it’s made by a person joking about them, it’s slightly more forgivable (but still, I don’t think anyone wouldn’t understand the Steam comes from the front).
You’re right, the perfect edges and perfect circles and all of that make me think it’s not AI slop at first, but even the least careful person I don’t think would make this many stupid mistakes. They’re mistakes you’d expect for something that knows that the shape is statistically expected from trains, but it doesn’t have any understanding of why.
That’s all it shares for now (for the California law). Once that’s in, what’s one more step, where the user has to provide proof of age, rather than just presenting one? That requires identification.
If their goal is identification, rather than actually protecting pedophiles (we know this isn’t the case because the Epstein clients are not facing consequences), then it’s easy to see how this leads to that.
The slippery slope is not always fallacious. If it’s a reasonable case, it’s just called a slippery slope argument.
They can be compared in that they’re both open-world action-adventure games. I can’t play every game, and of those I’m much more interested in Outward, because it’s trying (and often failing, but still trying) to do something really interesting. BotW was trying to do something others have done, just very polished. I’m more interested in the games who are experimenting, even if I have to deal with a bunch of jank.
BotW and TotK make you think, but in a way that a child can complete it without much issue. That’s fine, but that’s their target. If it’s harder than that then it’s too hard for the game. This isn’t a complaint, but an observation. It’s like going to Pokémon and expecting a challenge. It’s literally made for children, so it’s not going to be there. It’s on me if I go in expecting a challenge.
It looks fine. It’s more the gameplay that doesn’t seem appealing. It seems almost frictionless. There’s too many games that do something similar that are more appealing to me. I’ve been meaning to get into Outward (I own it, but I haven’t put the time into it to get far), but now Outward 2 is on the horizon. It’s open world adventure, but it actually asks the player to think and put some effort into it.
I’m likely never buying one, but more competition is good. It’ll bring prices down because some people won’t care.
It’s big, but it’s not really impressive. It’s just for restitution, because the tariffs were already ruled illegal. This is just suing to see how much will be returned. It’s interesting, but it doesn’t effect much. It’d be nice if the money went to the consumers that paid the increase in prices, but we know that isn’t going to happen.
I keep wanting to check things like this out, and then I remember there’s not even any Switch games I want to play. I tried the open world Pokémon game when that came out years ago, purely just to see what they did (it was boring as fuck, as pretty much everyone agree). The only other thing is maybe TotK, but there’s better things (in my opinion) that I still need to play. Shadow of the Erdtree, for example, is something I still need to get around to.
If anyone actually does think there are Switch games worth playing, in your opinion, what are they? I’m curious. I have to admit I avoid most advertising and don’t follow Nintendo stuff, so there could be things I’m not aware of.
You have to be ashamed of it to be blackmailed. Just don’t watch anything illegal and don’t be ashamed of what you’re into and you’re fine.
Isn’t the whole point, since the Xbox One, that they didn’t want it to just play games? We don’t consider it dead just because it does more stuff. I guess you can have whatever definition you want for your personal view, but I don’t really think anyone else would agree with it. It’s still going to be a Microsoft controlled platform that’s typically in the living room on a TV. Most people would say it’s dead when they stop having a device in the living room, not when that device gets extra features.
I’m pretty sure the price increase is for OSRS also, but they just don’t get anything.
Anyway, I somewhat agree with your argument. You get what you pay for, and if you want the game to not have MTX then you’re going to pay more (possibly, increased players could counteract this). I wouldn’t use an “hours played” metric to defend this though. I think it’s a bad metric even for regular games, but especially RS where it’s a “second monitor game” much of the time. Enjoyment/$ is the metric that matters. It’s harder to measure (as it should be, as it’s subjective), but it’s actually the reason we play games.