People still on Reddit want someone to take their complaints seriously? Empirically speaking, they will accept this.

Nah, it’s more than the communities on places like Reddit and lemmy/kbin are so small and unimportant relative to the overall consumer market that you can pretty much ignore them completely.

I wouldn’t say it sucks, just that it’s a more complex, lower-level API layer than DX11 and earlier. Which is good in that it allows for more control over game performance, but the big downside is that it’s more difficult and easier to screw up.

You stated that they are different, that sex is something serious and concerning, and that worrying about violence is something boomers do.

If you didn’t mean it to come of that way then I’m not sure why you worded it that way.

So, your opinion is that any and all violent content is never a concern, and is appropriate for any age, even small children?

I have to say, that is not an opinion I’ve seen too often.

OP stated that only porn games should have any sexual content in them because his kids play video games.

She people aren’t kids should see sexual content, but that’s it’s weird to be against any kind of sexual content but not be bothered by violence.

Not everyone is a coomer who wants to revolve their life around sexuality.

You can acknowledge that sex exists without someone’s life revolving around it. Just like “wanting sex to be private” may not mean that someone is just terrified of the topic itself or thinks all sex is gross and should be avoided.

Just because people have different values than you doesn’t make it sad.

Some values become more of a target for criticism than others. “No one should make content that I don’t personally approve of” is one that I would categorize as worthy of criticism.

In this case, OP is stating that he thinks no company should be making games with any type of sexual content. Just in case his kids want to play that game.

That goes beyond “monitoring what their kids play” and that’s why people are reacting strongly.

Source available is open source. There’s a recent movement trying to redefine open source to refer only to FOSS, but it’s pretty stupid.

You have it reversed. The “source available is open source” argument is the more recent idea. Unless by “recent” you mean “in the last 30 years”.

Also, you can distribute your version, of course you can.

Are you sure?

You may Distribute Engine Code (including as modified by you) in Source Code or object code to a third party who is separately licensed by us to use the same version of the Engine Code that you are Distributing.

Any public Distribution of Engine Tools (e.g., intended generally for third parties who are separately licensed by us to use the Engine Code) must take place through a marketplace operated by Epic such as the Unreal Engine Marketplace (e.g., for Distributing a Product’s modding tool or editor to end users) or through a fork of Epic’s GitHub UnrealEngine Network (e.g., for Distributing Source Code).

So, you can only distribute source to people who are specifically licensed by Epic to use the source. That sure doesn’t sound anything like “open source” to me.

you can’t use most open source code “however you like” either

Alright, sure my language was overly broad. “The licensing is restrictive in a way which makes it clearly not open source.” would have been a better choice.

…the main restriction with unreal engine is that you can’t mix it with copyleft licenses and you can’t use it commercially.

So, it’s not open source.

…but you can do what most people want to do, modify, extend, fix, learn. that’s the most relevant thing for what we are talking about here

That still doesn’t make it open source, mainly because you are missing one of biggest aspects, distribution.

keep in mind that unreal engine is also open source.

The Unreal Engine is not open source by any reasonable definition of open source. Being “source available” is not the same as open source, as you can’t use the code whoever you like.

The qualifier is just pointing out that most of the content on the blog is centered around MUDs as opposed to other types of text-based games.

You also some aspect of this old XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/

Long are the days that devs would need to write their own tools and even engines to put the game running. Some (like Naughty Dog) would even hack the hardware in order to bypass limitations of it.

Re-using engines has been around for basically as long as game development has existed. This idea of some mythical age when game development was more “pure” is a fantasy. What has changed is that expectations on AAA titles has grown to the point where it’s extremely difficult to roll your own engine if you are committed to many, many years of work.

Not to mention, it certainly doesn’t guarantee that the engine performs well. Look at Starfield or Baldur’s Gate 3. Both have noticeable issues with performance, and both are built on in-house engines by their respective studios.

No he means in the vanilla game. The first 10 levels go extremely quickly if you have even a basic idea is what you are doing.

Within a system you can bring up the “scanner tool” view in the ship to then point yourself to a planet and travel that way.

But to to travel to various systems, yes you’ll need to use a menu. But then I’m not sure how you would expect to fly between systems without some form of menu to select where you want to go.

Yup its the remake.

I actually enjoyed the game quite a bit, but then BG3 and Starfield released and I just haven’t come back to it.

I did feel like the first season stuff was a little bare, so that didn’t help things.

Only downside imo is that the actual storyline is short, like just a few hours.

People tend to understate how short the campaign is. Phrases like “it never gets old” are used, but it’s true because, as you mentioned, the campaign is one of the shortest you’ll find in anything close to a AAA game.

Edit: Not to say it’s not a great game, because I think it is. But it’s a great game that you’ll finish in potentially a single sitting.

This post implies that Sony has more trust is ridiculous. They refuse to secure their online services, leading to recurring hacks. There was whole rootkit fiasco which was crazy bad.

They defended the ridiculous launch prices of the PS3 by saying that they think consumers should just work more hours to afford one.

They still do shit things like hide basic features like cloud saves behind a paywall. That have no problem paying for exclusive games and exclusive content and if they had the money MS had they would do the same thing MS is doing.

I’m unsure of these “premium” consumers caring about proprietary vs non-proprietary storage. Or caring about VR in the context of consoles instead of PCs. Or that the charger stand being a concern when the PS5 looks like it does.

The X falls short of the PS5 in almost every category that a premium consumer cares about…

What are the other categories aside from exclusives?

Also large AAA budgets and early access are now a good thing as well. Funny how it must took one game to turn those from negatives to positives.

The term “activist investor” exists for a reason. And nothing from that email suggests that MS was looking to “tank” Nintendo in some nefarious plot.

In short, it could be argued that Microsoft worked with investors to tank Nintendo so they could buy it. That’s a huge deal and will probably result in a shitstorm.

I mean, Nintendo selling shares of their company is a specific decision they have made. Do you think they are confused that people other than Nintendo employees are buying these shares? Or that the investors would have an agenda other than just being “Nintendo fans”?

Those two are surely pretty valuable. But I doubt they are, on their own, billions of dollars a year valuable.

Are you sure it was the FTC and not Microsoft that posted the materials incorrectly?

https://twitter.com/cecianasta/status/1704155135662821763

Heck, Sony might be more realistic by comparison, at least their gaming/console parts!

I mean, judging from the quotes, even MS considered it pretty unlikely back when the email is sent.

There’s literally no reason the graphics wizards at id couldn’t make a Bethesda branch of the engine that uses similar or identical workflows to Creation but also employs all the best practices for a modern open world engine.

It’s hard to take your opinion seriously with this kind of statement. It has some real “It’s 2023, where is my flying car?” energy.

At the end of the day, it’s a lot easier to write a wishlist of game engine features than it is to actually develop said engine.

I don’t see why a specific studio gets a pass for story criticisms just because they are notorious for being lacking.

But now a small, indie studio comes along with a grand slam and they don’t like it kind of makes them look bad by comparison.

Larian is similar in size, if not significantly larger, than Bethesda when they made Skyrim.

Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Assassin’s Creed, Diablo, Warcraft, Mass Effect, Dragon Age… these studios have VASTLY larger resources than Larian.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the team that worked on Skyrim was significantly smaller than the Larian team that worked on BG3.

Those developers trying to shit on Larian need to cry and seethe more.

I can’t find developers doing this. Seems like a mostly made up concern by overly sensitive people looking to be angry about something.

After months of hearing about how Final Fantasy needed to become Devil May Cry because RPGs are dead…

This sounds like a strawman to me. Maybe you meant that people were claiming that “JRPGs are dead”? In which case, holding up Baldur’s Gate 3 of evidence to counter that seems strange. But I haven’t heard anyone saying that RPGs in general are a dying genre.

I mean yeah but gamers keep supporting shitty companies…

Yeah, shitty companies like Valve with their lootbox nonsense and other gambling mechanics are really bringing the industry down.

But is that dev headache worse than if you didn’t have feature parity with X/S models, where games would have different features depending on which console you owned?

I think if you are going to have X/S type models, feature parity is something you just have to require, even if it causes headaches. The result for the customer would be much worse otherwise.

Don’t you see. The Switch 2 may have an LCD or an OLED screen! It also may, or may not, have backwards compatibility with the first Switch! It also may, or may not, release in 2024!

How can anyone not be potentially excited about these things that may, or may not, be true!