- 0 Posts
- 112 Comments
Here’s an idea: gameplay sort of like Goblin Cleanup, you have various chores you have to do cleaning and arranging the various levels of the tower at night while the dragon is home, and your work has to pass an inspection. Then during the day you are locked in your room, and have some ability to watch a prospective rescuer attempt the dungeon crawl without your direct input. But you can strategically arrange items, enemy spawns, and Dark Souls style hints to try to tip the scales during the chores phase. So kind of like a tower defense game in reverse where you are trying to lose.
Morrowind already had a great design for this; many enemy spawns scale with your level, but they do it by adjusting which area-appropriate enemies have a chance of spawning, and it only makes a difference to a point. Like if you go to daedric ruins in the early game they’re going to be populated with scamps which are the weakest daedra, but those are still strong enough to steamroll you. If you run into a cliffracer in the lategame it will probably be the plague-enhanced stronger variant, but you will still be able to oneshot it. This system increases the number of circumstances where you’re going to run into challenging fights you have a chance of winning, in a way that doesn’t do much to nullify your power progression or break immersion.
They should have just done the same thing in Oblivion but they had some procedural obsessed design philosophy and wanted to avoid manual level design work I guess.
These explanations make sense to me, but they seem to conflict a little with what’s being said in the post, where it’s implied that game journalism sites get a decent amount of traffic but it isn’t worth as much because media business models as a whole are collapsing somehow:
It doesn’t matter how many millions, or even tens of millions of people are reading a website if the means of financially supporting that writing are evaporating.
The free internet as we’ve known it for the last 20 years is collapsing as the ad market evaporates and corporate media ownership becomes increasingly unhinged in response. As belts tighten and profits dwindle across all media–not just video games–that rising tide could begin claiming more and more sites that even ten years ago would have seemed immortal.
Why is this happening? The post alludes to Google and Meta hogging all the ads somehow, but why would advertising on things resembling traditional media now be worthless? Everyone started using adblockers or is there something else too?
“A lot of us worked tirelessly to make even a fraction of a living doing something we genuinely love, and we’re afraid of that being taken away from us, so it’s looking like we have no other choice but to look for mundane work and give up our passion”.
Sounds like the shitty bargain of game dev is getting worse. It’s sad to think about all the great things people would make and accomplish if they weren’t trapped in wage slavery.
I disagree about Soma being an isolated setting, there are actually lots of characters, it’s just that they’re all insane cyborgs who mostly happen to have their own personal reasons for attacking you.
I can’t seem to find them, but before the game came out there was a series of live action video shorts made in association with it to help establish the concept and setting, I’d imagine a show being along the lines of those but fleshed out more.
There’s a game menu with a diagram of a military hierarchy of named enemies, and their strengths/vulnerabilities. When you find the named enemies in the game and interact with them in some way (iirc it’s basically limited to winning/losing a fight or mind controlling them), it affects their traits and their place in the tree, and you’ll get a short cutscene where they say stuff referencing your past interactions.
But if they aren’t protected under copyright, then any asset flipper can use your main character - taking the model right from your AAA game - and throw it into their 99-cent asset flip scam, and you can’t do anything about it.
They could send a DMCA claim and Steam would probably just take it down right? Again, really hard to prove it was 100% AI, and in the case of a full usable 3d character model, with current technology it definitely was not. I guess what I mean by “why it matters” is, it doesn’t seem like it would practically make any difference to how things will go or what will happen.
When it gets to be possible to just about fully autogenerate games, yeah then they might have a reason to wish they could have more copyright.
I believe Steam has the policy on AI that they do both because of public opinion about the use of AI (and the way it’s being used to steal from creators) and because AI generated games tend to fall into the same category of outright scams that NFT games do, and games containing NFTs are straight up banned from Steam.
Games using AI used to be banned from Steam, but they changed it to allow them. Requiring tags seems like a nice compromise.
I don’t see why this stuff even matters. Like say they fully AI generate a loading screen for their game, and therefore they don’t have copyright on it. That doesn’t stop them from selling the game, it would only stop them from suing someone copying that specific part of the game for their own purposes. But such a person would have no way of knowing whether the image was fully AI generated or not, so even though in actuality they couldn’t be sued successfully, they will still be taking the risk. And there isn’t much reason to anyway that I can think of.
So why would a company like Activision even give a shit?
If it’s really what is described (an app that other apps can use to classify content without querying a server), seems like a good thing to me. There is a clear need for people to be able to filter spam and things they don’t want to see. Imagine a Lemmy app where you can set it to not show you US politics related posts, where it will work regardless of whether specific keywords are in the title. Couldn’t that kind of thing contribute to a more decentralized web?
From the article:
“Classifying things like this is not the same as trying to detect illegal content and reporting it to a service,” GrapheneOS said. “That would greatly violate people’s privacy in multiple ways and false positives would still exist. It’s not what this is and it’s not usable for it.”
Even if they tried I don’t think they have the leverage to make that work. What games or publishers are big enough that such a move would go worse for Twitch than it would for them? Most of the time indie games make for better content anyway. Twitch could just ban games that don’t include an unconditional free streaming license in their terms of service and not lose much of any popularity, while the game publishers trying to extort them would absolutely lose popularity.
Each server would likely have to utilize a payment service.
Yeah but that would mean each server has to take custody of funds, have their own individual contractual agreements with game companies, handle refunds, bear all the legal and tax burdens of this, and get people to trust they won’t scam them. It’s just too much of a burden, these are all things that benefit heavily from centralization and economies of scale, due to the legalistic nature of payments. You would end up with one dominant instance and unused federation, if there was even anyone willing to deal with all that stuff to begin with.
I feel like you could solve this stuff pretty well with crypto, having payment go directly to the game devs, and a no refund policy or something to simplify things, but crypto is too hated so that wouldn’t work right now.
Why don’t people? Because steam is just better
I am skeptical that this is the main reason (even though it’s true and is a reason). I think people don’t like the idea of having their games library split across multiple services, and don’t like using/learning software they aren’t familiar with, or that other people aren’t using.
My point is just that it doesn’t make sense to criticize the question for not reading the article if the article doesn’t answer the question, and what’s really needed to answer it is additional context. The broad scope of Riot’s statement could be construed to mean they could do more than just ban streamers for using hateful language.
Makes sense. I played Dota for some time and honestly that was one of the things I enjoyed about it, unreasonable people being furious with me while being totally helpless to do anything about it other than lose their shit. Although it’s a dirty sort of enjoyment and makes things extremely awkward; on an emotional level what you want out of the match is for your teammates to fail, but you’re obliged by the rules and a sense of sportsmanship not to throw, so even if you don’t want to be dishonest about what you’re doing it’s hard to play seriously.
I think it would be cool if there was a moba that somehow formalizes the adversarial relationship you have with your team. Maybe like a Survivor esque battle royale setup; in the beginning it’s 5v5, and you’ll be advantaged by the success of your team, but ultimately you are going to have to betray them to win, and also the losers will have an opportunity to influence the outcome.
Seems reasonable, at least it’s not a ban and probably won’t be
Itch.io hasn’t yet addressed that inquiry directly, but one possibility is simply that generative AI is already in widespread use: 31% of respondent to a GDC study published earlier this year said they’re personally using generative AI in their work, and 18% said they’re not using it themselves but have colleagues who are—though not necessarily to create anything players actually see. Given those numbers, and the fact that they’re inevitably going to grow, a straight up ban on generative AI may not be workable.
But I think the point is, the OP meme is wrong to try painting this as some kind of society-wide psychological pathology, when it’s rather business people coming up with simple reliable formulas to make money. The space of possible products people could want is large, and this choice isn’t only about what people want, but what will get attention. People will readily pay attention to and discuss with others something they already have a connection to in a way they wouldn’t with some new thing, even if they would rather have something new.
I have an Index also, one thing I find frustrating is that because the Quest has such a dominant marketshare and packages games differently, some smaller VR games and experiences I see seem to be only available as an apk file for Quest sideloading and there is no straightforward way for me to play them.
The main reason I don’t use it more though is I never got past the physical discomfort, I still feel nausea playing most games for more than a few minutes, and headaches from the pressure on my scalp/face if going longer than that, ie. trying to watch a movie with the headset. So that basically means I’m not going to just spend a lot of time passively chilling out in VR, it has to be some specific thing I want to do that feels worth it to push through the discomfort involved and can be gotten through relatively quickly. Mostly that ends up being just Beat Saber.
For that you would have to completely change how currency is issued and managed. Money is created by being borrowed directly or indirectly from the central bank, and the reason it is possible for those loans to later be repaid is because even more money is loaned out later, so it’s not going to be a game of musical chairs where there isn’t enough money going around to pay them all back, they keep bringing in more chairs. There is always an increasing amount of money in the system, and they make it that way on purpose to keep things running the way they want them to.
Personally what I hate about this setup is, a person who meets the requirements to obtain a business loan can now take this money that was created out of thin air, use it to coerce labor out of people who have no way to get money other than working, and keep the profits. What if our lives would all be better off working a bit less? Too bad, that decision isn’t up to us, how much we must work is indirectly decided by monetary policy, which the average person realistically has zero influence over, and the goal is a high level of “economic activity”, ie. as many people as possible subject to financial coercion.