I agree, this article title is literally introducing and teasing the game that he created based on his label of working on a different, more successful game that he was a small part of:

‘ex wow dev’

Makes me think another hack might be riding big names on a resume to get games bloggers to write about you

Lmao, rich coming from you after I already explained why the architecture is inherently, and fundamentally about controlling all interactions, not about seamless UX which can be achieved with other architectures.

Whoosh.

Keep promoting one corporation having control over all application interactions. Such a glorious future we can all look forward to under the watchful gaze of the CCP / advertising companies.

LMFAO, such engagement, such explanation.

You’re really living up to the .ml domain.

And I’ve explained to you repeatedly that nobody cares about what you personally want. What’s being discussed is what’s a better UX, which is obviously having a single unified UI backed by APIs. I’ve also explained to you deficiencies in the current UI platforms, but you evidently are unable to grasp these problems.

Bruh, you’ve explained jack shit beyond saying ‘but it’s obviously nicer when apps integrate with each other’, and you haven’t once approached explaining why a super app is the architecture necessary to achieve that when we used to have it all the time before walled gardens.

I’ve explained repeatedly why you

a) don’t need a super app to do that, you can build applications with interfaces that unify other applications in whatever way you want, as long as those applications have published APIs, and

b) why we already have unified UI platforms (operating systems & web browsers)

All you have done is blindly defend super apps, while ignoring the point that they are fundamentally closed platforms designed to extract money from consumers.

I am engaging with what you’re saying, and I’m explaining why what you’re saying is wrong.

I’m literally a professional software developer who writes applications. I know the difference between a traditional set of OS apis like you see with Linux, the platformized nonsense iOS apis, the concept of applications using other applications to create a new unified experience using their own published APIs, and apps that publish APIs to try and be platforms.

I have literally used and build software under all of those models and have very clearly engaged with this conversation, so maybe you should be doing some self reflection instead.

I have massive issues with IP law, but it is literally the only mechanism that actually gets those researchers paid and to have jobs so I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

So you’re saying that we already have super apps, they’re called the internet, and that the entire concept of an OS level super app is unnecessary and a clear attempt at a company to exert control and extract more money from consumers?

Like I said, we already have that unified interface, it’s called an OS and a web browser. A super app is just a closed off version of that.

Again, you’re defending close platforms run by giant corporations to extra money from you.

Elon isn’t interested in super apps because he cares about the common person, he cares about them because he can build a platform to extract your money with.

Yes it absolutely is different.

Android, Windows, MacOS, Linux, et al provide you APIs for interacting with the operating system, for instance if I want to send a request over the network, I tell the operating system to send this request through the network card.

But they do not dictate what I draw for my app on the screen, how I send messages between apps, or really anything at the application later. The OS APIs are there as an interface between the hardware and the application layer and that’s it.

Like I said, iOS tries to dips it’s finger far into the application layer and make itself a platform to have more control, not let apps compete with Apple’s apps, and so that they can charge you at every application interaction.

It is a story as old as tech. We build a wonderful open internet based on open standards, so social media companies come in and built a closed network on top of that so that they can control everything. Operating systems have historically been designed by big nerds as relatively open platforms, so what happens? Apple comes along and tries to turn iOS into a closed platform and everyone else comes along and tries to build a closed OS platform (a ‘super app’), on top of the existing open platforms.

Super apps and their design is 100% about enriching the controlling company and nothing else.

Yeah, and that’s not the model of a super app. A super app provides APIs that it forces it’s sub apps to use, as opposed to building an app that unifies a given app’s published APIs.

It’s literally just a “platform” under a different name, meaning that it’s a tech company trying to build a closed layer that they control that everything is forced through so that they can eventuallg put up a tollbooth and commit highway robbery.

It’s what Apple tried to turn iOS into before the EU slapped the fuck out of them.

Yeah man, that’s called an application.

MSN Messenger had an application, ICQ had an application, both had APIs though, so you then had third party apps that integrated and unified them.

Designing an app a certain way is not technology in any kind of protectable IP way and is NOT what people are talking about when they talk about China stealing tech.

No one cares that China released an app that looks like Facebook, Facebook regularly apes the design of all its rivals.

What people care about China stealing is stuff like a company’s internal research documents describing how to engineer high strength low, weight steel that took a team of PhD researchers in multiple high tech labs ten years and millions of dollars to research and develop. That is the kind of IP and technology that China steals that people care about, not a software UX that an intern can whip up in a week.

You’re literally just describing apps that have open APIs and can integrate with each other.

That used to be the norm here too. The problem is entirely one of capitalism encouraging anti-competitive walled gardens.

They’re not banning Mastodon, or the Fediverse, or EU based messaging apps.

i.e. the objection is not that the US government doesn’t control it, but that the Chinese government does.

Who cares. Find a new game.

Yeah, but the Quest 3 still isn’t really great for remote desktop. It’s a little too low res, and the headset itself is too heavy to wear for that long, though it certainly does feel like the devs are using them to dogfood, given how much they keep improving the remote desktop features.

Kinda surprised tbh. It was clearly DOA for gaming, but if anything, I think the Apple Vision Pro demonstrated that there is a potential market for a high end VR headset as a monitor replacement if you could get it small and light enough.

I’m guessing that focusing on just the Quest 3 / 3S chipsets let them focus and optimize everything way more overall though.

If you search for ‘terms explicitly targeted by bots’, you’ll find bots.

I mean, there are huge problems with American health care companies and insurance in general will always tend towards being a scam unless it’s extremely heavily regulated, but at a fundamental level insurance does offer a service (that of socializing the cost of extreme losses), and while executives do have fiduciary duties, the idea that they always have to pursue short term profit no matter what from a legal standpoint, is overblown and exaggerated.

We left Reddit because it was a corporate captured shit show that killed the only nice apps for interacting with it. We didn’t leave because they were too mean to health insurance executives, or because they made glib jokes in dark situations.

Understandably. I’m emotionally removed from the situation enough to know that I shouldn’t actively celebrate, if I knew a loved one who’s medical care was denied by a for profit health insurer or if I had to waste my life fighting with them for basic care, then I’m sure I would be actively celebrating too.

Quite frankly, executives of health insurance companies continually make money by denying medical coverage to people with children and letting them agonizingly die slowly.

I’m not on here celebrating his death for the sole reason that I think it’s just as likely this corporate espionage / assassination for money, but if it is a normal person shooting a health insurance executive for denying a loved ones’ coverage it’s hard to imagine how the executive didn’t deserve it.

You don’t get to be separated from the morality of your actions, just because you use neutral sounding business language to describe how you’re fucking over and killing people for personal profit.

Lol if Black Ops 6 can run at 60fps on it, then any game can.

Gamers just bitch and whine about the S because they have inferiority complexes and it’s an easy way to feel better than.

I hear what you’re saying, but gamers in this thread (and every thread), are demanding that it come out on Steam, not on GOG, which makes them a huge part of the problem.

Lock in exists partially because gamers have lionized Valve for throwing them trinkets and refuse to use anything else, while Valve has designed their platform around a mandatory launcher and done what they can to lock players into it.

Another great game ruined by gamers’ insistence on dick riding Gabe Newell and always giving Valve a 30% cut, no matter what.

Will anyone self reflect on whether they’re being a dumbass and hurting the entire gaming industry by insisting on only using Steam cause that’s all they’ve ever used?

No. They’ll yell at Epic and Remedy for not wanting to give 30% of their revenue to Valve.

The Alan Wake 1 remaster is also published by Epic

The joke still works fine, just replace PS2 with PS5 in your head.

https://theonion.com/broke-dad-makes-son-playstation-2-for-christmas-1819565860/

Honestly, did anyone take anything at all away from this article?

I’m jacked up about Avowed, and Obsidian remains one of the best studios in existence right now, but it really felt like this article said absolutely nothing of substance. Basically just, “we’re trying to make a well paced game with complex narrative choice”, and it’s like yeah, you’re Obsidian, that’s what you do and have always done.

Did it say Fallout 76 at the time you read it? It looks like they corrected that to New Vegas by now.

Yes I do, both are designed to get the user to where they want to be in the game faster than loading the game from scratch and navigating through menus to get there.

They took different approaches in design, but both are attempting to tackle the same UX issue.

That’s what I mean though, both are trying to accomplish basically the same thing, but Sony’s implementation is kind of half baked in that it requires developer support and doesn’t actually resume the game, just gets you close to where you were.

It functions differently, but both are trying to accomplish the same thing from a user perspective, to get them back into the specific part of the game they were just in.

The differences in how they approached that problem is what I mean by Microsoft running around Sony software wise.

Despite other problems, it really feels like Microsoft runs around Sony in circles when it comes to their software prowess. Quick Resume doesn’t work flawlessly with every game, but when it does work it’s pretty incredible to jump straight back to the exact same state in another game as if you’d never closed it.

They explicitly call out that lonely solo play is still a focus.

No, I never even heard of that, I just built a cool base and then wanted to be able to show it to my friends

Below Zero scratched a bit of the Subnautica itch, but it didn’t reach the same highs. Hopefully Subnautica 2 can somehow recapture some of the magic of the first one.

The developers are careful to point out that if you’re one of “those who prefer the eerily beautiful solitude of solo play, Subnautica 2 will still provide that familiar experience, and prove equally as challenging.”