mechoman444
I am live.
- 0 Posts
- 30 Comments
So let’s just address the meta here real quick. There was a comment on Lemmy to which I responded. In context the genesis of this comment is in reference to Ubisoft and the general state of inclusion politics in gaming today.
You are questioning the fundamental motivation as to why I have an opinion on the subject matter that is presented to me under the protest that “it’s just a game”.
I mean why even have an opinion? Why formulate thoughts? Why have any kind of discussions?
I am abreast of what is happening generally in gaming and the industry surrounding it because I’m interested in these things. I like playing video games.
I also have other interests. For example, I’m fairly good at playing the guitar, so there’s a lot of content in my social media about guitars and music.
I also find it entertaining to watch flat Earth debunking videos on YouTube to pass the time.
The reason I care about assassin’s Creed in particular is because I’ve been playing the game since the very first one. I like the franchise. I like the video games and watching it get ruined because of inclusion politics is heartbreaking.
Moreover, they already have the game. It’s already been made. Therefore I have the right to criticize it. Simply stating “it’s just a game” isn’t helpful.
I don’t care if there’s black people or women or LGBT people in video games. I could absolutely care less about that as long as it’s relevant to the game. If they’re just including it to be inclusive, then it’s a meaningless gesture. It brings down the game. It brings down the IP and it brings down the company that does it.
Furthermore, people play video games for a reason. Either it be escapism or immersion or simply to pass a small amount of time till whatever else they have to do. Seeing these inconsistencies in the game breaks that immersion it no longer becomes entertainment. It becomes a political statement which I have very little interest in when it comes to my entertainment.
You can pretend to be on your high horse all you want. I have no interest in seeing inclusion politics in my entertainment. It serves no beneficial purpose except to elevate the egos of people like you to make you feel as though something is being included.
Pure nonsense.
Also the new Star wars game which I don’t even remember the name of sucked universally. It didn’t make any money because people didn’t have any interest in it specifically and exclusively because of the inclusion politics added into the game. Also the main character is fucking ugly.
They already delayed the release due to so much negative feedback. It’s going to be a bad game. There should never have been a black person in this game at all. It’s 1600s Japan. It makes no fucking sense!
There are so many layers as to why Ubisoft is going through what it’s going through I don’t have the energy to express it here in this comment.
I can assure you, however, if they worried more about making good games and less of inclusion politics their stock would be worth a lot more than 2 bucks!
Disgusting.
This isn’t about being diverse. It’s about making bad games.
As a matter of fact, the new assassin’s Creed is so offensive that the Japanese government is in an uproar about it.
Ubisofts attempt to be so inclusive and sexually neutral is what’s making their games bad because they’re stifling good game design in the process.
That’s not to say that it’s not possible to make a good game while adhering to diversification and inclusion.
Hellblade and horizon zero Dawn are two excellent examples of incredibly good games that don’t expound sexism. Hell, look at destiny 2. They handle these kinds of situations perfectly!
But to simply imply people are upset because they don’t like “woke politics” is a gross over simplification of what’s happening to Ubisoft!
And I’m telling you that the algorithm isn’t causing this.
The underlying root cause of these things have nothing to do with marketing or any algorithm that any marketing firm employs.
The underlying issues are mental illness and a lack of mental health Care in America Not to mention the basically suggestions we have for gun control instead of laws.
Marketing firms cannot and should not be held accountable for people freely using the internet or any other service that also have mental illness
The relevant conundrum is that they should regardless take some kind of responsibility for this Even if they have no liability.
The fact that you are even talking about stuff like this even if it is out of ignorance and probably naivety is that you are detracting from the underlying issues causing these things to occur in the first place.
This whole thing is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit specifically designed to make a little bit of profit from a settlement preying on the grief and torment of people who lost a child in that terrible shooting.
They’re not intentionally targeting the mentally ill to sell them guns so they can perform crimes with them.
What’s happening is this mentally ill person was searching things, the algorithm caught on and sent them advertisements to persuade them to purchase more of the things he was looking at.
The algorithm doesn’t really care what it is as long as it qualifies in whatever marketing parameters they have.
Did the algorithm persuade or affect the person’s actions and promoted the crimes that they committed. Probably not. Do these predatory marketing firms have some kind of accountability? They probably do.
But not for the reasons that you think.
That’s not how that works. The contract is in and of itself a violation of the first amendment. Therefore it has no legal binding. They wouldn’t be able to remove the offending media from any platform or sue for damages if someone breached the contract.
If there are internal ramifications due to a breach of contract that’s something that could be handled internally, such as the content creator not being offered any review materials in the future. But a contract wouldn’t be necessary for that either way.
Moreover, specifically for satire, there are whole acts in the law advocating for it. There is absolutely nothing, no clause or agreement that would ever prohibit someone from publicly satiring any given entity. Regardless of any contract.
The point of the contract is that if one is in breach the company can sue for damages and potentially remove the offending media.
The suing process would be through a legal body such as a court system, in this case federal court since the media is on the Internet, therefore the contract doesn’t hold any legal binding. No federal court would uphold a contract that violates the first amendment.
Contracts adhere to laws and rules just like any other legal document. You can’t just put whatever you want into a contract and have it be binding.
Except that they are. There is absolutely no value to anything they make. It’s all over priced proprietary crap.
Apple products right now are almost entirely home use there’s almost no commercial industry anymore.
Developers graphic design artists music producers most technology firms most offices like doctors and lawyers whatever don’t use Apple products. They’re almost exclusively windows.
Literally the only thing keeping them in business right now is the iPhone. They don’t sell enough of any other product.
Half life 3 confirmed.