- 1 Post
- 41 Comments
Developing a game and experiencing a game are 2 very different things. Having developed games in the past, things can be similar on the surface but everything about how it was made can be completely opposite. At one point we had free reign to work on whatever, and then it changed to daily focuses. That’s a huge change in the experience of developing and completely opposite of the game before.
It’s been pretty hit or miss the last few years, but black ops 6 is definitely worth it. The noncanon scene I mentioned is in Black Ops Cold War, which is about 4 years old now (Bo6 is also it’s direct sequel). It’s a lot of fun, but to unlock it you’ll have to solve some tricky and well hidden but simple puzzles throughout the whole story. It might take a few tries to get it, but it’s more satisfying than the canon ending imo.
I don’t think that’s part of why they do it. I’m an avid civ 6 fan, and I can say that the launcher is pretty unobstructive. Between launching from steam and launching from the 2k launcher, it takes about a minute. It’s likely to collect data, but honestly the only useful data they’d get is the pc hardware, the length of play, and common mods. 2k probably saw that they weren’t getting sellable data and decided to scrap the idea, honestly it’s probably the only decent thing the company has done in years.
Sorry, I sometimes forget that other folks aren’t as close to this as I am. Microsoft signed a legally binding card check labor neutrality agreement with the Communications Workers of America, an international union serving the US and Canada. Under the terms of the agreement, all management must remain neutral in regards to unionizing and must direct questions about unions to worker organizers. Additionally the neutrality agreement also means that when workers petition for recognition, the company will voluntarily recognize the union after a 2 week card check vote (union authorization card signatures and direct yes votes together count for yes)
This article covers it well, including the fact that specific battery chemistries are trade secrets.
I recommend Pride at Work, an organization within the AFL-CIO to help organize LGBT+ workers and advise unions and locals on being more representative for their queer comrades
Alpha testing is, by definition, testing on unreleased code. Even though they are offering the testing to some select group of people, it’s still considered un-released.
I go out of my way to explain how alphas are typically done as a games industry professional, and you’re still out here spewing the same nonsense? get outta here. This is not a defensible action by a corporation. When a game reaches alpha, the whole of the game is unready but the part used in the public playtests are extensively reviewed by QA and gets as polished as possible. When a game is at alpha stage, it’s by definition gone through multiple release candidates.
I’m on publisher QA side. Every so often, around this time of year, my company does closed internal playtests for games that are on the pre-alpha release candidate (usually it’s the ones they expect to be blockbusters). Generally when a pre-alpha RC is selected for this, a very small subsection of the game is highly polished to give Users an honest preview of what the devs expect the launch game to be. Obviously since it’s in alpha a lot of things will be changed and there are a lot of game breaking bugs to be found still, but the general experience should still be up for discussion if it was bad. I know it’s possible to imagine a game in alpha as released, because part of my job is to give professional feedback to the producers without ever mentioning unfinished or bugged aspects of the game.
Let me tell you as an employee at a studio where the parent company is widely viewed as shitty: it doesn’t matter. The rot starts at the head, and even good managers can get shitty. My workplace unionized and got recognition, and our overwhelmingly liked manager then went and violated status quo.
Did Hasbro or WotC send the Pinkertons after that guy who got a pre release card? It doesn’t matter, because a corporation that owns the IP still sent the Pinkertons after a random customer.
on some level, I agree. The civ board game was absolutely simplified to be suitable for one-off sessions, but the underlying mechanics are undeniably an entry in the Civilization universe. It works well as a board game because civ is inherently a board game with more advanced mechanics, designed to be played by AI and a single player that must master all of those advanced mechanics. Simplifying the game into a one-shot board game does require skill on behalf of the game designers, but it’s still the same game
You’re responding to a AAA game dev. I work at one of the companies I listed. I’m very well aware of the abuses that occurs at these companies. The developers have 0 say it the timetables for launch. The people I work with are incredibly talented and capable of doing amazing work. The corporate side is where I have concerns, companies will literally grind employees to dust if it means making a game like BG in a corporate time span.
BG3 set the highest standard for a game. It’s not a bad thing that it exists, and the studio absolutely deserves the praise they’re getting. However, we should not seek to make it the minimum standard. Larian Studios worked hard on this for over 5 years without crunch. The ABK’s, Bioware’s, EA’s, and Ubisoft’s of the world will not do that. Games should not come at the expense of abusive workplace practices. There’s something to say about having higher standards for variety and creativity absolutely, but the game in it’s entirety should not be the expectation.
I want shorter games with worse graphics, made by people that are paid more to work less and I’m not kidding.
I just explained that it’s not cheap. It costs far more to buy a cheap car and do constant maintenance than it is to buy the mid tier car without much maintenance. That’s what’s happening with AI right now, we’re buying the cheap car and paying for it in labor and development costs. I’m saying that the right way is to buy the more expensive one, which will be cheaper in the long run.
The black box isn’t being done because it’s a new idea, it’s actually the other way around. The newer idea is actually the method for easier analysis. There’s a few reasons that they aren’t doing that though.
- It’s a newer idea, not everything has been studied so methods will be experimental.
- It’s in the company’s interest to make the AI harder to analyze, because they don’t want open the door on a better algorithm from a different company/government/group.
- It’s cheaper up front to build a black box and then do statistical analysis the hard and expensive way. Companies would much rather spend money doing things the wrong way instead of saving money long term doing things the right way.
I won’t believe it’s happening until it’s in the orange box.