Doesn't it, though? This is what the players wanted, and the industry listened. They asked for support for the game after its release, and the industry said "Sure, but in exchange at least some of you should pay extra".
This isn't forced upon anybody. Just because Mazaratis exist doesn't mean that you have to buy one if you want a car. It only becomes a moral problem if somebody's choices are circumvented, but that's not really what's happening here.
Some people wouldn’t bother with a game at all if they knew there would be this.
Perhaps if this was unusual for the genre. But it's a AAA fighting game. Anybody who is familiar with the genre knows that MTX is normal and expected, because it's going to have several years of support from the developers. I'd have a hard time believing that any Tekken fan bought this on the premise of it remaining MTX-free.
I'm not seeing why that's a problem, if it's still just cosmetics.
Also, anybody who expected a AAA fighting game to not have cosmetic MTX in 2024 probably isn't that keen on the fighting game scene to begin with. That's just how the genre works these days; the players want continuous balance patches as new tech and exploits are discovered, and that comes at a cost. If you think $70 is enough for potentially years of continued support and updates, then you haven't been keeping up with the economy's effects on the gaming industry.
If he does, I hope he manages to recapture what made those games magical in the first place. Some of his most recent projects have really missed the mark, IMO. Bayo 3 should have been an absolute banger, but was mostly unimpressive.
I don't get it, it's just gonna be skins, right? Pretty much every fighting game has paid skins these days, that's what funds continued development for balancing and new content.
Unless there's something really egregious being offered for sale, I don't see the issue. Cosmetics are one of the few MTX I'm okay with, for the most part.
We haven't gone back because there isn't a reason to. There's little new to test that we can't otherwise test in simulated moon gravity, and no real discernable resources worth harvesting. We can't stay long-term yet, so any and every trip is expensive as hell for a very short visit. It's close enough that we can use optics to observe it in detail, and many types of scans can also be done from planetside. Going back right now takes a lot of money, a lot of risk, and there's little reward to be had. We'll go back when we're ready to settle for longer periods of time.
People shouldn't drive in a way that gets people killed. Where's the outrage for the problem that we've already had for over a century and done nothing to fix?
People have been hit and killed by human drivers at much, much higher rates than SDCs. Those aren't hiccups, and those are deaths that shouldn't have happened, as well. The miles driven per collision ratio between humans and SDCs aren't even comparable. Human drivers are an order of magnitude more dangerous, and there's an order of magnitude more human drivers than SDCs in the cities where these fleets are deployed.
By your logic, you should agree that we should be revoking licenses and removing human drivers from the equation, because people are far more dangerous than SDCs are. If we can't drive safely without killing people, then we shouldn't be licensing people to drive, right?
Instacart is being miserly by not paying their workers a fair wage.
Instacart is paying their workers fairly. It's just that the driver is not an Instacart worker.
They're not employees, they're contractors. And when you, the customer, place an order, they are now your worker as you've entered into a contract with this person. They aren't working for Instacart or the store, they're working for you. And you're the one who pays for their time and labor, that all comes out of the service charges on your order.
That's how all these apps work. They don't get paid anything by the app, they get paid by you through the app.
The fleet of cars is summoned back to the HQ to have the update installed, so it causes a temporary service shutdown until cars are able to start leaving the garage with the new software. They can't do major updates over the air due to the file size; pushing out a mutli-gigabyte update to a few hundred cars at once isn't great on the cellular network.
It's pretty handy for things like being able to just say "hey Google, unlock the door" when I'm carrying a dozen bags of groceries.
I use automations as well, but sometimes I need something done outside of my otherwise-considered parameters. And it's easier to just yell your wish into being than to take out your phone, open an app, select the device, then pick your command.
They've already been testing on private tracks for years. There comes a point where, eventually, something new is used for the first time on a public road. Regardless, even despite even idiotic crashes like this one, they're still safer than human drivers.
I say my tax dollar funded DMV should put forth a significantly more stringent driving test and auto-revoke the licenses of anybody who doesn't pass, before I'd want SDCs off the roads. Inattentive drivers are one of the most lethal things in the world, and we all just kinda shrug our shoulders and ignore that problem, but then we somehow take issue when a literal supercomputer on wheels with an audited safety history far exceeding any human driver has two hiccups over the course of hundreds of millions of driven miles. It's just a weird outlook, imo.
After an investigation, Waymo found that its software had incorrectly predicted the future movements of the pickup truck due to “persistent orientation mismatch” between the towed vehicle and the one towing it.
Having worked at Waymo for a year troubleshooting daily builds of the software, this sounds to me like they may be trying to test riskier, "human" behaviors. Normally, the cars won't accelerate at all if the lidar detects an object in front of it, no matter what it thinks the object is or what direction it's moving in. So the fact that this failsafe was overridden somehow makes me think they're trying to add more "What would a human driver do in this situation?" options to the car's decision-making process. I'm guessing somebody added something along the lines of "assume the object will have started moving by the time you're closer to that position" and forgot to set a backup safety mechanism for the event that the object doesn't start moving.
I'm pretty sure the dev team also has safety checklists that they go through before pushing out any build, to make sure that every failsafe is accounted for, so that's a pretty major fuckup to have slipped through the cracks (if my theory is even close to accurate). But luckily, a very easily-fixed fuckup. They're lucky this situation was just "comically stupid" instead of "harrowing tragedy".
I wasn't asking about the car's logic algorithm; we all know that the SDC made an error, since it [checks notes] hit another car. We already know it didn't do the correct thing. I was asking how else you think the developers should be working on the software other than one thing at a time. That seemed like a weird criticism.
I think that's because the current gen is just "last gen, but more powerful". Nothing really got innovated this time around, and the architectures for the current platforms are almost identical to the last ones (which is part of the reason cross-gen has been so popular with developers, as it's very easy to implement).
I do feel that catering to cross-gen is creating a situation where a lot of games just aren't taking advantage of the capabilities of the current gen properly, in order to maintain parity with the "weaker" versions of the same titles.
They're not getting older faster. You're older, so time feels faster now.
Also, the scarcity of current gen consoles for the first couple years kinda made it seem like the current generation only barely started since most people only barely got their current-gen hardware in the last year or so, but keep in mind we're currently in the 4th year of the 9th gen at this point. This gen started in 2020. We're past the halfway point for most generations by now.
Doesn't it, though? This is what the players wanted, and the industry listened. They asked for support for the game after its release, and the industry said "Sure, but in exchange at least some of you should pay extra".
This isn't forced upon anybody. Just because Mazaratis exist doesn't mean that you have to buy one if you want a car. It only becomes a moral problem if somebody's choices are circumvented, but that's not really what's happening here.