Jeffool @ Jeffool @lemmy.world

Hobbyist gamedev, moderator of /c/GameDev, TV news producer/journalist by t

---

Read more

Posts

12

Comments

139

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well now you've also heard: I thought it an unapologetically heartfelt show, and I really enjoyed it despite expecting saccharine bullshit. It didn't hold the quality all three seasons, but that's not because it's bad, but rather because the first season (and even the second,) is so good. I enjoyed it completely. But hey, it's not for everyone.

This is exactly why I said:

But I think it's worth communicating that we all understand new government regulation is likely going to be a pain in the ass. We just think it's worth the pain/money.

Game Pass obviously and absolutely affects game sales. At the same time this conversation only happens because we're comparing "the industry with Game Pass" to "games at face value". That second one only lasted 10-15-ish years. Before that, there was "the industry with game rentals". Blockbuster was also absolutely eating up some sales.

But game rentals were often seen as a "try before you buy" case to many, as you may want to play a game more than 3-5 days. So maybe the answer is don't lease your game to Game Pass for a year at a time. Just offer it for a month or three. (Also make an easy way for the non-technical to export/import saves.) This also would let Microsoft make more deals for more games in their rotation. Seems like a shorter time helps everyone out.

I think your response is coming off as kinda "oh just do it different". But that still means an entire industry of people are going to have to change how they make things. (And still spend time and money evaluating things at the end, just to be sure nothing slipped through.) I'm in favor of this at least being looked at and honest conversations happening, (which will not happen without this.) But there will certainly be an adjustment period where people on ground level learn and develop new "best practices". And invariably someone will screw up. The companies are obviously only worried about money. They'll get over it, is my opinion. But I think it's worth communicating that we all understand new government regulation is likely going to be a pain in the ass. We just think it's worth the pain/money. And that's open sourcing or just creating a new mode for offline play in everything.

Meanwhile I'm still over here dorfing life away.

I get you! I was bigger into copyright some 20-30 years ago myself when we would've all been on Slashdot.

To that end, I was WRONG in my post, I think I was conflating two things, and for that, I'm sorry. I was certainly thinking in part about Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley (2001). That was the case that decided that the software DeCSS was illegal, and you could distribute the software. I was thinking that while the court did agree with Universal over the software, that it did not find that breaking DRM on a product you owned was inherently illegal. (I legit think this was a "take" at the time. Probably wouldn't hold up in court these days, sadly.) And I did find that years later the Library of Congress offered exemptions for breaking DRM on some hardware (vehicles, medical devices,) but I believe even those were temporary and have since lapsed.

Sorry I spoke so surely about something I was wrong about.

/edit: I was WRONG. This is my memory failing me. I explain it further below, and apologize for wasting any time.

After the DMCA passed there was a case of a judge finding it legal to bypass DRM to make backup copies, but illegal to distribute the software used to do so. I have no idea if there was ever further clarification or new law about this. That was like 20 years ago. It was part of a case going after the company who was making the software, but the name slips my mind. I'll try to look it up if anyone cares enough and wants to look for something more than hearsay on a forum.

C̴̖͕̟̦̣̝̟̠̺̋̋͐̈̀́̚o̴̯͈̠͉̮̾͛̅̔͘n̶̡͎͙̻̹̮͔͓̩̟͆̏ͅg̷̝̰̹̝̙̻̺̭̲͍̜̾̾r̷̢̢̭̟̤̥̭̹̊̏̀̽̒̚͠͝a̴̧͇͕͍͇͐t̷̤̫̙̦̩̘̚͠u̵̞͚̝͗͂̉̓̆́͑̈́̇̚l̸̢͕͕̘͕̮̼̔͝a̷͉̯̥͉̦̱̋̌͘t̵̢̛̙̯̬̮̘̖̗̳̲̗̺̳̙̣̰͖͋̔͑̀͛͘͝i̴̡̤͓̹̞̗̪̗̜̜̝̟͔̰͇̺͇͛͛̋̒̋̍͑̽͂͠o̷̢̨̧͈̰̪͙̊ņ̵͎͈̉͑͊̂ͅs̷̨̝̣̭̭̫̜̳̝͍̪̔̆̄͂̃̽̚͝͝!̵̢̛̰͚̃̿̈́̈́̃̿͗̽͌̓̈́̀͊̿̚͘

I'm glad you're involved enough to know this and care about it. I'm 44 and have no kids, so take this with a huge grain of salt... But I'd probably let my kid keep it. At 16 you can just sit them down and have a talk with them about it. (And it sounds like you have.) Let them know this means his friend's family has money that he does not, and you do not.

Let him know that he shouldn't take advantage of his friend's cavalier attitude and kindness, nor should he let his friend's familial wealth pressure him. He should appreciate this, but not expect it, or feel guilty about it. And let him know this is a complex thing, and if they need to talk about it, it's better they approach you to talk about it early rather than late.

Underscore that this is squarely his friend's parents money, not his friend's. It can come and go at any time, and that's okay. Value the friendship more than the money, and if that changes, don't accept such gifts.

My folks would invite a cousin my age over for the night before Christmas when we were all in our mid teens. The next morning he would things like clothes, shoes, and an electric razor; things a young guy needs. My folks were not rich, just lower middle class and able to help out. It's a different situation than you're in. But if this family of your child's friend has money and wants to spread the love and is capable of doing so in an adult and healthy way, I personally think 16 is an age at which someone can begin to deal with the complex dynamics of monetary differences.

You know your kid better than us strangers online. And remember, they also have you on their side. Growing up is going to be difficult anyway. Just be there for them when they need it, and they'll probably be fine.

Edit: And also maybe get to know the other set of parents better. Explain to them you're appreciative of their kindness, and so does your son, but that your concern is just that you don't want it to create an awkward dynamic between your children in the future. Again 16 is young adult, but still a kid, so I understand your concern. They probably will to.

I imagine if the multimillionaires are feeling it, the billionaires already are as well. They're probably just better at keeping quiet about such things

Most of our banks have Zelle, which lets us send money from one bank account directly to another. You can to use the associated email address, phone number, or name. I think it shows you the name on the account? I'm honestly not positive as I so rarely use it. But even then you could create a business account. But not many people use it. Most people prefer Paypal, CashApp, or Venmo.

My first thought was "hey, I'm down for that!" and churros and a ton of other things. But ultimately you're right. I'm still down for ice cream while it's snowing.

Sadly this isn't new, and hospitals are an example that comes to mind for me. At least one in particular. In 2007 there was a huge scandal about the treatment of US soldiers at Walter Reed, which was thought of as one of the top military hospitals. The initial reporting was from the Washington Post and largely focused on how the privatization of care and the contracting process itself had failed the patients so horribly.

I vaguely recall that building upkeep was delayed years because of contracting issues, and that the staff was slashed from hundreds (plural) to less than a hundred, claiming they couldn't find qualified candidates. There were complaints about rats, roaches, and black mold. I'm also fairly certain there was a story of one guy saying he was handed a shitty photocopy of the grounds and it took him hours walking around in a hospital gown to find his room. Two weeks later he found the person who was supposed to be running his case, and the case manager said they had no idea where the patient had been those two weeks.

Looking now, Wikipedia doesn't even mention privatization or contracting issues. The one (2010) complaint of this on the Talk page gets a reply saying "well the military was ultimately responsible for holding those contractors accountable," and it ends there. Not wrong, but still feels like it's not giving a full account of the story.

Obviously this is just conjecture now, but honestly the staffing part reminds me just like how, as I'm job hunting now, I notice companies keep posting the same ads, saying they can't find anyone who wants to work, while offering peanuts for very high requirements, and getting hundreds of applications. I'm sure lots of them aren't qualified, but I'm confident some of them are. I've even been offered significantly less than my last job paid, for a position (at a different employer) that would've been a manager for my previous level. I can only imagine how crazy it gets in the medical field.

I recall the gumball machine at my childhood barber being a penny in the mid 1980s. I don't recall when it went up exactly, but it was around then. I was born in 80 so I was pretty young when it happened. But yeah, even then the convenience store in the middle of town had a candy aisle with lots of 5 cent candy that made picking up pennies worthwhile.

I also remember in the later 80s when I began reading them, comics were $0.75 each. Over the next 15 years they went to $3, until I was in college and my comic habit was just too expensive, so I stopped the monthlies completely.

Like a lot of others, my biggest gripe is the accepted copyright violation for the wealthy. They should have to license data (text, images, video, audio,) for their models, or use material in the public domain. With that in mind, in return I'd love to see pushes to drastically reduce the duration of copyright. My goal is less about destroying generative AI, as annoying as it is, and more about leveraging the money being it to change copyright law.

I don't love the environmental effects but I think the carbon output of OpenAI is probably less than TikTok, and no one cares about that because they enjoy TikTok more. The energy issue is honestly a bigger problem than AI. And while I understand and appreciate people worried about throwing more weight on the scales, I'm not sure it's enough to really matter. I think we need bigger "what if" scenarios to handle that.

Tetris, Dwarf Fortress, Quake (if I can bring tons of mods,) Portal 2 (if I can download use maps,) and probably Baldurs Gate 3 so I would finally play it.

If I can't bring all those additions, then substitute Portal 2 with Kerbal Space Program. But I'd keep Quake.

The Google Maps app already shows what it wants instead of what's nearby. Now the Gmail app shows you what they want you to see instead of ordering by date. I imagine the goal is just to replace everything with a "Google" button. You just type in words and hug "Google", and it serves up its own info instead of anyone else's pages. Sigh.

All I can say is be the change you want to see. Submit posts, maybe mod a community. I'm doing !gamedev, and it gets political sometimes, like any career field, but it is what it is.

Maybe you want a Marvel community, or whatever. Find your interest and dive in!

I always wanted to do a podcast called Just Jeffs, where I interview other Jeffs. But I'd love it if they used the name instead.

I'll say this: props to Fandom for realizing the right thing to do. I know there was really no other good solution for them, but that hasn't stopped many companies from being so obstinate that they cut their nose off to spite their face.

But more seriously, good for those guys buying it. I hope it goes well for them.