SmoothIsFast @ SmoothIsFast @citizensgaming.com

Posts

0

Comments

238

Joined

2 yr. ago

Because you are forgetting about framing the narrative. Fox doesn't need to tell its base about shit, just point to events in the past about how dems blocked GOP initiatives while parroting on about how great the GOP is for crossing isles to get something passed. They won't tell the whole story and their base isn't gonna search out the truth, they are gonna eat up what fox and the like serve up on a platter for them.

No but she also doesn't need to for her base, in fact it works better when they play the idiot stooge. It makes them relatable to their base and makes them seem incompetent to the opposition, to have such a naive take doesn't help us when we are actively fighting a fascist takeover.

Well, that's sad to hear. I remember playing it in the beginning, and most of the servers I joined at least tried to protect the environment. I guess times have changed, it's been a few years since I actively played it.

Have you ever tried out the game ECO?

Realistically because they could care less about opposing the dems if it keeps their power. If they actually tried some reverse psychology shit like that the GOP would happily let it pass and show how they are more bipartisan than those 'filthy' liberals. They aren't all complete idiots, they are fascists trying to dismantle our democracy.

The problem is that those nuggets of content are near impossible to find on today's YouTube unless you had found them before all the ai bloat channels using ai to crank out videos of nothing.

How about people pay attention to local elections? The reason we are not seeing funding for EV infrastructure is most small towns can be bought by the local dealership family who would rather see continued profits from ICE vehicle maintenance and not investments into EV infrastructure, then it conviently sides with this bullshit narrative of nothing can be sold and we have no infrastructure so give up on EVs.

Thanks, fixed!

Single player games rarely need or demand "continued support" and player numbers aren't indicative of that

Sure maybe if the gaming industry didn't constantly release buggy broken messes. But alas that's not the world we live in and is very much a metric I care about to know whether or not a game is going to become abandonware or at least have community support if the developer won't. These metrics allow that community or developer to understand if there is a player base which would benefit or a market to keep selling to. So yes they add value for players.

Single player player numbers aren't indicative about things getting a sequel, low player count games get sequels, high player count games don't get sequels. It has no direct bearing.

They very much are if the game is single player based. Acting as if demand is not a reason for games to get sequels or the budgets which come from player sales is not relevant is completely naive. Yes companies can run into financial hardships, get acquired and all manner of other circumstances that can lead to development being stopped whether there was an active player base or not. That's not what these metrics represent and can give you an idea of what ip might get cut if a studio is acquired. They are useful and helpful, and I like to see those counts for my own understanding.

If you want to check if there are guides you can just Google it, it's a lot more useful to just Google it. Then you'll actually know instead of guessing.

Sure that used to work before SEO has killed search results, it's quicker to check a player count on steam then to wade through garbage ai generated articles to find out if there is an active community following the game. It's not a guess either if there are many people playing then there will be demand for content on YouTube or other platforms which means I can find guides.

Knowing single player, player counts is really just for vague curiosity. There's no real use to it.

The only reason to hide it is to trick users to get abandon ware games or obscure how bad a game is doing. Keeping those stats up gives you valuable information, as I have pointed out. You are arguing in bad faith here and I honestly don't know why unless you have some gatcha game on steam that you want to hide player stats on to hopefully drive some sales which is disingenuous.

Sure you do, is it going to get continued support due to a big enough player base? Is the game gonna get a sequel from its popularity? Are there plenty of guides out due to the player count?

There is definetly more nuance to showing player numbers ffs.

Edit: fixed my do due spelling errors

The problem isn't the funding it's people's reactions. Why slave away for someone else's company even if it provides utility for your society if you can survive and even thrive creatively on UBI? What happens then, do we get worse class warefare then we have now? What happens when people realize most of what can be automated away at current levels are executive and CEO positions? When they leave with Golden parachutes are you gonna ask for UBI for them? No then we have set a precedent legally for those automated away jobs to not receive UBI or you just facilitated more capitalistic greed for those executives. Is UBI setup on a global scale? No then how do you enforce dual citizenship individuals from collecting UBI and working another job remotely from the second nation they are registered with creating inefficiencies in our program with could make it a target for regressive policies. Think Republicans constantly saying illegals are stealing our benefits so we should block them and cut funding to the programs, how do we defend against those attacks? I mean I can keep going, but the problem is how do we implement this without everything being automated and create a fair and equitable system for all involved? While it would be nice to just throw money at everyone you need to take into account individuals reactions to this. We aren't in a vacuum and yet we isolate ourselves in echo chambers as if our perspectives are the only ones out there, we loose nuance by doing this and then get aggravated something isn't done because the cause of that nuance isn't even on our radar from lacking communication with other people who have differing views and opinions.

I would say it is sustainable IF it's rolled out properly, if you are only just barely given enough to survive, your not going to take risks for creatiivities sake and end up going back to a grind of some sort to get that slightly more sustainable odds. The real big problem is how do we deal with the jobs that can't be automated? How does society react to after spending decades training in order to specialize in something so they can survive cope with others who can now thrive without it? Do we see massive unemployment from critical organizations/companies as workers decide to indulge in their passions on UBI instead of slave away for a sustainable living? Do we need to wait until all jobs can be automated before this is even possible, or does the society we have today collaspe? These are some of the actual difficulties with rolling out UBI and a proper solution has to address them for them to be sustainable. As it sits I don't know if we even are at a level to do much, most ai would be good for say being a CEO or high level executive looking at trends and creating a curve essentially to fit the data points those trends are creating. But how would people react to CEOs getting obsoleted and collecting UBI with their golden parachutes still? Probably pretty damn fucking badly, calling for UBI to be abolished or some shit and you wouldn't see much resistance as the share holders can eventually reap in the profits when we created precedent for no UBI related to jobs that AI/automation took over. So you need protections there first but our governments are reactive and not proactive. Sure maybe an authoritarian regime could enforce it but now you have to hope you have a benevolent dictator, which is pretty much an oxymoron, and they would need the foresight to leave democracy in there absence. Not to mention that force would need to be a global government or other economies still based on capitalism ideals without UBI are going to take advantage of their position leading to unsustainablity and eventual collaspe. We have a lot of fucking work a head of us but if you were to compare hunter gathers to today's societies and advancements it would almost seem impossible. I don't expect UBI or full on automation to make it into our societies without some sort of societal collaspe first that allows us to rebuild with the understandings of our current systems failures clearly documented. I think we are many generations off from that rebuilt society even if we bear witness to our societies collapse in the upcoming generations. But I agree it would signify a huge advancement in humanity and probably give us the foundations to truly become a type 1 civilization and set the stages for possible advancements to a type 2 civilization. But we are not there yet, unfortunately.

I actually don't agree that is is unsustainable, I was just pointing out the logical falicy. It's a weird thing to say that "paying a person to do a newly unnecessary job is unsustainable", especially in the context of AI. It doesn't make sense to complain about something when the only proposed solution is doing the exact same thing in a more roundabout way.

As the other person was getting at its not a logical fallacy. One is having wasted potential ( workers doing jobs that should be automated away ) the other is capitalizing on that new found potential by giving them the means to survive maybe even thrive if we actually get UBI right. One is unsustainable as you are paying to keep appearances up for no positive benefit, the other frees a market of labor to do creative and inventive tasks that can further humanity and provide even more benefit.

Correct but that screen real-estate isn't the biggest issue as you generally have the phone and controller fairly close to your eyes, at an optimal viewing distance. Plus, I can stream up to 4k on my device or 1080p at 120fps if I wanted to stream from my pc. Think monitor vs TV gaming. Viewing distance is much more important than screen size on its own.

The thing is they are only targeting that small market for PS5 gamers, they don't want to compete in the handheld market and possibly loose those customers who would be happy with just a ps5 remote play experience vs a better more expensive device. I get it, they don't have to have as many competitors and it makes it slightly cheaper versus the non dedicated competitors giving them a niche area to sell to.

I mean it's an 8in 1080p touch screen display at 60hz, the panel is probably around $60, the hardware is probably like a pi zero so $20, and a controller $70. So just on hardware this is probably around $120 after taking into account supply chain discounts. Then, manufacturing costs, and they probably don't even have that high of a profit margin on the device. Add in a $100 for the actually chip set and yeah you get more features but it's not that crazy imo. Just a niche market for sure.

It's just a $200 pro controller with a screen. I don't think it's gonna have a massive market, but for what it is, it's not entirely terrible. Not everyone has a phone with a large screen so upgrading to a $1k phone is not a move they can make, but $200 for what's basically an extra controller with an 8in display is not terrible just very niche.

Edit: If you just want a screen controller combo for streaming, there are a myriad of android based options littered in the space for nearly the same cost and similar screen size.

They do sell like $5 phone clips for controllers now a days as some mobile games are adding more controller support. But if for you an extra inch or two of screen real estate for the display is worth $200 then that's your position, it just seems like the market share for that will be pretty damn niche. Like the nvidia shield I don't expect it to be around for to long so if you do want this you better get one while they make em but know once the ps5 is done support for this will die out as well.

My phone is nearly a 7in screen, I could Bluetooth connect a Playstation controller and have the exact same functionality, using the hardware I already have. I get that if you don't have a phone with a bigger screen then this becomes more of a proposition as getting a newer device with a larger screen is gonna be north of $1k USD, so spending $200 to get a portable display and extra controller in a sense is not that bad value wise. I do see where people are seeing it being wasteful as other devices are capable just not at the same level, the only thing I'm wondering is how big is the market of people who wouldn't rather get a $5 phone holder for their ps5 controller and just use their phone. I see a couple people in this thread here but if most realized they could get a similar experience for $5 for a plastic phone clip would this really look as enticing?

I wonder if it's just instances going down for a while, I know the one i am on goes down every now and then, and sometimes takes over a week to get back and running. I could see something like that causing the active users to fluctuate, especially if they wait a month before realizing their instance wasn't deleted.