pjhenry1216 @ pjhenry1216 @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

938

Joined

2 yr. ago

If it has been done after school, they'd complain about police interrupting dinner. This was a no win situation. I guess they could have asked the parents to bring the kid in, but I don't see why white glove service is required for an ugly crime like that.

Don't threaten to kill people and you won't be 'shamed' by getting arrested at school.

Can we stop the overuse and over-generalization of "enshitification" which Doctorow had given very explicit meaning to in regards to social networks? It does not simply mean commoditization which is not quite the same but almost synonymous with 'race to the bottom's in regards of trying to increase revenue while simultaneously decreasing costs.

Edit: I'll admit narrowing to "social networks" is a bit too narrow, but the point still stands that it's for two way platforms where there are "two markets." Phillips Hue does not have a two sided market.

I honestly don't know how that interpretation was possible in the given context. It was mentioned in direct response to someone saying "Divinity of sin 2" and I corrected it.

Yes they do. They used to buy exclusive rights back during PS2 days but eventually both MS and Sony realized it's cheaper to just buy the studios. Sony has only a small number fewer acquisitions than Microsoft. Both companies have always bought exclusivity.

Sony and Microsoft used to pay for exclusives without buying the studios. So there's no real meat to the argument that "oh, the games were always exclusive because first party" or whatever. The consoles didn't really buy that many game studios until relatively recently in gaming history. They would pay a studio to not release on other platforms. This whole buying studios thing was just cheaper in the long run. So there's no real argument to be made about Sony just making better first party games. That's what they do now given that they own the studios. Both companies are guilty of buying out studios.

Exclusives pre-dating the PS1 was more out of lack of technology. No cross platform tech really existed. There wasn't a lot of crossover. Many platforms didn't last more than a generation or two. There wasn't even much cross over in the kind of games. If you liked fighting games, you bought a Sega over Nintendo for example. With the PlayStation, they competed against Sega first, Nintendo as more an afterthought. Xbox came in later to compete against PlayStation 2. The Nintendo 64 was just a different class, and even later, the GameCube. With Xbox and PlayStation, they had similar amounts of power and restraints (an N64 cartridge could not compete from a technical perspective against the storage of discs, plus multi-disc games could exist, not really feasible with cartridges) plus abstraction technology was more advanced and one could more easily write cross platform code. Now, you either had to pay for an exclusive or simply hope they only had the intent to target one platform (whether through preference or resource limitations). So the console wars really started to heat up after the death of Dreamcast and mainly between Sony and MS. Exclusivity wasn't via first party existed, but not to s great extent beyond their flagship games.

So, tldr, exclusivity has always been acquired via money and buying them. It's easy to say it's about developing better first party once those studios were bought outright to begin with. That's how most first party titles exist now.

Ok? But your experience doesn't change what the number one reason given is though? Sure, I don't get Pixel phone anymore either because two in a row failed on me, but I don't go around telling everyone "no one buys pixel phones because they die easily"

If it doesn’t get it

Then we get great titles from other studios that just repackage the same shit day in and day out.

You don't expect that from Sony so why expect it elsewhere? Sony started this game, gamers lauded them and rewarded them for doing it. Microsoft tried to not do that, and got beat down further than they had when they tried playing that game against Sony. Gamers wanted exclusives. Microsoft is providing that. You voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party and now are surprised leopards are eating your face.

This was a forgone conclusion for awhile now. Folks are just upset because Microsoft has an exclusive that Sony gamers want to play. Boo fucking hoo. I'm pissed it came to this, but gamers did this. I'm angry about it, but I don't feel sorry for gamers as a whole about it.

I'm well aware of that. That's why I named it. They said "Divinity of Sin 2". I was asking if they meant Divinity: Original Sin 2 and if it went by a different name in other markets. I thought that was clear. I'm not sure how you got to think I was asking what it is.

You're confusing actual institutions with its philosophy.

Capitalism is also not the only system to distribute resources. Capitalism isn't concerned with anything as it's not an actual living thing. But to pretend that it doesn't incentivize ruthlessness or greed is simply untrue.

It was expected to be a second release after being a Stadia exclusive. This isn't judging quality, just impact.

Edit: and let's not pretend by adding "far below" when it was in the same group. And the ranking isn't even totally based on expected sales. The asking prices and the levels aren't in order. You're misinterpreting one quote entirely incorrectly and trying assuming too much from a chart.

It's outselling is what caused Microsoft to not deny it. It originally denied it because they had a rule that games needed feature parity with both Series X and S. BG3 split screen couldn't be done on S. The massive success is what led them to relax the rule. And virtually no one saw this level of success coming from within the gaming industry, including the developers themselves.

Edit: I just realized this is being upset about Starfield.

That is totally the fault of gamers. The biggest reason given for buying a PS5 over Xbox was exclusives. What the fuck did you think was going to happen? Sony started the exclusives battle and continually came out ahead. Obviously MS is going to fight. Making exclusives such an important decision in console purchases drove exclusives to be important overall. There's no sense in being upset that the industrynis literally responded to gamer's actions and stated motivations.

easily gauge how it was going.

Except virtually everyone got it wrong still. Even the head of Larian thought it'd top out at 100k max. That's currently it's average now with it's max being more than 800% higher.

BG is a big IP, but it's never had this level of success. Look at Diablo III's release (similar IP with a long break between games). It had better advertising campaign and still kind of became noise fairly quickly. Game news sites barely covered BG3 until it hit it big.

Microsoft definitely undershot, but it was likely basing it on a lot of the aggregated news as well. It had barely any coverage prior to its official release. This is usually a sign that the game will be mediocre.

Larian is a big studio but its last expected game from its really only known IP was cancelled after being put on hold for four years (granted BG3 was also being developed during this time). It's biggest games prior to this got at least partially funded on Kickstarter (not a knock against KS, but it's not generally seen as the sign of a strong studio to exec-types).

I don't blame an executive for not seeing this coming.

Executives obviously didn't see this coming. But neither did game journalists or even gamers.

Its a mistake in hindsight, but with what everyone generally knew at the time, it was the expectation of most.

Tbf, a lot of people misjudged it, including Larian. I don't think a lot of people really believed the "choices and decisions matter" would work as well as it did. Prior to release, I read an article that talked about how it was gonna be neat that the in-game news would update based on your actions. Like, that was the noteworthy function to discuss about the game. "NPCs might talk about your actions in passing to each other".

Did Microsoft underestimate it more than others? Sure. But pretending like every corporation, including Larian, didn't underestimate it a whole lot is a bit crazy.

Edit: and isn't the game Divinity: Original Sin II? Did it have other names in other international markets?

Edit: this was submitted as a response to https://lemmy.world/comment/3615435 but Kbin didn't seem to actually tie them together. It shows me that it was written as a reply on Kbin, but seems to have lost connection to the comment hierarchy.

Regulation is still useful. You're basically arguing for anarchy with your naive take. When a system advances the idea to exploit people, the system is fundamentally flawed. Will all systems have abuse? Sure. But that doesn't mean "you will dislike all systems, so it's irrelevant if one is better or worse."

Ok, and we still create laws to combat it. I don't think "evil always existed, so let's not have the FDA because it's not that we're protecting citizens from bad food, but simply from evil."

This is such a weird "I'm 14 and this is deep" take.

I've seen a sudden influx of memes all about this and I don't know why. It's suddenly the new trend and I don't understand it.

What did they convert to? I can't tell if this is a joke I just don't understand or what

ChatGPT is why the public is scrambling about AI. AI art has been around awhile and there's always been complaining because its lame compared to real artists. This has fuck all to do with it suddenly being open source AI.

I'd imagine it's something that can be turned on and off, just like it's stealth technology.

Edit: to further expand on this, finding the downed plane is a lot more important than it sounds. This could technically be classified as spillage considering there is classified tech in an F35. Foreign agents would benefit if they found it first. I'm pretty sure there are recon teams trained to recover downed aircraft in military zones. Considering they still are equipped with radio for communication, I'd imagine even just an encrypted message at time of impact could be useful.

Losing a plane over friendly zones shouldn't have to worry about having a beacon that's always on. I fail to understand why it would be silly to believe one could be useful in a jet fighter, stealth or not. I'd imagine it's likely even present but just defunct for whatever reason in this scenario and details can't be revealed about that, as again, it still contains classified technology.