“It would be too complicated” == “Our company keeps losing money in frivolous court battles, so we have to remove planned content to sell it back to you later on to double dip on you paying us money for content that was supposed to be in the base game.”

Just you watch, Nintendo is gonna get a free pass. Ubisoft and EA do this all the time and get called out for it, but when Nintendo does it for some reason its a different story.

Reminder that the ESA represents businesses that have a direct financial incentive to do stuff like this.

They do not represent consumers nor do they side with them, literally ever.

Wouldn’t be smart to create so much self competition by flooding the market with so many games, even from just a single publisher. People wouldn’t have enough time or money to buy and play them all. The business side would end up losing more money than it makes, which would easily lead to a death spiral of firing people into studio closure.

At smaller studio sizes of less than 100, one single studio in today’s market could easily be generating 10 games per year or more. But a publisher might have 20 or more studios. That’s 200+ games per year from just a single publisher. Now expand that to multiple publishers, and we haven’t even mentioned the infinite indie games that release each year. Games already get drowned out of sales and thats with AAA barely releasing a handful of games each year. It would be much harder to gain any marketshare if so many more games were released in just one year.

Truly a mystery even science cannot explain.

For this particular game I can only imagine physical sales were from gamblers that wanted a future collectible like E.T. Atari cartridges and actually predicted correctly.

Why? Then the devs you love would be controlled by investors and shareholders. You won’t be likely to get the games you love anymore.

AAA studios already have the ability to fix the problem, they just don’t want to:

• Fire more people to reduce studio size, there is no reason to have more than like 150 people, realistically
• Focus on smaller projects that can be developed faster
• Put all the game content in the game at launch
• Smaller game means less dev time and more and better bug fixing
• Make a fun game first, then decide the details

For some reason they think that retaining every single employee and developing impossibly huge games is more important though.

Yeah, I know it isn’t But even you must admit, our genre is dry as a desert. We take what we can get, even if it’s not exactly a flight sim it can be close enough to scratch the itch.

Theres that whole Star Wars Genesis total conversion mod that changes basically everything, yeah. I haven’t tried it myself yet, but it makes a lot of changes.

Though honestly if those are all your complaints, it seems like you don’t want to play the game regardless, whether its modded or not. You just want to play a completely different game. That’s like asking if adding various spices and switching different kinds of cheeses makes a Cheeseburger into a Lobster dinner.

Well, if you ignore mods maybe. But now there are a lot of mods that can fix everything. The problem is it is pretty time consuming to get all the mods set up and its not very user friendly to need to use mods from the start of the game.

Us space flight sim enjoyers like that kind of thing. When Starfield was announced we kinda expected it to be a default feature, so obviously when we saw it wasnt a feature it was disappointing.

Nintendo has basically always favored the Japanese market. This isn’t unexpected.

Well as I said, this would be for an additional game mode for replayability, not the primary story mode.

Randomized content for a game like Danganronpa would be significantly more complex than Blade Runner. If a human/humans were programming it, each NPC (of which there are at least 18) would need their own randomizable schedule of daily activities, each would need their own dialogue lines which would easily number into the tens of thousands at least, and each would need the capability to commit a crime which is not witnessed by the player. The necessary variety of crime events would need to be very large to avoid the standard problem of procedural generation always feeling samey/generic, written by a human or not. Without large variety, it would feel like dungeons in Daggerfall.

I mean yeah, a human probably could make that, but by the time they actually finished the content, the hardware their game is designed to run on would be considered “historically significant.” It would easily take so long to develop that that it would not be worth the time investment. Unless they made serious content cuts, which would result in a pretty repetitive feeling final product. I dont see a reason that a specifically trained AI could fill in for the immense level of variety needed for that.

Not that it really matters anyway, because I don’t think anything exists that could run that performantly on a local device. Also the amount of time and data required to train something like that is probably not worth the time or cost investment either. Like I said before, I don’t think current AI is sufficiently advanced enough for implementation. It would need further development, and if it did get further developed I could see a potential for it. But not right now, as I previously stated. And honestly it would probably need so long to develop that businesses will probably either have given up on AI (hopefully) or I won’t be alive anymore to see it happen.

I think that it would be highly dependant on how the AI model is trained and what genre of game it is implemented into. For example, games that more heavily rely on dialogue or social interaction.

Take Danganronpa, which is a series if linear narrative games about students trapped in a school forced to kill each other (and get way with it) to escape. You as the player have to investigate each murder and arrive at who the culprit was to win the game. They are fun on your first playthrough, but on any subsequent playthrough you already know the solutions. Like playing Clue but the game only ever has one outcome: Mr. Green, in the Library, with the Lead Pipe. You wouldn’t even have to open the game box and you already know. Absolutely zero replayability.

With an AI in such a game, you could have a new gamemode, like a New Game+, which players can play after the hand-crafted story. This is where I think something like a very carefully trained LLM could be useful, because it could create these kinds of situations at random, making them unpredictable and therefore adding replay value. Now, I don’t think AI is currently sufficiently advanced for this use, but if it continues to develop I could see that niche making good use of it.

I dont mean to say something that supports eugenics., because I don’t.

Raising a child is way more complex than learning how to use a comupter. If a person has learning disabilities so severe that they cannot learn how to use a computer, then it would be wildly irresponsible for them to raise a child, because doing so is more complex. I am not saying that people with learning disabilities shouldn’t be allowed have children. That was never an argument.

My whole point was that there is basically no excuse to not be tech savvy these days, except for an extreme case which is exempt from the argument.

Not everyone has the ability to be tech savvy.

This is not true. Everyone has the ability to be tech savvy, except perhaps people with severe learning disabilities. Which, if that is the case, they shouldn’t be having children, thus making them irrelevant to this discussion. [EDIT: Apparently I have to edit this here because people are locking in on this singular sentence and misunderstanding this calling it an argument for eugencis. That is not the argument, and never was. My point was that it would be irresponsible to raise children if you cannot learn how to use a computer because raising a child is so much more complex. Thus “shouldn’t have children” in this context is the same as “shouldn’t cross the street” when a car is coming: you can, but it would be very irresponsible.]

People have to care enough to actually try to learn. Learning tech is not difficult. But too many people don’t care enough to want to even try. Because trying takes effort, and people these days only do whatever is easiest.

I mean, why actually parent your kid when you can sit them down in front of an iPad all day and make the government create laws that make businesses and schools responsible for raising them? Why take on the responsibility of your conscious choice to create a new human when you can just shove it all onto someone else who can take the blame when that inevitably fails? Kids take up your free time; why deal with that when you can drop them into the daycare called Roblox and then do whatever you actually wanted to do without needing to supervise your kid?

Additionally, sometimes you can’t have a certain kind of parental control on something, thats true. The solution? Either the kid can use it while the parent actively watches them, or they aren’t allowed to use it at all. Kid is visiting webpages they aren’t supposed to? DNS block those sites. RaspberryPi community might even have something like a PiHole but for blocking outgoing network traffic to certain URLs, or maybe even a PiHole might work for that, IDK. Everything has a work around, but there are ways to make things difficult for someone that isn’t eventually going to end up a computer science major.

Basically every Nintendo DS and 3DS game, to make them playable on a single screen with a regular controller.

I have a DS Lite and New 3DS XL (the Metroid edition), and I am over the touch screen. It gets scratched up, is discolored, and makes using the device annoying and uncomfortable because of its weight. Would much rather be able to play the games on a single screen without those elements. Yes, that would mean some heavy changes for some games, but I would consider it worthwhile.

Ok, well I mean if its blocked for you, doesn’t getting mad about it defeat the purpose of blocking it?

“I blocked my ex, but I just know they are talking to other people and that makes me mad.” I know it’s maybe not the same level of severity, but I mean, what’s the point of blocking if you don’t move on after?

Well my point is that it just seems that rewarding giving money seems to go against the intention of the Fediverse.

People giving money because they want the social clout/status symbol, versus people that give because they want something cool to succeed. Y’know?

Like… a blue checkmark?

Why can’t you just block the instances you don’t like on your preferred client? That’s what I do, and I don’t see comments from any user account on any instance I block. I think defederation should be reserved only for the most absolute eggregious problem instances. Instances the CP spammers were from, if you were around for that in the early days here, for example.

As long as they aren’t spamming CP and brigading to vandalize posts and stuff, I don’t think any instance should be defederated, even if I dont agree with the users there.

Like, I find Blahaj instance users generally annoying. I have never had a positive interaction I can remember with a Blahaj instance user. I can remember quite a few negative ones though. But I don’t think Blahaj should be defederated. I just blocked the instance on my client and now I don’t see any of their posts or comments (except via modlog, mod view, etc), they can still access communities here, and users here can still access communities there. Wins all around. My personal opinion shouldn’t be a reason to remove everyone elses access to an instance they might like.