951–960 of 981 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Valve is still working on new things. See this section, specifically the bottom. https://box2d.org/posts/2026/06/announcing-box3d/#valve-to-t...
So not games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is focused on AI and enterprise sales. I don't think they're institutionally capable of making a good end-user experience. You might just as well ask why SAP makes bad UIs - it's because the executives just don't really care.
Azure is laughably bad. I'm genuinely at a loss to name a good recent Microsoft product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it appears to be very stressful from what I can tell. sounds like there is a win-win in there somewhere. I wonder what that would look like. for real though, what are we talking about here? 30k a day is not enough because ... habits? plus, it's incredibly hard to spend that much. that's exactly why, after a certain point, it's basically impossible to get rid of wealth.
What does enough mean? That's why I didn't use that word. Beans and rice is enough, but I'm glad I can afford nicer food. I don't need as large a house as I have and yet my house is modest by modern standards, and I would like larger. I'm not arguing your idea that there is a point where you no longer can find anything to spend money on. However that point is different for different wealthy people and I don't know an…
I can't argue the point as well as educated economists can. I'd like to point you to Gabriel Zucman, for instance. What really got me in the end is this: he proposes a 2% wealth tax. It's not a number out of thin air, he actually reasons very well how he got there. You know how much the average billionaire wealth increased over the last years, annually? It's 6%. So it's not even suggesting "you need to have less". It's suggesting "you should accumulate more a little slower than before".
Also, sorry, I really can't emphasise with people who got so used to having a yacht that they cannot imagine life without one anymore. It's peak consumerism, individualism, capitalism. My take is that we need to rethink _some_ things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was 100% chasing the Wii. It didn't chase all that hard, either.
I might be looking at the Kinect with rose-tinted glasses, but bringing depth and camera-based pose tracking to the masses in 2010 is pretty impressive. Sure they were chasing the Wii, but they did try to innovate on the hardware and capability front, and back then VR was nascent, but investing in this area for gaming made sense then (it was very easy to imagine VR games being the 'next big thing'). Unlike Nintendo,…
Not so much the game itself so much as the excuse for the masses to buy a console for a game even grandpa can play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
death stranding made just moving through the game world engaging and challenging. and on top of that it has very satisfying combat mechanics and async multiplayer gameplay elements. yeah the game has long cinematic cutscenes, but i do not see how that detracts from the actual gameplay
> ...on top of that it has very satisfying combat mechanics... Man, the sequel made the combat totally trivial. I'm at the sequel's "Episode 10", and I've the opinion that DS2 took nearly everything that anyone ever complained about in Death Stranding and made it effectively optional. I don't like the decision, but I'm still enjoying the game. > yeah the game has long cinematic cutscenes... It really wouldn't be a Ko…
that said especially the ending is such a unique experience i cant say i didnt have a great time anyways
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many reasons: - Investors bail - You run out of cash
Not exactly - stocks are already sold, you don't run out of cash from the stock price going down. You only run out of cash if you want to sell more stock to raise more cash (this happens, but it is somewhat rare). However the owners are still going to be mad because their cash is down and they will demand changes to fix that.
Not to mention a company with thin margins is going to have a hell of a time raising money through debt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, and plenty of companies have made that mistake. But the point is locking up money in a 3% margin business doesn’t impress investors. So you either need to improve the margin with lower costs or higher price (or both). Or bail from the market entirely and put your money in something that makes more money.
What makes more money? The investment is all in AI because TINA - There Is No Alternative. There's too much money in the system to cover all reasonable investments, so it fills up all reasonable investments and many unreasonable ones too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it that every person who tries to make these dumb arguments in favor of destructive capitalistic greed always attempts to make it look like the multi-billion dollar profitable business is somehow self-sacrificing or a force of good? "If I sell a dollar for 64 cents!", yea, as if that's even close to what's happening.
If capitalistic greed is so destructive than why are you living in the most successful and highest quality of life society in history? You can find a cave somewhere to camp in if you want, or go to North Korea, etc.
This level of greed is also relatively new, and was pretty well managed by previous (30~ years ago?) administrations. There's an obvious direct correlation between the rapid growth in wealth of the top 1%, businesses becoming increasingly anti-consumer, degrading quality of life amongst the average person, etc. It isn't something inherent to capitalism, it's something inherent to unmanaged 'trickle down economics' capitalism and societies built on individualism above all else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do still play a good bit of Black Ops II Zombies... which came out in 2012. Treyarch took notice, and the last CoD was a crappy attempt to cash in on the fact that the last good CoD game was over a decade ago. A few great games I've played in the last 8 years, about the span of a generation, a mix of AAA and indie: - Red Dead Redemption 2 https://store.steampowered.com/app/1174180/Red_Dead_Redempti... - Cyberpunk 2…
> Also, the [Cyberpunk 2077] developer owns the GOG storefront and so 100% of your profits go directly to them. That's no longer the case since a few months: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46422412
I can live with the cut just going to Michał, but it was cool that for a while you could purchase a AAA game with no microtransactions or DRM on a storefront where 100% of proceeds fed back into the same studio not just publishing the game, but developing it. To me that was a huge selling point of CP77 among all the others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Too much effort is going for dazzling graphics at the expense of overall gameplay. Yes, 100%. I love good graphics, but game play is the most important thing. If you don't have good gameplay the graphics mean nothing. A game with great game play and great graphics is something to behold. I recently finished Split Fiction and they really nailed it. I hope studios take notice!
This has been a recurring theme since the dawn of video games: Everyone talks about graphics (devs and gamers), but ultimately the good and beloved games are the ones with great gameplay.