Oh boy, Travis Worthington comes off as such a selfish asshole in this interview. Paraphrased, and being a bit unfair to him, he just kind of says, “oh, we know fine well that we are benefiting from stealing art from others, and I’d really like if you believed that I cared about that, but the reality is that I don’t really give a shit, and if you’re an illustrator, just give up on your dreams of getting a job someday, because I certainly won’t be paying you”
Definitely gonna be avoiding indie games studios from now on.
Wow that name is so bad, it’s just a description. No wonder these uncreative twats need AI to make art. They can’t even think of a cool name for their studio.
I’m glad that you asked this question, because I also was like “wow, seems a bit extreme” before I saw people replying to you that that’s the studio name
Frankly, it's an absurd question. Has Polygon obtained consent from all of the artists for the works used by its own human artists as inspiration or reference? Of course not. To claim that any use of an image to train or influence a human user is stealing is to warp the definition of the word beyond any recognition. Copyright doesn't give you exclusive ownership over broad thematic elements of your work because, if it did, there'd be no such thing as an art trend.
Then what's the studio having its name dragged through the mud for? For using a computer to speed up development? Is that a standard that Polygon wants to live up to as well?
Totally agree, but where the line is, I think, is that companies want free lunch: they want to leverage a mind-like thing (either a human brain or a trained AI) that has internalized a ton off content that it can use to generate new content from, but they don’t ever want to pay them or treat them like a living being.
If these AI models ever become advanced enough that people actually consider them to be alive or conscious or something, suddenly the tables will turn, and companies will be fighting against their ethical treatment. It will basically be another, much more philosophically difficult, slavery debate, and we all know which side the corporations will be on.
Or maybe it’s simply a false equivalence we all need to accept. Maybe creativity can exist independent from a conscious brain, or maybe it’s just a vulnerability in human consciousness to look at these stochastic arrangements of data and say “that looks inspired”.
Either way, in 300 years our progenitors will look back at us and think, “wow, I can’t believe they thought that was ok. Clearly it was just a different time.”
they want to leverage a mind-like thing (either a human brain or a trained AI) that has internalized a ton off content that it can use to generate new content from, but they don’t ever want to pay them or treat them like a living being.
That's anybody, really. Everything you've ever accomplished has depended upon the insights and knowledge of countless other people who never saw a dime from you for it. That's part of living in a society and it's a crucial part of how it advances.
Or maybe it’s simply a false equivalence we all need to accept. Maybe creativity can exist independent from a conscious brain, or maybe it’s just a vulnerability in human consciousness to look at these stochastic arrangements of data and say “that looks inspired”.
I think that most of the value we get from creativity isn't from the mechanics of creating something. And I think that by removing the mechanical barrier, we unlock that value much more widely across humanity. Art is a form of communication. Will we ever feel the same connection when that communication comes wholesale from an AI? I don't know. But we're certainly not there yet.
That’s anybody, really. Everything you’ve ever accomplished has depended upon the insights and knowledge of countless other people who never saw a dime from you for it. That’s part of living in a society and it’s a crucial part of how it advances.
Yes, that is why I phrased it as I did.
I agree that art is a form of communication, but it’s also a source of inspiration regardless of the artist’s intent. A person can derive meaning that the artist never intended. So I wouldn’t say art is totally a subset of communication.
most of the value we get from creativity isn’t from the mechanics of creating something
This part I would disagree with. I think 99.999% of all art is created solely for the creator’s benefit. The other 0.00001% of art is hanging on display in museums, etc. In the case of creating music, the playing of the instrument is very important to the fulfillment of most musicians. And learning the mechanics of painting, or sculpting, etc., is where I think most of the value of most art comes from. The mechanism of creating art IS the act of communication; it’s channeling thoughts and feelings into something tangible. You likely had an art class in school, not because they wanted you to create something you could sell, or to learn a skill that was going to pay the bills, but because the act of creating art is fulfilling to the creator.
I think this is part of why Sand Mandalas are destroyed after they are finished being created. It’s not the existence of the piece that is important, it was the creation of it.
A bit of a quibble, but I think it’s a stretch to say that current-gen AI is mind-like. I’m of the opinion that, given the way current AI works, there isn’t any “creativity” in how midjourney/etc. generates images. Though you could make a solid argument for a detailed prompt being creative, or for a functional/algorithmic AI being a creative tool of the coder, in neither case would I say that the source of the creativity is the computer.
Then again, legal definitions would only allow creativity to come from humans, but I think other animal species are currently capable of creativity/art, in the sense of “do they do actions for purposes other than survival or reproduction.”
Yeah, the thing with neural nets is they’re neuron-like. Saying they’re mind-like is like trying to say your visual or auditory cortices have consciousness. Intelligence, sure; but that’s a low bar. Single-celled organisms have cognitions about the environment. So do plants. They’re both intelligent, in the same way that a lot of the low level machinery in your brain is intelligent, the same way that neuron-like software and hardware is intelligent.
Just another example of hierarchies embedded in capitalism. Artists have no rights, humanities are disdained; but big businesses that treat people as “resources” and “consumers” are privileged.
Absolutely. Just yesterday I tried asking stable diffusion to draw me “An elephant and a monkey dance while two cheetahs drink punch. The elephant and monkey look very happy. The cheetahs look bored.”
It drew me two elephants with monkey hair and two cheetahs. No punch, no dance.
If what you ask is somewhere in the bank of images it will draw it. But if what you ask is a situation the AI has never encountered before in any image, it will fail to invent it.
If all artists used AI we would be stuck on a loop of content that is not novel. Years from now we would stop seeing amazing incredible art. There would be no evolution at all in the styles.
I am glad that there are artists who continue to draw without AI even if it must be hard for them.
Can you think of a better term? I tried to clarify by saying, “thing that has internalized a ton of content that it can use to generate new content from”, but there’s not a succinct term for that. I would not call an LLM a mind, but I would say minds do this observe patterns->distill information->generate new patterns thing very well. So “mind-like” is all I could come up with.
legal definitions would only allow creativity to come from humans
That would be part of the ethical dilemma we will need to solve, which corporations will be on a very predictable side of. Our laws were written assuming that only humans were capable of creativity and consciousness (however linked, or not, the two might be).
Humans and computers see and understand artwork completely differently. If you tasked both a human and a computer to look at a painting for 10 milliseconds and asked them to recreate it from memory, how accurate would their reproductions be? It is completely wrong and very misleading to equate human learning with machine learning. They are completely different processes.
People who use AI will create a better cheaper product and at the end of the day its use as a new technology is justified. You'll be clinging to an ever smaller raft and eventually have to abandon your ideals.
And at the end of the day art is not stolen when used to train a machine. Copyright itself is an artificial legal construct, and it's the right to redistribute, not the right to learn from art. You can't invent rights out of thin air and get any when they're broken
People who use AI will create a better cheaper product
i feel like this assumes that there will still be human produced art to train on to improve the genAI model when there isnt any incentive for humans to spend so much time to learn to make art when it can be used for training and when machines can churn out pieces at a faster cheaper rate
(c) Restrictions. You may not … (iii) use output from the Services to develop models that compete with OpenAI;
from section 2ciii of OpenAI’s Terms of Usesomehow while its justifiable for corporations to use human produced work to train a machine that competes with humans, using corporate machine produced work to train a competing machine is not
this assumes that there will still be human produced art to train on to improve the genAI model when there isnt any incentive for humans to learn to make art when it can be used for training
Fears like this never pan out. People don't stop doing things just because of AI existing, and we still have people doing things like making vinyl records even though CDs exist or whatever, or taking old-fashioned photographs.
Artists are going to still exist and they're going to still be drawing art and they're going to continue to share it. It may take a chunk out of the number of people who want to learn art, but that's life and the people training these AI will adapt to it.
And even if they somehow totally disappear, people will find plenty of new and exciting ways to continue to push the boundaries of what AI can do, because at that point being able to do that will be what gives you a competitive advantage in the world.
OpenAI’s Terms of Use
Open AI is a shitty unethical company. Never use them as a litmus test.
And unfortunately despite what is right or wrong, lawsuits still managed to determine how behavior happens in our modern system, and groups like the MAFIAA (the music and film industry association of America) are happily willing to abuse the law to get their way so that they can make as much money as possible as well.
just like vinyl and other vintage works, i do think it will be a shame that human produced art will become scarce and likely only for the rich to enjoy. i dont see why they would share it freely anymore
And even if they somehow totally disappear, people will find plenty of new and exciting ways to continue to push the boundaries of what AI can do
this assumes that genAI models can improve without any new input. but to be honest, it feels more like a, once they wipe out a generation of artist, they are free to increase the price of their “Skill as a Service” out of the reach of an average person for more profit. the GPU and water the genAI models run on arent getting any cheaper so no risk of anyone spinning up their own cluster
will become scarce and likely only for the rich to enjoy
Look at the other side of the coin, every single person on the planet is going to have instant access to an artist in their pocket, a little machine that they can give an instruction to and get a workable piece of art out of.
That is something that only the rich have access to right now, enable creative expression beyond our wildest imagination for all of the people who don't have 5 to 10 years of their life to dedicate to learning art.
You looking at the negative, a relatively small negative, and totally ignoring the positive side of this coin which is going to change the face of human creativity as we know it.
It's like being angry that only rich people are going to have bands playing in their restaurants because the poor people will be using records. Sure, but we quite enjoy having prerecorded music nowadays and we would never give that up in exchange for live artists.
The same principle applies, our lives will be improved by this and as long as that's the case it's a good thing, even if it means change.
From my perspective you're fighting to keep this sort of self-expression in the hands of the few instead of the hands of the many. Your practicing elitism and pretending in the process that you're fighting for the common person, but the common person will benefit more from widely accessible and easy to use tools than the rich will.
i dont see why they would share it freely anymore
Because humans like to express themselves and share that expression as widely as they can for no other reason than the active sharing and having their works seen by many.
The most pure and durable Art is Art as a hobby. Art as a form of self-expression?
this assumes that genAI models can improve without any new input
They can. Or at least, you can use things like human rating systems to guide an AI to produce outputs that people enjoy and train it that way instead of using raw works of art.
As a rule, if humans can do it, AI can do it too. It's only a matter of figuring out how.
do let me know if im coming off as combative and this isnt the place for it, i do admit i definitely am a pessimist
Is something that only the rich have access to right now, enable creative expression beyond our wildest imagination for all of the people who don’t have 5 to 10 years of their life to dedicate to learning art.
isnt this possible just by commissioning an artist from fiverr or deviantart with your own prompt of an image you want. for the amount of times a person wished they had spent time learning how to draw, we would let many more companies get away with not paying artists for every piece of art available in a board/card game so they could make more money
Sure, but we quite enjoy having prerecorded music nowadays and we would never give that up in exchange for live artists.
would we give that up instead for genAI created music? no one has the time for 5 to 10 years of vocal training too
Because humans like to express themselves and share that expression is widely as they can for no other reason than the active sharing and having their works seen by many.
when genAI models can learn from art faster than a human can, art becomes a working professional artist’s only competitive advantage if they wish to live off of their work. while it may be shared, but possibly only behind a glass screen in a private gallery with metal detectors prohibiting cameras at the front, considering how futile anti-AI art filters may end up
Why do you doubt the most pure form of art? Art as a hobby. Art as a form of self-expression?
because people are unwilling to spend 5 to 10 years learning art as a hobby to express themselves when they can still earn some money from it as their passion now
Not really. It's still $5. This is a problem for two reasons. First is that no artist can make a living drawing art for $5 a pop, it's just not sustainable and the only way for you to regularly do this is to take advantage of people who are learning.
So you're not going to get anything very good, and in the process you're basically paying a human being with some minimum wage to do work for you.
we would let many more companies get away with not paying artists for every piece of art available in a board/card game
Well yeah, that's the point. Art becomes free, easily accessed, and more widely spread. a big company right now is going to say what, a few percent of their budget?
But small studios? Little groups? People without a large budget? All of a sudden they are able to create works that are competitive with these former large studios because they don't have to hire an artist anymore. An independent creator can now do more than they ever had, and that makes them more competitive with the big studios.
This isn't the room for the big companies because they don't have to pay the artist anymore. It's actually a massive loss, because the more the barrier to entry goes down the worse off they are.
And at the end of the day artists aren't entitled to my money.
we would let many more companies get away with not paying artists for every piece of art available in a board/card game
Without a question we would. I would absolutely love to take my current library of music and feed it to an AI and say make me more stuff I like and have a constant stream of brand new music instead of listening to the same 200 or 300 songs that I've downloaded over the years.
I'd like to chime in the point out that the vast majority of employed artists aren't making anything as creative as cover art for a hobbyist board game. If they're lucky, they're doing illustrations for Barbie Monopoly or working on some other uncreative cash grab. More likely, they're doing incredibly bland corporate graphic design. And if you ask me, the less of humanity's time we dedicate to bullshit like that, the better.
Professionals will spend more of their time concerned with higher order functions like composition and direction. More indies and small businesses will be empowered to create things without the added expense. And consumers will be able to afford more stuff with higher quality visuals.
the vast majority of employed artists aren’t making anything as creative as cover art for a hobbyist board game.
its not just the cover art for a hobbyist board game, it is art for every card in the game. for hobbyist card games, it can go to several hundred to thousand artworks each from an artist. for a game like Android Netrunner the art of each card works with the theme and mechanics of the game acting like a brief window into this futuristic society world you compete in. (also blatant shilling, this is a great game if anyone is into cyberpunk and card games, unlike anything Magic the Gathering can ever hope to achieve), there is also graphic design for games like Kanban EV (by Ian O’Toole) which is unlike anything ive seen. boardgame hobbyists can and do regularly buy these things with quality visuals
maybe im too emotionally invested into games but i think these art, and the art for things like beloved character design for computer games, decorative tarot cards, novel artwork which take you to another world even if just for a brief moment, is worth encouraging, putting up with Barbie Monopoly and paying for
the alternative i fear would be these people’s time being spent instead on working soulless jobs like labelling training data for genAI models, manual work which so far only humans are cheap enough for and figuring out how to squeeze more money out of consumers
I'd say that this kind of technology lowers the cost of production enough to see those kinds of quality visuals more widely. There's a lot of rote technical effort that goes into even a single CCG card. Having a generative AI that can take care of those parts frees the artist up to focus on the parts of the art that really stand out to you. That means more quality art, for cheaper, which means more games will feature it.
i dont know much about how an artist work to say they would welcome genAI for such efforts
but for boardgame costs, im doubtful because much of the price comes from the logistics of manufacturing, storing, shipping and markup compared to the art. games like Horseless Carriage (the design is intentional) and the above mentioned Kanban EV both great games in their own right (about $100 each), employ one artist for the project and cost more than the entire base set (252 cards) of un-randomized distributed model cardgame ($40 at release) featuring artwork from around a hundred artists (unlike many commonly known randomized CCG blind bags, for this one you know the exact cards you will get in all releases)
People who haven’t used this tech really have it backward. This enables indie artists to create stuff on their own without corporate oversight. This interview was an opportunity to explore that, but they decided to follow the corporate line of attacking this actually successful four person studio instead of asking about what makes them tick with any actual interest.
the thing is this indie group, have been creating boardgames since before genAI models for artwork were popular. their first game in 2016 (top 10 since its release as rated by hobbyists among over a thousand other games) and subsequent expansions on kickstarter did really well even with public domain artwork that dont even look like they fit into a cohesive set. the expansion fetching usually close to a million dollars on kickstarter each time even before retail release
what makes the game appealing in-spite of the public domain artwork have long been discussed. so to me and possibly the journalist it seems like a question why they felt the need to use genAI art now with so many successful releases without it in the past seems to come off like not wanting to pay for better than public domain artwork
Why does the use of AI to modify art require justification?
We seem to have this general culture of people who don’t make things coming after those who do. Every decision of design, methodology, or artistic preference treated as though the creator has an obligation to please every single person who posts their opinions on the internet.
The reality is that this simply isn’t true. Art that spends all its energy fretting about whether people will like it ends up being some bland bullshit produced by committee. Art that allows itself to be what it is doesn’t need opinions and suggestions to flourish.
If the author of that article were remotely interested in their process or what the actual practical implications of using AI on a project are, they could have had something worth reading.
Instead they went into the interview looking to push a position and badgering without listening rather than making even a passing attempt at something resembling journalism. Because ultimately they don’t care about AI, or art, or games; they care about rage clicks.
Understand that this is not an IP right that OpenAI is defining and promising enforcement of, but simply a contracted obligation. As it currently stands in the US, there is no property right in the outputs of a generative model (like a gpt or sd).
yes but it comes off as really hypocritical of companies putting that in their Terms because they know rival genAI models could train on their output data to undercut them the same way they trained freely off of human’s data to undercut humans. and somehow its only ok if theyre the one benefiting from it because they have a bigger team of lawyers
Note that ToS are not legally binding in any way, it just means they reserve the right to deny you use of their service for doing so. They probably cannot (and have not tried) to sue anyone for commercial training use of their models.
They can be binding in the sense that they can govern the licensing or potentially ownership of submitted assets. So like, for example, a ToS could have a bunch of clauses that carry no legal obligation for you, but could also include a clause that grants the company licensing to use your likeness or things submitted to the server or interaction with it. The same way any ToS can license the use of your metadata for sale to 3rd parties.
That doesn’t have any particular legally binding requirements of you, but it can serve as a shield in the event of a lawsuit if, say, Facebook uses your profile photo in some advertising materials.
It can also be useful if you’re running a small project like an independent game server. Even if there’s literally no money in it, it can be helpful to clarify who owns what in the event of something like a false DMCA. If a developer who once was doing work with you suddenly decides to take their ball and go home, some sort of agreement that outlines your ownership or usage rights surrounding code submitted to your mod can protect you when they turn around and send Steam a DMCA.
But yeah, nobody’s going to get sued for using a service in a way that the ToS prohibits unless it’s already illegal, like theft.
AI art of any reasonable quality still requires significant human input. I don’t just mean prompt engineering, I mean actually having an artist using more traditional techniques to make adjustments or provide a base for the AI work. The output of raw AI art on its own can be impressive at times, but it’s not consistent enough to maintain a style for any sizeable piece of work.
If you want to be able to create a bunch of assets that look like they were designed for the same project with AI, somebody still needs to do some art.
What AI does do, though, is give those artists the ability to exponentially increase their productivity independently, with no particular need for the sort of labor-hour organization that a corporation provides.
It should be telling that the corporate media spin on this is to attack it and to publicize voices that criticize it, but never those that express nuance. That’s because it terrifies every useless corporate lackey who understands its actual potential to empower independent artists of all kinds.
Are there any other virtual stores on the console? There’s obviously physical store fronts, but I’m pretty sure there’s only the one digitally on console.
Are there any other virtual stores on the console?
No but since none of the console vendors have a monopoly, antitrust laws don’t apply. They can do practically any shit as long as none have a dominant market position.
So Nintendo can force everyone to buy a Switch to play Mario games? From what I see, consoles are locked in as well and we are forced to have PS/Xbox/Switch for their exclusive games. And this is legal because they aren’t as big as Apple? Why can’t I buy one console to play any game I want just like I can install any OS on Android?
Did not know that. So it’s just the sales numbers then because iPad is the same as an iPhone in terms of functionality and restrictions. Mac is more open compared to their mobile devices.
So it’s just the sales numbers then because iPad is the same as an iPhone in terms of functionality and restrictions.
Sales numbers and more specifically market power of the Apple App Store on iPhones. In absolute numbers there are more Android devices out there but that includes super low-end devices where the owners don’t spend as much money on apps.
Apparently tablets aren’t being seen as big of a factor in the overall market, at least according to the EU. The special exceptionfs announced recently by Apple for the EU also for the most part are only about iPhone.
“The changes do not apply outside of the EU, nor do they apply to iPadOS in any country.” --https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/06/alternative-ios-app-stores-eu-grace-period/
I’m fully aware of that but if history showed one thing it’s that Microsoft runs game developers into the ground.
Also Take Two, Nintendo, EA, and Sony exist. Microsoft has no monopoly just because they bought a crap publisher. The lastest Call of Duty game on mobile already tanked.
I agree that it is about market power, but one could make the argument that Xbox/PlayStation have a duopoly similar to iOS/Android.
Although I think PlayStation dominated with roughly a 70/30 split worldwide (higher in Europe). Nintendo is somewhat in its own category imo, since they mostly do their own games and don’t directly compete in that sense.
But I guess in a way consoles also compete with PCs.
It’s not the same model though, is it? I can buy XBox, PS an Nintendo games in a shit ton of physical or digital stores. So there are different channels. There is no equivalent on iOS. If you don’t want to publish in the app store, no one will be able to install your app (developers with own certs and enterprise customers with mdm excluded).
A chunk of those sales go to the platform, regardless of where they’re bought. And you can’t just sell an Xbox/playstation game without permission and royalties
Right, but I feel that this method of distribution is very similar to gift cards in that the retailer has no control over pricing, promotions, etc. additionally, these codes cannot be re-used.
Yeah but as the shareholders get used to companies laying off workers to “cut costs”, any company not doing it sees their shares tank. Which is Not Ok™️, so they keep firing people so the execs can pay themselves bigger and bigger bonuses over high stock prices.
It’s a bummer we can’t decline Steam Game updates anymore. That would help avoid these types of situations. Being forced to update a game before launching it was always going to lead to this type of bullshit. Same with all the GTA fuckery.
You don’t even need the external tool, you can use the Steam terminal itself to download the depots, which I personally find more palatable than having another application that is getting access to my username and password (it needs those to get the access from Steam). Even though I don’t think that tool is malicious I would still prefer to not have to rely on it.
Go to SteamDB, and search up your game.
Click on the app ID of the game you’re looking for to go to its details page.
Take a look at the depots, and click on the depot ID of the one that looks like the one you want to download.
Click on the Manifests tab. Look at the list and find the version that you want to download. Record its manifest ID.
Open the Steam console. You can do this by opening a command window “Run” by pressing «Win + R» and then enter the command: steam://open/console, and then press Enter, or by opening any browser and enter the URL-address field write the same command: steam://open/console. You can even have it always available when you start Steam by appending -console to the launch options of the shortcut to the Steam exe.
The syntax to the “download_depot” command is as follows: download_depot <appid> <depotid> [<target manifestid>] [<delta manifestid>] [<depot flags filter>] : download a single depot
You only need to worry about the first three arguments to it. Type the command, then the app ID, depot ID, and the manifest ID of the depot version you want.
Wait for Steam to download the depot. You won’t see any indication of progress, but you can tell it’s downloading by looking at the network usage on your downloads page. The download can pause/resume if your connection goes out, but won’t if you restart the client.
After the download is done, Steam will show you where the files were downloaded to.
Go to the game’s installation directory, and move the files somewhere else. Then go to where the depot files were downloaded to, and move everything over to the game folder.
You may have to rename the game’s EXE file if the dev changed the launch options recently. You can find the current EXE name by going to the game’s SteamDB page and clicking on the Configuration tab. 11. You should now be able to launch the old version through Steam.
Personally I found that you can just start the game from the download location and it will still have the Steam overlay if the game basically uses Steam as DRM.
Are you downgrading to several different versions? Because I’ve used the console variant and just run the game from the download folder and Steam doesn’t update it
I’ve just not replaced the files in any directory at all, just start the game from the download location for the depot (one should be able to rename the folder for it to the version) and then you keep any number of versions to play available by just going into that download location and starting the game.
At least that’s how it has worked for me. I just thought that was easier than having to replace files every time.
At least that’s how it has worked for me. I just thought that was easier than having to replace files every time.
It is, I just can’t do it because I have all the custom songs and plugins in my main folder and copying/linking all of that is a lot more work than just overwriting the game files each time.
Releasing what is essentially two different consoles at the same time was such a bad idea. I can’t imagine that anyone in the engineering team thought it was a good idea. It seems like the kind of decision that is made in a board meeting that gets handed to the engineers with the caveat, “you don’t have to agree with the idea; just make it work!”
I absolutely adore how Hades is balanced across an impossibly broad skill range. With some practice, even more casual players can eek out a win and then you have these absolute top 0.0000001% players that can chase challenges like this. Very few titles have achieved anything remotely close. Kudos to the player here raising the bar and let’s see if anyone can string two of these back to back.
Back to back is functionally impossible. The odds of getting the required boons to just leave the first area is very low. Getting the boons on the right rarity immediately after clearing a run on the highest heat just won’t happen.
I was mostly saying back to back in jest and was more referencing the next “impossible achievement”. Who knows, maybe some new exploit will be uncovered that broadens the viable builds for this particular one.
Am I the only one who thinks those prices are still too high for 25+ year old titles? Don’t get me wrong, absolutely love the games, but this “discount” feels closer to what it should be.
Am I hallucinating, because there was definitely a bundle that had all 6 remasters that I got… for $50 in 2022 I wanna say? All 6 are in my library and there is no way I spent $25x6 (or whatever the price is, I know FF I and II are lower in price).
They aren’t though? They’re not ports, they’re partial rebuilds of the games in Unity with native resolution support, new pixel art, full arrangement of most of the music, and huge QoL and gameplay improvements/modernization.
I’m not a huge fan of SqEnix’s money grabbing (see: literally any of their FF gatcha content), but the Pixel remasters are one of the few that are actually worth it…at $50 for the whole bundle. Not $25/ remastered game.
They aren’t though? They’re not ports, they’re partial rebuilds of the games in Unity with native resolution support, new pixel art, full arrangement of most of the music, and huge QoL and gameplay improvements/modernization.
Call them what you want, I recently paid 15 Euro for 62 1990s Capcom games. 30 for 6 Square games would be fine, given the bigger scope.
Ok but again, are they ports or did new content go into it? Did a whole new soundtrack and full orchestral recording go into your 60 Capcom games? There IS a labour difference between adding new/upscaling the content vs porting it to new hardware and calling it a day.
Saying “call it what you want” is pretty disrespectful to the people actually working on modernizing these games (I’m one of those people).
Ok but again, are they ports or did new content go into it? Did a whole new soundtrack and full orchestral recording go into your 60 Capcom games? There IS a labour difference between adding new/upscaling the content vs porting it to new hardware and calling it a day.
Then give me a bundle without all that crap. Now I’m emulating the games and you get no money on top of what I paid for the SNES originals back in the day. I’d happily pay again for some convenience but not 70 Euro for six 30 years old games.
Saying “call it what you want” is pretty disrespectful to the people actually working on modernizing these games (I’m one of those people).
Original price of $10 each feels about right. They put work into the graphics, music, and bug fixes. But stripped out all the additional content of later releases.
$18 for one of these games is ludicrous. I would have preferred to just pay for the older version that they removed from the app stores.
I totally agree. I recently bought on sale Final Fantasy 1 for mobile, mostly because I didn’t feel like digging out my PlayStation and putting in one of the original remastered disks. To be honest, the load times were pretty long on a kind of it being PS1. But the prices they’re asking for for all of these remasters are excessive. Also some of them have 3D instead of pixel sprites; FF4:TAY in particular was ruined that way. You know what I’d like to see; all of the newer Final Fantasy is done in pixel art style. Like from 7 onward. That would be fun.
They talk about broken promises and misrepresentation of what they would do after the merger. Corporations aren’t people and don’t have morals to stop them from breaking promises or just flat out lying. The only way they will do anything is if it makes them money or they are forced (regulated)
Corporations aren’t people and don’t have morals to stop them from breaking promises or just flat out lying
I think this is pure bullshit. In the end corporation are guided by people, who make decision and have a clear chain of command. When a corporation promise something, there are people behind that signed off the promise.
And you can punish a corporation by simply punishing the people who sign off what the corporatoion does, at any level. I mean, it is good to be the CEO and get the big bucks, fine, but if the corporation you are CEO of does something wrong it is your responsability to fix it and take the punishment for it.
The problem is that the actual people who make decisions are -legally required- to seek as much profit as possible, for any public for-profit company. Saying you can punish the individual in charge for behaving immorally puts them in a catch-22. Suddenly, they’re damned if they make a moral decision that costs shareholders money, and damned if they make an immoral decision in pursuit of profit.
We need a better system where profit isn’t the final thing, or at least isn’t the ONLY thing. The punishments need to come, somehow, from the whole company, but as is that’s really only punishing the have-nots at the bottom of the stack, for any financial punishment for them will hurt much more than a punishment for those at the top, and obviously imprisonment is off the table unless -an individual- does something worth imprisonment.
Not really, They’re already legally bound to seek profit, within the confines of the law. Changing the confines of the law doesn’t put them in a catch 22. It means they’re supposed to be professionals who can find profit in the white area.
I agree with you, but the organizations clearly have no morals. If you want to infer that means the boardroom occupants are a bunch of ghouls then sure. But we haven’t meaningfully held an executive to account for a corporation’s actions for a long time. The end effect is a sociopathic pursuit of money.
That’s from that Diablo presentation back then right? The audience wasn’t too happy, lol. But looking where we are now Diablo seems to be doing great on desktop and mobile.
IIRC what made the immortal announcement so incendiary was that fans were anticipating a Diablo IV announcement and Blizzard had teased something Diablo related. Had they just said “btw Diablo 4 is in production, in the mean time check this out” it would have gone over much much better.
It already has anyway. Ive requested my discord data once and everytime you do anything in discord it explicitly saves and stores the location of where you were when you interacted with discord.
I no longer have the data on my machine so i cant verify anymore unless i request my data again. However, i remember a discord server im in, enabled that accounts in the server needed to be phone number verified if they wanted to chat. This was done to combat spammers and trolls. i told them to bugger off because im not giving discord my phone number. So its possible my phone number was not in there, but knowing discord it could have been
He's got a point though. Shakespeare goes into painstaking details to set up contexts and the portrayal of character emotions with the limited tools he had (remember these are 15th century plays).
A Reddit/Mastodon comment has very little background information to work from. You may know the comment they're replying to, but you don't know the content of their character. Are they a bit of a facetious troll? Do they genuinely believe what they are writing? Chances are you'll never know unless they explicitly state it.
Text communications also lack the nuances of vocal tones, of facial expressions, of body language. We have to explicitly state our emotions over text, and that's something many people aren't used to doing.
Like how I rolled my eyes when you said 'I recommend you learn how to understand context.', to which the main reasonable response is often 'what context? There is too often no context that decisively points one way or another'.
It's not that they can't read, it's that you didn't put enough info in there to distinguish it from the genuine article.
If, for example, I were to satirise an antivaxxer over text (like here!) without being able to use any giveaway symbols like /s or alternate casing, I would have to go for the most batshit insane example, to the point where its not funny, just stupid. Something like 'I got vaccinated and turned into a fucking velociraptor. Jurassic Park is real! Don't believe the lies!'
Fair enough if that's your humour, but if I try to go for anything more subtle than this, I can easily be mistaken for a genuine antivaxxer, because it's not far off the BS they actually spew. In real life I can put on an exaggerated Karen voice with exaggerated resting-bitch-face and people will know I'm playing a character, rather than espousing my genuine beliefs. I can't do that over text though, so what's the alternative?
He actually did. Shakespeare's plays are meant to be portrayed by actors and not read as a book, so there is plenty of written notes for how the actors should be expressing when they say their lines.
Announcing your sarcasm defeats sarcasm. If your sarcasm can’t be inferred through context or some other means, the solution is simple…just don’t be sarcastic.
polygon.com
Top