Its puzzling how the world's richest country spends more than a country like South Korea on public transit and still stuck using Windows 98 and other ancient antics.
For instance the Seoul Metro yearly budget is 10x less than New York's yet it runs far longer and more efficient. It's also safer.
Seems especially rampant on FPS games. Often I see swastikas in custom banners in games like Battlefield. Reporting results in no change.
Many women for instance I know pretend to be men in these online games. Often the only people screaming and utilizing voice online seem to be of a specific demographic.
You can go after the bad apples and hope things will change but racism and all sorts of hate based ideologies are constantly touted by what I presume individuals with a lot of idle time.
I also see lots of talks of depression and mental health issues in the chats. I rather that they just remove the online chat feature and custom banners. Remove voice chat especially.
Really miss the days before voice chat because now its the equivalent of giving a village idiot a megaphone.
Is it really so much to ask for a player who doesn't want to listen to voice chat to click through a menu to turn off voice chat? Or click one or two buttons to mute a player in chat/voice? Do we really need a heavy handed approach like "remove online chat features and custom banners"? If the company provides no method to turn off chat/block/mute/etc then that's one thing. Ask for that. But I've yet to play a game where you can't do this.
Best I can do is a vast government surveillance apparatus for identifying and targeting individuals and then tossing them in jail on questionable charges until they spend $20,000+ on a lawyer. Hard for them to make that hitler talk while in jail, check-mate. Since DHS is known to be the most honest and highest caliber agency of the US, we know this power will be used fully constitutionally, ethically, and impartially.
Voice chat is incredibly useful if not necessary in certain game types, and it also makes the game far less social.
The people who are abusive in voice chat know exactly how to be abusive to avoid getting caught / identified.
In one game I play, there are several phases of the game when it is both impossible to mute anyone and you cannot see who is talking.
Guess when people spew racist stuff or otherwise scream into their mics?
It's a minority, and they never have anything useful to say - but it causes a lot of people to shut off voice chat entirely because it's so exhausting/jarring to an otherwise good time. And as a result, you don't get to meet the people who are friendly and good natured.
Essentially, by letting them run wild, we're allowing them to dominate the platform. Kick their asses.
> Essentially, by letting them run wild, we're allowing them to dominate the platform. Kick their asses.
So the option is learn how to deal with trolls or remove voice chat completely from games to protect the delicate sensibilities of players? I guess that's up to the company. I had no problem with this prior to company's controlling the servers for extra MRR. Don't like a server? Leave. Unless the entire game is filled with nazi LARPers you'll probably find a place more amicable to your delicate sensibilities. For me, I've had no problem blocking particular trolls and in particularly infested servers I can find a new one that's better for me. It's like the world has forgotten "don't feed the trolls". I'm willing to wager 99.9% of these people are just doing it to get a rise out of someone because honestly. People are so sensitive these days it's made it incredibly easy to say something and get a rise out of literally anyone.
Is it too much to ask to be able to use the game with voice chat and just been the people who are abusive?
DHS doesn’t need to be involved but the answer shouldn’t be people who don’t want to be abused are the ones who have limits on what features they can use.
Perhaps people have been seeking a more generational leap but from the footage you are correct, they just iterated on top of what worked, and likely have thousands of hours of insight into what sells.
I was hoping that they would at least upgrade the graphic side of the things, it does seem like from this video, that it could easily be just another DLC.
Think after I saw that Matrix demo from Unreal Engine, that trend would carry on into city roaming sandbox games.
Still can't wait to pick up this game in 2 to 3 years when all the bugs are fixed and they have a discount.
With Moore's law over, I wouldn't expect huge leaps and bounds in graphics again any time soon. Expect incremental improvement, and honing in on the details that matter to immersion. I for one find graphics "good enough" for the most part, and I'd would rather the budget go into NPC AI, character movement, and storytelling.
Ages? I think it was about 2016 when people started credibly saying it’s over. So, that’s 8 years ago, which is about how long i think it took for the high end to trickle down to affordable. The graphics difference between a ps4 and a ps5 are… noticeable, but not shocking, and they were released in 2013 and 2020 respectively.
Graphics between an end-of-life and a new next-gen console are a bad comparison. Late PS3 and early PS4 games also saw only small improvements. But compare early PS3 to late PS4 titles and the differences are staggering. The PS5 has about an order of magnitude more processing power than the base PS4 and Moore's law states that computing power doubles every two years, which means it gains an order of magnitude every 6 or 7 years - which is precisely the time frame between the PS4 and PS5 release. Moore's law definitely isn't dead and the new console generation proves it.
> The PS5 has about an order of magnitude more processing power than the base PS4 and Moore's law states that computing power doubles every two years, which means it gains an order of magnitude every 6 or 7 years
That's not what moore's law is. Moore's law says that TRANSISTOR COUNT will double every 2 years.
> Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years
First off, your calculation is wrong because these chips are not the same size. Secondly, if you actually go with the definition of Moore's law, my argument still holds - and it's trivial to prove. From your linked article:
>Moore's law [states] the number of transistors that could be housed in a dense integrated circuit [doubles every X]
(emphasis mine)
The PS4 GPU was a 28nm chip and PS5's is a 7nm one. A factor four reduction in length between transistor terminals equates to a factor of 16 increase in transistors that could be housed in one unit of area. That's precisely what you'd have expected from your definition of Moore's law. In reality there's a bit more to it, like efficiency and power consumption (Moore included that in his original estimate), which slightly lessen whole deal of increasing compute power. But as stated in my first comment, it still holds as an OOM increase when you look at raw FLOPs in the end, which is what we expected.
It's not only about calculation speed; the cost of building an AAA class game has exploded over the last 10 years. Maybe you can render 10x as much stuff on screen, but somebody has to actually draw and integrate that in the game. Also, the cost of the needed artwork seems to put game design on the back burner since taking risk is no longer an option. (just like modern Hollywood movies seem to be bland)
honestly if you have to ask this question and you can't think of actions to take by yourself, i question whether you are cut out for startup, its super risky and you seem risk adverse not only from asking the question.
i would recommend just keep looking at how to make sales. without customers you don't have a business.
That's absurd. Are startups risky? Yes. But it's about calculated risk. For example, you don't just start a company and say, "Fuck paying taxes, because who cares about the risk that the IRS will find me."
A founder should take a fair bit of risk in terms of product and market, and manage that aggressively. But for things that can be done in a safe, standard way, by all means do that. E.g., you should pick the state and type of legal entity with absolute minimum risk that investors will have questions. You should also choose boring technology except to the extent that you need to do something risky to make the business work. Etc, etc.
Why are you shaming someone for asking for advice? This is literally the thing they thought of by themselves to do as a start. Polling for opinion and advice is a perfectly reasonable skill in business and life. They already identified risking IP starting a company is a big risk to avoid. They seem on the right path to me.
horrible advice. there's no where on earth this will be accepted and defeats the OP's requirement of being employed WHILE validating an idea. 1. would get you sued
That’s not necessarily true. Many founders end up selling products or services to the companies they previously worked for. I know of more than one person who left a previous company to pursue something that started as a side-project that many of us were aware of long before their departure and wished them well. There are plenty of places where if you’re getting your work done people are actually reasonable and nice, at least my experience with startups has seemed this way.
Many founders seem like a doubtful choice of words. There are even more founders that have landed themselves in legal waters because they just assumed their employer would be understanding like them.
High risk of failure, high risk of litigation if we took your questionable anecdotes without any proof at face value and suggest to OP to do the same.
This is especially true for large companies with people who are hired to handle litigation and IP risk management.
If the OP is a valuable employee and the company's options are to lose them or let them do something the company doesn't care about there's no harm asking at all. Don't ask, don't get.
How would discussing your contract with your employer get you sued?
And the recent heatwave? The last argument with my brother was so over the top it did permanent damage to our relationship. Upon reflection I do wonder how much heat had to do with it.
No. I would rather think its the lack of proper education on how to behave morally, how to have make valid argument, how our choices impact the life of others, and lack of self control training.
Non sequitur. Inflation and education quality are unrelated.
(Perhaps they are related when inflation gets really bad, but we aren't anywhere near that. And, education wasn't great when inflation was very near zero for a decade, and neither was social kindness.)
