[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

No, the people that invent it will just never tell anyone. If we find out about it it'll because people were killed to keep it secret.

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

And yet maybe just don't sell your soul to any company?

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago

Weird coming from the company that deliberately stop selling to 170 countries for unknown reasons.

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's not what the paper says. This is specifically COD games that this was tested with

The loosening the skill matchmaking found players leaving from the bottom and continuing as new players found themselves at the bottom. Higher skilled players liked this as they got treated as having lower skill as lower skilled players left.

Tightening it found higher skill players leaving due to longer queue times and having less lower skill players to beat on in their matches. Lower skilled players had higher retention due to being more likely to be matched with their peers.

In other words high skill players enjoy stomping noobs more than fighting each other. Noobs don't like being stomped.

It's not entire untrue to say "everybody hated it", but it also misses the point.

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago

Because everything made in the greyzone of "until the IP owner sends us a cease and desist" risks the console producer (sony/Microsoft/Nintendo etc) getting in trouble for allowing the content on their hardware.

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago

If you don't live in one of the 180 territories that still can't play the game

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 months ago

Steam very much makes that 30% worthwhile with the support and features they provide for free. They can't be forced to host games, prices are set by publishers/devs, steam takes 0% of steam key sales.

The price parity is the part that might be argued, but I doubt it will go far. I'm not seeing very good arguments for this being anti-consumer, which is the key point.

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 months ago

Everyone familiar with the lore knew going in that it was going to be a tragedy. Reach had to fall after all. The tricky and surprising thing was getting people to root for the team and have hope for them, knowing the planet was going to be glassed.

They turned the story of the planet into a small personal story about a very desperate situation. It isn't the best game, by any means, but it's impressive in it's own way and one of the better prequels.

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 months ago

This is the same guy that thought his anti-revenge story was the second coming of christ and people just didn't understand.

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 20 points 4 months ago

We haven't won until the region sales restrictions implementation to avoid legal issues of imposing PSN is rolled back. Fellow divers got refunds, we haven't won until everyone can return to diving.

As far as I'm concerned people are far too eager to call this a win and take Sony at their word without actually caring about the result.

To head off obvious responses Steam doesn't impose restrictions on their own, the publisher is in control on sales and it takes no time at all for Steam to update. So why hasn't Sony done this trivial act already? Because they'll try this again later when they legally can.

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 21 points 5 months ago

These companies aren't in the business of making and selling games they're in the business of increasing company valuation on the stock market. You can't convince them not to do mass firing, it's one of the fastest and easiest ways to cut costs and rapidly increase valuation. You'd need the law to protect the employees.

[-] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 22 points 5 months ago

It's work safety attire. When men wear it it's "why are you wearing those work clothes" women can wear them because no one will assume they're work clothes because women don't (normally/traditionally) do those jobs.

In the same way that men don't wear suits in a casual setting they don't wear other work attire in a casual setting.

view more: next ›

Cyberspark

joined 8 months ago