loobkoob

This is stupid. I have no love for Overwatch or Blizzard - I've been boycotting them for years, in fact. But there are far, far worse games on Steam than OW2. The fact that, to my knowledge, it runs properly, doesn't have crypto miners built into it, and isn't just made from stolen assets already puts it at like a 5/10 at minimum.

I'm all for consumers standing up for themselves and being critical or poor products, but I really wish people wouldn't get caught up in these hate bandwagons.

It's not only about being tired enough to fall asleep early. If I stick to a 10pm-6am sleep schedule I feel exhausted during the day, and by early afternoon I'll be falling asleep. It's like being jetlagged permanently; my body simply doesn't want to keep to that schedule. It's not just an "oh, you need to stick to the schedule long enough to adapt and get into a proper routine" situation either - it's something I struggled with for years while I was in school and university, despite getting enough sleep.

It's amazing how much better and more energetic I feel - physically and mentally - now I'm able to keep to a sleep schedule that suits me. Obviously exercising is a good thing, but early/delayed sleep phase syndrome are real things.

The idea that only having a €15M budget is what caused this game's issues is ridiculous. It's not a game that had good ideas and just failed to execute them properly; it's fundamentally bad on a conceptual level.

The setting and story concept are bad. When the game was first announced, I don't think I heard or saw a single discussion where someone was excited to experience playing through the story of Gollum in that time period in the story. Or even playing as Gollum at all - he's a great secondary character in the books and films, but he's hardly a character you want to play as in a video game. There's no room for character development either.

The game design is bad. It's just bad. No amount of time, money or polish is going to fix the terrible basic design principles the game is built on. And even if they had 10x the budget and hired a world-class lead game designer from the start, it still would have the issues with the story and character.

The whole project is one that shouldn't have left the brainstorming session it was conceived in.

"Landed gentry" was a social class of people who owned estates and, well, land. They didn't have to work; they made their income by profiting off the work of the farm hands, merchants, etc, who worked on their land. The estates these landed gentry owned, along with their wealth, would be passed down to their children when they died. It meant the gentry did very little to earn their station in life, but still had a fair amount of power and wealth.

How spez thinks it applies to Reddit mods, I'm not entirely sure. But he definitely meant it as an insult. His full quote was:

And I think, on Reddit, the analogy is closer to the landed gentry: The people who get there first get to stay there and pass it down to their descendants, and that is not democratic.

So I guess he was upset that mod teams get to select who else is a good fit to join the mod team? Of course, the issue is that he is the landed gentry - users didn't vote for him, nor can they remove him; and he's profiting off the work of the people who post content and the people who spend their time moderating.

Well I'm just glad Harry Mack managed to release his 100th episode of "Omegle Bars" this week. He decided to take a break from doing Omegle-based content at the right time, it seems.

For anyone who doesn't know, Harry Mack's a freestyle rapper. He has (had) a series where he'd ask strangers on Omegle to give him a handful of words and then create a full song out of them on the fly. And not just saying those words then immediately moving on like most freestyle rappers do; he actually creates entire verses on the topics he's given and really raps around them. Plus he'd be calling out things the people were doing as they react to him, responding to things they say, mentioning things he can see in the room, etc, as he raps.

Here's one of his freestyles that's really stuck with me ever since I first saw it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehcA4zCeaPI

He takes what are some fairly negative, "cry for help" words from the girls and turns them into a really beautiful, positive rap overall. He's a very positive guy in general, and I've watched him consistently since I discovered him. Binging his videos got me through a breakup, in fact.

My own experiences with Omegle have either been penises or just bland, and it's not something I've used for many years as a result. But videos like Harry Mack's show what wonderful things could come from it and I do think it's a huge shame it's gone. It feels like another part of the old internet's gone, and that we're moving even closer to the sanitised, heavily-monetised internet run by megacorporations. I hate that.

$14m seems far too low:

• 40 years at $350,000 per year
• 480 months at $29,170 per month
• 14,600 days at $960 per day

Those don't sound too bad until you get to:

• 350,400 hours at $40 per hour.

$40 an hour in exchange for losing most of your life - and the vast majority of your best years - is a fucking disgrace.

I don't think consumers were the target of the scam; if they were, I don't see a reason why they wouldn't have accepted pre-orders for the game. In fact, I think they know that accepting pre-orders would have left them open to false advertising lawsuits which is why they didn't go for them, and I think they were well aware that people could just refund the game so trying to scam consumers (in this instance) was probably not worth attempting.

Instead, I think the investors were the target. The brothers who own(ed?) the studio have been living off investor money for the last few years, and which how suspicious their finances are (their ludicrously high travel expenses, in particular) I'm sure they've hidden away a bunch more money.

The game that exists is a shameless, cheaply-made asset flip that I suspect only exists at all because it makes it much harder for investors to sue for fraud when there's an actual product. If they'd just tried to take the money and run without releasing anything it'd be obvious fraud, but now they can claim they tried their best, expectations were too high, etc, and it's difficult for the investors to prove otherwise.

Maybe it's not spotless, but rather all spot!

I mentioned this one to my friends the other day and it took so much convincing before they actually believed me! Definitely an interesting one. Venus also spins the opposite direction to all the other planets in the solar system, meaning the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

I saw it this afternoon, I had a great time! It wasn't exactly what I was expecting, although I can't say I know exactly what I was expecting going into it... It was a lot more political than I expected, and a lot more thoughtful.

It certainly lacks subtlety, and beats you around the head with its themes (feminism, toxic masculinity, the patriarchy, empowerment, finding and accepting yourself). To be clear, I don't think it lacking subtlety is a bad thing at all; it makes it very clear what points it's addressing, and doesn't leave anything down to personal experiences, or interpretations of nuanced lines. And it has a lot of fun with it!

Apparently right-wing people are upset with it, though. Because of course they are. It's about Barbie being a strong, independent woman. It's got a lot of diversity, and it's not shy about the fact that its diversity is because Barbie dolls themselves have a lot of diversity, so yes, it's very deliberately forced diversity. It has a trans actress in - I didn't even realise she was trans until a few minutes ago when I was looking up why right-wing people are upset, but apparently it's a terrible thing. It doesn't peddle any propaganda about traditional family values either, if you can believe such a thing (which is particularly upsetting to Matt Gaetz' wife for some reason).

It's fun. It's funny. It's thoughtful. And Ryan Gosling is fantastic in it. (Margot Robbie is very good, too, but her character is a little less colourful). It won't be something that will change your entire outlook on life, or that you'll be thinking about every day for the next six months, but it's a solid ~8/10, and unless you froth at the mouth at the idea of women having shudder aGeNcY, you'll probably have a good time with it!

My usual go-to is to ask what their latest/current obsession is. It works really well for a few reasons:

• it's nice and simple to ask - it doesn't require a monologue/wall of text to set up, and it doesn't require you to know anything about them to ask it;
• it's both as personal and as low-stakes as they want it to be. They can give very intimate, in-depth answers if they feel like it, or they can just mention something like the latest film they enjoyed. There's no risk of making them uncomfortable by asking it;
• it lets you filter out boring people who don't really take interest in anything;
• assuming they do have interests, it often gives you plenty of opportunities to dive into deeper conversation;
• it's often engaging for them because they get to talk about something they're passionate about;
• it's often interesting for you because people talking about things they're passionate about is awesome (and often attractive).
• it's pretty much always relevant and fresh because their latest obsession will change over time. This makes it particularly great for things like dating sites/apps because people's bios will often be out of date and/or they'll have talked about the things mentioned in their bio so much that they're kind of sick of them.

I've actually had multiple people on dating sites tell me how great a question they think it is, and that they're going to use it themselves in the future. So obviously it's not just me who thinks it's a great question!

From what I gather, he backed down because all his top men's families were being threatened. Prigozhin's family was kept safe, of course, but I don't think they expected Russia to threaten the families of those further down the ladder.

Last Epoch and Grim Dawn are probably most in line with Diablo, I think.

People have mentioned Path Of Exile, and I've played a lot of it, but I don't think it feels particularly like Diablo any more, even though it started out that way. It's quite unforgiving, and even a lot of experienced players feel like they need to follow build guides rather than work things out for themselves. Its learning curve is hundreds or thousands of hours long. Of course, the reason for that is that it has incredible depth, variety and complexity, which may be a selling point or a deterrent depending on what you like! I definitely like the complexity of it myself, but it's very overwhelming when you're new. The reason I don't think it's all that in line with Diablo these days, though, is simply the pacing of the gameplay. You blow up screens of enemies at a time, and your deaths are often so fast that you're not really sure what killed you.

Path Of Exile also heavily revolves around its trading economy. Item drop rates are balanced around players being able to trade for them, which makes trading somewhat mandatory (unless you're a bit of a masochist). The economy is fairly complex, with there being a lot of different currencies, and quite a lot of factors that can affect the value of an item. I'll let you decide whether you find this appealing or not - some people do, some people don't! I do think it causes some issues with the balance and progression of the game, but it's interesting to say the least, even if you wish you didn't have to engage with it.

Grim Dawn feels a little mechanically dated at this point but it's still solid. It's got some good builds, the dual-class system and constellations system make for some interesting variety. It's got an offline mode, as well as online co-op play. Its real selling point, though, at least for me, is it's absolutely soaked with atmosphere. It's very, well, grim, but the world is really immersive and it has a great setting in general with a solid story and some great lore. It also has quite a lot of mods available (including the Reign Of Terror mod I mentioned in another comment in the thread that adds the entire Diablo 2 campaign and all its classes to Grim Dawn).

Last Epoch is more mechanically interesting than Grim Dawn, I think, but it's lacking in the story and world-building. It's still in early access, although its full release is next week. It has quite a lot of depth and complexity, but it's all done in an intuitive way that means you can jump into the game blindly and work things out for yourself fairly easily. It has a good variety of skills, and the fact that each skill has its own fairly comprehensive skill tree means you can play the same skills in very different ways. It has a wonderful itemisation system that does a great job of making you actually engage with the loot you find on the floor (which is an issue in other loot games), and some of the best crafting I've ever seen in a game. The dev team also manages to come up with some really creative and somewhat intuitive solutions to things they perceive as issues in other ARPGs.

Last Epoch's biggest drawback is that its endgame is currently a little lacking in comparison to POE (which has a very rich and deep endgame, but is also a ten-year-old game that's been updated constantly). It's still far, far better than Diablo 4's, though, and will obviously only improve as more is added. Last Epoch has some truly brilliant systems in place for the devs to build off - and frankly, I still think it's great now - but it'll only get better as more content gets added over time.

I love all three games I've talked about for different reasons, and honestly, they're all well worth playing!

The last thing I saw regarding him was him being unable to comprehend how secret rooms in Metroid work. It was painful.

They're not asking for it to be banned from the instance, or from Lemmy entirely; they just want it to be moderated out of this community.

The angry customers and the state of the game are problems.

• it's hard to feel sorry for people who pre-ordered because they got exactly what they paid for - a game of unknown quality and quantity of content
• it's hard to feel sorry for people who bought post-release because they also got exactly what they paid for - a game where reviews detailed poor quality and quantity of content
• customers being disappointed and/or wanting a refund is perfectly reasonable
• people wanting the game to be better is also reasonable
• people abusing the devs is not reasonable

I'm not going to defend the poor quality of the game because it's obviously bad (from what I gather, anyway - I've not played it myself) and should be improved. But I do think gamers could learn to be a little more responsible with their purchases and inform themselves before buying a game.

I'm pretty over the whole cycle of games coming out and not meeting expectations, people buying them anyway (through pre-orders or day-one purchases), people being unnecessarily rude/hostile/sending death threats to developers as if they were forced to buy the game as gunpoint. Yes, developers should try to do better, yes publishers should often give developers more time to polish up games rather than announcing the release date two years in advance and refusing to delay, but also consumers could really take some responsibility for what they decide to give money to.

Not to excuse his criminal activity, but I don't think it's really a surprise he's not particularly... well-adjusted, given who his mother is. I frankly would have been more shocked if I was told he was a functional, well-adjusted, pleasant human being.

I don't think AI will be a fad in the same way blockchain/crypto-currency was. I certainly think there's somewhat of a hype bubble surrounding AI, though - it's the hot, new buzzword that a lot of companies are mentioning to bring investors on board. "We're planning to use some kind of AI in some way in the future (but we don't know how yet). Make cheques out to ________ please"

I do think AI does have actual, practical uses, though, unlike blockchain which always came off as a "solution looking for a problem". Like, I'm a fairly normal person and I've found good uses for AI already in asking it various questions where it gives better answers than search engines, in writing code for me (I can't write code myself), etc. Whereas I've never touched anything to do with crypto.

AI feels like a space that will continue to grow for years, and that will be implemented into more and more parts of society. The hype will die down somewhat, but I don't see AI going away.

I don't think all adverts are propaganda. For instance, someone in my village has a sign outside their house that says "EGGS FOR SALE" - that is 100% an advert, but I'm not sure you could convince me it's propaganda.

I agree that there's a lot of overlap between advertising and corporate propaganda, but they're definitely different things.

I saw someone on Mastodon say something along the lines of "I'll continue to deadname Twitter for as long as Musk continues to deadname his daughter" and I love that sentiment.

It'd make for a good anti-spam measure if there was a limit to the number of DMs users could send to other people who don't follow them back. It'd mean people can still use Twitter DMs like a normal messaging service (which isn't something I care for, but I know some people use it like that).

As it is, it just feels similar to the whole "rate limiting the number of tweets people can view per day" thing, where they're taking the most obvious route to reducing bandwidth usage by restricting users.

If a single one of those niche subreddits disappears, the site will be fine. So, sure, you can argue they're individually irrelevant to Reddit as a platform, I guess. But Reddit having a vast collection of niche subreddits is what keeps the platform alive. Do you think people would be nearly as engaged in the long term if it was only world news, politics and memes? Those broad categories are going to have the widest appeal but they're not what a lot of people stay for. They stay so they can discuss their favourite TV show, the specific game they're playing right now, the niche hobby they're interested in, the particular celebrity they're weirdly obsessed with, that incredibly specific kind of porn that gets them off.

And there's a reason a lot of people add "reddit" to the end of their Google searches - there are all kinds of niche subreddits with information they're looking for about a particular issue they're having right now. If I'm having issues with my electric garage door, having a high-quality, well-maintained forum dedicated to the subject - filled with experts and knowledgeable enthusiasts - is exactly what I need, and Reddit had that.

Memes might have a broader appeal and be more monetisable right now, but losing all the niche subfora is something that will hurt Reddit in the long term.

It's worth pointing out, I think, that TalkTV is Rupert Murdoch's latest outing, and is owned by his News Corp, which also owns The S*n and The Times. It's no surprise it's awful.

The whole website needs to be xeeted out of xistence at this point.

Surely it's not really any different to any other website's admin having their account hacked/their password socially engineered? It's not an inherent flaw in the fediverse as a whole, just a human issue.

EDIT: see @Zephyrix's comment below. It was a security flaw.

Dude, what the fuck kind of comment is this?! I have no love for spez whatsoever, and would happily see him lose all his money and landed gentry status. But your comment is just unhinged.

I'm kind of surprised Apple is willing to fragment things so much just to avoid these consumer-friendly rulings as much as they can. Obviously it's profit-driven - I get that - but it seems to go against their branding a little, where the Apple ecosystem is typically very simple to use and has parity across devices.

You've got some good answers already, but I can expand on it a little: businesses in most sectors are feeling the impact of increased interest rates - both because they can't borrow as much themselves any more, and because there is less money coming in from investors because they can't borrow as much either - but tech (including games) is doubly impacted because there was such a surge in demand during lockdowns. While other businesses tended to struggle during lockdowns, and have simply had that struggle replaced with a different struggle due to the interest rates, the tech sector grew massively during the pandemic.

People working at home, or furloughed, had more personal time and more disposable income because they weren't spending money on travelling to work, on overpriced lunches, on dining out with friends, going to concerts, etc. It all added up, and they spent that money on streaming subscriptions, video games and just generally on recreational, home-based activities, many of which revolve around tech these days. So the tech sector grew a lot because of the low interest rates, and it grew a lot because more people were buying its products/services. And now, rather than having more disposable income, a lot of people are facing a cost of living crisis, meaning not only have they reduced their spending because they're back in the office and dining out and going to concerts again (and all those other things people spend money on when they're not confined to their house), but many people have less money to spend on gaming, subscriptions, etc, than pre-pandemic.

Also, because the tech sector was doing so well during the pandemic, it was an attractive prospect for investors (who themselves had increased money, as well as great interest rates), meaning it grew even more. Everything kind of fed into each other and the tech sector grew exponentially as a result. Whereas right now, not only does the increased interest rate for borrowing mean investors are throwing their cash around less in general, but the fact that the tech sector is struggling makes it a less attractive prospect for investors, meaning the whole sector kind of doubly loses out on that front.

So these tech companies invested their money into growing their companies and expanding their businesses' scopes like good capitalists. Which does generally make sense - if you find yourself sat on a huge pile of money, it's generally better to find a way to invest it into something useful (or to invest it into something makes you an even bigger pile of money if you see the Monopoly Man as aspirational). The issue is, most of them were somewhat short-sighted (plus global economics is a tricky thing to predict); they spent money as if it was always going to be coming in at the same rate. And now that they're being impacted by increased interest rates on their own borrowing, the loss of investors, and the reduced spending power of consumers and they're very suddenly having to make massive cuts to stay afloat.

I think there's always been a bit of an unspoken understanding between Reddit and its moderators: Reddit provides the platform; moderators get to run their communities as they see fit (as long as they're not doing anything that gets Reddit in trouble). And with this framing, moderation didn't feel like working for Reddit, it felt like working for your community. It was always seen as fair enough if Reddit makes back to money to pay for the platform they're providing. It felt like wins all round: Reddit makes money, moderators get to have somewhere to maintain their communities and shape them as they see fit, users get communities they can join.

It's only now that Reddit's interfering with how moderators run their communities and interact with the platform that people are seeing it as working for Reddit. It doesn't feel like a collaborative effort any more, but rather Reddit just wanting unpaid labourers. The unspoken agreement feels like it's been broken. That doesn't retroactively make all the moderation done in the past count as working for Reddit (even though Reddit obviously benefitted from it), but it does mean that any moderation going forward is something that should be viewed through that lens.

I believe the rule of thumb is the 90:9:1 ratio:

• 1% of users create original content
• 9% of users interact with that content - voting/commenting on it, sharing it, etc.
• 90% of users are essentially just in read-only mode

Your assumptions aren't true at all. It looks like it's heading that way part-way through the film, when Barbie and Ken are at odds with each other. And then it goes ahead and empowers all the men as well. It's certainly critical of toxic masculinity but I think it's empowering for both men and women overall. Obviously your Ben Shapiro types were offended by it because it's not trying to appeal to incels, and it is woke, but not in a bad, inauthentic way.

I don't think it's really supposed to re-popularise the line of toys either. Sure, people who liked the toys when they were young will probably find details they appreciate, but it's not meant to sell the toys. It's not aimed at the demographic (young girls, typically) who would want to buy dolls. It's not an R-rated film, of course, but I'd say anyone under 12 probably isn't going to get much out of it, and it's probably much more enjoyable for adults overall. It's pretty philosophical and thoughtful, and has quite a lot of metaphors and symbolism that would be lost on younger viewers.

Rather than aiming to sell toys, the film is the product; it's a way to make money with the Barbie brand from audiences outside of the toy-buying demographic. And it achieved that (by being a good film).

An analogue would be: petrol stations stop being a thing as the world transitions to electric/hydrogen/whatever cars. You start working on a way to modify your car in some way to account for this - perhaps you plan on making your own biofuel, or manually converting it to a electric/hydrogen/whatever car. The manufacturer of your car hears about this, comes along to your house and repossesses your car and takes it to be crushed, despite it being something you own and that they should have no say in any more.

The big difference between the two for me is how much feeling of gameplay expression there is. In Fallout, my options feel like melee, shooting enemies with shotguns, shooting enemies with automatic rifles, shooting enemies with long-range rifles, shooting enemies with lasers, shooting enemies with miniguns, and so on. And the shooting mechanics don't feel strong enough to really differentiate those different weapons as different playstyles for the most part. If I play a game like Titanfall, Battlefield, etc, then changing weapons can feel drastically different - they handle differently, you navigate combat arenas differently, you prioritise targets differently, you use cover differently. But that doesn't really feel like the case with Fallout for me without any of the moment-to-moment decision making that tends to allow for gameplay expression in shooters.

Whereas Skyrim feels like there are a lot more playstyles available. Destruction magic feels very different to conjuration which feels very different to illusion which feels very different to being a stealth archer which feels very different to using a dagger which feels very different to using a huge, two-handed melee weapon. They're not just visually different; how you approach and navigate combat encounters will be significantly different depending on what kind of build you have. It just feels like there's so much more gameplay depth.

You felt much more strongly about it than me then. I just found myself not caring about it in the slightest; the only thing I really felt was boredom. Which is arguably the worst possible outcome for any work of art.

There certainly was some actual "ethics in video game journalism" discussion early on that I felt was legitimate, but that got drowned out pretty quickly by the misogynists (which, from what I gather, was the entire point - it seems the misogynists started the whole thing and used the "ethics in game journalism" thing as a front to try to legitimise their agenda).

I think the discussion about the personal relationships game journalists have with developers in general was a reasonable one to have. It unfortunately ended up just laser focusing on Zoe Quinn supposedly trading sex for good reviews, which was untrue, sexist and resulted in nasty personal attacks. But I think it was worth at least examining the fact that game journalists and game developers often have close relationships and move in the same circles, and that game journalism can often be a stepping stone to game development. Those are absolutely things that could influence someone's reviews or articles, consciously or subconsciously.

And another conversation worth having was the fact that gaming outlets like IGN were/are funded by adverts from gaming companies. It makes sense, of course - the Venn diagram of IGN's (or other gaming outlets') readers and gaming companies' target audience is almost a perfect circle, which makes the ad space valuable to the gaming companies. And because it's valuable to gaming companies, it's better for the outlets to sell the ad space to them for more money than to sell it to generic advertising platforms. But it does mean it seems valid to ask whether the outlets giving bad reviews or writing critical articles might cause their advertisers to pull out, and therefore they might avoid being too critical.

Now I don't think the games industry is corrupt or running on cronyism, personally. And I certainly don't believe it's all run by a shadowy cabal of woke libruls who are trying to force black people, women (and worse, gasp black women shudder) into games. But I do feel it was worth asking about the relationships between journalists, developers, publishers and review outlets - and honestly, those are the kinds of things that both game journalists and people who read game journalism should constantly be re-evaluating. It's always good to be aware of potential biases and influences.

The fact that the whole thing almost immediately got twisted into misogyny, death threats and a general hate campaign was both disappointing and horrifying. And the fact that it led to the alt-right, and that you can trace a line from it to Brexit and to Donald Trump becoming US president, is even worse.

I've always found listening to Pink Floyd is enough of a high already, personally!

"poop knife xDD hehe"

There's so much actually great content posted across reddit over the years, it blows my mind that people decided that was something that needed to be mentioned all the time.

Part of me hopes none of them are dumb enough to fall for this. Part of me hopes redditors somehow end up as the majority owners of Reddit and either a) return it to being a good website or b) wreak absolute havoc.

I agree it should perhaps have started off a little higher, but the fine was set so the amount added would double for every day they didn't comply.

• day 1: $50,000
• day 2: +$100,000 ($150,000 total)
• day 3: +$200,000 ($350,000 total - this is what they paid)
• day 4: +$400,000 ($750,000 total)
• ...
• day 7: +$3,200,000 ($6,350,000 total)
• day 14: +$409,600,000 ($819,150,000 total)
• day 28: +$6.7 trillion ($13.4 trillion total)

The day 3 fine wasn't all that bad for them, but it wasn't a fine they could just eat if they delayed as long as they wanted. Definitely not a "cost of doing business" fine, that's for sure.

Grim Dawn also has a mod called Reign Of Terror that lets you play the entirety of Diablo 2 in GD, complete with classes, skills and items! It has some differences because it's built on Grim Dawn's systems, so it has the dual-class system from Grim Dawn (with similarly laid out skill trees), item affixes work like Grim Dawn, etc, but it feels great to play! And you can combine Grim Dawn classes with D2 classes, D2 classes with other D2 classes, or just play the D2 campaign with a regular Grim Dawn build. It's great!

EDIT: spelling