Long live the Blackspire Guard

kbin obviously!

Probably preferential licensing. Black Mirror is still an active development with them.

looks at Disney pluses binding arbitration clause

Yup

That would be a pretty good use. Llms are a little slow on most home hardware still. Hallucinations could also be a little scary. I wonder if that would affect your ESRB rating, That’s technically it could say anything…

trying to live train AI against your playstyle is both expensive and unnecessary. Hard bots have never really been too much trouble. We don’t really need to use AI to outpace humans in most games. The exceptions would be an extremely long play games like chess and go.

There’s been a lot of use in AI for platformers and stuff like trackmania, but not for competition, simply for speedruns.

I’m not talking about VR companies I’m talking about Mojang.

The teams that Mojang keeps to work on the platforms cost more than the income from the people using those clients.

If you make a game, and you decide to support Mac, and Mac only brings in $500 a month but you have to pay somebody $3,000 a month to maintain the client, You’re losing $2,500 a month for that particular market segment.

Nothing says you have to get rid of those people or that client, But it’s a fiscally sound decision.

It’s math. The amount of money they’re spending on supporting the VR platforms is less than the amount of money they make for the people on those platforms. They probably have to dedicate several multi-person teams to manage the clients.

Linux has some pretty good hedging going on with steam deck.

Well, I mean wow was already at $15 a month back in the day. When it came out in 2004, It was like paying $25 per month today. It was damn pricey back then. At this point I think they’re getting all the money out of it that the market will bear. Yeah the expansions help but I suspect they’re running leaner now than they were.

no idea how much backlash

That’s not to say they didn’t expect backlash, they fully expected some, they simply didn’t do a field study to see how bad it was going to be. Actually pretty common in the industry. Thow shit against the wall, see how bad the outcome is, discount that against profit. :)

Their tech debt for the most part isn’t going to be because of the engine. Certainly some of it is. But starting back over and reimagining most of the code base affords them the time and ability to fix problems that make features problematic. As the spiffing Brit likes to point out every one of their titles is absolutely riddled with game breaking bugs. Doing an engine change has the kind of depth required to let them head those kind of problems off before they happen.

Of course with an entire staff of short timers they’ll quickly just a mess new tech debt as they misgauge things.

https://content.minetest.net

There are mods, lots of mods, But not any that you’ve heard of before and honestly largely not of the same quality of the stuff you’re looking for that was available for Minecraft.

I can tell you that the average person in the last 30 years hasn’t wanted to learn shit. I suspect it goes back far longer than that but I was too young to pay any attention.

People like us have always been around but we are not the norm. We thrive on challenge on the advantages of doing things different and better ways. But the vast majority of human history is primarily people just wanting to get by. They spent their extra time shining their floors or waxing their cars. Maybe getting that last decoration up in the foyer. That’s why we have so many databases running in Excel, It says easy as possible while just barely skirting by danger.

Omg did you pull those out of… Dude wash those off first…

When you grow that third arm the production will increase by half by default…

Yes, it didn’t re-sort by default. You can, however, hide based on score. so kinda?

They also used to (maybe they still do) have meta-moderation where you could flag things as funny or insightful. I always considered that a nice touch but it didn’t allow sorting either. .

I usually wouldn’t take the time to dissect and explain the issues I have with someone’s writing, but since you’re posting this on multiple platforms and called it an “effort piece”, I assume you’re looking to gain readers and for positive feedback. I misread the article and got upvoted by others who also didn’t read it fully, so I feel obliged to offer some help and encouragement. Ironically, this will end up being long and boring, but it’s meant for you, not for general readers.

Starting with setting the stage is usually a good approach, but nine paragraphs is too long before getting to your point. You need an early hook to keep readers interested.

The first sentence of the second paragraph is missing a word. It reads as if the people are the rage. Also, “whoever” is used for a subject and “whomever” for non-subject usage. Consider starting with “For whomever” to clarify the subject has yet to come. It’s a minor grammatical error, but it makes readers re-read the sentence to understand it. This isn’t a big deal, but it’s early in the article, and the text is lengthy with no point or summary in sight. Many readers will just close it and upvote someone who half-read it (like me).

I skimmed down to the bullet points, assuming the earlier paragraphs were a detailed history I already knew, and the points would be concise. But terms like “executive costs” and “discoverability was too onerous” make readers think too much about their meanings. You should make your points clearly and use simple language, like early high school or late middle school dialects. After making your point clear, you can elaborate further, perhaps even get a little flowery. Remember, this is a non-technical post for the general public, so it should be easy to read if you want it to be popular.

In the first set of bullet points, in #2, you start a subset with (1) but never follow up with (2). This makes readers feel like they missed something and adds to the difficulty of reading.

After your first set of bullet points, you returned to your chronological account, then broke into another set of bullet points. It’s not clear that you’re setting up a contrast here. Including a line like “in contrast” would help readers follow your thought process and transition more smoothly.

At the end of your second set of bullet points, you reference the 4th item from the first set, which makes readers think they missed #4 from the second set. It would be better and more readable to add a #4 to the second set and include the concepts in that paragraph.

I agree with the ideas you present, but it’s hard to grasp them with so many snags in the article. Proofreading it out loud might help. If English isn’t your first language, it might not help as much. I ran it through Grammarly, but it can’t fix the context issues I’m mentioning here. It catches a lot of the easier errors, but most of its recommendations don’t improve the thoughts you’re trying to convey.

Running your opening paragraphs through a readability calculator, your average score is “very difficult” to “extremely difficult.” This isn’t ideal for a weblog opinion piece. If you were writing a technical document or research paper, it would be fine, but for general consumption (which IMO is where this piece belongs), you should simplify it. Think of a New York Times article. The piece i’m writing here to you will gauge as very difficult as well, but that’s to be expected on an instructional piece.

As much as you might hate this suggestion, please try it: Run your drafts through an LLM like GPT-4/Copilot with the prompt “make this simpler [your text here].” Don’t just copy and paste what it says, but look at the changes in wording and see where the changes are significant. This can help make your writing more approachable.

Here’s an example

Yours:

“Whoever didn’t like the real-time nature of the IRC livechat, forums were all the rage and I admit they had a wonderful charm for the upcoming teenager who wanted to express themselves with fancy signatures and some name recognition for their antics. Each forum was a wonderful microcosm, a little community of people with a similar hobby and/or mind-frame.”

Theirs:

“For those who didn’t like the real-time nature of IRC live chat, forums were very popular. They had a special charm for teenagers who wanted to express themselves with fancy signatures and gain some recognition. Each forum was a small community of people with similar hobbies and mindsets.”

I’d take the advice up to the first comma, take out upcoming it’s not pertinent, add in gain, for the sake of readability, I’d take out microcosm, it’s a proper term, but it’s just duplicating the same thought and really doesn’t add to the comprehension or visuals while making it harder to read.

Mine:

“For those who didn’t like the real-time nature of the IRC live chat, forums were all the rage. and I admit they had a wonderful charm for teenagers who wanted to express themselves with fancy signatures and gaine some name recognition for their antics. Each forum was a wonderful little community of people with a similar hobbies and mindsets”

Also of note: maybe do lay into every person who gives you negative criticism, If your goal is to have people read your thoughts, some of these people may have viable critiques or real misunderstandings you can adjust your writing style for and draw a more substantial audience.

Best of luck!

that Discord was the viable option, even though it didn’t have the features you needed unless you dropped $200 in microtransactions?

It was a discord for a game.

I’m sitting here trying to figure out why you’re coming out on the attack so hard, it’s your own blog. That makes perfect sense.

LLM? no, I skimmed it because it’s extremely long and very fluffy. I mistook some of the fluff, my apologies. I’ll go back and thoroughly read it when I have time later today and give you credible feedback. Off the cuff, I’d recommend you try to tame the writing down a little, you’re obviously very excited and feel strongly about the topic, but that doesn’t always translate to a good read for others.

Saying that I mentioned paragraphs from the actual article … yeah.