Have you consider sending your collection of ticket and professional bug reports to Latina and properly get a 2nd job and earn your justified income?
Granted I haven't finished my first run, but locking out contents/dialog/story path is part of the deal in crpg no? (Or, like if you killed some NPC and then later not be able to finish a side quest involving that dead guy is fairly normal.)
Well, I switched to DDG after last time someone said it's doing a much better job then Google's now. So I've switched all my defaults to DDG. On the contrary, users don't mind which search engine, as long as they give proper results efficiently.
Google's search result is honestly worse atm.
User content deliver platform is a really bad business model cause:
I don't know how Nebula do the revenue split, can a user even specify like I want to support this creator only? cause from what I see only 50% revenue is distributed, that means the bigger channel you are traffic wise, the more you get from sign ups. so smaller creators might not have a good time there compare to the patreon model.(where user pay directly to them and the end user just watch youtube or from other source direct stream/download).
Thankfully, so far Tencent hasn’t done that yet.
I wonder why?
hope for Embracer Group reviving neglected studios
I am not quite into that accquisition sub-culture but remember when there were a lot of acquisitions that seems semi-malicious? They resulted in key figures departure, sequels flop hard, and projects eventually stopped existing. My personal take on Embracer is that they wanted to buy existing IPs that they can do the following:
But, Valve literally pick up and implement what Overwatch did and input buffering is not new as well since Rocket League used it for a long time, also partially thanks to Overwatch dev if you watch Psyonix's GDC talk. So yeah, many game dev does innovate through out, and don't credit everything when Valve implement what other did and maybe make other improvement along the way. That's how everyone improve, by learning from each other.
Yeah, as you mentioned, it's quite a split interns of mobile vs console/pc market. And we have games that fails(just look at recent EA/MS games that tried to push mtx/battle pass) because there simply isn't enough time in the world's console/pc game population to commit to 2+ more pass/weekly event games. I play only rocket league + whatever single player games and only dip into other multiplayer short term. So guess what kind of game I don't spend money on or even trying when it's F2P?
Your assumption is based on once you switch to live service model you will make more money, however that's not true. You can only do live service model when you have enough player retention, player that keep coming back because you have enough new content to play, and that player base with carefully done monetization makes you money(player willing to spend money is proportional to the player base and social impact). Look at Halo Infinity, such a big IP that fails spectaulary, and if you are investment company, you willing to push the same self destruction button?
We are talking about people that handling billions of fund and try to make their career looks good, not worse.
Would they push for monetization once they hit jackpoy and have good candidate that can make the transition? Sure. Is that something you can see from Kamiya's past games? I don't think so. So if it is Tencent give money to Kamiya and let him do his stuff, I am sure that they trust him enough to make quality games that turns profit.
I used to not trust that as well but it really depends on the people the runs the project. Like every other company investment company will have evaluation benchmark or metrics for different management styles. They do have control shares(with voting power), but the best ones are those you don't need to do anything. ie. Tencent invested in Epic, not majority but sure they make 10x more than they initially invested and does not have to do anything to manage the company.
People like to think that Tencent(or any big publisher) wants to manage company like in RTS where you have to micro almost every unit just not that last bit(like auto attack when enemy in sight). But the reality is that's a huge amount of work and paper trails everywhere for decision making. If later comes around for the finger pointing why the project/company not doing well, you are not going to get away with it. Yes, people may make stupid decision and some are ego/power tripping given that position, but the raw result will eventually leads to better management style for investing firm cause they have their own bottom lines to keep.
honestly, this is a great test of this era. Tencent the investment company that throws money around the world to make more money is a far apart from that mtx game making publisher/studios. Like any venture capitals, the best investment is something you put money, does nothing and then profit. If you invest 50% in a company then have to assign half the board and have them point fingers smudge everything to gain total control, it does not make the investment sound, and it's a money sink since non of your assigned board member needs to pull money or make a profit, they just need to be there pretending to give a fuck until the money runs dry or in some rare case, they actually succeeded then sell their bonus and move on. (no, they can't just dispatch a Chinese over.)
As much as people don't like to see that Tencent name, I think it would be cool for Kamiya san to have full control and make his own games. Heck, I don't mind if it's Tencent, Sony, MS or even freaking EA as long as Kamiya gets total creative freedom to run the company.
nvidia is using their investor's dollars really efficiently, which is what leads them to today's dominance, but also make them like bully toward their business partners(like EVGA, who knew what other vendors are being treated. )
some of the early investment to push dominance in cuda:
The business plan and result is then positive feedback cycle, crytpo surge of sales or investment money is extra but Nvidia did put them to good use. But above plan make more investors willing to pump money into NV. There are no better business than monopoly business.
Then, some thing happened for consumer end, don't know exactly when or reasons they start selling flag ship and crank up their GPU's prices. People would be like, dude their used GPU with crypto is selling 3x~5x higher then MSRP, why wouldn't they just increase and get all the revenue themselves. That maybe "part" of the reason but I think they probably testing water in both front(their data center number crunching card were way, way more expensive than even the top tier consumer cards.) They took the chance, with global chip shortage and other "valid reason" to up the price and then check what the market respond, now they have about 2 generation worth of "price gouging" the market data to set their price properly.(plus the door in your face effect. ) Note, big manufacturers sign component deals in years, not quarters, the chip shortage might affect difference sector heavily, like say laundry machines, but for NV you can bet your ass their supply is top priority.
They did lose out on the console front, and like many already mentioned, NV's CEO no longer have passion in pushing game tech, he is all AI now. Depending on how they aim their business, their game side gpu business may not doing something really worth mentioning until AMD can put up a serious threat.
well, don't buy NV cards then. I switched and actually feel my dollars worth the purchase. (6800xt)
I don't get this "raw pixels are the best pixels" sentiment come from, judging from the thread everyone has their own opinion but didn't actually see the reason behind why people doing the upscalers. Well bad news for you, games have been using virtual pixels for all kinds of effects for ages. Your TV getting broadcast also using upscalers.(4k broadcast not that popular yet.)
I play Rocket Leauge with FSR from 1440p to 2160p and it's practically looking the same to 2160p native AND it feels more visually pleasing as the upscale also serve as extra filter for AA to smooth out and sharpen "at the same time". Frame rate is pretty important for older upscaler tech(or feature like distance field AO), as many tech relies information from previous frame(s) as well.
Traditionally, the render engine do the stupid way when we have more powerful GPU than engine demand where the engine allows you to render something like 4x resolution then downscale for AA, like sure it looks nice and sharp BUT it's a bruteforce and stupid way to approach it and many follow up AA tech prove more useful for gamedev, upscaler tech is the same. It's not intended for you to render 320x240 then upscale all the way to 4k or 8k, it will pave way for better post processing features or lighting tech like lumen or raytracing/pathtracing to actually become usable in game with decent "final output".(remember the PS4 Pro checkboard 4k, that was a really decent and genuinely good tech to overcome PS4 Pro's hardware limit for more quality demanding games. )
In the end, consumer vote with their wallet for nicer looking games all the time, that's what drives developers gear toward photo real/feature film quality renderings. There are still plenty studio gears toward stylized, or pixel art and everyone flip their shit and praise while those tech mostly relies on the underlying hardware advance pushed by photo real approach, they just use the same pipeline but their way to reach their desired look, Octopath Traveler II used Unreal Engine.
Game rendering is always about trade-offs, we've come a LONG way and will keep pushing boundaries, would upscaler tech become obsolete somewhere down the road? I have no idea, maybe AI can generate everything at native pixels, right?
I didn't even bought the 3rd SC2 expansion, I bought the 2nd one and not even playing through half of it. I did play a bit of overwatch due to friends asking me to play with them, but quickly drop it cause I really don't have time to grind or play that game and keep up with the meta.