Eh, more of a case by case basis in the tech industry imo. Most game studio devs should probably unionize, but it’s not all horror stories everywhere. I’m not against unionization by any means and it’s always on the table, but when me and my coworkers already have great pay, great benefits, stable careers, and great work life balance I don’t really see what additional benefits it would bring. It’s an over-generalization to say that you’ll be earning more money as a union employee when you’re already making more than 90% of the population, I know first hand that some trades even make more than their unionized counterparts in my area.
It would being better pay, better benefits, even more stable careers and better work-life balance.
It doesn’t matter how much money you’re already making, or how good your benefits already are. If you have a Union, you can negotiate for improvements. There is always room for improvement, unless you’re working at a fully-mutual workers cooperative.
I know first hand that some trades even make more than their unionized counterparts
I’d be interested to learn more, do you have a source or anything?
I already negotiate. Every couple years I interview around, I get a job offer, I take it back it my employer and they either match it or I leave. I’ve personally increased my salary 6x since I’ve joined the industry about a decade ago, I know people who have increased it more. I don’t know anyone in a unionized field who’s managed to achieved anything like this. I don’t know that it’s impossible, just seems to be much more rare. I’m a specialized individual in a specialized industry, I already have bargaining power and I definitely reject that my compensation, benefits, job stability, and WLB would be better if I had been unionized this whole time.
I’d be interested to learn more, do you have a source or anything?
Like I said, first hand. Purely anecdotal, I’m sure it isn’t the case for all union jobs.
I'm not in games, but if/when things start to turn, it's far easier for myself and the people around me to just leave for an employer that treats us right than to try to unionize and force the current one to behave. Those are the benefits of having a job that's very much in demand though, not to mention one that can be worked from home and isn't dependent on geography, so the union isn't necessary because the employees already hold enough power. If the employer has a monopoly on your jobs, being able to unionize is a powerful tool in your toolbelt.
the funny thing is actual ability to pay is varying from business to business. AAA development with in-house engine is simply inferior as a business compared to mobile gamedev or producing shitty battle royale clones with Unity. If some business can’t compete with big tech or low-effort money grabbers, does it mean it has to go?
I definitely reject that my compensation, benefits, job stability, and WLB would be better if I had been unionized this whole time.
Why? What is your reasoning for rejecting this? Can you justify it? You’re just saying “no” without any thought or explanation. Do you just refuse to believe that things could be better?
And frankly that’s not how this works. You’re the one trying to convince me that a union is in my best interest, the burden of proof is on you and you’ve given no substantial evidence.
I read your whole comment, but at no point does it explain why you think you wouldn’t be able to negotiate improvements with a union. What you have written essentially amounts to:
“I was able to build a really beautiful cabinet with hand tools. I reject the notion that power tools make it easier to build cabinets. I know people who have power tools but they haven’t made cabinets as nice as mine.”
If you have multiple people as a group who have the power to completely sink a business negotiating together, they stand a much better chance of improving conditions than any of them do alone.
How are you reasoning against such a self-evidently true claim?
My point is that skilled individuals in specialized fields already have strong individual bargaining power, something that you continue to underestimate in this thread. Collective bargaining is not risk free with one outcome, this is a fact that all the nuance free analogies in the world won’t change. If the sector is overall happy with individual bargaining power you’re going to need more proof than supposed “self-evident” claims.
Let me fix your analogy. A power tool salesman walks up to my door and tells me I have to throw out my hand tools because I can build cabinets much faster without them and then calls me an idiot for not wanting to throw away the tools I’ve mastered over the last decade.
I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience. Not only that, I have experience in management in the same field.
I am not denying that you have individual bargaining power that I’m sure you’re leveraging successfully.
I am just pointing out to you that if you were unionised, you’d have even more bargaining power which would almost definitely have resulted in a better outcome for you.
Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.
There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more. You’re just refusing to acknowledge it, like a flat earther faced with the results of their experiment refusing to accept it. Just because you say “no, I don’t like this scientific proof” it doesn’t mean that I’m somehow failing to back up my argument when I refuse to give you more proof. You have THE proof of the matter. Accept it and be right, or reject it and be wrong. It’s up to you.
As for your analogy, being in a union does not mean you lose your individual bargaining rights, you can continue to negotiate your salary individually if you wish to do so. You do not lose any power or rights from being in a union. You only gain power.
I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience.
Lol is this the point in your argument where you call me a kid?
Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.
Lower risk often means lower reward, and I already consider individual bargaining in my field low risk.
There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more.
You’ve provided exactly zero links in this thread.
like a flat earther
And there it is! Again! So far you’ve called me anti-vax and a flat earther because your unlinked evidence and shitty anologies aren’t convincing me of unproven theories in my field. This conversation is over and you’ve done more to hurt your cause than help here you condescending prick.
I appreciate the good faith you’re putting into this. I tend to lean your way, but it’s interesting to see this discussion play out. Thanks for being respectful. I appreciate it, even though (up to this comment) I’m just observing the thread.
Until this moment you haven’t asked me for any sources for my claim, whereas I have asked you multiple times for yours. Your basis is “just my vibes” and now you’re acting like I’m an asshole for pointing out that your position (arguing against science based on vibes) isn’t rational. Now by claiming I haven’t backed up my claims, despite pretty much accepting that they were valid until this moment, you cast me as irrational, and instead of asking for proof of my claims so you can amend your perspective, you just loftily declare that the conversation is over, because you know fine well that if it continues, your world view will be completely compromised.
Anyone who wants to see the proof can simply Google “average wage difference for unionised workers” or anything like that. You can do the same thing. I’m guessing you already have, but decided “that doesn’t apply to me” because you’re oh so special.
Lower risk often means lower reward
For investment and such, yeah sure, but not everything follows the same pattern. Unionising and collective bargaining is a perfect example, because it consistently has been shown to lower risks and increase rewards, again and again.
Act all indignant if you want to. You’re giving me a perfect platform to demonstrate the superiority of my ideology against your very weak, irrational reasoning. If you think that I’m somehow hurting my cause by revealing the inherent incoherence of your position, then yeah, sure, I’m really destroying my cause right now.
Every couple years I interview around, I get a job offer, I take it back it my employer and they either match it or I leave.
I don’t even have to do that. My employer always give me good raises and even better bonuses. Every year.
Benefits are great. PTO is great. Work-life balance is great. No layoffs whatsoever. It’s not just about making money for the company and the owners, but the rest of the employees as well.
I don’t need the strife from trying to start a union here. Save it for companies that have pushed their employees too far. Unionize where it’s going to have the greatest benefit.
That’s great, I’m finally at a point in my career where I think it’ll be the same. As long as there isn’t a major culture shift, I could see myself staying at this job for the next 10+ years
Ever talked to the cleaning staff how they’re faring? Your suppliers in Cambodia (or wherever)?
It’s not that hard for capital to see reason when it comes to specialised, educated, and sometimes right out irreplaceable workers, but that doesn’t mean that capital suddenly developed a conscience.
You know perfectly well what I meant and the intent and purpose behind my comment. Try again.
And even if you’re working in a five person co-op outfit and someone of you indeed does scrub the toilet: What about the dishwashers at that Chinese takeout you order at every other day. How does your actual supply chain look like, even if it’s pizza and coffee.
What are you arguing about exactly? Not a single comment in this chain is anti union at all, and the comment you replied to even argued for unionization where it will have the greatest benefit, i.e. all the jobs you just mentioned.
Why are you acting like this is some sort of prisoner’s dilemma where either everyone unionizes or no one does?
And I never said anyone was. That’s something you came up with.
All I wanted to do is remind people is that capital giving a fuck about your ass doesn’t mean that said capital is benevolent, or you shouldn’t organise, because it’s still going to fuck anyone over it can get away with fucking over. Like the cleaning staff.
How can you force the bosses to pay cleaning staff properly if the engineers aren’t striking for them? There’s a gazillion desperate scabs out there and I can’t even blame them, how can you blame someone with two jobs for wanting a third to pay rent.
…that, btw, is why the likes of the IWW organise companies and industries, and not trades.
Not without class consciousness, no. But yes that is how it often works in countries that aren’t the US. Occasionally, it also works in the US, e.g. the Hollywood strikes right now. Was it the writers I think who got a proper offer right now and they said they’re going to continue until others got theirs, too.
This does suck though. To start, a counter-offer-based model begs discrimination. You should be getting yearly raises commensurate with (at absolute bare minimum, not even necessarily accounting for inflation) the increase in productivity from year to year.
This is to say nothing of work environments. Unions could reduce or end crunch. Not just as hard blockers, but mandating the kind of project management that doesn’t require crunch.
I don’t know about discrimination, you’d have to provide actual statistical evidence of that for me to believe it.
I do get yearly raises, they’ve beaten inflation by a lot every year except for one. I left that job and took a 30% compensation increase elsewhere.
I rarely see crunch time. I have no problems whatsoever with the frequency and intensity of it, but if it became a problem I’d leave and find a job elsewhere.
I don’t work in silicon valley, but they make a lot more than I do and my wage doesn’t feel suppressed lol.
The job market in tech is alive and well in my experience. There was overhiring during the pandemic which ended with some layoffs, I don’t see that as the market turning, but we’ll have to wait and see.
I know Lemmy wants everyone everywhere unionized, but for me in my industry the arguments for it are hand wavy at best. I find it disingenuous to tell people in this industry that they don’t have bargaining power as an individual.
It’s not that you don’t have individual bargaining power. It’s just that if you were unionised, you’d have much more.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Edit: Lol this dude ran back and added sources to previous comments after I called him out on not providing sources. Before the edit he claimed collective bargaining can get 50% raises for everyone.
Right, and what percentage of unions are successfully negotiating 50% pay raises? Surface level nuance free thought experiments aren’t going to convince me here
It was an analogy. The point is that a union gives you stronger negotiation power than you have alone. By not being in a union, you’re getting worse outcomes than you would have in a union. All of the statistics we have demonstrate that unionising results in a big increase in wages and benefits. You’re basically saying “no” because you think you know better than the science. This is just like anti-vax sentiment.
You’ve sent zero statistics and I’ve yet to see any statistics or even anecdotal evidence that pertains to my industry. All you’ve done is promise ridiculous benefits like 50% salary increases through unrealistic analogies. My experience is purely anecdotal, but frankly it’s better evidence than pipe dream analogies.
But sure, go around calling people anti-vax because you don’t know how to put together a proper argument, I’m sure that’s how you get people to change their minds about unionization. Why would I continue this conversation at this point? If this is something you’re passionate about I’d rethink your strategy.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Why on earth do you think I’d continue this conversation at this point? You’ve called me an anti-vax flat earther, I don’t know why you decided to resort to insults before sources, but it’s clear you aren’t discussing this in good faith. No thanks.
Your position is completely indefensible, and you know it, but you continue to hold it because your ego is more important than reality.
Do you know of any other groups who prioritise the preservation of their ideology over reality?
If you had any actual arguments against me, you would use them. But since you don’t, you’re just acting oh so indignant and high-handed that I had the temerity to call you out on your bullshit.
Maybe next time, if you don’t want an education, you should keep your ignorance to yourself.
This does suck though. To start, a counter-offer-based model begs discrimination. You should be getting yearly raises commensurate with (at absolute bare minimum, not even necessarily accounting for inflation) the increase in productivity from year to year.
I see that a lot with just the starting percentages of yearly raises. Most companies never keep up with market value, and by the time you’ve spent ten years there, you’re making much lower than the industry standard.
The worst is employers who have some 1-5 scale for yearly performance and they gatekeep bosses who try to give out too many 5s. It’s not a competition among your peers. If the whole team is doing good and working hard, then reward all of them.
This is correct. I apologize if it seems snarky, I know people say things like that because of habit, but the American defaultism on the internet is pretty frustrating for an outsider.
But I shouldn't take away from their opinion, though. What they meant is much more important than my complaint.
I wish developers would learn that just because they’re well paid doesn’t mean they’re getting the full value of their work. Your CEO didn’t become a billionaire by paying you the full value of your labor.
There’s always room for more and unions can get that.
This is from a Swedish perspective, but: My experience with unions has been that they think it’s more important that nobody is paid more, than to pay everyone what they’re worth. In other words they’d prefer everyone being paid equally over raising the minimum wage. Their motivation seems based in jealousy more than a sense of justice. The money they collect from their members is spent on offering stupid IT courses that nobody (except unskilled people) needs, or stuffing their own pockets.
I like the idea of a union, but to me it seems like the actual unions we have today either lack real problems to solve or forgot about them. Every time a representative comes to visit I just get angered by how out of touch they are. They should focus on their core values and get rid of all that idiotic fluff, so they can lower their fees and recruit more members. But like any organization they grew fat and slow.
Ensuring that people know how to use Excel is not a problem that the union should be spending money on.
At my office we can work at any hours of the day that we prefer, as long as we check with our coworkers and do our agreed 40 hours / week. When the union heard about this they told my employer that we must do all our work during daytime.
Their reasoning was that our liberal hours give us the opportunity to take on more obligations in our personal life at daytime (such as taking kids to soccer practice) which means we have to work in evenings to make up for lost time. And this, in turn, means we don’t get enough rest. So basically they don’t trust the employees to take responsibility for how much rest they need and want to stop them from doing personal chores during the day.
We (the employees) finally won against the union in this, but what I kept thinking during this ordeal was “jeez, don’t they have more important issues to address?” If they did, why would they be meddling with this.
I think you don’t understand unions or what they are fighting for. Your presumed freedom in working hours is exactly what the unison stated. If you need freetime to fix chores you should reduce your working hours and not work throughout the night.
Yes, but then that’s my choice to reduce my working hours, not something my union should force on me. It’s patronizing. All ~100 employees disagreed with the union on this. IMO that’s a sign that they are overreaching and forget who they are working for. They need to realize when they are done and just sit back and enjoy what they’ve accomplished, instead of mindlessly optimizing for the wrong target. At any rate, if this is the kind of stuff they pull I won’t want to support them, because to my mind they are making things worse, not better.
Just because you’re paid well doesn’t mean others are not being mistreated
FTFY
without unions there could be a huge salary disparity between devs in the same role, in the same company, even in the same project. I’ve personally witnessed more than 2x, heard about even more.
Sometimes it’s more than justified with individual’s performance and impact, sometimes it’s not. Some people are just better skill-wise, some people are better at applying pressure on their employer, holding business-critical knowledge hostage or simply negotiating.
Point here is - while unionizing might make things better on average, there would be a very real pushback from people who are benefitting from current system and this is not necessarily management. For management in some cases it would be even a net benefit, since they don’t have to deal with primadonnas and someone tying things to themselves just for leverage.
As an engr manager, I’ve often seen disparity as a result of being hired during good years vs bad years for the company. Or when someone gets a better offer to leave, the company may change their pay but no one else’s. Or hiring externally vs a transfer from another internal team. Or whether the team is coding for frontend web vs dev tools, even if using the same language. Or if female.
It’s always a challenge for one person to fix – with HR, with the department head, with yearly budget. And sometimes fixing one disparity means not having the sway to fix another as well.
Which is to say – pay transparency and unions are good for everyone. And if the company can’t afford to treat the employees equitably, then the company shouldn’t exist. (Or it should reduce its avocado toast budget.)
Nah, definition 1 right there isn’t inherently negative. It’s certainly more involved than otherwise necessary and seems somewhat driven by emotion, so while it skips the negative connotation I think this counts plenty well.
it’s definitely a weird term but in more than a few contexts (mostly very online contexts) i’ve found it to be the only suitable terminology because there’s just nothing else which most of the people i talk to will “get” otherwise–it’d be nice to have something a little bit less embarrassing to work with, to be honest lol
“average person” i’m afraid lacks a certain it factor–probably the ironic steeping in terminally online culture implied by even speaking it–that’s implied by using normie. i find in many of these circumstances it just seems out of place also. in a semantic sense i’m not sure “average person” maps to “normal person” either, which is another thing
Yeah I’m not sure “average person” works the same… maybe “median person”? 🤣
The 10% nerdiest people hold 90% of the nerdiness?
But yeah I don’t think “average person” works, because it’s not a wide enough range and doesn’t include the opposite extreme end
“non-normies” is a very small group, in this context non-normies would be the most extreme gamers. The “average people” would not include a somewhat invested gamer, and it also wouldn’t include someone who is heavily opposed to gaming, both of which would be included in “normies”.
I don’t think someone heavily opposed to gaming would be considered a normie, they would be in their own separate extremist camp also apart from the average person.
As someone alternative that been active in local gothic scenes I also use “normie” to refeer to people that do not engage with subcultures. I didn’t even know it was considered pejorative until this post
I just think of “normie” as the new “vanilla” - every group that uses it, uses it uses it to refer to people who are not a part of that particular group, so its meaning depends on the context but should be self-explanatory and not (necessarily) derogatory.
As a software guy I like the word for its simplicity and ease of use.
Meh cringe can be effective as a descriptor, but it’s cringe to call people cringe as a personal attack. I’ve described situations as very “cringe-inducing.”
Cringe is a thing, but it's way too common that people use their own self-consciousness as an excuse to try to shame people who are just enjoying themselves on their own corner.
NPC’s is worse to be honest. It’s generally used to attack people’s social/political values and call them “sheeple” without using the term. Normie is gross but it’s mainly just dismissive and having too high an opinion of one’s own taste/interests.
NPCs is ten times worse because it is used to dehumanize people you don’t agree with, further alienates you away from normal society and pushes you deeper into cult like thinking.
“We can do better” or worse “X do better” is more cringe.
It’s just everyone judging everyone like they are worthless. Maybe people want to be part of the group maybe they have an identity with hardcore gamers. They don’t need to do better that’s their right.
I’m a game developer. No game developers are panicking about this game. I’ve not played it but I’ll probably play it soon. It looks great but even if it blows my mind it doesn’t cause me to panic. It inspires me. I don’t know of a game developer that gets panicked at the sight of good games. I know monetary goblins that might realize they can’t push heartless games anymore but in the last decade we’ve started to see games really take shape as cinematic masterpieces. Experiences that truly top movies. This is the inevitable next step. Games with more interactions and more meaningful choice out of those interactions.
Man, parts of Death Stranding were so interesting they should have won movie awards. Brilliant supporting character/mocapped actors. Couldn’t agree more on that front.
I also question how much that bar has truly been raised. I’ve not played Baldur’s Gate but I have seen people treat games like generation-defining games for them to just kind of not exist outside of their bubble. Like Uncharted 4, Last of Us, Spiderman, and God Of War. I just finished Uncharted 4 and it was truly amazing but for a lot of people, it did not raise their standards for the entire industry. I feel like, if anything, Baldur’s Gate 3 will raise standards for AAA RPGs. Then again, it might have just preemptively killed Starfield.
See, that’s what I am talking about. Mass Effect 1 didn’t have a huge impact on the industry as a whole. Doom only had a huge impact on the industry because it was very small and they started licensing out their engine with groundbreaking tech. The industry is huge now.
I remember a lot of people were saying Half-Life: Alyx was a huge industry changer and that it would prove that games are far more enjoyable in VR. It is the best-reviewed VR game on Steam. Yet, now, VR is essentially dead.
I remember when people were saying PUBG just changed the entire industry and we’d never look at it the same again. Which honestly, PUBG did have a large but temporary impact on the games industry. A lot of battle royals came out after. Now though, you’d be lucky to find a successful battle royal release in the last 2 years.
I’ll certainly play it when I can but a 20+ hour game commitment is not what I am honestly looking for anymore. I like far shorter experiences. So overall, it feels like counting the chickens before they hatch. Is Baldur’s Gate 3 really going to stay in people’s minds? Is it going to influence the next games that come out? Are AAA studios building more classic isometric-inspired RPGs because of it?
Doom did have a significant impact on the industry but only because the industry was small. Doom 2016 was released and people said it was “industry” changing but realistically counter-strike, valorant, and other FPSs are the same as before. I am just cautious between the whole industry changing and realistically only transforming a small subset.
True industry-changing games can be felt today. I will say that Doom is industry changing but again because it was so small. Half-Life 2, was that industry changing? Frankly, between Half-Life and Half-Life 2, the first feels far more influential to me. I’d say Doom’s offshoots are more influential than actual Doom at this point. Minecraft feels industry changing and was around that time indie game development got huge. In part, because of Minecraft’s success. Mass Effect though? I remember it being called a fine RPG with terrible combat mechanics. I think people far remember more about Mass Effect 2 and 3 rather than Mass Effect in 2007. Your article was written in 2021 and the only other one I found was written in 2012 and talked about Mass Effect 3’s ending and how it changed the industry because Bioware listened to fans and caved to change it.
Actually, let me put it this way. An industry-influential game is a game that any game developer should absolutely play even if they are making a console or PC game or mobile game. It doesn’t truly exist anymore but even if you cut off the mobile game developers and stick t just console or PC, BG3 is probably not industry-influential because someone making Slime Rancher or Survival Crafting games doesn’t really need to have knowledge from BG3. BG3 will probably influence RPG games and probably solely RPG games. That’s a subset of games that a lot of developers do not need to worry about. I do not need to go rush out and play BG3 in order to build any game.
I’m literally not disagreeing that Doom was industry-changing. I said it multiple times. You seem to be just reaching through any hole to continue to argue about something we both agree on.
Doom only had a huge impact on the industry because it was very small and they started licensing out their engine with groundbreaking tech. The industry is huge now.
So I said 1) doom had a huge impact on the industry because it, (the industry) was small and they started licensing out their engine. Now that the industry is bigger it’s not really a good comparison to any game.
You then said:
Let’s say that didn’t have a big impact though, to say Doom didn’t? I don’t even know where to begin. Doom + Quake basically shaped the next 20 years of FPS’s with goldeneye being one of the other major iterators on how MP was handled.
I literally said the opposite and said Doom had a huge impact on the industry.
So I made that clear:
I will say that Doom is industry changing but again because it was so small. […] I’d say Doom’s offshoots are more influential than actual Doom at this point.
This is absolutely true and you agreed by saying:
You would not have doom off-shoots without doom. You’re really reaching here to disagree with me over something that is pretty much consensus. 
We agree Doom was industry-changing, but Doom is currently not as directly influential to the industry today. We both agree and you state that’s somehow a point of disagreement.
So I fail to see why you are pulling at this small nitpick part that we both agree on when I’ve made a slew of points in the comments above that you ignored. If you want to engage, try to do so in terms of having a conversation rather than just trying to point out something you feel is wrong. Take into context the things I’ve said, don’t just focus on one little thing you think you disagree with. If you actually disagree with what I said, please be clear in how you think I’ve said something because it might just be a point of clarity rather than actual disagreement.
When you said we wouldn’t have the games that influence the industry today. The argument only works as a point if you don’t think the argument that doom directly influences the industry today. Otherwise you would have argued that which is a stronger point.
Not even close. I’m playing it right now, well into act 2, and while it is THE ultimate example of what a cRPG should be, that doesn’t necessarily mean the breadth and scope would work in other genres. You’re WAY overestimating the impact this is having on the gaming industry, and that’s evidenced by how other developers are responding to it.
Also. I’ve played through all the Mass Effects (even Andromeda, which I actually enjoyed more) and to say that it was industry-defining is a fanboy take. Full stop. From where I’m sitting ME1 did not introduce anything groundbreaking that hadn’t been done already by that point, and to be honest the early Fallout games had way more gravity when it came to choices and decision-making. I’d say of games in that era, the original Borderlands was more ground-breaking given it kind of kickstarted the looter-shooter genre, and that’s a stretch.
You are free to disagree, but to hand wave me away as having “fan boy takes” is pretty rude and does not make me want to engage further. Thanks and have a great weekend. 
Then again, it might have just preemptively killed Starfield.
They're pretty different games. They're both RPGs, and there's some overlap, but turn based is ultimately very different gameplay than action, and one isn't going to scratch the itch for the other to a lot of us.
Yeah, honestly, I doubt BG3 is going to cover the same ground for a lot of players. I don’t think people are going to play BG3 and expect more from Starfield. People will understand that they are far different games and BG3’s influence is probably going to stay in turn-based CRPGs rather than being an industry-wide influential game.
I'm fully expecting to go pretty hard at both, and BG3 might have me engaged enough to not jump straight into Starfield at launch, but I need immersive 3D games, too, and except Elden Ring which is it's own thing (even if it does pretty comfortably check the boxes of ARPG), I've been waiting for something of comparable scope to Skyrim that doesn't have a fatal flaw for a long time. Even as old and janky as it is now, it's still a scale that's only matched by a handful of games in the decade since.
The beauty of Bethesda’s flagship titles (namely Fallout and TES) is even if they end up as buggy messes upon release, or have empty maps, the modding community corrects those flaws relatively quickly.
It’s one of the reasons that I, a long-time veteran of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., am not worried if GSC Game World fucks up S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2. Today, the best part of the first titles is the mods that fix, improve, and add content to the games. It’ll be the same with this one, and I’m excited to see what people do with A-Life 2.0.
I sware that’s happened with all big games of late, Elden Ring, TotK, etc. A few Devs decide to be contraian to the praise and then the media decides it a huge backlash.
Absolutely what I noticed too. The tweets didn’t seem like they were even “panicking” but just saying to players “Don’t expect this because most studios aren’t going to devote the same resources and ability to the party-based classic isometric-inspired RPG genre because the genre is fairly niche.”
Real talk. I don’t game on console anymore, but Metal Gear Solid is the crowning jewel of console game plots.
Ever tried explaining the series to someone unfamiliar with it? You end up sounding like a fuckin meth head coming off a binge, and to me that makes it a narrative worth diving in to.
Sure but I am talking about games as a whole. You see more cinematography today in most games than you saw in MGS 1998. In fact, MGS 1998 has cutscenes and it has gameplay. Games today are removing that divide. Your gameplay is in your cutscene. In MGS1 you’d hit a video and walk away for 10 minutes while listening to it and it’d be fine. Today you hit a cut scene and you stay because you’ll have to shoot someone as the conversation breaks down or the building collapses and you have to jump out.
That’s what I am talking about when I say cinematic masterpieces. They don’t have jarring cuts between a cutscene and gameplay and they feel like cinematic moments while you are never taken out of the gameplay. Eventually, we’ll get to the point where you could show a game in a theater and people wouldn’t know the difference.
I think by "some developers", they're referring more toward the AAA studios who have spent the last couple decades baking MTX into every nook and cranny they can find in their games, and not indie devs.
There are even great AAA studios out there that aren’t pushing mtx. I just played uncharted 4 and I can’t believe that is almost a decade old. It still holds up. Far better than Rockstar’s red dead redemption 2. That said there is room in the industry for everyone. The indie team that takes 6 years to make high quality games to the AAA studio pushing games out every 2 years. Including small indie studios of 5 people making huge hit survival games and indie games that were made in 9 months but have a lot of heart.
Quality is subjective and I think we’ll start to see our genres break down as people go towards more and more specific definitions. We’ve already seen this a bit with the fps reverting back to doomlike with games like prodeus.
Even so they won’t be panicking. They can just pull a trusty piece of IP out and slap some microtransactions on it and the core target group will be all over it.
Honestly, nowadays it feels more like an indie studio is more of an indicator of quality than AAA. Most of the games I buy and enjoy are indie/small studios.
Honestly, nowadays it feels more like an indie studio is more of an indicator of quality than AAA. Most of the games I buy and enjoy are indie/small studios.
Larian is about as indie/small as Bethesda was when Skyrim released.
AAA games are very rarely as innovative as indie games, it’s all just the same rehashed stuff I feel like. Just whatever is “safe”.
So, I very much agree, the typical AAA stuff from studios like EA, Ubisoft, etc. Don’t interest me.
Although maybe Starfield will be interesting, we’ll see. I didn’t really like Fallout 4 though, I wished the RPGs were a bit more like the more old school ones lol.
I’m willing to be surprised by it, but I’m not optimistic for Starfield. What I’ve seen of it so far looks mainly like they grafted chunks of No Man’s Sky onto a Bethesda Fallout game and are trying hard to pitch it as The Next Big Thing. Frankly, I’d much rather have the next mainline Elder Scrolls game instead, but at this rate I’m going to be 40 before I get to play a sequel to a game that came out in my 20s.
About $500 of the ~$600 million they’ve raised is mine, dating from the original crowdfunding campaigns and the first year or two of development. I still check in every year or two to see if they’re any closer to having a complete game, and every time I do, I come away with the sense that they’ve put vastly more effort into developing and selling spaceship JPEGs than they have into making the game those spaceships are supposed to be used in.
Whenever I play I just assume there’s a reason no one else has tried to make star citizen before. Though they def have a problem with management and scope creep though
I saw a tier list meme that some teenager made on Discord of every game they’d ever played. You know what didn’t appear once on the list? Not a single Grand Theft Auto game nor a single Elder Scrolls game. I asked them why and they said because GTA5 and Skyrim are “old”
They’re taking so long between releases now that they missed an entire generation of gamers
Yeah, it can and should be a warning to studio heads, but as game consumers we absolutely should raise our expectations (and stop buying micro transaction crap). There are plenty of big studios with money who could buy the licence and spend years making the game, but those studios belong to the big publishers who optimise for profit not for game quality.
For me it chose direct x so I had to use the launcher. Vulcan is much better for me (just be sure to not use triple buffer for nvidia cards). Just choose skip and check the box that says ‘do not ask again’ and the launcher is less aggravating.
Triple buffering basically means that the GPU can temporarily store frames in three different locations in VRAM. This has implications for smoothness and frame time, so it should in theory always be the best option for v-sync and avoiding tearing.
Vulcan should be more efficient so you should get somewhat better performance, though my understanding is it depends on card (AMD cards are kind of designed for Vulkan, but not so much nvidia cards).
If anyone happens to be playing on Steam Deck (or any Linux desktop), the launch options are slightly different:
DX11 no launcher: –skip-launcher
Vulkan no launcher: bash -c ‘exec “${@/bin/bg3.exe}”’ – %command% --skip-launcher
Though for this particular title, the Vulkan one is really crashy on my system rn, which is ironic since the DX11 shaders are converted to Vulkan on Linux.
Larian themselves warn that Vulkan should be the least stable of the two options at the moment. That said, I’ve heard tons of conflicting reports, so it may be super dependent on specific hardware.
Thank you for the info on this, will be using it going forward.
Not sure if you did this on purpose, or if something else did it as part of editing, but your bulleted steps included an en dash (–) instead of two short dashes (--).
Have had issues in the past with that, generally with WYSIWYG type editors combining your -- into either – or —.
Ugh word does this. I didn’t realize until I wrote some documentation for a cli tool I made for a client and I wrote the documentation in word because they are fairly non technical so I wrote in the documentation sample arguments they can copy and paste and shipped it feeling good that it would work flawlessly because I tested the crap out of it. Or so I thought because they immediately hit back with it doesn’t work. I spent hours recreating their environment and watching it work no matter what I tried to get it to not work. Then I hopped on a call and had the client step by step show me what they did and they opened the word doc and copied the example commands, changed the arguments to be correct and run it. I followed along on my own machine and then I fucking saw what had happened. Fucking Microsoft Word replaced my " " with “ ” (straight quotes for smart quotes for those who cant see the difference). A quick patch of the cli to properly parse those and things were working again.
Copying out of MS products always seems to leave junk behind. The worst one is the zero-width space (unicode U+200B or hex e2808b) . Sharepoint loves to scatter these all over so any copy from a sharepoint source has to be put in a plain text editor and have a run through with a regex to find any invisible formatting characters.
I typed them directly into my comment from an Android phone, and it continues to display as two hyphens/minuses for me. Are you it’s not your client trying to be clever?
That article completely misses the forrest for the trees.
It’s a complete game. It was created with vision, passion, love, and complete creative freedom. It has a great story and interesting characters. It provides lots of player agency. It is unflinchingly candid, mature, and uncensored. Your choices, actions, and inaction ACTUALLY MATTERS. There is no DRM. There are no live service strings. You can play alone and/or with friends. There are no strangers or PvP to ruin your game. And yes, there are also no micro-transactions.
The lesson that BG3 offers isn’t just one thing… it’s a LOT of things. But the best way to sum it up is: it’s a great game and it treats players/customers with respect.
It’s also a rare example of where a massive budget without restrictions (relatively speaking) can lead to amazing results.
Usually one of two things happens: the publisher is tired of dumping money into a project then force it to market too early, or scope creep happens and the developers bite off way more than they can chew and there’s nothing they can do past a certain point.
Larian managed to dodge both of these bullets. Not by luck, of course. But they dodged them nonetheless.
So far, every article I’ve seen about Baldur’s Gate 3’s effect on the gaming industry has been horse shit. Other studios and publishers are not “panicking,” they’re not going to rethink microtransactions, and they’re not going to be daunted by this release; some devs have said as much already along the lines of “Yeah don’t expect this breadth and scope from us going forward, because it doesn’t work for our games.”
This game is not the industry-spanning “gotcha” these writers have been trying to make it out to be. AAA devs or publishers are going to continue their nonsense because people will continue to buy their shit anyway, and they know it.
All that said, BG3 is the best game I’ve played in a number of years and hands-down the best cRPG I’ve ever played. It smokes Divinity, Icewind Dale, the previous BG games, NWN, etc. So if any studios do happen to have a positive takeaway from this, maybe we’ll see at least some of that polish in games down the line.
I have avoided reading much about the game. I am loving it, but I have no idea at what point in the game that I currently am. It could end in the next ten minutes and I’ll be satisfied with my purchase, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another 10+ hours. This is what I was waiting for Bethesda to release as the next Skyrim successor if they hadn’t decided to milk that cow until troll cheese came out. It’s everything I want in a game. Story, gameplay, length, affordability, fun, and no microtransactions making my efforts feel worthless.
I legitimately have no idea how much more game I have. I finally got to the edge of Baldurs Gate and have been chilling here for like 10 hours, haven’t even gotten inside the city proper yet.
I think the most important part is that it launched without DRM on GOG and was able to be pirated from day 1 and it STILL was a huge success because people knew that the game isn’t trying anything shady to get even more money from you
It’s just something people actually want to support and not like people feel like even if they buy the game they only have half an experience if they don’t spend more money later
I really hope the next financial report from Larian is making people think differently about the necessity of putting aggressive DRM in their games
People don’t pirate because they don’t want to pay - they pirate because they don’t trust the game to bit pull more shady shit later and not be worth it in the end
The whole thing seems rushed because the CEO of Unity, John Riccitiello, was the leading advocate of microtransactions when he was at EA, and now he is instilling the same culture at Unity.
How will they differentiate between pirated copies and legitimate copies? How will they distinguish first-time installs from repeat installs? Can we trust their algorithm? It just doesn’t seem possible.
You can usually tell a unique machine apart from another via MAC address, but even that has issues, and that's giving Unity the benefit of the doubt when they haven't earned it.
Except iOS will randomize its mac adress at each boot / after a while to prevent users being tracked by rogue WiFi networks, which is actually a thing being used to track consumers in commercial spaces etc. So that wouldn’t work.
I think this is rather about checking the MAC “from the inside”, as a program running on the computer. This will work on a PC, as I think neither Windows or Linux systems restrict reading the MAC addresses of network interfaces and such, by default at least. On phones, I don’t know. But the point is that now the “attacker” is not on the wifi network you want to connect to, but inside your computer, and wifi mac randomization is worthless. Not just that they might have access to the original MAC of the wifi interface, what about the MAC of other interfaces like the cellular data interface or ethernet (over USB, when its supported), and then theres tons of other info too by which they can identify the device.
Well, if your mac address changes every time you connect to a different network, Unity would be detecting and billing for a lot of false positives, so it would be a bad method to identify unique devices.
There is still a lot of questions. How many components can I change and it still be the same computer and not a new computer? If I replace one component every two months after about a year I’ll have a new computer I’ve kind of ship of Theseused may way to a new rig. At what point would I have to buy a new licence?
If I don’t ever have to buy a new licence in that scenario why do I have to buy a new licence if I buy a new computer outright, it’s functionally the same difference.
The MAC address is the address of the network card, which can be either built into the motherboard, or on a replaceable card… so if that was the only thing they tracked, you could replace everything except that… unless you have a network card with an editable MAC (they don’t need to be unique worldwide, only on the network they directly connect to).
Microsoft seems to use a slightly different system, where they’d generate a sort of hash for all the components, then allow a limited number of changes per year, so you can change the while computer a limited number of times a year… but they call home all the time.
My phone at least has a setting where I can choose what it does regarding a MAC address.
It can either use a randomised MAC address or it can use the MAC address of the router itself (can’t really see why you’d ever want to do that). So while I am sure traditionally the MAC address comes from the network card it’s clearly not the only way to derive one.
Also I’m almost positive that I went to change my graphics card and that changed my MAC address. It was years ago so I can’t remember the details but I remember it causing some problems with some work software until I realised that’s what had happend and just remapped the licence.
Uh… that’s literally a photo, not of “a bike chained to a pole”, but a ghost bike. It’s okay to use words to describe what things are, and that’s a fucking ghost bike that’s been run over by a car. We have a phrase in English, it’s “ghost bike” and that phrase has been appropriately applied here. I… I just don’t even know where to go from here.
If I called a photo of my computer a “computer” instead of “a box full of technology components” would you also get all ruffled?
Are MAC address even shared ocer IP? as I understand MAC is for routers and other equipment to connect themselves, what MAC address are they going to receive? The one of the PC or the one of my router?
The game could read the Mac address and send it. It would probably violate GDPR because it’s not required for the game to perform its function, but it’s technically trivial.
Elon is literally everything Cyberpunk warns is about. He's the biggest corpocunt the world has ever seen. Arasaka is exactly what Elon wants X Corp to be. He's actually trying to make chips that get implanted into your brain. He wants his own Relic. He wants to be the immortal Saburo Arasaka.
I'll be 59 this year and have been gaming since Pong. They'll pry my controller from my cold, dead fingers. Also, I'm a woman as is the circle I play with, who are also all older women (45+). We do exist and couldn't give a fuck about what society thinks about it.
Better gaming than just being a potato watching TV every spare minute with no other outlet.
Gaming's been shown to help prevent dementia because it keeps the brain active.
Consider that the women that you've been trying to date that don't appreciate gaming just aren't the right partner for you.
I appreciate that, thank you! My ex could never work out why I preferred playing video games to a more mature activity like watching TV which always seemed like it was the wrong way round to me - at least I get to interact with my entertainment 😂
58 with a similar background (except that I'm a man) and I have no intention to stop.
I'm essentially a PC gamer but had a few game consoles too (until Dreamcast), which I ditched as soon as PCs were able to provide a decent platform for modern gaming. I'm a modder and occasionally a tweaker so I prefer having total control over my gaming environment than being restricted by a closed system console.
I love many game genres, my favorites being immersive open worlds and strategic action and stealth games (à la Ghost Recon Wildlands or Mass Effect) but I don't limit myself to those. Each genre brings its own amusement and interest, either honing your reflexes or challenging your cooperation skills or your memory.
And above all, gaming is fun!
There is no age cut off for enjoying challenging both your mind and reflexes, nor to have fun. And imho enjoying gaming at our ages is one of the many symptoms of still being a young soul.
The most annoying thing about the cities performance issues isn’t even the performance issues. It’s all the gamers who overnight became experts in game performance that are ranting and raving online about how they obviously know how to optimize games more than professionals. It’s so tiring at this point.
Any software engineer with real professional experience can tell you performance tuning is a nightmare. It’s going through millions of lines of code checking for places you can allocate memory a bit differently. Checking collections and going back to your CS classes to make sure you’re using the best data structures. Watching performance tools and debugging for hours on end to catch that one place that slows down a bit.
People here, Reddit, and everywhere are just so tiring because they act like it’s so obvious. “Oh it’s the teeth”. “If they would have done X”. It’s honestly just so disrespectful to the full time engineers who no doubt have had those thoughts months ago. If items like this were simple, they would have done them already.
I give completely respect to the engineers who worked on this, and I respect Colossal Order’s push to still release early. As someone who is enjoying the game, zero crashes, and in my opinion completely playable, I’m happy they released now.
I largely agree with what you’re saying but I’m going to add… If you get to the point of release and you’re off 300% and not 15% … you screwed up.
There definitely aren’t easy answers to these kinds of problems but there are steps that should be taken along the way to prevent them. Getting to the end and then addressing any and all performance issues is a recipe for disaster.
You don’t want to be making major architectural changes at this point in the process. You want to be dealing with hiccups. Throwing hardware at the problem and “optimization” only go so far.
Cities: Skylines II is a next-gen title, and naturally, it demands certain hardware requirements. With that said, while our team has worked tirelessly to deliver the best experience possible, we have not achieved the benchmark we targeted.
Then why the hell do you release the game? So it's another rushed game and that is you can blame the devs for. That is what upsets me personally the most from all those drama.
It's shocking how you guys defend the release of unfinished games. The game needed a delay and that would be better for the company and for the gamers. When will companies learn from this?
They literally said why. Because a lot of players, like myself, don’t care about the performance issues and are happy to play it. That those who wanted to start deserved to get it early, and that by delaying it only punished us. And they’re right, like I said I am enjoying it, there’s a huge discord of people enjoying it. If some people just absolutely can’t handle 30fos then they are welcome to delay it for themselves and not buy it until hardware catches up
As someone who is enjoying the game, zero crashes, and in my opinion completely playable
Not gonna lie, something tells me your opinion would shift within seconds if your computer wasnt working you a little extra magic to make this sentence true.
Willing to throw my hat into the ring here and say that I haven't even bought it yet because I know my pc can't handle it. I will wait for performance patches (or look at finally upgrading my 5 year old pc)
I also think they've done everything right. They called it out BEFORE release, but released anyway for the subset of players who can play, with the promise of improving it for the rest.
The ones who can play it got lucky, the ones who can't and are all pissed about it are the same ones who would be bitching if it got delayed.
Honestly they should have put it behind the beta window under the caveat that the “beta” was just bug fixing.
But Ive kinda noticed a trend where people who say that everyone else is overreacting, and that people are throwing tantrums over nothing, are pretty often people who have a spendy machine that brute forced past all the issues.
Like people who say “minecraft doesnt have a memory leak issue, just install a bit more RAM!” You havent solved the problem, you exist in a situation where you cant notice the problem.
To be fair, one doesn’t have to be an automotive engineer to deduce something is wrong with a new car that struggles to reach 30km/h while most of the others exceed 100km/h with ease.
(This is the first I’ve heard of anyone blaming teeth, though. That’s a bit strange.)
I don't think the issue is with people deducing something is wrong with the game. The issue is people sayings "It's definitely the fuel pump - why didn't you give it a larger pipe?" because the windscreen wipers aren't working.
Recognising an issue vs diagnosing it vs. figuring out a treatment. You can notice chest pains and shortness of breath, perhaps make an educated guess that it could be a heart attack, but it’s going to take an expert to diagnose whether that’s actually the case and what course of action to take.
There’s a big difference between looking at a game and saying there seem to be some performance issues versus baselessly pretending that you know what the specific cause of those issues is.
That’s not a fair comparison. I see people upset because the car isn’t a masarati, when they didn’t build a masarati. They built a van. I don’t need to go 100km/h, I needed something that could carry all of these items I have. And for me, that runs fine.
I will say that I have a new(ish) gaming rig, built about 3 years ago. I do think minimum requirements are jokingly out of date, and those needed to be upped to not mislead people. I don’t think even a 1000 series GTX card could play this on minimum settings, let alone a 900. It’s better PR just to be up front and say “Look, those cards just aren’t going to cut it. If you can’t play day one, we’re sorry, but we’re excited to see you at your next upgrade” rather than lie and say it’ll be fine.
I think it is. Note that I wrote 30km/h, not 200km/h. (In case you’re American, 30km/h is about 18mph.)
The Last of Us Part 1 is another example. We know it should run better on our hardware (at least with low-graphics settings) because we have already seen the original game run far better on less capable hardware. Yet this one fails to do so even at the lowest possible settings.
Even Baldur’s Gate 3, despite being otherwise wonderful, has some glaring hit-and-miss performance issues (think 8 fps at 1080p) that show up on hardware that can handle similar games easily. You don’t need to be a software engineer to compare it to Divinity: Original Sin 2, adjust for a few years of hardware inflation, and have a rough idea of how it should perform at moderate-to-low settings.
I see people upset because the car isn’t a masarati,
I don’t doubt that those people exist, but I believe they are outliers. Most of the complaints I see about underperforming games in the past year or so are from people with very reasonable expectations. If most of the gripes you’ve seen are from teeth-blaming Masarati-entitled loudmouths, I suspect it has more to do with the forums you frequent than anything else.
I mean, you kinda do, though. You have no idea what’s going on under the hood in Divinity versus Baldur’s Gate. Even if the graphics are similar and the UI looks the same, there could well be much more complex systems involved. Given that they’ve developed a faithful and fairly wide-ranging representation of D&D 5e, I’m willing to bet that ended up being a lot more involved than their own proprietary system.
Given that they’ve developed a faithful and fairly wide-ranging representation of D&D 5e, I’m willing to bet that ended up being a lot more involved than their own proprietary system.
That game was just one example, but since you seem interested in singling it out:
Turn-based game rules cannot explain the awful graphics performance that game has, even at idle, on some systems. (Not even D&D 5e, which I happen to know in detail.)
Graphics engine enhancements might explain it, but in that case, the developers should have included options to disable those enhancements.
I haven’t reverse engineered the code, but some of the behaviors I’ve seen in that game smell strongly of decisions/mistakes that I would expect from a game that was rushed, such as lack of occlusion culling. Others smell like mistakes that are common among programmers who haven’t yet learned how to use the graphics APIs efficiently, such as rapid-fire operations that should instead be batched. Still others could be explained by poor texture and/or model scaling techniques. As a software engineer, the bad performance in this particular game looks like it could come from a combination of several different factors. None of them are new in this field. All of them can usually be avoided or mitigated.
In any case, the point is that none of that analysis matters for the sake of this discussion, because a community with experience using products doesn’t have to be experienced in building them in order to notice when something is wrong. It’s not fair to categorically dismiss their criticism.
(Thankfully, the Baldur’s Gate 3 developers haven’t dismissed it. Instead, they are working on improving it. Better late than never.)
The Last of Us Part 1 is another example. We know it should run better on our hardware (…) because we have already seen the original game run far better on less capable hardware.
You cannot directly compare PC specs with those of a console. TLoU was made by Naughty Dog who are well known for squeezing absurd amounts or performance out of console hardware. The way to do this by leveraging a platforms specific strong points. The engine is very likely designed around the strengths of the console’s hardware.
PCs have a different architecture from consoles, with different trade-offs. For example: PCs are designed to be modular. You can replace graphics cards, processors, RAM, etc. This comes at a cost. One such cost is that a PC GPU has to have it’s own discrete RAM. There is a performance penalty to this. On a console things can be much more tightly integrated. I/O on a PS5 is a good example. It’s not just a fast SSD, it’s also a storage controller with more priority levels, it’s also a storage controller that interfaces directly with the GPU cache, etc.
Sigh… You conveniently deleted important parts of my comment, such as “at least with low-graphics settings” and “adjust for a few years of hardware inflation”, and completely ignored the fact that I am talking about cases of abnormally bad performance compared to entire categories of games. The straw man you’re arguing against is not what I wrote.
You conveniently deleted important parts of my comment, such as “at least with low-graphics settings” and “adjust for a few years of hardware inflation”,
No, that just supports my theory. Graphics settings usually scale really well, that’s the reason they are adjustable by the end-user in the first place. Those should not cause any of the issues you are talking about. The problems lie in parts that take advantage of certain architectural differences.
A hypothetical example that highlights a real architectural difference between consoles and PCs:
Say you have a large chunk of data and you need to perform some kind of operation on all this data. Say, adjust the contents of buffer A based on the contents of buffer B. It’s all pretty much the same: read some data from A and B, perform some operation on it, write back the results to A. Just for millions of data points. There are many things you could be doing that follow such a pattern. You know who’s really good at doing a similar operation millions of times? The GPU! It was made specifically to perform such operations. So as a smart console game developer you decide to leverage the GPU for this task instead of doing it on the CPU. You write a small compute kernel, some lines in your CPU code to invoke it. Boom, super fast operation.
Now imagine you’re tasked with porting this code to the PC. Now, suddenly this super fast operation is dog slow. Why? Because it’s data generated by the CPU, and the result is needed by the CPU. The console developer was just using the GPU for this one operation that’s part of a larger piece of code to take advantage of the parallel performance of the GPU. On PC, however, this won’t fly. The GPU cannot access this data because it’s on a separate card with it’s own RAM. The only way to get to the CPU is through the (relatively slow) PCIe bus. So now you have to copy the data to the GPU, perform the operation, and then copy the data back to system RAM. All over the limited bandwidth of the PCIe bus, that’s already being used for graphics-related tasks as well. On a console this is completely free, the GPU and CPU share the same memory so handing data back and forth is a zero-cost operation. On PC this may take so much time that it’s actually faster to do on the CPU, even though the CPU takes much more time to perform the operation, simply to avoid the overhead of copying the data back and forth.
If an engine uses such an optimisation this will never run well on the PC, regardless of how fast your GPU is. You’d need a lot of years of ‘hardware inflation’ before either doing it on the CPU or doing it on the GPU + 2 times the copy overhead is faster than just doing it on the GPU of the console with zero overhead.
In fact, things like this is why Apple moved away from dedicated GPUs in favour of a unified memory model. If you design your engine around such an architecture you can reach impressive performance gains. A good example of this is how Affinity Photo designed their app around the ‘ideal GPU’ that didn’t exist yet at the time, but which they were expecting to in the future. One with unified memory. When Apple finally released it’s M-series SoCs they finally had a GPU architecture that matched their predictions and when benchmarked with their code the M1 Max beat the crap out of a $6000 AMD Radeon Pro W6900X. Note that the AMD part is still much faster if you measure raw performance, it’s just that the system architecture doesn’t allow you to leverage that power in this particular use-case.
It’s not just how fast the individual components are, it’s how well the are integrated and with a modular system like a PC this is always going to cause a performance bottleneck.
Even just modding I’ve noticed a lot of extremely confident opinion-giving that’s equally uninformed. I think people just like to feel like they have some special insight, so they tend to run with whatever the first narrative they hear is and stick hard to it. It reminds me of all those little bullshit factoids people love to repeat, like that daddy long legs are the most venomous spider but are incapable of biting people.
The big obvious example in DayZ is the myth of the ‘alpha wolf’. People have for ages been claiming that one of the two wolf textures (usually the white one, but I’ve heard both) is an ‘alpha’ wolf that’s stronger than the others and will cause the pack to run away if you kill it. This is a complete myth with no basis in the code of the game. One wolf type is a child class of the other and the only difference is their texture.
And yet some people will get extremely offended if you mention this. Even if they literally have never even peeked under the hood of DayZ and are well aware that you’ve been actively developing mods for it.
This is exactly it. It’s more fun to shit on a game release because it gives a sense of superiority. “I know better than everyone else, this game should have been done this way and that way” and bolsters self confidence.
There are without a doubt some really good arguments for things that could be different, but the vast majority of things I read are self aggrandizing people talking about how they all know how it could be better - and that’s the arrogance that really bugs me. That any of us who don’t know anything about the source code could say at all that it should run better.
Saying “I wish it ran faster” is one thing. Saying “I know it could run better” or “Other games run fast, this one should too”, or in regards to this article “lol they did this thing that’s so stupid” and just the self backpatting for figuring it out. Software engineering is hard alone. Gaming engineering on top of that is just ridiculous. I have 14 years of software engineering under my belt and I still know they are doing things in this game that I would not be able to. Anyone who says they know better than the engineers are the same as the people who sat in my CS102 class and told other students they were smarter than the professor. You aren’t. Everyone knows you aren’t. Please stop acting like you are
They’re “overnight performance experts” because there are similar games that run better.
To me it seems that there was a tight schedule and they couldn’t prioritize performance tweaks over features. I mean, if it’s works it works, refactor later so we can jump to the next requirement.
Sum all that up and you won’t know which part of the chain takes most cycles,
I don’t work in games, but I do work in software and the people you describe are infuriating and have absolutely no idea what it’s like to work on a big piece of software. Thanks for the comment.
You don’t understand. I watched a YouTube video/took CS102/have a side project I’m totally going to finish. I totally know just as much as these engineers with 10+ years experience who put the last 5+ years into the project.
Yup. I’ve worked with some really great software engineers in the gaming industry, and they don’t have a fucking clue how to optimize a game, and it’s because optimizing the game doesn’t take a clue. It takes legwork, and diagnostics, and digging, and digging, and digging.
It’s never what you think, because if it was, it would have been fixed already.
We shipped well optimized games, and we did so because the games were (relatively) small, and our engineers were absolute pro sleuths.
Yeah - of course games are hard - but all he did was rough out a planet-to-space experience in Unreal Engine with a Starfield aesthetic. If he started trying to build an actual game on it… Well an 8 year timeline doesn’t seem crazy.
This is basically what No Man’s Sky did. When Bethesda took their crappy RPG engine and mocked up interplanetary travel using loading screens and then started writing quests and storylines, NMS focused on building a very good engine that allowed you to go from surface to air to space to interplanet / stellar while mostly ignoring the rest of gameplay and storytelling.
And not to be too hard on No Man’s Sky given the resource differential, but ultimately all it is is one really rock solid system thats not quite a full game surrounded by a lot of hollow feeling stuff to kinda flesh it out on paper. Ultimately Starfield has way sharper hooks almost immediately simpy because while it has a relatively crappy engine and at time frustrating amounts of loading screens and limitations, they spent more time writing content and dialogue that makes the universe feel actually alive and rich, and polishing each individual system until it’s fun.
I think The Outer Worlds is also worth comparing to as Obsidian is even farther down the same route as Bethesda imho, making a much smaller universe that feels even less free than Starfield but having even better writing and I would argue it’s possibly the best game of the three though I have to withhold my judgement on Starfield until I atleast finish the main quests.
And this whole conversation overlooks one of the major complaints a player would have of Bethesda did the same thing.
Entering an atmosphere changes the physics and those physics are different for all sorts of reasons on every planetary body for every ship. From gravity to atmospheric density the ship would fly differently on every one and that ignores the fact that ships are near enough to infinite in configuration in this game due to the builder.
If Bethesda did this, players would be complaining it wasn’t realistic enough.
That’s not an unsolvable issue, and you can always handwave it away for simplicity with some lore. The ships are already magics, like any star ship, so you can just say that the motors and calibration compensate for different planets and whatnot so the ship is easy to use everywhere.
Can you give me an example of a game that solved the above problems? I’ve never seen a game that has that issue resolved for any ship configuration that could exist.
While I had forgetten about Kerbal space program, I would point out two major things about that comparison. KSP is entirely about the ship flight. That is the entire games purpose. And second, when I played it a few years after release, it was hardly stable and wouldn’t be a good representation with the atmospheric density discussion. As I remember it that problem was largely ignored.
I’ll grant you the first point, the whole game is centered on space travel simulation, but it’s also the only game I’ve seen that handles what you’re describing. You definitely need to consider atmospheric density though. Managing your speed, angle of attack, and parachutes to avoid overheating is one of the major skills you learn while playing. Some are Earth like (Kerbin), other are thinner (Moho), and some are surrounded in an atmosphere so thick that it makes any return mission a huge achievement (Eve).
It’s been a long while since I’ve played it, so I had forgotten most things.
But the focus of a game makes a big difference in what features exist. I’m honestly not sad Bethesda skipped entry and landing. The game has enough content without it if you follow the quests, and if rather they acknowledge it’s too difficult and finally release a stable game.
I mean, to be fair, Starfield doesn’t do it well either. In the 15 hours I played, especially toward the latter end, I ran into plenty of texture pop-in, bad culling, bodies without heads and arms, heads and arms without bodies, bad shading patches, t-posing, stutter, lots of other goofy shit. And granted, my rig’s not the best but I’m playing on medium with a 9600K, 3070, 32GB RAM, and the game’s installed on a Samsung 870 SATA.
A loading screen lets you load different areas of the game discreetly and make the game performative. This is especially important as Starfield is a single player game, it’s not hosted on a server or anything so it can’t distribute resource load that way, its all happening client side on the player’s system. They would have to simulate the entire world on their PC alone or develop a way to stream the content out dynamically and seamlessly.
That’s not how any of it works.
We have had level streaming in Unreal for like a decade. Sure it’s more complex to do things this way, but in general the way it works is that when you approach some area (are some distance from a planet or part of a planet) the next chunk of the world loads in, together with any NPCs and logic and everything else - it’s basically a self contained map, just seamlessly integrated with other maps. There is no meaningful performance hit if done correctly. You certainly don’t simulate everything all the time.
Additionally, all the other games mentioned (NMS, Elite, Star Citizen) also have basically all of the processing on the client side. The servers don’t help the clients in any way; they only store primitive states for gameplay purposes, but all the simulation and whatnot is done on the client. And they still manage to be better optimized.
It’s more like they really want to use their own engine (for many good reasons) and it’d probably be really hard (if not near impossible without a complete rewrite) to add such a fundamental feature to their existing engine. Even if it wasn’t that hard it’d probably still cost a shitton of developer time and they were spending it elsewhere.
I think the bigger deal with Bethesda’s engine is that it’s built to be very easy for designers to iterate on, which is why it is also so easy for users to mod. They trade a lot of efficiency for scripting systems and level editors that let them whip up sprawling open spaces in a short amount of time, and fill them with dynamic systems like NPC routines and tracking thousands of physics-enabled props. This is probably also why their games are prone to buggy behavior.
Building all of the systems Starfield has at its disposal into Unreal would probably take years, and I’m not convinced the results would be any better.
Play a lot of jrpgs, I understand that too well. My playthrough of persona 5 has been going since the beginning of this year and I’m hardly halfway through the story
Dear god. I burned out around your age with a similar work schedule. Less commute but more work hours. Took me years to recover.
If your situation allows, please find yourself a better work and commute setup. Your boss isn’t going to care that you’re dying inside, especially when they’ve grown accustomed to everything you get done running yourself ragged. If you can, start doing less at work so you have energy to search for other jobs.
In some workplaces, it’s actually better to let things slip so your boss can push for more manpower.
My situation is lucky not the worst. I am currently going to a technical school for medical work. And when I actually am at the place I work in it’s hardly “working” much at all, a good number of days I literally can watch an movie between cases.
Honestly most of the feeling dead is the commute, which unfortunately I don’t have many options for, can’t drive plus no other job I find offers nearly as much as I make (coupled with the fact that this quite literally the only job of its kind in the area).
I also get along very well with my team (literally no drama) and management is pretty nonexistent and we all take a firm stand when they do.
I only realized it was satire after I opened the thread and saw it was HardDrive, not only did it feel something a game would do (probably a New Blood game) but I was also genuinely stoked
I have to imagine a comment like this does absolutely nothing to their sales figures. People who were going to download a cracked version of their games anyway remain unaffected now that they have a blessing, and I doubt people who weren’t going to pirate would now feel more inclined to do so.
This seems like good PR and frankly it should probably be the default position for games studios.
Some games you dont even need a crack or anything, just access to the files.
For example with KSP, you can just clone the game directory anywhere and run it from there. Doesnt even need steam. Heck i copied it over to an M1 macbook once just to test the Macbooks performance…
Thats also how the mod managers like CKAN work with the game.
It won't have a large effect, but in previous examples of companies doing this, comments would lead me to believe more people who pirated end up buying the game to support the devs after trying it. It makes sense too, but same pirates are unlikely to buy anything that had denuvo and stuff shoved into it.
I was going to say, all artists should share this position, but I’ll do one better: if you don’t have this position, you’re not an artist. Feels bold to make any absolute claim about what makes an artist, but I feel safe on this one. If making sure you’re fairly compensated is higher priority than sharing your art, then you’re not an artist.
Artists, like all laborers, should be fairly compensated for their work. The idea that love of art should necessarily come into conflict with fair compensation is a primary vehicle for continuing the exploitation of creative labor.
That is somewhat orthogonal to the issue of piracy, though. Some of the most strongly anti-piracy platforms out there are also absolutely terrible in terms of labor rights (hence the current strikes in Hollywood, for instance). It’s notable that in this case, the studio seems to be saying fairly explicitly that piracy is indeed not the main obstacle to fair compensation, such that no conflict between their stance and labor rights needs to exist.
If you think I’m arguing that artists should not be compensated for their work, then I’ve completely misrepresented myself. Is that what you thought I meant?
Before this tweet, they also mentioned piracy over grey market keyshops, which seems to be a lot more of a valid reason to endorse it. This seemly links to that tweet.
Yeah, the whole piracy crackdown situation is so stupid.
I pirate a lot of media, if you added it all up it would be a lot of money (if I was to buy everything). The difference is, before I pirated I barely bought any of the media.
I pirate some games that i’d never buy. I buy all games I want to support.
I pay TV licence, netflix and amazon. I pirate tons of TV series because they aren’t on those services. I literally can’t buy some of them and if I could i’d need about 10 different streaming services.
Films, I pirate a lot of films. Before I pirated I never bought any films, i’d either wait for netflix/normal TV or just not watch them. I still go to the cinema for big releases.
I subscribe on patreon, github and donate to LOADS of projects, many of which i’ve pirated first or obtained a copy of (books are a big one here).
If you were to objectively look at the value of the pirated media, it would seem that i’ve “stolen” or studios have missed out on lots of revenue, but the truth is I pirate a lot of media, just because I can.
Few years ago there was Netflix and Film1 in our country and an ISP with TV that also had a movie service.
That was about it.
Now there’s Prime Video, Disney+, HBO Max, SkyShowtime, Apple TV+ and ViaPlay added to it.
It’s impossible to have have just 1 and view what you want. Ofcourse you can keep on switching but some of them but it’s all just making it more complicated.
Solution? Pirate it. One source and everything available even stuff that isn’t on any on those services.
Also some movies can’t be bought digital.
IMO all movies and series should be available on any platform and let the streaming service decide if they want to have it in their portfolio. Only the “originals” should be locked to a platform to keep stuff unique.
And make every damn movie and series available for purchase.
IMO all movies and series should be available on any platform and let the streaming service decide if they want to have it in their portfolio. Only the “originals” should be locked to a platform to keep stuff unique.
That’s just cable though. Not sure that’ll be any better. The second a company sees a revenue stream or thinks they’re missing out. They monetise it to the detriment of the customers.
Gamers™ are like baby birds constantly screaming for mom to vomit the next meal in their mouths. They want an 80 campaign they can marathon through in a week, then demand the Devs get immediately to work on the sequel which the absolutely want NOW NOW NOW
“Good” is subjective. I know CoD is mangled corporate moneygrab trash, but it’s still really fun, so I play it. The only reason I bought Cyberpunk was because I knew everyone was going to be talking about it and I wanted to be able to be part of the conversation, and it didn’t disappoint.
I mean, maybe disk drives are outdated, but being unable to buy used games or give your old game to a friend is garbage (but great for profits of the console manufacturers and game studios). Not to mention that as long as it’s a digital download, you don’t own the game - you lease it at a flat rate.
Limiting the options and ownership rights of the consumer for profit is bad.
With how games work these days, having just the disk is pretty much useless if the publisher decides to delist or discontinue the game from platform, because:
patches and updates don’t come with disk form anymore.
many games that requires online authentication to play won’t be available to keep playing if their account service is down.
games go on sale with steady rate most of the time(except nintendo), for bargain bin deals you would probably find the game on humble bundle or gog.
you often have the good games that release “better” remake version over and over anyway. Note, I know people sometimes prefer the original version, but not everyone is on the same page and it hugely depending on the dev/publisher for the newer version.
Now let’s describe the cons:
in many countries, breaking DRM is illegal. So even if all you want to do archive, you can’t make a decrypted copy. That’s why homebrew etc provides the key/dumper for you to do such at your own risk. IMO, it’s safer(INAL) to download pirated iso/rom compare to doing your own dump. And, archiver actually tried to keep a post patch version before store is closed down(see wiiu store close example), the disk version is not a viable option anymore for archiver.
storage up keep, physical things require storage space. I still have like 3 large shipping box for my older gen(ps3/GC/Wii/X360 games) I will probably donate them to library or something and keep the only ones I wanted to keep.
console part cost, the BD drives are often first point of failure, then HDMI connectors. Cause well, moving parts are easier to break and harder to QA. PS5’s 2 versions gives a good example how the disk affects the look, weight, etc. Not to mention, they are a lot slower then SSD and you are required to install all that anyway.
developer/publisher/platform see nothing for used game sales. It sounds like huge shill talk but let’s be honest, they want to make a living, if you are not supporting your favorite developer they will have to offset the cost by doing shit you all won’t like. ie, mtx, subscription service, selling analytic data, selling the studio to shit publisher that push worth practice, platform raise price to meet target projection. Buy/sell used game only helps that service owner(gamestop/ebgame/bestbuy, not the community.)
did I mention switching disc just to play game is a PITA, and if your case is the modern garbage version, remember those plastic break down more easily and you would have to buy new case to hold your disc.
environment waste for all the manufacturing, packaging and shipping. It’s honestly not worth that in modern era if you give a fuck about how future generation will live.
Not to mention that as long as it’s a digital download, you don’t own the game - you lease it at a flat rate.
not true all the time. Plenty of games once you have the files are easily able to run. KSP is one such example. I can just copy the KSP folder to any computer and play the game.
Its the devs choice to require things like Steam to validate the game etc.
Other games i know that do this are factorio (you are able to download the game as a zip, and it doesnt stop you from making as many copies as you desire)
That’s fair. It often is the case though, and I think many people don’t consider that as being a problem because it just doesn’t occur to them.
I think Valve is an example of a company that does it well, since you can download the game if Steam were ever to go under, etc. and you can add non-steam games to steam. It’s almost unavoidable that they do it well, though, since steam is running on PCs (mostly).
But Nintendo does it badly. If Nintendo decides to stop supporting Switch downloads, my digital content will vanish (unless I root my switch, etc. but then I may as well just pirate everything). But, at least nintendo has a card reader for their games - if they got rid of it, I’d never truly own any Switch game and would also be forced to pay massively inflated priced for re-released old games, crappy switch ports, or Nintendo titles which almost never decrease in price or go on sale.
One of my biggest annoyance is when you have multiple switches on a family account. If you use cartridges local co-op (or whatever it is called) requires two copies of the game (a cartridge in each). If you have the downloaded versions/digital download, then any device on the Nintendo account (ie: 2 switches for kids on a family account) can play against each other locally.
I don’t think you can cache/save a cartridge to a device to be able to do their local play feature (ie via ad-hoc connections in a car)
This article is about consoles, not PCs. Good luck copying your console game to another folder on the HD.
Even disk-based games on newer consoles often don’t include the full game; in many cases they’re just an installer, really, which then requires downloading the bulk of the files from the net.
Funny enough that was already possible on the PS3, so it's a matter of control rather than technological limitation. They use the excuse of "technological progress" to close the walled garden even more.
PS4 console data you can back up Backing up your data regularly is a great way to ensure that important data is saved. You can back up the following types of data saved to a USB drive.
Games and apps
Saved data
Screenshots and video clips
Settings
All user data saved on your PS4 console (excluding trophies) is included in the backup data. When you restore your backup data, your PS4 console is reset, and all data saved on your console is erased. If you want to return data without restoring your console, use USB extended storage or cloud storage.
I tried copying game data when we were replacing our PS4 hard drive, but it just caused a lot of problems (with games having to “verify” the installation when launched, which was a very lengthy process, probably longer than just re-downloading it would have been; I don’t know what it was actually doing). We were able to preserve save data, though.
For me, this was because the PS4 uses USB 2.0 that caps out at 480 Mbps. It was basically doing checksums of the backup files vs the restored and it just took time, even when the backups I had it running on were a sata SSD.
Even disk-based games on newer consoles often don’t include the full game
That's pretty rare despite being constantly mentioned in this thread. I can think of a few that are strictly multiplayer games or the Master Chief Collection which is just a huge net installer disc.
Otherwise games still become gold and are playable start to finish off disc. Switch games on the other hand have quite a few that require a download.
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. They want to sell you digital version specifically because you can’t resell them. It could easily be solved by creating a digital marketplace, and even turn a profit for the publishers by taking a cut of resales.
This sounds like a console user problem. PCs haven’t had disc drives for years and the games are far cheaper. Yes, there’s no second-hand market, but with steam sales, humble bundles, and all the freebies I post in !freegames it’s not really become the corpo hellscape we feared.
Also technically you don’t own games on disc either, it’s just much harder for the publisher to come round your house and snap your copy!
gaming
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.