The other recurring theme is a mantra along the lines of "ends justify the means" when it comes to building data centers and all the consequences of that in the present, for some promise that AI will somehow have a net benefit to all eventually while hand-waving the details.
I think one precursor could have been EA's debacle with Sim City in 2013, when they apparently had a huge wave of disappointed customers doing chargebacks. I'm not aware of any public statement/evidence of this, but it really wouldn't surprise me if their payment processor leaned on them to provide a better means of accomplishing that, and it gave them a way to portray their store as customer friendly.
Another angle is the processing cost, I assume Google is seeking to offload the computation for whatever features this covers from their own data centers to end users. On the scale of billions that's probably measurable and from google's side worth doing whether the users is paying for the service or not, and each of them will have more power usage with some reduced battery life on portable devices. At that scale I'd also wonder about efficiency based on what proportion of end users are using AI or running it on CPU/GPU/NPU.
It's an aspect I've wondered about, constraints do make you consider what's essential. For example in btop (screenshot in the article) the graphs are rendered with dots at low resolution, if there was another version where those graphs were full resolution is it telling you meaningfully more?
Since the dots in btop's rendering are using the Braille characters, meaning you get six dots in the space that would be taken up by one alphanumeric character, the resolution on those dots is surprisingly high. A maximized terminal on my screen is size 316x86, so that's 316×2 x 86×3 = 632x258 of "Braille dot resolution" (a term I just made up) available for the graphs. Sure, that's lower than the 2560x1600 pixel resolution of my screen, but you're entirely right to ask "Does that really matter?" The graph would be smoother with about 4x more horizontal pixels and 6x more vertical pixels to work with, but I doubt I would glean any more information at first glance.
For a long time now I've found it weird that people who like single player games on PC (and to a lesser extent older consoles which had piracy enabling mods) didn't acknowledge the long game consequences of their actions, or at least were willfully ignorant to them because everyone loves getting something for free. It seems to be a variation on Goodhart's law - you get what you reward - if the reward for a company (big or small) in spending lots of time and money isn't as good as other options, those other options will get more investment in the future and the ones you do like will get less.
The other option I can see for the large companies is that any project involving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars is likely to be insured, and a condition of that insurance is they take all reasonable options available to get the most success out of it that they can. If they don't they need to reduce the risk which probably means less resources allocated which again may not be interesting to the companies capable of making grand experiences versus other options.
> For a long time now I've found it weird that people who like single player games on PC (and to a lesser extent older consoles which had piracy enabling mods) didn't acknowledge the long game consequences of their actions, or at least were willfully ignorant to them because everyone loves getting something for free
Why are you equating people who like single player games to pirates? Are you suggesting devs who made single player games were caving under some kind of market pressure that was ultimately unhealthy for them?
The difference in global, high-speed internet access between Quake and Fortnite is huge. I think that explains why live service games are a recent thing more than piracy. That, and Valve set the blueprint for gambling and loot boxes with TF2.
Regardless, I think the jury is out on Live Service games being "safer" to make. There's certainly a lot of people chasing what Fortnite has, but there's a lot of graves and layoffs. It seems like the single player studios are shutting down less because they were unprofitable, and more because building a sustainable business on selling good products doesn't sound good to investors trying to make an exit.
> For a long time now I've found it weird that people who like single player games on PC (and to a lesser extent older consoles which had piracy enabling mods) didn't acknowledge the long game consequences of their actions
Isn't historically piracy positive for sales [1]?
That said, I'm pretty sure the real issue is that single / local coop games are just not appealing and so they get weaker sales. Like wtf was with Pikmen 2 not letting player 2 control louie? And then when local games start to sell poorly they get divestment but I'm pretty sure it was just lousey games and not piracy.
>Isn't historically piracy positive for sales [1]?
if it was for the companies who use Denuvo and it added negative value then Denuvo wouldn't exist as a business and game publishers would happily post their games to pirate sites themselves.
The level of copium involved in piracy debates is always a sight to behold. I'm no saint, I've pirated stuff too but I did so because I was cheap, not because I'm doing the company a favor. That's a level of rationalization you expect from a drug addict
> if it was for the companies who use Denuvo and it added negative value then Denuvo wouldn't exist as a business and game publishers would happily post their games to pirate sites themselves.
Efficient market fallacy strikes again.
No, is is absolutely possible that use of Denuvo results in a net loss and it is still used. Executives don't always behave rational and it is not like you can AB Test that thing or even easily measure its impact.
How are the game companies supposed to determine that it adds negative value? Speak to the alternative universe where the same game wasn't bundled with it?
>How are the game companies supposed to determine that it adds negative value?
Look at their own/industry data of comparable games that have been published with or without protection. I worked in the game industry, for AAA studios it's a no brainer. Denuvo for a big title that sells millions of copies runs about high six or low seven figures in costs, so about 1-3% of the budget, whereas preventing piracy in the first 12 weeks meant something like a 10-20% increase (tens of millions) in sales.
The use of Denuvo has nothing to do with whether piracy hurts sales, only whether executives think piracy hurts sales. As we just saw, actual research on this topic has been suppressed because the results were wrongthink.
>if it was for the companies who use Denuvo and it added negative value then Denuvo wouldn't exist as a business and game publishers
If everyone colludes, then the game publishers wouldn't need to suffer for including Denuvo. And the nature of the collusion doesn't require some literal conspiracy, it just requires that the personalities at the top of the pyramids (of which there are but a few) are assholes who have an ideological bent. We are all aware of the type: they would spend themselves into the poorhouse making certain no one can "steal" from them, and what they consider theirs isn't entirely congruent with what the law says.
>The level of copium involved in piracy debates is always a sight to behold. I'm no saint, I've pirated stuff too b
I've never pirated anything. I don't hijack ships at sea. I have infringed copyright, but when copyright laws are bought and paid for my lobbyist slush funds, I don't feel any reason to give a shit about those laws. They were only ever utilitarian anyway, not some moral principle, and right now they're not even utilitarian.
> Is this really the most likely scenario or is it perhaps the one you’d like to believe the most?
You mean the companies that have an unnecessary 5 min file load wait in GTA5 are also the same companies that insert the same files into a binary multiple times to speed up load times by having sequential reads for all art assets?
I like how condescending the tone is in this post about how data can’t be right if it doesn’t really line up with somebody’s sort of general feelings about how smart game developers are, especially given that it’s usually publishers that make the call about things like Denuvo, not the developers.
It’s hard to see from a US/Euro salary perspective, where not spending $60 is a moral decision, but you can start seeing how someone in a 300/mo salary country doesn’t think “I’ll save a bit and buy it” and instead thinks “I’ll never be able to afford this and this studio made millions anyway” and just pirate it. I’m not that articulate with my words but I hope you get what I’m trying to say.
I think you're saying that piracy is often a no money issue, and you're not wrong.
Somehow I managed to build up a library of Steam games, $1-5 at a time. At that price I am willing to take my risks with possible inconveniences due to DRM and instead consider the convenience of being able to log into Steam anywhere and access my game library.
And though I am loath to admit it, I think "free to play" has shown that it can compete with piracy, though often by including dark patterns and slot machine mechanics to drive monetization.
It's also worth considering how much time you actually play the game. Mario Kart 8 delivered (for me at least) hundreds of hours of fun (often local multiplayer) gaming. If there's a game in that category, it can be worth saving up for (but the console itself can also be expensive.)
This looks weird in the context, because the grandparent comment's argument was purely interest-based? You probably mean there's a propensity for tragedy of the commons.
Regardless I'd argue gaming may be the one media category left (after the recent decade's value decline) where piracy remains to seem like more hassle than buying a copy^W license. I would also guess it is more concentrated on a few popular titles compared to music or films. Nowadays I hear more of people collecting games on Steam, to never play them, than of legitimate pirates.
Really? This single issue, and nothing else, convinced you that most people have zero moral convictions? Doesn't take much for you to draw a wrong, blanket conclusion now does it?
Then again I see in your comment below [1] (for the reference "Brown hands typed these words." in response to someone discussing a situation in India) what kind of "moral" convictions you have.
A lot of recessive genes will sadly do that to you buddy. You can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag but at least you can stay in there and argue about its color.
I think the challenge is where do you draw the line between the OS and the set of baseline applications it comes with, and then further questions on what is included in that (default?) set or how full featured they are. What is a feature of the OS? That's before considering how users discover and manage other software for activities not covered by whatever is OS provided.
24 is another one that was at the right time, although the big one was not under their control. It started showing 2 months after the 9/11 attacks. More to the general point, it was also at the time that computers and internet usage was fast growing, but gaps in the digital side meant it was still plausible that field agents were important. They also had plot lines such as the bad guys using online video game chat (a smaller but growing thing in the early 2000s) as a hidden communication channel which I believe is pulled from real events.
I'm at least happy to hear that you think America is better now. Typically agitators say things like America is more racist now than ever (including before Civil Rights).
> I'm at least happy to hear that you think America is better now
Pretty certain I said nothing of the sort.
Given that both major parties in the US are now fully complicit in arming and enabling live-streamed genocide, there's a pretty strong case to be made that anti Arab and Islamophobic racism is reaching new heights.
And while most actual Americans are very much against the arming and enabling of said genocide, that hasn't motivated them to move on from the two party system.
There's a widespread notion that "agitating" against two genocidal parties is idealism, or perfectionism. It's really just doing your duty as a person, and the fact that so many Americans don't care/understand that points to... Massive widespread racism, ding ding ding.
Uh, no. Totally different times. To me the mid to late 90's where almost the same, among 2000 and pre S11 2001, chill, futuristic times, with computers, consoles, comic books, everything, the final death blow to the 80's which began at 1992/1993. Maybe from 2001/2002, but from 2002-2003 the one was grim, dark, pro-torture on series and tons of war propaganda in movies from the US.
20 years ago is also the time frame for when AMD acquired ATi (who IIRC were 99% on gaming graphics), and AMD was floundering in the following decade. They made the choice to prioritize the CPU side of the business, but on the GPU graphics/compute side it's hard to see that they've got much vision for how they want to steer the future to go and the ability to make that happen with their partners.
The issue that has occurred a few times is that some windows updates will decide that they 'own' the disk it's installed on or knows better than whoever is running the system, and overwrite any other boot manager with window's own and you may need to break out a live boot to recover it. Using a single isolated disc at OS install time (if you can have multiple physical drives) and using a motherboard boot selection hotkey means that risk likely goes away.
I use BIOS boot selection to dual-boot. MS has broken it twice. I turned off SecureBoot now and just don't run games that require it.
Apparently you can get a mobo with switchable BIOS config (or was it just a switchable SSD?) so the OS didn't even know that there's a second OS around. If there's no connection of the other OS then MS can't break it [as easily]!
IMO it must be malicious, because otherwise it would be caught with remedial testing. I can't believe MS don't include dual boot setups in their testing.
Microsoft got rid of QA years ago. If it was targeted sabotage they could break dual boot setups every single Patch Tuesday. It's just disrespect for users. Like how Copilot and other shovelware such as Candy Crush keep getting reinstalled every few updates, and privacy settings reset every once in a while. Dual booting is likely not even on their radar.
Many newer computers now have a rudimentary bootloader integrated in the EFI. Some are actually quite nice, allowing you to browse partitions to choose which image to boot. HPs have this. You just hit a key during uefi “post” and voilà.
The functionality is present on my new Lenovo laptop, various generations of HP elite/pro books/desks, old asus mobo and newer cheap gigabyte mobo, 7th gen intel nuc.
I see it as similar to virtual reality, it was born and grew up with gaming demands and influences, but other disciplines may be more attractive for a mature product
reply