Alt. Profile @Th4tGuyII
I don’t blame people in the US for believing that, when more than half your population (who actually voted) decided to vote Trump in (again).
Like the guy is unironically a treasonous criminal con-man so obviously under Russia’s (or more specifically Putin’s) influence it’s laughable.
Look, I’m not here for a pointless back and forth where we just call each other wrong over and over again, so I’m making one last comment then I’m leaving it at that.
The interviewer asked him to give an explanation for why people hate Denuvo. The reasons are varied, so no matter what he says, that answer is not going to represent every single gamer.
Yes, his major hypothesis being that the most vocal people about these apparently non-existent issues (their critics) are the pirate community who want game publishers not to use Denuvo’s software, and as such influence non-pirates who don’t see any benefit to using Denuvo (because it adds bloat and messes with their games).
Basically, two different parties are going into online discussions with their own relatively biased goals of changing opinions about Denuvo. […] He’s making the point that pirate groups are the other.
Which is to say that he thinks the ones trying to influence people away from Denuvo, as in those criticising Denuvo for its issues, are pirates.
You grasp that, yet when I say the quiet part out loud that they’re implying all their critics are pirates, you disagree with me.
Nowhere in that paragraph that I quoted did I see anything even implying “All gamers are X”
And nowhere in my post did I imply he meant all gamers were pirates. I said he believes their critics are salty pirates, as to dismiss those in the gaming community whoare vocal about thinking Denuvo hurts their games.
Lastly, what did you even mean about burning a bridge?
This whole article is about Denuvo attempting to win back over the gaming community, so them turning around and effectively labeling the most vocal in the community as pirates is (in a phrase) burning the bridge with thr gamimg community they’re claiming to be trying to fix.
Clearly we disagree on the interpretation of what this guy said, and I doubt any comment I could make would sway yo on that front, but I don’t think it’s a very hard conclusion to draw based on his own words.
RPS: Why do you think Denuvo has garnered such a poor reputation?
Andreas Ullmann: I think two main reasons. First, our solution simply works. Pirates cannot play games which are using our solution over quite long time periods, usually until the publisher decides to patch out our solution. So there is a huge community, a lot of people on this planet who are not able to play their favorite video games, because they are not willing to pay for them, and therefore they have a lot of time to spend in communities and share their view and try to blame Denuvo for a lot of things - trying to make the gaming publishers to not use our solutions so they can start playing pirate copies of games for free again.
Yeah, people don’t talk like what you said, but they do make implications, like he did exactly here. He isn’t directly stating all their critics are just salty pirates, but he sure as shit is implying it.
He goes on to say about the plight of gamers, but stating this first and foremost makes it very clear what he thinks.
Logic-wise, this whole article is about their “attempt” to reconcile with the gaming community - so while I also don’t get the logic behind burning the bridge while claiming to be trying to fix it, that is what they’re doing.
Exactly. Labeling their critics as salty pirates and dismissing them out of hand shows how disingenuous they are…
Though that’s to be expected considering they cherrypicked the hell out of the study they were referencing, then criticised it because the authors dared to suggest that Denuvo was only important for the first couple of months of a game’s lifespan
Calling all their critics salty pirates is one surefire way to pit people against you real quick - especially when you’re already pretty reviled by the gaming community
I’m always surprised by how many people would sooner rather run up their heating bill all winter than even contemplate putting on extra layers (or even just thicker/longer clothes).
I had a friend who would wear pyjama shorts the whole winter and always complain about the cold, as though putting on a dressing gown or just normal PJ pants wasn’t an option.
Like obviously you should use heating if you need it - don’t get risk hypothermia to save a buck - but I’ve never understood the rational behind people’s refusal to actually dress like it’s winter.
Part of me wishes that the oil would run out sooner to give governments more urgency to actually do something about our fossil fuel dependency, cause apparently the increasingly apparent effects of climate change just aren’t enough motivation.
It is certainly true that obesity is becoming a bigger and bigger problem every year and that puttting our collective heads in the sand over it isn’t going to help any…
But I can’t say I like the idea of forcing body altering drugs on people who seek unemployment assistance, even if it’s meant to be for the sake of their health. It feels like one hell of a slippery slope.
Don’t remind then that America isn’t the world.
Also, ~999M is a whole lot less than the ~8B population we have now, so that is veritably not true
You could be right about them recycling numbers already, but 330 million < 999 million, so that wouldn’t be why
So the profit cap has been removed and the non-profit has been kicked out of the control seat. Sounds like they’re taking off all the safeties in the name of money.
Goes to show the money always wins, and if AGI comes true, humanity will pay forfeit.
My first instinct is to say “No shit Sherlock”, of course people who get paid more for their projects can afford to contribute more time to them…
but I do understand that having empirical documented evidence of something, even of it should be common sense, is really important, cause common sense isn’t as common as people think it is (especially when a lot of people in power seem to quite intentionally lack it)
If these monoliths work as well practically as they do here in a small-scale test, then we might actually have a chance at minimising the damage done by unregulated release of PFAS, which would be good for all of us.
Having said that, I do fear that the rise of these “fix it in post” environmental solutions will be used by big bads to justify the continuation of bad environmental practices because “ThE sCiEnTiStS wIlL jUsT cLeAn It Up AfTeR”
When even the most reviled dictatorships in the world are voting in favour of the UN recognising food as a right, it sure does make the US look uniquely scummy.
“If it cannot, it risks losing much of the invaluable investment, tax revenue, and entrepreneurial spirit that they contribute.”
Ah yes, because the rich are truly the most generous class of them all…
They invest in initiatives designed to make them more money, or to reduce what they pay in taxes.
They pay the bare minimum possible taxes after playing around with so many loopholes it would make your brain hurt.
And who could forget that entrepreneurial spirit!
It’s the same trickle-down economics argument as always. If the rich leave because they’re actually being made to pay their way, the economy would disintegrate because we’d lose businesses like “Arton Capital” that…
“empowers high net worth individuals and families to become global citizens by investing in a second residence or citizenship”
What a tragedy it would be to lose businesses like these! /s
Also, is it not slightly biased to have the person the majority of your article about millionaires wanting to leave the UK quotes be the CEO of this company above who makes their money helping millionaires leave the UK?
That’d be like me getting an ice-cream man to discuss people wanting more ice-cream during the summer. Like even if it was true, you couldn’t have picked a less biased source?
Sounds great until you realise these rules, with respect to POWs, are broken so often that they’re barely worth the paper they’re written on.
To be fair to the developers, they do elaborate a little further in the comments:
Hey everyone, We appreciate the sudden enthusiasm for our game. When we launched it in 2015 into early access and 2016 into full, we were at the vanguard of asymmetrical games. It was exciting, but it was also our first step down the Dunning Kruger curve. QL has bugs that we cannot fix, shaky net code and overall sloppy design. We left the game up for this long so that players who had friends that wanted to play, could still get a copy. However it has been 9 years with minimal to no activity. So we felt it was right to remove it now.
I don’t know enough about this game or it’s community to comment much, but the devs don’t seem to be bad guys - seems like a story of naive developers making a mistake, but doing their best for their community with what they had. For a niche online game with no DLCs, 9 years is hardly a bad run.
While it is dystopian that many people have to end up working beyond retirement age, I can see why some people choose to take on a “retirement job”.
Our jobs are what we do for the majority of our time, for better or worse, so once you retire there’s suddenly a purposeless void where work used to be. To keep your mind going and your body moving, you need to fill that void with things you want to do - but for a lot of people it’s hard to do that sustainably, so after a few years they need something else, and for some people that’s a “retirement job”.
To be fair you could call this “search optimisation” and the people on Linkedin would eat this up
The only shame (for me at least) is that this is a VR title, so I won’t be able to play it despite being hungry for another Metro game since finishing Exodus