Yeah, cause remasters always go well coughGTAdefinitive ahemWarcraft3cough.
Even then, what motive is there to prevent people from getting the original if they want to? Well, other than being able to charge $20-$40 for a 20 year old game.
I think the rub here is that most developers aren’t developing/publishing their own software, but honing their skills on writing proprietary code while also putting food on the table. To that end, a permissively licensed library is better because the company will actually use it and the developer will gain experience with it that they can then use outside of the proprietary environment to contribute to FOSS projects (some of which may well use GPL). If a GPL end user product gets popular enough, it will eventually be able to use all of that gained experience to compete with the propriety alternatives, so I do think the two can work in tandem.
Indeed, I think it’s just two philosophies that don’t necessarily need to be at odds. Permissive licenses help speed the adoption of languages and libraries, which ultimately feeds into the slowly building momentum of the copyleft projects that use them.
To be fair, it’s a pretty common play. Company makes unpopular decision, walks it back, tries again a little later once the novelty has worn off and the MSM doesn’t care to pick it up again.
I think this particular move is pretty ballsy with how egregious it is (especially considering that starfield didn’t do anything particularly outstanding to overshadow it), but I don’t doubt they’ll try it again. If people keep buying their games, where’s the risk? At worst they’ll still get a few dollars from those who, for whatever reason, buy it, and then it’s forgotten by the next time a game comes out.
Nobody would want to get into a game that requires hundreds of hours of homework before they can finally start to become good at the game.
This is a huge issue I have with a lot of established online games. A lot of the advice is just “watch this video, follow this guide, use this meta build or we’re not going to play with you.” I play games to have fun learning mechanics, experimenting with builds, and organically exploring the world. I may eventually use guides to get caught up, but the game has to be fun at its core before then. At least in smash, you’re the only one who has to worry about your performance.
I remember trying out the beginner mode on DotA a few years ago. Good idea in theory, but in practice I made a single mistake and was blamed for the loss of the entire game. They probably weren’t wrong that I tipped the balance towards the enemy side, but it would’ve been nice to get some pointers or guidance instead of just “GG Harpy”. Made me not want to touch the game again.
It’s also really easy to lock yourself out of questlines by completing seemingly unrelated objectives. I get that being inscrutable is kind of a hallmark of these games, but I found myself unable to dig into some of the plotlines that really intrigued me.
Sure, but it’s not the only valid response. It’s perfectly natural to be upset when a relationship falls apart, but it’s just as natural to mutually decide things aren’t working out and move on without grief or regret.
The humor for me is that you kind of expect something like this to end in bitter tears and a sad goodbye, but they’re both actually totally fine with a divorce and even hype each other up for new relationships.
A lot of trans discovery/coming out stories don’t end very happily, so it’s nice to see one that does.
Why should you have to be miserable about it? They still have a relationship, it’s just no longer a romantic one.
Well, it’s a comic, not a documentary. Yeah in real life this would take a lot of discussion and a long time, but this is a comic about how you can find out that your desires no longer align and still be friends.
He was actually a pretty cool dude.
[Harvey Ball] never applied for a trademark for the iconic smiley image and only earned $45 for his efforts. Ball later founded the Harvey Ball World Smile Foundation in 1999, a non-profit charitable trust that supports children’s causes.
It could be credibly called an homage if it had a new punchline, but methinks the creator didn’t know what “sanitize” meant in this context.
I definitely agree, but that’s true of any system. The particulars of the pitfalls may vary, but a good system can’t overpower bad management. We mitigate the stakeholder issue by having BAs that act as the liason between devs and stakeholders, knowing just enough about the dev side to manage expectations while helping to prioritize the things stakeholders want most. Our stakes are also, mercifully, pretty aware that they don’t always know what will be complex and what will be trivial, so they accept the effort we assign to items.
Use my desktop for gaming, use my laptop for development and travel. It’s nice to be able to sit in the living room while someone is playing a game, or sit out on the patio while I work on something.
Honestly a little confused by the hatred of agile. As anything that is heavily maligned or exalted in tech, it’s a tool that may or may not work for your team and project. Personally I like agile, or at least the version of it that I’ve been exposed to. No days or weeks of design meetings, just “hey we want this feature” and it’s in an item and ready to go. I also find effort points to be one of the more fair ways to gauge dev performance.
Projects where engineers felt they had the freedom to discuss and address problems were 87 percent more likely to succeed.
I’m not really sure how this relates to agile. A good team listens to the concerns of its members regardless of what strategy they use.
A neverending stream of patches indicates that quality might not be what it once was, and code turning up in an unfinished or ill-considered state have all been attributed to Agile practices.
Again, not sure how shipping with bugs is an agile issue. My understanding of “fail fast” is “try out individual features to quickly see if they work instead of including them in a large update”, not “release features as fast as possible even if they’re poorly tested and full of bugs.” Our team got itself into a “quality crisis” while using agile, but we got back out of it with the same system. It was way more about improving QA practices than the strategy itself.
The article kinda hand waves the fact that the study was not only commissioned by Engprax, but published by the author of the book “Impact Engineering,” conveniently available on Engprax’s site. Not to say this necessarily invalidates the study, or that agile hasn’t had its fair share of cash grabs, but it makes me doubt the objectivity of the research. Granted, Ali seems like he’s no hack when it comes to engineering.
I’m confused, isn’t the article talking about the solution?
Moderators will never be able to fully eliminate this problem because it is an inherent part of the behavior of a subset of humanity and humans are involved in the activities where this harassment takes place
I’m not suggesting they can, I don’t think anyone is.
If you expect every person you meet, online or in person, to respect the rules you are going to be disappointed
I don’t, but I expect if someone starts yelling rape threats at a restaurant that they’ll be kicked out, rather than the waiter saying “well why didn’t you just move to another table?” The rules are there for a reason, there should be consequences if they are broken.
Well yeah, that’s why part of Riot’s solution seems to be adding more mods. I’d be more understanding if Riot didn’t have the resources to add more paid mod support, but I truly don’t think that’s the case. So yeah, pay more mods and use more advanced technology to flag communication, I think that’s an attainable goal.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t still protect themselves by blocking harassment, but I believe it’s perfectly within devs’ abilities to at least attempt to remove the most heinous bullies from the game.
I’ve also used hacker keyboard to ctrl+c/ctrl+v when apps block the regular context copy/paste actions, pretty handy.