pjhenry1216

It doesn’t have to do with Star Trek. That’s just the name of the Lemmy instance that uploaded it. The community it’s uploaded to is comicstrips@lemmy.world.

Corporations: hey guys, let’s unionize so the government doesn’t exploit us.

Employees: hey, can we als…

Corporations: NO.

Sony and Microsoft used to pay for exclusives without buying the studios. So there’s no real meat to the argument that “oh, the games were always exclusive because first party” or whatever. The consoles didn’t really buy that many game studios until relatively recently in gaming history. They would pay a studio to not release on other platforms. This whole buying studios thing was just cheaper in the long run. So there’s no real argument to be made about Sony just making better first party games. That’s what they do now given that they own the studios. Both companies are guilty of buying out studios.

Exclusives pre-dating the PS1 was more out of lack of technology. No cross platform tech really existed. There wasn’t a lot of crossover. Many platforms didn’t last more than a generation or two. There wasn’t even much cross over in the kind of games. If you liked fighting games, you bought a Sega over Nintendo for example. With the PlayStation, they competed against Sega first, Nintendo as more an afterthought. Xbox came in later to compete against PlayStation 2. The Nintendo 64 was just a different class, and even later, the GameCube. With Xbox and PlayStation, they had similar amounts of power and restraints (an N64 cartridge could not compete from a technical perspective against the storage of discs, plus multi-disc games could exist, not really feasible with cartridges) plus abstraction technology was more advanced and one could more easily write cross platform code. Now, you either had to pay for an exclusive or simply hope they only had the intent to target one platform (whether through preference or resource limitations). So the console wars really started to heat up after the death of Dreamcast and mainly between Sony and MS. Exclusivity wasn’t via first party existed, but not to s great extent beyond their flagship games.

So, tldr, exclusivity has always been acquired via money and buying them. It’s easy to say it’s about developing better first party once those studios were bought outright to begin with. That’s how most first party titles exist now.

You don’t expect that from Sony so why expect it elsewhere? Sony started this game, gamers lauded them and rewarded them for doing it. Microsoft tried to not do that, and got beat down further than they had when they tried playing that game against Sony. Gamers wanted exclusives. Microsoft is providing that. You voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party and now are surprised leopards are eating your face.

This was a forgone conclusion for awhile now. Folks are just upset because Microsoft has an exclusive that Sony gamers want to play. Boo fucking hoo. I’m pissed it came to this, but gamers did this. I’m angry about it, but I don’t feel sorry for gamers as a whole about it.

It’s outselling is what caused Microsoft to not deny it. It originally denied it because they had a rule that games needed feature parity with both Series X and S. BG3 split screen couldn’t be done on S. The massive success is what led them to relax the rule. And virtually no one saw this level of success coming from within the gaming industry, including the developers themselves.

Edit: I just realized this is being upset about Starfield.

That is totally the fault of gamers. The biggest reason given for buying a PS5 over Xbox was exclusives. What the fuck did you think was going to happen? Sony started the exclusives battle and continually came out ahead. Obviously MS is going to fight. Making exclusives such an important decision in console purchases drove exclusives to be important overall. There’s no sense in being upset that the industrynis literally responded to gamer’s actions and stated motivations.

It’s a shame that it’s even considered “radical” since it’s basically a copyright holder upholding their end of the bargain in the promise behind the origin of copyright. To incentivize creative content, a creator is given sole ability to monetize it for a fixed period of time. In return for that protection, the public gets it at the end of the term. Today’s copyright is so far off course that it defeats the intent. There’s no incentive to create anything new if you can keep milking existing content. And the public never gets a return for offering that protection.

I don’t need to prove anything. It’s just a matter of fact. And I even offered to help you see how it works and you instead decided to double down on believing I wouldn’t do so.

Literally look it up. It’s published documentation. Go ahead and block me. I’ll never know. I’m tired of trying to prove a documented fact.

That doesn’t change anything. They’re saying they were told if they block someone, XYZ would happen. And XYZ is what I described. What would changing the direction do? It’s like just asking to be on the other side of the exact behavior that I’m describing. It doesn’t offer new information.

Yeah, I was actually coming back to apologize. It was a different mod with the same first half of your name. After posting, I was “wait… was it that mod?” I won’t name them fully but their name also started with “someone”.

Edit: realized I said I came back to apologize but never finished. So apologies. That was my mistake.

Edit: but the original concept still stands. You said you were told to expect the behavior I described. I don’t understand how that would prove anything against my point.

~~Dude, we’ve had discussions before and I’m all for you going somewhere else and suddenly complaining about how you had a bad time with me not providing you a genuine discussion, but when your whole comment reiterates my point, what are you expecting to happen? You just described that you were told XYZ happens and that’s exactly what I said would happen.

Its becoming pretty fucking clear from my interactions with you that you don’t understand honest discussions.~~

Edit: I realized a few minutes after posting it was another mod with a similar name. Came back to correct it. I got ahead of myself.

The rest of it still stands though. The behavior you were told would occur is the exact behavior I’m describing.

You’re kind of proving my point. If you block me, it just means you can’t see me.

Edit: the “problem” with blocking on the fediverse is that the concept of block needs to be implemented server side, not client side. So every instance would need to implement it meaning everything you post would have to carry the information of who you block. It’s how publishing works in ActivityPub. There’s no way for another instance to know that you blocked XYZ so how would they know not to show you that post? Also in regards to defederating, publishing is basically a fancy RSS feed. Anyone can read it, even just you if you view that port. So it’s kind of just blindly shooting it out into the world. Defederating means you explicitly don’t read certain RSS feeds but you can’t stop them from reading yours. You could networkly block someone, but that’s on a different layer of communication beyond the web application’s capabilities.

Block on Lemmy doesn’t prevent the blocked person from seeing your posts.

Edit: which is the crux of comparing mute on Twitter to block on Lemmy/Kbin/Mastodon etc.

Even defederating doesn’t stop them from seeing your posts. It just means you don’t collect theirs.

I’m confused. Isn’t “block” on the fediverse essentially the same as mute on Twitter? Don’t get me wrong, I dislike Elon as much as the next sane person does and I do like the idea of block as it’s implemented on Twitter vs fediverse, but I also understand why it’s not possible on the fediverse. So I’m kind of just asking, isn’t it kind of shooting ourselves in the foot to argue against him on this point? He can easily turn around and just say it’s the same way as the fediverse. And I feel like it’s even worse when we use the fediverse to make these accusations. It makes us look either stupid or hypocritical. I guess there’s a small sliver of hope in the argument “you should implement the best block the technology allows” but that seems a lot more nuanced then many people will listen to.

If they don’t leave a VM, I assume they really want to sell me something.

That’s not speech. You can age limit things, but not on speech. Beyond that, the limitations on speech have to meet certain conditions where it’s in the publics best interest and doesn’t put too much burden on the public.

I don’t see how it doesn’t violate free speech. Imagine needing the government’s permission to talk to someone?

Edit: forgot a word