• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 14th, 2023
  • chryan@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.world•Fuck Musk, Fuck "X"English
    744·
    8 days ago

    You’re giving Musk too much credit here.

    He bought Twitter because a) he’s addicted to it, and b) he rushed into a buying agreement he didn’t get his lawyers to vet properly (probably due to his massively inflated “I understand more than anyone else” ego).

    He wanted to back out of it, but faced a lawsuit that he was almost certainly going to lose, so had no choice but to go through with the sale. The lawsuit happened because the shareholders at the time realized the company was worth nowhere close to the inflated $44 billion he offered for it, so they weren’t going to back down either.

    Everything else that happened after the sale is a result of a man-child feeding his addiction and recuperate from the dumb deal he was legally forced to uphold.

  • chryan@lemmy.worldtoShowerthoughts@lemmy.world•After six years of hardware ray tracing, the best examples of it are modified old games, like Quake and Minecraft.
    184·
    19 days ago

    Game devs are apathetic to ray tracing.

    Traditional rasterization will never go away in our lifetime because ray tracing hardware will never advance broadly enough to replace it.

    Ray tracing also doesn’t replace the work needed to achieve the desired atmosphere through lighting and fixing performance related issues - which is most of the work.

    The games that do support it right now are primarily using it as a marketing tool, and developers are often paid by Nvidia or AMD to spend the time and resources to implement it.

    The most broadly successful games are ones that run on the widest variety of hardware to gain the largest reachable audience. Given that Nvidia is pretty much the only competent ray tracing solution for hardware, that market is extremely small compared to the industry at large.

    The technology in its current state is not an exciting prospect because it simply means devs have to spend more time implementing it on top of everything else that already needs to be done - purely because the publisher/studio took Nvidia’s money so they could slap the RTX label on the game.

  • chryan@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.world•Sony’s Concord reportedly cost $400M to develop | VGCEnglish
    11·
    2 months ago

    Because the truth is worth knowing

    This is the defacto argument that gets pulled into reporting, good or bad.

    What is the in the point in the truth in this article’s reporting? What about this story told you anything, or anyone, about what’s ravaging the industry? What message does a supposed $400 million cost tell you other than Concord failed? Do you think 160 developers worked on this project over 8 years with the intent to ‘chase the trend’? Do you think they spent 8 years of their lives building a bad product they didn’t believe in? Or was Sony and the entire leadership team able to fool all 160 people that they were building something special when all they really wanted was a trend chaser?

    If this article has enlightened you in a way that has somehow eluded me, I would very much like to learn what you’ve gleaned.

  • chryan@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.world•Sony’s Concord reportedly cost $400M to develop | VGCEnglish
    52·
    2 months ago

    Unless someone from Sony AND ProbablyMonsters confirms the real numbers, I would have nothing concrete to add to the validity of the claims, other than I think it’s bullshit.

    But even if I did have this bulletproof info, why would I do what you suggest? So that games journalism can continue to beat a dead horse?

    News like this doesn’t do the industry and the people who work in it any favors other than to serve the masturbatory curiosity of people who claim “I can’t believe they spent this much on a game that was clearly going to fail!”

    All this kind of reporting does is continue to pull money away from investors who are willing to take chances on new teams making new games (regardless of how derivative they might seem), and cause anguish for the passionate developers who poured their lives into what they believed would have succeeded.

    The games industry is in absolute shambles now thanks to years of psychopathic ravaging from large corporations with milking profits, studio shutdowns and layoffs.

    Contributing to unconstructive reporting will only worsen it, and I would instead encourage you to ignore news like this.

  • chryan@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.world•Sony’s Concord reportedly cost $400M to develop | VGCEnglish
    131·
    2 months ago

    This is absolute bullshit.

    Firewalk, the studio that made Concord, used to be a part of a parent startup called ProbablyMonsters. Firewalk was sold to Sony last year, in April 2023.

    ProbablyMonsters only had a total Series A investment of $250 million, and Firewalk was not the only studio that it was funding - it had multiple.

    But let’s just say all $250mil went to Firewalk (of which is impossible because ProbablyMonsters still exists and has other studios). In order to hit this mythical $400mil figure, Sony would have had to spend $150mil in ONE YEAR.

    The most significant cost of making a AAA game is paying for the developers, of which Firewalk has about 160 of them. In what world would Sony pay over 900k per developer to see Concord through to the finish line?

    The more likely figure that each developer got paid on average is about 180k, that’s still just short of 30mil for 1 year.

    Firewalk didn’t start with 160, so you can’t extrapolate that cost to its 8 years of development.

    Don’t believe this horseshit.