- 1 Post
- 27 Comments
31·2 months agoDavid Bowie and Prince both bent and blurred gender lines while still being attractive, unique, and amazingly talented. Bowie died really close to his birthday, and both dates are close to my birthday.
When he died, I decided to check off some of my bucket list items, like performing in drag. Whenever I’ve felt self conscious, thinking about these icons really helped me be comfortable with myself and my journey.
I really miss both of them as a fan. :/ I wish I had seen them live.
Many things are designed for engagement, so what’s your point? Some people use Lemmy like Reddit and care about internet points that don’t matter. “The rising number is designed to exploit your behavioral patterns and enforce your engagement.” Instead of daily, it’s multiple times, but the point is you can paint many business models like this.
People download the app to get better at a skill. It’s designed to be effective at doing that. It’s a skill people want to learn. How is that exploitive or manipulative?
Full warning: I’ve worked in game design and F2P for like 10 years. I know there’s some personal bias, but there are much worse examples of this stuff than Duolingo or whatever. Painting good actors as bad actors is not correct.
The anecdote part at the end is irrelevant for both of us. I have the opposite experience and don’t even use this app: a bunch of my friends seem to all use it for learning languages. /shrug
Why evil? I’m not a capitalist, but it’s a language learning company being silly; they aren’t causing massive injustice.
I believe in UBI, but the Captain Laserhawk show made me aware of how much it could get twisted in fucked up ways. “Don’t watch this show? -$100 from your stipend this month.” I used to think things like that were fear mongering, but the world is all kinds of weird today.
More AI:
Do you hear the denim sing? Singing a song of jean-clad men? It is the fabric of the people Who won’t wear slacks again!
When the stitching in your seams Echoes the rhythm of the looms There is a style about to gleam When tomorrow’s hemline blooms!
1·5 months agoYeah, this phrase makes way more sense within the context of a game or game theory. For me, it goes back to fighting games or sports. People play to win in those settings. The rules are heavily defined, and the players must abide. These other examples are people misusing the phrase.
6·6 months agoIt’s not as much. GaaS is the predominant model, and you make more on the LiveOps side than the launch recoup period.
Source: Developer of 10 years, x-Director at 200 person company.
Easy back for me. The original RoA is one of my favorite platform fighters. I’m happy to support Dan and crew for their next venture. I can’t wait till beta opens. :)
It’ll sound cheesy, but “Don’t Go Hollow” is that phrase for me.
In 2019, I was hospitalized for suicidal ideation. When at in-patient, we didn’t get much to express ourselves. Every meal, we ate with plastic utensils and foam plates and cups for safety. I would carve that phrase into the cups, along with a bonfire.
“Don’t Go Hollow” goes back to Dark Souls. It’s a phrase that means something in the game world, but it’s also metaphorical. What’s an avatar without the player? It’s like a body without spirit. You’re not progressing in the game because you checked out. If you want to keep going, you need to be present, to keep trying.
Other ones that come to mind are “This is a moment. It will pass.” which I said in the showers that scared the fuck out of me, and “Fall down 7 times, get up 8.” “Let it rip,” from the Bear is another one I like.
Game designer.
I’m a Director of Game Design now.
Meta ethics focuses on the underlying framework behind morality. Whenever you’re asking, “But why is it moral?” That’s meta ethics.
Meta ethics splits between cognitivism (moral statements can be true or false) and non-cognitivism (moral statements are not true or false). One popular cognitive branch is natural moral realism, the idea there are objective moral facts. One popular non-cognitivism branch is emotivism, the idea that moral statements all all complicated “yays” or “yucks” and express emotions rather than true/false statements.
Cognitivism also has anti-realism, which is there are moral facts, but they are truth/false conditional based on each person or group. My issue is you lose the ability to call out certain behavior as wrong; slavery is wrong; not respecting others is wrong. If you want to believe all morality systems are valid, meaning your morality is no better than some radical thought group’s, then go ahead. On an emotional level, speciesism level, rights level, deontological level, utilitarian level, and many more slavery is wrong. Again, some nut job doesn’t invalidate all other thoughts. That’s my take.
Half of the comments in here are a bunch of equivocations on the words.
“Objective” morality would mean there are good things to do, and bad things to do. What people actually do in some hypothetical or real society is different and wouldn’t undermine the objective status of morality.
Listen to this example:
- Todd wants to go to the bank before it closes.
- Todd is not at the bank.
- Todd should travel to the bank before it closes.
This is a functional should statement. Maybe Todd does go, or maybe he doesn’t. But if he wants to fulfill his desires, he should travel if he wants to go to the bank. The point is that should statements, often used in morality, can inform us for less controversial topics.
Here’s another take: why should we be rational? We could base our epistemology on breeding, money, or other random ends. If you think I should be rational, you’re leveraging morality to do that.
Most people believe in objective morality, whether they understand it that way or not. Humans have disagreed over many subjects throughout history. Disagreement alone doesn’t undermine objectivity. It’s objectively true that the Earth revolves around the sun. Some nut case with a geocentric mindset isn’t going to convince me otherwise. You can argue it’s objective because we can test it, but how do I test my epistemology?
This is just a philosophy 101 run around. I’m a moral pluralist who believes in utilizing many moral theories to help understand the moral landscape. If we were to study the human body, you’d use biology, physics, chemistry, and so on. When looking at a moral problem, I look at it from the main moral theories and look for consensus around a moral stance.
I’m not interested in debating, but there’s so many posts making basic mistakes about morality. My undergraduate degree was in ethics, and I’ve published on meta ethics. We ain’t solving this in a lemmy thread, but there’s a lot of literature to read for those interested.
You are correct, but as someone who has worked in F2P mobile for a decade, it is true that most profitability comes from whales, at least in this market. You might have hundreds of thousands who spend as you mention (dolphins or minnows), but as a percentage of revenue, that aggregate is considerably smaller than the aggregate of whales: I’ve seen that ratio as high as 5:95 on a financially successful mobile F2P 4X strategy game, meaning 5% of total revenue coming from players with a lifetime spend of less than $250, 95% of total revenue coming from those above that. The populations of those groups is usually the opposite (very few whales vs. many dolphins and minnows).
Not all F2P models swing heavily into “whale-based”, but the traditional wisdom is similar to the casino industry. Large corporate companies often have small teams dedicated to servicing VIP players, ensuring they come back to the game through attractive offers or other gifts (https://www.gamesindustry.biz/how-does-zynga-hunt-for-whales-this-week-in-business).
Another component that people don’t understand is that often these aren’t “normal people” in terms of their income. We had geo-tagged data, so when you’re looking at your high level VIPs north of a million in lifetime spend, you’re talking about someone in UAE, someone in Petersburg, someone in Hong Kong, or someone in the Texas oil fields. That’s not to provide moral ammunition, but it is a different viewpoint from these games preying on people who don’t have money. A lot of whales have so much money, they just don’t care about spending $100s or $1,000s at a time.
Finally, I personally know at least 1 divorce caused by a game I worked on: the husband couldn’t stop spending, and it led to a separation. There are likely more. By the same token, I also know marriages caused by that same game.
If people are having issues with spending, please stop playing, stop spending, get help. If people don’t want this to be the dominate model, they need to support with their wallets. Having said that, there’s more free games to play than when I grew up. I do think that is pretty cool.
This looks amazing. Can’t wait to see what Dan and company finalize.
3·1 year agoThis is a moment. Take it bird by bird.
Imbroglio (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/imbroglio/id969264934) is one of my favorite minimal purchase iOS games. I haven’t played it in awhile, but it’s a unique dungeon puzzle game where you place attacks as floor tiles on the board ahead of playing. There’s some consistent rules with ramping challenge, which made it super replayable for me. I loved trying different floor designs, finding strategies, and there’s a small progression system that’s fun. Hasn’t been updated in a few years, but it was a great design despite the rough appearance.
You tart. Glug glug glug. Then you play poker for hours.
10/10 experience.
Starting off with “we’ve heard your feedback” is something I’ve never heard from an abusive parent?