User information for Orogogus

Real Name
Orogogus
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage
Signed On
February 22, 2003
Supporter
-
Total Posts
2089 (Senior)
User ID
16241
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
2089 Comments. 105 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16    105  ] Older
12.
 
Re: John Carmack on Microsoft's id Software Ownership
Sep 22, 2020, 05:45
12.
Re: John Carmack on Microsoft's id Software Ownership Sep 22, 2020, 05:45
Sep 22, 2020, 05:45
 
osage no onna wrote on Sep 22, 2020, 05:19:
VaranDragon wrote on Sep 22, 2020, 04:09:
I wonder what a jury of programmers would have thought of it?

If they've ever actually read any of the contracts they've signed instead of just assuming they can do whatever with no repercussions because their skills make them special, I imagine many would understand that whatever they worked on at a company isn't theirs.

I'm a biochemist. If I took off with some research I've worked on not only would I be in a world of legal trouble, but I would likely never work in research ever again nor would I expect to. And I certainly wouldn't be making snide tweets like some spoiled child.

My impression from the court proceedings was that Zenimax was full of crap, as were their experts. One bit, from the wikipedia article: "Carmack took issue with one of ZeniMax's expert witnesses who testified that non-literal copying, the act of creating a program with similar functions but using different computer code, constitutes a copyright violation." In point of fact, they lost their case against Carmack.

Zenimax's argument seems to be that they were developing their own headset, which is horseshit. They weren't making one then, they're not making one now, they're never going to make one. But they saw fit to request an injunction on sales of the Rift, apparently on the basis that it was stealing sales from their mythical headset.

And this is on top of all their other shitty lawsuits. I'm usually not happy to see layoffs following an acquisition, but in this case I wouldn't mind seeing their legal department sent to the dole.
32.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Sep 21, 2020, 21:49
32.
Re: Morning Consolidation Sep 21, 2020, 21:49
Sep 21, 2020, 21:49
 
Browsing through archives of GamePro magazine, it seems to me that there was no shortage of $60 games on any post-NES console, going back to around 1989-1991, up through the PSX release (1994/1995). There were cheaper games, too, but by 1991 it looks like it was the norm for higher profile games to hit that price -- or higher. Turok for the SNES launched at $80 in 1997, which seems kind of nuts. My impression is that the PSX brought prices down to $50, although Nintendo continued pricing big titles at $60 up until the GameCube (late 2001), when they dropped down to $50 and stayed there ever since.
23.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Sep 21, 2020, 17:22
23.
Re: Morning Consolidation Sep 21, 2020, 17:22
Sep 21, 2020, 17:22
 
Wolfen wrote on Sep 21, 2020, 16:57:
In early 2000's games were 20-50USD. In 2006ish (when the xbox 360 came out) Microsoft pushed the game prices up to 60. It's been less than 20 years since game prices were hiked up.
Looking at Computer Gaming World's Dec 99 issue, the Chips & Bits ad (PDF p214-215) seems to show PSX games at $40-50, Dreamcast at $50 and N64 games at about $50-60 (including Donkey Kong 64 launching at $60). PC games were cheaper, with Diablo 2 launching at $49.
24.
 
Re: US Treasury Department Scrutinizing Riot and Epic over Tencent Connections
Sep 18, 2020, 12:12
24.
Re: US Treasury Department Scrutinizing Riot and Epic over Tencent Connections Sep 18, 2020, 12:12
Sep 18, 2020, 12:12
 
Julian Delphiki wrote on Sep 18, 2020, 10:44:
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 22:10:
The instant the United States defaults on one cent of debt it legally owes will be the beginning of the end of America as we know it.

Any person even thinking it would be "cool" should immediately start taking chinese language lessons.

I'm not understanding your logic. Even if economic collapse happened in the United States for any reason, our culture would not suddenly swing to speak Mandarin. Despite numerous evil acts, and as much influence as they have on politics, academic institutions, and media, they will never attack the United States in a World War scenario, which is the only thing I can picture that would lead to us speaking their language. It's the exact same as it was during the Cold War, mutually assured destruction. They try anything major against the United States and they are wiped out. They don't have an ability to stop the nuclear triad and neither does the United States. The Chinese culture has a history of reaching out to control as much as possible until something stops it, so the real question is how much global influence will people allow them to have before that advance is halted. The United States will still be around speaking english until we are completely wiped out with a nuclear or biological attack, in which case, whoever attacked is also wiped out. The Chinese are aggressive and addressing what they believe is a mandate to control more of the globe, but they aren't stupid.

I mean, why is English taught in so many countries, including China? It's not because they were all conquered. The argument for everyone speaking Chinese would be that China would take up the mantle of the world's leading economy, making Chinese the lingua franca of commerce.

I think there are serious barriers to learning pictogram-based languages like Chinese or Japanese that don't exist for Western languages, though.

Where do you see a history of the Chinese culture reaching out to control as much as possible? A lot of their history is isolationist and xenophobic, and being beaten up and exploited by the Mongols, the Western powers and the Japanese. The situations in Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan and the "South China Sea" might not be great, but there's a huge gulf between that and say, Britain taking India, or the Mongol Empire.

This comment was edited on Sep 18, 2020, 12:22.
14.
 
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced
Sep 17, 2020, 01:37
14.
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced Sep 17, 2020, 01:37
Sep 17, 2020, 01:37
 
Razumen wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 00:59:
Orogogus wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 00:51:
Razumen wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 00:37:
They wouldn't be making this game if they didn't expect to make money, regardless of Oculus' input.

"If Oculus says they want to hash out a contract to get some games made, why would they say no?" Because a game that only breaks even or not at all isn't worth developing, that's why.

It would be to Oculus/Facebook. And to Valve, for that matter, who probably lost money on Half Life: Alyx.

I don't think this is hard to understand. Facebook pays money to Ubi to make 2 games for them, using Ubi's IPs. Why would Ubi be willing to make games that don't break even? Because Facebook agreed to pay them more money than they'd lose, possibly paying the entire cost of development. How does a contract like that seem not worth it for Ubi?

I very much doubt Valve lost any money from Alyx, it sold quite well, not to mention spurred VR sales.

"Because Facebook agreed to pay them more money than they'd lose, possibly paying the entire cost of development. "

Complete speculation, but please, continue defending shitty Oculus exclusives.

"How does a contract like that seem not worth it for Ubi?"

It's not worth it for Ubi if they can use those developers to make another game that does more than just break even. Or not limit themselves to a small niche in an already small market that is VR.

Those spurred VR sales probably didn't make Valve much money. Here's one analysis that originally estimated the 2020 holiday season as break-even, before the author re-estimated the cost of employees and then put it much further out. Valve gave away a copy of the game to anyone who bought the Index, the controllers or the lighthouses. The Index itself is generally acknowledged to be a low-profit margin item (just like everyone else's headset).

Facebook was reported to have signed a deal with Ubi for these exclusives in July 2019. In September 2019 they were putting together a new team and posting hiring ads. Probably baseless "speculation" to assume these are connected.

I'm trying to see how the available facts fit together. As far as I can tell, you're throwing a tantrum because it doesn't fit with what you, personally, want, and assuming that you're smarter than everyone who was involved. Ubisoft makes 2 games for Facebook. I assume Facebook paid them enough to make it worth it for them to do so. You call that speculation and instead assume that Ubisoft is stupid. Well, you do you.
13.
 
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced
Sep 17, 2020, 01:08
13.
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced Sep 17, 2020, 01:08
Sep 17, 2020, 01:08
 
Although, again, I think there's a good chance that these are going to be games for the Quest 2, in which case they were never going to be non-exclusive.

Why do you think EA decided to drop Oculus exclusivity for Medal of Honor? Why do you think they were exclusive in the first place? They had an agreement with Oculus. So why did they breach the contract? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Because they're convinced this is the VR game that's going to sell two million copies? It seems more likely that Oculus approached them and offered to renegotiate the agreement, since Oculus is dropping the Rift S in half a year and getting out of PC VR.

When are the two Ubi games going to release? The Rift S will no longer be sold by the end of May.
Would Sony or Microsoft make a PS or Xbox exclusive and then launch the new console a few months later with no back compatibility? Maybe the two Ubi games could be Rift/Quest dual platform games, but I doubt it. Right now the Quest 2 has The Climb 2 and a Jurassic Park game as known launch titles. An Assassin's Creed game and a Splinter Cell game would do a lot to bolster their lineup.
11.
 
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced
Sep 17, 2020, 00:51
11.
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced Sep 17, 2020, 00:51
Sep 17, 2020, 00:51
 
Razumen wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 00:37:
They wouldn't be making this game if they didn't expect to make money, regardless of Oculus' input.

"If Oculus says they want to hash out a contract to get some games made, why would they say no?" Because a game that only breaks even or not at all isn't worth developing, that's why.

It would be to Oculus/Facebook. And to Valve, for that matter, who probably lost money on Half Life: Alyx.

I don't think this is hard to understand. Facebook pays money to Ubi to make 2 games for them, using Ubi's IPs. Why would Ubi be willing to make games that don't break even? Because Facebook agreed to pay them more money than they'd lose, possibly paying the entire cost of development. How does a contract like that seem not worth it for Ubi?
9.
 
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced
Sep 16, 2020, 23:41
9.
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced Sep 16, 2020, 23:41
Sep 16, 2020, 23:41
 
Razumen wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 23:33:
Orogogus wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 23:31:
Razumen wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 23:15:
This is honestly BS, both Ubisoft and EA don't need FB's exclusivity $$$, so them going exclusive is just inexcusable.
From last year's announcement, it sounded more like they signed a contract. It was strongly implied that Oculus paid Ubi to hire the people for at least one 50-person team to work on a game. So these games wouldn't even exist without Facebook's money. I'm not planning to buy these since I don't like the Oculus Store's exclusive nature, but I'm not mad about it, either.

But with the Rift S being discontinued in the spring, I think these might be Quest 2 games, in which case it's going to be moot.

I'm sure Ubi could've sprung the money themselves, they're not some small indy company. The argument that it wouldn't exist without FB just doesn't fly here.

They could have, but only if they expected to make money. Oculus/Facebook might be willing to lose money to get some games out since they have an agenda. Ubi, not so much. They're not angry Internet message board nerds. If Oculus says they want to hash out a contract to get some games made, why would they say no? Your argument is that they have enough money already, which doesn't seem airtight to me.
7.
 
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced
Sep 16, 2020, 23:31
7.
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced Sep 16, 2020, 23:31
Sep 16, 2020, 23:31
 
Razumen wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 23:15:
This is honestly BS, both Ubisoft and EA don't need FB's exclusivity $$$, so them going exclusive is just inexcusable.
From last year's announcement, it sounded more like they signed a contract. It was strongly implied that Oculus paid Ubi to hire the people for at least one 50-person team to work on a game. So these games wouldn't even exist without Facebook's money. I'm not planning to buy these since I don't like the Oculus Store's exclusive nature, but I'm not mad about it, either.

But with the Rift S being discontinued in the spring, I think these might be Quest 2 games, in which case it's going to be moot.
6.
 
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced
Sep 16, 2020, 23:20
6.
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced Sep 16, 2020, 23:20
Sep 16, 2020, 23:20
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:46:
I'm boycotting this b/c it's not on Steam.
You only post for lulz, but basically, yes. I have a Rift, but I buy my VR games on Steam because while Steam supports the Rift and other headsets, the Oculus Store only supports their own headsets. Even if my next headset was going to be from Oculus (no), I don't particularly want my money to go towards that walled garden.
2.
 
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced
Sep 16, 2020, 21:39
2.
Re: Oculus VR Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell Announced Sep 16, 2020, 21:39
Sep 16, 2020, 21:39
 
It was announced last year that Oculus signed a deal with Ubisoft for these games. This isn't a sudden, spur of the moment decision to not support SteamVR.

If these games run on a Rift/Rift S and/or Quest 1, then a Facebook account shouldn't be required, since that won't be mandatory for existing headsets until 2023. If they're Quest 2 exclusives, then yes.
53.
 
Re: RTX 3080 Reviews
Sep 16, 2020, 17:11
53.
Re: RTX 3080 Reviews Sep 16, 2020, 17:11
Sep 16, 2020, 17:11
 
RogueSix wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 16:50:
So "the invasion" then hits AMD/Sony and MS, right?
And nVidia in the datacenter segment. Apple would be all but toast, too. Qualcomm might be hit hard as well as MediaTek and Intel/Altera and many, many others. TSMC is HUGE. The semiconductor business in the Western hemisphere would almost literally be bombed back into the stone age if the PLA invaded Taiwan.
I don't know if I'm giving away military secrets, but if the PLA steps foot on Taiwan, Taiwan will surrender. Like, immediately. It's not going to be burned to the ground.
8.
 
Re: Riot Hires Anti-Cheat Expert
Sep 15, 2020, 20:04
8.
Re: Riot Hires Anti-Cheat Expert Sep 15, 2020, 20:04
Sep 15, 2020, 20:04
 
Sepharo wrote on Sep 15, 2020, 18:57:
ColoradoHoudini wrote on Sep 15, 2020, 18:32:
- privately run servers..but to have that, we need to drop this unlock system that so many games have that require official servers with feedback loops reporting to a master server

You can have privately run servers and still have a master server for auth. It's literally the way id and valve did it when they ushered in the MP FPS golden era.

I don't think those games had unlocks or persistent stats, though. I think the point is that privately run servers could send false data to level people up or give free coins or whatever.
2.
 
Re: etc.
Sep 15, 2020, 15:51
2.
Re: etc. Sep 15, 2020, 15:51
Sep 15, 2020, 15:51
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Sep 15, 2020, 11:24:
Or rather, let's talk about the fact that the last patch for MW5 was 6 months ago.... and to this day the game is completely broken, badly designed, has a memory leak and one of the shittiest spawning campaign AI's ever made in a game. Or basically, it really is a Piranha Bytes game.
This is Piranha Games, though, not Piranha Bytes.
10.
 
Re: Gods & Monsters Title Changed Due to Dispute by Monster Energy
Sep 15, 2020, 13:18
10.
Re: Gods & Monsters Title Changed Due to Dispute by Monster Energy Sep 15, 2020, 13:18
Sep 15, 2020, 13:18
 
I was kind of amazed to look into this and find out that Monster Energy has nothing to do with Monster Cable. Apparently Monster Energy has taken up the mantle of suing everyone who uses the word monster.
7.
 
Re: Morning Interviews
Sep 12, 2020, 13:28
7.
Re: Morning Interviews Sep 12, 2020, 13:28
Sep 12, 2020, 13:28
 
Ravenus wrote on Sep 12, 2020, 06:18:
On the other hand, though, Pierre Sylvain-Gires admitted some technical difficulties the team had with the Anvil Engine.
“The principle of the rewind is a headache technically. The Anvil engine was not made at all to do rewind, to do slow motion, to do all those time manipulation. The tech approach was a challenge.”

Senior Producer Annu Koul added:
“Anvil engine is mainly for open-world games. The game we have is a short, linear game and not an open-world game so there are many challenges we have to be wary of.”
And they're trying to shoehorn the game into a totally non-suitable engine for this remake because?
Anvil is their own engine. Presumably if they created a new one or licensed one they wouldn't be able to recoup those costs.
64.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 10, 2020, 20:55
64.
Re: Into the Black Sep 10, 2020, 20:55
Sep 10, 2020, 20:55
 
Dwarf-Snowninja wrote on Sep 10, 2020, 17:55:
I think I'd rather read anything by Weis/Hickman than Foucault... Discipline and Punish had some interesting points then went in multiple directions at once, and I honestly felt like I got next to nothing from the book except for being annoyed at the contradictions (which I know is something Foucault enjoys, turning things on their ear, often multiple times). Having said that, the house books aren't bad but they aren't amazing either, but I also couldn't bring myself to reread White Plague so there is that.
Foucault's Pendulum, the book by Umberto Eco.
62.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 10, 2020, 15:51
62.
Re: Into the Black Sep 10, 2020, 15:51
Sep 10, 2020, 15:51
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 10, 2020, 14:46:
MacLeod wrote on Sep 10, 2020, 14:42:
I think my bias was set upon reading House Atreides when it came out, and kept noticing things that didn't actually fit with previous established canon and the puerile writing... In Dune, people's inner thought dialog text was complex and often different from what they portrayed outwardly. In The BH/KJA novels it was practically always the same:

I could use a ham sandwich, Leto thought.
"I'm going to make a ham sandwich!", he said. *

I blame Herbert partially, since I know he's the one that "found" the notes, but I'm guessing a lot of what I didn't like was KJA's writing style, which about matches what I remember from his X-Files and Star Wars books.

* Not-an-actual-quote taken from the non-existent "Hamworms of Dune"
Hmm, didn't actually read the three "House" novels, but if this kind of writing existed in the novels I did read I either ignored it or didn't notice it.

I had the same reaction as MacLeod to the one I started reading. It was like a sequel to Foucault's Pendulum by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, acclaimed authors of the Dragonlance trilogy. Or seeing it turned into an all-ages cartoon with chibi reaction shots and wacky sound effects. I can't think of anywhere else I've seen such a massive tonal shift within a book series.
43.
 
Re: Into the Black
Sep 10, 2020, 02:04
43.
Re: Into the Black Sep 10, 2020, 02:04
Sep 10, 2020, 02:04
 
1badmf wrote on Sep 10, 2020, 01:58:
Dr. Kynes maybe? although wasn't he not actually fremen, but a planetary ecologist sent by the landsraad?
That was his father. Liet Kynes would have been half-Fremen, through his mother.
12.
 
Re: Apple Countersues Epic
Sep 8, 2020, 23:36
12.
Re: Apple Countersues Epic Sep 8, 2020, 23:36
Sep 8, 2020, 23:36
 
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Sep 8, 2020, 22:30:
Sweeney is just a mouthpiece. Epic is highly influenced by Tencent, so this is ultimately China's play to get into software distribution in a big way.
Tencent's already in software distribution in a big way, in China. Tencent runs their own Steam competitor, WeGame, and has the biggest Android app store in China (since Google Play is banned). They own a bunch of mobile companies and properties, but Epic's the only one butting heads with everyone.

The Chinese government likes it when Chinese companies dominate Western markets, but not as much as they like ruling China with an iron fist. I think any Chinese-owned (or 40%-owned, in Epic's case) game or media platform that becomes sufficiently dominant will have the Chinese government imposing so many restrictions that they'll be uncompetitive in the West, just like Baidu, MyApp, WeGame and WeChat.
2089 Comments. 105 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16    105  ] Older