|
eschaton posted:Don't do this. Just like cyber stood for cybersex and not cyber warfare in my times! 
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
eschaton posted:Don't do this. Don't do this. "Pedantry" is obsessing over specific word usage when it was obvious what he was saying if you looked at context.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
blowfish posted:But in order to reward those guys for having and then successfully implementing a great idea, and possibly making it their jobs to implement more great ideas that result in better infrastructure at more affordable prices, you'd have to give someone in their department or agency latitude and discretion. We can't have unelected upper mid-level functionaries making decisions like that. They might end up spending YOUR TAX DOLLARS on sensible things, on their own. The horror. Were they were quietly reprimanded for acting outside their role, and embarrassing other people in their department? You have to be a consultant to be allowed to have ideas like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
Dongsturm posted:Were they were quietly reprimanded for acting outside their role, and embarrassing other people in their department? Government IT doesnt exist anyway remember? We are very good at the cyber 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
In any case bitcoin and its ilk is properly preferred to as "craptocurrency", thank you very much 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Don't do this. I am sorry to say that it's an actual jargon term in finance now. It pains me too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Almost pulled the trigger a few times on a VR headset. What stopped me: a) No high production value Star Wars/Medieval game where I get to hold a lightsaber/sword and duel against some other person or AI. b) No high production value shooter game where I get to aim down the sights for real and blast other people/zombies/bears/whatever away. c) No high production value airplane/space game that's more than 3 hours long where I get to sit in the cockpit and blow things away. All of these 'games' exist apparently in some form or another, but they are all early access 1-2 hour tech demos with no playerbase that will likely never get updated significantly beyond the initial release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
Avalanche posted:a) No high production value Star Wars/Medieval game where I get to hold a lightsaber/sword and duel against some other person or AI. quote:c) No high production value airplane/space game that's more than 3 hours long where I get to sit in the cockpit and blow things away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Don't do this. Or more correctly cryptology, which covers both encoding (cryptography) and decoding (cryptanalysis) 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
exmachina posted:Or more correctly cryptology, which covers both encoding (cryptography) and decoding (cryptanalysis) Unfortunately, it appears bitcoin can't be cleared up with standard levels of chlorine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:In any case bitcoin and its ilk is properly preferred to as "craptocurrency", thank you very much "crapto" is an abbreviation I can get behind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 16:31
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Cicero posted:Short of hydraulics holding your 'sword' in place I'm not sure how feasible this really is. Wasn't that the idea behind Neal Stephenson's startup?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:we have amazingly powerful clusters being constructed Sometimes I lie awake at night and think about how cool it is that we're shifting resources and energy from the future to the present, ensuring future generations will live a permanently diminished lifestyle, to literally make fake money that doesn't exist. Mining coal, burning it, spewing mercury into the ocean, to make Ethereum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Oculus hosed up a lot of things, but they were right in thinking that if consumer's first VR experience was cheap and lovely, then they would write off the whole thing. This led to their ridiculous barrier to entry, which hosed them over, but it's clear that a lot of people who poo poo on VR obviously only tried some piece of poo poo on their phone, or maybe PS VR (which is pretty lovely tbh). Oculus and Vive are a completely different thing, but their status as pretty niche peripherals let garbage hardware poison the well. The software offering is still pretty bad, but the hardware really does work. The quality on Oculus and Vive is good enough that after a bit of time your perception of the 3D image "pops" (in the same way a magic-eye picture pops into focus) and suddenly everything on screen becomes real---it's not whether it looks realistic or not, it's that you no longer perceive it as images as display, but instead as the world around you. This is why you get funny videos of people trying to lean on trees or sit in chairs in VR and falling over---part of their brain has forgotten that this isn't reality. Google Cardboard isn't going to do this poo poo. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Oculus hosed up a lot of things, but they were right in thinking that if consumer's first VR experience was cheap and lovely, then they would write off the whole thing. true, i tried it 23 years ago and was not impressed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Imyn6QSq9s
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Anthony Levandowski didn’t make a deal with Uber until he was protected against possible lawsuits Headline is something that had already come out a few weeks earlier, but the juicy bit is in the article. quote:An email between Poetzscher and Kalanick included in today’s filing shows the executive asking whether the now former CEO promised indemnity to Levandowski and Ron. The email was dated in the days between when Levandowski resigned from Alphabet and officially formed Otto. /cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8967567/IMG_9446.PNG) This Levandowski guy must be one amazing designer to create ORIGINAL DESIGN DO NOT STEAL self-driving components worth $millions within days of leaving Google's self-driving division. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
call to action posted:Sometimes I lie awake at night and think about how cool it is that we're shifting resources and energy from the future to the present, ensuring future generations will live a permanently diminished lifestyle, to literally make fake money that doesn't exist. Mining coal, burning it, spewing mercury into the ocean, to make Ethereum. Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
You know how even though Snap went public, they never actually gave any control of the company over to public shareholders? Well, the S&P Dow Jones Indices aren't too fond of that and will be barring Snap from most of their indices. Snap is falling again as Wall Street worries about the company's corporate structure quote:But its founders' white-knuckled grip on voting rights is far from Snap's only challenge at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Snap is utterly hosed but i will always thank them for free tickets to Hamilton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Azerban posted:Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill. Source your quotes, Chairman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Half-wit posted:Source your quotes, Chairman. Enough of your veiled threats!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
We are living in a Democratic/Free Market/Wealth setup, too bad the game will end before we get to future societies
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Snap is utterly hosed but i will always thank them for free tickets to Hamilton. Instagram Stories turns 1 as daily use surpasses Snapchat quote:If Facebook’s goal was stop Snap in its tracks, it’s largely succeeded with Instagram Stories. Snapchat’s monthly active user growth rate has plummeted from 17.2% per quarter to just 5%, while Snap’s share price has fallen from its $17 IPO to $13. Instagram Stories now has 250 million daily users compared to Snapchat’s 166 million. Instagram’s usage per day beats the “more than 30 minutes per day” of usage Snapchat claims on average now, as well as the over 30 minutes per day for under 25s and 20 minutes per day for over 25s Snap cited in its IPO filing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Snap is utterly hosed but i will always thank them for free tickets to Hamilton. Come on they still got the big sexting demographic all locked up JailTrump fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Oculus hosed up a lot of things, but they were right in thinking that if consumer's first VR experience was cheap and lovely, then they would write off the whole thing. This led to their ridiculous barrier to entry, which hosed them over, but it's clear that a lot of people who poo poo on VR obviously only tried some piece of poo poo on their phone, or maybe PS VR (which is pretty lovely tbh). I've used Oculus and Vive. They're amazing, wow, incredible, holy poo poo. For your first 5 or 10 times. Then at some point you've tried most of the coolest things and are left with a bunch of stuff that gets old real fast. Shooting galleries, VR pong, and multiplayer with empty lobbies. What VR hosed up on: 1) The games. Facebook bought oculus for a cool billion. Valve has stupid amounts of money. Don't be tight. A lot of the games are lackluster because they've got very limited budgets, which is the reason a lot of games are very similar. Those things are cheap to make. If the companies with money had opened the wallets there'd be better stuff. 2) In-fighting. About a year before the headsets released, when the hypetrain was at full steam, the companies working on VR stopped the previous co-operation on stuff like interoperability and standard libraries, and started closing their systems off. They saw the hype and thought they had a sure success, so started competing for first place instead. Bad move. 3) Valve pushing room-scale on the first generation. Don't get me wrong, room-scale is amazing and has way more wow factor. But I think it was a mistake to make that leap on the first wave. It's harder to make games for, the space required is hard for many people, the cord issue sucks, and it split the market. Room-scale amplified the "wow to disappointed" feeling a lot of people have. I tried a DK1 years ago and was convinced I'd buy one of the first release-quality VR headsets. The escalating costs and weak results have made me glad that I have friends-of-friends who bought in instead of me. VR is still amazing. As long as someone else spends the $800.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
It seems like the winner will be whoever releases the first AAA quality game that uses VR as an essential component. Tech demos and small scale projects can only get you so far, now that the tech is there someone needs to make something that mass market consumers will pay hundreds of dollars to play. Have any of the large game studios made a public commitment to develop something major for a specific technology?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Have any of the large game studios made a public commitment to develop something major for a specific technology? PSVR had resident evil in VR, which people said was actually really good. Bethesda is doing Fallout in VR, but of course they have beef with oculus/facebook so they're gonna make it Vive-only, lol. But no, nobody is onboard to put major money behind anything original that's made for VR first. Which is smart, you'd have to be crazy to look at the potential market of a couple million headsets and spend AAA money. That's why I blame the real stakeholders, who have money coming out the rear end, for not stepping up to the plate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Ace Combat 7 in VR might be good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Klyith posted:
What's so crazy about it? It's a market of guaranteed sales if the product is AAA level, and most AAA games struggle to move more than a couple million units anyways. The top selling game this year is Zelda at 3 Million, RE7 sold 2M, the new Call of Duty sold a whopping 1m. Potential install base is not the problem here, really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Rime posted:What's so crazy about it? It's a market of guaranteed sales if the product is AAA level, and most AAA games struggle to move more than a couple million units anyways. The top selling game this year is Zelda at 3 Million, RE7 sold 2M, the new Call of Duty sold a whopping 1m. Haha, what? No. That is not how anything works. The only real AAA Switch title is Zelda and there have still still been 50% more Switches sold than Zelda games. A single AAA title is not going to capture the entire anemic VR install base, especially given the fragmentation and the saturation of existing crap on the market. The titles you are speaking of can rely on franchise weight and a long generational sales tail, bundles, loss leader status, etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Rime posted:the new Call of Duty sold a whopping 1m. But for your actual point: zelda BOTW is your most optimistic comparison for lots of sales on a limited install base. That is not a number that anyone making money decisions should be looking to replicate. First, it's a really great game. Everyone would like to make the best game possible, but you shouldn't make plans around having a historically great one. Secondly, its attach is an incredible anomaly, so much that it was a news story in itself. But third and most importantly, you need to understand how a big publisher works (this is true for not just games btw, also movies and books). Nobody is putting big AAA budget into a game that will sell 2m units max. If it does sell that much, well fine. It's earned back the studio budget, those guys get to make another game, and the publisher profits a little bit on the long tail. But they're always aiming higher. Because somebody has to sell enough to pay for the disasters, the flops, and the bad decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Rime posted:What's so crazy about it? It's a market of guaranteed sales if the product is AAA level, and most AAA games struggle to move more than a couple million units anyways. The top selling game this year is Zelda at 3 Million, RE7 sold 2M, the new Call of Duty sold a whopping 1m. Uh, the latest Call of Duty (Infinite Warfare) sold 1.8 million copies in its first 7 days alone, including preorder sales. Where did you get the idea it only sold 1 million copies total? Also no, the top selling game this year is probably Minecraft, they moved 15 million new copies of it between June 2016 and February 2017, the last two times Microsoft announced sales figures, it's likely continuing to sell about as well. Or maybe it's the latest Pokemon game, which has turned over 15 million copies sold since it was released in November 2016. Attempting to gather in the like 5 million people who have any modern VR system at all would be a fool's game, a lot of them are still using low quality goggles, or using systems that simply strap on a phone as the screen and source of the rendering, or they're simply using barely adequate hardware, or even using a plain PS4. You're not going to get a similarly stunning VR-justified AAA game trying to target all those things, Zelda could sell so well among a limited number of Switches because every Switch is guarenteed to be able to handle the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
The point isn't to make a AAA game for people that already have VR, it's to make one so popular that people will be lining up to buy VR systems just for that game. It will take a lot of money and be extremely risky, but whoever does it will have the entire market, since few people will buy two incompatible VR systems. It's a nine figure bet with a ten figure payoff, and there are very few companies that can pull it off, but it's really the only way the technology takes off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
if they're trying to market VR as a bleeding-edge pc enthusiast thing, doesn't it run into the problem that it has zero scalability with the rest of the market?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:if they're trying to market VR as a bleeding-edge pc enthusiast thing, doesn't it run into the problem that it has zero scalability with the rest of the market? It occupies this really awkward place in it being impressive but not '$900 and dedicated space in your room' impressive. Like as a monitor with head tracking alone it's not impressive enough, but then you do room scale VR and suddenly whose into dedicating the space for it for what are tech demos. As it stands it's journalist bait for people who live and breathe trendy tech poo poo, but as a practical entertainment product it's just... not. Whether they'll ever figure out how to make it a practical & valuable entertainment product remains to be seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:The point isn't to make a AAA game for people that already have VR, it's to make one so popular that people will be lining up to buy VR systems just for that game. It will take a lot of money and be extremely risky, but whoever does it will have the entire market, since few people will buy two incompatible VR systems. It's a nine figure bet with a ten figure payoff, and there are very few companies that can pull it off, but it's really the only way the technology takes off. Good quality VR requires at least $500 in the headset/controllers, another huge chunk of money for a powerful computer or maybe a high end game console, and most importantly, a pretty big chunk of clear space in the same room for most of the immersive ones versus "sit in a chair while the world moves around you" sort of games. It's not something you can get people to buy in the millions and millions just off the back of One Game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Good quality VR requires at least $500 in the headset/controllers, another huge chunk of money for a powerful computer or maybe a high end game console, and most importantly, a pretty big chunk of clear space in the same room for most of the immersive ones versus "sit in a chair while the world moves around you" sort of games. It's not something you can get people to buy in the millions and millions just off the back of One Game. Also there's the problem it can't degrade very well. Most all new AAA games will run on older computers, you just gotta crank the quality settings down and be OK with lower fps. That doesn't really work with VR which makes it hard to sell a high budget VR specific game in the bulk needed. I own an oculus (and a PC powerful enough to run it) and think it's a really cool piece of tech with a lot of potential, but I still haven't used it in months cause so far I'd much rather just play witcher 3 or xcom 2 on my monitor than anything available for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Rime posted:the new Call of Duty sold a whopping 1m. Edit: oh i'm like the fourth person to pick out that detail i guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:The point isn't to make a AAA game for people that already have VR, it's to make one so popular that people will be lining up to buy VR systems just for that game. It will take a lot of money and be extremely risky, but whoever does it will have the entire market, since few people will buy two incompatible VR systems. It's a nine figure bet with a ten figure payoff, and there are very few companies that can pull it off, but it's really the only way the technology takes off. That only works out if the company that makes the game is the same as the one that makes the VR system. Which is why it has to be facebook or valve that puts the money in, but both were reluctant to go whole hog. Perhaps because they were riding their own hypetrain and thought there'd be a ton of games coming out anyways (which at one point looked like the case, there were a fuckton of announcements the year before launch) -- or perhaps because they could see the pre-order numbers and knew that gen 1 was too small to invest that money in. But also, it's not always true that you win and get the mega millions payout. Sometimes it's not VHS vs Betamax, it's actually minidisc vs digital cassette. ie your tech isn't as cool as you think it is and in the long run you're both losers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:if they're trying to market VR as a bleeding-edge pc enthusiast thing, doesn't it run into the problem that it has zero scalability with the rest of the market? Yes. It's already a problem that prima donna PC game developers work very hard at making games for next year's top hardware that only really run on this and last year's hardware because GPU vendors rewrite their rendering pipelines via the drivers. Every one of those developers thinks "People will buy a new card for our game!" and only occasionally is one right. Now instead of a few hundred dollar GPU we're talking about (for what passes as high quality in consumer VR, about 1K2 per eye) a thousand or more dollars of combined headgear, card, and system, plus an environment conducive to their use. Pretty goddamn unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:13
|
|
