He's been talking about it on Mastodon for quite a while now. It's a shame.
/edit: It wasn't the game he talked about on Masto; that game finished/released! My dumb. I thought it was continued development.
There's plenty of better deep dives on YouTube, but basically it's a system in Shadows of Mordor (and moreso in Shadows of War) that would take a random NPC you were fighting and were joined by (or almost killed,) and elevate them thematically. If one knocked you down there's a chance they would pick up your sword and break it, smack talk you, and walk away. That guy, of his name was Doug, became Doug the Sword Breaker. Never time you saw him, he'd get a short introduction and a quip or two to remove you of who he was.
If you died, since you were a spirit they'd just mock that they already best you before. But if you were killing them, they might get a scene where they manage to get away to amplify the story. Or maybe you'll just kill them. It was random and happened with random NPCs, elevating them in the enemy army.
I believe in the second one you could even mind control someone, and take out the people above them, and have a spy in the upper ranks.
Imagine an action game with some Crusader Kings plot drama happening.
Honestly I think there's probably enough prior art to get away with using whatever you wanted from it. But a) I'm no lawyer and b) I'm not risking millions of dollars making a game.
In addition to being an insanely popular musician he's also been in several WWE matches (and actually did great,) has been on SNL, and played the waiter-turned-caddy in Happy Gilmore 2 in a guest spot. So he's pretty well known. Not to be aggro or suggest that's the creme de la creme of celebrity, just to let you know the level he operates on. He's pretty well recognized at a glance to a lot of people.
I wasn't banned, I just came here because of their API changes like many others. I always bring up "the grass is greener where you water it," so I came here, and mod !gamedev@lemmy.world. I still view and use reddit some; it's just more popular. But I try to do my part to make the Lemmy space a little more robust.
Like a lot of others, my biggest gripe is the accepted copyright violation for the wealthy. They should have to license data (text, images, video, audio,) for their models, or use material in the public domain. With that in mind, in return I'd love to see pushes to drastically reduce the duration of copyright. My goal is less about destroying generative AI, as annoying as it is, and more about leveraging the money being it to change copyright law.
I don't love the environmental effects but I think the carbon output of OpenAI is probably less than TikTok, and no one cares about that because they enjoy TikTok more. The energy issue is honestly a bigger problem than AI. And while I understand and appreciate people worried about throwing more weight on the scales, I'm not sure it's enough to really matter. I think we need bigger "what if" scenarios to handle that.
I'll say this: props to Fandom for realizing the right thing to do. I know there was really no other good solution for them, but that hasn't stopped many companies from being so obstinate that they cut their nose off to spite their face.
But more seriously, good for those guys buying it. I hope it goes well for them.
Great point. I already find this to be a problem with the recommendations that pop up when paused, and the end-video elements they throw over everything despite having that turned off everywhere I can find it. It's all so dumb. Just so damn dumb.
Like I said in another post:
Seems like a good time to remind everyone just a few months ago he took two active usernames from their users without warning. Both @x and @music were in use and taken by Musk with no warning and no recompense.
At this rate I see it as completely possible that someone buys one, and the first time they don't update within whatever Musk feels like is "too long" that day, he takes it back with no warning.
Seems like a good time to remind everyone just a few months ago he took two active usernames from their users without warning. Both @x and @music were in use and taken by Musk with no warning and no recompense.
At this rate I see it as completely possible that someone buys one, and the first time they don't update within whatever Musk feels like is "too long" that day, he takes it back with no warning.
I forgot where I saw someone else suggest it... But if you really want to win over shoppers this Black Friday? Don't run a week of discounted TVs. Discount groceries.
The fear is a practice called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" (or EEE). It's been used by tech companies before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
It, in theory, could work like this:
Meta embraces ActivityPub in its tech in an attempt to garner good will and make it easy for users to transition to Threads.
Meta extends on ActivityPub by saying "oh we're just adding a few things that make this better for our users (on our service) but we're still supporting ActivityPub!
Meta then extinguishes ActivityPub support, and severally hobbles AP, after they secure enough users to be happy and think AP offers no real competition anymore.
Then the enshittification process begins, by moving the focus from users to other interests (usually advertisers) at the expense of users. And eventually to the platform owners, at the expense of advertisers. Though I guess they'll skip the middle step, being a public company?
And they'll just hire more H-1B visa employees for more and more smaller roles, and they have them in an even tighter place than they could American workers. It's not like they're blind to the issue. It's the plan.