Because many signing up for war are doing it for money due to the severe poverty they’re experiencing:

https://youtu.be/dVZjvOrJ0aM

I’m not a graphics engineer so I only have cursory knowledge of the topic.

The biggest benefits that ray tracing brings is the accuracy of lighting your scenes and being able to forego the “tricks” that you mentioned. These are almost always going to be screen-space lighting techniques and effects e.g. reflections (SSR) and ambient occlusion (SSAO).

Unfortunately, the bad news and inform you that you’d still need to understand the 3D math and shader knowledge regardless of whether you can take advantage of ray tracing or not. The good news is there are numerous game engines and resources out there to help!

Hope you make something cool from the hobby!

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.

Yes there is: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clearurls/

Street value.

You’re welcome and I hope things work out well for you!

Relationships are hard, both platonic and romantic. Maintaining them in a healthy way is really difficult and no one can give you a map for how to navigate the issues.

Sometimes, you’ll find that despite your best efforts, relationships can wane or end over time. Your best friend might suddenly have to move halfway across the world for a job - while they’d still be your best friend, you won’t be able to get coffee/beer like you used to. Or a close friend could unfortunately lose their life at the drop of a hat, and you’d never see them again.

I’ve learned to focus more on and appreciate the time that you do have with a person, however long or brief it may be, because you never know when it’s the last time that you spend the most time with them.

It’s hard to understand the full context of your situation because there’s a lot of details missing, so I’m going to make some assumptions based on what you’ve said.

I think your mistake was to go straight to running when you haven’t even started crawling.

You’ve described yourself as not having been a very sociable person over the years, so planning a massive party of 30-50 people for people that you haven’t had regular contact with was likely to never have worked out the way you expected, regardless of how much effort you put into planning and setup.

My advice to you is to start small and take it in steps.

Firstly, don’t bog yourself down with thinking about how a) badly the party seemed to have gone, and b) how many relationships you’ve let erode.

Second, instead of focusing on those that didn’t show up, celebrate that you had 5 people who cared enough to come to it. Spend time cultivating relationships with them, because those were the ones who bothered to be there.

Lastly, for those you felt were important and let you down, you have to understand that people tend to treat big parties as optional. If someone is important to you, inviting them to a large party where they’re just one-of-many doesn’t really tell them how important they are to you does it? I know I’d feel a lot more important if someone invited me to their small and intimate party!

Additionally, you should reach out to them and let them know how you felt - no one can read your mind. You have to communicate how you feel and give people a chance to respond. If they respond positively, great - you’ve kept an important friend! If they don’t, then you’ve learned that your relationship with them wasn’t a healthy one.

You don’t have to pretend like it didn’t hurt you, but the onus is on you to communicate that to those you felt slighted by.

Also, don’t plan massive parties for yourself with over-the-moon expectations, especially not for your first birthday party!

When Skullgirls developers tell people that it’ll cost $150k to make a single new character, and when other fighting game developers weighed in and said, “actually, that’s insanely cheap,” it level sets expectations for what a customer can actually expect out of a producer.

You’re just grasping at straws here.

The average consumer doesn’t give a damn about how much a game costs to make, nor do they care about the cost to make content. Do you think people judge their experiences based on the cost it took to make said thing?

There are a lot of reasons why it can’t be exactly that anymore, but ballooning budgets are why the industry is in this spot where it’s wholly unsustainable

Grasping at straws again, but let’s entertain this for a moment. Did this article about the cost to make Concord teach you anything about the reasons why games cost so much to make?

Iterating on a trend over the course of 6 to 8 years is not, not only because it makes the game more expensive to make and raises the floor for success, but also because the audience for that trend has likely moved on.

What raises the floor of success is the growing expectations that gamers have of their games and the complexity of making them, not everyone trying to one-up each other on how much it costs to make them. Do you think publishers and studios think “oh shit, Sony spent $400mil, we should spend MORE!”?

maybe, just maybe, it will make more companies focus on building a game that they know they can afford to make

That will keep people employed rather than rapid expansion from investment into a bubble and hundreds of layoffs when the project goes south.

Was this the line of thought that Microsoft had when they shut down Tango Gameworks for producing the cult hit Hi-Fi Rush?

How do you think an article like this can somehow change the minds of executives making the decision to overhire and lay people off?

My point is the same as I stated before: putting out unsubstantiated articles like these does absolutely nothing good for the industry. The only purpose it serves is ad-revenue for the tabloid, and potentially pulling more money out of the industry.

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.

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.

Try and visit one of the underground city tours while you’re there: https://www.beneath-the-streets.com/ http://www.undergroundtour.com/

The first link is the newer tour company, which I haven’t tried myself, but I hear it’s the better experience.

Either way, it’s worth doing it at least once!

I used to work at ProbablyMonsters. It’s most definitely not an incubator.

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.

obviously not Trump but what does Harris bring to the table, Walz?

As @Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world has succinctly pointed out, your choices are: vote for Trump, or vote for Harris.

Asking inane questions like “what does Harris bring to the table?” is both-siding bullshit that detracts from this simple fact: If you care about the environment, Trump is the absolute worst choice. Vote Harris.

There is no resolution to your straw man argument worth having and quoting a Wikipedia article doesn’t change the reality of your choice.

I don’t know enough to be able to answer your question.

However, even if you did find a country you could do this in, you’d have to deal with the cost and time required to travel there, consult with the local doctors, get the surgery scheduled, perform the surgery, and remain for post-op care - all of which would be likely out of their own pocket.

Canada has universal single payer health care system and I have no idea how they deal with medical procedures done outside the country. I highly doubt they would cover unless they were on private insurance that allowed it.

Not everyone has the means to do what you suggest unfortunately.

This was my initial opinion until I read the whole article.

“I got my blood tested, I had MRI scans, I had a CT scan, I had ultrasound and blood compatibility test with her. I was a match,” said Allan.

Transplant guidelines in Ontario and much of Canada require patients with ALD to first qualify for a deceased donor liver. If they don’t meet that criteria, they aren’t considered for a living liver transplant, even if one is available.

Her partner was a willing donor, wanted to give her his liver and was prevented from doing so. So yes, this is a cruel take.

“Forever Pay For Your Mouse”

I’ve read a number of comments like yours and have always been curious about this sentiment.

I feel similarly iffy about the whole process. Despite that, I can’t think of a viable alternative at this point in time that wouldn’t lead to a disastrous result.

I genuinely want to know: if he does step down and give way to another candidate, who do you have in mind? Is it one person? Is it multiple? Or are we just hoping that if he steps down, a magical better candidate will show up?

Conversely, I’ve only ever seen “make do” used.

“Make due” would make sense to me in the context where debt is a factor, for example, “make due on rent”.

It doesn’t make sense when you apply that meaning to how the sentence was written in this article.

While writing this angry comment, did you stop to consider that maybe they did their job right and you’re wrong?

https://www.grammar.com/make_do_vs._make_due

Unless you’re living in the early 1900s, “make do” is correct for today’s English.