Hrm, no mention of the super blurry character models that I had in the demo, so maybe they fixed that since and I missed it. Most of the footage looks pretty clean in this regard, too.

I had a pretty good experience with the demo with what DF would probably call low-to-midrange at this point (3060Ti, OC'd 10600k), and I'm the kinda person that's sensitive to frame drops/stutter. I still think I'll wait for a performance patch to be sure, though, if not a sale. Too many games for me to buy this season anyway.

It has to do with how the statute is written (I used to do comparative international IP policy research and analysis). Japanese works are given fairly wide latitude in creative sectors based on artistic intent. For example, you'll see knockoff brands all the time in anime or manga, but the intent is clearly world building (or parody), not appropriation for promotional use. That artistic intent standard is used in the courts. This is why all the side-by-side comparisons people here probably saw on Twitter when Palworld came out was more of an ethnocentric American approach. Plus, copyright infringement is frequently incidental and not the result of large investment (unlike patents), so, in a country that prefers to handle domestic disputes informally, these incidents are less likely to go to court.

As a country that more recently entered the world stage based on manufacturing, patent protection is simply going to be taken more seriously as part of the culture. And yes--while I don't have numbers--patent litigation does seem to get thrown out often when it comes to video games, at least the high-profile stuff, anyway. Here's an example between Koei Tecmo and Capcom since I was already on Variety.

Similar visual design happens all the time in Japanese media and there's rarely litigation over it. Patent lawsuits are much more common in Japan.

Looks nice! Kickstarter games have been a little mixed lately, so I wonder what the appetite will be for the fundraising.

No editorializing was done here. That's the title provided by the metadata, which is the easier option Lemmy provides when posting links.

I don't know where you're hearing retailers don't enforce ratings. Yes, it happens uncommonly, but the FTC previously found ratings compliance was higher among video game retailers than at the box office, and not much has changed in the culture since then. I've worked at multiple retailers that sold video games, and the training for video games enforcement was always taken just as seriously as with alcohol sales.

Being the largest entertainment industry in the world now, video game publishers are serious about this stuff. Developers also still take steps to avoid a Hot Coffee situation from occurring again.

It doesn't have to be jaded. As with the original quote I riffed off of, these particular Skinner boxes don't have to always be pure evil and can provide net-positive outcomes, as long as we're clear-eyed about the consequences of participating. The latter part is what I'm trying to drive home here. Consumer behavior psychology is part of every major live-service game.

Even if you do find the cabinet in the lavatory, the probability calculations for a simple use case are ridiculously complicated. It does reek a bit of "minimum compliance required by law."

On the plus side, Hoyo (at least in Star Rail) doesn't bombard the player in-game with pop-ups or the like. A zero-spend player that just wants to poke around in the story or the game world isn't going to be harassed. Instead, it's earnest marketing, by way of letting the player use characters on trial, featuring them in the story, or high-quality video productions published outside the game. They make as much money as they do because their production values on that stuff are among the best in the business.

As far as running a digital goods casino (where you don't own the goods), I've seen far worse. I still don't think we're doing as much as we should to protect those with addictions to gambling or FOMO from these products, however.

Come on. We both know that legitimizing the RMT system increased the number of gold buyers and normalized the process. Not only does it now capture the players who were both a) squeamish about paying unproven third parties and b) had no recourse if they did get scammed, it's also a far more convenient process. We know the gold-for-gear (and other services) market exploded in size because Blizzard was finally forced to make systemic changes to fight/redirect services spam. Service sellers are everywhere, and there was a point they were constantly in your whispers, your mailbox, your chat, your group finder. It's nothing like it was 15-20 years ago.

No, gold buyers are not most players (and no, I don't care that some players are doing it). Most gacha players aren't whales, either. My point is that yes, your game is also chasing the whales right now and will continue to design systems to do so.

The AO rating is still the kiss-of-death for game content in North America, enforced by retailers. Even still, the ESRB only came about because the political climate at the time was very much "clean up your shit or we'll do it for you."

This reads like "the only moral Skinner box is my Skinner box."

Also sounds like you haven't played in a while. The addition of real currency to gold trading creates an even more direct pipeline from one's wallet to in-game gear dice rolls. Guilds selling raid gear is even more common now, and with crafting orders, a whale can spend to reroll secondary stats on crafted gear.

With the way Warcraft is throwing currencies at players now, it's clear Blizzard has taken more than a few cues from how gacha and other live-service outfits are doing things these days. Plenty of opportunities for ruinous, addictive behavior.

It's hard to top the inkjet printers I've owned. I still can't believe 30 years later home printer tech is not only unimproved but worse between lower quality production and squeezing people on ink costs.