I thought incels are white right wingers, first time I see this
term in a non-white context. Southern Poverty Law Center is listing them as a hate group for example so by definition incels can’t be black.
That's Apple's native way of going back across macOS and iOS no? I'm not an Apple user and even I've come across this when handling a family member's device for a few minutes
Maybe Android's visual ←back button is the way to go after all instead of hoping someone will accidentally discover implicit gestures
It’s only intuitive when you see a page slide from the right to the left. Then you know you can go back to the previous page with a left to right slide. I’ve never seen it used to close a modal
Do you already know the one where you swipe alongside the bottom of the screen from left to right, or right to left? If not it's probably one of my most used gestures to swipe between apps.
Talking as an eastern european: unless you live in a sunshine place (~Mediterranean) most of the 90s car already eaten by the rust + the salt used for defrosting on roads in the winter.
Also by my experience cars (except from SUVs) somehow never kept up with the road quality. Pot holes are a problem everywhere but you can see that certain brands for example japanese and korean ones never designed for deteriorating road quality (and I don't mean offroad) because... you know they just don't exist in the home market. So the tires, wheels, suspension are not as robust as they should be.
Sure _everything can be fixed_ but then your car becomes a hobby and might not everyone has an attitude and time for that.
> Talking as an eastern european: unless you live in a sunshine place (~Mediterranean) most of the 90s car already eaten by the rust + the salt used for defrosting on roads in the winter.
You can still find good examples in the UK where we have salted roads. I've paid for mine to be dinitroled. Pot holes etc are a problem here and they will affect newer vehicles too and used to go through a tyre a winter.
I wonder when they will give up on the gaming market because that could take down several publishers and developers. I really don't think it's an if question but a when because it almost feels like an afterthought at this point (they removed the standalone gaming revenue report from the financial reports this summer). Also I don't think AMD and Intel is capable "to step in" to replace them.
AMD would step in, they where behind nvidia but they've been closing that gap for a while and the 9070XT is the current value king (in this fucked up market) for mid-high gaming and you can actually buy them.
Demand for Nvidia cards has outstripped supply even on the mid-high cards specifically because they do better with local models than AMD cards with the same VRAM do broadly.
AI has completely broken the PC gaming market (and PC/Laptop market more broadly but gaming is really hit hard because it's the exact components that matter for both that overlap).
Nvidia had the mind share among gamers but so did Intel once, inertia only lasts so long they've been thoroughly intent on burning that to the ground for a while, back to the post 1080's
If RDNA5 is good (and 4 was it closed the gap on RT) they'll been in a solid place to take the spot if Nvidia do cede the ground.
I have a 7900XTX the last flagship card AMD did (about equal to a 9070XT for raster but 24GB VRAM not 16GB) and it has been and is a stellar card for gaming (let down only if you care about RT and the games I play don't have it).
Flawless under Linux, weaker on the AI behind nvidia but it runs Qwen surprisingly well and I didn't and don't care too much about that except to poke it occasionally.
Why would AMD willingly go into a low margin business with the consumer when they can focus on the enterprise? There’s currently a huge for diversification from NVIDIA because this is a long term deployment and they would rather not be beholden to NVIDIA if they can
Strategic hedge against the AI demand cratering or becoming satiated.
You could make the same argument for why is AMD still making processors for the consumer market or APU’s for the PlayStation/Xbox current gen and more importantly next gen.
In a gold rush as a shovel seller it’s dangerous to only be selling shovels when the gold rush can end/reduce at any point.
Cryptocurrency mining had it broken before that. PC gaming's golden years are behind us, as AI, even if not LLMs, seems like it's not going away, so the gaming market is now the niche hobby while AI takes center stage.
RIP. My first gaming ~GPU~ (we called them 3d accelerators back then) was a Diamond Monster II with a 3dfx Voodoo 2 chip.
I'm not sure (pc) gaming could ever really actually pay for the continued advancement and mass production of state of the art silicon.
The prices of gpus are nuts right now due to demand, but theoretically speaking demand causes more supply to appear and thus decrease prices* and then gamers can reap the benefits of massive amounts of investment.
* or at least thats what people on this site keep telling me.
But Jensen recently proposed a tokenization of GPU power which would be definition be financially rewarded by limiting the supply of GPUs. So I'm not sure how true your proposition will remain moving forward.
ish. The problem is data center cards won't easily fit a gamer computer chassis, so an H200 for $1,000 in however many years isn't going to be usable unless you also have a chassis which will support it.
Oh shit, I had file deleted that. I remember now. I think I used that with the first N64 emulator, I think Project something to play Turok the first person dinosaur hunter game. Life before the internet was better I think.
The Glide API was the only hardware acceleration in there for a good while before it got OpenGL. I remember using a third party wrapper or something to make it work on whatever it was I had in 1999.
> Also I don't think AMD and Intel is capable "to step in" to replace them.
It's kind of weird. nVidia kind of has the PC market cornered, but AMD has had the last couple of generations of Xbox and Playstation. Also, they power the Steam Deck/Machine, and Valve has been contributing a lot of AMD graphics features into the Linux drivers. There is a world where AMD (and maybe even Linux on AMD specifically) becomes the de facto standard for gaming.
Everyone likes to deride idiot MBAs while also enjoying a stock market that returns on avg 8-10% per year vastly outpacing inflation in a developed, stable, wealthy country of all places. It's like that scene from margin call about normal people in big houses they can't actually pay for and big cars who pretend but would actually croak if things got really fair really quickly.
> Everyone likes to deride idiot MBAs while also enjoying a stock market that returns on avg 8-10% per year vastly outpacing inflation in a developed, stable, wealthy country of all places
Sounds great until the wheels fall off because MBAs decided to save a few bucks on "unnecessary" bolts to hold them on
But I think the undersold part would be inflation is likely far more correlated to rate and values the stock market going up, than the disclosed and reported inflation numbers given to you by the people directly responsible for monetary adjustments.
I mean if you don't want to believe in statistics, sure then left is up and apples are oranges and why do you even need strategy or management in a company at all?
Maybe this is silly of me, but maybe gaming would enjoy an era of hardware upgrades being rather unviable so the focus turns to optimization and aesthetic.
A retraction from the gaming market wouldn't necessarily mean they'd still even produce the current crop of products. I could (and I would argue would) involve a complete shuttering of the GeForce brand, halting current production. On the assumption that Intel and AMD would follow, that wouldn't be an end of upgrades, but an end to the market.
Gaming is a larger market than Hollywood. Maybe it becomes a distraction for Nvidia, but someone will step in. That might actually be a good thing and why Nvidia wont do that: it creates an under served market in which newcomers can cut their teeth.
This probably includes little silly games like Candy Crush, and (maybe) others that seem more like "paper" games like Sudoku, Wordle, Connections, etc. Many play those, especially the second bucket.
The thing is really that even entry level gaming is getting expensive. I was considering building a pc and everything is expensive, I was going to replace the disk of my ps4 thag I bought used for 100$ and the 1tb ssd costs 150$
This is basically already the case in the flourishing indie space, but for different reasons.
The only developers chasing cutting-edge hardware features are the AAA studios and I honestly think a lot of them would just die before successfully relearning how to make games that play well instead of just look pretty.
It will be interesting times but I don't think anyone will enjoy a plateau because it's expensive. Even replacing existing hardware is expensive now. Hardly enjoyabe.
It’s not silly. games use far more hardware than they really need. It also pushes out release dates of aggressive console schedules like ps6 because even if it’s a massive upgrade and you have IP locked into your console, no one is going to pay $4000 to play a game like wolverine.
> I really don't think it's an if question but a when because it almost feels like an afterthought
I feel your reasoning is very weird. Are they losing money by selling consumer GPU? Just because the profit isn't that much compared to AI it doesn't mean that it's negative, and for-profit companies are not known for leaving money on the table. Apple doesn't reveal how much Apple TV+ makes for them either but I don't see it be gone anytime soon.
NVidia is limited by the number of chips they can produce.
If you can fab 1000 chips, and can sell some for $500 and some for $80000 what are you going to do?
The game GPU is at once profitable, but causes them to give up far more profits than they're gaining from it.
They're maintaining the game market to have multiple markets and not go all in, but it's strategic hedging at this point. When NVidia makes a gaming GPU instead of a data center GPU they are leaving money on the table in the short term since they're constrained at the fab level.
This almost seems like we need a strategic reserve for semiconductors- kinda like we have it for food, to prevent suppliers from throwing it away when they are suddenly able to sell something much more lucrative.
The CHIPS Act in the US did set aside a reserve for older processes used for automobile, defense, and industrial semiconductors - but that's not gaming GPUs that used the previous process node.
Sure, semiconductors for important industrial uses are critical & I agree gaming GPUs are much less critical. Still RAM & storage multiplying in price over such a short ammount of time also can't be good for the economy & society, so some sort of strategtic reserve could help there as well.
Which is distinctly different both in purpose and technology than the previous versions. DLSS 5 is no longer about frame improvements. It’s about increasing graphical fidelity with active AI rendering.
DLSS 5 is trying to relight and retexture the scene using AI. DLSS 4 is just trying to take a lower quality image and upscale it using AI
Nvidia is limited by the number of engineers they have. It might turn out that the AI market is so lucrative that it’s best to reallocate their gaming-focused engineers to AI.
Apple TV is at least a growth market for them, whereas gaming is sort of capped and clearly a tiny piece of nvidia’s revenue atm.
That seems a bit overzealous, most consoles[0] run on AMD chips today.
Both PS 5 and Xbox are based on AMD APUs and both serve the AAA market quite well. GTA 6, Assassin's Creed and CoD are probably good enough indicators that the performance is enough, even if there is always room for more (as PC ports show). The PC market will also probably be fine even if stagnation in perfomance gains has been creeping in for a few years now.
[0]: except Nintendo which relies on NVIDIA although their APU there focuses more on efficiency than top performance.
A Chinese company like CXMT will surely fill that unaddressed market the way CXMT is doing for memory. It would be rather unwise for nvidia to leave the door to the market open. AMD is positioned well to grow right now due to their non-Apple sillicon unified ram hardware coming soon.
AMD and Intel would be HAPPY to replace them, and plenty capable.
Game consoles like PS5 have been AMD for a few generations.
Steamdeck/Steam Machine are AMD.
But really, Nvidia has no reason to leave gaming behind. They can just start dialing back their ambition on the gaming side and providing GPUs that aren't too useful for inference or training. All gaming needs is stability so that devs can aim for something. Games looked great 20 years ago and they'll look great 20 years from now, as long as developers know what they are building for.
> I really don't think it's an if question but a when
Nvidia still will ship gaming products. The upcoming RTX Spark laptop APUs are still gaming-capable - we also have Blackwell gaming GPUs and the Nvidia-powered Nintendo Switch 2.
People echoed this sentiment during the crypto mining crunch, and we still got gaming hardware designs after that blew over. One of CUDA's core value props is the consumer market, and Nvidia probably won't surrender it unless hardware becomes unreasonably scarce.
I don't think crypto is comparable. They barely made some dedicated crypto GPUs that market was always fickle due to ASCIs.
Look at the nvidia revenue breakdown chart, the AI boom looks quite different.
The GPU crunch came because cards like the 3060 were extremely cheap and could outrun most sub-$1000 ASICs at the time. The dedicated crypto GPUs were too-little too-late; hundreds of thousands of ordinary CUDA-capable GPUs had already been repurposed for mining by the time they launched.
It's still a 15B market for Nvidia, it's not nothing. But I'm curious how they're going to turn Rubin into a gaming GPU. I think at this point consumer GPU upgrades are going to be AI-related upgrades that happen to also help raster capabilities. Blackwell was already kind of a dud on performance uplift from Ada beyond the new LLM features.
Hermes still makes saddles that are somewhat reasonably priced compared to their handbags.
It's still profitable, it's their original raison d'etre, and there's no real reason for them to stop even if it its rounding error on their regular business.
Probably will never, ever see an Nvidia card with >32GB of VRAM though unless they start making dies that lack LLM performance like the gimped ethereum mining cards.
Question: wouldn’t the fab be the actual bottleneck? In other words, why wouldn’t TSMC make more NVIDIA chips instead of AMD ones? I assume they’ll just do whichever is paying more, so if NVIDIA chips are better, gamers would be willing to pay more for them and in turn TSMC will be willing to make more of them?
> Also I don't think AMD and Intel is capable "to step in" to replace them
AMD has powered 2 generations each of Sony and Xbox consoles, Steam deck and shops a ton of GPUs especially if you count APUs. And then Intel literally ship more GPUs than Nvidia and AMD combined.
The gaming market doesn't need Nvidia. Especially as AAA is cratering.
You must not be paying attention, they already have.
Intel is going nowhere but we all knew that anyways.
And again, you must not be paying attention, AMD is doing exactly what they said they would. No flagship for RDNA4 (just like RDNA2), RDNA5 flagship (10900 XT) coming right on schedule
i'd be happy moving on from gaming as "the" entertainment option on computers, in favor of something more entertaining
like can we get some new more interesting entertainment? maybe that's just me but all games look and feel the same now or worse dumbed down sometimes where even puzzles in the game have like basic or grindy aspect to them ...
That really depends on the kind of games you play. There are plenty of 0 hand holding games which are respecting your intelligence and also challenging enough
I think they'll keep the gaming market alive for a while because renting gaming hardware from the cloud (GeForce NOW) is very congruous with AI keeping consumer hardware prices sky-high.
It continues modern trend of chow companies don't want consumers to truly own anything. Finance a car, pay a monthly subscription fee for heated seats, rent a phone, stream a movie, get rid of physical media, rent a GPU.
But if GeForce NOW doesn't take off, and they get convinced that the AI bubble will not pop, I could see them pulling a Micron and ending their consumer product lines.
They may allocate different number of resources every year based on market conditions but they'll never give up on gaming, that would be extremely silly.
I am not using any of these AI tools. I thought it was basically given that any single thing you write in these systems also used by the companies. On the other hand now I understand why there are so much projects about hosting AI systems locally.
The source code (and original assets) to many video games from as late as the 90s has been lost. The publishing company often deleted it after the game shipped, thinking it just took up space. This is one reason why, for example, there hasn't been a substantive remaster of Final Fantasy VII.
The publishing company often deleted it after the game shipped, thinking it just took up space.
Floppy disks were not cheap, expensive, easy to get, or reliable. It sucked.
Even on the U.S. east coast, I remember having to travel over an hour to get to the nearest store that sold floppy disks. Each BASF FlexyDisk cost $18 in 2026 money. So $50 if you wanted redundant long-term storage of one program.
That's why we printed everything out all the time; especially for archive storage.
…which also turned out to be a bad idea. Just in a different way.
I'd guess that any of these media is sketchy for long-term archival storage.
I've got probably 30 5.25 floppies in my house, and I have a 5.25 drive and an old motherboard that can probably recognize that drive, and I've got the cables to connect the drive to the motherboad (and power supply). I'd guess that there's maybe a 20% chance that, if I spent a week trying to mash it all together I'd be able to get some data off of some of these floppies.
On other magnetic media the chances are between "haha, no" (oh, you've got an old 8 inch 10mb Bernoulli disk?) to 5% (oh, a QIC150 tape).
On the other hand, if I found a stack of moldy greenbar printout of some data, I'd say that most of the data can likely be recovered, and likely for not a tremendous amount of money.
Get a Greaseweazle and that floppy drive will work on any modern computer (macOS, Windows, Linux). I've been backing up floppies from a disorganized retro PC collection I bought, and almost all of them still work.
A company of any size wasn't archiving stuff on freaking floppies. In the 70s and 80s most video games were developed on big iron—PDPs or VAXen, usually, and data from those was archived on paper or mag tape. If you were renting (or stealing) time on one of these, as "Micro-Soft" was in its very early days, then printing stuff out may have been more economical. But major game studios of the day had resources and means of bulk archival that didn't involving buying a bunch of floppies at Lechmere.
You vastly overestimate the budget and abilities of most software houses of the day.
For every Atari or Epyx, there were many dozens of very significant publishers who did their work on consumer-grade hardware.
Except for Atari and less than a handful of others with previous income, none started with PDPs on hand. They had to work up to that.
It's not like today with everything consolidated and full of VC money. Bootstrapping your way to success was de regur, and the playing field was wide open to anyone with a home computer and a little talent.
Valve can't even make their own anti cheat system work (VAC) on Windows let alone on Linux so not surprised that 3rd party publishers with 3rd party anti cheat system is giving up. I mean they technically work as a software but they don't fullfil their purpose, to block cheaters.
I suppose the only good solution is like those "game streaming services": move all the logic to the server and use the client only as a rendering device.
Even sending metadata so the client can use local sprites to render the enemy is hackable, if the end-user knows the coordinates where to render the enemy, it can immediately tell the server that "user aimed at $COORDS and pulled the trigger"...
i find it quite amusing that some people forget that opensource software is a double edge sword in these cases.
> "why can we run windows games the way we want and often better than windows?"
its because we can fiddle with anything in the system, from even before the kernel boots up to the software itself.
> "why cant we stop people tampering with their own systems to stop cheating?"
its because we can fiddle with anything in the system, from even before the kernel boots up to the software itself.
but my addendum is:
> I suppose the only good solution is like those "game streaming services": move all the logic to the server and use the client only as a rendering device.
we are in the "dark ages" of AI/computer vision usage and this wouldn’t stop aimbots that are screen readers. Overall the proposal is the "lesser evil" but still quite fucking evil.
But they are not selling the game for Linux. Only for Windows. It's another story that it works because of Proton but technically they don't support the platform at all.
They've stated in their patch notes that they made a change specifically to run on the steam deck. Regardless of what they say now, they have actively supported linux in the past and so should be liable for breaking the game for those customers.
Still user's problem if they manage or not manage to run the game through whatever translation and emulation layers they have instead of using official system requirements.
If the developer actively points out that they made changes so the software works on a specific platform and then actively disabled support for that platform later, I think people that can’t use the software anymore should get a refund.
I don't think this is accurate. Easy Anti-Cheat has supported Linux for a long time, many years before this. I doubt they were years and years out of date, updated, and allowing Linux was turned on by default in the new version. What they likely mean is they ticked the box in this game update to let it run on Linux.
Why would they specifically mention the Steam Deck? EAC doesn't have separate flags for Linux and Steam Deck. It's almost certain they intentionally allowed it to run on Linux. They call out Steam Deck by name because it is a popular handheld that has greatly increased the # of Linux users, not because an EAC update allowed it to work by chance.
And it's still not an active support decision. They allowed it - but it's your business. Whenever people gets problems or successes running through Proton, this is never a publisher's issue.
.. that must have been some atrocious telemetry data correlating cheaters and Linux. I wish they’d released a report on it — I mean, fuck Ubisoft, but at least we’d have data to argue about rather than this copout of a release note from them.
And that would be fine if they left it at "we don't support it, if you run into problems on your own". When they go so far as to actively block Linux users, then they are doing something wrong and should be required to refund those purchases.
>Valve should. Valve is the one making these games available for purchase on non-Windows platforms.
it sounds like you're suggesting valve should be restricting which games they sell depending on the platform you are viewing from?
that would be annoying, and ultimately futile. i purchase games from my phone to play on my pc, or from one pc to play on another. i purchase windows-only games and mess around to see if they can work with proton. etc. i do not need valve to coddle me like that.
"system requirements" is at the bottom of every listing.
Valve absolutely knows what platform you've logged into desktop Steam from even when you're on a mobile device, and can pop up a dialog during purchase saying "This game requires Microsoft Windows, and you have not been active on that platform in the past 30 days. This game will be supported by Steam Play, and developer support is not guaranteed."
>account for their mistake in selling you the game.
i hate ubisoft as much as the next person, but if they listed the game as only supporting windows when it launched, and someone bought it for linux despite it not being supported, ubisoft did not make a "mistake" in selling the game to them. the buyer made a decision to purchase the game for an unsupported system.
(the rule i follow, which hasn't gone wrong yet, is to avoid all ubisoft games like the plague)
edit: am i missing something here? those disagreeing, please let me know why you believe you deserve a refund in this situation, knowing that ubisoft only advertised support for windows.
The case for a refund seems totally obvious. Why should you get to keep my
money? I paid for a product and I did not get it. Selling it incurs no cost on
you and I have received none of the benefit of the transaction. It's not like I
ate a meal and then decided I wanted to order something else.
This all presumes of course that it is legitimate to ban people from using
certain computing environments when running software for whatever reason you
feel like. Lots of people don't think this is legitimate at all, which makes
sense, because people don't really try to justify it. It's legitimate to want
to ban cheaters, this is just not a reasonable means of enforcing that, because
there are legitimate players who want to play the game and can't because of
this policy.
you paid for a windows product. the product still works on windows, right?
if ubisoft advertised linux support for this game, i am 100% with you on the refund. as far as i can tell, they did not. they advertised the game as a windows product.
it's a lie to say you received no benefit from the transaction. you either played it for more than 2 hours (benefit) or you are allowed to refund it via steam's standard policy.
Ok - I don't know about the steam refunds policy. So I received a partial benefit. Perhaps I should get a partial refund? btw I wasn't being facetious, I just thought you picked the easiest part to respond to so I wondered if you had one for the harder part.
I have to unpack a few things to answer the whole comment faithfully. First is
the distinction between "we forbid linux users from running the software" and
"we aren't going to invest any development work on making linux APIs work".
The first one is in my view completely indefensible and should be illegal. The
second one is basically fine even though I personally dislike it.
I am mentioning this because companies use "support" as a euphemism for
both. My understanding of the situation here is that the game runs fine on
linux, ubisoft just isn't able to stop cheating as effectively. Note that both
platforms have a nonzero rate of cheating and of valid play.
Companies have a right and an obligation to advertise how their products are
designed to work and how they work best. If a shirt has a care label that says
don't bleach, and I damage it by bleaching, that's on me. Adapting this analogy
to software is dangerous and wrong, because software can be made to break for
arbitrary reasons, some of which are my own stupid fault and some of which are
just the vendor exercising power over me. If I manage to bleach my shirt
without damaging it, the manufacturer has no right to set it on fire and say
"well you bleached it, so what did you expect?". If they did, they would have
to compensate me. I view what has happened much more like "they set my shirt on
fire" than "I broke my own shirt".
Computer programs are also not really similar to physical products at all,
since physical products degrade over time and programs do not. If I use a shirt
for five years and then abruptly decide I didn't want it after all, then I've
still damaged the thing and should not get the full amount of money back for
it. The fact it's second hand also makes it harder to sell even if it isn't
damaged. But again this is just fake when applied to software, so that tips the
balance more towards refunding than normally. The situation as it currently is,
means that while Ubisoft is allowed to take away my product by saying "you
should never have been able to buy it", I cannot reciprocally take my money
back by saying "I should never have been able to buy it". I don't think there
is a good justification for that asymmetry.
That's only because the shirt would be worn. Digital media doesn't wear out. If that shirt never wore out and it suddenly stopped working in a specific way I use it, it would be reasonable to me to return it.
if i manage to install a windows-only game onto my fridge, and then the game gets updated and doesn't work on my fridge anymore, it would be ridiculous to suggest i should get a refund.
this is getting silly though. i am saddened that the concept of personal responsibility has been so eroded. best of luck on your refund.
Doesn't sound ridiculous to me. If anything, companies should provide old versions of the game so the update doesn't affect you, so the problem doesn't happen in the first place. That way you can still play on your fridge with people using other fridges. You lose out on newer features, but you've still got access to what you paid for.
I've gotten refunds for less. If an update introduces a fault, that's on the company, no matter the fault. Compatibility with my fridge might be the reason I bought that game. An update removing that functionality leaves the game with a fault, for which I can get the game refunded (or fixed, but companies tend to go with refunds).
>Compatibility with my fridge might be the reason I bought that game
the game specifically said it only supported windows. that means it explicitly does not support other platforms. they waived their responsibility to cater to your unsupported use case. people who purchased it understood that when they bought it. caveat emptor.
if we carry this on much longer my comments are just going to be flagged, so, good luck with your refund.
> the game specifically said it only supported windows.
I don't see why this matters.
> they waived their responsibility to cater to your unsupported use case.
I don't see why they should have the right to do that. They could just give me access to the unmodified product they originally sold me, rather than the one they didn't actually sell me, and we'd have no issue. They did support my use case. The fact that they aren't now is their fault, and should thus be their problem to solve.
> people who purchased it understood that when they bought it. caveat emptor.
The Romans weren't familiar with products being able to change from under you. It's one thing to buy a product not knowing what it does support. It's another to buy it, knowing it does work for you, only for it to change due to the whims of the seller. Not to mention we can do better. Consumer protection is important. I don't want an economy based on caveat emptor being an unbreakable truth.
> good luck with your refund.
I've already had success. I live in a country with good consumer protection laws. I wish the rest of the world would catch up.
> I live in a country with good consumer protection laws. I wish the rest of the world would catch up.
What country allows people to return products made years ago simply because they no longer want them? I might have an idea there. My EU country allows only 14 days to return things for no reason.
And also yes, it matters what product promises.
Otherwise I can buy the game when some cheat works and when cheat stops working (due to anticheat improvement) demand refund, because it worked one way before, and now it doesn't. Broken product, cheating must be protected by laws.
> What country allows people to return products made years ago simply because they no longer want them?
None that I know of. This is a mischaracterisation of what I wrote.
> And also yes, it matters what product promises. Otherwise I can buy the game when some cheat works and when cheat stops working (due to anticheat improvement) demand refund, because it worked one way before, and now it doesn't. Broken product, cheating must be protected by laws.
If the game doesn't provide a way to roll back to a previous patch, nor allows you to use said cheat (or whatever other additional software for that matter) while running on your own server, then yes, you should be able to get a refund. The product changed from under you, and might now have a fault which prevents you from using it as you (the customer) intended.
If you can roll back and set up your own server, then you still have the complete product you actually bought, with no faults. If the company changes the product from under you, they should be on the hook if that introduces any faults for any users out there.
Gameplay on the company servers is subject to the EULA, most of which ban cheating, which is one of the few reasonable rules they tend to add to those things. In that case, that use case is specifically disallowed, so there's no argument to be made that the game has a fault if a cheat gets patched into extinction. You should however still be able to play using the old patch on your own server. The fact that you can play on your own server and cheat doesn't automatically mean you can do the same on random servers.
> edit: am i missing something here? those disagreeing, please let me know why you believe you deserve a refund in this situation, knowing that ubisoft only advertised support for windows.
You're probably downvoted by people's emotions and feelings because they don't want to see any (even and especially if valid) defense of Ubisoft here. It's wrong and shouldn't happen, but it very much does.
I'm linux-only for 15+ years now and only buy games that run on Linux. I am filled with righteous rage when companies do what they are doing. But you're not wrong, this one is on the buyer not the seller, though everyone should remember this move and avoid buying Ubisoft games in the future because they have proven outwardly hostile.
A criticism I do give them (the seller) though, if you're going to block linux then it should be well-stated in the game description so people don't miss it. Not doing this is dishonest marketing IMHO.
It'd actually be your mistake for buying a game for a platform that's not even supported. That they even allowed or spent resources for it to run on Linux initially is something to be grateful for.
Tech firms bombard us with hype and publicity. Understandable, since they want to sell —- but this is the other side of the coin. If they want attention on their products they can’t expect it all to be good.
I’ve heard they’re hurting nowadays because many of them outsourced delivery to Uber Eats/Doordash and are so fucking expensive now, you may as well go to a nicer pizza place.
Not sure if that's true, there's some frozen supermarket pizza now that's seriously good. If I ordered fast food and they delivered a freshly baked Crosta Mollica pizza I wouldn't send it back. Of course a fresh pizza is better, but imo you couldn't get a Crosta Mollica quality frozen pizza 10 years ago.
Those factories still have people stretching dough, while the bases travel along a big belt, because human hands are good for that task, and are widely available and easily repaired or replaced, and adapt to different shapes and sizes of product and other contingencies.
Are you talking about frozen pizza? That's always rather disappointing. Even chains like Dominos let alone good local pizzerias make their pizzas to order by people.
I prefer when people employ their fellow neighbors and uplift their community with their enterprises.
This type of automation is inherently selfish and should be discouraged, im glad he lost 200k, that 200k could have been used to help employee a few college students who would go onto provide way more value to their community than a robot ever would.
Honestly if you see a company with robots like this, they hate their communities and are inherently selfish and greedy. Do not support them.
The article makes it sound like Lee Kindell is replacing himself, not employees: he "once made all his dough by hand – until an elbow tendon injury forced him to investigate using machines instead". Then he got two robots. But you might question why they had to be robots, that part is unexplained. Later on he suggests he can employ people serving the pizza instead and in this way get a higher pizza throughput. Though in fact his robots are broken due support vanishing vaporously so presumably at present he either does indeed employ some humans, or produces no pizza except imaginary future autonomous pizza, which is coming soon, just a matter of time.
We already have this in downtown Houston but you don't get a Transit van.
Instead it's a little battery-powered multi-passenger buggy, covered with ads and limited to downtown.
>door --> van --> public transit --> van --> door
Still works like this but once you take the train or bus outside of downtown, then you're back on your own for the "last miles" except for a few other non-contiguous neighborhoods where they are beginning to add additional cells of this limited-area connector service.
This has been willingly subsidized by the major businesses in each service area, so it is free to use on its own, once you get onto the regular public transit though, then normal fares apply there.
There’s physics for one. The dough takes the temperature and time it takes to bake in the oven, the rocket needs certain ampunt of propulsion to fly etc.
I talked about rockets, not ”teleporters”. I also let aside that these systems do not learn, let’s pretend they do. What will it improve in? What does it mean to ”improve”? Ask yourself, what makes the difference between an amazing pizza and kinda ok pizza? How do you quantify that? Is it a binary value the way a mathematic formula either works or doesn’t, or how code runs or does not? Or is it more like poetry? kinda hard to srite into code when something that is literally a matter of taste is ”good”.
Maybe it doesn’t really matter, Marinara is pretty easy to make, 5 ingredients in an oven. Can we improve upen speed, like they say on the article? Up to a point yes, but there’s a bottleneck, the dough itself. It takes certain amount of time to make it into a oval shape, you can’t go too fast, since you break it. And then it has to be in the oven a certain amount of time, no matter what. That has nothing to do with automation, but the physical facts of the matter itself.
Now you have an average pizza that cost a fortune to make, but we accomplished it slightly faster than $10/h pizza chef. You see why those startups all fold?
Some of the greatest breakthroughs are when there is no financial incentive, or when unbridled ambition outperforms sometimes very significant runs for the cash.
reply