masterspace

As it has been demonstrated when Epic tried the "developers pay less fees here" approach, the average Joe Gamer doesn't benefit in any way whatsoever. Your premise of the savings being passed down doesn't exactly pan out.

Oh really? Please do point me to the study you did where you gave 15% more revenue back to developers and then assessed their output quality.

Claiming that having the store take 15% less cut of revenue will have no effect is a quite frankly flat out absurd claim to make.

And the Linux Kernel which powers the whole thing directly effects them, so we should all praise Microsoft and IBM like we praise Valve right?

Is it a form of lock in or not?

It literally either goes back to the consumer or back to the game developer.

I don't agree that they're a monopoly, because they've done absolutely nothing to prevent competition. Other stores do it to themselves.

Yes they have. The steam friends network and the fact that you can't transfer your purchases, friends data, or community data to other platforms is an inherent form of lock in. Just because you're used to it because Facebook also does it, doesn't mean it's not.

Jedi Survivor is a shockingly good game, so excited for a third one, but sad to hear that the director has left, but then again the rest of Respawn has seemed pretty consistently talented, but he left partly because he felt it was better working with a smaller team during early Respawn which could indicate Respawn is growing too big and bureaucratic like has happened to so many talented studios before it, but the wall running in Titanfall predated him ... :S

Suda suggested that one reason is publishers and developers focusing too much on Metacritic scores, and deciding to play it safe and stick to what is conventionally known to ‘work’ instead of taking risks with new ideas.

I think most people are missing that they're talking about them from a dev and publisher standpoint, not consumer / gamer.

And from that perspective it is problematic whenever things that are supposed to be used to assess something become targets to shoot for. Oscar bait, teachers teaching the test and not the subject, etc.

The work is reproduced in full when it’s downloaded to the server used to train the AI model, and the entirety of the reproduced work is used for training. Thus, they are using the entirety of the work.

That's objectively false. It's downloaded to the server, but it should never be redistributed to anyone else in full. As a developer for instance, it's illegal for me to copy code I find in a medium article and use it in our software. I'm perfectly allowed to read that Medium article, learn from it, and then right my own similar code.

And that makes it better somehow? Aereo got sued out of existence because their model threatened the retransmission fees that broadcast TV stations were being paid by cable TV subscribers. There wasn’t any devaluation of broadcasters’ previous performances, the entire harm they presented was in terms of lost revenue in the future. But hey, thanks for agreeing with me?

And Aero should not have lost that suit. That's an example of the US court system abjectly failing.

And again, LLM training so egregiously fails two out of the four factors for judging a fair use claim that it would fail the test entirely. The only difference is that OpenAI is failing it worse than other LLMs.

That's what we're debating, not a given.

It’s even more absurd to claim something that is transformative automatically qualifies for fair use.

Fair point, but it is objectively transformative.