I remember being really drawn in when README was showing the effect of software on animation embedded within the first two pages of github's readme section.
They obviously don't care about the market as they should, despite anything they might or they might not say. Nothing to see here... It's only and solely their own fault that NVIDIA is the only option.
Intel so far has a much more competent strategy around GPU computing, and might prove to be an actual competitor. I've written off AMD as a possible competitor to NVIDIA for GPU computing a long time ago.
They dropped GCN2/3 support before ROCm was even anywhere near production ready but the biggest issue is the lack of cross platform as you mentioned you can’t even use it in Windows containers and also that they never even attempted to support APUs.
Intel not only has better OpenCL support but will come out out of the gate with OneAPI that will support all Intel GPUs this means productivity applications could use it wether it’s for a laptop or for a future productivity workstation with an Intel discrete GPU.
It’s pretty much impossible to buy a laptop with an AMD GPU and run ROCm on it, even the discrete cards are not officially supported and since the ROCm binaries are hardware specific without official support things tend to be even more broken than what they are now.
I really can’t understand how AMD could cock it up so badly.
Factorio is awesome. It's kind of funny-ironic that a counter-example to "making games as addictive as possible" is an indie game addictive enough to be called "cracktorio" by its fans.
It's a different kind of addiction. Factorio is the ultimate nerd-snipe[0] for a large class of people who enjoy flexing their brains. The addictiveness is a side effect the developers maximizing having fun (for the aforementioned subset of the population).
When people talk about "making games as addictive as possible" in the general and pejorative sense, they usually mean something else: they mean that the optimization goal is not "fun", but "making money off players". That very often involves making games less fun on purpose, to exploit player's psychology against them. You keep frustrating them on purpose - but not hard enough for them to abandon the game entirely - in hopes that over time, enough of them will break and buy the paid content or unfrustration features, to relieve their psychological pain. Explicitly additive aspects get included to maximize the time the player is exposed to these monetization opportunities.
Addictiveness is ultimately a red herring in these discussions. Factorio is designed as a win-win game, the devs wants to give their players the best experience in the game's category. Modern, pay-to-win, addictive games are designed by malicious people with no moral compass, who want to extract as much money as possible from people, as cheaply as possible.
(Like with many of the big problems in our industry, focusing on tech or immediate "sciency-sounding" consequences is missing the forest for the trees. These problems all stem from people being allowed to exploit others for money. Solutions to mitigate immediate consequences will be worked around very quickly. Real solutions need to involve restrictions on the types of business that can be done.)
I just played a mobile game, and as usual it has a hundred different in-game currencies that you can buy with real money. Every time I finish a level there's an endless parade of meaningless "rewards", and I see some coins going into a piggybank. When it was full, I clicked it, and the game congratulated me for now being eligible to buy the contents.
The game is a clone of puzzle bobble. Like you said, none of that is making puzzle bobble a "better game". It's saying "Wow, you won/earned something! It's almost yours now, you just have to pay this tiny fee to actually have it...". I don't feel like I'm on the same side as the developer, and this is worlds apart from how Factorio treats players.
Since "addictive" still has positive connotations in gaming, I'll just call it "manipulative" from now on.
I wonder if there is a business to be made out of taking these pay to play mobile games and straight up cloning them (not ripping off the graphics, that would land one in legal hot water, but just making the exact same game) and sell them for a one off payment. If there were companies that did that, and they would be known for making high quality puzzle games that are not pay to play, I would buy from them without even trying out their new games (after they gained my trust with the first few games). Technically it would be easy (most of these games are simple), you need graphics people who don't mind just grinding out content without needing to be very artsy, so I would imagine part of the lost revenue that the lootbox companies do get, could be offset by not having to spend a bunch of time thinking about what sort of game you really want to make and make decisions about gameplay etc. Just copy from existing games and sell to the 'don't like pay for play' crowd.
Maybe there just arent' many of us who don't mind paying for games as long as we don't have to buy hearts and diamonds and coins and what not.
I think a tell-tale feature of manipulative games is Farmville-style time-gating. They structure their progress around meaningless actions like clicking upgrade buttons, but you can only press that button every couple hours. So playing optimally isn't so much about strategy or skill, but more about incorporating the game into your daily routine.
The intent is of course to form a habit, so that players habitually play the game no matter if it is still fun. Combine that with a good reward system that gives you positive reinforcement at random intervals, and you get something that is designed to addict you to the game.
Why is this kind of manipulation bad but RNG-gated content, such as in most roguelikes, which are loved by lots of people, not bad? These value judgements are always arbitrary and hiding the biases of the speaker.
You, personally, don't like time-gated content. That's fine. But it's another thing entirely to say that because you don't like it it's morally wrong. Tons of people have no problem with it and in fact enjoy being limited by how much time they can play a game per day and to slowly build up their progress over time.
Plus, for many games these things are this way for multiple reasons. For instance, Genshin Impact, a very popular game released recently has time-gated content in the way you mentioned. But it's also a game made in China, where there are rules stating that kids can't play games for too many hours during a single day. In such an environment, time-gating is a perfect solution for both the legal problem of not encouraging people to play for too long in a single day, but also as a way to prevent people from levelling too fast beyond what the game has to offer. In this latter case it's just another way of keeping people engaged until you release new content.
It depends on the rogue-like. I first noticed this addictive quality in the original Diablo. Once I took a couple psych 101 courses, it became pretty clear that Diablo was addicting because of the random loot drops. In other words, they were a variable interval schedule of reinforcement. You don't know when you next good loot drop is going to be, so keep playing indefinitely. (In this sense, this system is identical to a slot machine) Diablo was the first game that I truly "lost hours" to. It's not as if I didn't play other games for long periods of time, none had ever dilated my time or put me in a haze before Diablo. The next game to do this (for me) was Diablo II, then much later, Borderlands.
I've seen a lot of people struggle with this concept over the years. so I want to clarify a few things:
- People equivocate the word "addicting." That is, they switch between two meanings: "specific behavioral addiction, as defined by a schedule of reinforcement," vs. "something I enjoy a lot of an spend a lot of time doing."
- I've also seen people confuse any kind of reward in a video game (eg: beating a boss, winning in multiplayer, obtaining a high score, etc.) as being "addicting" and equivalent to various skinner box techniques noted above. (schedules of reinforcement, time gating, etc.) The problem is of course, that these things are not equivalent at all. Someone addicted to Space Invaders high scores is very much not the same as someone who threw their life away to play World of Warcraft.
- Not all games that have loot drops should be considered addicting in this sense. I would say that in hindsight, this is pretty clear. Diablo II is very addicting, but look at the forums, and check out some gameplay videos. No one is highlighting the gameplay, or boss fights, or music, or setting. They're all talking about loot drops. Whatever the developer's original intent, the gameplay of Diablo II is loot drops. Compare this with something like Dark Souls. Yes, there is loot in this game, and enemies do drop it. But except for a few achievement hunters, no one is talking about all their time spent grinding in Dark Souls. Really, the core of Dark Souls' gameplay revolves around overcoming the various challenges presented to the player.
> For instance, Genshin Impact, a very popular game released recently has time-gated content in the way you mentioned. But it's also a game made in China, where there are rules stating that kids can't play games for too many hours during a single day.
That's an interesting point I've never heard of before, thanks for bringing it up.
Still, I think there's more to tease apart about time-gating. As a high-schooler, I spent plenty of time on time-gated games (AstroWars and OGame). From that experience I know this mechanic alone is very addictive, and I make a conscious decision to avoid these types of games now. I had my fun (particularly social type, my fiends were hooked in just as much as I was). And, I don't consider this mechanic to be a problem alone. What matters is why it's there. Is it to make the game fun, in its particular way? Or is it to maximize the players' exposure to monetization opportunities?
The root of my point is this: particular mechanics a game employs don't matter; what matters is why those particular mechanics were chosen. Intent, not engineering.
I disagree with this notion. The primary reason why Factorio doesn't feel unethical or exploitative is because the kind of addictiveness it exploits is one that uses your brain, whereas the kind of addictiveness these "unethical" games exploit is one that feels more dumb and low brow. It has nothing to do with it being win-win like you mentioned.
There's this bias where games that are extremely addicting but that appeal to intelligence, the perceived most important trait in our society currently, are OK, whereas games that are addicting and appeal to other traits, like the ability to do the same thing over and over, are morally wrong. Both types of appeal are manipulative in the same way, but one is cast as morally wrong because it doesn't appeal to what the elites in our society (such as you, dear HN reader) value.
And I disagree with your take. I've played a lot of videogames in my life, plenty of them feeling "more dumb and low brow".
For instance, as a kid, I've spent some ridiculous amount of hours playing Unreal Tournament (and to the lesser degree, Quake 3 Arena) - some of it with friends in an Internet cafe, but a lot in single-player mode too. I'd consider these two games to be pretty addictive for their time. But they were addictive because they were fun. Not because they tried to lure me in with skinner boxes, keep me in with time-gating, and monetize me with microtransactions.
Or, more recently, I've spent countless of hours playing 2048. At some point it became my go-to activity for every moment I wasn't actively concentrating on something. It may sound like an "intellectual" game, but in reality it's pretty braindead once you get the gist of it. You could probably say that the time I spent with it was unhealthy, but again, at no point it tried to be anything but fun. There were no features in there designed with exploitation in mind.
Or, roguelikes and roguelites. Between Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead and RimWorld, I'm probably approaching some 1000 hours of total play time. Both are fun and addictive, in the positive sense. Neither has any of the addictive money-making features in them.
I could go on. But the point is, I maintain that ill intent is a better way to categorize games than "addictiveness". And I hate to invoke the "you'll know it when you see it" cliche, but the difference between the games designed to be fun and the games designed to milk you is glaringly obvious. Entertainment has value, and good entertainment tends to be addictive (it's pretty much a tautology). But it takes more than good entertainment to create a problem.
Well, I still disagree. I've also played lots of games in my life so I also think I know what I'm talking about.
You view roguelikes and roguelites as positively addicting because of your personality and the fact that those games test for the traits you care about, not because they're objectively better than other games that focus on another trait.
You probably don't view MMORPGs where the entire point of the game is just grinding mindlessly for months or years as positively addicting because your personality isn't the type that would like that, but there are tons of people in the world who aren't like you and like the average HN reader who would agree with you.
I've written more extensively about this before so I feel like keeping arguing here might be pointless, but in case you're curious for a more full version of the argument: https://github.com/a327ex/blog/issues/66
I mean there's an old anecdote about how Chess was seen as dangerously addictive.
In any case, I think making something that is emergently addictive or addictive because it is fun is different from engineering something to be addictive by liberally lifting from all the years of research that went into slot machine design.
I don't know whether you frequent casinos but if you sit in the slot area for a while then compare that to big budget mobile p2w games (including Clash Royale which is actually also fun) is quite alarming. There are so many design similarities that lootbox games are basically slot machines without needing to pay out money...
MMORPGs are only seen as an issue to the degree they cause harm. It’s nothing to do with being “low brow” but entirely down to the subscription model. Keep the customer logging in to keep the subscription revenue rolling.
If this is done by being fun and enjoyable, and the developer doesn’t cross the line into preying on addictive behaviour, no problem.
If the developer implements mechanics that are designed to “hook” the player to the detriment of the enjoyment and their health, then we have a problem.
It's good that you wrote your thoughts in a longer form, and thanks for sharing it. It's an interesting argument, and one I will think about more, but based on my first reading, I find it lacking. I feel the part about Gacha Games doesn't fit well in this framework. Also, I find it hard to categorize my personality along the lines you described:
- Static/dynamic typing: borders -- I prefer static typing to dynamic typing; this is a change from preference for dynamic typing in the past; today, I find "mixing and matching" of types to almost always cause runtime errors, not new insights
- Engines/frameworks: no borders -- I dislike frameworks in general, gamedev or otherwise, I much prefer to compose libraries myself
- Roguelike/Roguelite: ??? -- I don't care about a strict definition, but having a somewhat clear definition is useful for managing expectations
- Progression/No progression: ??? -- I like both
- Grinding/No grinding: no borders -- Grinding is boring, though I'll do it if you hang a nice enough carrot in front of me
- Gacha Games: no borders -- As expressed above, I consider them immoral, and that has less to do with mechanics and more with why they're employed. That said, I don't think Gacha mechanics have any sort of special borders compared to many other fun, well-defined mechanics.
- Professions: ??? -- My professional software dev is mostly a borderful experience, but I also do gamedev on the side...
- Easy Modes: ??? -- I don't see how it fits in your argument at all, or how is it even a topic at all (except for competitive multiplayer games, about which I don't care all that much). Most games have "easy mode" in form of a wide variety of cheats to choose from.
It seems I'm leaning a bit towards "no borders", but then I think this borders/no borders split isn't really "carving nature at its joints". It does not factor personality cleanly.
Also, as additional objection, I think you could use this argument to justify getting people addicted to gambling as a matter of "personality difference". I feel this explains too much.
I'm not sure if this is the correct industry term, but 'wongarsu used it and explained it here[0], so I just picked it up. Basically, it's forcing you to wait hours to do the next step in the game - so that you'll start scheduling your day around the game.
Time gating is basically any kind of mechanic that requires real-world time to pass before progression can happen.
Mobile games use time gating for "lives" or "energy" or something so you can only play so much then you have to wait. Then they try and get you to spend real money to circumvent the time gate.
MMOs use time gating to slow player progression, with mechanics where you can only earn certain rewards once per day or once per week or something. It slows players becoming too powerful too quickly, or from completing their collections too quickly or from grinding the new rare drop in the first week.
This type of stuff is even creeping into other types of games, unfortunately. Especially with every game nowadays being an online game, even the single player ones.
If there is one it shouldn't be used. Both types of games are addicting in fundamentally the same way. The only thing that differs is the main trait which each game is using as its primary host. The "unethical" type of game is as unethical as the other, which means they're either both very unethical or both very not unethical, depending on how you want to look at it.
Addictive for games can just be shorthand for "you want to play it again and again". I don't see anything wrong with it when there isn't a more appropriate shorthand to use, except when used with games that are designed to make you pay more and more to play.
This so much. Greetings from Poland. Russia's cries about promises and "zones of influence" are basically cries about being unable to send tanks on a whim to a country which doesn't want to be a Russian colony.
Instead we let the US do as they please on our soil, and politely ask for visas promised to us 4 cadencies ago. All it takes is a radically anti-interventionist US president and we’re left to fend for ourselves against the angry Russians with our outdated F-16s. Germany has better ties with Russia than us.
Exactly, Russia is shitty neighbor here in Georgia too, supported separatists to create military bases and buffer zones to themselves. I am glad there is no more shitty SU and hope one they we will be in NATO to protect ourselves from whoever nutjob person Russian people decide to "elect" next in their mafia ruled country. I am also happy NATO still expands.
You don't live in a country bordering Russia, do you? Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop. Russia's western neighbors flock to NATO for a reason. Basically Russia is the bully of the neighborhood, using violence whenever it doesn't get whatever it wants.
Exactly. I do live in a country bordering Russia and we have been occupied by it twice during the last two hundred years. NATO is seen as the only way to keep our independence. Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.
In the 150 years before WW II ended there has hardly been 20 years of peace in Europe in one stretch.
Domestic European squabble developed into bloodiest conflicts the world had seen, more than once, never mind whole continents in submission and despair up until the 50s. Yet it is Russia that poses perpetual imminent threat.
Very unfortunately for territories bordering Russia, they are a, indeed, a buffer zone and get mowed down and/or change hands every time shit hits the fan. Equally so, in fact, by Russia and by the Western (“Proper”) Europe.
> Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.
Semi-seriously: Ukraine at least had a treaty securing its borders by the US, UK, and Russia. If the US and UK aren't willing to act on that treaty, what makes one think they'd act on a NATO Article V invocation by them if they were NATO members?
Because not invoking NATO Article V would immediately render the whole alliance useless (as this article is the whole point of NATO) and I'm sure no member of it would risk that. Russia pulling a similar trick as in Ukraine on any NATO member without serious consequences would be an achievement comparable to the victory of the Cold War.
Hasn't Russia been all too keen to flex its might when it comes to Natural Gas too? As most of the nations in Eastern and Central Europe rely on Natural Gas coming from Russia for heat & some power.
The soft power Russia has seems to be growing, never mind the wars they are all too happy to fight without acknowledging that a war is being waged.
You are right. War in Ukraine was started to kick out Shell out of natural gas field near to Sloviansk, which was able to fulfill needs of Ukraine and Europe, so Sloviansk was first target for Russian "insurgents".
AFAIK, the same reason holds for Syria: to stop Qatar attempt to reach Europe.
It has, but fortunately since the oil price slump they haven't really been in a position to do this, because they need the revenue to keep their operations going.
Meanwhile Europe is diversifying its sources of fuels, so it seems that they will lose any ability to do that eventually.
Gas exports have been frequently used as leverage against transit countries, but not against destination countries. It wouldn't per se surprise me that it's just about cutting the middleman out (cf. nordstream).
> Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century
Two world wars happened since at least 20th century. Napoleonic before that.
Countries go to wars. Since forever. Aggressively and recklessly. Doesn't make agreements less important. A poor agreement is better than a good war, isn't it?
Sweden has maintained a policy of neutrality since the Napoleonic Wars. I don't recall Russia perusing any similar foreign policy during the same period.
No it's not appeal to hypocrisy, Russias actions are pretty much defined by it's geography it's effectively a land locked country without warm water ports surrounded by local and global super powers.
> Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop.
and historically, everyone surrounding russia has been trying to limit, constrain, or invade it (eastern crusades, crimean war, western sponsorship of lenin, etc).. what is your point?
Facebook once banned me for 24h just for sending my friend a link (via messenger) to animgif containing female boobs.
(together with ban FB expired all API access tokens of my apps)
Zuckerberg positioning himself as champion of democracy and unrestricted communication is ridiculous.
