You’re confusing actual institutions with its philosophy.
Capitalism is also not the only system to distribute resources. Capitalism isn’t concerned with anything as it’s not an actual living thing. But to pretend that it doesn’t incentivize ruthlessness or greed is simply untrue.
It was expected to be a second release after being a Stadia exclusive. This isn’t judging quality, just impact.
Edit: and let’s not pretend by adding “far below” when it was in the same group. And the ranking isn’t even totally based on expected sales. The asking prices and the levels aren’t in order. You’re misinterpreting one quote entirely incorrectly and trying assuming too much from a chart.
easily gauge how it was going.
Except virtually everyone got it wrong still. Even the head of Larian thought it’d top out at 100k max. That’s currently it’s average now with it’s max being more than 800% higher.
BG is a big IP, but it’s never had this level of success. Look at Diablo III’s release (similar IP with a long break between games). It had better advertising campaign and still kind of became noise fairly quickly. Game news sites barely covered BG3 until it hit it big.
Microsoft definitely undershot, but it was likely basing it on a lot of the aggregated news as well. It had barely any coverage prior to its official release. This is usually a sign that the game will be mediocre.
Larian is a big studio but its last expected game from its really only known IP was cancelled after being put on hold for four years (granted BG3 was also being developed during this time). It’s biggest games prior to this got at least partially funded on Kickstarter (not a knock against KS, but it’s not generally seen as the sign of a strong studio to exec-types).
I don’t blame an executive for not seeing this coming.
Executives obviously didn’t see this coming. But neither did game journalists or even gamers.
Its a mistake in hindsight, but with what everyone generally knew at the time, it was the expectation of most.
Tbf, a lot of people misjudged it, including Larian. I don’t think a lot of people really believed the “choices and decisions matter” would work as well as it did. Prior to release, I read an article that talked about how it was gonna be neat that the in-game news would update based on your actions. Like, that was the noteworthy function to discuss about the game. “NPCs might talk about your actions in passing to each other”.
Did Microsoft underestimate it more than others? Sure. But pretending like every corporation, including Larian, didn’t underestimate it a whole lot is a bit crazy.
Edit: and isn’t the game Divinity: Original Sin II? Did it have other names in other international markets?
Edit: this was submitted as a response to https://lemmy.world/comment/3615435 but Kbin didn’t seem to actually tie them together. It shows me that it was written as a reply on Kbin, but seems to have lost connection to the comment hierarchy.
Ok, and we still create laws to combat it. I don’t think “evil always existed, so let’s not have the FDA because it’s not that we’re protecting citizens from bad food, but simply from evil.”
This is such a weird “I’m 14 and this is deep” take.
ChatGPT is why the public is scrambling about AI. AI art has been around awhile and there’s always been complaining because its lame compared to real artists. This has fuck all to do with it suddenly being open source AI.
AI can very easily be abused and I don’t see how this is related to the tech being open sourced or not. Fighting to ensure you aren’t exploited is fine and I support anyone to fight against exploitation.
Thats a different problem and not even new. It’s not even the same problem you referenced as the “key” part of the problem. Algorithms providing content is behind every mainstream platform ever.
I didn’t say MSN is flawless. Just that people are really bad at determining responsibility for an issue.
They’re also really bad at delineating the nuance of different root problems apparently.
It’s clear you’re both using different meanings of “intelligence.” Granted I don’t think there is consensus on its meaning, but from context they clearly regard “intelligence” as just memorized facts and wisdom as the application of it, which they aren’t honestly far off. The amount of data is there, it’s the understanding of the data that isn’t there.
But it still isn’t MSN who did it. The key part of the problem is entirely glossed over in the article.
I mean, MSN is just a portal and I doubt there’s much behind it besides what domains are popular. MSN “published” this the same way Google News published articles. It sounds better to say Microsoft did it, but it’s from some news site called Race Track and it was simply scraped by MSN.
I think it’s naive to frame it as “wanting to give data” but more that they’re allowing themselves to be exploited because many simply don’t even know what’s in the policy, there are many who concede that they can’t do without the platform, and then simply folks who don’t know better. I highly doubt there’s any significant number of people who understand the policy and happily consent even if they could easily give up the platform instead.
So I think they’re both problems. A platform needing data beyond what’s necessary to provide the service AND that most people will either concede defeat or not know better.
You realize that’s how most privacy policies word their collecting, right? Microsoft may collect data from Windows. Google may collect the sites you visit. Etc etc etc. “May” is used because they may not collect it in every instance. But it definitely means sometimes they do. There’s no purpose to open up legal liability unless necessary.
Tbf, that is the title of the article.
Edit: and honestly, an attack would be a form of hacking. Gaining unauthorized access is not the be-all end-all of hacking. Granted, I would admit this is likely meant to garner clicks, but I would also argue it’s technically true.
Cool it with your unnecessary pitchforks. You just failed at reading is all.
This is an ignorant take. It can be correct in some cases, but oversimplifying and making assumptions like that is entirely devoid of rational thinking.
I mean, probably not, but it’s otherwise useless, plus it makes an argument for cruel and unusual punishment. Any other desire from sentencing is simply perverted in my mind.
Prison is meant to rehabilitate, not punish. If you’re punishing, you’re not helping society. If you just care about causing pain, what value add is that?
I mean, a study of how non homeless people spend money would probably be skewed and ignore drug addicts too. Studies ignore outliers that would have an obvious affect on what’s being studied.
Are you wondering what a drug addict spends money on?
Corporations: hey guys, let’s unionize so the government doesn’t exploit us.
Employees: hey, can we als…
Corporations: NO.