Seems like many ex-ATVI guys set off to run their own shops are getting crushed. ex Creative Director Rob Pardo ran Blizzard's games during the apex of the company and he has not made a game in 11 years. David Kim, Tim Morten, Chris Sigaty, Dustin Browder, etc etc.
Secret Door, Moonshot Games, Bonfire Studios, Runic Games, FrostGate are all in big trouble. The WoW guys who made that Marvel mobile card game did pretty good though. They are the exception to the rule.
Bobby Kotick was so good at marketing, promotion, and managing genius-level talent that he made it look easy.
I want a job @ Bonfire Studios as "Culture Manager" or "Community Liaison" or whatever made up BS title they can give me. Do nothing for 10 years...get paid.
Sad, but there is so many games coming out that it makes it hard for games to stand out these days.Plus still plenty of games released in past 15 years that hold up very well and can be picked up very cheaply.
Got a feeling that AI developed games & AI assets are going to be a much bigger thing in 5 years than they are now which is bad news for both workers and gamers.Over 18k games released on steam last year which is already 2x what was released in 2020, imagine those numbers when AI puts together half or more of a game.
Why is it a bad thing for gamers?
A lesson of the last 5-10 years of game development is that design matters. Breakout successes in things like Stardew Valley, Vampire Survivors, Clair Obscur Exp33, Slay the Spire etc, many of which were made on virtually no budget, show that it's the design that makes games good, not the resources pumped into it. Games being made easier to make via AI tooling does mean there will be MORE games (and therefore more shit games) but as gamers we don't need to play everything, we can just play the ones that are interesting to us.
If AI tooling was already prevalent everywhere, and you were to tell me 30% of Clair Obscur was AI generated textures or whatever, I would be impressed because it didn't detract from the experience.
Ethical concerns of AI aside, I don't see how AI being used in game dev will be worse for gamers. There's already heaps and heaps of shovelware I don't play, if the next COD game is 50% AI generated that will impact me, or its userbase, very little.
Exactly, more games made to a higher quality on a lower budget is good. Means we get more releases and through that a decent chance of surprise hits. We will still have a few high budget games a year but fewer than now. Since I couldn't play all the high budget games in a year, that seems fine to me.
I think the AA type of studios will disappear though. Too much competition eating into them from below, not enough marketing power to survive.
Some of the best games of this year are AA? Expedition 33, Alters, Kingdom Come Deliverance 2.
I'd say AA's are thriving. Sure it can be a tough market with the competition but there are some real gems shining through.
AA's and indies are definitely going to be stronger in the future. AAs can pull off a pretty high quality for a lot of experiences these days and indies are obviously just really low cost and a ton come out so a crop of excellent ones will generally always be being pumped out.
AAA dev and marketing costs are just too high unless you're a GTA or some other giga-high profile game thats guaranteed to sell gangbusters.
AAs are also feeling the squeeze. Bill Roper was trying to secure funding for his AA game studio for years before he finally had to sell his home and move out of California a few months ago. I'm not sure what can bring them back to prominence, and I agree with Bill that AA is the best compromise between vision and budget, but investors seem hesitant.
Game industry is just in a historical low atm, my company was very lucky in that we got our money just about immediately before money became really hard to get in games. I think the overall trend is going to prefer AA studios more than it has in the recent past, assuming the general economic state of things gets to a state of relative normalcy.
I think people give a lot less of a shit about peak realism graphics and are generally willing to compromise on a lot for a strong core experience, which AA is adequately positioned to deliver at a much lower price point than AAA.
Really good graphics requires me to buy a new 2k (or is it 3-4k now?) gaming PC, a new screen and probably a new sound system to go with it. It's doable for me so I'm probably part of the target demographic for that. A teen living at home? Not so much...
But I have like an hour a night to spend on gaming at best and I grew up with quake and unreal tournament. IDGAF about graphics and spend most of my time on indie games. I'd rather spend the money on take out or cleaning to give me more time to actually play games...
Meanwhile Saudi Arabia bought EA for 50 billion or something? Hasn't EA sucked as for the last 10 years or so?
I have a good PC (well, it was good 2 years ago, no idea now). Still i don't play the new graphics games, because they don't give me what i want.
The last few games i bought:
Age of Wonders 4 Monster Train 2 Hades 2 Ozymandias The Surge 2 Heroes of Science and Fiction 4d Golf
Not all total potato level, but also not super realistic awesome graphics fidelity stuff.
Graphics is part of a package for me. It can be relevant, but gameplay matters a lot more. And when it is relevant, that doesn't mean it needs to be photorealistic either. Just pretty and fitting for the game. If i want photorealism with boring gameplay, i can just go outside.
i think EA's biggest genius move isn't merely creating "Pay 2 Win" for NFL Madden and FIFA FC. EA created "Pay 2 Win for about 3 weeks." You pay money to increase your chances to acquire the best players...then a new set of more powerful cards are released 3 weeks later. I do not know for certain this is what EA does. Based on the way people talk about all their Ultimate Team modes in their NFL, NHL, FIFA/FC games... i think this is how it works. No one cares they just keep spending.
After doing this the next year's version comes out and all the money you've spent on "Card Packs" means nothing.
In a way, this spending habit parallels sticking quarters in arcade machines in order to play for 5 minutes. This analogy fails at one level though. As you get better at the arcade game you get to play for more time on 1 quarter.
On September 30 2025 08:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: how long before Bioware is closed down?
i think EA's biggest genius move isn't merely creating "Pay 2 Win" for NFL Madden and FIFA FC. EA created "Pay 2 Win for about 3 weeks." You pay money to increase your chances to acquire the best players...then a new set of more powerful cards are released 3 weeks later. I do not know for certain this is what EA does. Based on the way people talk about all their Ultimate Team modes in their NFL, NHL, FIFA/FC games... i think this is how it works. No one cares they just keep spending.
After doing this the next year's version comes out and all the money you've spent on "Card Packs" means nothing.
In a way, this spending habit parallels sticking quarters in arcade machines in order to play for 5 minutes. This analogy fails at one level though. As you get better at the arcade game you get to play for more time on 1 quarter.
I am honestly surprised Bioware is still running. Last good game from them was March 2012. Since then they have released 4 middling titles that does parts well but is not a complete package. The last two I skipped fully, the two before I got my monies worth but didn't finish the campaign in.
Lots of Canadian government money keeps Bioware afloat. Risk averse Megacorps love guaranteed government money and despise the fickle, opinionated, entitle consumer. So Risk averse Megacorp EA keeps Bioware going.
On September 30 2025 08:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: how long before Bioware is closed down?
i think EA's biggest genius move isn't merely creating "Pay 2 Win" for NFL Madden and FIFA FC. EA created "Pay 2 Win for about 3 weeks." You pay money to increase your chances to acquire the best players...then a new set of more powerful cards are released 3 weeks later. I do not know for certain this is what EA does. Based on the way people talk about all their Ultimate Team modes in their NFL, NHL, FIFA/FC games... i think this is how it works. No one cares they just keep spending.
After doing this the next year's version comes out and all the money you've spent on "Card Packs" means nothing.
In a way, this spending habit parallels sticking quarters in arcade machines in order to play for 5 minutes. This analogy fails at one level though. As you get better at the arcade game you get to play for more time on 1 quarter.
Man learns about gacha games in 2025.
This is literally how every gacha game works, it’s predatory all the way down except the user base tolerates it or doesn’t care due to sunk cost fallacy.
On September 30 2025 08:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: how long before Bioware is closed down?
i think EA's biggest genius move isn't merely creating "Pay 2 Win" for NFL Madden and FIFA FC. EA created "Pay 2 Win for about 3 weeks." You pay money to increase your chances to acquire the best players...then a new set of more powerful cards are released 3 weeks later. I do not know for certain this is what EA does. Based on the way people talk about all their Ultimate Team modes in their NFL, NHL, FIFA/FC games... i think this is how it works. No one cares they just keep spending.
After doing this the next year's version comes out and all the money you've spent on "Card Packs" means nothing.
In a way, this spending habit parallels sticking quarters in arcade machines in order to play for 5 minutes. This analogy fails at one level though. As you get better at the arcade game you get to play for more time on 1 quarter.
Man learns about gacha games in 2025.
This is literally how every gacha game works, it’s predatory all the way down except the user base tolerates it or doesn’t care due to sunk cost fallacy.
I think putting gacha into sports games was a pretty genius move from a pure business perspective. You can get a totally new group of customers who would otherwise never get into a gacha.
(From any other perspective, it is obviously an asshole move. Gacha sucks)
On September 30 2025 08:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: how long before Bioware is closed down?
i think EA's biggest genius move isn't merely creating "Pay 2 Win" for NFL Madden and FIFA FC. EA created "Pay 2 Win for about 3 weeks." You pay money to increase your chances to acquire the best players...then a new set of more powerful cards are released 3 weeks later. I do not know for certain this is what EA does. Based on the way people talk about all their Ultimate Team modes in their NFL, NHL, FIFA/FC games... i think this is how it works. No one cares they just keep spending.
After doing this the next year's version comes out and all the money you've spent on "Card Packs" means nothing.
In a way, this spending habit parallels sticking quarters in arcade machines in order to play for 5 minutes. This analogy fails at one level though. As you get better at the arcade game you get to play for more time on 1 quarter.
I am honestly surprised Bioware is still running. Last good game from them was March 2012. Since then they have released 4 middling titles that does parts well but is not a complete package. The last two I skipped fully, the two before I got my monies worth but didn't finish the campaign in.
I was hoping for Mass Effect 5 but I don't see that happening now -.- Ah well, would have been shitty anyways I guess
On September 30 2025 08:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: how long before Bioware is closed down?
i think EA's biggest genius move isn't merely creating "Pay 2 Win" for NFL Madden and FIFA FC. EA created "Pay 2 Win for about 3 weeks." You pay money to increase your chances to acquire the best players...then a new set of more powerful cards are released 3 weeks later. I do not know for certain this is what EA does. Based on the way people talk about all their Ultimate Team modes in their NFL, NHL, FIFA/FC games... i think this is how it works. No one cares they just keep spending.
After doing this the next year's version comes out and all the money you've spent on "Card Packs" means nothing.
In a way, this spending habit parallels sticking quarters in arcade machines in order to play for 5 minutes. This analogy fails at one level though. As you get better at the arcade game you get to play for more time on 1 quarter.
Man learns about gacha games in 2025.
This is literally how every gacha game works, it’s predatory all the way down except the user base tolerates it or doesn’t care due to sunk cost fallacy.
Aren't EA Sports card pack mechanics more aggressive and extreme than gacha game mechanics? With EA Sports every new year the money you've spent is useless. Also, % chances are not revealed.
On October 01 2025 10:26 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
On September 30 2025 08:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: how long before Bioware is closed down?
i think EA's biggest genius move isn't merely creating "Pay 2 Win" for NFL Madden and FIFA FC. EA created "Pay 2 Win for about 3 weeks." You pay money to increase your chances to acquire the best players...then a new set of more powerful cards are released 3 weeks later. I do not know for certain this is what EA does. Based on the way people talk about all their Ultimate Team modes in their NFL, NHL, FIFA/FC games... i think this is how it works. No one cares they just keep spending.
After doing this the next year's version comes out and all the money you've spent on "Card Packs" means nothing.
In a way, this spending habit parallels sticking quarters in arcade machines in order to play for 5 minutes. This analogy fails at one level though. As you get better at the arcade game you get to play for more time on 1 quarter.
Man learns about gacha games in 2025.
This is literally how every gacha game works, it’s predatory all the way down except the user base tolerates it or doesn’t care due to sunk cost fallacy.
Aren't EA Sports card pack mechanics more aggressive and extreme than gacha game mechanics? With EA Sports every new year the money you've spent is useless. Also, % chances are not revealed.
No, not really.
The monetisation strategy depends entirely on the audience the game intends to cultivate. The biggest Chinese gacha games, like the Hoyoverse games, generally have more generous monetisation and sustain themselves by inundating the player base with new quality content like every 3 months.
You don’t have to squeeze blood from the gacha stone if you have a successful IP. You can sell concerts, anime, figures, music, card games, and whatever else you can dream of if you have a captive audience.
You can’t say it’s an unsuccessful strategy just because they aren’t showing extreme contempt for their player base, those games make eyewatering amounts of revenue that any game publisher would kill to make. Especially as new IPs that don’t have world’s most popular sport to feed them users.
The % being revealed or not is pretty immaterial because there was plenty of ways for the game to screw with the odds to the point you can argue the odds are false advertising. To use Fire Emblem Heroes as an example, the game often has increased rate banners to pull specific previously released 5 star summons.
The catch? They’ll add more increased rate summons in the same banner so the chances of pulling a specific summon that you don’t want increases as well. If you need to pull like 10 copies of the same summon to fully unlock, it doesn’t matter if they tell you the odds because the odds to get what you actually want are still impossibly awful.
It’s like me pulling on a 5% increased rate EA Football card pack but instead of me getting 5% increased odds of pulling specifically Messi, I’ve got 5% increased odds of pulling a card from a pool of players that include the entire current Manchester United roster and Messi. The only way you’re getting Messi and not 500 copies of Manchester United players is if you whip out the credit card.
On October 01 2025 10:26 Hat Trick of Today wrote:
On September 30 2025 08:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: how long before Bioware is closed down?
i think EA's biggest genius move isn't merely creating "Pay 2 Win" for NFL Madden and FIFA FC. EA created "Pay 2 Win for about 3 weeks." You pay money to increase your chances to acquire the best players...then a new set of more powerful cards are released 3 weeks later. I do not know for certain this is what EA does. Based on the way people talk about all their Ultimate Team modes in their NFL, NHL, FIFA/FC games... i think this is how it works. No one cares they just keep spending.
After doing this the next year's version comes out and all the money you've spent on "Card Packs" means nothing.
In a way, this spending habit parallels sticking quarters in arcade machines in order to play for 5 minutes. This analogy fails at one level though. As you get better at the arcade game you get to play for more time on 1 quarter.
Man learns about gacha games in 2025.
This is literally how every gacha game works, it’s predatory all the way down except the user base tolerates it or doesn’t care due to sunk cost fallacy.
I think putting gacha into sports games was a pretty genius move from a pure business perspective. You can get a totally new group of customers who would otherwise never get into a gacha.
(From any other perspective, it is obviously an asshole move. Gacha sucks)
Yeah that’s the only thing you can say is genius about EA Sports card gacha mechanic. There’s already a captive monied audience that loves sports management games who also want the power fantasy of building, say, a basketball team with peak condition Magic, Jordan, LeBron, Duncan and Shaq.
The monetisation is really just gacha bread and butter.
It’s pretty funny to see someone like Joel Embiid, who is obsessed with football, blow my yearly salary in EA Football just so he can brag about his gacha football team on social media. But that’s the type of audience these games have and why they have the monetisation strategy they have.
It is becoming more and more clear that huge amounts of screen time is bad for your vision and your visual hygiene. It'll be interesting to see how the video game industry attempts to deal with this ugly fact. I don't think they have a rebuttal and they'll just continue to pretend this issue does not exist.
Something easy for me to see: my coder friend group has 10,000X worse vision than my baseball player friend group.
On September 30 2025 05:22 Simberto wrote: I have a good PC (well, it was good 2 years ago, no idea now). Still i don't play the new graphics games, because they don't give me what i want.
The last few games i bought:
Age of Wonders 4 Monster Train 2 Hades 2 Ozymandias The Surge 2 Heroes of Science and Fiction 4d Golf
Not all total potato level, but also not super realistic awesome graphics fidelity stuff.
Graphics is part of a package for me. It can be relevant, but gameplay matters a lot more. And when it is relevant, that doesn't mean it needs to be photorealistic either. Just pretty and fitting for the game. If i want photorealism with boring gameplay, i can just go outside.
Super Mega Baseball is better than any EA "The Show" game. Super Tecmo Bowl from 1991 is better than EA Madden 26. Borderlands 1 from 2009 is my favourite Borderlands game. My 2 favourite RTS games are from 1998 and 2010.
Most of the games in my rotation require Nintendo Switch 1 level of compute power.
The game this winter that my wife and I are looking forward to the most requires the computing power of a 1995 video game console . It is a competitive version of Pacman where 1 player controls Pacman and another player controls the decisions of the Red Ghost "Shadow".
simple fun for a short time... and done. no debating the "hair physics" of the player characters. no debating how well the "voice actors" nailed their lines.
On October 03 2025 08:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: It is becoming more and more clear that huge amounts of screen time is bad for your vision and your visual hygiene. It'll be interesting to see how the video game industry attempts to deal with this ugly fact. I don't think they have a rebuttal and they'll just continue to pretend this issue does not exist.
Something easy for me to see: my coder friend group has 10,000X worse vision than my baseball player friend group.
This is selection bias at its finest. People playing a sport requiring good physical condition and vision vs a group that opted out of it, perhaps due to vision issues.
That does not say anything about the issue overall, could be true it makes vision worse. Though I would say anybody spending a lot of time at a monitor is likely to be annoyed by an existing small vision issue than somebody that doesn't.
On October 03 2025 08:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote: It is becoming more and more clear that huge amounts of screen time is bad for your vision and your visual hygiene. It'll be interesting to see how the video game industry attempts to deal with this ugly fact. I don't think they have a rebuttal and they'll just continue to pretend this issue does not exist.
Something easy for me to see: my coder friend group has 10,000X worse vision than my baseball player friend group.
This is selection bias at its finest. People playing a sport requiring good physical condition and vision vs a group that opted out of it, perhaps due to vision issues.
That does not say anything about the issue overall, could be true it makes vision worse. Though I would say anybody spending a lot of time at a monitor is likely to be annoyed by an existing small vision issue than somebody that doesn't.
no, baseball players' vision improves as the season goes on. hardly any one can pick up the ball properly the first couple of weeks of the year. The one guy on my team who has good vision right at the start of the year plays goalie in two hockey leagues during the winter.
i have 20/30 vision in march and better than 20/15 vision by late august. this is a similar pattern for every baseball player with whom i've ever played. The raw #s might be different, but the improvement is the same. Now, if the guys on my team spent the summer engaging in the horrible vision habits i have in the winter then their vision would be worse vision in August than it was in March.
Removing baseball players from the equation... generally speaking people's vision improves throughout the spring and summer. vision gets worse in the winter.
Starring into a flat glowing square, with zero texture, the exact same distance from your face for hours at a time makes your vision worse. Using your visual system the way it was designed to be used by participating in an activity like baseball ... improves your vision. 95%+ of the human visual system is built to detect 3D motion and depth between objects... cripple that by starring into a screen with no background peripheral motion and you get a decline in vision.
Increased screen time is a major contributor to the myopia problem in North America. Myopia rates have gone from 25% to 43% in the past 40 years. Before the TV was invented myopia rates in NA were much lower than 25%. Most projections have myopia rates at around 50% by 2035.
My eyes were bad before lasik.Estimated L 20/600 and R 20/800 from specialist before surgery.I think due to computer usage.9 years later still no glasses.Cut down usage maybe 1/3, and fewer long gaming sessions due to kid.
taking care of a child is a great way to improve your vision! CONSTANT MOTION!
Our eyes need movement. 95% of your retina consists of rods. Rods are designed to detect movement and depth. Humans have a visual system similar to all other predators. Predators' visual systems are all about depth perception and motion. Feed your rods the movement and motion they crave.
On October 04 2025 12:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: My eyes were bad before lasik.Estimated L 20/600 and R 20/800 from specialist before surgery.I think due to computer usage.9 years later still no glasses.Cut down usage maybe 1/3, and fewer long gaming sessions due to kid.
Anecdotal evidence is so so useful! I work as a programmer and game as a hobby. I have basically spent my life since around 8 years old staring at a screen. I am in my forties. I don't need glasses. My eyes are better than my brother's, who was in the army and is now a farmer, spending most of his time outdoors. Clearly screens are good for your eyes!
PS: in case it wasn't obvious, I don't think screens are good for your eyes. I just think individual anecdotes are terrible evidence.
On October 04 2025 12:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: My eyes were bad before lasik.Estimated L 20/600 and R 20/800 from specialist before surgery.I think due to computer usage.9 years later still no glasses.Cut down usage maybe 1/3, and fewer long gaming sessions due to kid.
Anecdotal evidence is so so useful! I work as a programmer and game as a hobby. I have basically spent my life since around 8 years old staring at a screen. I am in my forties. I don't need glasses. My eyes are better than my brother's, who was in the army and is now a farmer, spending most of his time outdoors. Clearly screens are good for your eyes!
PS: in case it wasn't obvious, I don't think screens are good for your eyes. I just think individual anecdotes are terrible evidence.
it is how you use your eyes around screens that wrecks your vision. if you lower your blink rate. don't move. stare. you'll create vision issues. a big issue for some people who use screens is that they lower their blink rate by 1/2 or more. blinking is critical to maintain good vision. if you use your eyes when at a screen the way someone like Asmongold does you'll have good vision. Constant shifting... spaz out facial expressions keeping the muscles around the eyes loose.. swaying and rocking causing constant shifts in focal plane. All the floating garbage in Asmongold's room is great for creating movement in the peripheral vision.
Also, the anatomy of the eyes and how the brain works to create what we think we see is made for movement.. not stillness.
I have my screen in front of a window along with an aquarium beside my screen. This creates lots of peripheral movement and provides the rods which make up 95% of the retina the movement they crave.
An ocular surface mechanism causes symptoms such as dryness of the eyes, redness, gritty sensation, and burning after an extended period of computer usage. Eyeblink helps maintain a normal ocular surface through a whole cycle of secretion of tears, wetting of ocular surface, evaporation, and finally, drainage of tears [27]. It is now well known that the blink rate reduces significantly during computer usage from 18.4 to 3.6/min in one of the studies and from 22 to 7 blinks/min in another study [28, 29].
So blink rate is 3X lower. That's bad. No wonder vision gets worse.
how to deal with it...
frequent blinking, improving lighting, minimizing glare, taking regular breaks from the screen, changing focus to distance object intermittently,
This is why fidgety, twitchy, spazzy type people like Asmongold can use a screen all the time and maintain good vision. His constant rocking and swaying change the focal plane. Asmongold blinks a lot. He is always yapping and making bizarre facial expressions and this keeps the muscles around his eyes and face loose. Also, baseball players do the same thing. They are always rocking and swaying and twitching their face. They blink a tonne.
So the "screens are bad" simplification here is backed up by eye anatomy facts. It is also backed by how people use their visual system incorrectly during screen time and why this creates vision issues.
Talking AAA+ games DICE seems to have stuck the landing on Battlefield 6 in a kind of do or die moment. Even I bought it. Watched a streamer and it looked exactly like the kind of mindless fun I need right now and close to how I remember it.
On October 04 2025 12:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: My eyes were bad before lasik.Estimated L 20/600 and R 20/800 from specialist before surgery.I think due to computer usage.9 years later still no glasses.Cut down usage maybe 1/3, and fewer long gaming sessions due to kid.
Anecdotal evidence is so so useful! I work as a programmer and game as a hobby. I have basically spent my life since around 8 years old staring at a screen. I am in my forties. I don't need glasses. My eyes are better than my brother's, who was in the army and is now a farmer, spending most of his time outdoors. Clearly screens are good for your eyes!
PS: in case it wasn't obvious, I don't think screens are good for your eyes. I just think individual anecdotes are terrible evidence.
Notice the high blink rate, the rocking, the spazzy facial contortions, the fidgeting. Asmongold is keeping his Rods well fed. Rods work best under conditions of constant motion. He prolly has very good vision. For why this is critical please refer back to the published study i linked in my previous post.
This is a great development. Making software in a small team of 5 or less is far more rewarding and fun than giant team software building. Also, the end product has a soul. Please note, this is something I've been saying since I joined this site 15 years ago. Fuck these giant teams.
On October 04 2025 12:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: My eyes were bad before lasik.Estimated L 20/600 and R 20/800 from specialist before surgery.I think due to computer usage.9 years later still no glasses.Cut down usage maybe 1/3, and fewer long gaming sessions due to kid.
Anecdotal evidence is so so useful! I work as a programmer and game as a hobby. I have basically spent my life since around 8 years old staring at a screen. I am in my forties. I don't need glasses. My eyes are better than my brother's, who was in the army and is now a farmer, spending most of his time outdoors. Clearly screens are good for your eyes!
PS: in case it wasn't obvious, I don't think screens are good for your eyes. I just think individual anecdotes are terrible evidence.
Notice the high blink rate, the rocking, the spazzy facial contortions, the fidgeting. Asmongold is keeping his Rods well fed. Rods work best under conditions of constant motion. He prolly has very good vision. For why this is critical please refer back to the published study i linked in my previous post.
This is a great development. Making software in a small team of 5 or less is far more rewarding and fun than giant team software building. Also, the end product has a soul. Please note, this is something I've been saying since I joined this site 15 years ago. Fuck these giant teams.
I have no real interest watching an Asmongold video, but yeah, that is not really a controversial position here afaik. Basically anyone i know prefers smaller and indie games to giant Ubisoft-style slop.
On October 04 2025 12:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: My eyes were bad before lasik.Estimated L 20/600 and R 20/800 from specialist before surgery.I think due to computer usage.9 years later still no glasses.Cut down usage maybe 1/3, and fewer long gaming sessions due to kid.
Anecdotal evidence is so so useful! I work as a programmer and game as a hobby. I have basically spent my life since around 8 years old staring at a screen. I am in my forties. I don't need glasses. My eyes are better than my brother's, who was in the army and is now a farmer, spending most of his time outdoors. Clearly screens are good for your eyes!
PS: in case it wasn't obvious, I don't think screens are good for your eyes. I just think individual anecdotes are terrible evidence.
Notice the high blink rate, the rocking, the spazzy facial contortions, the fidgeting. Asmongold is keeping his Rods well fed. Rods work best under conditions of constant motion. He prolly has very good vision. For why this is critical please refer back to the published study i linked in my previous post.
This is a great development. Making software in a small team of 5 or less is far more rewarding and fun than giant team software building. Also, the end product has a soul. Please note, this is something I've been saying since I joined this site 15 years ago. Fuck these giant teams.
I have no real interest watching an Asmongold video, but yeah, that is not really a controversial position here afaik. Basically anyone i know prefers smaller and indie games to giant Ubisoft-style slop.
I miss guys like Total Biscuit in the space (rest in power), he reviewed and pushed all kinds of games, and publicised plenty of gems he actually liked playing.
Nowadays it feels there’s a whole cottage industry of people who just incessantly complain about games and publishers they don’t like ad nauseam (see also - Star Wars). Like ya can just do other things?
As in film, where a properly good blockbuster can knock your tits off with what comes with budget, there’s definitely a solid niche for AAA stuff. But yeah too much of it is derivative slop, or crippled by micro transactions or whatever.
I mean a smaller team isn’t going to be able to deliver the full experience of say, a Grand Theft Auto.
EPT
