Why is this story suddenly getting posted to dozens of communities that in seeing in my feed?
It’s one 73 year old tribal elder who complained that today’s youth don’t respect tradition. This same story has been pre-printed for thousands of years.
I keep scrolling through all and seeing this re-posted over and over again, so to save anyone else the trouble- the NY Times interviewed one 73 year- old tribe elder who complained about the youth not following traditions.
I think we’re done here.
Lol a good chunk of those “breaches and hacks” are either unrelated to PlayStation (Sony Pictures being the most notable) or had no impact to users.
I don’t care if they leak their source code for games or if their social media account gets socially-engineered. Even an outage from a DDOS isjust a minor inconvenience. According to the source you posted, they haven’t had any issues leaking PlayStation user data since 2011, over a decade ago.
Security concerns are valid for everything you do on the Internet of course, but are you bringing that same energy to Valve for the security issues Steam has had over the years too? The 2023 issue with dev accounts getting hacked to inject malware. The 2020 issue with the “Steam Sockets” library. They had their own data breach similar to Sony’s in 2011.
It’s funny to me because tons of PC-exclusive games also require accounts on Steam and no one cares.
The requirement is dumb, but the attention is also disproportionate because of console war fandom.
It released too late and was way too expensive.
I say this as someone who grew up in that time period and has fond nostalgia: it has one of the worst libraries of any console. Depending on how you count (the different regions, the 64DD, what counts as a “game”, etc) there were 200-300 N64 games. That may seem like a pretty big difference between 200 and 300, but in comparison the PS1 had, on a conservative count, 4,100 games. If you want to say only 10% of PS1 games we’re good that’s still more good games than the N64 had games.
There are a handful of titles that will be remembered as some of the greatest games of all time. The two Zelda games, Super Smash Bros, Mario Party, Mario Kart, Paper Mario. Personally I like the Pokemon games too. But the list falls off pretty hard after that.
I love 3D platformers and collect-a-thons, but I could never get into Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, or Donkey Kong 64. They all feel rudimentary to me, similar to Jumping Flash on the PS1. Maybe it’s because the N64’s joystick was so uncomfortable and loose. Crash Bandicoot 1 came out in the US before Mario 64 did, and in my opinion it was more fun, looks better, sounds better, and holds up better today. And then there were two more Crash games, plus the Spyro trilogy which I consider even better.
There are “cult classics” for the N64 that I think are only remembered like that because of the lack of other options. Blast Corps for example is a unique and creative little game. It’s fun to play for a bit, but was that experience really worth the price of a whole game? It almost feels like it could have been a side mode in something like Twisted Metal.
There’s so many games it didn’t have. Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania, and Final Fantasy are perhaps the most famous. Even a lot of games it did have were much worse- Resident Evil 2 and the Tony Hawk series are big examples where the cheap storage of the PS1 was clearly better. I remember I had a mediocre PS1 game called Battletanx that was pretty fun. Later on in high school my friend had a modded Xbox that emulated N64 games and I recognized that title, so we played through the co-op. It was still fun, but the textures were mostly replaced with flat colors and it was hard to see what was going on. I thought there may have been an issue with the emulation, or maybe the ROM was for some beta build or a hacked version, but… No, that’s just how it looked on the N64.
I didn’t mind the 3-prong controller. Honestly just having handles was already an upgrade over the SNES and Genesis. But the controller itself feels so cheap. The buttons all rattle around loosely and feel mushy and unsatisfying to press. The joystick is hard plastic, too tall, and flaccid. The plastic itself is a downgrade compared to its predecessors and to the Dualshock and even Saturn controller.
I still have my N64 and the handful of games I got for it. It had some of the highest highs of any console, but little else.
What makes you think the PS5 isn’t growing how they need it to? It’s outselling the Xbox and it isn’t close. In a less direct comparison, it’s outselling the Switch. It’s outselling what the PS4 did, and that was successful. I don’t understand where this sentiment that the PS5 is struggling is coming from. The second half of your first sentence even mentions that they’re really dominant right now.
I also don’t understand “PC overtaking any one console”… Like, how is that even a comparison? When was the last time there were more consoles than consumer PC’s… The SNES era? I’m not even sure about that, you might need to go further back.
Even if you want to talk about just gaming, that’s tricky to even start to compare. The closest I can think of is that according to this Steam averaged 120 million monthly users last year. According to this, PSN averaged 118 million monthly users in Q4 2023. That’s pretty much dead even. I don’t think it makes sense to add other platforms to the PC side without adding in Nintendo and Xbox to the console side, in which case… Consoles have more users and it’s not close. And they both are just a fraction of the mobile gaming market anyways.
Sony has absolutely proven that they can generate the unique exclusives that sell consoles. That’s… Why they have the best-selling console right now. Their strategy is working. You could say this about plenty of other consoles at points in the past (PS3, WiiU, 3DS, GameCube, N64, Xbox One). If you even said this a couple years ago about Sony struggling to manufacture PS5’s fast enough that might make sense. But they’re currently dominating the home console market. So I don’t understand why you think they’re struggling or need to drastically change the way they do things?
Just to clarify- what strategy are you predicting that they will change?
That was explaining the delayed releases for PC, not saying they would never come to PC.
In this example Ragnarok came out in 2022, so there probably isn’t much meat left on the PS5 bone with this one.
ITT: a bunch of people saying “I won’t”.
You’re probably in the minority. There’s 16k subscribers in this community and, currently, about 30 million active users on Steam. Most of them have never heard of Lemmy, and heck a lot of them probably were never on Reddit. The PS5 has sold 50 million units- that’s over 3,000 PS5’s for every subscribed account here.
A lot of users here have PC’s that approach or exceed the PS5’s capabilities. You have fancy expensive monitors, a nice desk and chair, a gaming mouse and mechanical keyboard. The people this CEO is talking about don’t. They may have an old desktop from the pandemic, or a laptop. They might just use their kitchen table as a desk.
Or, heck, they might not even have a desktop or laptop at all. It’s still early, but there have been studies suggesting that Gen Z and Alpha are using PC’s less and doing more of their computing on phones and tablets.
Overall I thought it was great that Sony started releasing their games on PC (and especially through Steam, usually with pretty decent PC ports). It’s great to give consumers more options. Delaying the PC release probably means more time for the devs to work on the port (Sony’s PC ports have been mixed on launch, but even the bad ones have gotten fixed pretty quickly afterwards, and it’s been a while since the last one). Delaying PC versions seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.
Sony absolutely did sell consoles directly to consumers. That’s how I got mine lol.
Sony has absolutely no interest in enabling scalpers. They gain nothing, and in fact lose out on revenue because of it themselves. The PS5 initially sold at a loss, with the assumption that buying games, accessories, and subscriptions will turn the whole ecosystem profitable for Sony. Scalpers arent buying subscriptions. They probably aren’t buying games because the digital market makes the supply close to infinite. They probably aren’t buying accessories because the supply was similarly not restricted. So the only thing scalpers are doing is giving Sony a loss, delay the consumer’s ability to buy anything that’s profitable from Sony, then taking more cash out of the hands of consumers that, arguably, might have been used to buy more games/subscriptions/accessories. Sony has absolutely nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose from scalping.
Scalping affects all kinds of industries. It’s only even possible when demand exceeds supply at a given price point. I have no reason whatsoever to believe Sony was purposefully restricting supply (it was in their best interests to produce as many units as possible).
Any further action restricting scalpers would be the responsibility of retailers. Sony can’t just force Target or Wal-Mart to incur additional expenses to start tracking who is buying PS5’s and restricting those. Even when retailers do it, it’s usually a joke to work around. Heck, the minimum-wage employees tasked with enforcing such rules might be the ones doing some scalping to try to supplement their income.
The only way to eliminate scalping is to make it unprofitable. One way of doing that is… Just don’t buy from scalpers. But consumers cannot organize and behave rationally like thaf- the free market is often a downward spiral of bad decisions, and a lot of casual consumers just don’t care about spending a couple hundred dollars more.
The other way is to raise prices. If Sony and Wal-Mart are selling something for $500 and a scalper can flip it on eBay for $900, getting $400… That means that consumers are willing to pay $900 for that item. Perhaps it should have originally sold at retail for closer to $900? But then the narrative would be that Sony was overcharging- that the PS5 was a luxury item for rich people only. Even if it sold out, the stigma would stick for the whole generation (like the PS3).
Sony made a product everyone really wanted and charged less than they could, and you want to blame Sony for actions of all the people between you and them?
You said the experience of building a PC was great (it can be- I’ve built several myself), but aren’t you forgetting about all the shortages, supply machines issues, and scalping that happen within that industry as well? I never saw pictures of cryptofarms with tens or hundreds of PS5’s hooked up. NVIDIA, Intel, and AMD have all received criticism for not doing enough to prevent scalping for various product launches over the past few years- are you bringing the same energy to them?
Nintendo arguably has restricted supply artificially with things like Amibo and there were allegations they did so with the Wii as well. Are you boycotting them?
It’s perfectly fine to just… Not want a PS5. PC’s are good too, and a lot of people have both.
Economists are pretty famous for fighting amongst themselves. The vast majority of economists don’t agree on anything with each other.
The loudest economists tend to agree with each other. The ones whose views and supported policies happen to result in more wealth being funneled to capital holders. For some reason those people are the ones who get interviews on TV and articles published by major outlets. I wonder why that could be?
I’m not saying every “indie” economist on the Internet is valid as there’s plenty of bad ones too. But the idea that deflation is terrible certainly deserves scrutiny. Just look around… Is the populace happy with the results of the current systems and policies?
To quote one of the most famous economists, Hayek, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design”
How many people can afford to keep their money under a mattress though? According to studies last year, 57% of Americans could not afford a $1,000 expense.
Why is saving such a bad thing? There’s so many articles about how people aren’t saving enough for retirement (especially with pensions disappearing as a concept over the last several decades). I know it’s been a couple of decades, but just a couple generations ago consumers used to actually benefit from the interest on their savings. My mom likes to talk about how she used Certificates of Deposit to slowly get low-risk, passive income that exceeded the rate of inflation and her mortgage rate and helped to pay off her house. I check every few years and even now CD’s just aren’t worth bothering with because the rates are so low.
“Savings lowers spending, that’s the paradox of thrift. Keep that money in your pocket and the growth will never lift” has some truth to it, but why do we need to perpetually grow on a planet constrained with finite resources? When will our hunger be satisfied?
A lack of savings creates more volatile markets and a worse quality if life for everyone because of it. Toyota famously led the way with their “just in time” business model- reducing inventory down to the absolute bare minimum to operate (savings is not just limited to money). Pretty much every manufacturer in every industry followed suit. Toyota learned it was a bad idea when Japan was hit by an earthquake and they struggled to get parts to make cars- they then reversed course and kept a modest supply of parts on-hand. Most other companies saw this during Covid when “logistical issues” (really the greed of these businesses leading to inadequate insulation from supply chain disruption) led to shortages of almost every consumer good.
Economists seem to forget sometimes that money needs to be used for things other than passively making more money.
That’s a gross oversimplification of consumer behavior. Consumers react differently to market changes for different types of goods.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart
Only compared to recent prior rates. The full picture is that rates are final normalizing after being held absurdity low.
Cool story. Not sure how it’s relevant.
I would disagree with you on the pedantry. There would be two separate transactions: a buy buys the property from the seller, and the borrower borrows from the lender.
The property is treated as collateral, but the buyer/lender is the owner of the property. Mortgages are a bit special different from most common consumer debt because of the timing- the transactions need to be simultaneous because you need to have the collateral to get the money, and you need the money to get the property, but afterwards you still have ownership of the property.
Whether it’s a mortgage, a car, putting a latte on your credit card, or a multi-billion dollar corporate acquisition it’s the same.
That aside, the rest of your comment I agree is good advice to consider, but it’s just part of the equation. You’re assuming the mortgage is actioned as plan throughout it’s lifetime. However, the borrower has options. They might want to pay early and will save a lot of interest that way (maybe more than just interest if they have PMI). There’s also the option to refinance out of a higher rate later on.
Also… You’re comparing two different things by asking if a house listed for $300,000 is worth $700,000. In order to do a fair comparison, you need to do the same calculation for every house you consider and for the entire market you’re basing your expectations around. The only houses worth $300,000 when you factor in the interest of a 30 year mortgage would be a fraction of that cost. Or if you’re comparing to the alternative of not buying, then what you really need to compare is the cost of renting vs the interest you expect to save in whatever period you expect to defer buying for.
Except even then you can plan to refinance. There’s tradeoffs- it’s a pain and you have to pay additional costs, but if the rate is that much of a problem it’s usually worth it. Plus the additional history of a few years of mortgage will likely help your credit score.
And there’s even more context. You’re talking about buying today- my parents had immaculate credit and a huge down payment when they bought their house in the 80’s. Their interest rate was 15%. The US has had artificially low rates for decades, to the point where people are considering 6% and 7% to be “high”.
Rates will certainly impact who can or cannot afford to buy a home of course, but the only ones who are deferring purchasing at all for that reason are people viewing their home as a financial instrume that needs return on investment. If you need a home for shelter, a slightly higher rate is still a way better financial decision in the long-run than renting most of the time.
people put off buying homes and other big purchases because they know it will be cheaper later
What absolute drivel. This myth was obviously formulated by some wealthy economist who had only ever worries about purchasing vacation homes.
People put off buying homes UNTIL THEY CAN AFFORD IT. How many people does the author think are currently in the streets or renting for years just so they can save a bit on their mortgage? Completely garbage.
I feel the same and I think I’ve narrowed it down to a handful of things, in no particular order.
The environment design. Fallout is mostly wastelands, with just a few settlements scattered around. Everyone is fighting each other, plus the monsters that are encroaching on civilization. Everything is a shabby remnant of the past shoddily cobbled together. Even the entire settlement system in Fallout 4 is based on gathering scrap and taping it together. In Skyrim, you can mine and process the minerals to make the nails to put your house together. Skyrim has ruins and remnants of past civilizations, but a lot of the buildings and infrastructure are still in good condition, and there’s fresh growth. The wilds of Skyrim are much more diverse than the wastes of Fallout. Fallout 3 in particular has the annoying green filter on everything unless you mod it out. It doesn’t feel like there’s really a world left to save- it seems like everything is doomed to chaos and anarchy.
“Survival”. I would not put Fallout in a list of survival games, but it does borrow a lot of elements from the genre. I understand what they’re going for, but I don’t like the resulting gameplay. Constantly scrounging for weapons, ammo, and resources getd really boring really fast for me. Managing health and Rads too. Every combat effectively takes twice as long when you factor in the time you spend to recover the resources you used.
Guns. I know there’s a schism in the Skyrim community between those who mod in guns and those who don’t. I see a few problems with guns in Skyrim, and most apply to the vanilla Fallout games too. BGS just isn’t great at gun play. The feel of the weapons, the environmental design, ammo distribution, enemy AI, physics engine, the sound design… BGS isn’t particularly great at any of it. When the ranged combat is a supplemental element of the gameplay that’s fine- Bioshock has 2 great games despite mediocre combat mechanics, and the Elder Scrolls games are similar with their bows and ranged magic. Fallout puts the ranged combat front and center, and it falls apart.
Progression. I think this is why I love Skyrim, and the source of it’s commercial success. I was no stranger to RPG’s before Skyrim (both videogames and tabletop), but the ones I enjoyed were imusually in spite of the leveling systems. Usually a lot of grinding and overly complicated systems with points, skills, abilities, etc.
Fallout uses one of my least favorite systems- general experience gained (mostly through combat) that leads to an overall character level increase, which then grants points that can be used to improve specific skills. You want to get better at lockpicking? Go kill something. Barter, speech, science, repair, medicine… The answer is to kill something. Improve the Energy Weapons skill? You can kill something with Small Guns or Melle and it’s just as effective. It completely disconnects the actions you take as a player from the development of the character.
Skyrim is the opposite. To get better at lockpicking, you pick locks. To get better with a shield you use a shield. It’s both intuitive and satisfying. Other RPG’s boast more complexity, flexibility, or realism, but I think Skyrim really hits the sweet spot between accessibility, realism, and customization.
This also ties back to the survival aspects I mentioned earlier, because I also felt like equipment was much more important in Fallout. Your damage there is often more about what gun you’re able and willing to use than anything to do with your character. In Skyrim, a character with a high one-handed skill and perks can have pretty good damage with just about any one-handed weapon. There’s variance of course- you can tell the difference between an iron sword and dragonbone. But the smithing and enchantments mitigate a lot of those differences. If you haven’t focused on enchanting yet you might choose a lower-pedigree weapon with a better enchantment.
Tough call between the Dualsense and the Dualshocks 1-3.
The Dualsense has great features, but is large enough and bulbous enough that I’m forced to use a full palm grip. That’s good some of the time, but sometimes I like a lighter finger grip that the earlier Dualshocks allowed for. I think of it similarly to claw vs palm grips on mice. A full palm grip on either can get too sweaty over time. The Dualshock 4 is a bulbous mess that fatigues my hands. On all of them, the plastic feels premium and sturdy and really fits well together. Plastic molding is an art, and they are good at it.
I have a few 8BitDo’s and they are all good too. The Pro-2, SN30 Pro, and Ultimate C (their naming conventions are flour of control). A bit cheaper feeling than the Sony offerings, but still pretty good.
The Xbox Series controller is… Fine. The plastic feels cheap, the face buttons feel cheap, it’s too big and requires a palm grip, the R1/L1 buttons feel cheap, the d-pad is one of the worst in history. The analog sticks almost feel great except they’re too tall.
Shout-out to the Steam Deck for feeling phenomenal. Also shout-out to the RetroBit Genesis controllers- they feel really good, but the lack of sticks and fewer buttons than most modern controllers makes it hard to use for modern games.
The JoyCons are awful. Most 3rd party options are better but I still haven’t found one that I really like.
The GameCube and N64 both feel kind of cheap. I think the plastic is a bit thin, and the sticks and buttons rattle around slightly.
If I’m interpreting this correctly, it sounds like a couple of election officials just put absentee ballots in with regular ballots instead of… I assume they should have been set aside for vetting? The article doesn’t say what should have happened. The article doesn’t really go into the impact- seems like they just really, REALLY wanted to print a headline about Democrats meddling in the elections process.
When I think of “stuffing” I think of people creating wholly illegitimate ballots, which does not seem to be what happened here.
Also worth noting that this was for the Democratic primary for a mayoral position in 2019, and some of that info probably should have been in the headline.