Something I find interesting about xbox discounting game pass, but removing CoD, is that it's a tacit acknowledgement that the ABK deal was part of the reason for pushing the price up, and acquisitions/mergers pushing up prices is the one thing that anti-trust regulators are supposed to care about.

What this chart says to me is that we shouldn't have to be thinking about a PS6 until the PS5 can get down to US$300. Maybe $350 at a stretch.

I have on and off for years, but I don't think it will be for everyone, or even most gamers, regardless of the price. Most people just don't want to consume games like that, and I don't see that changing in a hurry.

In google's case, it might be worth noting that the idea of the Star Trek computer - a single system you can ask anything in natural language and get a response - was what they set out to create from the start, so AI search is in line with their original reason for existing.

I wonder how many programmers winced reading this?

Why impose higher taxes on the companies using the AI models when we could go straight to the source and impose (very) high taxes on the companies selling the models?
Specifically the ones built on public data.

"I'm not after a single dollar" says man seeking to destroy a direct competitor.

As a type-1 diabetic (and more than a little OCD), I find the idea that someone would volunteer to live like this to be a little baffling. It certainly wouldn't have occurred to me to recommend it to anyone.

Paying out based on playtime creates some negative incentives, but trying to imagine a system that rewards "All killer, no filler" is surprisingly difficult.

Others have probably already pointed this out, but asking an AI why it got something wrong is futile - they are incapable of introspection, and as such can only try to generate a plausible-sounding explanation for what might have gone wrong. If it's correct about that, it's probably a coincidence.

The label is printed right->left and it's asking you to choose your DOOM. You might be tempted to pick the heart (death by kindness) over the explosion, though the latter is more likely to be a quick way to go.

Even if DLSS 5 didn't look like it was trying to apply 'beauty filters' to videogames, the core premise that games should be aspiring to photorealism needs to be questioned more.

Enjoyed my brief time with Botany Manor - it's not often you get to play as an old British Green(e).

If you're going to make an "If you ban X, you'd have to ban Y" argument, first you should check if people are excited about banning Y as well.

Years ago this was the pitch for blockchain in games. How about you first make a single successful example of these ideas in practice and only THEN conclude that it's the future of everything?
Or are you concerned the bottom would have dropped out of the AI market by then?

Maybe next time, try the "careful consideration" before you launch.

You simply cannot deny that having more money will help them pay the bills. Money is really good for that kind of thing.

Also from the screenshots that could be concept art file - #PlanetOfLana2

Seems legit?

Indie devs everywhere:

It wasn't enough that the whole AI boom is based on taking everyone's writing without compensation, now a company is claiming the right to imitate real writers just because their work is publicly available.

They were also very confused about the idea of inviting the rest of the world to a world series, but couldn't find legal grounds to argue that one. 😜

MIO is one of those "most screenshots could pass for concept art" kinda games, and I'm really digging it.

I'm clearly not a big fan of any of the big AI companies, but Anthropic just made Trump throw an ALL CAPS tantrum, and for that I salute them.

Seems like a lot of game journalists want to write about what "went wrong" with Highguard, as if the default for games is that they're successful out of the gate and have plenty of runway to iterate towards greatness, and something really uniquely unfortunate must have happened here.

Is it weird that this is happening only after america decided everything should be gambling?

"We opted you into AI ads that misrepresent your characters, you should thank us for doing it and if you ask us to stop we might not" is really an amazing summary of big tech at the moment.

Hasn't "wellness" always been a vague, hand-wavey term for the general concept of being healthy? Perhaps it had a defined term as far as regulation was concerned, but even then it seems to be defined by what it's not - something proven to offer important medical guidance?

Getting my 4-yearly reminder that curling is rad. A stone can be in motion for over 20s, which I think makes for a super-suspenseful sport.

The future we were afraid of vs the future we should have been afraid of.
c/o @404media.co