I guess I’m still not following how if I’m using say the nvidia geforce screen recording software which is capturing the display of my screen how the browser knows. Since the browsers has already gotten the image and displayed it and the recorder is recording the display instead of, intercepting (I suppose is the best word) the data before it is displayed.

Netflix being an application that is running on a TV seems like a very different situation than a video playing inside of a browser. How exactly would YouTube know or be able to stop screen recording short of forcing me to actively run a program?

Maybe I’m not following but this seems to be talking about applications communicating with hardware designed to be authorized to play.

How would a video playing on a browser like YouTube on my existing, old hardware be able to parse what’s authorized? Short of making YouTube a program on my computer, how does it on a browser know what else I’m running?

I already just use screen capture recording to take videos in my desktop playing YouTube on a browser. Could they even stop that?

Absolutely iconic moment during the transition.

Am I going to have to sit through an unreasonable amount of jiggling tits?

No not at all. The only boob jiggle type moment I can think of happens many episodes in and lasts about 5 seconds. Default throughout the show you aren’t getting constant creepshot angles or focus on fanservice. The show is, more or less, of a wholesome tone that sometimes dips into some series moments. There is a catgirl later on, but she’s actually like cat-girl with an emphasis on cat like behavior and is a good character who is dressed slightly lighter than everyone else but nothing you’d think twice of seeing.

The show is good. Developed characters and episode to episode they are usually focused on problem solving whatever is in their way to get to the next step for their overall goal.

I have no way to crop it that doesn’t have the background of where I live in view, so no cat pic here.

It’s not a “Christian game”, its a game where the setting is a violent, fractured place and Christianity has a large in-universe footprint, influencing factions.

Iron Tower Studio games makes quite good RPGs.

How would you, in general terms, construct an arrangement between a publisher that is funding development, and a developer? How would the agreement hold a developer to certain standards without any kind of time or budget limitations?

I’m not trying to be cute. If a publishing company gives money to a developer who is a separate entity to make a game, they’ve got to have some kind of contract. If there is no timeline or total budget written into the initial contract, how could a publisher pull out of that agreement?

If the answer is going to be “publishers can just pull out when they feel like it” then that’s neither adhering to the “let devs develop ‘until it is done’.” philosophy that is the entire point of this hypothetical restructure, and it for practical terms it does impose a deadline based on the publisher’s patience, except now that deadline is not expressly clear and simply defined.

If publishers can’t simply pull out on a whim, then without some kind of limiting factor that denotes a failure to perform where by a specific time a publisher can point to that failure, it can’t really be functional contract. Saying “the game must have x, y, z features” but never putting a time or budget limit in place means the developers can never have failed at implementing the features because they just haven’t gotten around to it yet.

In a publisher fronting money to developer situation, without a fixed time limit (or money limit, which functionally translates to a time limit) is the publisher just infinitely on the hook to pay for dev time “until it’s done”?

Let’s look at the initial comment in the chain:

all game developers need to put their foot down and say “it’s ready when it’s ready.”

No marketing deadlines, no “crunch time,” make the game until the game is made

It isn’t saying publishers should be more flexible about deadline delays, it is saying there simply shouldn’t be deadlines at all.

Shoveling infinite money at a developer who tells you it will be ready when it’s ready is the Chris Roberts model of game development. While it certainly produces interesting results, it is unrealistic and undesirable to expect it as the standard.

Games that are developing well but need a little more time to fix issues should be given flexibility by publishers, but at the end of the day there are stretch ideas and content that has to be cut. Doing that cutting and keeping the project focused is what a lead on the dev team should be doing throughout the entire development. If a game has a realistic deadline given the expected scope and the dev team comes back and says they actually need another year of production, then it is worth looking into if that extra time is going to make the game a year’s worth of investment better or not.

Publishers are considering return on investment. In a model where they are providing the game budget to the studio, every delay means more money out of their pocket. Case by case it might be worth it, but just allowing developers to infinitely say it’s “almost ready, just one more delay” isn’t reasonable.

I know from the hard core gamer audience that discusses this stuff online there is often this vibe that nothing should be cut from games. People look at various interesting cut content and lament it for not getting enough time, but there is always going to be cut content.

If there isn’t a lead on the development team putting their foot down to control the scope and focus the team, and a similar push for focus by a publisher you get a meandering unfocused project that goes over budget.

In the solo/small amateur team dev, self-publishing model that ROI pressure isn’t coming externally from a separate publisher. It is means solo devs are making their first games usually on a budget of nothing, as a side project to their day jobs. In some cases like with Concerned Ape it turns out great. In many cases development comes out tediously slowly, like with Death Trash. In innumerable cases the games just die.

In cases like Wasteland 2 it was a full professional team working full time using crowdfunding. An alternate model, but still limited by budget pressure. There was no publisher to pay back, but when the crowd funding money was gone, it was gone. That game did come out and it was enjoyable, but clearly it wasn’t “done when it’s done” levels of polish by the team since they used the profits from the game to release a “Director’s Cut” which was a whole polishing pass on the game they simply couldn’t afford the first time.

The above comments were talking about how this policy should apply to every game development project. Which is a nice thought, but not realistic for every situation.

I have no doubt creating the design was much less intensive than his rambling story, but the company spent the money on him specifically and I’m sure they expected the rambling story.

That’s why I hate this part of art culture, the fakeness of it all. The obvious fakeness that people clap for because they think it makes them look more intelligent by nodding along.

The corporation wanted to give him all that money. They are both playing a stupid game.

I’d say I agree with the instinct to just get that bag, but the fact that such people even exist and the fact that they steer the culture of the art world drives me crazy. The CIA has done irreparable damage to art.

Andy Kaufman tier.

Even if that is factual, the company went to this high profile designer because they wanted a story to go along with their logo.

It was a completely sunny afternoon with a clear view of the highway (stressing afternoon which means the high had been in full sun all day to especially melt any possible ice), with the snow pushed aside two days ago, the highway salted on the days before the day in question; not a puddle or dark spot in sight on the highway.

No need for snow tires as it was direct tire to asphalt contact with no snow or ice on the highway itself. It was the best possible visibility for driving. If somebody is going 35 in those conditions on a 65 highway, they should not be driving.

Obviously they overpaid, but it was the company’s choice in a form of conspicuous consumption.

I feel conflicted because graphic design is a necessary job, but just from skimming over Kenya Hara’s history and work he strikes me as an avatar of all the most pretentious and pseudo-intelligent aspects of the modern culture of art that I hate.

The claim that it took him four years to design the logo is, on its face, garbage, but for people like him the process and the story of making the logo is how he created and maintains a veneer of being deep and working on a heightened creative and intellectual level. Had he taken the contract and returned in a week with the exact same logo and said “Yeah I messed around a little in photoshop and I think it looks pretty nice.” then it wouldn’t be worth $300,000. Everything in the world of these people needs an overdrawn explanation and story of creation and meaning and it makes me want to projectile vomit on or near them.