- You said yourself that a lot of gamepass subscriptions were on PC. You know how many people own PCs?
- That's what happened with the Xbox one X and the PS4 pro. Game devs want to make their games look best for trailers, so the graphics will be focused on instead of optimizing for the lower tiered consoles. It'l be like "if you want stable 60fps, you'll need the PS5 pro".
- Starfield already didn't come to the PS5. There even was a version for the PS5 in development.
Prunebutt
joined 10 months ago
Sony has sold double the consoles this generation (60 vs 30 million I think).
Sold consoles isn't that great of a cathegory to judge the two, since both lose money on every sold unit.
And the Series S is very unpopular with devs, increasing the complexity of developing games for Xbox to get just half the PS market.
Get ready for the same thing to happen on the vanilla PS5. Devs will target the PS5 pro for trailer footage and the games will run like shit on the old PS5.
Game Pass is popular, but it’s just one stream of revenue, and a lot people are only using it on PC
It's very cheap to offer and if they don't need to sell xboxes to have a wider customer base, that's a bonus - not a drawback.
but Sony and Nintendo is dominating console gaming, with MS lagging far behind
We'll see how far they'll be lagging behind once they leverage their Call of duty monopoly.
I'm curious: How do you think someone "shit the bed" with xbox, when Gamepass is incredibly popular and successful?
The thing you're evangelizing only leads to more consolidation of power and money, loss of jobs and power for the working class and climate devastation.
Students "correcting" their teachers on AI bullshit isn't "from years ago".
Old examples of AI I counted used to be the bleeding edge of AI research. Now they're an old hat. The same thing will happen to LLMs. And LLMs won't lead to so-called "AGI", just like the other examples didn't.
Every word in every language changes over time. The term AI changing is the absolute normal. It's not some mark against it.
Lumping machine learning algorithms, llms, regressive learning, search algorithms all in one bucket and calling it "AI" serves no proper purpose. There is no consensus, it's not a clear definition, it's not convenient and it only helps sell bullshit. Llms aren't intelligent. Calling them that is the opposite of useful.
Current llms are phenomenally beneficial for some things.
Namely: the portfolio of tech shareholders and grifters.
Millions of developers have had their entire careers completely changed.
Lol, no. What's your source for this?
Teachers are able to grade work in 10% of the time.
Poor students.
Children through to college students and anyone interested in learning have infinitely patient tutors on demand 24 hours a day.
Have you heard of the stories where students believed some AI bullshit more than what their teacher told them? Great "tutor" you have there.
The fact that you are completely clueless about what is going on
Sure, bud. /s
It just means that you not only feel like you are "beyond learning", it also means that you don't even have people in your life that are still interested in personal growth, or you are too shallow to have conversations with anyone who is.
Oh, please tell me more about my life, stranger on the internet! /s
What an asshole, seriously.
Have fun in your tech cult, you ableist bootlicker.
They don't exist in an onthological sense, yes. (They are completely deontological; they don't exist in the real world via representation, like vectors or matrices)
This is not about identification. I am a human (which is not a social construct) which exists in the real world. Statistical models don't exist in an onthological sense.
You're not stating anything different than my "correlation" statement.
Why? The argument was that MS wouldn't make CoD exclusive, when they've made the highly anticipated Starfield exclusive.