What they didn’t mention is that Baldur’s Gate is a Dungeons and Dragons franchise. DnD is magnitudes more popular than it was when BG2 released, to the point of being at worst nearly mainstream. What has sold people on BG3 is being able to play their tabletop game in video game form.

I do think Larian’s pedigree and the Baldur’s Gate name were contributors to its success, but if there was one driving factor it’s the brand recognition of DnD with the marketing of an AA to AAA game.

Saying you were 13/14 when horse armor came out doesn’t help your case arguing against their comment. It just means you were prime gaming age when dlc, map packs, and smaller content were replacing larger expansions. The acceptance of those (which based on your demographic you probably did accept) made it easier to transition to more and more egregious micro transactions.

There used to be (maybe still are) complete games released on mobile. They usually cost $6.99 and didn’t need more. If they want Elden Ring on mobile without tarnishing its reputation, they could sell a complete experience for $10 or $15 since it’s been a decade since those $6.99 prices. That’s what Elden Ring was and it was widely praised. That’s what the rest of their games have done and that has turned out well for them.

There may be servers for the multiplayer, but based on the fact none of the other From Soft games charged for it the cost must be minimal.

To read their comment generously as I did initially, calling it a "quote of hearsay" is calling the validity of the citation so far removed from being trustworthy it doesn't deserve the word. Granted, it would be doing this without explicitly stating so or supporting it with any evidence or arguments.
To be honest, I'm not convinced by this source. We don't know who made the claim, we know a guy that wrote a DnD book a year and a half ago told a youtuber they exist and said it. That's a step or two removed from where I would trust it.

Hunter: I want those berries
Gatherer: I want that meat
They swap their stuff
A trade-based economy ensues

Well that sure is a paragraph composed of sentences with words. It even has all the words from the headline in it! Too bad there’s no humor in it.

As someone who just learned of these a week ago, you’re one of today’s lucky 10,000! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chopped_cheese

Yeah, but behind that wrong side is a valid person, and without a discussion you’ll never know how they ended up on that wrong side. Without knowing how they got there, you’ll never be able to sway them away from the wrong side and they will continue to be wrong.

I think everyone has something worth saying, but in the majority of cases I just don’t have the time, energy, or patience to get to that something.

If the author no longer has passion for his OSS project, and isn’t being paid for it, why is he still working on it? Why should he feel responsible for companies building their processes on a free piece of software without guaranteed support? Why the heck is he sacrificing sleep for something he claims not to care about anymore? It sounds to me like he’s not living his values.

If compensation for volunteer work is mandated, it becomes less volunteer work and more of a part(or in some cases full)-time job. My understanding is that a core pillar of open source software is that anyone can contribute to it, which should make it easier for contributors to come and go. Based on the graph shown it would take more than a full-time job worth of money to meet his demand, which seems unlikely in any case, and it’s time for him to go. Either someone else will volunteer to pick up the slack, the companies using it will pay someone to pick up the slack like the author mentioned, or the software will languish, degrade, and stop being used.

I don’t see how any of those outcomes suggest that people need to be paid for the time they voluntarily give. I could get behind finding better ways to monetarily support those who do want to get paid, but “how could it be easier to pay OSS contributors after their passion is gone?” is a lot less provocative of a headline.

30 seconds for what?

There is a chapter or two from a book by philosopher Derek Parfit that tackles the transporter issue pretty head-on. It draws what I feel to be a pretty compelling distinction between the continuity of your conscious mind, referred to as Relation R, and the personal identity that is lost when using the transporter. He then asks which is more important. Worth a read if this stuff interests you.

I was reading a blog post that talks about exactly how much the author is able to put in the public domain. My understanding is that Willingham has a fairly individualized contract with DC that he is grandfathered in on and is rather abnormal nowadays and gives him more control. DC has been trying to, as stated above, “reinterpret” that contract to give them more control.

Essentially, DC may own the rights to the individual products they published, but the world and characters Willingham created can be used outside of those in new or reimagined context.

I actually think this is one of the few times I’ve seen the template used 100% correctly. The original comic had the dog wanting to play fetch, then saying “No ball” when the person tries to get the ball they need to play fetch. The dog then demands fetch again, despite having denied the person what they need to do so.

Regardless of this meme’s accuracy, I do not understand how it misuses the comic template as a user asks for a bug fix, refuses to share the details needed to complete the bug fix, then demands the bug fix once again, just as the dog does with playing fetch and the ball. Could you please explain your thinking?