I'm pretty sure it's because it's in fact 'just' a cool side effect to a common network architecture optimisation from the time where you could'nt send the 'state' of the entire game even with only delta modifiers and so you make the game detertministic to only synchronize inputs :) an exemple article I remember : https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/1500-archers-on-a-...
The main downside which probably caused the diseapearance is that any patch to the game will make the replay file unusable.
Also at the time (not sure for quake) there was often fixed framerate, today the upsides of using delta time based frame calculation AND multithreading/multi platform target probably make it harded to stay deterministic (specialy for game where you want to optimize input latency)
Not from the article : Before you walk in, a supercomputer predicted which choice you'd make, and put $1000000 in the opaque box if it predicted you'd take just the one, or $0 if it predicted you'd take both.
So the amount of money in the black box don't change whatever you REALLY pick.
Either the predicator would have guessed you'd pick both and there is 0$ in black box, in that case you have interest to take both boxes and win $1000 which is better than zero.
Or it predicted you would only take the black box, put $1000000 in it and then again you win more by taking the two boxes.
I don't get the 'choice' : the content of the box is aldready defined when you take your decision so taking it won't change the content of the black box and the open/transparent box have no drawback. What am I missing ?
Was really helpfull when making international phone call to services like IRS or sometime good providers. Trying to spell out my french name and long adress or some order number with my strong accent was such a pain until then ^^
"So using electricity instead of natural gas in your home is wasteful."
I (genuinely) wonder if what's true. I remember thinking the same things about electric car "how can burning fuel in a factory, storing it, send it thought line for kilometers and then store them in a car batteries and then feed the motor be more efficient than burning fuel directly in the motor" and was proven false.
Assuming we aldready have the electric lines of course. (I also dont know the ergy waste of packaging the gaz in usable bottle, move them and retrive them, I assume it's significant, maybe i'm wrong).
I also think the 'client side' mechanic is bad, but why does it should mater for investors and companies ?
Is it morally so different than say an Apple fan (I pick a random exemple of more expensive products than average where not everyone would agree they are technically superior, whoever may be right) who will argue the brand is worth the value, because if he don't, that mean he is an idiot ? (you may say at least here there is a physical good, but in gaming, nft are technically nothing more than DLC).
You are probably right about no one never did wanted to pay, and that's natural. The thing is companies want (and need) you to pay. Making people pay for games is hard and mainly a thing of the past, no wonder they try new things in case they catch up no ?
I think "effective rebranding for marketing purposes of database technologies" alone justify all the fuss, business wise.
I'm working in gaming, and in pc gaming today, when you ask 5$ pretax and preplatform fee, customers think you own them to dedicate your entire company to support the product fot the next 10 years for no additional fee, you will never heard of 90% of your customers, 5% will insult you on your steam page for any trouble they encountered, 4% will insult you and your game on youtube and social media for entertainement and self promotion, and maybe 1% will have positive feedback.
Meanwhile with a good marketing, you can potentially sell low effort proceduraly generated random png 30$ to 3000$ piece in blockchain collection/games and each of your customer will probably actually spend time promoting your game even if he disliked it, if nothing to resell that it bought or earn interests.
Of course i'm greatly exaggerating, but no wonder gaming company dream to develop the market.
And I think video game market today is awfull. Every one want everything for free and no one want to actually pay. It's probaly a big part of why VR market is nearly empty : investing what is required to make good content is probably nearly impossible to recover on sales.
It need a way to reinvent itself and allow content maker to make profits, and it may be the blockchain where it's 'normal' to pay around 100$ to try a new game and be ready to see it fail more often than not.
The fact it's purely psychological is irrelevant marketing and business wise. I even think today the console market exist for purely commercial reasons. Console player accept to spend more on video game than computer players. Then developping for console make sense, even if probably today you could probably have exactly the same game on a same price range computer.
SEEKING WORK: Remote - Team of three unity game developpers working full time on Virtual Reality Projects for 3 years. Experienced with multiplayer games.
Have ported a multiplayer game to Oculus Quest.
We may provide sounds, music and graphical assets by hiring local freelancers or work with yours.
Fully equipped with professional Unity licences, Most existing VR Headsets, working build and delivery platform.
The main downside which probably caused the diseapearance is that any patch to the game will make the replay file unusable. Also at the time (not sure for quake) there was often fixed framerate, today the upsides of using delta time based frame calculation AND multithreading/multi platform target probably make it harded to stay deterministic (specialy for game where you want to optimize input latency)