I'm wondering if going back to cheaper and less capable hardware will actually result in better games. Forcing creativity, and maybe (by necessity) dropping the constant push for higher fidelity graphics. I think that push for fidelity is so costly that a large number of game developers don't even attempt to innovate in the rest of game design anymore.
> For the ps6, they were already done with design and they'd need to let that go to waste to not put it out.
I guess nobody can predict the future, but this sounds like the sunk cost fallacy. E.g., if it's not going to sell well enough to recoup manufacturing costs, then producing the console will be more costly than just wasting the design effort anyway.
Maybe they don't need mass market sales to at least break even?
> The author knows the orientation of his language better than anyone else.
^ I was only addressing this comment, not the specifics of Odin.
> Odin is a general purpose language; is capable of being used in numerous different areas from application development, servers, graphics, games, kernels, CLI/TUIs, etc.
I would argue that being capable of doing anything is not in conflict with being oriented around something specific. Any Turing complete language is capable of those things.
Again, I don't even know Odin, so I'm not addressing whether or not it is game dev oriented. Only that the arguments themselves don't seem sound.
I'm not sure I completely understand which part you find backwards. Do you mean merging language runtimes and the OS is a bad idea, or that you think merging them would lead to more innovation?
I can see an argument for both (in terms of innovation), but being able to run only one language environment on a computer at a given time would make it much harder and heavy weight to use new languages. Or at the very least, new language runtimes.
Yeah, I kinda feel like when you're mentoring people, you should let them drive. If you're going to do it for them, you might as well just record a training video.
> But with LLMs generating 7101 commits in less than a month that isn't feasible.
I don't think trying to understand LLM generated code is feasible for anything other than very small projects. IMO it's a big problem with using LLMs for coding. Sure, they can generate a bunch of stuff, but in some ways that just makes the real problems of software development even harder.
Given his work on Smalltalk, I suspect he means that he prefers the line between language runtime and operating system to be erased, and they be the same thing.
I disagree though. While there are benefits to that approach, I feel like language innovation would be stifled to a certain degree.
What I find especially weird is that I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone describe vim as a puzzle that's fun to solve. The most common sentiment is that it has a learning curve, but ends up being worth it.
> The side-effect most people didn't consider is that you never really own a digital copy.
This is true for consoles, but on GoG for example you can download the DRM offline installer for the games you buy. So going purely digital doesn't have to be terrible on its own. But of course, for consoles it will be.
> Yeah, Sony is stupid to be leaving money on the table like that
Are they though? Console sales have been dropping. It's only money left on the table if people are also purchasing consoles & games in the same quantities. How many people are just not buying these games because they are digital only?
TBH though, I think the ship has sailed a long time ago. Many games with physical media aren't really playable without downloadable updates anyway. Another reason the modern gaming experience has gotten worse.
But what's the point of even releasing the next console? The current console generation has barely gotten started, and developers have barely taken advantage of the new hardware.
Maybe they need to look at releasing a cheaper console and making more quality games instead of constantly pushing so hard on graphics. Graphics help sales to an extent, but it's clearly not the whole story, given the popularity of the Wii or Switch. I think the people in charge no longer understand gaming, and are really struggling to produce games that will draw in large crowds again.
> So I think their strategy is to abandon the mass market and sell to price unconscious consumers who will also pay more for games.
Kinda seems like it. I'm curious to see what happens with that, because even people who so far have been willing to pay more will stop being customers if they can't produce an experience that's worth paying for. Maybe I'm in the minority, but the first-party PlayStation games all feel very samey to me.
> For the ps6, they were already done with design and they'd need to let that go to waste to not put it out.
I guess nobody can predict the future, but this sounds like the sunk cost fallacy. E.g., if it's not going to sell well enough to recoup manufacturing costs, then producing the console will be more costly than just wasting the design effort anyway.
Maybe they don't need mass market sales to at least break even?