Using a robotic voice could make the game more accessible to blind, partially sighted, and dyslexic individuals. I’m not sure how an AI voice is inherently different than the voice that comes out of a screen reader, especially if it’s trained on the voice of employees or volunteers.
When you vote for a candidate you hate you’re telling them that they don’t have to change their platform to have your support. People making safe votes against their own interests is precisely why the people in power get away with all this bullshit. Don’t waste your vote by giving it to someone who doesn’t stand for what you believe in.
An employer could offer an immediate $15,000 signing bonus to anyone who already has the certification, effectively outsourcing their training costs while pocketing the extra 5k of the 20k true cost
That sounds like a nightmare! I don’t think game developers (or any other artist) would want the CRA breathing down their neck, telling them what they can or can’t do with their work. I certainly wouldn’t program under those conditions.
This would be an issue if the servers use any proprietary code, libraries, or services the developer is not at liberty to distribute.
A studio may also to reuse their networking code for a sequel, and it would suck being forced to release that just because an older title got discontinued - could lead to exploits, or just competitors profiting off of your hard work with no compensation in exchange.
I’m not comfortable with the idea of the government dictating what developers must do with their games. There are legitimate legal, financial, and artistic reasons they may not want to be forced to distribute in that way.
I think that it’s the responsibility of consumers to make sure they have the level of ownership over the games they like. I personally don’t really like to invest into live service games for this reason, but I do enjoy playing them on occasion and appreciate that they’re free to play and receive constant updates. Forcing the Deves to open source their code at the end of the game’s life cycle would jeopardize their vision and our ability to play games like them.
Your definition doesn’t seem to be correct. This article mentions government granted monopolies (i.e hydro) and states monopolies (i.e healthcare).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly
Contrary to what I said earlier, residents of certain provinces have been complaining that the quality of their healthcare has been substandard, and are upset that there are no alternatives available as the law forbids private doctors from even setting up shop there.
What’s wrong with a monopoly if people are satisfied with it’s service? In Canada, the government has a monopoly on healthcare and generally people don’t complain.
I suspect if we banned the ability to earn profits from farming, there wouldn’t be many people who would want to farm. Personally, I’d rather choose an unprofitable job that was less exhausting, like being a starving artist.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What about partially sighted or dyslexic individuals? Sure, a game like halo would need a lot of modification to be fully blind accessible, but a visual novel, for instance, might not. In my experience most visual novels are built as passion projects on shoestring budgets.
Lots of existing games have robotic narrators already (e.g minecraft), they just speak with a monotone voice. By incorporating more advance machine learning capabilities the same narrator could be capable of outputting a more nuanced and pleasant delivery for those that need it.