As someone who works in gamedev, I’m sure that some of the people there are passionate about it and it is gutwrenching to see your work fail so hard. I’m sad for every project that launches after years of work and fails to get any attention or sales, and I’m definitely sure there’s someone losing sleep due to that.

I never worked in super-large projects, but I did work for a AAA studio and even there, you got people invested into the project.

From how I’ve seen it, you wouldn’t work in gamedev unless you are passionate about it, because you can get drastically better pay for the same job in other, more business focused, industries. So, if all you cared about is money, you have better options.

This has to be illegal, right? It’s blatant manipulation.

It’d say that exactly what most of the haters are not getting. This is not supposed to be a Pokemon game. It’s a survival crafting and basebuilding game, that uses Pokemon for a great effect and neatly integrates some of the aspects of Pokemon games to fit into the genre.

Exactly! The game is pretty great case study on how to combine different genres together and make them work, while also being a prime example of how really important theming is.

I haven’t actually played their previous game, Craftopia, but it looks like that both the “using animals in bases” and “catching animals into spheres” was there too, to the point where Palworlds are getting really close to just being mostly a reskin.

But that illustrates really well how much does different theming works wonders for game feel. The mechanic while in Craftopia, with normal animals, wasn’t really much of note. But just by simply reskinning them to a colorful monster collecting game, instead of regular animals, the game feel entirely different, the mechanic is way much more fun to interact with, and it completely changes the game.

Sure, they did build some changes on top of how it worked in Craftopia, and switched the game around to be mostly build around it, but a lot of the elements remain the same, only in a different skin.

And that’s a really good case study in game and themic design, and I really love it.

For that, I really like what they have done, and the game has been so far really fun, even while being only EA. Sure, they still have a long way to go, but I’m really interrested in what direction will they take the game, and I’m really glad they choose the mix of genres they did, and that they mixed and matched elements from other games in a clever fashion, where nothing feels like it was just slapped into the game just because it’s popular. It’s taking the best ideas from other games, and uses them to a great effect together.

I also don’t mind them choosing the traditional Pokemon visual style, because it’s just the best fit for this kind of game. There is a reason why almost every Souls-like game looks like Dark Souls, because the atmosphere just fits into the mood and gameplay the genre is going for. The same can be said about monster collection games.

However, I’m a little bit worried about some red flags raised about the studio - namely that their history with supporting and finishing EA projects is a little bit wonky (although, it can be explained by them coming up with Palworlds concept, and liking it so much that they just immediately switched over to obviously way, way better concept for a game), and also the fact that one of the developers was tweeting about how AI can be used to circumvent copyright by just letting it generate designs similar to other existing products, while making an example on Pokemon. That’s not really a good look, when you’re working on a game that is also a monster collecting game and you don’t want to be accused of stealing design without making it yourself. And that, especially combined with the fact that Palwords is mostly just a re-skin of Craftopia that has been polished a little bit, may be a red flag that indicates that this may have indeed be just a quick attempt at low-effort cash-grab, where they threw Pokemons to AI to change them a little bit without taking any effort at designing original monsters.

But none of that is a concrete proof, and I still believe and hope that instead of a cheap cash-grab, they really do love the game idea and are excited to work and iterate on it, and will not abandon the game for next project once the hype dies down. Time will tell, but I really hope that it’s the latter.

Thats why I’m so conflicted about it, because its pretty difficult to find out whether its the level of Ubisoft corporate greed, asset flipping based on whats currently cool, and then just abandoning it for other new thing, or just an indie studio that’s trying to do their best, but discovered mid-development an amazing idea that’s way better than what they have been working on so far.

There’s a lot of red flags, which I’m concerned about, but I also really like what they came up with and hope that it’s not just a cash grab based solely on current grey zone in copyright infringement, that’s abusing generative AI for that effect. I don’t blame them for benign excited about generative AI, but in this situation and given their history, its unfortunately definitely a red flag.

I’m really conflicted about this game. I really love the idea from game design standpoint, it’s a perfect mix of genres, while also serves as an amazing case study in how theming is really important for games. Craftopia apparently had exactly the same capture mechanics, but with real animals instead of monsters, and you could also use the animals to work on your base. No one really cared about it too much.

But reskinning it from animals to fantasy monsters/pokemon, suddenly entirely changed the feel of the mechanic and made it much better. And that is a really simple change, but with such a great impact, and a really important lesson in game and theme design.

I also kind of understand that they have given up on Craftopia and started pursuing this project instead - while it sucks for people who enjoyed Craftopia, the idea of mixing monster collecting game with a survival game is genius, and works really, really well. It makes so many simple mechanics much more fun to interact with, once you’re doing it with your Pokemon instead of by yourself (or through an automation machine). But implementing it into Craftopia would not be feasible, and I don’t really fault them that much for deciding to start mostly from scratch.

I also don’t really mind that they’ve decided to use the Pokemon aesthetics - it’s a look that fits this genre well, and it’s kind of OK to just go with it - I mean, almost every souls-like game tries to look like Dark Souls and give the same vibe, because it just fits so well with the overall theme. So, IMO going for the same look that has been proven is fine. But, and this is why I’m conflicted about it, it’s really really not good when you have members of your team tweeting how you’ve figured out a way how to bypass copyrights using AI, giving example on pictures of Pokemon, boasting how they look different yet you probably won’t be able to tell which ones are original, and which are generated.

And now that I’ve seen this video, it’s way worse than I thought. I literally couldn’t tell the difference between the game I’ve spent playing last two days, and the Pokemon mod. The monsters look almost exactly the same, making it seem like they really did just go with “lets feed Pokemon into AI”. And that sucks.

On the other hand, I think the developers are getting too much flak for liking AI in games. I’ve seen them being criticized for their other game, that is a party game where you give prompts to AI to generate pictures, and then vote which of the players didn’t know what theme the pictures should be about. That’s a pretty funny and great idea, and I don’t see why it’s shown around as a proof that this developer is evil.

Are they? I don’t know. The game designer in me hopes that they got excited for the Palworld idea, cut some corners (which is suspicious and pretty sad), but abandoned Craftophia just so they can work on a project that’s amazing idea that wasn’t done before, and that they will focus on it in the future. Unfortunately, it’s starting to look more and more that it’s really just a quick cash-grab, where they just asset-flipped their game to make a quick buck, and will forget about it once the hype dies down.

I hope that’s not the case, and that they really do enjoy working for the game, and are as excited as I am about the potential of the concept. I guess we’ll see in the follwing months and years.

You are right I shouldn’t have equaled bitcoin with the rest of the crypto ecosystem. While most crypto is utter scam, it’s true that there have been some slight advances here and there, and there are coins that may be actually useful for some cases, mostly Monero and I suppose Ethereum. I’d still say that crypto has done more harm than good in the world, and I say that as someone who’s really focused at privacy, care about it a lot and have invested significant amount of time and effort into staying as private as possible.

But it’s great that Ethereum managed to solve most of the issues with Bitcoin - unless I’m mistaken, it’s not really used for investment speculation, and if it managed to keep the energy requirements low, that’s good. But last time I remember researching about blockchain (it was few months, so feel free to correct me), isn’t it running into serious issues with ledger size, that makes it infeasible for long-term (decades) of use, without sacrificing some of it’s guarantees? Which is one of the main issues with blockchain tech in general, that I don’t think has been solved so far.

I agree, Nexus isn’t oblidged to host your files. I wasn’t aware of the authors other mods and goal to purge diversity from the game - which makes it absolutely OK to not want him on your platform, and I agree with removing it.

But when I took the mod at a face value, without this context, I really don’t see any problem with it, especially compared to all other gender changing mods on Nexus. Which made their reason not to include it seem like pandering because someone took an issue with it. Now I know that was not the case, and that there was malicious and pretty awfull intent and message behind the mod. But without that, I still think the mod would be OK, and taking it down would be unfair, just because some vocal people took issue with it - which is how the situation looked like from the article. But that’s not the case, and I was mistaken, so it’s solved.

Yeah, I wasn’t aware of the context of the author working on other mods like that, that are purging every diverse character from the game. I totally agree that then it shouldn’t be there, I was just taking the mod at a face value and comparing it to other gender-changing mods, which still were there. Given the author’s intent and rhetorics, he shouldn’t be given a platform to speak.

You are right, I wasn’t aware of the context - the authors goal to just eradicate diversity from the game, and that makes it perfectly ok of not wanting to have someone like that on your platform. But taking the mod at a face value, I didn’t see what’s the fuss about, now I get it.

I was just surprised why did people find the mod that much offensive. I wasn’t aware that the authors intent wasn’t to just change one character into different gender, but to effectively purge all diversity from the game, including the racial one.

That changes my point of view, because then it makes absolute sense why you wouldn’t allow someone like that on your platform. That was the context I was missing. But if I took the mod at face value, without the rest of the anti-diversity modpack this mod was made for, I still don’t see an issue with wanting to change one characters gender for your own playthough, or a reason why to remove such mod from your platform, especially compared to all other “change this character to female” mods that Nexusmods is full of. But given the context, Nexusmods are in the right here, of not wanting to support someone with so blatant propaganda.

It’s just a PR stunt by Nexus mods. And I really hate companies doing PR stunts like these, because you can be sure that they are insincere and most of the time only exploit the diversity and inclusivity as a part of their marketing campaign. It’s just like companies waving rainbow flags on their logo for Pride, while donating millions of dollars to anit-gay politicans. .

I totally agree with your second sentence, that it makes the game more believable and (at least for me), and BG3 is such an amazing game thanks to their character cast.

However, why would it be dumb to make such a mod? Sure, it’s not something I’d use, but it’s actually a pretty cool technological feat, given the voices and everything, and it allows you to finetune the game to more fit your preference or fantasy. RPGs are supposed to be about living through your fantasies, and having fun. It’s a single player game, why shouldn’t people tailor it to their own specific needs and wants?

Of course, if they are being a dick about it, and spewing their bullshit propaganda in the mod description, the I’m all for just banning it.

I don’t have any issues with diversity and inclusivity, and support it however I can.

But I don’t really see the problem with this mod? It’s a honest question, I’ve just read the article, and the Nexus mod answer doesn’t make much sense to me. I mean there are literally mods that change every character in Skyrim to females, how is that different? (I didn’t log in to see the if the mod is active, but I’m sure there’s a lot of “we change this character to female” mods for any game).

And more importantly, why not let anyone do whatever they want with their game, and enjoy it however they want? Or was it similar to the Starfield pronouns mod, where the creator went on a hateful rant in the mod description, and acted like a total dick, spewing their bullshit intorelant propaganda? Then, the removal would be understandable. Otherwise, it’s just counter-productive and only serves to even more divide people and turn them against eachother, and feels like an unnecessary witch-hunt and a PR stunt.

But please correct me if I’m wrong or missing something, there’s probably some context that I don’t have.

I just hope bitcoin will finally die. It’s literally just wasting absurd amount of energy, only to allow scammers to scam billions of dollars from victims, and regular people to steal from eachother by investing into it. I mean, if the only use of bitcoin by now is for speculation and investment, then it means that any dollar you made, you literally stole from someone else who will be left with useless bitcoin once it’s all over. There’s no value, and with the ledger getting bigger and bigger, and bitcoin more expensive to mine, it will eventually be worthless. And we all know it, so anyone who makes thousands of dollars, there’s someone who probably financially ruined himself by making a wrong and stupid investment at the wrong time.

I hate crypto so much :D.

700kWh per transaction? That’s absurd amount of power. That’s 70 EUR of energy per one transaction at current (EU) exchange price.

Is there anyone here knowledgeable enough about this issue to say whether those numbers are correct, or just an overestimate? It feels wrong.

After several of my favorite songs disappeared from Spotify, I’ve adopted a different approach to music.

If I see on on a band show merch stand, I buy a cassette. It’s more of a novelty item and a way to slightly support the band. While I do have a portable tape player, I only rarely take it out. I switched from LPs to tapes because of the costs and huge effort associated with playing or storing them (that is, if you do it right are are not OK with fucking up your LPs), but tapes are cool and don’t have that many storage or playing problems.

Other than that, I’ve stopped paying for any kind of streaming services, and save the 10$ per month to just buy one or two (new or old) albums from my favourite artists on Bandcamp, that I’ve spend the last month listening to the most. The albums I buy I add to my NAS library, which usually replaces stolen copies of said albums that I’ve previously got from Redacted.

This allows me to keep a pretty expansive library, by just stealing what I need, but with a promise that I’ll eventually buy the album (using the money I saved on streaming services), if it’s something that I’ve listened to extensively. I’m also not at mercy of streaming services, that can take away my music whenever they decide to.

So far I’ve been doing this for a few years, and even increased my budget for just buying albums if I can’t immediately find them on Redacted.

This finally explains it. I was about to write something similar as the comment you are replying to, because it did felt like a totally unnecessary PR stunt of another corporation that only exploits the issue for publicity, and I really hate that.

But if the mod description was as bad as you say, then removing it was the right move.

I don’t really agree with this. The core behavior of Lemmy should be to make a reasonable effort to delete it, which as I’ve understood it doesn’t really.

And you don’t have to give people a false belief - the button shouldn’t only say “Request removal of data from all Federated instances”, but also add that “But keep in mind that it’s not possible to enforce deletion from all instances in a Federated environment, and some instances may refuse to comply”.

I think we should strive for privacy as much as possible, and by default the instances should comply. Sure, there’s nothing stopping anyone from not complying, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t at least attempt to do it.

Hmm, it’s an interesting problem. I’m afraid you are right and there’s really nothing left but defederation - on the other hand, then it’s the same as with stuff like the parsers that could show deleted reddit messages, or things like waybackmachine, which basically do the same, so the core logic of base lemmy source should be as privacy-respecting as possible.

I remember few years ago when I was reading about Signal that there is some way how you can verify that their server is running on the same code as the one published (and audited heavily), so you can be 100% sure that there were no modifications. Wouldn’t something like that be a solution? That would prevent servers from modifying the code that deletes data. I don’t know how it works, and I couldn’t find it when I tried looking for it again, but assuming such a thing is possible, each Lemmy instance could just have a verify widget on their VCS and you could be sure that this instance really does delete your data, since they didn’t modify the deletion code.

But this is just a theorycrafting, I wouldn’t really have enough experience to create something like that and I can imagine that it’s not an easy thing. But if anyone knows more details about the way Signal verification works, assuming I’m just didn’t misunderstood something (since it’s literally a memory I have of a single sentence from one random article when I was researching best private messages app), I would love to read more about the way it works!

But yeah, outside of that, I’m afraid that the following set of features is mutually exclusive:

• An user is able to delete their data, and it’s guaranteed that they are deleted from everywhere.
• If a lemmy instance dies, it’s data is not lost.
• There is not a single centralized authority for anything.

Another option would be to create some kind of reputation system, where self-hosted bots could check for servers that still provide posts and comments that should be deleted, and flag offenders. But that’s overengineering anyway, and as I’ve already said - there’s still no way how to stop scraper or anyone from simply copying your data when they see it.