Buddahriffic

VR's ability to control the atmosphere more could make for some next level horror games, too. Like something where there's a reason the player can't run, like they are wheelchair bound or sailing through a lake of lava.

Star Fox was before that (released 1993). And Pilotwings was even earlier than that (1990). Mario 64 was released in 1996. There was also a Gameboy game, X, released in 1992.

Pilotwings might bring up some argument about whether it was really 3D because it was done purely using 2D graphics tricks, which the SNES was very good at. But it was different from the FF VI/III map view because they did have an internal 3D model that was a part of the render, while FF just stuck a sprite in the middle of the screen that looked like it added height to the flat map it was "standing on". In Pilotwings you could climb and dive.

But X and Star Fox did use actual rasterization to render their views. Star Fox had an additional chip in the cartridge that expanded the SNES' processing power to handle 3d rendering, kinda like an early GPU (except this was just attached to a single game).

I'd argue that both are really 3D, just that Pilotwings used a rendering technique that has since been abandoned while Star Fox used a (very simple) version of the 3D renderer pipeline that is still used today.

Mario 64 greatly increased the polygon count, added textures, dynamic lighting, improved z-buffering, and took the camera off the rails that Star Fox forced (but Pilotwings didn't).

Gets hit by a thrown high res texture pack mod

Lol imagine not only lacking the shame to bring one of those out in public but then going to your sex doll gathering and realizing you have one of the shitty models whose heads look kinda like paper mache.

I wonder if the two guys that look like they have the same model get angry at each other about it.

I also wonder how much overlap there is in the venn diagram of people who end up resorting to getting a sex doll and people capable of keeping them maintained so they don't become biohazards.

And the whole "try but back down if it isn't going so well" strategy is the worst part of it all because it helps them without even if a judge would laugh them out of court over it because of the set of people that would back down or be happy with a lesser settlement, which is probably larger than the set of people that would fight it anyways, plus there's the subset of people that would want to fight anyways but don't have the resources to do so.

That's why I hate the whole system of "treat it as if it is all good until someone (who was specifically harmed by this) takes it to court". And that's even before getting to the part where the decision in the end rests in the hands of a single or maybe a small group of judges.

I wonder if the language selection is similar to how they use bad grammar specifically to filter out people smart enough to see bad grammar as a red flag when it's supposed to be a professional communication.

Yeah, a lot of these fingerprinting capabilities seem like things that should be behind permission requests, if not outright disabled entirely.

Like ok, I get that if someone wanted to make a browser-based audio editing tool, it might be useful for javascript to be able to sample the output side after effects have been applied. But I don't want every single fucking website to have that capability by default. I'm not even sure I want websites to be able to play audio at all without permission.

By default, it should be a one way pipeline. Whatever they put into the pipeline gets displayed or played but they can't see any of the system-specific results. I'd prefer the standard be designing pages to work with any resolution instead of letting them query the exact pixel dimensions, which varies per device and I suspect fingerprinting was the reason they were designed like that in the first place.

There should be standard TOS clauses that are approved based on their legality and enforceability that click or use based "contracts" should be limited to. Or at the very least, they should need to be legally ratified rather than only looked at closely if legally challenged.

Like that whole "you waived our liability for real world shit by using Disney+" should have resulted in the disbarment of any lawyers that wrote, approved, and tried to argue it in court when it came up and punitive damages to Disney for even trying.

Everyone? The group of people that includes those who can't use their computer after their desktop icons get sorted?

It still takes some skills, but those skills might just be "desoldering chips to stick them in a chip reader device" and doing that on the storage chips. Or maybe tapping a trace to read the signals that are sent over it to grab a key or something. "Not hard" doesn't mean "you don't need skill to do it", it means "someone who has some skills won't have difficulty applying them".

Yeah, I gotta say that while shit is looking pretty bad on the corporate producer side of things, this society/system has bred a ton of entitled consumers that think their desires are important to anyone that can make or do things.

Even if you're paying someone for something, that doesn't mean you can dictate what they do or how they do it. Or even that they need to offer you what they willingly offer others. There's some people where no amount of money would make dealing with them worthwhile, let alone what they are willing to pay for special treatment.

But with FOSS, there isn't even the incentive of money greasing the interaction. It's just pure entitlement. No one owes you anything just because you're interested in their project or skills.

And electrically, if they are able to drive speakers, that same signal can drive headphones. It just needs the port.

Ged's gonna be pissed!