Amazon was using people to train the model, so at the starts it would be 100%, but eventually the goal would be to get near zero, maybe the average was 70% but when the ended it was near 40%?

Difference is, the mouse can’t die, a person can. But the mouse can be continued by anyone…

What…? Most people want more content more often with more options, not everyone wants a release every 4 years that’s the same content and story rehashed.

They still buy full games though, using old as seats to make new content for an “old” game is a great way to have more income come in. Most would probably prefer to make a new game, but that takes longer as well.

So if it’s a dlc a year at $15 for 4 years, or a game every 4 years for $60… what’s the difference in the end? Other than what you think is going on inside your head? It’s the same content, same price, same everything, you just get content yearly instead of every 4 years. Bonus for everyone since they can than use that money after the first year to maybe make the other better.

People had different issues with those, that was because online was a portion of it, and people thought devs were holding content back just to make more money. Obviously some did that, but they started painting every dev with that brush and they needed to adjust to save their bottom line from being affected.

Every change has been a reactionary effort to adjust for the market changes and people suddenly not wanting what they just wanted a few years ago, and using it to their marketing advantage. Of course not everyone is going to be happy, it’s just funny that certain devs get defended for doing what everyone else does since their marketing gets eating up.

The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion

So if they want the content, they can support the devs so they make more.

The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.

So no lose there, but they could buy an outfit if they liked it and want to support the dev.

…… that’s actually the majority of gamers…… 2% of the player base accounts for most of the purchases, that means the other 98% is still buying stuff, just not everything. So that’s not even remotely close to reality, most people pick and choose the content, which is literally why this because a thing, because the market wanted it….

That’s also just an affect on the market of people wanting more choice and not wanting to be forced to pay for stuff they don’t want.

Of course it can be swung in a negative light too, because it affects developers bottom lines, and they always want the most money possible. CDPR is no different.

It is kinda funny how people have no issue paying for it all together as bundle, but separate it so people can pay for things individually is silly and everyone is suddenly offended?

I would rather have a story for $10 and $1 outfits I can ignore, than to spend $30 on a story and bunch of cosmetics that don’t add to the game.

This is just marketing, nothing more. They make more money forcing you to buy everything than letting you pick what you want.

Those are all binary outputs, neurolink allows analog.

Totally different goals, so no nothing else exists currently.

Got a link to share? Nothing else can do analog inputs like neurolink can, so would love to see this tech that isn’t even been talked about yet that you’re spouting all over this thread.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Than why doesn’t the tech exist yet…?

On/off isn’t the same as being able to control the input incrementally.

EEG and neurolink are two different techs accomplishing quite different goals in the end,

EEG can’t input analog inputs, neurololink is accomplishing an entirely different tech, so that’s quite literally impossible. Sorry.

EEG can’t accomplish the same thing, it doesn’t have analog control, mario cart has analog steering and in the video you can see it working.

It’s an entirely different tech meant to do something else, so no an eeg chop cannot ever accomplish the same thing.

You’re spreading misinformation all over this thread.

EEG is an extremely limited tech, they are looking for a way to advance past those limitations.

We can’t just not advance ever since someone might get hurt, that’s just asinine.

No, which is why people are trying to find better tech.

EEG is limited, it’s why it went nowhere and people try to point to it as this big huge thing…. Technology won’t advance if we just continually stick with the limitations of old tech. Which unfortunately requires experimentation.

Removed by mod