My guess: The kids who used Discord for gaming grew up, and just went with the familiar thing when starting new communities and projects.
Also, Discord did heavy marketing early on, until it carved out a network effect. So here we are.
My guess: The kids who used Discord for gaming grew up, and just went with the familiar thing when starting new communities and projects.
Also, Discord did heavy marketing early on, until it carved out a network effect. So here we are.
A web forum is far better in most cases. If you can’t manage to run your own, there are plenty of lemmy servers that will do it for you. Even an email list (with searchable archives) would be better than Discord.
If you have collaborative documents that outgrow the forum format, use a wiki.
If real-time chat is needed, irc or matrix.
A project hosting its community on Discord is a project that won’t get my contributions.
I might give Backpack Battles a try. It doesn’t look like my usual style, but I heard there’s some good strategy under the surface, and I like that it’s made with Godot.
Are there any 5.5 physical sourcebooks? Were they ever planned at all?
I haven’t been following One D&D news, but I got the impression they were focusing on a subscription-only model, so I’ve been planning to stick with my 5e books or switch to an ORC-licensed system.
This is true in C, but not in D.
Correcting some misconceptions…
Element for Android doesn’t support searching in encrypted channels
That’s true of regular Element for Android, but it’s being replaced with Element X (which is built with Rust). I would expect search to be added there if it isn’t already.
and I think you can’t use E2EE in the browser at all(?)
I have done it in Firefox, so that’s false. Perhaps you had trouble with a specific browser?
plus basically every other client has even more drawbacks when it comes to E2EE.
Nheko handles E2EE just fine, so that would seem to be false as well.
Since you’re looking for recommendations, it would help if you said which clients you tried and what problems you had with them.
In case you haven’t seen it, you can set a Features: E2EE filter on this list:
https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/
Sid Meier’s Pirates! is a wonderful mix of exploration, sea battles, romance, swordplay, trade, and subterfuge.
Tropico 2: Pirate Cove is one that I’ve only played briefly, but I remember it having a fun style that made me want to try it in depth some time.
After decades of license strangleholds by the likes of MPEG LA and Microsoft, it’s refreshing to see open codecs adopted in mainstream hardware and APIs. Hooray for progress!
I just learned about that as well. I hope Larian dilutes or buys back Tencent’s shares.
Relevant community, for people who like free games:
I’ll consider the possibility that the engine is blameless when I see two Unreal Engine games that do it well, hinting that it’s not unreasonably difficult. Sometimes a tool just doesn’t work well for certain uses. That could be due to a design that tries and fails, or one that doesn’t try at all and lacks a good foothold for a custom approach.
In any case, my comment is not about one specific issue. Thus the words “for example”. The point is that what GGP said was obvious is in fact not obvious. Blizzard might very well have passed on that engine because of limitations they found, regardless of whether they detailed them publicly.
Unreal Engine checks all of those
No, I don’t believe it does. In particular, Section 4: “How You Can Share the Licensed Technology When It Isn’t Part of a Product” imposes restrictions that contradict the very first clause in the Open-Source definition: “Free Redistribution”.
At a quick glance, I expect the royalty requirements fail the first clause as well, but there’s no point in combing through them for this conversation, given the above.
You obviously want to believe otherwise, though, and I don’t want to argue with you. Feel free to test it in court. Good luck.
Read the license. It’s what we generally call “source available”, but it does not qualify as open-source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available
It brings up the issue of royalties because those are part of Unreal Engine’s license terms.
The decision of whether to modify software to suit one’s needs is often about the level effort required, both initially and for ongoing maintenance and support. Having permission to do it doesn’t magically make it worthwhile.
And no, Unreal Engine is not open-source. (Which brings up another possible factor in Blizzard’s decision: Royalty payments.)
Five-year-olds must be pretty advanced in the 24th century.
A bunch of people set up public bulletin boards, and agree to copy whatever gets posted on one of them to all the others.
I’m not so sure.
Unreal Engine can obviously handle some things well, but when I’ve seen it used for less common mechanics, the results have been mixed. For example, climbing and traversing uneven terrain are pretty bad in games like Palworld and Palia. Compare to the Breath of the Wild engine, which handles those things beautifully.
It’s plausible that such mechanics were planned for this game, and that Unreal Engine made it difficult to get results that meet Blizzard’s standards.
So with normal use it should be fine for a few decades.
Considering that “normal use” can be so very different among different people/applications/climates, I don’t put a lot of stock in assessments like that, but it is at least one prediction to compare against when we see what happens in practice. Time will tell.
That’s most likely due to low rankings. Lemmy doesn’t prevent it.