Technically they are not exactly on the same field which could allow using similar trademarks. But on the other hand in this case X's use of X could be reasonably argued to be very confusing for customers and therefore violating X's trademark.

Could it be said many game companies attempts end in alpha but communities’ failures are just more transparent?

Maybe but it's rare for a company to put out products at alpha level unless they go bust before the game is finished. Sometimes games are launched at beta level and fixed later but that's not the same than the eternal development limbos of open source projects, where something almost playable is released to keep people engaged but it never really gets much better than that.

It has been fun to think about designing gameplay in the past but I’ve never studied the basics.

I'd say the most important thing about making games is gameplay design. While good game engine design is a big thing, what actually makes a good game is the user experience, not the technical details of how they implement things. It's also what is the problem in a lot of open source projects. I had a friend who implemented a very nice javascript browser based game engine. There were very cool features like particle physics and complex light effects in it. But in the end nobody wrote an interesting game with it. What matters is the content of the game, not so much which engine implements the content.

Good game design is also something that PhD theses are being written about. Not simple at all. I found the nintendo talk about designing zelda botw world very interesting. How much thought goes into things like the psychology of the player and how he reacts to what he sees and how to steer the player where the story wants him to go while giving him the impression he makes the choices himself is mind blowing.

Yeah... "community developed game" very rarely turns out well. Especially if they attempt something resembling AAA content. Perpentual alpha state is the most common outcome. And when they work they typically just recreate some existing game with little creativity in terms of IP. Maybe Veloren will be the exception but nothing they show is in any way special. It seems they have already rewritten the engine entirely once. Edit: and of course it looks a lot like cubeworld and minecraft.

It's not really difficult to create some graphics content and moving characters on some engine engine, but that's like 5% of what it takes to make a good game. Communities are very good at the former but not so good at the remaining 95%.

I want to make games that repect users’ software freedom and for now I bet on users learning to value their software freedom too.

Users generally want games that are fun to play and that actually work. Software freedom is very very much secondary even among those who even know what it means.

Battery life has nothing to do with the price of the phone because battery size is limited by physical size not price. The cheapest phones actually tend to do well in comparisons.

And that money came from someone. You can’t win in crypto unless someone else loses. Typically it’s vulnerable people wishing for a get rich quick hack who lose.

It was until the authorities learned how easy it is to connect transactions to actual people.

Unity technologies has never made a profit since it was founded. It's still a company aiming at growth by burning money. Their losses have only increased since they went public.

Better local AI capability. It's definitely something they are working with, introducing new accelerator features with new processors. Currently most of the actually great AI tools still require you to offload the workload to a server somewhere. And some stuff is not worth doing in a mobile device before it can be done at a fraction of the power.

For the basic hardware features, mainly the camera and image processing tools are actually relevant. Almost all non professional photography in the world is now done with phones and there is still a lot to do to improve the miniature cameras.

Some of the greatest new features from the past few years are things people don't even realize weren't always there. Like for example my phone opens up when I pick it up and look at it. And locks when I put it down. This makes usage so much more fluid and is something that did not happen just ten years ago. This kind of UI optimizations are way more important than some numbers in spec sheet. And the local AI processing I mentioned is a key in enabling more situations where the phone understands what you want without you explicitly pressing buttons.

I have soon a PhD in computer tech related subject, program for living, and am a lot younger than the judge, and if you ask me if Mozilla makes a search engine I would say I have no idea, they've made a lot of stuff. And if you asked me how Google's SEM tools work I would ask wtf is SEM.

The problem is, free software model is actually difficult to make profit with. Red hat has long been touted as the prime example of how to do it, by selling service and support instead of software, and even they try to limit the customers' freedom as much as possible now. Turns out a lot of people don't need support. And the better the software the less support is needed.

I struggle to see a way to make a game engine available so that it's free software and the customers can just take it if they don't like your pricing policy, but still make money from developing it. Or even break even. What would the engine developers sell? What would the game developers sell if the code could just be redistributed for free?

Pragmatically, twitter style system requires a large networked userbase to be useful for most of the population, otherwise people are tooting into the void in mastodon. So even if I have to work with some soulless corporations to get there I think it's a net positive. For lemmy i don't think threads matters much.

Yes, the benefit of RISC-V I can see is that if a large company, let's say intel, designs a high performance CPU, a small company can also create a compatible alternative CPU. I don't think the small companies can really compete in performance with the large ones, even if you manage to create a good CPU once it's not simply feasible to keep up with hundred times larger r&d teams in long term, but there is a place for the smaller CPUs filling specific niche use cases.