At this rate? Leaving most of the internet probably

One of the things I love about Berserk is that it touches on a lot of topics that the usual dark edgy bullshit does, stuff like sexual assault in particular, in a much better way. Usually it feels like when stories add in things like this It’s more like you’re supposed to get some kind of enjoyment from it, like it’s some forbidden pleasure.

In Berserk, scenes like the Eclipse are truly horrifying, I genuinely felt sick to my stomach when reading it, it is showing it as a look into absolute utter evil and Guts refusal to give into it. I think that’s what really makes it stand out compared to similar stories.

Always nice to have a reminder about how absolutely wretched Fox News is as an organization

Were you just baiting out a comment to reply with this joke

They are capable of it, but I don’t really see why they would. Making the tokens cost more gold would mean less people willing to buy them on the AH and therefore less people selling tokens. I think the prices have just exploded because of the mount releasing. As someone else mentioned on here, I believe Blizzard just sets a minimum price for tokens.

You can not sell gold to Blizzard

Edit: I stand corrected, you can purchase tokens and turn them into game time, but I didn’t know they could be turned into $15 battle net balance. This mount does, indeed, cost less gold than the original Brutosaur (or did before token prices skyrocketed)

Yeah it’s always been a status symbol. Nowadays it isn’t even that useful because they put auction houses in the expansion cities anyway, so it’s basically just a status symbol for people who spend WAY too much time on the auction house. This mount isn’t even half as P2W as people would have you believe.

That thing is still earnable every so often in game if you catch it on the black market

They did not remove it, people still use them all the time and it’s available on the “black market” (an NPC that sells normally unavailable things) every so often. The mount was just an enormous gold sink for people with a ton of money.

They probably meant 170k gold in-game

Also what they haven’t said is that the price is set by players of the game,. When someone buys a WoW token and exchanges it for gold, that’s because a player has paid them with gold they earned for the token. These tokens can be then used to pay for your monthly subscription.

I feel the exact opposite, most FPS games are much stiffer and unnatural feeling compared to a good third person game. I feel like control had a nice flow to the controls in particular.

Kind of disappointed that it’s an FPS game, Remedy has always been great at third person games

Do you think people are like, born with the ability to make art? Are they some kind of upper class? You can just go learn to draw you know, you don’t need to use AI

Frankly I don’t know who the fuck you support, you just seem like an asshole for the sake of making people not like you

I did say in the message that copyright is being used by companies more than artists. That’s why I wasn’t arguing about AI from a copyright angle because copyright doesn’t really help artists anyway.

You haven’t made a single statement as to what meaning you’ve drawn from these articles, this is useless to the conversation. I am reading these articles and stating my conclusions, but you are simply telling me and others to read them again. You don’t seem to actually be interested in sharing what you think, yourself.

Could you explain how the last one goes against what I am saying? The author seems to be personally against AI art and wants to ensure that artists continue to be paid for their work, how does that go against what I am talking about? You haven’t made a single statement in your actual stance on this topic, just said I was off base and linked articles.

Ah I see, you just sent me the wrong articles. I don’t see how I was supposed to just know you also wanted me to read the other blog post on the first article you linked. Feels very “do your own research” doesn’t it?

However, these also don’t seem to change my initial opinion. The first article talks about the writers guild ruling that you should not be able copyright anything created wholly by AI, as it should be used as a tool. This feeds into my point that you can’t really claim to have truly made anything made by using an AI (unless you created all the training images and run the AI yourself, that is properly employing it as an artistic tool)

The second article seems to be about the copyright laws related to AI and how companies are avoiding infringing in copyright law. Again, I already wasn’t considering copyright, I already understand that copyright laws don’t protect artists and that ruling AI as copyright infringement wouldnt help anything.

I don’t think you are actually interested in making a point here, just trying to make me defend myself online. Fortunately I have had nothing better to do this morning so I have.

Could you please explain the point you’re making rather than expecting me to come to a conclusion reading the articles you linked?

I see nothing in them even after a re-read that would address the idea of AI being used to replace artists. If anything these articles are just confirming that those fears are well founded by reporting on examples such as corporations trying to get voice actors to sign away the rights to their own voices.

Says the person supporting capitalist corporations pushing AI as a replacement for real human artwork?