 |
|
|
|||||
In 2024, Microsoft caused a lot of head-scratching and general bemusement with the launch of its "This is an Xbox" marketing campaign. Now, though, it appears the quandary over what is and isn't an Xbox has been resolved. Game Developer noticed that the original blog post on Xbox Wire that kicked off the whole affair has been removed. It seems Xbox will be going a new direction with its future promotions. Maybe since the new Project Helix hardware it has in the works is more definite attempt to blur console and PC gaming, "This is an Xbox" might have been truly confusing as a tagline. Maybe with the recent changing of the guard at the company, the top brass decided that it was the right time to start fresh with a less meme-able marketing plan. Whatever the reason, we have enjoyed this opportunity to learn about the existential philosophy behind being an Xbox. And fortunately, although the blog post may be gone, the video trailer still exists whenever we need to remind ourselves of the many things that can be Xbox-ified. This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/xbox/i-guess-this-wasnt-an-xbox-after-all-230154314.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
Superhuman has taken its writing assistant Grammarly on quite the merry-go-round ride regarding its approach to AI tools. In August, the company launched a feature called Expert Review that would offer feedback on your writing, offering AI-generated feedback that would appear to come from a famous writer or academic of note. These recreations were based on "publicly available information from third-party LLMs," which sounds a lot like web crawlers of dubious legality were involved. The suggested experts would be based on the subject matter and could be anyone from great scientific minds to bestselling fiction authors to your friendly neighborhood tech bloggers. Living or dead, these writers' names appeared on Grammarly without their permission or knowledge. "References to experts in this product are for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals or entities," the company hedged in a disclaimer on the service. As one might imagine, once people took notice, a large number of the living contingent of those writers were none too pleased with Grammarly and Superhuman. The company initially attempted to address the complaints by allowing writers to opt out of the platform. Which I'm sure was a big relief to the deceased contingent and to those living ones who aren't closely following AI news and might still not know they were being cited by the tool. Today, Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra wrote in a LinkedIn post that the company will disable Expert Review while it reassesses the feature. "The agent was designed to help users discover influential perspectives and scholarship relevant to their work, while also providing meaningful ways for experts to build deeper relationships with their fans," he said. Yes, Carl Sagan must be bemoaning the lack of deep relationships with his fans from the afterlife. This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/grammarly-has-disabled-its-tool-offering-generative-ai-feedback-credited-to-real-writers-201614257.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
It must be 2017 because loot boxes are back in the news again. Two weeks after New York's attorney general sued Valve over its use of the gimmick, the company has responded. In short, the Steam maker essentially said, "See you in court."New York's lawsuit accuses Valve of promoting illegal gambling through its games. AG Letitia James called the loot boxes found in titles like Counter-Strike 2, Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 "addictive, harmful and illegal." The state seeks to "permanently stop Valve from continuing to promote illegal gambling in its games" and pay relevant fines.In its defense posted on Thursday, Valve likened its mystery boxes to kids buying packs of physical trading cards. "Players don't have to open mystery boxes to play Valve games," the company wrote. "In fact, most of you don't open any boxes at all and just play the games because the items in the boxes are purely cosmetic, there is no disadvantage to a player not spending money."That last point, while applicable within the game itself, isn't quite that cut and dry once you zoom out beyond that. As James pointed out, players can trade the cosmetic items they win from loot boxes on Steam's marketplace or sell them on third-party marketplaces. Rarer ones can sometimes fetch lucrative sums.A CS2 gun skin listed for $20,000 on DMarketDMarketHere, too, Valve defended the profitable practice by rolling out the trading card comparison. "We think the transferability of a digital game item is good for consumers it gives a user the ability to sell or trade an old or unwanted item for something else, in the same way an owner can sell or trade a tangible item like a Pokémon or baseball card," the company wrote. "NYAG proposes to take away users' ability to transfer their digital items from Valve games. Transferability is a right we believe should not be taken away, and we refuse to do that."Valve is also facing a new class-action lawsuit over its loot boxes.Some of Valve's points land a bit more than its righteous defense of a gaming gimmick that, well, isnt exactly beloved. The company accused the NYAG of proposing that Valve collect additional user information to prevent VPN use. In addition, the state allegedly "demanded that Valve collect more personal data about our users to do additional age verification." Privacy experts have been sounding the alarm about the recent push for online age verification.Valve also addressed James's erroneous and outdated statement that video games encourage real-world violence. "Those extraneous comments are a distraction and a mischaracterization we've all heard before," the company wrote. "Numerous studies throughout the years have concluded there is no link between media (movies, TV, books, comics, music and games) and real world violence. Indeed, many studies highlight the beneficial impact of games to users."The company says that, while it may have been cheaper to settle the suit, it deemed the NYAG's demands user-hostile. "Ultimately, a court will decide whose position ours or NYAG's is correct. In the meantime, we wanted to make sure you were aware of the potential impact to users in New York and elsewhere."This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/valve-defends-loot-boxes-in-response-to-new-yorks-lawsuit-190655554.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||