Copying

Former Dragon Quest producer Ryutaro Ichimura says he left Square Enix because the developer and publisher was too focused on making “safe” games.

In a recent episode of ReHacQ (translated by Automaton), Ichimura says he had always planned to go independent eventually, but Square Enix’s way of handling things sped that process up significantly. According to him, the publisher has been pretty focused on “safe” projects over the last several years, which he wasn’t too keen about.

He says that in comparison to current-day Square Enix, the early days of Dragon Quest were all about innovation. “In Dragon Quest 2, you had a three-person party. In Dragon Quest 3, you could change jobs. In Dragon Quest 4, party members could fight using AI,” he said. “Each entry pushed the series forward, both through the evolution of game mechanics and by leveraging the latest hardware at the time.”

It seems as though Ichimura wasn’t fond of Dragon Quest spin-offs like Builders—a more narrative-driven Minecraft—and the Pokémon Go-inspired Dragon Quest Walk. He says Square Enix pivoted to hitting its own version of popular games to try and nail some guaranteed winners, especially as Dragon Quest’s popularity outside of Japan wasn’t as stellar as it hoped. “To put it bluntly, it was copying others,” Ichimura said.

(Image credit: Square Enix)

Automaton notes that Ichimura calls the Dragon Quest spin-offs “pakuri kikaku,” meaning copycat projects. I do feel like that’s a little harsh in the case of Dragon Quest Builders, which feels like it does enough differently from Minecraft to shake off too many comparisons.

I also feel like if anyone is taking risks with strange games right now, it’s Square Enix. Does it put any effort into marketing any of them? Hell no, but it has at least tried to push out some weirder stuff like Foamstars (which, to be fair, was very Splatoon-coded), Harvestella, and The DioField Chronicle. And lest we forget Forspoken, a game that very much had the potential to be rad if it wasn’t, well, a bit boring.

I do agree with his sentiment at large, though: bigger games are getting safer, and we’re all suffering for it. Why reinvent the wheel when there’s a perfectly good one to slap another coat of paint on and roll out to the masses?

Games are getting more expensive to make and people are increasingly less willing to risk spending the dough on potential duds that get banished to a decades-long backlog. It’s a tough situation to be in on all sides, and while I don’t entirely agree with Ichimura’s sentiment, his frustrations are certainly valid.

Source link

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

A crypto user has just lost more than $2.5 million in a simple copy-and-paste mistake. They tried to move 843,166 USDT to a safe wallet. Instead, they sent a chunk of it to the wrong address.

Then they did it again—this time sending $1.7 million to the same scammer. It’s a costly reminder that even small slips can erase fortunes.

Copy-Paste Blunder Leads To Million-Dollar Loss

According to on-chain records, the victim first moved $838,611 in USDT to the right address (0x4668D1Fe87444a4d750…). A moment later, they clicked the wrong entry in their transaction history.

That misstep cost them 843,166 USDT at current prices. They tried once more. And again the funds went to the scammer’s account—and another $1.7 million vanished.

Phishing scams remain a big problem. Image: Perkins School For The Blind

History Poisoning Trick Catches Many Off Guard

Based on reports from Scam Sniffer, scammers are using “transaction history poisoning” to pull off these cons. They send tiny “dust” transfers from look-alike addresses—just enough to clutter a wallet’s history.

🚨 Transaction History Poisoning:

1. Scammer sends fake/dust transfer with similar address
2. Their fake address appears in your history
3. You copy address from history thinking it’s legitimate
4. Funds get sent to scammer insteadhttps://t.co/S2lM8J8XWm

— Scam Sniffer | Web3 Anti-Scam (@realScamSniffer) May 26, 2025

When users scroll back through past transactions, they can’t tell the real address from the bogus one. Copy. Paste. Gone. In this case, the attack address (0x4668EE748c88DA4FEc…) looked almost identical to the real one. And it showed zero balance, adding to the confusion.

Phishing Scams Remain High

April’s phishing losses hit $5.29 million. That’s down 17% from March. But the number of victims climbed 26%, from 5,992 to 7,565 addresses. A single “whale” lost $1.43 million to a phishing signature. Back in March, the biggest haul was $1.82 million.

🚨 ScamSniffer April 2025 Phishing Report

April losses: $5.29M | 7,565 victims
VS March: -17% in losses | +26% in victims

Key insight: Notable spike in victim count despite lower total losses. Largest attack netted $1.43M via phishing, followed by $700K from address poisoning… pic.twitter.com/mJbGgGyGrN

— Scam Sniffer | Web3 Anti-Scam (@realScamSniffer) May 3, 2025

Total crypto market cap currently at $3.4 trillion. Chart: TradingView

April’s second-largest attack saw one user lose $700,000 after copying the wrong address. Another person sent $150,000 by mistake. And wallet 0xEFc4f1d5 alone lost over $467,000 in a similar copy-paste trap.

New Threats From EIP-7702 Upgrade

On May 24, the phishing gang Inferno Drainer used Ethereum’s new EIP-7702 rules to steal almost $150,000 in one hit. EIP-7702 lets regular accounts act like smart contracts for a moment.

The scammers guided victims to approve a batch of hidden token transfers through a delegated MetaMask setup. One click opened the door for a silent “execute” command that drained the wallets in seconds.

Greed Breeds Risk

Crypto markets are near $3.5 trillion in total value. Bitcoin hit a fresh all-time high of $111,900 on May 22. Traders are chasing big gains. That rush makes urgent moves, and urgent moves invite mistakes.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.