I never gave it a chance, as theit practice of paying for exclusivity is infuriating to me.
Make your shit better. Hell, make it comparable, and charge a lower cit (so devs make more), and I’d support then.
Paying to make the market more closed off sucks.
538 no longer has Nate Silver or his model; Disney bought it and fired him like a year ago or so.
Still, I agree; I don’t like his politics, but his analysis of polls and numbers is probably the best out there.
Couldn’t disagree more. The stuff I liked about ER feel disconnected from the open world, and I feel likes its sprawling reptative scope detracted enjoyment from it for me.
Decaf does actually still have caffeine, just normally like 97% less.
Which, I guess is like the boneless wings having 97% less bones, now in convinient needle shaped shards
I’m talking about the stuttering, caused primarily not recalculating shaders. Something I just dealt with the entirety of my first playthrough of ER. But the fact that it still isn’t fixed really makes me not want to play, or to pay them money.
Yeah, I’m holding off for a sale on this one. I liked Elden Ring well enough, but the performance issues are infuriating. Baffling that it still isn’t fixed.
I don’t care for it. It does some interesting things, in base building. But having played it a lot mostly because my friend group likes it, it’s very janky. It does not feel close to 1.0. And, while there’s some fun to be had, everything outside the horde nights just feels like busywork in a way I didn’t feel with Valheim or Grounded.
What, the open world genre? Maybe Elden Ring, but tbh it would have been better had it not been open world.
I just don’t really get BotW and TotK, and fwiw, I am that, ‘played emulated with settings pumped for free’ person. They both just seem so repetitive, worth like, 5 hours of fun.
Edit: to be clear, I did not turn off item durability or change any game mechanics, just resolution and fps. Item durability is a crutch the game relies of for balance, andnits annoying, but isn’t related to the central complaint I have: game is repetative. So much is just, same kind of luzzle again, same kind of fight again, and no cool rewards that don’t break. I don’t get what the appeal is.
I agree. I’m very much for more research into fusion. I’m still somewhat skeptical of it ever being ‘infinite cheap energy’. But even if it never becomes a ‘good energy source’, the advancement of knowledge is valuable. So its not like I think fusion is a scam overall.
But I think this particular company is.
That is what I think the owner is doing here. Scamming venture capital firms for a tech that cannot work.
And I mean, its not like I have any proof. I can’t read minds; maybe he is a true believer.
But this company feels like those companies back in the 80s that sold tickets to mars, for the rockets they were ‘just about to build’; a scam.
This isn’t a research firm. This isn’t trying to find the exact settings and layouts to make fusion possible. If the article can be taken at face value, this is a company to make a commercial fusion plant. And I find that, in 2023, patently absurd.
I hope it works.
But I’m skeptical enough to say that I think this is a scam. We’re closing in, research wise, on getting fusion to generate more power than it takes to run. Which is awesome!
But its still a far trek from that figure, to producing enough power to be practical (I’ve heard it said you really need to aim for 10x more production than input, minimum, for it to make any sense).
And that is still a trek from making a fusion plant competitive with existing grid power.
I’m skeptical if this plant they’re building will even generate power, which is like three steps away from making commercial sense at all.
Yeah, they got that ‘no pores’ look that selfie filter give, that’s somewhat uncanny looking.
Why did god create a dual universe? So he might say, “Be not like me. I am alone.” And it might be heard.
You are, of course, correct.
But even so, costs are costs. It doesn’t matter if you’ve achieved communism, and are in a moneyless, stateless existance, you need labor and materials to build nuclear, and labor and materials to maintain it (along with other infrastructure).
And, I’m not anti-nuclear; it does make sense to use sometimes, in some amounts. Its just very very costly for what it provides.
But frankly, even only accounting for current tech, wide spread nuclear just doesn’t make that much sense compared to renewables + storage and large grids interconnects.
I dunno, I really don’t get either of them. They just seem like dreadfully boring games. Played like, 6 hours of each, and I just, don’t get the appeal, at all.
Movies and TV are boring. In the past two decades, there’s been a small handful of stuff that’s watchable, but most of the media is like, painfully boring.
Eh, apples to oranges.
A 60$ game today is so unlike a 60$ two or three decades ago.
No physical medium. Much larger market and (potential at least) sales volume.
Proliferation of game engines; games don’t need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ each time, or write machine code anymore.
On top of that, there’s many other revenue streams. Not that I think this model is ‘fair and good’, but look at the mobile market, where a sale cost of $0 is king.
Something to be said about ‘lower cost incentivizing bad practices’ (as the article discusses), and yeah, some games could raise their price. But it’s far fron 1-1, as ‘sales volume’ trumps ‘sale price’ in importance.