I don’t disagree that a true space exploration game should have barren planets (I’d imagine most planets in the universe are barren), but they should be more like set pieces (like how a tree is a set piece in a normal exploration game). And they shouldn’t be included in metrics used to quantify the size of the world.
Do you have any counter points or just a cheap joke?
It’s not insinuating that at all, in fact the article is pretty clear that this isn’t some sign of things to come, it’s pretty much only because OPEC and the US have been increasing supply of oil even though demand has been fairly stagnate or dropping. OPEC usually will slow production when prices get too low so there’s a good chance prices will start going back up again soon. The only reason this would be sustainable is if they chose to continue this level of production which they’d only do if they felt it could benefit them long term (for example if they think lower gas prices will prevent an increase in EV purchases, which is possible but not likely at this point).
This article is about a 19% drop in the last 2 months. Alternative energy methods didn’t increase in popularity/use enough in the last 2 months to cause that much of a drop. The article uses a decent amount of actual data analysis and sources and shows a pretty clear causality between the growth of supply and the stagnation of demand that led to the price drop.
Renewable energy has definitely led to an overall drop in price over the last 15 years but it wouldn’t cause a drop this drastic without a huge increase in use or improvement in technology.
Gamer can wait until the day a good game comes out, a company needs hype to build it’s brand for stock holders.
This is absolutely not true, gamers freak out whenever a game is delayed, even for good reason. And people were absolutely causing a huge fuss about whether or not there was going to be an ES6 so they released a teaser to say that it was coming eventually.
The shareholders would only want them to release the teaser if the goal was the sell stock immediately. Any bump in price from the teaser would even out after probably just a few months.
I thought the title was saying Amazon was going to release a video game based on the Fallout series next year and was like “a video game adaption of a tv series adaptation of a video game?”
For what it’s worth, you can’t use public domain to make a copy of someone else’s take on that public domain character. It’s like how Winnie the Pooh is public domain but you can’t make a Winnie the Pooh with a red shirt and no pants since thats clearly Disney’s version which isn’t public domain.
For what it’s worth, it’s almost never worth it to give any company “the benefit of the doubt”. For single player games, there’s pretty much no reason to play it right when it releases unless you’re impatient. I choose to think of the games release date as a beta release. If I’m super excited, I may choose to play a game in beta but usually I’ll wait for the final release. Then when all the initial issues (which all games have, just some way more than others) have been fixed, I’ll consider the game actually released and buy it for a fraction of the initial cost.
I don’t know that I’ve played a single game that’s released this year yet. And those games will still be just as good next year (likely better) for less cost.
Maybe no one wanted to admit it
So was this a sting? I’m not sure how he didn’t realize something was off when “accident” and “normal shooting” were the same price
I think the length is what’s important. For a long time, my team’s stand ups were going 30-45 minutes and most of it felt pointless (or were discussions that should’ve been on smaller meetings). When I got control over them, I made sure they’re 20 minutes max and I’ll cut people off if they’re talking too long about something only a few people need to input on. Now no one has an issue with the stand up and it’s helped us catch stuff that might’ve been missed otherwise.
Would you prefer they recast and re-record over his voice so the family didn’t get any royalties and his name is less well-known? It’s not hard to make regulations that you need consent from next of kin and have to pay to use the “likeness” of their voice like you do with appearance. Refusing to use new technology because someone might misuse it before regulations are in place are what luddites do
It’s one thing when the site is obviously satire but they’re clearly trying to appear as a real news site. It’s so unnecessary
Well the mechanical inscentive is the time and money it takes to revive them. It’s pretty negligible eventually, but it’s a pretty big deal at low levels.
Yeah this headline should really just say the ~$41m they actually spent improving the game because that’s still an incredibly impressive number (2/3 the amount of a full expansion). I hate when there’s a good story to tell but they want to make it look even better so they decide to mislead instead of just saying the actually impressive thing
What a humble brag
I have a Thicc Charizard hanging from my rear view mirror!
Also, aren’t executive orders still subject to Supreme Court rulings? What would stop them from just overruling it again?
I sorta loaded this picture in my brain like pictures used to load on slow internet - from the top down. So I saw the arms and the small face and thought it was one sloth looking through its back legs as it hung. So then I continued to load the rest of the picture and when I saw the big face, I tried to make that fit with my earlier interpretation so, for half a second, I thought that sloth had a face for an asshole
It’d be a lot easier to not make a bot at all if that was the case. They aren’t intentionally not trying to help, they’re intentionally spending as few resources as possible on helping while still doing enough to satisfy most customers. It’s shitty but it’s not malicious like you guys are implying.