Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)CO
Posts
0
Comments
1,532
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I get your point that the exploit existed before it was identified, but an unmitigated exploit that people are aware of is worse than an unmitigated exploit people aren't aware of. Security through obscurity isn't security, of course, but exploiting a vulnerability is easier than finding, then exploiting a vulnerability. There is a reason that notifying the company before publicizing an exploit is the standard for security researchers.

    You're right that it's never an OK title, because fuck clickbait, but until it's patched and said patch propagates into the real world, more people being aware of the hole does increase the risk (though it doesn't sound like it's actually a huge show stopper, either).

  • I wouldn't actually support micromanaging tech like that. It would be a nightmare.

    I use both. The back is barely accessible on a stand and not even sort of accessible wall mounted. It is not an acceptable place for controls under any circumstances.

    The point of controls are only when the remote is missing, but CEC sucks. I don't know if it's because the standards are shit or enforcement is shit, but the end result is tech as terrible and inconsistent as Bluetooth.

  • Not a clue. I didn't go deeper. If I was guessing, the 49 million is supposed to be their actual revenue (eg excluding platform fees. I'm not actually sure how they officially treat the platform cuts in their books).

    But it's not profit (or if it is then subtracting cost again is wrong).

  • reportedly cost the studio roughly $42.6 million dollars to make, with a net profit hitting over $49.7 million. Approximately $7 million past the breakeven point,

    That's not what profit means.

    Their complete butchering of the basics makes it really hard to take their analysis of cash flow seriously.

  • In the wrong how?

    If you don't believe in copyright, whatever, but IA was doing something blatantly violating the law and getting away with it until they decided to flamboyantly draw attention to themselves by removing the veneer of legality and just giving away unlimited copies.

  • I didn't have any particular problem with anyone. I just, like OP, prefer a patient approach over pure run and gun. I almost never used anything but my high impact scout and my smoke bomb melee to escape if I got too crowded.

    I also stopped when they started taking away shit I paid for to be replaced with shoveled shit on a content treadmill. The quality was terrible.

  • For me it was basically that every encounter should have been multiplied by three. Those little checkpoints being two soldiers aren't worth it, and it's the same up the line. Even the big stuff almost always feels empty.

    Sniper Elite 4 and 5 are comparable in terms of stealth mechanic quality, but their bases are actually filled in and they're better games for it. MGS5 could have been that, and I'm pretty sure Kojima wanted it to be that, but they pulled the plug and shipped a partial game instead.

  • Pretty much any one with a comparable track record directing iconic games does have that recognition, though.

    The list of developers that known is small because the list of developers that have that level of success is small.

  • He makes good games. Polished ones, too.

    Even MGS5, which was pretty clearly pushed out before he wanted it to be and broke him up with Konami, was extremely technically sound, just not filled out as much as it should have been.

  • What you're describing is not and does not in any way resemble a competitive game. "You hate competitive games" is not an opinion. It's the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from your continued deluded hate fest on the core defining traits of the genre.

    The second you nerf a player for doing "too well" in any context, calling your game competitive isn't misleading or misrepresentative. It's a lie. It cannot be described as a competitive game if rubber band mechanics exist at any point in any context. It's the equivalent using lard in your food then calling it kosher. The instant it's implemented in any context, using the word competitive turns into fraud.

  • It's brutal.

    I like the idea, but you need a touch screen and support and you need a far, far better screen before it's in the neighborhood of actually realistic to use. It's not their fault that you can't just go buy a 300 PPI screen, but the end result is just not enough to actually be usable.

  • Even if they did give it, they get tax benefit instead of you.

    No, they don't.

    They literally just don't have to count the amount you gave them as income. That's it. That's the whole thing. You can't profit off of middle manning donations unless you commit fraud.