hamsterkill @ hamsterkill @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

1

Comments

242

Joined

2 yr. ago

Because Dems don't have the majority. Jeffries was often the top vote getter during the speaker voting in January, though, since the Republican coalition is fracturing, much like now. Plurality doesn't get you the speaker's gavel, though.

EA/Bioware had nothing to do with this remake. It was in development at Aspyr at first, followed by Saber Interactive — both owned by Embracer Group.

This was/is? a remake of KOTOR 1, not a KOTOR 3 which has never been announced.

It was given to another team, but obviously radio silence ever since.

Part of me is wondering if the success of Baldur's Gate has impacted the approach to it at all, given it falls roughly in the same genre space.

Embracer's financials probably impacting it more, though.

I'm a little disappointed to not see AV1 decoding mentioned, since Broadcom has had one for years now.

2D projects also used Unity at a very high rate. Unreal has never really been considered suitable for 2D work. I'm not sure if Godot is.

Yeah, I suppose the reputational harm from the announcement in the first place is going to set them back quite a bit, regardless. I suppose that's why things like this are supposed to be reviewed before they get announced.

If they had just made it a 2.5% revenue share for the high-revenue games in the first place, I doubt even many game news outlets would've covered it, let alone "real" news. Now, after the massive dustup and pissing off all their customers, falling back to that may be a bit more difficult.

It's still pretty relevant. Some of the biggest indie hits of the last several years used it (Stardew Valley, Celeste, Supergiant games pre-Hades).

MonoGame has the advantage of being used to ship a number of indie hits, though. Supergiant still uses an in-house fork of it for their games, if I'm not mistaken (ed. I guess they rewrote their engine for Hades).

I've honestly been surprised that Godot's getting a lot of hype out of this. I had expected MonoGame/XNA to be the big beneficiary -- particularly for Unity's 2D users, but also 3D (though I expected Unreal to benefit the most there just because of developer familiarity).

I honestly don't think MS really wants to own Unity. Like, sure, there's a small amount of synergy because some of their games use it, but owning Unity also means committing resources to support and improve it and competing with Unreal to an extent.

If anyone would be interested in buying Unity I'd think it'd be a Chinese corp like Tencent or NetEase or else a publisher that works with a lot of indies like Devolver or maybe Embracer.

It would practically guarantee that a Trump victory would again be without the popular vote — which he'd hate.

For now, sure. Car makers want to support the connector that has the most chargers out there. The competition won't go away, though. Most seem to agree that CCS2 is a superior connector to both CCS1 and NACS. What it amounts to is that EV owners will just have to have adapters in their car. Tesla's move to NACS at least makes that possible (as the connectors will at least all share a communication protocol, as far as I understand).

Already the case. Such is the "fun" of having the Imperial system in the US.

None of them have cars on the road using NACS yet , though.

A Tesla driver probably wouldn't have any great need to see a CCS charger, just like a non-Tesla diver has little reason to go to a Tesla supercharger. They're around, though. EA seems to like putting chargers in Sheetz and Walmart. Chargepoint is less predictable as to where you'll find them. They do seen broken more often than they should be (usually seems to be a computer/software issue), though, I'll give you that.

Not just Tesla and not just NACS. Other charging networks using CCS are going into Sheetz as well. I know I always stop at two Electrify America Sheetz locations on the PA turnpike whenever I drive it.

Fast chargers at sizeable gas stations make sense. Sheetz has already been putting them in at some larger locations.

Seems sorta weird they'd be looking to offload them for financial reasons. Gearbox seems like it'd be one of their more profitable studios.

The question here comes down to 3 choices

Do you want a corporation to be able to decide what you can't look at?

Do you want your government to decide what you can't look at?

Do you want to decide what you don't look at?

And, like most things, people are going to want a little from each column. Figuring out the proper lines is the tricky part. The EFF stance is the net neutrality stance. Your stance is the Section 230 stance. Both are good things in different situations.

In this case, because there is most often no consumer choice in ISPs, net neutrality is the EFF-preferred position when dealing with them. This leaves it to the government (and society at large) to craft and/or enforce specific laws to control the undesired behavior, which is often a mistake, too. But it's generally a better societal moderator than a single monpolistic corporation is.