I don't have numbers to offer but the initial pricing may have been losing them money. Some big companies will offer a service at a loss to get more customers to bite, then when the price hikes hit many of the customers will be used to the service and just sign up for the hike.
There's not so much a limit to dives per day but there are depth/time limits to give your body a chance to desaturate from nitrogen build up.
There's also a time limit for exposure to compressed oxygen which comes in to play sometimes.
I spent about 3 hours and 45 minutes yesterday under water over the course of 5 dives. And most of it was between 70 and 100 feet. Each dive had about 2 hours between them to allow for that desaturation. I probably could have done another 40 minute dive if the boat had it scheduled, but 5 is really enough in a day.
To limit that nitrogen exposure, I was breathing a mix of nitrogen and oxygen that has more oxygen included called enriched air nitrox. It allows me to dive more throughout the day, but the increase of oxygen comes with the downside of limiting my depth.
Exhausting week was capped off with a relaxing scuba trip. Just a bunch of really high stress stuff at work. But I got to do 7 dives in 2 days and it was incredible. The trip was perfectly timed.
Why isn't purchasing the part through Apple enough?
And also Is the consumer not allowed to assume the risk of going through after market repair that you seem to be concerned about?
This issue has always been about Apple trying to force older iPhones into obsolescence. They want the freedom to eventually say that no more parts exist for that device so you'll have to upgrade. If repair shops can leverage broken phones to repair other phones, that extends the life of the device part Apples plans.
Most people will continue using older phones as long as they can because they don't need the latest phone.
Personally my issue with IPAs is that so many of them are generic IPA that tastes the same as 75 percent of the other IPAs and everybody that successfully brewed an IPA things they need to open a brewery with a bunch of IPAs.
When I go to a brewery and the option is 7 different variations of IPA and a guest beer, I usually know that the master brewer doesn't know much else about beer.
Always take the dates with a grain of salt because they usually only list about 1-2 quarters only. But until recently, most of the bars were in S42 rows. I'm hoping for big news around it in October.
The other big indicator for their focus on it was last year when they relocated a bunch of senior leadership in the org to the UK with the stated reasoning of focus on S42 with the trans that were already working on it.
Most resources have been diverted to the single player campaign for a while. (Squadron 42)
They communicate what is being done for the persistent universe (Star Citizen) but it's a slower trickle of features due to the resource allocation.
Generally, they made some really great gameplay engagements over the years but features are being prioritized based on the S42 needs. They only update on S42 once a month, but the updates have been looking like they are nearing feature completion (community speculation, not announcement) just due to them moving more toward bug fix/QA type stuff in recent months.
The next big information dump is scheduled for October at the convention that's coming up.
They've given up on giving dates because the community is very unforgiving if the dates are missed. And in software, dates are almost always missed.
It's been a long while since I've played it, so I had forgotten most things.
But the focus of a game makes a big difference in what features exist. I'm honestly not sad Bethesda skipped entry and landing. The game has enough content without it if you follow the quests, and if rather they acknowledge it's too difficult and finally release a stable game.
Nintendo would probably prefer the 20 cent per copy license fee to a percent based one. New Pokemon games are sold at 60 dollars in the US and sell millions of copies. This is a bigger issue for indie developers looking to sell for a cheaper price to bring in sales.
While I had forgetten about Kerbal space program, I would point out two major things about that comparison. KSP is entirely about the ship flight. That is the entire games purpose. And second, when I played it a few years after release, it was hardly stable and wouldn't be a good representation with the atmospheric density discussion. As I remember it that problem was largely ignored.
Can you give me an example of a game that solved the above problems? I've never seen a game that has that issue resolved for any ship configuration that could exist.
And this whole conversation overlooks one of the major complaints a player would have of Bethesda did the same thing.
Entering an atmosphere changes the physics and those physics are different for all sorts of reasons on every planetary body for every ship. From gravity to atmospheric density the ship would fly differently on every one and that ignores the fact that ships are near enough to infinite in configuration in this game due to the builder.
If Bethesda did this, players would be complaining it wasn't realistic enough.
I don't have numbers to offer but the initial pricing may have been losing them money. Some big companies will offer a service at a loss to get more customers to bite, then when the price hikes hit many of the customers will be used to the service and just sign up for the hike.