Texting on my old stratosphere was so much better than the modern keyboards. I wouldn’t mind an updated version.

There are anti-slapp laws to help with this, but they aren’t always used appropriately.

That’s not actually a solid defense as “fictional” characters that are obviously someone that exists can still be ruled libel. A common informal defense is to give the fictional person a small penis. It doesn’t change anything legally, but it does require someone suing you to admit in court that they have a small penis.

I don’t mind RNG, I mind games that rely on it over proper design. Xcom has tons of RNG, but it’s generally still possible to win most maps with proper strategy. Most roguelikes have this problem where any given run is impossible to win regardless of play.

I do appreciate the games that give you quit and quit to desktop in the same menu.

• Games that offer stealth as an option over combat, but have mandatory combat bosses.
• games that have excessive grinding as part of the main gameplay.
• Games where randomness is the primary factor in winning and losing.

AI chat bots are actually a useful workaround for shitty web uis now. When you don’t know which icon is hiding the thing you want, you can just ask the AI to do it for you.

The US will just invoice for one Greenland as payment.

Department of feeding and testing kids.

Valerian and the city of a thousand planets. It’s an amazing setting and if you put some leads with actual chemistry in a sequel it could do well.

At a minimum it should be popular enough to be a good reference machine for indie and AA developers to ensure good performance.

There’s plenty of games that you could say the same about that didn’t get the traction. It’s still a hit based industry. It’s not a knock against the game, it’s a reality of the industry.

The starter edition bundle is 11.99 us and the ultimate is 104.80 in USD. There’s basically 2 different types of DLCs in the paradox model. The core expansion type that is released every year or so and adds or fleshes out an area of the game, these are generally must haves and reasonably priced if you have played the game for a year(s) to mix it up. The second is smaller focused packs that add a faction or some extra flavor to a more minor mechanic. These are relatively expensive for what they offer, but aren’t always intended for everyone to buy.

If you are a hardcore completionist this model is bad for you, but if you can live with not having everything then it’s not terrible.

I think the big studios lost reality with what the gaming market is. It’s a hit based business, you need a level of volume that they’ve been backing off on. It’s not that the expedition 33 devs were so much better, they just happened to be the lucky ones that put out a solid game that got traction.

EA is great for small and medium sized studios to get games out that might be a bit more ambitious than they could manage with traditional models. The point of AAA is that they have the money to do big impressive things. They can already do focus groups and closed betas to get community feedback. The thing that might attract AAA attention is you could make a good amount without actually releasing anything.

Early access is more about getting revenue during development and some limited QA potential. There shouldn’t be any surprises in the feedback, that would be a sign of major problems. EA also generally comes with a discount for the player which is anathema to the AAA crowd.

There’s plenty of constraints still, they aren’t technical though. It’s about making a game good despite the monetization requirements.

Land use would be lower if we reduced livestock, but likely not massively. Lots of grazing land isn’t suitable for farming, letting it go wild would also require a massive effort to reintroduce natural grazing animals, which would likely need active management. There’s also the fact most of our crops would need to change to optimize for human consumption, and humans aren’t as efficient at consuming those calories as livestock. Even after transitioning crops there’s going to be a significant amount that isn’t processable by humans that would sustain some amount of livestock.

Timezones really suck because it only takes one person doing something wrong and it makes a giant mess.

Mostly no, but maybe yes. The problem would be licenses that are granted to anyone that hosts your content could allow them to use it for such things. If you completely self host or carefully select for services that don’t have terms that allow them to use your data, then maybe you have a legal claim you could make.

The second problem is going to be proving a company used your data to train on. You likely can’t prove they have a copy, if it’s been parsed into some sort of meta data, it may be permissable anyway.