I’m not reading the article but why does the title still need to phrase it like the devs are the ones who need more time, suggesting they haven’t finished making the game a month and a half ahead of release? We already know that investors got spooked by Star Wars exploding because of its sales model with special editions driving up the prices for some bullshit, and we know AC was supposed to do the same but now won’t. They literally just said “actually we’re going back to simultaneous Steam release and we’re dropping the special editions and we’re rethinking the season’s pass from scratch and so-and-so will now be free instead of paid DLC” like a couple weeks ago. I can see that they did that following devs advice, but it wasn’t that the devs needed time, ever since the advent of DLC there have been multiple games from big companies where we’ve heard that the dev team fought against garbage DLC and sales practice but were told to fuck off and do what they were told and then the game exploded. The sales department is the one that needs more time to rethink the worth of cutting this down and selling the pieces, and then have the devs adjust all that.

I’m on the side that a remaster of a PS4 gen game dumb, but HZD was always the butt of the joke in regard to those awful generic bobblehead animations during every single dialog. It was laughably bad. With the reveal trailer, it does make a pretty big difference. Everything else? Not so much.

If this had been a PC game all along, these animation overhaul would have been a patch of the original game, but since the trailer insists that they re-recorded all motion captures for the dialogs of the whole game, they get to sell it full price again.

Ultimate Nick Fury came first and was openly based on SLJ, so people actually liked it.

Yeah we were all busy that weekend, please bring Concord to PC again

Sales expectations here don’t mean “we think this game is so good it will move x million units,” that thinking doesn’t exist anymore. It starts from the money they put in it, and they deduce “we’ll need to sell x million copies to get the money back with the profit we want.” There have been a few interviews specifically about these two games saying that.

It’s the same old idea that AAA products (movies, games, same excuse) cost more to make than they bring money back - although we never know exactly how much of that is actually “investors expect an x% return by week y” where x is just too high and y too short and they never want to think longer term, and we never know how far an investment actually goes. Especially in the case of the Remake trilogy where keeping the same engine and world is supposed to drastically reduce the cost of the last game compared to if they had started a new game from scratch with the same content - except part 3 is unlikely to sell more than part 2 given that it’s a sequel.

At any rate, we all know it’s true that development time and costs keep going up exponentially, and no one likes it (and yet everyone wants 4k 60fps somehow).

Does the article say the headline is wrong? Or does it say conspiracy theorists listen to facts because it relies on a handful of willing participants who changed their mind when seeing facts and reports? Because that’s not the crux of the crazy conspiracy theorists.

Try again when the chatbot talked to the likes of Graham Hancock or the hardcore MAGA death cult. Facts don’t matter.

Rand pointed out that many conspiracy theorists actually want to talk about their beliefs. “The problem is that other people don’t want to talk to them about it,”

Just look at this guy who straight up pretends that no one tried to talk to them before.

It does talk about gish gallop at the very end, and claims that the chatbot can keep presenting arguments - but doesn’t actually say that it has worked.

There’s giving a different importance to something that is, in fact, present in the art piece because it touches you more importantly than it did the author, and then there’s making shit up whole cloth. But like I said, the words you chose, and also the things you chose to defend, say more about you than the art

You can also replace woke with another word and it is indeed true that this hypothetical game has a message of female empowerment by having a strong female lead yes. Fallout can have an anti-capitalist message whether you’re pro or anti capitalist yourself and use your own word of choice to denigrate or praise the message. The word you chose says more about you than the message.

What was your point already?

It’s not that specific drawing, it’s that they still make drawings like it regularly.

It was shot up by people who were mad that the journal was regularly doing drawings like that.

Pourquoi pas les deux

I don’t know the other countries. I don’t mean it happens everywhere every day, but a big storm can throw a few trees on the lines to the South and bench all trains on those lines for half a day easily. Anyway I also meant it’s not terror, just irritation. Which is usual for French people. No one was harmed, people are just sour they can’t go on vacation.

If you think a bunch of trains running late for a day causes terror, you don’t know the French rail system.

We did spend a while making sure that individual countries could do what they wanted without engaging the responsibility of a unified NATO response, because we were terrified Putin might use it as an excuse for his NATO aggression rhetoric.

A bomb that could destroy Earth’s core would be an admittedly impressive technical feat!

Does France do graduated brackets like the US?

Is there any place that does taxes without brackets, just flat “pass this number and suddenly lose half of everything”? Does that even exist outside the imagination of Americans who have never understood or looked at taxes? Brackets should be the definition of income taxes, is it not? It’s not an economic tariff applied regardless the volume of merchandise passing a frontier.

I don’t keep up with youtube alternatives but this one doesn’t require login https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=DaJWEjimeDM the video isn’t loading easily but it seems to work after a bit

deleted by creator

https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM?si=rwX4eZZQvGV22iiR first half is citing two guys who think the Sphinx is older than we think (including your guy); third guy and after show that the erosion and the faults didn’t come from rain from outside, but water infiltration from below, from before the Sphinx was carved into the rock, and that yes, we do see it in other places in the same rock layer. Other buildings above it don’t have that erosion from below. So the erosion is indeed old, but it didn’t happen from rain falling after the Sphinx was carved out, so you can’t use it to determine when the Sphinx was carved out of the ground.

I’m only suggesting that theories which are not supported by direct anthropological evidence are worth considering

You can consider an idea and build a theory around it, but once your basic idea is disproven, your whole theory disappears. And the idea that the Sphinx erosion doesn’t match the agreed upon age has already been proven wrong - as in, it has been explained that the observed erosion is perfectly compatible with what rock types are there and with the data that we know since the actual period it was built in, the mid third millenium BCE. So you don’t have your premise that the erosion doesn’t match the official age, and that means there is nothing left to consider here until you actually have something new, anything else is fanfiction.

Considering new idea is perfectly fine, no one disagrees with that, but you are not considering new ideas, you are considering old ideas that were proven wrong and not listening when someone tells you why it’s wrong. Get new material.