bigspender wrote on Jan 22, 2021, 17:02:
Don't they mean bisexual? Yeah I get that theres multiple genders, but there are only two sexes afaik. You either have a Y chromosome or you dont right?
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 22, 2021, 16:14:
Yeah, I understood the premise you were suggesting, BoP. It might even be right. But it does lack some logic, I mean if you are going to be a crook, you are going to be a crook. Does it matter if you are asking for 5 Bitcoin or 1,000 Bitcoin as long as the cash equivalent is worth $150k? Then again, high intelligence isn't a common thing among crooks -- so the idea Bitcoin value has spiked might be sufficient motivation for the idiots isn't the craziest thing I've heard in the last week..
Solemn-Philosopher wrote on Jan 20, 2021, 17:47:
I'm not usually pro-big business and I am open to a different take, but I am not sure this is a positive direction for European gamers. If they have a single price for games, gamers in Eastern Europe with generally lower income will have to pay extreme prices for their games in comparison to their income. That is the reason for geoblocking, so people in lower income countries can afford games and people in higher income countries can't cheat and grab a game for cheaper.
Rock Paper Shotgun Article: Geo-blocking is usually done so games can be sold cheaper in low-income countries. However, people in higher-income countries have often found ways in the past to bypass regional pricing. Obviously, publishers aren’t a fan of this, because it means those people nab the lower prices.
Avus wrote on Jan 20, 2021, 16:50:
I am using my RTX2060 as GTX2060 and I have NO complaint to play all my games in 1080p.
Simon Says wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 13:40:
"19% IPC increase", shows no noticeable improvement over 10700K in Intel's own benchmarks released so far...
Press X for doubt...
Orogogus wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 17:17:
I was under the impression that this was the endgame of conservatives' proposed revocation of the CDA's Section 230 protections. Removing those protections wouldn't prevent censorship, it would make censorship mandatory since otherwise platforms would be sued for illegal content. So that was something I didn't really get, since conservatives were already complaining about censorship. Were they hoping to take antifa offline, or was it just a way to stick it to Big Tech regardless of the result?
Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:58:
Yes, when you create something predominantly for illegal purposes, or you fail to put in good faith efforts to curb illegal usage, this is what happens.
Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:45:
Ok. Who was banned for things that aren't TOS violations?
The Pyro wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:22:
This is arguably more dangerous than government censorship. It would be easier to hold the US government accountable. Instead, we've got a small group of private tech executives who hold a near-monopoly on the communications infrastructure running half the planet, and they're using their power to remove content from millions of people who had absolutely nothing to do with storming the US capitol or inciting violence.
The scale of these tech companies gives them a frightening amount of power concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, and I don't see this monopoly getting broken up by market forces any time soon. Maybe the government can't throw you in jail for expressing unpopular opinions, but the tech companies can shut down your entire social network and basically freeze your assets by shutting down payment processing. Google and Apple suddenly don't like your pro-Hong Kong independence views? Bam, now your smartphone is a brick. Good luck finding an alternative.
At this point I don't know what the better solution would be - more aggressive antitrust laws, or more comprehensive classes of protected speech, or an overhaul of section 230 - but I do know I'm not comfortable with the status quo.
Verno wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 14:22:
Is this fair though? Generally speaking the stories are labeled appropriately and most of the time they're sectioned off. No one makes me click on this stuff, I choose to do so. I don't think anyone clicked this comment thread expecting a discussion on GPUs. What I dislike is when people derail existing threads with political comments and the silly quote cheerleading, the latter of which I would love to clamp down on.
Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 13:56:
Everyone is OK with censoring people they disagree with. Just wait until it's your opinion they disagree with and you get censored. I don't agree with either side, since they are both full of self-serving politicians just looking to get rich and powerful off the backs of the people. The logic defying twists both sides play trying to redefine reality is just mind blowing.
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 12:59:
The Polish government is getting involved?!? What the fuck is going on, on this fucking planet? Tens of thousands of people dying every day from Covid19, possibly millions of new infections every day worldwide, and any government is spending one iota of time on this fucking video game!?!
Clearly I am living in some sort of simulated Hell or Twilight Zone.
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 13:10:
How much do you want to bet that some well-connected Poles "lost" money when the stock decreased.
'Follow The Money' and you'll get the real answer why the government is involved.
Cutter wrote on Jan 7, 2021, 14:20:
I thought Bezos had surpassed 200 billion this year? Yeah, just googled it and Bezos passed $200 billion back in August.
MeanJim wrote on Jan 6, 2021, 13:03:
Player count dropping... on a single player game... roughly about the time it takes to play it. I wonder why?
aka_STEVE wrote on Dec 30, 2020, 09:58:
SO let me get this right ..?
The game has made about a Bazillion !! dollars so far.....
the 'investors' want to use the money they made to sue the Devs. for even more money....thus costing themselves money.
"If" they win the suit,... they 'might' get some money from a place they invested their original money into...
..which then loses stock value... which causes the investors to lose money again ....
Sad thing is - there was enough of them that this made sense too , to hire a lawyer...
Skuggasveinn wrote on Dec 30, 2020, 08:55:
"... by misleading investors.."
This is a key sentence and perhaps the only way this lawsuit will go someplace.
Unfortunately for CDPR there is evidence that management lied about the state of the game, hid facts about stability, even knew that it was unplayable on current gen consoles but told investors that is was "running surprisingly well" when asked about console performance.
Luggage wrote on Dec 30, 2020, 05:24:
So if the case against CDPR succeeds, and the company has to pay big bucks in damages, and the share value then falls because the company has lost all that cash, will there be a class action for that additional fall in share value?
Not a fan of gamblers who don't lose well.