User information for Foxtrot2Nov

Real Name
Foxtrot2Nov
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request
Description
Homepage
None given.

Supporter

Signed On
June 21, 2020
Total Posts
11 (Suspect)
User ID
59032
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
11 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
9.
 
Re: On Sale
May 22, 2022, 17:28
9.
Re: On Sale May 22, 2022, 17:28
May 22, 2022, 17:28
 
fujiJuice wrote on May 22, 2022, 17:03:
I want to hear from someone that bought one. A real person. Otherwise I refuse to believe these aren't just marketing tactics.

How many of this digital ship were allotted? 2 or 2,000?

Only a couple to a few dozen depending on the ship iirc; the Javelin is a destroyer that goes for the $3k mentioned and they only sell a handful each time.
3.
 
Re: Morning Metaverse
Mar 28, 2022, 19:02
3.
Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 28, 2022, 19:02
Mar 28, 2022, 19:02
 
RedEye9 wrote on Mar 28, 2022, 12:16:
Money is a strong pusher.
,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.
I watched the first Halo episode and liked it enough that I’ll watch the next one.
,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,
Data compiled by PCMag in October 2020 had revealed that Starlink's rivals in the satellite internet industry - Viasat and HughesNet - had ~25 Mbps and ~20 Mbps in download speeds.
nuff said

Being on Viasat right now, I can say the other biggest issues nobody talks about are data limits, latency, upload speeds, and price points.

I currently have the absolute best plan you can get from Viasat which costs some $250 a month and has a 150gb data cap for the entire month. The upload rate is 1mbps or less. I have almost never seen the alleged 25 Mbps download speed in real-world use, and even if you did you have the 150gb data cap to contend with. It's only useful for streaming, and even then you have the final major other issue to deal with - latency. Latency averages 600-800ms. Makes it impossible to game with, and many sites have issues with such a large latency disparity - they'll time you out or the like, as they were designed with much shorter latency times in mind.

Can't wait to get Starlink. Would be even better to see a landline of some sort, but that seems to be a year or more away still, so Starlink is the next best alternative compared to the absolute racket that Viasat and HughesNet are.
3.
 
Re: Rumor: Next Battlefield a "Hero Shooter"
Dec 3, 2021, 20:22
3.
Re: Rumor: Next Battlefield a "Hero Shooter" Dec 3, 2021, 20:22
Dec 3, 2021, 20:22
 
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 20:02:
Ugh, are they just trying to kill the franchise or something? There are plenty of shitty "Hero Shooters," BR or otherwise, that I avoid as it is. Stop messing up Battlefield.

Based on EA's previous track record, absolutely yes. Its leadership and the bean counters and whomever else they're listening to (since they're obviously not listening to gamers or the very few good devs remaining) will continue to drive this shipwreck into the ground. They earned a few brownie points when they got rid of lootboxes, but that was mostly because of the amount of legislation and legal attention they were getting: not at all because of gamer/market pressure.

EA only cares about what kind of profit they can wring out of a game/franchise and they don't think about how a good game or good game design can get them that profit. They focus solely on finding the right mix of predatory game mechanics--like battle royales, season/battle passes, sold skins and other microtransactions--to try and milk consumers of every last penny. They don't seem to realize that most of their decently profitable games have been because of brand loyalty, but that the brand loyalty only goes so far. Battlefield, as an example, has been steadily treading downhill since Battlefield 4/I. BF V and the two new SW Battlefronts in the same style and same design demonstrate how that slide has continued downhill. Gamers looked forward to BF2042 because it promised a potential return to the experiences of Battlefield 2/3 and 2142 with its bit of near-modern tint, but the foundational design choices made in 2042 prove that EA's direction is here to stay and that the franchise will only continue to deteriorate.

Specialists, for example, are an engine not just to sell new skins but also new specialists and associated battlepasses for all of it - which is why just using classes won't work, since it's hard to generate interest in buying a new class, and there's only so many classes before you get considerable overlap. But tacking on Specialists, and soon "Heroes" (which is all specialists are in BF2042, since they all feature a unique person and "personality") lets you create "unique" specialists and "heroes" to then advertise and sell. Plus it exponentially increases the amount of skins/reskins you can then tack on top of it all to sell in addition to all of it. So EA would never allow a return to the BF 3/4 class system with some of the more "basic" customization options (soldier skins) if they can see another option. Ironically, they're so stupid they don't realize that they could go with classes and sell players customization options that they'd absolutely buy - Insurgency: Sandstorm, Ghost Recon Wildlands and Breakpoint are all good examples of that. Being a "generic soldier" or "SF operator" and being able to play "dress up" with different camos, outfits, vests, and gear setups is absolutely a thing players would get behind. But that isn't what the market leaders are using, so that isn't what EA is going to consider much if at all.

They'll kill the franchise and DICE (If one can say the DICE of today looks anything like the DICE most Battlefield fans remember), just like they have so many others. The last gasp will be remasters - which is what Portal effectively is - like with Command and Conquer. Battlefield will die a long, slow, ugly, lingering death.

Because these "game" companies prioritize profit at the expense of everything else this won't change, a new competitor will just come along and scoop up the consumers they lost. Companies make games to make money, of course, but it is lost on them that good games can and absolutely do make good money. They have to have a whole mass of marketeers, market analysts, and financial analysts/accountants/etc., parade through and design the game before they let any good devs and good game designers actually do anything to "maximize profit."

The result is something like Battlefield 2042.
14.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 16:59
14.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 16:59
Sep 13, 2021, 16:59
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:46:
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:00:
Cutter wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:05:
Apple *may* appeal? I don't think that was ever in doubt.

I still don't understand how a company can sidestep Apple's commission regardless of the payment system they choose. In effect these are just digital consignment stores. If it was a physical store that's like saying someone can bring their own shit in, use your space and resources and not have to give you a dime for it. In what universe would that be remotely fair?

The ruling doesn't allow developers to bypass Apple's commission; in fact the Judge reasserts Apple's right to receive a commission for their IP. The news is spinning things hard, or massively misreading the ruling.

All a developer is allowed to do is bring up links/information to other payment methods outside of the App, alongside Apple's In-App Purchases. Apple isn't precluded from changing their DPLA and/or TOS to say "you owe us 30% of any transactions you make through this links to other payment processors" or whatever the commission rate ends up being either.

All the ruling does is remove the anti-steering rules Apple had in place, so now developers can say "Hey we have other places you can buy our digital stuff at."

And of course Epic hates it: Epic wants access to all of Apple's customers for free, and they want to be able to open the Epic Games Store on the App Store so they can bring their exclusive-buying bullshit to that market. That's the only way Epic knows how to compete: Don't provide a better service with better features, just buy exclusives in an attempt to force consumers to use your barebones store.
Wait, how would Epic "compete" if Apple is totally locked off from them competing?

What you're saying, but I'm not sure if you realize you're saying, is Epic cannot compete with Apple due to Apple's restrictions. You're framing it as if Epic is bad for giving things for free, or having exclusives, all while not acknowledging that every Apple user is exclusive to Apple.

Not to mention, I really want to play the sequel to Mini Metro, but Apple paid for that to be an iOS exclusive. At least I can play Tony Hawk, an Epic exclusive, just by downloading something. Apple wants me to pay hundreds or thousands to play their exclusive games.

Walled gardens will be walled gardens. Nintendo, Playstation, and Xbox all work the same way. None of those platforms will allow you to open a store inside of their store and not pay any commission to them, and even more so they won't let you open a store inside their store, not pay any commission to them for doing so, AND steal away products that would otherwise give them money by making them exclusives.

Apple is perfectly free to run their business the way they want to - a walled garden is not illegal. It just isn't what a chunk of the marketbase wants - including, it sounds like, you. That's fine, the market will regulate it based on what consumers want. Don't like Apple not allowing sideloading of other app stores, like you mention? Don't buy an Apple product. I don't like it, and I don't like how Apple runs their walled garden and how it restricts the ability for me to use my devices the way I want to - so I don't buy Apple products.

Nothing says anyone is entitled to be able to force their way into the market Apple created, particularly and especially in Apple's instance where they built it as a Walled Garden to begin with and have always advertised it as such. Under the law, what would have been illegal is if Apple was open when it first launched the App Store, and once it gained a billion customers then shuttered its doors and prevented anyone from competing. It didn't; Apple has actually glacially opened access to the App Store to developers.

What Epic and your argument is implying to support is: X company makes a product, gains a billion customers who like that product; now Y company wants to sell things to that billion customers using X company's store, infrastructure, and work without paying or doing anything for X company. No different from wanting to open a store inside of Giant using Giant's shelf space, advertising, and employees but not wanting to pay Giant anything while doing so. No company would do so. Epic's Store is only doing some opposite practices because it is entirely subsidized by Fortnite and they're trying to force ways to gain marketshare; guaranteed that if and when they have that majority marketshare their business model will change to enable it to be profitable. Just look at Epic's Unreal licensing and commission terms/model: they absolutely build it to make a profit, and will not allow you to use Unreal Engine for free to access Unreal Engine customers.
11.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 16:23
11.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 16:23
Sep 13, 2021, 16:23
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 16:18:
That change would make it easier for app developers to avoid paying Apple’s commissions, potentially affecting billions of dollars in revenue annually.

Except it doesn't. Not going to belabor the point or go into an in-depth explanation further, just watch: https://youtu.be/nZU_7f91ZDo
9.
 
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too
Sep 13, 2021, 16:00
9.
Re: Epic Appealing Court Decision; Apple May Too Sep 13, 2021, 16:00
Sep 13, 2021, 16:00
 
Cutter wrote on Sep 13, 2021, 13:05:
Apple *may* appeal? I don't think that was ever in doubt.

I still don't understand how a company can sidestep Apple's commission regardless of the payment system they choose. In effect these are just digital consignment stores. If it was a physical store that's like saying someone can bring their own shit in, use your space and resources and not have to give you a dime for it. In what universe would that be remotely fair?

The ruling doesn't allow developers to bypass Apple's commission; in fact the Judge reasserts Apple's right to receive a commission for their IP. The news is spinning things hard, or massively misreading the ruling.

All a developer is allowed to do is bring up links/information to other payment methods outside of the App, alongside Apple's In-App Purchases. Apple isn't precluded from changing their DPLA and/or TOS to say "you owe us 30% of any transactions you make through this links to other payment processors" or whatever the commission rate ends up being either.

All the ruling does is remove the anti-steering rules Apple had in place, so now developers can say "Hey we have other places you can buy our digital stuff at."

And of course Epic hates it: Epic wants access to all of Apple's customers for free, and they want to be able to open the Epic Games Store on the App Store so they can bring their exclusive-buying bullshit to that market. That's the only way Epic knows how to compete: Don't provide a better service with better features, just buy exclusives in an attempt to force consumers to use your barebones store.
8.
 
Re: Assassin's Creed Infinity Revealed
Jul 7, 2021, 14:39
8.
Re: Assassin's Creed Infinity Revealed Jul 7, 2021, 14:39
Jul 7, 2021, 14:39
 
You could already see this was the path they were heading towards in the last few ACs and the increasing monetization that was creeping into them - that's all this will be. Now they'll also sell episodes, characters, storylines, and the like. And/or they'll sell it as a subscription service on top of existing monetization. So everything you originally bought in buying an AC game will now also be separately monetized, on top of what was already monetized like in Odyssey.

Ubisoft chasing down paths that EA had explored in years past and found out they're not as profitable as you want and earn you a ton of backlash.
9.
 
Re: New In-Game Ad Platform
Jul 1, 2021, 16:10
9.
Re: New In-Game Ad Platform Jul 1, 2021, 16:10
Jul 1, 2021, 16:10
 
The Flying Penguin wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 12:30:
"Once we can roll back some of Halliday's ad restrictions, we estimate we can sell up to 80% of an individual's visual field before inducing seizures." - Nolan Sorrento, Ready Player One Anxious

Was thinking of this exact quote when I saw this, lol. Pure O2!
41.
 
Re: Windows 11 Announced
Jun 25, 2021, 00:42
41.
Re: Windows 11 Announced Jun 25, 2021, 00:42
Jun 25, 2021, 00:42
 
roguebanshee wrote on Jun 24, 2021, 16:52:
jdreyer wrote on Jun 24, 2021, 15:38:
Foxtrot2Nov wrote on Jun 24, 2021, 15:32:
Considering every other Windows OS is a complete failure and travesty, hard pass on Windows 11.
Linux man?
To me it reads more like he was saying that roughly every other Windows release is crap. And if you look at it in the order of 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 you could certainly make such a connection. Even so, the bad ones aren't usually as bad as their reputation makes them out to be.

Roguebanshee has me right.
21.
 
Re: Windows 11 Announced
Jun 24, 2021, 15:32
21.
Re: Windows 11 Announced Jun 24, 2021, 15:32
Jun 24, 2021, 15:32
 
Considering every other Windows OS is a complete failure and travesty, hard pass on Windows 11.
14.
 
Re: Back 4 Blood Trailer
Jan 4, 2021, 10:36
14.
Re: Back 4 Blood Trailer Jan 4, 2021, 10:36
Jan 4, 2021, 10:36
 
Xero wrote on Jan 4, 2021, 10:30:
Frode wrote on Jan 4, 2021, 10:04:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 3, 2021, 18:27:
So my fam and I have been doing a lot of gaming lately, including L4D2. There are 4 of us, so one of the games I wanted to play was Evolve by this same studio.
Not related to this studio, but if you're on the lookout for a 4 player co-op game (works fine with 2 or 3 as well), my strong recommendation would be for Deep Rock Galactic.

I've had that on my Wishlist for a while. It has very good reviews and from what I hear is a blast to paly in co-op. I personally don't do much co-op games these days as my time is limited and I prefer to jump into a quick game and out but remember the blast I had in my younger years with games like these (L4D).

You can play solo - you get a drone companion (Bosco!) who follows you around and can help you. Can order him to mine for you, etc. Plus it's easy to match with pubs and play on a map - usually only takes 20-30 minutes for a normal game. Highly recommend Deep Rock Galactic.
11 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older