Their losses are clearly significant enough to bring a foreign army (North Koreans) to replenish their forces. Maybe not 50% but I don’t think it’s that far off.

Yeah, Embark was founded by the former CEO of DICE so I imagine quite a lot of DICE talent moved to Embark.

I think I was rambling a bit. I think the best course of action is to just give it a try because I think the gameplay is the biggest make or break for people. If you don’t enjoy the gameplay then it doesn’t matter if the game isn’t a toxic mess and not really predatory with the MTX.

I would say the community is much better than what you would expect from Call of Duty or Destiny or anything looking to hit super mainstream. I think most toxic players won’t play the game because the game has a high effective TTK. The average encounter is around probably 1-2 seconds because you usually need to hit more than 5 shots and your opponent has enough time to react and use movement to make them a harder target to hit. The higher TTK may be a deal breaker, it was for a lot of people during launch, but I personally enjoy it.

I think the MTX is pretty mild. It’s all cosmetic so they don’t impact the core gameplay at all, which means if you don’t care about cosmetics your only interaction with the MTX is the little sale window on the top left of the main menu. You can earn some in game currency to buy cosmetics but because it’s F2P their only revenue streams are the battlepass (which again is also strictly cosmetic rewards or in game currency) and the cosmetic shop. Some things are only for real cash and they can look expensive (like $20 for a pack of cosmetic items) but they usually come with in game currencies so if you’re planning to use the in game currency as well that $20 usually drops to $7-$8 which for 2025 isn’t actually that much. I forgot to mention, the battlepass can be bought for the in game currency so what I’ve done is bought the $20 thingy and the use most of the in game currency to buy the battlepass.

Just a PSA, The Finals is playable on Linux and is F2P with a very reasonable monetization (cosmetic only with some free cosmetic options as well) and the new season just began.

For me it scratches that multiplayer itch because the destructible environments make matches feel very dynamic.

I don’t think it’s even necessarily that the GPU pricing has ballooned. I think the main reason is that that every new game has to compete with pretty much every other game ever made. For example I enjoyed Death Stranding and I am interested in Death Stranding 2, but I’m probably not getting in on launch because there’s a big chance I’ll probably start playing Stardew Valley for the n’th time, because I feel like that’s what I want to play. I’ll probably play DS2 when I get the Kojima itch.

I think to answer his question precisely (if I’m understanding your correctly) is that yes, it would wipe out the COVID immunity for the COVID variant that you used to be immune to. But it doesn’t matter because COVID keeps mutating into new variants and the immunity to the older variant won’t help you.

Also bold of him to assume the democratic party is capable of change.

Do you not know history? That is the exact kind of attitude that doomed the league of nations. The UN exists to manage international affairs. If you start kicking out members or start demanding specific resolutions you can’t manage international affairs because countries will say “fuck your org, I’ll do my own thing”.

You give us 50% of your natural resources and we’ll give you eggs (no guarantees on getting the eggs though).

There are upsides and downsides to everything. Open votes means it’s harder to manufacture consent. That’s something someone on Reddit could do, where they bot vote their own content to the top of the feed and nobody would be none the wiser because you don’t know how and when someone voted. And it’s not really a “could do”, it’s something that (at least a few years ago) happened regularly.

But on Lemmy voting is open so if someone starts up a bot farm to push their content to the top it is (relatively) easy to discover.

I’ve been saying for some time that the biggest reason ray tracing looks lackluster is because it’s being held back by games needing to support rasterization. We’ve mastered rasterization which means any scene you can rasterize will look almost identical to a ray traced scene. And you don’t see scenes where ray tracing would blow your mind because those scenes most likely can’t be rasterized, which means they don’t added to the game. So for the end user ray tracing looks kinda meh because you don’t really get any significant benefits and the marginal differences between ray traced and rasterized scenes are not worth the performance cost.

It’s like having a 3D engine but you can only use it for 2D games.

Brain worms: not even once.

You need to be more specific than “a child” considering he mentally already seems to be at the intellectual capacity of a 15-16 year old (except without any of the capacity to learn).

That’s most likely a cloudflare proxy.

You wrote you’re supporting of the kind of socialism a lot of socialists would consider capitalism, because it doesn’t try to achieve socialism, it just tries to keep people happy by having strong social programs. And it’s odd of you to talk about game theory when according to game theory capitalism gets more effective when those same social programs get cut and that money is used for capitalistic purposes. Capitalism is also the reason why we still have 40 hour work weeks, because any increase in individual productivity is not used to reduce working hours but used to reduce the number of workers. Why? Because the goal is profits and if you can do the same amount of work with less people your profits increase. Keeping the same amount of workers but reducing working hours doesn’t increase profits so that’s not a desirable outcome.

f you analyse the common forms of socialism using those, it is obvious it will always devolve into authoritarianism.

No offense, but I seriously doubt you’ve done any of such analysis.

The incentives between leaders and the population are too misaligned and the power is too concentrated.

So instead we should support a system where political motives are commodified and corporations sell the power to influence the political landscape (see Cambridge analytica) and corporations have such power entire nations struggle to keep them in check (see Facebook fighting with EU over targeted ads) and then there’s whatever shady shit Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing are doing. The USSR had a corrupt power structure in place but they still had to play the charade of appealing to the people. Part of the reason you know USSR sucked is because they had to do it publicly. Corporations have unchecked concentration of power, they can (and they do) keep their shit secret and when there are whistleblowers (like in case with Boeing) they just kill them and nobody will do anything about it because corporations can have so much power nobody can keep them accountable.

Rise isn’t a good for comparison because Rise was designed for the switch. Or course it’s going to run exceptionally well on the Deck. It probably runs better than World, because World was designed for X1/PS4.

Edit: just to clarify I’m not defending the poor performance of Wilds, they did the exact same shit with World. I’m just clarifying that Rise performance was probably never going to happen.

As someone also from a post soviet country, don’t make the mistake of thinking all socialism is the same as Leninism.

Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group,

So you’d rather support a system where the power is handed to the unelected “officials”? You can see that happening in real time with Musk effectively leading the US. Not to mention almost all forms of democracy have people handing the power to the elected government, so I really don’t know what you’re opposing here.

As the other commenter put it, it depends on how it’s structured. There are so many ways to set up a coop I won’t get into how shares affect dividends. Instead I’ll use your example to show why your voting right is worth more than how the profits gets distributed.

If you’re making ten bucks from your share and the founder is making a million, then the cooperative has to be okay with that arrangement. If you’re collectively not okay with it then you have the power to change that. The founder can have all the shares in the world, they still have one vote. Since you collectively have the majority of votes you can simply vote to change how profits get distributed and the founder has to accept it because they don’t own the cooperative, you all do.

Well yeah, but cooperatives generally avoid the possibility of buying voting power because that kinda contradicts the purpose of a coop.