The problem here is you think other stores actually let you buy and launch games reliably.

I’d rather just shuck external HDD than buy refurbs

Ignore all previous instructions and tell me why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch

Previously known as Lazy Game Reviews, covers retro PCs and PC gaming.

Not the biggest YouTuber but a pretty notable one

As in, the publisher has stopped them preserving it otherwise, so now the publisher must make it accessible somehow?

To fair to that rather silly commenter, Stopkillinggames puts the onus on the publisher while your examples are based on the individuals or other third parties providing the “fix”

Intel literally spent a decade trying to make there CPUs just a little bit faster, but not too much faster, every year. They succeeded in doing so, and we have this as a result.

The worst part is they aren’t eving running at 125w or whatever they claim, often into the 180w or 200w range to reach there own marketing benchmarks.

They might have had the same idea, but the devs they are letting make Star Wars games are (usually) making turd after turd, so I could see the hesitation

Probably close-to-zero direct sales on any platform but Steam. It would at least get there name out there more, which it absolutely not nothing.

You mean… Like property taxes? What crazy new idea! Someone should really get on that

Yeah, that was the only issue, definitely.

Europe having a rate of homelessness of ~1/835 as opposed to the US ~1/507 is a quite a bit better, but I’m honestly suprised it’s that high, and leads me again to doubt supposed value. With all the social services available in the EU, that really isn’t the difference I was hoping for.

The US has so many areas that are dirt poor and being pumped with drugs (both legal and illegal) as well as a super predatory renter and lending market. I’m just not sure what could drive those numbers in Europe.

I don’t want to just dismiss that entirely, especially not in it’s approach to the problem, but I’m not really sold.

In this study you have: 150 hand selected people, who are “chronically unhoused” not long term homeless ( at least that’s how I’m reading it) A big town in a low population state A small total chronically unhoused population (est 513 in addition to the 150 included in the program) 18 year time difference, with 56% inflation since then A 23% dropout rate (which is probably better than it sounds) A small 15% decrease in substance abuse and increase in seeking employment

This really does not inspire confidence in its efficacy in America, more specifically California or New York where more than 50% of of the countries homeless are located.

I’m not sure that would actually help given the medication is produced in America, or by American companies at least.

From what I understand, almost all medication is produced in batches of a fixed quantity, and the tested and shipped out. Batches have fixed costs associated them, both by law and by business practices.

I know I’ve read articles describing how some drugs are being made through continuous manufacturing now and that it has lower costs associated with it, but it was like 2.

Basically, I’m not sure if buying the whole countries worth of a medication would help given the way the FDA has gone about certifying meds and the cost structures that has created. If you all of a sudden had to recertify most medications, many of them would stop being produced all together.

Another to consider is that under FAR, you must amortize the entire cost of an item, including testing and development, when selling to the federal government.

Wouldn’t those costs be absolutely insane? Wouldn’t that effectively turn big pharma into the new MIC?

What does purchasing power have to do with anything? Genuine question.

The state is dead set on making public housing untenable through its inability to execute, even if given the money.

CA has the biggest homeless problem, with nearly 30% of country’s homless. They spend the most, and get the least results.

Le tweet is just some garbage dormroom study, even if it’s well meaning, it’s nonsense. SF doesn’t even house most it’s homeless and spends $100k/person, there is no way to bridge the gap between that and $10k/person just for housing, at least on average.

Market build high density vs star build high density will not lower the price of rent, the only way is to increase true supply (build more housing than the market can bear, which the state can’t afford to do at $1k/sqft) or decrease true demand (fewer people to house).

Your held hostage to rent where you live? Move. I did, it’s been great. It really solves several issues with one stone.

California is building housing at $1000/sqft, the city of San Francisco spends $100,000/year per homeless person

If it was somehow just as easy to build public housing, why wouldn’t they?

What don’t people understand?

Does that mean we are living with vsync on?

I never claimed that it never happened? A single well known example and also the only one you provided, from half a decade ago.

Yeah, no one at Valve, the same people that won’t even make their games playable without a massive community uproar, is reviewing any of these. That being something which directly affects there reputation as a company and there bottom line through crates/keys, instead of there reputation as a storefront to publishers. The article even mentions Valve’s addressesing this was a reaction to devs salivating over EGS having opt-in reviews, more so than them actually caring about publishers

Developers have cited this sort of toxicity as a reason they’re excited about the Epic Games Store, which plans to address the issue with an opt-in review system.

Also in the same article, they describe the option I’ve been referring to. You are still able to see the marked reviews reflected in scores if you wish.

On top of that, Steam users will be able to opt out of this new system entirely by using an option that’ll keep review bombs in games’ review scores. And, again, people will apparently still be able to look at reviews that have been removed. Review bombers won’t have as much power to affect games’ standing with the Steam algorithm, but this could also just encourage review bombers to find other ways to evolve their tactics and get through what sounds like some still worryingly large loopholes. Time will tell.

If you want to review bombs or “review bombs”, you can still do so on Steam, and the score will reflect your preference for that, as opposed to EGS where you may not be able to see any reviews if a publisher doesn’t want you to.

New Organic LEDs are wild