FreeFacts

Imagine after 10 more years of cpu/gpu innovations, and chat applications that have actually been designed for information retrieval, how much that is going to transform how we interact with data and information.

LLMs are going to change how we interact with data and information, but not the way you think. The AI-generated spam will ruin the whole concept of internet search completely. Only information that we can trust is going to be human-curated.

Which is kind of a good thing. The console wars have been large irrelevant for the past 20 years, because PC already won.

Nope, Mobile won. PC and Consoles combined are not even reaching the revenue, number of releases or players of mobile gaming.

they usually mean they don’t engage in anti-competitive practices.

But they do. They forbid devs to sell their games cheaper on other storefronts (outside of timed sales). Basically they enforce anti-competitive pricing on products in a way that makes it impossible for the devs to move the platform costs into consumer prices.

Devs could sell the product on Epic for example for $49 and make the same amount of profit as they do on Steam when priced $59 due to lower cut, but they can’t do it because Valve forbids it. It anti-competitively protects Valve and their 30% cut against competitors who would take lesser cuts, at the expense of end customers.

Basically the company board has approved a policy where the company will issue new shares if one owner reaches a certain percentage of current shares. Those shares can be then purchased by the existing shareholders (excluding the one(s) that already owns more than the percentage) with a discount.

So Nintendo could have such a policy in place that if one shareholder goes over 20%, new shares will be issued to other shareholders, lowering the value of each share, and effectively also the relative amount of shares (percentage) owned by that one shareholder. That basically leaves only one option, the buyer attempting the takeover would have to negotiate with the board directly. And in the case of Microsoft, the board would laugh at their face.

Maybe they could achieve the takeover via shell shareholders remaining under the percentage each, and get them to vote in a new board that would revoke the policy, but that’s way more difficult to pull off.

Considering that Bethesda doesn’t seem to have enough people to work full time with two major releases simultaneously, giving Fallout to other studios wouldn’t be that far fetched. Otherwise Microsoft would have to wait for Elder Scrolls 6 release to have a full team working on a Fallout game, and that release window is rumoured to be 5-6 years from now. So 8+ more years without a real main series game in one of their big franchises seems like bad business…

Interesting thing is that Microsoft has the key building blocks from Interplay era under their banner already. Through Obsidian they have Tim Cain, Chris Jones and Feargus Urquhart, who lead the first two Fallout games. inExile has Brian Fargo, the original idea man of the series. And Bethesda has the IP. They could really get the original team together to cook up a new game.