It was a fun game, I enjoyed it. Didn’t realize games needed to be accurate treatises on revolutionary political theory to be good.
It was a fun game, I enjoyed it. Didn’t realize games needed to be accurate treatises on revolutionary political theory to be good.
or they get around it by not making it a “login” bonus but “do this really quick and easy daily quest” bonus.
Or maybe the fist bit of starcraft before you get into combat.
plays zerg hmmm what did that mean?
is it really a city builder? Or more of a PvE RTS?
I think someone also recreated the entire SC1 campaign as custom SC2 maps
I only remember Syndicate from Bullfrog
Blizzard. Without Activision.
Excellent. I’m really just looking for the next StarCraft that won’t be made by Blizzard-Activision
Funny thing is that Activision-Blizzard was so bad that many people figured a Microsoft takeover probably couldn’t make it worse…
Nebula: pay $300 once, lifetime access. They had it up for a week on a trial run a while ago, and they decided to bring it back for now.
curiosity stream: I think I found a deal on Stack Social, + coupon, that worked out to $180. The basic 1080p format only. Again, pay once, lifetime access.
The payoff time for Nebula is around 8 years (not counting possible price increases in the future), so you’ll have to have faith that they’ll last that long. I hope they do though. Curiositystream is obviously less. Then again, the immediate cash infusion they get from this can also help them survive/expand faster.
I just bought the lifetime option.
Anyways both Nebula and Curiositystream have lifetime subscriptions available right now… 90% of my YouTube viewing is from creators on those sites anyway
it’ll hit business servers first… speed and power draw = profits. Even if they cost 1000x more than SSDs, the power savings and speed alone could pay for itself in a datacenter.
The power draw and nonvolatility could mean it can replace SSDs and hard drives entirely. Just store everything in RAM.
If camping is too effective, then the map or weapon balance is what needs work.
For example, of people are camping spawn points, why is the spawn point so easily accessible at all? Why don’t players spawn behind cover with multiple exit points? Do they not get temporary invulnerability?
Or camping objectives. Why is there only one, easily defended path to the objective? Why isn’t there a path for you to sneak up and just stab the camper in the ass while he’s staring down the scope? Or just walk around him and ignore him completely?
Watch some professional CS:GO. Those maps have been refined and balance-tweaked for decades. You can’t just camp one objective because there are two objectives. Every good camping spot is still leaves you exposed to getting flanked. Even with arguably the most OP camper’s weapon in any competitive game - the AWP, teams still only run 1 AWP, maybe 2 at most. Simply because camping alone isn’t effective.
Definitely an amazing game, but really should only be played after you’ve played at least a dozen other FPS games.
maybe he’s hoping that people accidentally mistaking the button for “close window” will drive up traffic
This feels like the early days of Google, when it was basically a cat and mouse game of their page ranking algorithm vs website creators trying to game their page rank. Still happens, but it’s less obvious and easy.
It’s been true for a long time. Even long before the lootbox era.
Look at WoW. It was one of the biggest games in the world for the longest time. Randomized loot drops after a boss is very like a slot-machine and addictive, and you had to pay monthly to keep playing.
They’ve discovered that making people pay for each pull of the slot machine is more profitable. But the tactics and design have been around for a while.
Yeah, geekbench has long been known to favor iPhones. Even compared to other mobile SoCs like Qualcomm or MediaTek, it’s… uh… “optimized” for what Apple chips are designed around.
Using it on a desktop for benchmarking is… Even more useless.
On top of that:
The single core number obviously only uses one big core, of which Apple’s chip only has 2.
The score only reflects the maximum burst speed (it’s not expected to sustain that kind of performance for more than 10 seconds. Even using both big cores simultaneously would cut that score short due to overheating.
Desktop cpu has 16 cores that are all identical, and is expected to sustain those workloads indefinitely. Servers and supercomputers run these things 24/7.
The desktop cpu is on an older node as well, inherently less power efficient.
It’s a bit like saying, “for 10 seconds, I can run as fast as the world’s fastest marathon
runnerTEAM!”. Neat factoid but still incomparable.