It is how giant publishing houses self-destruct in the gaming space. They fail to realize how difficult it is to build up talented devteams. Everything becomes about maximizing profits in the end. Between the shitty monetization tactics and the terrible working environment they’ve created, they end up destroying their ability to make good games. I fully expect more mediocrity from Xbox/Activision-Blizzard, if not declining quality.
No. This is just a return to the days of the IE-only web. It will be problematic but it won’t be the end of the web.
This. People are basically in denial over how poorly Mozilla is handling Firefox. They are genuinely going to drive their product to zero marketshare pretty soon.
Without delving into the question over how good the game is, this sounds like a company that simply has the wrong processes in place. A case of “working hard” instead of “working smart.” As a result, they waste a lot of time and resources on things that ultimately don’t matter. I’m sure the person in question worked really really hard on the game, but it’s mostly pointless and ineffectively effort.
Developer feedback is usually about answering questions that the players have, or finding bugs that were missed in QA. What Bethesda is doing is quite a bit more ridiculous.
Traditionally, the alternatives to Reddit were worse than Reddit. This is the first time that that is no longer true.
You can also make an argument that Reddit was the improved version of Digg. History can repeat itself if the Fediverse proves to a superior model.
We already have that ability. In particular, we can now make hydrogen from electrolysis at vast scale. Derivative fuels, such as ammonia, are also doable.
Your problem is that you are being brainwashed by the battery companies. You think magical batteries exist when they do not, but are stuck in the early 2000s when it comes to competing technologies.
Solid state batteries don’t exist yet. It’s the classic “magic batteries from the future will solve everything” argument. Meanwhile, a sensible path to zero emissions exist now, provide you accept that we should making zero emissions chemical fuels. At some point, refusal to accept this option is its own form of climate change denial.
Except fast charging quickly degrades the battery. For people without home charging access, this is the key issue. In reality, BEVs won’t catch on. Between the cost, weight, and other problems of the battery, it is a doomed idea and a repeat of the early 20th century. The future of transportation will involve a chemical fuel, whether it’s ICE or fuel cell powered or whatever. It has to mirror the functionality of existing cars completely, or it won’t work.
Batteries are not a sustainable solution. For vehicles the size of SUVs, they are a disaster. In reality, the vast majority of transportation will be powered by some kind of chemical fuel. If you must have electrified vehicles, then you should look at trams, trolleybuses, light rail, etc.
Given how massive their game is, I’m doubtful. So much of what they did in the first game will have to be rebuilt. Compared to just reusing most of the original assets and code, this sounds like a lot more work.
There’s an old adage in programming that you should almost never rewrite everything: https://www.onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/2596/Why-You-Should-Almost-Never-Rewrite-Your-Software.aspx
Going from their existing RED engine to Unreal is basically the same idea. Almost nothing from the original Cyberpunk game is going to be easily translated to the new platform. I think CDPR just set their development timeline back by at least 3 years.
We’re slowing turning smartphones into dumbphones again. Many of us used to rock 10+ year old phones, since phone calls and texting doesn’t need anything fancy.
People here are actively rejecting the possibility of an alternative type of EV. For most of them, only the BEV can exist, and anything is reflexively rejected. It’s not the first time they behave like that, so don’t think they are coming from nowhere and are just asking questions. It’s purely an act of defensiveness, likely to defend their car purposes or their investments.
Actually no. You actually need a chemical fuel in a lot of cases.
A hydrogen car is basically an EV but with a vastly more energy dense battery. Hence why it is a better idea than a BEV.
And so is most electricity. The point is that it can be made from water. You’re just repeating an argument used against all EVs.
Not only do I know more than pretty much anyone here, I can immediately recognize all of the dumb myths and PR talking points everyone brings up. This is old news for me.
Everyone who oppose hydrogen pretty much has an agenda. If not an owner of a BEV, they are an investor of some kind.
Ultimately, why would anyone oppose green energy or green technology? Nevermind anyone who calls himself an environmentalist. It’s the most absurd fact in all of this. So many people here are lying to themselves about what they really believe and what their real motivations are.
Seriously, fuck off. You’re just a sad troll.
By itself, no. But you can power basically anything with hydrogen. Pretty much all of industry will switch to hydrogen. Same is true of most of transportation. It’s just the BEV fanatic crowd that suddenly has an issue with passenger cars also being powered by hydrogen. In reality, it is a big revolution across many sectors. That will in fact solve climate change or at least greatly reduce the problem.
BEVs predate internal combustion engines. People have waited a long time for it to happen. Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.
BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.
It could mirror the economic stagnation of Japan that begun in the 1990s. Very similar set of circumstances.