I’ve played it twice now (tech test 2 and server slam) and I’m absolutely pumped for launch day. This game is fantastic and I think it’s exactly what the genre needed, a great entry innovating in the space instead of trying to copy Tarkov (like most of them) or veering a bit too far away from the bits that make extraction games unique (like hunt showdown, which to be clear is a fantastic game).

I haven’t seen a single review that was mediocre. I know the algo can really silo people, but everyone who’s touched this game seems to give it glowing reviews minus some early third person perspective gripes.

Having had hands on time with the game, I wouldn’t sleep on it if you like fps games or PvE extraction games. My flatmate who hasn’t really played a single pvp game has really had a blast with this one too, starting out “not getting it” and then by the end of a two hour session saying they were going to buy on launch day. I think this game will convert people who give it a chance.

I think a lot of Western media is owned by the ultra wealthy or are incompetent. The CDU is clearly, for my sake, analogous to Republicans in the US pre-trump. They serve corporate masters, their policies are not based in scientific knowledge aimed at improving the lives of their constituents, and they will continue to make most everything they touch worse slowly. The CDU will slowly lead the country into needing either a non-corporate serving left response or the far right who will offer false but powerful narratives about how their corporate serving conservative based policies will be totally different than the CDU’s.

It’s just… It’s predictable and sad. We need to strengthen our education systems, our media systems, and create better systems for getting local people involved in local issuesbl and making a difference because I think that’s a good booster against bullshit politicians.

Oh god, I just moved here please no. Lol. No AfD, ideally no CDU either. I just want to live in a country doing well and moving in a progressive direction where everything is getting better. Bitte.

I think this was is sufficiently different, if you like any kind of shooter I’d say give this one a shot.

Yes. I’ve liked how the Finals has been handled and supported for the most part. It’s currently my fps of choice at the moment.

Very jealous, I’m excited for that game. I just hope they nail the fun aspect. Hunt showdown is so much fun but has almost no meta progression and very little customization - hunger seems to have that addressed (or is planning to). Grey zone Warfare is very cool, hardcore, and slow but it’s got almost no gameplay considerations; it’s like barely a game in the traditional sense and had a terribly short shelf life for me for that reason. That’s where I’m curious if Hunger can pull it off - from what I’ve seen it’s too early to say.

Thoughts?

Arc Raiders may be the most exciting PvPvE launch I’ve had in a long while. A lot of the comments in this thread seem negative, but I would bet money this game is going to be successful for at least the first 6 months. It’s just too good right out of the gate.

As for 1 year+, depends on how well the company is at producing new material. I think they have something special with this game. If Hunger comes out, or Marathon (lol), and does something just as compelling I could see Arc having a hard time but I doubt Hunger will eat the same player base and I doubt Marathon will feel very good (they seem like they have too many problems at this point).

It’s the best extraction shooter I’ve played in the genre by like a country mile. Obviously we haven’t seen what the full economy looks like or endgame but there isn’t a single component that doesn’t outclass the competition in my opinion.

Like the immersion is top tier with the sounds, the graphics, the feedback, the movement. It feels really good.

The gameplay is also top notch and does things others in the genre don’t do. Namely:

• variable game length that feels rewarding. I can do a 5-10 min run and get quick and dirty loot with a free load out or I can stay in the map for the full 45 and look for exactly what I want.
• the items themselves are compelling game play pieces. Like the rare weapons are full on laser rifles and mini missile grenades - they’re cool and change how you play, not your power level. Like in Gray Zone Warfare nothing I get feels meaningful different or cool, other than the bullet spongy nature of higher level zones and even that’s not super noticeable. I had no reason to want to chase loot in that game.
• the meta game is sick, probably comparable to Tarkov (although I didn’t play enough to actually compare this). Every match I feel like I’m working towards a goal of making the gear floor higher and gear ceiling easier to attain. Again, we need to see what the full game is like but collecting recipes, upgrading my workbenches, and collecting targeted materials feels good.

I’m positive I’ll get 3+ months of good fun out of this before I might start mixing other things back in. If the end game is really good I’ll be able to make it 5+ months with no content additions I think. The real question for any multiplayer game is can they add material at a fast enough pace to keep it compelling long term. We’ll have to see, but they have dozens of levers to pull on compared to a traditional fps or PvE game. New ARC, new bosses, new map mods, new events, new maps, new guns, new gadgets, new subsystems, new modes. Lot of different angles they can add to in parallel.

TL,DR: Millionaires over something like 20 million dollars are unhealthy people, either by nature/nurture or by the inevitable corruption that isolating wealth causes. A good society would prevent that from happening, as that’s bad for its citizens and dangerous for its stability. Individuals with nearly no accountability shouldn’t have the power that comes with having 20+ million. Until everyone has 6 million dollars, no one should have 20+.

Full response: I think there’s an amount of money that removes you from the experience of your neighbors, that isolates you from your community, and that gives you more power than should be allowable in a democracy. I think people lose their humanity after a certain dollar amount (and of course they have to - can you imagine having everything you could ever need or want taken care of for the rest of your life and your families life and then NOT giving away the excess to friends and family and your city and charity) and I also think some people who lost their humanity because of systemic issues pursue money and power infinitely. In both cases I think an ideal society, a good society, would prevent that accumulation from ever happening - it would limit the amount of wealth a person or entity can have relative to its peers.

Where is that line? My initial comment said hundred millionaires, but you asked about millionaires so let me perform my thought process for you.

I know billion dollars is too much. You shouldn’t be able to count your wealth in the same units as small countries, that is wrong. If you can afford to rent a city or buy a government election or personally fund a NASA equivalent you have too much money and power.

I believe something like 6 million is fine. If you can make enough money to never have to work again, to provide for your family and pursue your dreams, I think that’s probably healthy for society. In fact I think that’s the goal for human society, to get to the point where everyone has everything they need and want satisfied so they can pursue whatever they’re feeling.

So between 6 million or so and 1 billion I know there’s a point where a person has too much money and every dollar of wealth should be taxed away. So let’s double one and half the other.

12 million is enough to earn 600k a year on 5% interest. 360 on 3%. Both conservative values. I’d say that’s at or approaching too much of a salary every year from doing nothing. Maybe that’s fine but I’ve clearly become uncomfortable with it. At 600k a year I could kickstart any project I have ever wanted to do and just see which one’s hit or miss. That’s on the cusp of okay with me. So maybe my value is somewhere between 10 and 20 million.

500 million is enough to earn 25 million on 5%. That’s definitively too much. If I could, by doing nothing, produce another person each year that I already think should be capped on wealth - I think that’s too much power for an individual with little accountability. That money must be redistributed.

I think if I continued this I’d find that 250, 125, 62.5, 31.25 million are all way too much by my standard. So I want to tax every millionaire above 10-20 million out of existence for their safety and the safety of society and, because like housing or holiday potlucks, no one should get 2 houses/rounds/permanent-livable-wages before everyone gets 1.

But knowing that the education systems in the western world have systemically produced people who believe millionaires are cool and okay, and especially people who haven’t thought about it long enough to form their own opinions on the matter, I tend to default to 100 million in online discourse because it is a number I think everyone can get behind.

Elect me your whatever and I guarantee to make everyone’s lives better proportional to the power I’m given :D - starting with the just and healthy redistribution of wealth.

This is great news! No AfD! We don’t need corporate lapdogs willing to sell their neighbors out in power in this country. I know we have the CDU issue still, but AfD would be worse.

Vote progressive, tax wealth, eliminate hundred millionaires.

There’s been plenty of historical examples where taxing the wealthy has worked. Assets can’t easily move countries, nations can enforce taxes regardless of a wealthy person’s residence, etc etc etc. Even if this tax is hard to design and implement, it’s the right thing to do and it’s necessary for our future.

Stop doing the work of the billionaires for free. Properly designed wealth taxes will work in Europe, we’re smart enough to figure it out - and again - it’s necessary.

I’m self-hosting my own music as of recently. I’m paying for every song. I don’t have as much music as I did on Spotify, but I’m also A) owning the music B) slowly acquiring more and C) actually paying the artists. For me this is a good step in the right direction.

I’m seeing a lot of comments about music discovery being the reason to not stop paying Spotify. Idk if that’s something I’d agree with. First of all, I personally listen to singles and not albums but I’ve been buying albums simply because that’s easiest for a lot of sites (or cause I’m getting them on vinyl). So swapping over has led me to listening to full albums and thus a bit of discovery. That may not apply to everyone though. Several of those albums or artists have had collabs that have turned me on to other artists, again, maybe the music discovery people think this is child’s play but it’s led to a noticable increase in my collection.

Second, can’t you just use Spotify free version to discover music? That’s what I plan to do if I’m feeling like my current collection is getting stale. But between friends, other web services for discovery, various platforms like YouTube that happen to unveil a song here and there, indie concerts that show off new openers to me, or what have you I feel like my discovery is more than sufficient to grow the list of music I need to pick up faster than I’m burning it down or becoming bored with it.

Also, I don’t understand how discovery can represent a majority of a person’s listening habits. Like isn’t the point of collecting favorites songs and making large playlists to listen to those things. I’ve got playlists with like 48 hours of music on them which cause me to not hear a repeat idk, more than once a month if I’m not seeking them out. That’s partially because I have 3 playlists or so I rotate through but like… Is music discovery so critical and so exclusive to Spotify that it’s worth the subscription. More me it’s not.

Not to yuck anyone’s yum or anything. Just trying to add an alternative perspective to these pro-spotify comments.

This is exciting. The more Linux gets the spotlight the better and I generally love all open source, self hosting, of degoogling vids they do.

I’d like any source saying they only did Linux content because of Emily. They continue to talk about doing the next Linux challenge on the WAN show, they are working on a grapheneOS vod if I’m not mistaken, etc.

I agree most of their OS specific content is specific to Windows and I can entirely understand why but to suggest they’re incapable or unwilling to do Linux content feels ungrounded.

I liked the technical discussion so thank you. Keep it up, I got into this career because there was always so much to learn.

Crawl - technically pvp, arcade game Overcooked - try to manage a kitchen together Duck Game - completely pvp, ducks with guns, very fun

That makes sense. My point isn’t to tax the property it’s that the property is taxed, if that makes any sense. You tax based on the property, it traces to the owner, the owner gets taxed based on the property. If the owner lives in Beijing or Antarctica the property is still here and gets taxed, they can’t avoid it by moving unless they can take the property.

So in that case, an exempt amount is fine. I’d just want it to be steep up to a point where it’s 98 or 100%.

No one gets a third house before everyone gets one kinda thing. And also no one is allowed to have enough wealth they can destabilize democracy or even a city.

I mean if the billionaires own the houses and factories and land it’s the same thing right?

Although I appreciate the thought here, and I think the investment idea may even be good regardless of what I’m about to say, that’s not exactly how this works. If you tax the assets the rich own, where they own them, it doesn’t matter where they go. And they can’t live in Germany and not get taxed, so they can change citizenship all they want if they live here they will get taxed here. And based off of the most recent studies/reports I’ve seen (but not read) rich don’t actually move when taxes go up - which makes sense. People have lives, family, friends, favorite restaurants and hobby spaces.

The rich will try to dodge the taxes, they may even succeed but we don’t have to legistate a bullet proof solution we just have to agree:

1. the rich need to be heavily taxed (I’d even say out of existence)
2. taxing the rich is possible via various methods
3. taxing the rich would solve and/or reverse most of societies problems so everyone should talk and support it.

But yes, I’m a big fan of no outside investment. I’m also a fan of government investment requiring ownership purchases. I’m also a fan of requiring companies to be partially or totally owned by their workers. And I don’t think anyone should have a net worth over let’s say 50 million.

Merz is predictable and a traitor to the German people. He will usher in the fascist power grab through conservative policies - the AFD will grow in popularity as conservatives protect the 1%.

Die Linke’s tax plan would have paid for the yearly debt of the government and then some; their secret - tax the wealthy.

We can afford all of our costs, we can improve society, we can provide a thriving economy for all Germans if we simply tax the ultra wealthy out of existence. No one should have a billion euro net worth, nor 100 million nor 50 million. No one need own 3 houses while others go without even a flat.

We have enough wealth in this country, it’s just in the hands of the hoarders. Don’t look towards conservatives or the right for change, look towards those that address the root problem!