Shoot them
We're allowed to kill Abe Lincoln and JFK, why aren't we allowed to kill these guys? Why does Reagan get plot armor out of all the presidents? Who wrote this shit?
To be fair JFK getting shot was pretty epic though. He almost caused nuclear holocaust (although a more rabidly anti-communist president may have definitely caused nuclear holocaust), war crimed the South Vietnamese a ton, and stabilized Israel. RFK getting assassinated was less epic because that gave us Nixon
They are the strongest DRM on the market.
LMAO you have got to be shitting me. It is the bare minimum for DRM, it's weak as fuck and games protected by Steamworks DRM are cracked almost immediately by casuals
is it that difficult to look up the answer from a reliable source?
With the current state of search engines and their content (almost completely unrelated garbage and shitty blogs make in like 3 minutes with 1/4 of the content poorly copy-pasted out of context from stackoverflow and most of the rest being pop-ups and ads), YES
SEO ""engineers"" deserve the guillotine
So I take it you're against the government subsidizing science research in general? "The government shouldn't fund new technology" is a stupid and destructive position. We'd be living in the 1800s if it were up to solely the capitalistic market. I mean, the first broadly effective antibiotics that are responsible for saving probably hundreds of millions of lives at least only exist because of people working in government-funded labs, under government-funded universities, for the government. Why should the environment be treated like it doesn't matter to our civilization?
“There is no future without electrification. But just electrification will not get us there,”
Daniel Posen is an associate professor in U of T’s department of civil and mineral engineering, and the Canada Research Chair in system-scale environmental impacts of energy and transport technologies. He agrees electrification is vital. But relying solely on electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions from transportation may not be enough, especially if we want to do it in time to stop a catastrophic two-degree rise in global temperatures.
The article you link contradicts you, it clearly suggests that adoption of EVs reduce carbon emissions, but we still need to do more (e.g. ACTUALLY HAVE PUBLIC TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE) to prevent a climate catastrophe.
wiki.gg is where most of the wikis have transferred to, terraria for example
The code looks like any other Python code out there.
Investing in Godot probably has no sizable benfefit to Valve. But it does have a big benefit for gaming as a whole, specifically smaller or newer developers/studios. Meanwhile investing more in Source 2 may have a lot of benefit for Valve, depending a lot on their future plans.
Valve already has a game engine you can use – Source – although outside of their own games, it's not really popular. Otherwise I think it's moreso that making a good general gaming engine is hard. Like, really hard. If Valve tried to compete with, say, Unreal or Unity, (especially with their relatively small team) it'd more likely than not have no chance at all. They'd need a LOT more manpower, a massive budget, and to hope that they actually make something quality enough to actually be a viable alternative. Even then, though, it doesn't have the 2 decades of content and design that Unreal and Unity have, which is pretty important. Although I suppose Source does have a lot of user-generated content.
It'd be a gargantuan investment, a massive risk that has a high likelihood of not turning out well, and even if it were successful it would likely take many years if not over a decade to actually see the benefit of it.
There's a good reason most games use an extremely small amount of engines, either that or their own in-house engines. It's a monumental task to make a great, easy-to-use, generic engine like the ones currently on the market.
IMO Valve trying to enter the game engine market would just end up being either Godot but worse, or Bevy but worse. It'd be far better if they just created a team to work on a pre-existing open-source engine, although I guess there's not any money involved in that unless they for some reason used the engine.
Sounds just like Gaijin... although now that I think about it, this sounds worse than Gaijin.
I love Paradox' games but man, I really hate Paradox sometimes. I bought all the Stellaris DLCs at the time while they were on sale (about $100, I think it was everything before the update that added espionage) thinking I was supporting the development of intergalactic space genocide & intelligent life cannibalism game, but the more I got into the community the more I realize... the devs kinda fuck the community over a lot. I would normally think "wow, they're making so many great hits at the same time, the games might be extremely buggy but they really deserve credit" but as time goes on I start to see them more like I see every AAA studio. I guess that's all you can expect when the company's stocks are public.
Also imo you shouldn't have to pay $300 to experience the full game god damn it! Although they do allow you to play as if you have most DLC when the host does, so I can't say it's immorally greedy. It's something I can appreciate.
I was gonna disagree, but I couldn't actually think of a functioning stateless ideology which allows private property. Anarchism is inherently for abolishing private property, so that's out already. That mostly just leaves you with "anarcho-"capitalism which is just replacing the government with an ultra-capitalist power structure and decimating social mobility, it's just an undemocratic state but shittier...