That's because they really do only want the guns taken from people who follow laws. They don't want you to be able to buy one to defend yourself.
They have no concerns about criminals who will be able to buy guns anyway. They don't care that anyone with a 3d printer can just make them.
They vote for people who let violent criminals out of prison and even refuse to prosecute them in the first place. They want to prosecute people who defend themselves and others from violent criminals. This is not an exaggeration or fallacy, it is literally what they keep voting and cheering for and they openly admit it.
Right - DRM delays piracy, it doesn't prevent it. There are a small fraction of would-be pirates they can convert to customers because of this delay. Some people just can't wait. I don't think it's so significant that it makes it worth the cost of developing it, though.
It's likely just misguided greed. It is like hiring security guards at a store that are instructed to pat down and search everyone on their way out. Sure, you may prevent some thieves, but treating paying customers like thieves is a good way to make sure they never come back.
Nearly every single game I've pirated I either had no plans to ever buy, or it was unavailable to buy, or it was so good that I bought it anyway.
The pirated versions are frequently better, have more features, and come with all the bullshit paid DLC and cosmetic packs. They are often superior in every single way, and for free. That said, the only anti-piracy strategy that actually works is to compete with it. It has to be more convenient, have more features, frequent updates, free content packs, etc.
No it isn't. It's upside down. The point should be facing straight down, not up.
Once the companies realized just how much people will spend on extremely low effort stuff like player models, weapon skins, in-game currency of course that's where the effort went. Why is single player online only? Well, we can't have you cheating to steal our microtransaction dollars
Also the same reason support for user-made maps and mods have died off.
Yeah, I agree that it's a problem for some games, but I think there are bigger problems.
The always-online aspect is either tied to microtransactions or used as DRM to prevent piracy. I don't think it has anything to do with e-sports, as many of the games that require an internet connection are not even focused on competition.
I think the main reason they prioritize multiplayer is that people are more likely to spend money on useless junk like cosmetics. They tried that shit in singleplayer a few times and I'm sure it doesn't make as much because people don't get to show off their parents' credit cards.
I gave up on playing competitive games. I don't even like PvP unless the game's mechanics make the advantages from cheats like wall hacks and aim bots insignificant. Making them online for this reason is an excuse, since cheaters can cheat anyway.
You also should recognize that the only games that get funded by large publishers are ones that use proven formulas because publishers are so risk-averse. That is why there are so many Call of Duties, FIFAs, and Forzas. Publishers are also the reason entire game modes, maps, and assets are ripped from the game and placed in microtransaction stores and day-one paid DLC before release.
Furthermore, the publishers pay developers based on review scores from outlets like IGN and Kotaku, who are not only corrupt and unethical, but also radical leftist ideologues and cultists. In effect, they are ensuring the developers include overt wokeness in their games. They also have to make the games easy, since the journalists really do suck at playing games. That's why every hidden path has a yellow strip of paint along the edge, every enemy is visible through walls, and every quest has a marker showing you exactly where to go.
Honestly wouldn't have been controversial if they just made her look realistically average. They chose a 1/10 look and it does feel like there is some purpose behind it.
I think they just legitimately hate straight male gamers (at the cost of tossing lesbians under the bus with them) to the point that they don't want to mistakenly please them at all.
It's funny they're projecting Joe Biden's reactions on to Daily Wire who reported the facts neutrally (at least in the headline, which is all that matters to leftists anyway)
Looks like we have only a few years left to enjoy anime before it becomes regular ol' globohomo faggotry. Was nice while it lasted.
I was looking for a debate, so no worries, just stating my views in hopes that someone would challenge them.
We didn't have public display for support of pedophiles prior to this.
I'd argue that we did. NAMBLA has been around since the 70's. Explicit support for overt pedophilia is still not accepted by anyone but pedophiles and ignorant, brainwashed cultists. I agree that they have been emboldened by the LGBTQ+ pride bullshit, but the positive to it is that they are now out in the open.
Support for pedophilia is not actually growing, but what is growing is the cult-like mentality to blindly support anything that the right is opposed to. Gay marriage does not contribute to the tribalism, which is the true main cause of the emboldening of the pedophiles, but the debate over it does.
I don't like slippery slope arguments. The line can be drawn wherever we choose to draw it. Gay civil unions are fine, raping children is not, and it is that simple. The line should be drawn where it makes the most sense, not some arbitrary number of steps back from where it should be to avoid the "slippery slope".
I'm not arguing for social acceptance, just governmental neutrality. Why would you trust the government to appropriately decide who you're allowed to marry?
Government should only involve itself to protect people/property and mediate aggrievances. They should not be the arbiters of social policy. You are arguing to give the government power in interpersonal relationships. I just cannot agree with that.
I really don't care if two consenting adults want to commit to spending the rest of their lives with each other. However, before I support the government being involved, I want to know why they are involved with marriage in the first place.
If the motivation is to incentivize having a family, then no, same-sex marriage should not be recognized, at least not with the tax benefits. For next-of-kin stuff? I'm fine with that.
I also lean towards agreeing with the argument that they shouldn't call it marriage. Churches also shouldn't be forced to hold ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs.
Yeah, gay sex is fucking disgusting, but so is pineapple on pizza. I don't care if you do it, just don't do it in front of me.
The one lefty in my life that I tolerate is pretty easy-going. He keeps himself very busy and doesn't have time to investigate or even read news articles. He just takes the shortcut and goes along with what his circle of close liberal friends believes.
He has conservative friends too. I think he just wants to get along with everybody, and with how intolerant the left is, he has to do a lot of juggling. He's a good dude, very hard worker, takes good care of his wife. He voted for Jorgenson in 2020 and doesn't particularly like Biden.
In my opinion he's just a little behind. I was a liberal in 2015 too, but I started paying more attention. Especially when COVID lockdowns hit in 2020, I had nothing to do being locked in my house except watch and read the news.
The biggest differences between us is that I participated in GamerGate, and he didn't have time for anything like that. That was the turning point for me. I started questioning the media more and more. I'm now fully aware of the bias and outright lies published by MSM, and how social media companies collude to censor opinions they don't like.
It's not something you can just tell someone about and not sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. It's a journey you have to go on yourself. People who aren't interested or don't have time may never break the spell.
you have to walk on eggshells around them all the time, because there is a nonzero chance that they will lose their shit and ruin your life if you don't.
I can't stand being around people like that. Outside of legitimately threatening people I love, you can say pretty much anything to me, and if you're joking you can say literally anything. The most I'll do is say you're wrong.
I can't imagine trying to get someone fired or cancelled over a slight or bad opinion.
Never heard of NeRF but Automatic1111 is a GUI for Stable Diffusion which has an extension called ControlNet that has a model called OpenPose.
I don't know if it can beat us to that point, we're already almost there.
Just unsubbed.
The culture is shifting. I heard a well-known radio DJ say something like "Enjoy a nice cold beer, as long as it isn't Bud Light.". This was in direct reference to their partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, and it was during PrIdE MoNtH. This wasn't a conservative talk show either, it was on a mainstream classic rock station.
Watching the chat during IGN, Ubisoft, and Xbox video game reveals this weekend was another white pill. Everyone calling out woke BS, landwhale blue hair devs, mocking pronouns on screen, body type 1/2 instead of male/female, etc.
There have been many more wins lately. Can't help but feel the tide is turning.
"Hold my Bud Light"
Good. They're supposed to boil the water slowly so we don't notice, but it's already going so fast that even normies are noticing.
Starfield could be Game of All Time once modders dewokify it.
Try Desert Punk. It's about a wandering mercenary in a post-apocalyptic desert Japan.
It's not enough to not sexually harass a woman, you have to not be accused.
Men aren't sexualized in the same way because the market for sexy males is miniscule, and the risk of alienating straight men who don't want to seem gay outweighs it.
Now, when I say "sexualized in the same way", I mean it - tight clothing, exposed skin, sexy animations, seductive behaviors - not just being handsome or muscled.
With that definition in mind, who actively wants to see sexualized males in a video game? At best it's gay male gamers and a minority of straight female gamers, when combined account for only a tiny fraction of the overall hardcore gamer population.
Who actively doesn't want to see sexualized males in a video game? Everyone else who doesn't want to be seen as gay, such as the majority of straight male gamers.
Yep, and it couldn't have been made more obvious than when Gamergate happened. Before that point I was already feeling like game journalists didn't represent the views of the vast majority of gamers, and then when GG happened they dropped all pretense and started directly hating on us.
They see video games as a tool to influence people. They hate us and the fact that we enjoy them. They said and continue to say it out loud that they want to change video games (to make them "better"), and publishers are helping them do it by paying developers based on review scores from gamer-hating journalists.
If you want to know why AAA games suck nowadays, now you know. Activist journalists (and now activist devs) hate gamers, and they have all the power because the majority of consumers are uninitiated retards who STILL pre-order based off of name recognition and member berries. This is also the reason so many remakes and sequels are being made instead of new and original IPs.
Only 3% of crimes committed with guns were with guns that were legally purchased. They aren't interested in stopping the other 97%. They just want to disarm you.