Seems quite cool, but that's a pretty expensive DLC. I'm not against the lots of DLCs for Paradox strategy games in general, but I do kind of expect that each individual DLC will not be the price of a medium serious game. I'll wait for a sale.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

At this point the mere idea of having a clown that isn't scary is kind of fresh.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PenglingI'm glad to hear that this worked out for the best because customers spoke up. Hell, the statement "We're still learning what is best for PC players and your feedback has been invaluable." even sounds almost-sincere, too. :tongue:

It's always nice when they bother to get a PR person who has some idea how to Relate to the Public.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CalebQ42

Quoting: nerdachseSony gives up:

https://twitter.com/PlayStation/status/1787331667616829929 [External Link]

Now we know it takes only a quarter million negative reviews over the course of a couple days to change Sony's mind.

Given Sony, I'm sure that information will come in handy in the future.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

There is one line that is not bad:

If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the CPRs may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances.

(my emphasis)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: StoneColdSpiderI expected nothing less from the government....... But it could have been worse...... It could have been the nine most terrifying words in the English launguage......... "Im from the Government...... And Im here to help." [External Link]

Ah yes, the amazing slogan that helped Ronald Reagan royally screw the United States. Don't get me wrong, it's a brilliant slogan. It's just, it's always been deployed in the service of pissing on people's heads and telling them it's raining.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManOkay, so that's the fantasy version of running a business. In reality, it's often not possible to move unproductive employees into a more productive role, and things can change that can cause a potentially profitable department to become a financial anchor dragging down the rest of the company, and when that happens, you gotta cut people loose.

And award yourself three times their salary for your genius in cutting them loose--gotta do that too, apparently. You keep evading that bit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14There is a problem with the CEO making more money after cutting all those people. But guess what, it's exactly how CEO pay incentivizes them to make decisions. Say your base salary is $1M with the potential to make $2M when the company meets certain annual profit goals. Guess what you're going to do when the profit numbers don't look good.

Yes, there is a problem with the model. And yes, there are other business models that share more of the wealth, so solutions already exist to CEO caps. But why don't those other companies hold much market share?

Your explanation is possible. Or, it's possible that firms with models that promote exorbitant CEO pay and short-term-oriented management practices actually outcompete firms without. But the explanation I find the most plausible is that the people who decide on how the models for CEO pay will work . . . are mostly either CEOs, or at least wealthy people who spend much of their social time interacting with CEOs. So for instance, boards of directors for company A are often staffed with the CEOs of companies B, C and D, who in turn have the CEO of company A on their boards of directors. So, I wonder what kind of compensation model those boards of directors will choose?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManYou mentioned your son is a business owner. Tell me, would he continue to pay a team of employees who are costing his company literally more than they're worth? Would he cut his own salary in order to keep them around? I suspect the answer to both questions is no.

I suspect he'd get them to do something else that wouldn't cost the company more than they're worth. Probably he isn't stupid enough to hire a team of employees to do money-losing stuff in the first place. But I'm definitely sure that if he managed his company into a money-losing situation and really had to cut employees, he would tighten his belt too--he would not tell the remaining employees "Yeah, you know those guys we had to let go to save money? I took their salaries for myself, actually three times that, because screw that 'saving money' stuff."

View this comment - View article - View full comments

How well does Mono actually work these days? I remember when an awful lot of people were of the opinion that it was basically pointless--that it would, much like Wine, find it impossible to really approach parity or real compatibility with that Microsoft thing it was imitating and would be forever chasing taillights. And, like with Wine, back when there were not a lot of resources put into it there was a lot of truth to the idea. But with Wine + Proton that is now pretty much not the case for games, basically because certain parties found it worthwhile to pour quite a bit more resources into it, so that Wine could improve faster than the taillights could recede. So did that ever happen with Mono? Is it good now?

View this comment - View article - View full comments