Quoting: TheSHEEEPA ... team shooter. Yawn.

*goes back to sleep*

agreed, but it is where all the money is right now so financially it is a perfect move. But some day this fad will die out.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pb

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: pb

Quoting: F.UltraBut Kyle died at the end of The Following no matter which choice you did, but now he have just been caged for 10 years?

The non-nuke ending had him turned (started turning) into a zombie/volatile and escape Harran, so I guess that's what they built upon.

Him turning zombie is him dying IMHO.

Apparently you can be dead but still a playable character. ;-)

Well I must have misunderstood what they meant then, I though that you played him as a human. In essence I'm still kinda pissed that they killed him off, was a way more interesting character than e.g Aiden.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pb

Quoting: F.UltraBut Kyle died at the end of The Following no matter which choice you did, but now he have just been caged for 10 years?

The non-nuke ending had him turned (started turning) into a zombie/volatile and escape Harran, so I guess that's what they built upon.

Him turning zombie is him dying IMHO.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

But Kyle died at the end of The Following no matter which choice you did, but now he have just been caged for 10 years?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: croxisI'm still running a 1700 and never bothered upgrading because I never really ran into significant gaming bottlenecks from the CPU. I'm probably going to wait for the fancy 3D cache version. I've read those chips are significant upgrades for gaming.

Yes they are significant indeed, went myself from a 1600x to a 5800x3d one year ago and oboy was that an upgrade.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EhvisThere is only one thing we know for sure. It won't be called "Half-Life 3". :tongue:

And turns out to be a remake of HL: Decay.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: damarrin

Quoting: ZlopezI'm not sure why companies are taking growth for granted. Why they won't rather work with what they made the current year and expect that the next year will be the same or maybe save some of the money for bad times if you are making more than you expected, so you have some reserves.

The stock market doesn’t work that way. It’s cool and useful or sometimes necessary, but it is also cancer.

Yep, major source of these issues are the shift from long term investment where people invested in companies and held on to them for years on end (and got rich on the constant but stable dividends) to the more modern "lets buy and sell the same share within a few milliseconds" that drives the demand for infinite growth.

Short-termism is a big problem, but I actually think it's not the millisecond thing that's the biggest. It's the this-quarter thing, where the big objective is to hand out lots of dividends and share buybacks right now. CEOs have a lot of stock themselves, not to mention a lot of options, and they're fairly footloose, so they tend to be motivated to goose the price in the short term, not grow in the long. Plus, shareholding tends to be more concentrated, so you get "activist shareholders" (read: Blackrock) exerting a lot of power and wanting the money now. In the end, after all the dividends and these days especially buybacks, there isn't much left for investing in the business. Some big corporations actually borrow money to spend on share buybacks.

I think a big reason actually is low taxes--particularly low corporate taxes, but also of course low taxes on capital gains for rich people with loopholes available. No, I know the corporate types whine on and on about how high corporate taxes would depress investment, but if you look at the actual mechanisms I don't think it works that way. Remember that corporate taxes are on profits, not revenue. So, say I've got this big corporation, and it made a billion dollars after normal expenses.
Scenario A: It pays no tax on that billion, so if it wants to it can pass the whole thing, untaxed, to the shareholders. Well then why not do it?
Scenario B: It pays 50% tax on that billion. Well now, suddenly it might make a bit more sense, rather than passing only half a billion to the shareholders, instead invest a lot of that billion in the business instead of paying tax on it--upgrade capital equipment, do some R&D and so on. With that high tax on profits, shareholders might in the end get a better return on investment by reducing the declared profits by investing in the business, because that way you get to invest all the money rather than just the after tax money.

I added the millisecond part to make it the other extreme from the long term type of investments where people tended to hold on to their shares for life (like say Warren Buffet) but ofc the situation is far more complex and diverse then just a simple matter of the hold time. E.g even such a thing as share buybacks is not really something negative, but then you have those companies that abuse them, even the leveraged buybacks (aka when you use debt to perform the buyback) is not normally really negative but companies have abused them to the brink of now having to actually borrow money to perform them. So what is really missing here is regulation to allow things like this to happen when it's good and prohibit it when it is being abused.

And you are 100% correct on the tax thing, ofc they will always complain that the tax is too high but then they would do that even if the tax rate was 0%. And increasing taxation on buybacks and dividends would be part of the "we need more regulation".

But then our entire current capitalist system is built as if growth is infinite, e.g on how money is created in banks when people lend money which leads to the situation that there will always be more total debt than total amount of money so the cycle have to continue in perpetuum or it collapses.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: damarrin

Quoting: ZlopezI'm not sure why companies are taking growth for granted. Why they won't rather work with what they made the current year and expect that the next year will be the same or maybe save some of the money for bad times if you are making more than you expected, so you have some reserves.

The stock market doesn’t work that way. It’s cool and useful or sometimes necessary, but it is also cancer.

Yep, major source of these issues are the shift from long term investment where people invested in companies and held on to them for years on end (and got rich on the constant but stable dividends) to the more modern "lets buy and sell the same share within a few milliseconds" that drives the demand for infinite growth.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

thanks for the info, signed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: StoneColdSpiderWell I hope its way better than Locked Door Crisis...... I mean Empty Hallway Crisis.......... Errrr...... Sorry....... No Dinosaurs Crisis.......

I still dont understand the died hard love for Dino Crisis........ Locked doors are more of an obstacle in that game than the Dinosaurs are....... You can go almost hours without seeing or hearing a Dinosaur as you wonder through empty hallways trying to unlock or bypass locked doors........ Or move crates in a not very good crate moving mini game puzzle.......

At least with this being a FPS it does indeed stand a chance of being much better...... Only time will tell I guess......

Also being a PS1 inspired game...... Is it still a Boomer Shooter or Gen Xer Shooter????..........

Sure you remember the correct game? Dino Crisis have dinos in almost every room of the game with a few exceptions.

View this comment - View article - View full comments