FreeFacts

That’s not enough, still. It should directly affect the rank too. Get low on behavior score, not only everything they already do, you will also start going down. Because rank is everything to those toxic people, it is the only thing that drives their toxicity.

The problem with mobas, and most modern multiplayer games, is the visible rank system. Back in the day, with only community hosted servers, people were playing for fun. Then multiplayer shifted to publisher hosted servers where you started playing with one click on the menu. To keep the matches interesting, you needed a system to matchmake fair lobbies, so here comes the ranking. But they made a mistake by making the rank public, because now the players are no longer playing for fun, they are playing to raise their rank - and losing even lowers their rank.

Has a dual citizenship of Finland and the USA, so still a European citizen too.

Valve does nothing to suppress competition (it can’t really either)

They at least used to have a rule that publishers can’t sell cheaper on other platforms (outside of timed sales that is), meaning that consumers can’t get a better price on other storefronts even when those platforms would take a smaller cut. That was very much suppressing the competition as them taking smaller cuts can’t transfer into cheaper prices if the publisher also wanted to sell on Steam.

Putin will be happy, as now Andersson will be replaced in the finnish parliament by a Putin loyalist Johannes Yrttiaho, as Andersson can’t sit on both parliaments by law.

If you didn’t know, there are many Putin loyalists in the finnish Left Alliance, working as an internal opposition faction against Andersson’s faction.

Why base 12 though? Base 16 is even better. And base 60 is even better than that!

Valve hasn’t released nothing but tech demos since Artifact, and that was a huge miss. And excluding Artifact, Valve hasn’t released nothing but tech demos in over a decade. So you could say Valve hasn’t hit the mark in over 10 years.

Imagine after 10 more years of cpu/gpu innovations, and chat applications that have actually been designed for information retrieval, how much that is going to transform how we interact with data and information.

LLMs are going to change how we interact with data and information, but not the way you think. The AI-generated spam will ruin the whole concept of internet search completely. Only information that we can trust is going to be human-curated.

Which is kind of a good thing. The console wars have been large irrelevant for the past 20 years, because PC already won.

Nope, Mobile won. PC and Consoles combined are not even reaching the revenue, number of releases or players of mobile gaming.

I wonder how it is secured, or could anyone with a big enough transmitter reprogram it at will…

The thing is, what constitutes a living wage is based on the home location, and all other wages reflect to that level. Most of the wages go to the cost of living everywhere, especially to housing. There is the leeching class, landowners, leeching the fruit of labor from the workforce, and in the west they are leeching that much more in pure dollars. The sad thing is that wages increasing in India wouldn’t go to increasing the value of life of the workforce, but the landowning leeches of that region.

He is typing the letter A, but the comment he leaves has no letter A. This comic is shit.

One hit wonder as a director. And that hit is American Graffiti, not Star Wars.

they usually mean they don’t engage in anti-competitive practices.

But they do. They forbid devs to sell their games cheaper on other storefronts (outside of timed sales). Basically they enforce anti-competitive pricing on products in a way that makes it impossible for the devs to move the platform costs into consumer prices.

Devs could sell the product on Epic for example for $49 and make the same amount of profit as they do on Steam when priced $59 due to lower cut, but they can’t do it because Valve forbids it. It anti-competitively protects Valve and their 30% cut against competitors who would take lesser cuts, at the expense of end customers.

Basically the company board has approved a policy where the company will issue new shares if one owner reaches a certain percentage of current shares. Those shares can be then purchased by the existing shareholders (excluding the one(s) that already owns more than the percentage) with a discount.

So Nintendo could have such a policy in place that if one shareholder goes over 20%, new shares will be issued to other shareholders, lowering the value of each share, and effectively also the relative amount of shares (percentage) owned by that one shareholder. That basically leaves only one option, the buyer attempting the takeover would have to negotiate with the board directly. And in the case of Microsoft, the board would laugh at their face.

Maybe they could achieve the takeover via shell shareholders remaining under the percentage each, and get them to vote in a new board that would revoke the policy, but that’s way more difficult to pull off.