Selling literal shit at a restaurant also isn't unfeasible if the customer doesn't care about eating shit. But nobody is going to eat shit and nobody (normal) is going to pay $10+ a month to get mostly gimmick features. At a glance there's barely anything useful in the API.

The older stalker games are worth it only if you want the story. If you want to experience the gameplay you can download stalker Anomaly for free. Anomaly is a standalone mod that combines the 3 stalker games into one (minus the story) and adds cut content and has been "modernized" over time. It's a much better experience than the original games and the community considers it THE way to play Stalker, and ontop of being a mod it also has a healthy modding community.

I don't remember how beginner friendly it might be (probably not very because the mod gives you a lot of customization options before you even start the game) but I'm sure there are some beginner guides on YouTube. And for the price of free the only question is how much time you're willing to invest to play Stalker. And if you think the OG games will be much easier, not really. No matter what stalker game you start with you're bound to meet the relatively steep learning curve.

Releasing even bad games is already a feat. Considering how Musk doesn't know how to run a web development company I would be surprised if his "game studio" releases anything. The only way that company releases anything is if Musk won't be involved, and we know the "expert at everything" will be involved.

There are some. For example extraction shooters kinda lose a core aspect of its genre because the player interactions are built on the idea that you don't know who the other groups in the server are. Are they hostile? Are they friendly? Will they stab me in the back or help me out? How many are in a group? Technically it would be possible to set up community servers (if you had access to the server software) but if your community plays on the same server you kinda lose that uncertainty of who you're going to meet, because you know the people you're playing with.

Another one IMO that benefit from matchmaking are 1v1 games. Chess or fighting games or anything of the sorts. Community servers would be moot because you can only have 2 people in a match. You could probably build a tournament style community server but it wouldn't add much value. I think matchmaking makes much more sense there.

There might be more but I think that list will be relatively short and in general most games would probably benefit more from having community servers.

To be fair, if your first month estimate is 5 mil and you don't even sell 2 mil in 3 months that could easily be a panic. And for comparison, fallen order had sold over 8 mil units in about the same time period.

Per stream can be very misleading because if Apple pays double per stream but the song gets double the streams on Spotify the payout is exactly the same. There's an argument to be made that if you got as many streams on Apple as you do on Spotify you'd make more money but let's be real, if Apple got as many streams as Spotify their per stream price would also be closer to what Spotify pays. These companies aren't paying extra out of kindness. Their per stream pricing is higher because they know they (on average) won't get Spotify number of streams. They can undercut Spotify to make themselves look better while most likely paying out roughly as much (or maybe even less than) what Spotify pays out.

Do they actually pay less or do they pay less per stream? Because those two things are not the same.

I remember reading that Spotify pays out around 4k per day (~120k per month) for her streams but the majority of that payout goes to the rights holder and Allen gets pennies. I think Spotify is paying a reasonable amount (at least in my opinion but I'm far from an expert on the matter) and the music industry is the one screwing her over.

Were the majority of Europeans Nazis? Yes, a very specific subsection Europeans caused the holocaust, but that does not represent all Europeans. If you choose to generalize an specific region of the earth based on what one country did then I guess you're a rapist because I'm pretty sure there are rapists in your country and I'm choosing to generalize your entire country (including you) based on those rapists. Except I won't actually do that because that would be fucking stupid.

To get back on track, the other person used Europeans in a general sense which means I took it in the general sense. If they meant Nazis they should've said Nazis.

okay, that makes sense. The online/offline terminology was just confusing.

Online spawner?

Of course you're going to assume I'm pro Isreal... I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering you don't know history and you don't understand that for your "Reich" comment to make sense it should've been fourth Reich not third Reich.

I don't even know what that means.

I'm sure it is to you.

Edit: since Mr. Disingenuous isn't going to get back on track I'll leave my argument here. The reason I'm asking who is supposed to give the land is because if the governing body isn't giving the land it means the people living the land should do it. But how are people supposed to give the land? Yes, people can physically give their land to Zionists but people can't legitimize a Jewish Nation. It would just be, let's say a Jewish town within Austria, but it would still be Austria and not a Jewish nation. Only the governing body can create a Jewish nation.

Also it's not the European people who caused the holocaust and they were victims of the war as well. Their homes were destroyed, they needed to rebuild their lives, and then they also need to give their land to Zionists because of something they had no control over?

And while I do think Britain completely dropped the ball and is very much to blame for creating this conflict between Palestine and Israel, it's very much history at this point and it's pointless to argue over history. Pointing the finger at what Britain or Europe did or didn't do a century ago does nothing because at this point it is what it is. If we want this conflict to end we should look at what can be done now.

So whose land was it to give then?

I think it might have more to do with the fact that our perception of morality changes with societal norms. People in the 19th century probably looked at Roman gay sex as something bad and vulgar because gays were bad. Now we view Roman gay sex in a positive light.

Were the 19th century people bad people because they viewed homosexuality as something bad? Or do we consider them bad just because we no longer see homosexuality as something bad? What if 200 years from now homosexuality is considered bad again, do the 19th century people become good?

Maybe we shouldn't apply our current moral values to people who lived at a different time with different moral values?

Maybe because Britain had already mandated a Zionist quasi-state (that would eventually become modern day Israel) and Zionist Jews were already migrating there even before the Holocaust? Or are we simply ignoring that part of history?

Can anyone explain what Stroll was doing?

Hopefully they get to keep the Andretti name, but overall 11th team on the grid is definitely a win.

Ugh, you had to mention the fast timescale... Now I'm seeing it too and it's so annoying.