Farid

Remembering how Subset Games is notoriously anti-mobile I looked into it. Turns out, as usual, they did not intend to release a mobile port, just like with FTL. They have an FTL iPad port, but refused to release an Android port due to piracy concerns, claiming it wasn’t worth the effort to bother with the port. But Netflix approached them and sponsored the mobile ports for Into the Breach. In other words, if not for Netflix, the game would not have been playable on mobile at all. This likely applies to all the other Netflix exclusive games, they don’t buy licenses, they sponsor the ports.

And even if they were just buying licenses and making games available only through Netflix, then go complain to the game devs, not Netflix. Devs are the ones who agreed to it when they were offered money.

Never used Prime, so can’t comment.

Hmm, didn’t know that one was exclusive to Netflix. It’s not a universal thing or a rule, cause San Andreas Definitive Edition, for example, is available for purchase for $20. Probably depends on what the game publisher agreed to.

I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. It’s just an extra that you have for “free”, not a dedicated gaming subscription. I also live in Europe and my Netflix is cheap, so I will have the subscription by default (cause a lot of people in my family watch it), which means I get to try the games for free. You can always just go buy them if you want, from the store.

Yeah, I agree in general, IP milking is pretty bad right now (always been bad, but gotten even worse), but Nintendo is an exception. If they release a game at all, it at least has some merit to justify its existence. Except of course, Pokemon…

I’m not sure if I’m missing sarcasm here, but Super Mario Bros. Wonder is freaking amazing. There’s so much creativity packed into that game, that almost every level they introduce a new mechanic that could easily be it’s whole entire game.

Noted. I will not.

Are smoke grenades multi-use?

Where did I say “government does stuff”? If a service is provided not for profit, funded by the community and is otherwise not privately owned, it’s socialist. It needs to be for-profit and/or privately owned to be capitalist.

Arguably, The US does have several socialist policies, albeit implemented very badly. For instance, public education. Does capitalism stick its grubby fingers into it from every possible angle? Yes. But at its core it has collective funding through taxes (therefore owned/controlled by the state), universal access, and the prioritization of public welfare over profit (at least on paper). Those principles are strictly socialist and not capitalist.

It’s not about strictly “owning”, it’s about controlling. Control can be achieved in many different ways, including, but not limited to regulations. Socialism is an economic system, of which you can implements certain parts.
I didn’t say “social policies”. Socialist policies are a more specific subset of social policies, so all socialist policies are social policies, but not all social policies are socialist.
Regarding the European countries’ degree of being socialist, it of course depends on the country. But on average, you might be right, and perhaps using “equally” was an exaggeration.

Lots of people on Lemmy forget that the choice between Capitalism and Socialism isn’t binary. Country picks individual policies that are capitalist or socialist in nature. All of the modern countries are a combination of both. Even USA has certain socialist policies. Most of Europe is roughly equally capitalist and socialist.
It’s just making a character build and picking perks. Capitalist policies aren’t bad (for the general public) by default. Depending on how and which ones are implemented, they can be beneficial to everybody.

It’s a fork of Greek temple.

They meant to say “Control or* Backspace is Space”, right? Right?!

Removed by mod

While the post is clearly a shitpost, and the arguments in their provided form are not entirely valid, they could be altered to be valid.

Purpose-built devices will always have advantages over generic “do everything” devices. A modern smartphone can do everything, but you still have MP3/FLAC players, DSLR cameras, calculators, etc. Similarly, a PC can do everything, but there are still TV sticks, gaming consoles, tablets, etc.

PC can’t be as low-friction as a console for gaming. To start playing all you need to do is pick up the controller, press the Home button, TV comes on and you’re back where you left off. All the games in the store are 100% compatible with 0 settings manipulations.

Now, you could build a PC for the sole purpose of playing games on it, and come fairly close to the experience. But you’re gonna spend more and put a lot of effort into it.
Some issues you might encounter:

• picking and installing the right OS
• hardware/software compatibility
• controller support
• seamless sleep/wake
• lack of HDMI CEC protocol to control the TV

Whereas a console is a plug-and-play tailored experience that guarantees all of the above to not be an issue.

TL;DR: You can’t just plug your PC to a TV and expect the same result as playing on a console. It will take much more work to get there.

No idea, that’s what I’ve been told, but Japanese engineers usually know what they are doing.

Afaik, the problem with buried cables is that in case of a flood or tsunami they might break, get exposed and electrocute someone.

I came because Reddit’s a shitty company and due to the ban of 3rd party apps. Which group am I?