Honestly, I'd rather have them remove all timed quests. Those are the ones that suck the enjoyment out of my travel experiences.
I also don't know what "Fallout 3 Remastered" entails, but if it means forward-porting the content to Starfield's engine, that'd be pretty cool, though I do wonder how much effort will be required for mod-porting.
I think all their previous games will eventually get the Oblivion Remaster treatment. So a frankenstein'd UE5 renderer + gamebyro backend.
What might be a valid argument in 5.x might not be an argument for 6.x.
But IMO, Windows 7, 8, 10 and 11 have more in common with vista than vista has with XP.
((2*x) mod 5) + 1
Mir geht es hier um soziale Gerechtigkeit und eine flache Gebühr ist das halt nicht. Entweder müsste man die Gebühr den Umständen der jeweiligen Personen anpassen, oder man macht es halt wie ich vorschlage und ändert die Anreize.
Wenn ÖPNV das bessere Verkehrsmittel für 90% der Reisen wird, muss man hier nicht direkt eine Gebühr drauf legen. Wenn das Auto trotzdem am besten die Anforderungen bei einem Transport (Umzug, Transport von großen Geräten/Möbel etc.) erfüllt dann sollte das nicht nur den Wohlverdienenen vorbehalten sein. Und ein festes Limit würde sowas auch ziemlich strikt einschränken, nicht zu reden vom Verwaltungsaufwand mit solchen Lösungen.
Also du glaubst das bleibt nur bei Computerspielen? Das man Dinge 'kauft' und dann etwas später einfach keinen Zugriff mehr darauf bekommt?
Und du findest diese Praxis OK?
Und welchen Effekt hat deine individuelle Aktion an der Gesellschaft?
Konsumenten Boykott funktioniert nur in den seltensten Fällen. Man braucht hier klare Regulierung.
Sure, but this video is also speedup...
Ja ist er. Und so ist die Situation seit der Privatisierung der Bahn.
Infrastruktur ist Staatssache, weil es hier darum geht jeden bestmöglich anzubinden, auch wenn es wirtschaftlich keinen Sinn macht. ÖPNV soll nicht wirtschaftlich sein, sondern den besten Service für alle bereitstellen.
Finde die 12 mal pro Jahr Regelung auch etwas ungut, aber mit Geld freikaufen auch nicht toll, dann wird das wieder ein Statussymbol.
Lieber Autofahren unangenehm machen. Überall verkehrsberuhiger Bereich, Schrittgeschwindigkeit mal auf max. 5 km/h festsetzten (aktuell scheint das ja nicht mal definiert zu sein). Zusätzlich Dezibel limits setzten und vorschreiben das jedes Auto vorne und hinten mit nem halben Meter Abstand Objekte/Personen mit dem halben Meter Höhe sehen können müssen.
Also true in many cases in Europe.
You can get a flight ticket for under 20€ between Germany and UK (RyanAir), and have to pay tenfold that for a train ticket.
Or a 30€ ticket to Romania per plane. Booking a train to Romania is much more difficult and expensive and also easily over 100€.
I would wish that train tickets are cheaper than plane tickets, but if you cross country borders, booking train tickets becomes expensive and difficult in Europe.
TBH, age verification services exist.
If it becomes law, integrating them shouldn't be more difficult than integrating a OIDC login. So everyone should be able to do it.
Depending on these services, you might not even need to give a name, or, because they are separate entities, don't give your name to the platform using them.
Other parts of regulation are more difficult. Like these "upload filters" that need to figure out if something shared via a service is violating any copyright before it is made available.
Where did I or the original post mention anything about occasional smokers? This post is offensive to those struggling from lifelong addiction to cigarettes, which is almost never a choice.
Where did they mention addiction?
They mention cigarettes, and their bad affects on the people using them and the people around that. Stating that they are bad should not be offensive, because that is stating the facts.
If they are offended by that... IDK. That is something they have to work through themselves.
Gee, that's such great advice! Why didn't the lifelong addict think of that one themselves? You just singlehandedly solved addiction.
You are misrepresenting what I said. I said that to get over an addiction you first have to want it. And you say: Just wanting to stop is not enough, and I agree.
Noone chooses being addicted to cigarettes. It's a mental health disorder just like being addicted to fentanyl or heroin, and a crippling one at that for some. Please educate yourself about what addiction is before defending posts like this. What you are doing is similar to shitting on people for "choosing" their sexuality or gender.
True, however people don't just wake up one day and be addicted. They have to take it first (willingly or unwillingly), putting a social stigma on the act of using these addictive substances, can at least prevent some people of getting accidentally addicted.
So I would be in favor of supporting people getting out of their addiction, while preventing people to get addicted, by showing what is bad about these drugs and trying to fight against the social component of "taking them makes you cool".
What are you fighting for? Finding ways of being offended?
What does smoking a cigarette here or there has to do with addiction?
Cigarettes aren't the only way you can get addicted, you know. You made the connection between cigarettes and addictions, here in this post.
Also wouldn't it be the best advice against addiction find the will in oneself to stop doing it? If addicted smokers know what their cigarettes do for themselves and others, then they might want to try search for help, to get them off their addiction?
Unless you are also complaining about it when white male characters are also surface-level, 2-D, copy-and-paste characters then all you are saying is "Only white male characters are allowed to be simple or a stereotype/trope."
What? Where am I saying that?
Yes I would complain about all kind of stereotypes. Even the "white muscular tough guy" could be considered sexual objectification. IMO CoD is sometimes pretty gay coded.
Lets be honest, not every game needs a complex and well written character, and that is fine. If they choose to go that route it doesn't matter what race, religion, or gender the character is in the first place. So it doesn't matter if they are a white male, a latina woman, or a black non-binary person.
I wasn't saying that. You can have games without a single character. Or where the character doesn't really matter, because it just an empty shell you are driving around and not more.
But IMO I mostly play story driven RPGs, where you are someone, and where you want the environment to react to you. It would be awesome if when you run around with colorful hair or tattoos, it would slightly change the disposition of the NPCs or cause them to comment on your appearance. Don't let this stuff be just cosmetics, it should be more meaningful, and embedded into the game world.
I don't think representation is the main issue, it is more about how they are presented.
Striding for a perfect 50/50, doesn't really sense if they are all just stereotypes and sexual objectified. Also there are many other underrepresented population groups.
IMO, it is more important to focus good well written and complex characters, that represent real circumstances right.
I don't complain that AAA studios have gone 'woke' because they now include choices to select from marginalized groups, I complain about them because they are often do not offer a deeper perspective of people in that group and are just different skins.
In some way, I can understand, games often happen in a Fantasy world, but I would wish that selecting different characters would do more than just exchanging the player mesh, texture and voice pack.
Sure, but you might be missing the point of the post in the picture. This isn't about solving wealthy inequality, it is about demonstrating how bad the inequality is.
You have to develop better tax policies to fight it, policies that takes more money from the rich and feeds it into the government, for it to redistribute where it is needed most, the social security and welfare services.
Well, if everyone has equal shares, and trading them becomes as common as exchanging money, you could just use your shares (or fractions of it) to buy something at the grocery.
I am sure that people will find solutions for what you describe, if they want to.
But sure if you don't effectively prevent developing wealth-inequality after you redistributed it, it will slowly move back to a similar situation, but not sure what your point here is, you cannot simply fix capitalism by redistributing wealth one time and not changing the underlying incentive structure. But that is not what is expressed here.