It’s incredible really that these guys are talking about using Godot on consoles when it is in such bad shape.
Even if it’s a bait and switch, and they spend 100% of the funds on just like, making the engine better, $8m isn’t going to get you to 1/20th of Unity or Unreal. It is an insurmountable niche.
> $8m isn’t going to get you to 1/20th of Unity or Unreal
The size and complexity of these engines can be a disadvantage, because not every game needs the features they provide. For some use-cases, it can be easier to work with a simpler engine with fewer abstractions, a smaller API, and a shorter learning-curve.
Pretty much anything is better for 2D than Unreal Engine. But yeah, Godot does a better job with 2D than Unity, and it's much simpler to get started with.
I'd argue the only significant thing it's lacking, an actual practical concern for indie game development, is a good asset store. Saying Godot is useless because it will never have feature parity with UE5 is, of course, extremely silly and not a practical concern for most games.
I disagree. I find that it is delightful to develop for, especially for 2d games. Miziziziz made a full-3d game in Godot, and did a good job with it. There were a few glitches he caught post-release, but those were not because of the engine.
The Victoria man is a radical, he's there to start an interesting conversation, he's succeeding.
> power to compel people to do the dishes... and some type of punishment to mete out.
Moneyed, Adam Smith style capitalist economies still had slaves, colonies, wars of plunder.
It's tough. I see from your other commenters you're rooting for the guy. The mainstream opinion that executives should be paid less, that the lowest wages should rise, these are freebies and could be implemented in an afternoon, with no consequences. All the changes in a person's day to day life would be for the better. Mainstream people advocate against inequality not the elimination of money, but yes, there is a transfer, a "handout," as part of those goals.
We could probably 10x the number of “handouts” as you call them, at least in the US, and nothing would change.
We’ve auditioned it already: $4T in stimulus, the $600/wk employment checks, etc. What negative negative impact really did that have on an average person’s day to day life? “Handouts” made pay rise for the first time in decades.
Even the landlords. I don’t know any landlords who are on the street because of the rent forbearance and eviction moratorium - and I don’t even agree with those policies.
Inflation is bad for lenders (i.e. people keeping deposits in USD). People who work get paid based on their real value which means their pay rises if inflation rises. Of course it maybe difficult to get a raise for your current job but switching jobs will get you a raise that catches up to inflation.
Note that there has been a shift in bargaining power since 1980 that is closing. That gap is not the result of inflation because inflation alone doesn't give employers bargaining power. If anything it increases bargaining power of employees vs the old job because the new job always pays more in nominal terms.
It's also incredibly bad for pensioners, and often there's a lag between cost of living increasing and wages increasing that can be quite painful until things equalize, which sometime never happen.
I think pensioners would be covered as “lenders”. I interpreted lenders to mean those who have savings or are the beneficiaries of savings, such as pensioners, in addition to the obvious meaning of entities that hold fixed-rate debt as an asset.
I don't understand if we can say this inflation isn't just the surge of people who didn't spend a lot on travel/eating out/etc. now splurging on all the things + constraints on goods like cars due to the pandemic causing supply chain issues. It seems to me to me a relatively temporary, same as how the April 2020 market dip didn't really mean anything come April 2021.
Yes, I don't really get why this often gets dropped. I would assume inflation goes down next year if the supply chains get better again.
A lot of the inflation I saw in the pandemic was perishable products where the supply was cut in some way or another. As long as people that want it badly can afford more they'll pay more for it. This is inflation, but it's not clear whether the money supply or the supply chains are the reason. The money supply was high in the preceding years as well, not leading to such high inflation.
The USA was a fine place to live, many people happily gainfully employed, many investment accounts booking gains, labor and capital coexisting in harmony, when inflation was double what it is now.
This might had been the case in only low density areas (same as in all other continents), the majority of indigenous Americans did not live in classless societies.
Nobody said no classes. There wasn’t money like there was in Europe. There were by some intellectually honest estimates 50m people living in N and S America at the time of arrival, a huge number of people were living day to day without money.
Easy, any app that is making less than a million a year, or any app where people have been subscribed for over a year. They pay 15%. Also you didn't specify the app even had to be paid, so any free app counts too.
This was only true a couple months ago and required a them to be sued by Epic (and a general "trust busting" attitude from the new admin) for them to drop it. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Well, Tim Cook testified under oath that they had been doing the change to 15% for under $1M before the actual Epic Games lawsuit was filed, and that it had been in the works for over a year. And Biden had not been elected yet, even when they rolled out the 15% change Biden still wasn't President.
Unless you actually believe that Tim Cook committed perjury.
>Unless you actually believe that Tim Cook committed perjury.
One. He knows there are no way to prove him wrong. Just like many other things he had said during Apple vs Qualcomm and Apple vs IMG. When there are ample of evidence his word are either lying by omission or a spin on a word's definition.
Two, AFAIK, he didn't said "they had been doing the change to 15% for under $1M before the actual Epic Games lawsuit was filed, and that it had been in the works for over a year."
He said and I quote "probably has its origins several years ago". They could trace that back as Phil Schiller's letter to Tim Cook on App Store if it needs to be.
That's the rule, but you have to wonder why. They don't get more money just because Google can't spend their own development resources on targeting and validating Blink/V8 for iOS.
90% of the revenue is games. Mobile Chrome would only need to support idiosyncratic Unity and Unreal web targets for a significant chunk of that revenue.
Very difficult in the US because the Federal government has no authority to require one, and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that any regulatory or back door methods to effectively achieve a similar result is not legal.
It is one of the reasons ID resolution in the US is largely outsourced to private entities, which have no such restrictions.
> Very difficult in the US because the Federal government has no authority to require one,
It absolutely could require one for functions within the federally-regulatable sphere, and not prohibit its use for private and state functions.
(If it was national-but-decentralized, it could just set standards for the digital ID and let states issue them, the same way it has for physical ID, see, e.g., REAL ID.)
