If my experience is anything to go by, you mug everybody you see, steal everything in their wallet to “identify them”, interrogate them while vomiting drunk in their apartment, and maybe solve a murder or two on accident.
I mean if you trace it back far enough, the engines used are in fact forks of the quake engine (IdTech 2). I’m sure there’s some simple system somewhere that’s still the same in all engines all these years later
Fast forward to today, it’s kind of terrifying that the proprietors of DirectX effectively own the poster-child Vulkan game engine for both performance & visual fidelity.
If that were true, ‘No’ is also an answer. Total Annihilation does not seem like the only option and certainly not an option to use as a lesson. Can’t teach a dead pupil.
I’ve seen this a few times, ca you explain this to me? Is it a way of talking about people that consider themselves capital G gamers without having them come in and ruin the conversation with whining or gamergate bs?
So I missed it the first time. But the title is “A The Lord of the Rings Game”. Assumedly to maintain copyright, they did not drop the “The” from “The Lord of the Rings” even though they started with “A”
Grey Zone Warfare is almost done, why would I give money to tarkov devs, especially now that everyone can plainly see they’ll do shitty shit to their playerbase?
When Nintendo eshop closed, I lost all my purchases. I tried contacting Nintendo to see if they could transfer my purchases to my switch account, but contacting Nintendo is like trying to contact god, you’re gonna get nowhere
you get a lot of publicly traded companies that are in the industry that have to show their investors growth—because why else does somebody own a share of someone’s stock if it’s not going to grow?
I thought the way it was supposed to work was, a company starts out investing in its growth and during this period shareholders get gains from the price of the stock going up, and then when it has maxed out just switch to shoveling the profits into dividends instead? If the industry has stopped growing, I don’t see why there isn’t a path to acknowledging that to investors, what am I missing?
Shouldn’t that depend on the dollar amounts? Why would $X of dividends be worse than $X of stock growth? And if growth just isn’t in the cards anymore, it would be in reality a worse bet as the companies pour resources into a black hole of false hope and self sabotage seeking something that isn’t actually going to happen.
Growth stocks rise more because they carry more risk than steady dividend payouts. In a perfect dividend world, dividends would match growth, but because there is inherent risk in growth stocks there is a larger upswing
There are competing schools of thought in the investment world, and Growth has solidly beaten Dividend investing. Even better, going for a market-weighted global index fund is best.
You don’t pay tax on growth, you do on dividends. For large shareholders a high dividend can be a problem. Even for me, a very small time retail investor, I have to keep a balance of growth (like Apple) and dividend (I tend to use a dividend ETF so I can fairly reliably estimate my dividends) so I can avoid paying tax on the dividends.
pcgamer.com
Ważne