Yeah, the hardest thing is really going to be GTA6. The reason I bought a PS4 was GTA5. Needing to wait 2 years to play GTA6 on PC will be a tough thing to swing.
And this coming release will be the first time I’m not going to bother about a new Nintendo console going back to the original. For context, I even like the Virtual Boy. Nintendo has done everything possible to make themselves unlikable.
This headline would imply that PS4 users are upgrading to PS5 at almost the same rate that they upgraded or moved to the PS4.
Honestly, it’s pretty surprising considering the PS4 is still kind of a current console. I’d think a lot of people would be satisfied staying with the PS4 and still getting most of the games that are coming out.
If you already have a PC, no matter how old and shoddy, you will be able to run games on it and become a PC gamer. There was no investment hurdle in 2020, while you need a console to become a console gamer, so you need to buy one first. Most people do have a PC for non gaming uses anyways.
This is also why mobile gaming is so widespread now. People have a phone anyways, so might as well install a game or two on it.
You missed the link I posted, it’s PC sales. Why do you insist on your gut feeling when the data suggests otherwise?
Consoles have stagnated, PC sales has increased year over year and also PC gamers have increased year over year. If it would be because of covid, I would expect a Stagnation afterwards.
This is the first console generation where I bought and sold a console before the next gen came along. I got one of those PS5 emails while they were still somewhat limited, and decided to jump on it like a dumbass. Two years later, sold it to recoup the cost of my Steam Deck. The only real exclusive it has that I played was the Demon’s Souls remake, and that just wasn’t enough to convince me to keep it around. Looks like the other exclusives I have missed out on since then is…(checks notes)…Astro Bot…and that’s it. Oh well.
Right? “We made a mediocre game that doesn’t deliver on the promises we made. Pls give good review now”
That being said, I have not read the Steam reviews, but it could be that they are getting bombed, but the situation described in the article is just people not liking the game for valid reasons
I went and read a good chunk of negative steam reviews for it. And yeah, the vast majority of the negative ones are about mechanics, or performance, and seem perfectly legitimate. A lot that basically even say, "I don't recommend now but seems like it will be good once they cook for a bit."
I did see a couple made super recently that were basically negative reviewing because of this dude's statements, but not many.
And funny how the only reviews I could imagine being considered review bomb-y seem to only have happened because of his whining about being review bombed.
Mostly it looks like the game's recent "The Breach" update was legitimately poorly received by the playerbase, the studio head decided, "No, it's the children who are wrong."
Ugh, this discussion happens every time this topic comes up. There’s nothing about the phrase “review bombing” that implies the reviews are somehow illegitimate. It just means a large number of negative reviews in a short time.
While it mentions malice in the first few words, I would argue many of their examples are not malicious, including the one given about the first known use of the phrase:
One of the first appearances of the term “review bomb” was in a 2008 Ars Technica article by Ben Kuchera describing the effect in regards to Spore, in which users left negative reviews on Amazon citing the game’s perceived lackluster gameplay and digital rights management system.
based on this article I’d say it has more to do with the organized nature of reviews. It even says:
Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading.
What other purpose for reviews is there than signaling to others whether or not they should buy the game?
Do you think the negative reviews for No Rest For The Wicked don’t have the intention of making it not sell as well? And if not, why do you think players leave them?
I agree IP law is messed up, but that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have merit.
Having a temporary, legal monopoly on something that requires a lot of R&D and not much production cost (say, a novel or new kind of asphalt) allows the creator to make back their R&D costs before competitors come out with cheaper alternatives. Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
We need shorter durations and more scrutiny on scope. Also, patents should generally not apply to software.
As an incentive structure for corporations and “people” purely motivated by avarice, sure.
Most people naturally want to create and contribute as long as their needs and most basic wants are met. A monopoly as an incentive is not necessary.
Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter. Incentives are only one half of the equation. Its really all about leverage.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter
The main alternative is offering them a subsidy on a silver platter, but then you’re making everyone pay for that R&D, not just the customers who want whatever that product is, and there’s no protection against IP theft unless the government owns and enforces the patents or something abroad.
I personally prefer the IP law approach, but I think it needs significant reforms, both in duration and the approval process.
With a monopoly, you may very well be making everyone pay for the increased price gouge that comes with monopolies. Not just the customer of that particular product. It depends on the nature of the product.
If it is a component of a more common device or product, basically everyone ends up paying more (HDMI comes to mind). If its an innovation relating to a basic need and gets integrated with the majority of services, basically everyone ends up paying more. If its something that has external implications on the market or wider world that creates inefficiencies, then people functionally make less money because effect people pay more and thus long term this harms spending on a variety of products. If people can’t afford the price gouge and continue using less effective products (assuming they are even available) they likely long term spend more money to make up for the inefficiencies from that.
Monopolies damage things beyond the product that gets monopolized and merely concentrates wealth.
Regardless a subsidy is not the only alternative. That’s still thinking in terms of carrot, and you are forgetting the stick. You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations based on revenue/profits just as much as you with the punishment of potentially being fined/taxed more.
But outside of that, there is also government contracts. That is, a single payer, (monopsony) generally can get fantastic results out of competing firms. Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
Not all monopolies are created equal. We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies, meaning these are new products, not some existing necessity. IP law on its own can’t kill existing products.
An author having exclusive rights to a work doesn’t prevent other authors from making their own works. A pharmaceutical company having exclusive rights to a medication doesn’t prevent other pharmaceutical companies from making competing medications. Likewise for video games and whatnot.
The problems with Palworld have little to do with IP law as a concept but with how broad the protection of patents is. IMO, video game mechanics shouldn’t be patentable, and companies should be limited to copyright protections for their IP. But IP protection is still important as a concept so creators don’t get screwed and customers don’t get defrauded.
You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused/scare away companies.
Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.
Only have access to this account during work, so late reply.
We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies
It doesn’t matter, monopolization at any level has the effect I described.
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused
You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.
scare away companies
There are ways to force this into not being an issue. We don’t have to suck a corporation’s dick to keep their productivity.
It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.
It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for and its worked out for them. They pay obscene amounts to get obscene results.
Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.
You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused/scare away companies.
You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.
A few ways:
the term “R&D” can be pretty broad, so it’s unlikely to have the effect you’re thinking about - pretty much everything in a tech company is “R&D” whereas almost nothing in a factory is; making this somewhat fair is going to be very hard and will likely end in abuse
companies are more likely to set up shop where such restrictions don’t exist
enforcement could be selective to target companies that don’t “bend the knee” - esp true if the required amount is high enough that it’s not practical
force
Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.
It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for
Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.
They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.
Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.
I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).
To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.
Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.
So you’d rather give power to corporations. Who definitely abuse their power. Rather than a government, which at least is potentially elected.
I think governmental structures are probably outside the scope of this conversation, but I’ll at least state that the reason Trump is bad is not only that he has power. Its the lack of power that his opposition has because they utterly fail to seize it when opportunity presents itself. Again, it is all about leverage.
Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.
They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.
I think that this is pure conjecture. Going “full competitive” would be at best a double edged sword. A lot of money and risk is involved in highly advanced military tech. Realistically you’d see businesses crumble and merge. Naturally converging into a monopoly.
I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).
To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.
To actually reduce costs, you increase the leverage the buyer has. Transparency in pricing would do that to a tiny degree, what would do so far better is a monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized.
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments. I firmly believe giving more power to governments results in more monopolies, generally speaking, because it creates an opportunity for the larger players to lobby for ways to create barriers to competition.
That’s a pretty broad statement though, and there are certainly cases where I would prefer the government to step in.
monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized
I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don’t think that’s the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.
That’s quite similar to the current military industrial complex, the military is the only purchaser of these goods, so the suppliers can largely set their prices. A monopsony means the value of making a deal is massive for a company because they get access to a massive market, which also means the value of lobbying to get that deal is also high.
So I really don’t trust that a single payer system would actually work in the US to reduce total healthcare costs, it’ll just hide it. If we want to actually cut healthcare costs, we need to fix a number of things, such as:
malpractice suits - providers need expensive insurance plans and hesitate to provide certain types of care (i.e. need more tests even though they’re very confident in their diagnosis)
pharmaceutical and medical device patent system, and subsequent lobbying to set regulations to hedge against competition
backroom deals between insurance companies and care providers where both sides get a “win” (provider inflates prices so insurance rep can report that they’re getting a deal by getting a discount)
whatever is causing ambulances to be super expensive
The problems are vast and I think single payer would likely just sweep them under the rug. We either need socialized healthcare or maximum transparency, single payer would just be a disappointment.
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
Competition naturally degrades over time as companies go out of business and consolidate. And capital interests fight tooth and nail against large monopolies being split back up. Its more or less a miracle that it’s ever happened at all and it would be naive to think it’ll ever happen again.
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don’t think that’s the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.
Do you think a more direct “medical patient union” would work? Skipping a government intermediary?
socialized healthcare
I mean, I’d prefer socialized healthcare over single payer. Single payer for me is merely an acceptable middle ground. As would having a proper public option next to private care (though admittedly that would slowly erode from lobbying).
Competition naturally degrades over time as companies go out of business and consolidate.
And it naturally improves over time as companies challenge established players and “distupt” the market. As long as the barrier to entry remains sufficiently low, there’s no reason for a net degradation in competition.
Large companies tend to become less efficient. Yes, they have economies of scale, but they tend to scare away innovators, so they switch to lobbying to maintain their edge.
The correct approach IMO is to counter the lobbying efforts of large orgs, and that means stripping governments of a lot of their power. Regulations tend to result in more monopolies, requiring antitrust to fix, and as you noted, that’s extremely rare.
Do you think a more direct “medical patient union” would work? Skipping a government intermediary?
Yeah, that can work. I’m thinking of having your primary care orovider offer your “insurance” policy, and they’d be on the hook to fund any procedures you need. So they have an incentive to keep you healthy, and that agreement could be a legal obligation that the doctor is doing their best to keep you healthy.
I do think we should socialize emergency services though. If a paramedic determines you need an ambulance ride, that should be free.
I’d prefer socialized healthcare over single payer
I prefer privatized care with transparency in pricing across the board, shortened patent durations, and some government assistance for the poor. But failing that, socialized care is probably the next best. Anything in the middle just breeds corruption.
The main alternative is offering them a subsidy on a silver platter, but then you’re making everyone pay for that R&D
R&D for many companies is taking the research done by underpaid graduate and PhD students and using that to create some sort of product or buying out the startups those students created and building from that.
We already live in a system where the majority of costs are publicly subsidized (and that’s not mentioning the myriad of direct subsidies these companies receive, for an especially egregious example look at the amount Pfizer got paid to develop the Covid vaccine) and then the result is patented and privatized.
They usually get grants, and frequently the student will get hired to follow up on that research. A lot of the research ends up unusable to the company as well, at least on its own.
majority of costs are publicly subsidized
I think that’s a bit extreme, but I’ll give you that a lot of R&D is subsidized. The COVID example, however, is an outlier, since the funding was to accelerate ending the pandemic, which was critical for the economy as a whole.
the student will get hired to follow up on that research.
You’re right that that’s an aspect I forgot about, however If the patent system worked as you envision it then those students would own the parent which they would then lease to those companies. The actual situation is quite legally messy because it’s usually the universities which own the IP produced, (which is then leased out via partnerships, grants etc ) and when those individuals lease themselves with the promise of producing more valuable IP they have to take cautions to not infringe on their previous work.
I think that’s a bit extreme,
Not really, using Covid as an example this paper details the pre and post-epidemic funding sources that went into the discovery, testing and production of the COVID vaccine. Do you have any other examples you’d like to use to demonstrate how it’s “extreme”?
The COVID example, however, is an outlier
Yes and no, but it is well publicized and documented which is what I was trying to communicate with that specific one as an example.
it’s usually the universities which own the IP produced
Which is totally reasonable. The student applies for a graduate program to get a degree, not get rich off a patent. Theoretically, any patent royalties retained by the university would go toward funding university activities. I don’t know how much this happens in practice though.
That said, there should be limits here. If a patent makes over a certain amount, the rest should go to the student.
it is well publicized and documented
Right, because it’s an outlier.
If you go to the patent office and look at recent patents, I doubt a significant number are the result of government funding. Most patents are mundane and created as part of private work to prevent competitors from profiting from their work. My company holds a ton of patents, and I highly doubt the government has any involvement in funding them.
Did Nintendo get government funding for its patents? I doubt it.
The student applies for a graduate program to get a degree, not get rich
And what’s the big selling point behind why you would want to get a degree?
because it’s an outlier.
Pre-pandemic public funding wasn’t, which is why I linked a source that provided both so you could see how much of an outlier it was/wasn’t.
If you go to the patent office and look at recent patents, I doubt a significant number are the result of government funding.
They all will be to some extent. The hard part is quantifying the extent for each individual patent. I can guarantee that you’re company received/has received some sort of public funding and so yes the government does have involvement directly funding them, even if it isn’t as explicit as with public health funding. Indirect funding is the much harder one to suss out but is likely significantly more.
Did Nintendo get government funding for its patents?
Directly? Probably not, but the whole point of bringing up universities was to show one of the indirect paths. However I don’t speak Japanese in order to actually research but would be very curious to know what sort of subsidies/public assistance it receives, if there exists a thing similar to MEDIA/Creative Europe, etc.
And what’s the big selling point behind why you would want to get a degree?
To work on interesting problems, that’s why most people get advanced degrees, no? I highly doubt most people who get a Ph.D are in it for the money…
Indirect funding is the much harder one to suss out
It’s also rarely directly related to R&D. For example, the company I work for produces chemical products, and innovations in that formulation is critical to our competitive advantage, but not particularly interesting from a national perspective. Our innovations merely help our products stand out from competitors, but competitor products are pretty similar.
If we get subsidies (haven’t checked), it would be for producing these chemicals with less pollution, using locally produced ingredients, or to improve safety of transporting them.
If you try hard enough, yeah, you could probably find some form of government funding. But that doesn’t mean the patents were produced as a direct result of public funding.
If that’s people’s main motivator then why does copyright exist in the first place?
If we get subsidies
If you’re a large enough institution to have as many patents as you claim to then I guarantee you do. I would encourage you to dig into that as well as the why.
that doesn’t mean the patents were produced as a direct result of public funding.
How many transition steps are needed for a precursor chemical to no longer be a required precursor for a product? Is a byproduct that is sold not a product because it’s not the primary intended production output?
If that’s people’s main motivator then why does copyright exist in the first place?
Copyright exists to create a temporary monopoly so the creator can recoup their creation costs and some profit on top, since creating a work takes a lot more resources than duplicating it. Likewise for patents, though that’s more focused on sharing ideas.
large enough institution
We probably are. A quick search shows 100-200 patents, many of which have long since expired. Most of them are incredibly mundane, and I highly doubt a government would’ve been involved in funding it, and I don’t really know how to find out if they were.
How many transition steps are needed
That depends on a variety of things, but in general, very few? Like 2-3?
Let’s say my company gets funding to disseminate OSHA information to employees so they know their rights and what the company is obligated to provide. That has absolutely nothing to do w/ funding the actual production process at plants, even if those plants are subjected to OSHA safety requirements. In fact, it likely runs counter to increasing production because employees in a seminar by definition aren’t producing product at the plant.
So yeah, I would say government funding has to be pretty directly related to R&D to count as “funding” R&D. Maybe there’s an award for the first group to come up with something or a general subsidy to fund research in a given area.
Copyright exists to create a temporary monopoly so the creator can recoup their creation costs and some profit on top
Creation costs like the cost of an advanced degree? You’re repeating talking points like nobody’s heard them before and contradicting yourself every other comment.
How many transition steps are needed
That was a rhetorical question, let me try rephrasing that. If A+B+C=D and D+E=F is A a requirement to get F? Or is it no longer relevant because it’s 2 steps removed?
Let’s say my company gets funding to disseminate OSHA information to employees
I wish I got paid to avoid fines. I understand that is how your deeply corrupt system works but you really can’t understand the financial incentives there can you? Imagine that illegal parking is a huge problem so instead of parking tickets they pay everyone who owns a car to sit through a parking information seminar. Do you honestly think that isn’t going to factor into your decision on whether you should own/drive a car? Is it unreasonable to say that the state is paying you to drive?
Creation costs like the cost of an advanced degree?
No, copyright has little to do with advanced degrees. The creation costs are the time and resources needed to produce the book, movie, software project, or other work, which can be substantial.
There’s a better argument for patents, but still weak.
That was a rhetorical question
Right, and rhetorical questions by definition don’t have good answers. There needs to be a reasonable limit here, and what’s reasonable depends on what specifically we’re talking about.
For example, I benefitted a lot from my public education, but I can’t really quantify the impact to a a dollar amount, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say my career success is due to public funding.
For me to accept that an innovation came from the public sector, I’d need to see a direct link between public funding and the innovation. Just saying a company got a tax incentive to put an office somewhere doesn’t mean all innovations from that office is government funded.
Is it unreasonable to say that the state is paying you to drive?
Yes, that’s unreasonable.
Driving is heavily subsidized by the state. For example, a lot of the funding for roads comes from income taxes instead of direct use taxes like registration and gas taxes. Even so, I don’t consider that to be paying me to drive, but it is an incentive to drive.
The government does pay me to have babies since I get a tax credit if I have kids. The difference is I have to do something proactive to get the benefit, whereas the roads will be funded whether I drive or not.
If a company gets a tax incentive to put an office somewhere, that doesn’t mean all inventions made there are publicly funded unless that’s specifically called out in the incentive deal.
Maybe this is me just being jaded after Nintendo’s fall from grace, but this is the first time I’ve seen a feature and wondered “why”?
If mouse control is important then just let people connect a bluetooth mouse. They’re easy to get ahold of and most people can probably chuck one in their bag if they don’t already have one.
Hell, if you feel the need, just make a “Switch Mouse” with a control stick on the side if you need to. No need to have one controller to rule them all.
This enables unique gameplay experiences not usually possible on a standard PC mouse setup, such as the ability to use two mice to play games.
I mean, this isn’t illegal or anything. It’s just so situational I’ve only seen it done once (World of Goo for multiplayer). Most people can’t effectively use mice with their non-dominant hand anyway.
An example of this is in Drag X Drive, where the player uses a mouse in each hand and moves them forwards or back to mimic moving around in a wheelchair.
Isn’t this just motion controls? The same concept could have been done with the Wii and two wiimotes. Only this time you just wear out the rubber pads on your joycon.
The addition of HD Rumble in the controllers also means players can experience force feedback while using a mouse.
… How does this even work given that a mouse is a precision instrument? Surely the rumble would just cause the mouse to shift around or become less accurate. I think there’s a reason nobody has tried to put rumble in a mouse.
Overall I can see it being a nice emergency feature for if you need a mouse but don’t have one on you. But the fact that they seem to be pitching it as a flagship feature feels odd to me.
Or maybe I’m just being grumpy and this ends up working well.
i think it makes sense to be skeptical. they’ve shown one game for it that seems neat but not revolutionary. I think this is just a case of “the switch 2 has to do something that the switch can’t do, besides running prettier games.”
I’m willing to bet that most games that use mouse mode will have to use the face buttons and control stick on the mouse con. Metroid prime 4 apparently does this. So its not replacable with a standard mouse.
I think the joy con can also sense rotation of the mouse which is used in mario party and probably never again like the ir sensor from switch 1 joycons. I guess a hypothetical 3d mario maker could let you rotate blocks with it, but that could be done in many other ways.
Maybe it’s that the card has both arms in addition to a wing instead of it replacing an arm like the original? I personally don’t think that warrants an article, but hey websites gonna click bait.
Both arms was my first take too considering he’s specifically named the one winged angel because of the one black wing replacing his arm, but he does have a whole extra head visible behind the text, in the same way Bizarro Sephiroth had a big Sephiroth and then a tiny Sephiroth on top - the topless, black wing form sits on a cloud that sits on top of another bigger Sephiroth with white wings instead of just having 6 wings replacing his legs. And there’s still more werid shit going on behind that text that I can’t make out. With how they brought Bizarro Sephiroth in Rebirth, they could be doing the “multiple teams attacking different sections” take again.
Good point. I didn’t see behind the text without opening a bigger image. The article mentioned it was drawn so the front and back image stacked for the full picture. When you look at it from that perspective it could also be regular sephiroth holding something up between the two of them.
Regardless though I gotta take it with a grain of salt. Someone on the design team back before the first remake launched said to pay close attention to the game’s key art and we’d find something interesting. If I recall it was only a black feather or some other mundane feature that didn’t reveal anything spectacular even after playing the game. It was just marketing to get people talking.
I can’t help but think this is similar. Fun stuff to think about while waiting for the game but probably won’t amount to much even when we’ve seen the final product. I’d love to be wrong though and this is actually hiding a new twist. Time will tell.
This game looks fuccen sicc. So whatever else is in store, the artists know what’s up at least. Don’t see a reason to hate on this as bald chicks are a huge part of that aesthetic. I better only see bald and half or partially shaved heads.
tbh it seems okay except i’m not sure where the ring and pinky fingers are supposed to rest. The dual-mouse possibilities are very intriguing, but i remain cautiously optimistic. this vid didn’t change my feelings one way or the other.
videogameschronicle.com
Aktywne