A big question is, how many sales are actually lost to pirates, or, how many pirates would have bought the game if they couldn’t pirate it. The answer is neither zero, nor all of them, but I don’t know what the actual answer is.

The reason why DMR tends to get cracked is that the concept is inherently flawed. If the entire game runs on your machine, then everything needed to run the game has to be on your machine at some point. DMR is security by obscurity.

I’d say it could go either way. You could publish a positive piece on a company and then buy stock in them. They can make a profit whether their research turns out positive or negative. This would however give them an incentive to sensationalize their results, to exaggerate their findings, be they positive or negative.

Riding a creature. “Daggerfall” had ride-able horses. That’s the oldest example I can think off. But there’s probably something even older than that.

That sounds like a bad idea.

Stellaris was released 2016, 8 years ago, 21DLC/8years = 2.625 DLC/year.

If I met a human who needs constant blood and urine tests, I’d assume said person is ill.

It’s a little known fact, but if you killed an animal yourself, its meat is vegan.

0 upvotes 0 down votes at time of writing. I agree with you, though.

Yeah, same principle.

If you’re eating yourself, no. If you have a disease to pass on, you can’t catch the disease, because you already have it.

Turkey W.

Well, if a publisher pulls that crap, you need to remember and then never buy anything from them again.

He wasn’t even good for the German economy though, the Nazis produces a large GDP growth through massive military spending, they bankrupted the country well before the war was over, and had they won the war, the German economy would have crashed immediately.

Thanks for your reply. Are his insurance premiums going to go up?

What about the guy who’s space yacht you stole. Was he another player or an NPC? If he was another player, will he have to buy a new space yacht for real money?

I think it is called the network effect. People are still using Twitter because the messages they want to see are being posted there, and those messages are being posted there because that’s where the audience is. So, basically, people are locked in.

This also means that any loss in user count has a double effect, as not only users are lost, but the utility of the service for the remaining users decreases. So, what I’m saying is, if Elon continues this way, at some point there will be a large exodus of users from Twitter, as each loss of users reduces the utility of Twitter further, triggering a chain reaction.

Of course, we can’t know when that happens, and since we’re both on Lemmy, we’ve already self-selected as people with little tolerance for enshittification.

I’d probably take this suggestion, just to see where its going with this. (I know there’s no design behind these suggestions, but it’s funny).

The thing with live services is, they take so much of the user’s time that there can only be a handful of successful live service games at a time. So any company that thinks that they can just push out a live service game and make tons of money is mistaken. Of course, any CEO who doesn’t want to make live service games will need to explain to their shareholders why not. Easy explanation when you’re a small company, as they can just say that they don’t have the manpower needed. But a big company doesn’t have that excuse.