Problem is, no one admits that and lies about it. So here we are. A lawyer can only help so much when you lie about it.

Amazon was using people to train the model, so at the starts it would be 100%, but eventually the goal would be to get near zero, maybe the average was 70% but when the ended it was near 40%?

Difference is, the mouse can’t die, a person can. But the mouse can be continued by anyone…

What…? Most people want more content more often with more options, not everyone wants a release every 4 years that’s the same content and story rehashed.

They still buy full games though, using old as seats to make new content for an “old” game is a great way to have more income come in. Most would probably prefer to make a new game, but that takes longer as well.

So if it’s a dlc a year at $15 for 4 years, or a game every 4 years for $60… what’s the difference in the end? Other than what you think is going on inside your head? It’s the same content, same price, same everything, you just get content yearly instead of every 4 years. Bonus for everyone since they can than use that money after the first year to maybe make the other better.

People had different issues with those, that was because online was a portion of it, and people thought devs were holding content back just to make more money. Obviously some did that, but they started painting every dev with that brush and they needed to adjust to save their bottom line from being affected.

Every change has been a reactionary effort to adjust for the market changes and people suddenly not wanting what they just wanted a few years ago, and using it to their marketing advantage. Of course not everyone is going to be happy, it’s just funny that certain devs get defended for doing what everyone else does since their marketing gets eating up.

The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion

So if they want the content, they can support the devs so they make more.

The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.

So no lose there, but they could buy an outfit if they liked it and want to support the dev.

…… that’s actually the majority of gamers…… 2% of the player base accounts for most of the purchases, that means the other 98% is still buying stuff, just not everything. So that’s not even remotely close to reality, most people pick and choose the content, which is literally why this because a thing, because the market wanted it….

That’s also just an affect on the market of people wanting more choice and not wanting to be forced to pay for stuff they don’t want.

Of course it can be swung in a negative light too, because it affects developers bottom lines, and they always want the most money possible. CDPR is no different.

It is kinda funny how people have no issue paying for it all together as bundle, but separate it so people can pay for things individually is silly and everyone is suddenly offended?

I would rather have a story for $10 and $1 outfits I can ignore, than to spend $30 on a story and bunch of cosmetics that don’t add to the game.

This is just marketing, nothing more. They make more money forcing you to buy everything than letting you pick what you want.

And they were in this specific case……… they aren’t trying to railroad her, they gave her the 2 standard options for remedying it, that has been used for decades already throughout the industry to deal with these exact issues, since shit fucking happens. If a business starts making a habit of it, of course they will deal with it, you seriously think they would just let a business continually do it? Get a fucking grip on reality FFS.

She refused the two standard options, and is now suing for above and beyond damages, that’s why she’s being countersued. The business was trying to be accountable FFS lmfao. Both sides can be assholes AND wrong here, or did that thought never cross your mind….?

Of course they can’t just up and fucking do it lmfao, the second time a company tried that they would lose their business license and everything else. The courts aren’t stupid like you are.

Shit happens, most people understand this, I’m sorry you expect everyone to be perfect.

If they can give her one the same size as hers, fully wooded, that might matter.

That is quite literally exactly what the deal is…….

Literally the lot right next to it, so she can’t even complain it’s a different location…

Which is why she was offered the identical lot next door that still has all of that?

Shit happens, she was given recourse and demanded far more than the damages she incurred.

How does swapping two properties benefit one? They need to pay for all the legal paperwork and everything, they aren’t coming out ahead, since the cost of the house would be the same on either property.

You seem to think the developer benefits here? Even though it’ll costs thousands of dollars in legal fees to process everything? And in the end all they have is a lot with a house, that they would have still had regardless? Where is the benefit to the developer?

And yes, when it comes track homes every property is more or less the exact same, that’s the entire point of them. Theres actually very few cases where lots have any significant difference to them, except for custom communities that are a rarity anywhere.

The options are restore it (identical lot next door), or a fair market value, which would be the cost of the land plus repair, or a suitable replacement. She ignored two fair trades that have plenty of precedent in courts, to achieve more damages than she should be entitled too. She definitely seems like she’s trying to get her cake and eat it here too.

You aren’t entitled to the value of the house, that’s going above and beyond damages.

Is that not what they are doing by offering an identical lot next to it that cost the same?

Did any of those go anywhere? People love just throwing shit and seeing what sticks. Nothing I’ve seen have shown any actual evidence, nor these investigations leading to anything…

But sure perpetuate misinformation, you do you mate.

I see this repeated, but no sources provided.

Those are all binary outputs, neurolink allows analog.

Totally different goals, so no nothing else exists currently.

Got a link to share? Nothing else can do analog inputs like neurolink can, so would love to see this tech that isn’t even been talked about yet that you’re spouting all over this thread.