AbsolutSurgen

Democrat Former Legaue of Legends Player, Twitch Stream Watcher, Socialist and Media Darling Breaks Ranks And Votes Againts Proposed Bill to Reopen Government

Anthem (If it reviews well) Ace Combat 7 (When it's cheap) Rage 2 Last of Us 2 (If Naughty Dog deems us worthy) Ghosts of Tsushima Gears 5 Doom Eternal Whatever Open World Game Ubi releases at Xmas (Watch_Dogs 3, Prince of Persia?) Forza Motorsports 8 (Because I hate myself, and I keep buying the same game over and over) EDIT: How Could I forget Red Dead Redemption 2 (PC Version) I won't buy, because it's clearly not coming out in '19: Halo Infinite Cyberpunk 2077

???? I was talking about non-VR AC7 -- how does RE7 VR come into it?

Not sure there are many legitimate SNES devs left. :)

I thought an everdrive was a flashcartridge used to play pirated games on the original hardware?

Not in today's world. You can be anything you want by self-identifying as it.

Hopefully they have a way of creators being able to monetize their games - so that it will build a robust community (like Roblox)

I don’t know why people keep remaking this boring ass game. (Maybe because it is so repetitive and there are so few assets required?)

It could be that AC primarily sells in Japan? So PS4 got all the love.

Apparently Namco can’t program for Xbox: Digital Foundry: Ace Combat 7: a classic series evolves with stunning visuals But why does PS4 Pro outperform Xbox One X? “Overall though, if you can't play on PC, PS4 Pro is the best way to go - and how it manages to deliver marginally smoother performance than Xbox One X is a bit of a mystery. “

Dp

It's getting generally good reviews. I'll definitely pick it up later this year.

1060 isn't even in production any more. My thoughts were focused on enthusiast cards -- I wasn't considering their competitiveness on 480/580 iin a thread on a $700 card.

I would hate them if there was a credible competitor.

The Mass Effect games were strong, largely based on the quality of their story-telling. There combat was only "average" IMHO. If they are giving up on the area that made their previous games special, I'm not holding out much hope for Anthem...

Then it sounds like the AMD card is overpriced, I understand the ridiculous pricing for the RTX cards, because of the extra cost of the AI cores. They enable DLSS/Ray Tracing. But if they're only getting comparable performance to the RTX cards, when they're not taking advantage of those new cores...

I’m still holding out hope that there is enough story in this game to make me want to play it.

Is this a user count or is it based on hours played?

So the Republicans who support marijuana are socialists?

Dude, that would've been after you went on a long rant about insanity. But seriously, where did I say far left? You are consistently attributing things to me that I didn't say. You are asking me to identify the policies they should implement. Gallup wrote it -- arguing that I did is disingenuous. My point-of view is that the Democratic Party needs to distance itself from the Socialists contingent, who appear to be gaining more power, (at least they are gaining more airtime on 60 minutes and CNN.) The poll data is that Democrats (in general) want the party to be more moderate. I never said or implied that. I'm not scared of anyone. Legalizing marijuana has nothing to do with socialism -- regardless of what the socialists you know believe. There are lots of capitalists who want to legalize marijuana as well. If the Democratic point-of-view was that all marijuana had to be produced on government owned farms, processed in government owned factories, distributed through a government owned transportation network and sold in government owned stores. That would be socialist -- and I would be completely against it. Socialists are also (in general) very supportive of the color red -- they like it a lot. I also like the color red, I don't dislike it because socialists also like it. I am not against something because socialists like it -- I reject socialism. (Again, I mentioned before, that I support government intervention in cases where efficient markets are not possible (such as when there are asymmetries of information between buyer/seller and when transparency of pricing does not exist). I have been very vocal about the Democratic Socialists that are rising in the Democratic party, that are members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Quotes from their website: "Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives." "Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work." "No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus... . We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats." I reject this point-of-view -- and believe that most Americans do as well. I don't support the widespread nationalization of private enterprises into "worker-owned cooperatives". If you want to use "extreme" policies -- I would consider this one. And these are the published POV of both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, and the organization they have publicly belong to and support.

Do you understand that I didn't write the summary in the OP? That was written by Gallup. Marijuana has nothing to do with Socialism. There are socialists that don't want Marijuana legalized (i.e in Russia). It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the Democrats who want the part to be more "moderate", and independents think. That is, if the goal is to re-take control of the house and the presidency in 2020. My rationale on what? I've never personally stated an opinion on M4/UBI or basic income in Alaska. When have I ever used the term "extreme"? Where is this coming from? I said "More evidence that the new socialist bent from new congressmembers is likely to cause more harm than good to the Democrat's 2020 prospects-- and they are probably actually playing into Trump's hand.  " That was specifically targeted at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib. Arguing whether ACA is "socialist" or not is an academic/semantics discussion that I don't really have the desire to get into. Argue with Gallup (who wrote the summary) and the self-identified "moderate" Democrats who answered the poll on what the strict definition of "more moderate" is, and what they want. Winning elections (and getting rid of Trump) should be the priority -- and appealing to a "wider"-breadth of people is what I am advocating. Understanding what those people want is probably the first step towards that. Because, based on the 2016CY election, and not even being able to defeat a terrible candidate like Trump, indicates that the leadership of the Democratic party doesn't (or at least didn't) get it. I can tell you as someone (if he was eligible to vote in the U.S.) would be considered an independent, I'm scared to death of the new "socialist bent" that I am seeing in the Democratic party. I am definitely a liberal capitalist (who believes that government should have a significant role in place where efficient markets and price transparency don't exist - such as health care, roads, water, etc.). But (if I could vote), a more-socialist party in the Democrats (such as that advocated by the Socialists) might even make me hold me nose and vote for Trump and the generally intolerant-of people different than them-GOP. Am I representative of "moderates"? Probably some, but probably not the majority.

What point are you trying to make right now? What does marijuana have to do with Socialism? AOC (and for that matter, Rashida Tlaib) are both members of the Democratic Socialists of America -- that self identifies as one of its major objectives of "strengthening the left wing of the Democratic party". I could create a summary of what makes the fundamental beliefs/purpose of that organization "not moderate" -- but I don't think you're an idiot, and you can figure it out yourself.

I think Democratic Socialists recognize they are pretty far on the left of the spectrum. Where are you getting "extreme" from? People who self-identify as moderates hold a wide range of positions. Why are you trying to make them out as a homogenous group?

My point was that equating socialism to liberalism is factually incorrect. Socialism is not "moderate" under any POV. And while it is absolutely possible for a liberal to be a Socialist, it is ALSO very possible for a liberal to be very much against Socialism. Liberalism is not inherently a left-wing POV, in fact it is in-fact possible to be a RIGHT-WING liberal. Or, aghast, even a moderate liberal. Liberals have a VERY WIDE RANGE of beliefs. AOC (and many of the new Democrats) are self-avowed socialists -- which has virtually nothing to do with the Iraq war, human rights or equality. It is about the economic system that is put in place.