That is patently not what I was arguing. If they don’t raise the price past $60 they’ll just be incentivized to get it through predatory micro transactions.
And by arguing a business practice is unsustainable I’m not saying that entire industry pays employees in an equitable way.
I agree with the sentiment on wages keeping up but I think ultimately the price isn’t as important as the value. I’ve bought a games for $60 that I’ve got 2k+ hrs in. That’s about 3 cents an hour, which I like to compare to a $15 dollar movie ticket that’s ~2-3 hrs of entertainment ($5-7.5 hr)
Obviously not everyone, myself included, gets that much out of each game. But if some games costed $140 but did give 2k hrs of gameplay (7 cents per hr) I wouldnt be bothered. To be clear I don’t think disposable AAA should jack up prices, but if the price reflects the value offered I see no issue.
On the volume thing I think we’ll probably start to plateau in the next 30 years w/ % of the total world pop consuming games, and inflation will continue. I only wish to point out that the eternal $60 price tag is something that probably should end in our lifetimes.
The fact so much of the games industry has latch to $60 as ‘the price’ for decades is shocking. It’s an unsustainable practice and will increasingly make companies lean more on post launch predatory practices.
No American court is going to hold an American company who fired (presumably) an American who (presumably) works on American soil liable under that. You’d be better off looking for local statutes that offer protections.
Haven’t played '06 but the '17 had the best first hour of any game I’ve played.
They are completely unrelated. They just had a really cool name they didn’t want to lose.
For the sake of clarity is my claim is that most nations won’t accept the legitimacy of any ICJ ruling against them as there is no practicable means of holding a nation to account. A judiciary without an executive is an exercise in futility.
There is no crime without a consequence.
Any nation at the point of which informed reasonable third parties declare them to have committed war crimes isn’t likely to just slap their knee and say “you know what, my bad” after a ICJ ruling.
It’s one thing to respect the ICJ when you are a third party. It’s another when you are in the nation subject.
If the ICJ declared that many European countries violated human rights by not allowing criminals defendants to face their accusors, I doubt many of them would reform their justice system.
Seemingly not among the involved party. What punishment can flow for this crime and the court’s finding that wouldn’t be levied otherwise.
The indica of respect and legitimacy of a court is if their rulings are abided. Convince Israel a court with no Israelis should be the final arbitrator of their nations course of acts.
A global judicial body unrecognized is effectively moot. You, me, and a few other here on Lemmy could all denounce any nation’s treatment of others but that wouldn’t mean much. We’d just be some random people complaining on the Internet.
Legitimacy and respect are critical to any court. Without them the courts have no merit.
Also even if you could generally, you couldn’t do it for this as America has very strong free speech protections.
They considered themselves to be Englishmen, and have the rights of one, even after the Battle of Bunker Hill for some time. Also you’re thinking of Sam Adams, who was a brewer. But Franklin is pretty much dead on the money. Didn’t even wear a wig just showed up all slovenly and slayed.
The blade was inside a sheath and could be released from the sheath with the press of a button.
And approached could simply be he was intent on walking past them on the sidewalk.
Brandish is a stretch nothing in that article noted an intent to intimidate others, it is simple possession of a tchotchke. Unless you count the author’s flavor text.
4 months in prison for having a novelty pocket knife
To be fair they used to have a right acknowledged in the 1689 Bill of Rights
Those terms were seriously used in academic circles around 2000 and even more recently as well. There’s a weird whole complex theory on the outdated idea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid
one of the arguments you used.
It decidedly is not.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate.
I didn’t contend that if you follow a linear political view they’d be on the right side. I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.
My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.
The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.
Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three cases didn’t. Which I consider you don’t given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.
If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn’t be on the same sides.
People don’t like when you punch down. When a 13 year old illegally downloaded a Limp Bizkit album no one cared. When corporations worth billions funded by venture capital systematically harvest the work of small creators (often with appropriate license) to sell a product people tend to care.