Sales expectations here don’t mean “we think this game is so good it will move x million units,” that thinking doesn’t exist anymore. It starts from the money they put in it, and they deduce “we’ll need to sell x million copies to get the money back with the profit we want.” There have been a few interviews specifically about these two games saying that.

It’s the same old idea that AAA products (movies, games, same excuse) cost more to make than they bring money back - although we never know exactly how much of that is actually “investors expect an x% return by week y” where x is just too high and y too short and they never want to think longer term, and we never know how far an investment actually goes. Especially in the case of the Remake trilogy where keeping the same engine and world is supposed to drastically reduce the cost of the last game compared to if they had started a new game from scratch with the same content - except part 3 is unlikely to sell more than part 2 given that it’s a sequel.

At any rate, we all know it’s true that development time and costs keep going up exponentially, and no one likes it (and yet everyone wants 4k 60fps somehow).

No one has MvC2 on any playable system today, because it was removed at some point from all digital stores. Not counting the obvious piracy choice, the MvC2 community that’s still going strong has been crying for a rerelease for literally two decades. So that collection has a decent chance of doing notable numbers.

But yes, they pulled that bait test a couple times before and never went anywhere with it and that was super shitty. I don’t have any hope that this will revive MvC because it’s not up to the players, it’s up to Marvel to let Capcom make a good game. This collection is still very much appreciated either way.

Does the article say the headline is wrong? Or does it say conspiracy theorists listen to facts because it relies on a handful of willing participants who changed their mind when seeing facts and reports? Because that’s not the crux of the crazy conspiracy theorists.

Try again when the chatbot talked to the likes of Graham Hancock or the hardcore MAGA death cult. Facts don’t matter.

Rand pointed out that many conspiracy theorists actually want to talk about their beliefs. “The problem is that other people don’t want to talk to them about it,”

Just look at this guy who straight up pretends that no one tried to talk to them before.

It does talk about gish gallop at the very end, and claims that the chatbot can keep presenting arguments - but doesn’t actually say that it has worked.

I was gonna ask if he has visitation rights on any of his kids before giving one away.

Mais l’alliance avec l’extrême droite, tout va bien ?

Sans avoir eux-mêmes la majorité, ils doivent bien faire des concessions soit à l’extrême droite, soit à la gauche, et on voit bien avec quelle facilité ils font leur choix (au grand dam de leur corps défendant !) et la confiance qu’ils ont que le RN jouera le jeu.

Le désistement en faveur de la gauche pour faire barrage républicain, ça n’aura pas duré.

The article really wants to remind everyone that the hero’s canonical name is Tir, and at first I thought that meant the site was actually using the name. But instead it makes a point to not use that name and call him Hero, so now the article’s insistence just seems sad.

Also for anyone like me looking for the date and confused by it not being in the first line of the article, it’s March 6 2025.

You could argue it’s more like Sekiro but Zelda. Or like Candy Crush but Zelda.

Il est contre l’augmentation smic, la baisse de l’âge de retraite, tout ça, parce que vous comprenez, il y aura moins d’augmentations et d’embauches. À côté il reconnaît être dans la pire période en termes de dépôts de bilans etc.

Donc moins d’augmentation et d’embauches comparé à quoi en fait ? Quelle est la situation qu’il imagine donner plus d’augmentations et d’embauches alors même que la politique actuelle cale ? Ou alors il prétend que c’est la gauche qui a créé la situation actuelle ?

There’s giving a different importance to something that is, in fact, present in the art piece because it touches you more importantly than it did the author, and then there’s making shit up whole cloth. But like I said, the words you chose, and also the things you chose to defend, say more about you than the art

You can also replace woke with another word and it is indeed true that this hypothetical game has a message of female empowerment by having a strong female lead yes. Fallout can have an anti-capitalist message whether you’re pro or anti capitalist yourself and use your own word of choice to denigrate or praise the message. The word you chose says more about you than the message.

What was your point already?

“La stabilité” voulue par le président, c’est “la capacité pour un gouvernement à ne pas tomber à la première motion de censure déposée”, insiste-t-on à l’Élysée.

La stabilité pour ne pas tomber à la première motion de censure quand le parti présidentiel a pas de majorité absolue ? Elle est assurée quand le président nomme un premier ministre hors de son parti et dit à son parti de ne pas voter contre son choix. Rien de plus évident.

Par exemple si il choisi à l’extrême droite et dit à son parti de se taire, aucune motion de censure ne passera, parce que son camp + le RN font plus de 50%. C’est super simple et c’est comme ça que c’est censé marcher quand il y a pas de majorité. Aucune justification à prétendre que c’est pas stable.

Le calcul est identique s’il choisi à gauche, car il a toujours la majorité. Sauf que ça n’arrivera pas, il sait qu’il peut dire à son parti de ne pas voter contre et que ça suffira, mais il le fera pas. Il préfère prétendre que la gauche est instable.

S’il choisi dans son camp parmi les ex PS en prétendant que le PS acceptera, il s’en fout parce que le RN ne soutiendra pas de motion de censure donc ça passera même sans la gauche. Donc on sait déjà ce qu’il entend par stabilité même s’il peut la créer comme il veut sa stabilité.

Le seul risque qu’il court c’est de convaincre le RN de ne rien faire. Si le RN dit non, il sera forcé de prendre à gauche (et encore, en supposant qu’il ne vire pas RN), mais le RN ne dira pas non.

Does the writer of that article not understand what the TVA timepad does? Logan dies in the future. Deadpool goes to his grave in the future, because he thinks that the events of Logan don’t end with his death, he’s in denial and he thinks Logan is probably faking it therefore his timeline won’t be erased.

Doctor Strange literally ended with “oh no, incursions!” so I don’t see how DS3 comes out after Secret Wars.

I once came across an explanation that the thigh is a metaphor for the balls (I probably heard that on the Overly Sarcastic Productions channel). I can only find this with a quick search :

Enorches (“with balls”), with reference to his fertility, or “in the testicles” in reference to Zeus’ sewing the baby Dionysus “into his thigh”, understood to mean his testicles).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus under epithets

On paper, but the city will still say “Friday’s not good for us, how about next never?” Then the protest still happens but now the police can say the protest was announced too late and is violent while setting a corn field on fire with their tear gas. Which just happened this weekend.

We did it! Two guys were fighting, one had a knife, and we stopped that guy from murdering this guy.

She’s the villain of this movie, she’s definitely not Thanos or Kang level villain. And there are suspicion that even in this movie she’s a fake out and there will be another villain replacing her. Either it’s Doom and this movie starts him up like Avengers 1 did Thanos, or it’s someone else and it won’t be a Thanos level villain either.

A bomb that could destroy Earth’s core would be an admittedly impressive technical feat!

J’entendais ce matin à la radio un sondeur de l’IFOPS se défendre que non, ils n’ont pas donné le RN gagnant et la gauche en miette, c’est les médias qui ont interprété ce qu’ils voulaient.

Donc les médias mentent oui.

Yup. I don’t even get what “populism” is when mentioned in media. Isn’t that-- democracy?

Populism is demagogy, it’s repeating people’s complaints back to them, to amplify them and place yourself as an apparent leader, but without actually bringing any solution - and when it does, it’s immediately far right “beat everyone out”. Democracy is actually creating policy and voting on it, which by definition implies people disagreeing in that vote. Populism is rounding up everyone with the same mind, excluding everyone else (not voting on anything) and trying to crush opposition with numbers and no policy. It’s the antithesis to democracy.

Edit - it might depend on the region of the world, I don’t think I’ve seen a lot of left wingers be called populists. Originally it just means the opposition between the people and the elite, so that would match what you say, and apparently some left parties are trying to return to that definition for some reason, but it seems the Pope is taking the other version that has become much more common.