Yeah, I agree with that. I would never use their browser or other products but their search fits the “at least it’s not google/MS”.

I even think what the CEO is saying is correct here, Google is doing it’s best kill competition.

User agent. Google wants you to use Chrome. You can spoof the user agent in Firefox to get the same results.

They still have the disclaimer on the app in the pay store. It was added after they were called out.

The fact that they hid it in the first place is disqualifying for a privacy focused product.

You’re talking abut the search bar at the top of the first home screen right? It’s always google but it can be removed.

That should be fixed for sure, it’s annoying. Personally I use firefox anyway so I change it to the firefox search widget which uses your firefox default.

I have a phone with stock android 13, which would be the same experience as a Pixel or other stock android phone.

Here’s the process for me:

1. Tap chrome
2. Tap vertical … menu
3. Tap settings
4. Tap search engine (it’s the top option under basic settings and visible without scrolling)
5. Tap DuckDuckGo (or bing or whatever)

Definitely not 30-50 steps on a phone setup by Google. Only real complaint is it can’t be changed from the search field itself.

Their own CEO admits they are required to allow Microsoft tracking in their “privacy” browser due to the contract for search. They use Bing for search, it’s not a myth.

For non-search tracker blocking (eg in our browser), we block most third-party trackers. Unfortunately our Microsoft search syndication agreement prevents us from doing more to Microsoft-owned properties. However, we have been continually pushing and expect to be doing more soon.

— Gabriel Weinberg (@yegg) May 23, 2022

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/duckduckgo-browser-allows-microsoft-trackers-due-to-search-agreement/

Quick math shows that’s irrelevant with a 4% revenue cap, as I pointed out in my original comment, and at best they will be paid the same as just doing a 4% revenue fee. More likely they will get some amount less than 4% from most devs.

The only reason I see for them going this route instead is to claim they are still royalty free, install fees aren’t royalties. Which is BS anyway.

It works for that market too even without install fees, you just make it a percentage of revenue generated from microtransactions. It’s still tied to the game.

Still trying to shoehorn in a “runtime fee”. That’s not going to work and with this model it’s pointless anyway. Just make it a 4% revenue for sales after $1 million. Same end results (actually potentially more in fees) without all the runtime issues. Make it apply only to a specific version and later and after a certain date and then you also don’t have the retroactive problem and the massive blowback.

Yes, it is. That’s a different planned parenthood.

Planned Parenthood delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of people worldwide. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. is a registered 501©(3) nonprofit under EIN 13-1644147. Donations are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowable under the law.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us

It’s a registered 501c3. Whatever anybody’s opinions, it’s a legal charity.

Godot is also an alternative and it’s free/open source so no worries about the company completely changing how they charge you in the future and destroying all the work you have done for years.

https://godotengine.org/

Technically Skyrim has also been published in the past decade, and even more recently than Fallout 4. In fact it’s been released 5 times since Fallout 4.

You can and should enjoy those dozens of hours of learning. If you don’t you aren’t going to enjoy DF.

If I game can’t keep you engaged while doing that for the first 2 hours it’s not a good game, at least for that person. You don’t need to know everything the game has to offer if it’s bored you for 2 hours.

I have about 30 hours in it now. I wouldn’t say it gets any better over that time, if you didn’t like it at the beginning you won’t like it after 30 hours.

I think this is an accurate way to put it. I happen to like that game but if it’s not what you were expecting or you’re tired of it you’re not going to like the game.

I have to say the best change from FO4 is ditching the voiced protagonist. That was a big mistake at the time.

2k never owned Gearbox. They were the publisher Gearbox used, Embracer bought the Studio in 2021 before that they were independent.

There is circumstantial evidence, no direct evidence as contracts are not public. There is no evidence, (circumstantial or direct) that AMD is allowing partners to add DLSS.

Every single AMD sponsored game released since FSR2 launched does not include DLSS despite it being trivial to add if the work is being done for FSR2. For Unreal engine games it can be enabled by including a completely free plugin, the work is already done. Yet, the AMD sponsored games don’t. There is even a game that announced DLSS support before it released and then removed it after becoming AMD sponsored (Boundary).

Yes, it is the case. Companies lie all the time.

Yes, you can. There are several levels of fast travel and you can use it how you prefer.

Oddly enough, it’s misleading. Planets are covered with procedural generated POIs what he meant is that the environment of most planets is barren. I wish there were actually unexplored planets that weren’t covered in POIs too.

I totally agree, I wish there were actually some barren planets without POIs.

AMD blocks partners from implementing DLSS. You’re probably right that it’s not paid bullshit as the payout isn’t monetary. But it’s still being blocked due to the partnership.

This is hardly the first game to do this. Jedi Survivor, RE4 have the same problem. AMD sponsored FSR2 only. The work required to implement FSR2 or DLSS is basically the same (motion data). That’s why DLSS mods were immediately available.

Since FSR2 was released not a single AMD sponsored game has DLSS added. Even games done in engines like unreal where all the dev has to do is include the plugin.

Cyberpunk doesn’t require an SSD, it had “SSD recommended” under it’s storage but not required. Starfield lists it as a requirement.

It’s not an oversight, they were paid to not include DLSS.

If you like the sci-fi setting and don’t mind some flying around space (it does have it, just not seamless travel) you’ll probably like it.

They’re completely different games. If you like other BGS games (Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3/4) you’ll probably like this. If you didn’t, you absolutely won’t like this.

No, it’s not. The fact you started off your explanation with “The problem isn’t the engine itself” says it all.

I didn’t read past that as, frankly, I waste time on someone who immediately contradicts themselves.

Yep, people love to blame the engine but that’s not why their games have the same feel.

You do the same thing in any number of space themed games. That doesn’t make any of them similar. This is nothing like NMS. They are completely different types of games.

I can see why you would not like it if you were expecting NMS but it was never intended to be that. It claimed to be a BGS game in space, and so far they seem to have delivered on that.

Yes, it’s much more like Andromeda than NMS. You can also land at other points on planets and get a procedurally generated area instead of just the pre-made ones like in andromeda though.

I’ve only played a couple hours so far but I don’t understand the comparisons to no mans sky beyond the setting. It’s not a similar game at all.

Yes.

For headphones.

Not using grammarly also works.

Make sure the URL is using HTTPS:// not HTTP://

The CMA appeal is covered in the article. Both parties have requested to delay the appeal so they can negotiate modifying the merger to address CMA concerns about cloud gaming. It’s going through.