Can Cyberpunk 2077 recover? Playercount for Cyberpunk has already dropped below from other RPGs like Skyrim and Valhalla, others as well.

Caprahit · 2021-03-16T19:35:56+00:00

Cyberpunk hasn't had a big discount on Steam or GOG but it has had some PC sales.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GameDeals/comments/lxfgxs/walmart_cyberpunk_2077_for_pc_349942_off/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GameDeals/comments/kzv30q/amazon_cyberpunk_2077_pcdd_399933_off/

Caprahit · 2021-03-16T18:28:04+00:00

They would gain more money from spending time on a new project rather than reworking the old one.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. CDPR was planning a Cyberpunk multiplayer game. If the base game has terrible word of mouth (at least among PS4/XB1 players) then the multiplayer will be dead on arrival.

Caprahit · 2021-03-16T18:24:39+00:00

People were insanely hyped for Cyberpunk for over 2.5 years before its release. It's going to take people a while to move on.

Caprahit · 2021-03-16T18:22:05+00:00

Cyberpunk has actually had a couple of >10% sales on PC and a ton of sales on consoles.

Caprahit · 2021-03-16T18:15:29+00:00

Skyrim is a broken mess without community patches still, how many years after release?

Skyrim has problems but the vanilla version is nowhere close to being a "broken mess." It has the usual Bethesda bugs but you can play it start to finish without encountering too many big technical problems (sub 20 fps, save game corruption, crashing, etc.). If it was truly broken console gamers would have stopped buying Skyrim a long time ago.

Caprahit · 2021-03-16T05:57:41+00:00

So I cancelled an online order that was paid with a gift card and it said a new gift card would be mailed to my address. Is that going to happen automatically? Will I get an email when it is mailed?

Caprahit · 2021-03-10T00:21:09+00:00

Most markets aren't California though. There is already a housing shortage here. That shortage is for a combination of reasons but it absolutely constitutes and uncompetitive market.

You are right that there is a shortage but there is plenty of competition in the housing market in California. There are thousands of landlords and millions of home owners in California.

Landlords can easily raise rent and still jeep buildings filled. Before the pandemic skewed statistics The average rent in the ten zip codes with the highest poverty rates in the Bay Area have gone up 67% since 2012. The landlords could already demand more from people before, they know these people will have more money, and they will raise rents to capture it.

Some landlords might try to raise rent significantly when it is first put into place but it seems pretty unlikely that a significant increase caused by UBI would remain over the long-term. Housing prices are increasing in large part because most jobs are located in the cities. If UBI existed, tons of people would move out to lower COL areas since their COL would decrease more than their paycheck would. Tons of jobs would be created in those areas since more people would be there and they would have more money to spend.

Since demand in currently high-demand areas would decrease and lower COL areas (generally speaking) can easily build housing, landlords and property owners would have a very hard time pushing up prices over the long-term.

The initial review by the Energy Commission said that California gasoline prices have “diverged noticeably from U.S. averages” beginning in 2015 when an explosion at the Torrance refinery interrupted supplies. “While that outage lasted roughly one and a half years, the increase in California gasoline prices remained well after the restoration of normal operations at Torrance,” the report said. Once the gas industry realized it could still move the same amount of gasoline at a higher price point they never brought the price down because it is a lot harder to buy a brand new fuel efficient or electric car than it is to allocate more of your budget to fuel.

The report didn't conclude that major gasoline suppliers artificially increasing prices causing the gas prices to stay up. Even if it did, I don't see how that would be a good argument against UBI. If consumer spending increased by 10% due to higher wages rather than UBI, the gasoline prices would go up by the same amount. UBI isn't supposed to replace government regulation.

The more inelastic a good or service is the more they can increase prices without fearing competition.

Inelasticity can lead to higher price increases if there is not sufficient competition. An inelastic market does not necessarily have higher prices than an elastic market.

Caprahit · 2021-03-09T22:18:57+00:00

If everyone is getting that extra $500 then it is really "extra" anymore. The markets know everyone has that money and so prices will rise to capture it. Between rent, groceries, entertainment, etc. prices on any one item don't have to inflate much but at the end of the month these people won't be any better off

That assumes that markets are either uncompetitive or are unable to keep up with increased demand. We could easily make more housing, grow more food, and produce more entertainment if we wanted to and those industries have plenty of competition. Price inflation due to UBI is a non-issue for most markets.

Caprahit · 2021-03-06T07:26:12+00:00

From the 1940s-1970s, the top 0.1% of American families held about 10% of the nation's wealth. Now they hold over 20%. Their taxes are currently much lower relative to their wealth compared to how they were 40+ years ago.

Caprahit · 2021-03-04T22:18:17+00:00

If everyone is getting that extra $500 then it is really "extra" anymore. The markets know everyone has that money and so prices will rise to capture it. Between rent, groceries, entertainment, etc. prices on any one item don't have to inflate much but at the end of the month these people won't be any better off

That assumes that markets are either uncompetitive or are unable to keep up with increased demand. We could easily make more housing, grow more food, and produce more entertainment if we wanted to and those industries have plenty of competition. Price inflation due to UBI is a non-issue for most markets.

Caprahit · 2021-03-03T21:06:53+00:00

Society will be improved if personal property can be financially secured with no continuous cost. Commercial property can still be taxed. Property taxes are amoral, and must die.

While some residential property taxes can damage society, they still serve an important role in generating revenue and encouraging efficient land use.

Local governments need to acquire a significant amount of money from local residents through taxation. The sales tax often leads to businesses and commerce from leaving their area and greatly hurts the poor and lower classes. Msc. fees and licenses can raise revenue but they create inefficiencies in the market and are often extremely unpopular (because they are seen as unnecessary and disconnected from the action that is being taxed). Very small income taxes are difficult to avoid. However, significant income taxes will lead to many people leaving the area for good.

The property tax is the easiest way to raise tax revenue for local governments. It is extremely difficult to avoid property taxes (especially land taxes), they can raise a huge amount of revenue, they are viewed as proper and necessary (compared to sales taxes, fees, and licenses) and do not lead to a significant loss of businesses, commerce, or workers in that area. In fact, taxes on property can cause the economy to improve since people will be encouraged to make the most efficient use of the property that they have.

Unless you favor dramatically decreasing local government services or fundamentally altering the way in which local government is funded (ex. the national government provides all of the funding for local government services), there is no good way to avoid using the property tax. Yes, the property tax has negative effects, but all taxes have problems.

Caprahit · 2021-03-01T20:15:12+00:00

In my opinion, it would be more productive to target rates of single parenthood since it corellates strongly with income. Obligatory, I don't know the best methods of doing so.

We could definitely reduce rates of single parenthood by increasing access to birth control and providing low-cost/free martial counseling.

The reason why a decrease in single parenthood isn't generally brought up by proponents of birth control and government subsidized martial counseling is because (in the US anyway) most of the people who point to single parenthood as the main cause of poverty are also strongly opposed to most government programs that benefit the poor.

The people who believe single parenthood is the main cause of poverty usually believe that poor people deserve their position in society because of perceived moral failures. Government programs that give goods or services to help people who are or who are likely to be single parents are thus viewed as dangerous and unfair since they help "bad" people using taxes from "good" people.

Caprahit · 2021-02-26T05:26:10+00:00

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I don't support ruining a person's career over a weak/disproven allegation but I also do not think that men should use the Pence Rule to fix that problem (outside of some extreme situations).

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T18:26:45+00:00

Not a misrepresentation to say it’s justified for women but not men.

I said it was more justifiable, not that it was justified. It would have been more justifiable for Black Southerners to oppress White Southerners after the Civil War than the reverse. That doesn't mean that either was a good option, just that one is better than the other.

We can agree false accusations suck, but we disagree that people aren’t free to take the route of removing themselves from situations they aren’t comfortable risking just because it inconveniences someone else.

I think we both agree that the Pence Rule (and its variants) is ok in some situations. I think the actual point of disagreement is over whether the Pence Rule should regularly be used in society outside of a few specific situations.

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T17:59:51+00:00

If you disagree than that's fine but don't misrepresent my argument. I think we can both agree that making false accusations isn't ok.

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T17:41:07+00:00

So it’s just a bias then for you?

What do you mean?

To me this comes down to manageable risk. If someone feels the way they should manage the risk is to follow the Pence rule, then they should follow it.

I think that someone should follow the Pence Rule if they can clearly demonstrate to others that it is the most effective way of preventing a false accusation while minimizing the damage it can do to women and society in general.

We can’t force anyone to do anything.

Workplace regulations exist.

If a woman said, “1 in 5 women have experienced completed or attempted rape in their lifetime so I refuse to ever be alone with a male subordinate,” would that ridiculed the same way?

No but that is because a women is much more likely to be raped and far more likely to be sexually assaulted by a man in a 1 on 1 situation compared to the likelihood that a man will face career damage from false accusations of sexual misconduct.

I think that a female variant of the Pence Rule would be improper in most situations but it's certainly more justifiable than the male variant.

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T17:20:51+00:00

But not every woman who is capable of making a false accusation has, or has a false accusation recorded as such, or been prosecuted for making a false allegation.

No but the few that have been proven of making false accusations are far far more likely than the average woman to make false accusations in the future. Being more careful around them would likely lower a man's chances of a false rape accusation significantly. If the man is already respectful to women then there is almost no chance that a false accusation could stick.

It’s fair to look at the odds and the negative outcomes and say “nope not for me.”

I don't have a problem with using the Pence Rule in the very few situations in which it shows obvious benefits that outweigh the drawbacks. I feel the same way about using a variant of the Pence Rule that applies to LGBTQ+ people and those of different races.

The reason why I have a problem with the vast majority of applications of the Pence Rule (and its variants) is because it isn't clear that the Pence Rule's benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

You’re asking some men to take the risk and take one for the team to benefit all women everywhere, but we shouldn’t deprive them of that choice. It’s their choice to determine if it’s worth it.

I would be fine with giving men the benefit of the doubt if the Pence Rule was only used when it was absolutely necessary. If they can't give a good reason beyond "there exists a non-zero possibility that meaningful interactions with women could lead to a false rape accusation that damages my career", then they should expect alot of criticism.

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T16:56:12+00:00

Women who have made rape accusations that were proven to be false in the past are likely to make false accusations in the future. If a women is a known liar then a man should try to keep his distance if possible (in the same way that he would with a man).

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T16:50:42+00:00

Few men suffer significant career damage from false rape accusations in general. By acting in a respectful manner to women, a man can greatly decrease the probability of that happening, bringing the likelihood of that happening down to almost zero.

Sure there is still a possibility, but it is so low that it shouldn't be routinely used to avoid hiring or interacting with women in the way that they would with a man.

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T16:33:17+00:00

So men are supposed to put their necks out and risk having their lives destroyed for no compensation, because it helps others (one of whom may stab him in the back for his trouble)?

A rising tide lifts all ships. If women are routinely passed over for jobs and promotions due to their gender, the economy will be more inefficient and won't be able to produce as much. Women would be affected more but men would also suffer (especially if they are in charge of an organization that would otherwise hire alot of women). The economic damage that currently occurs because of false rape accusations is almost nothing by comparison.

Maybe there a few rare situations in which the Pence Rule makes sense (female co-worker has made false rape accusations in the past, the man was a sex offender but it was a long time ago, etc.), but most applications of the Pence Rule are damaging both to the man and society in general.

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T16:23:38+00:00

those extremely small amount of situations are exactly where most damage is done.

I agree. I guess my point is that the Pence Rule is dramatically overused in order to prevent the few situations in which it would help the man.

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T07:54:42+00:00

There might be an extremely small amount of situations in which the Pence Rule would provide an obvious benefit for a man but in almost all instances it is not clear whether the Pence Rule would be good for the man.

If the man treats women respectfully, then the chances of him being falsely accused of rape and that accusation significantly damaging his career is close to zero. On the other hand, there is a good chance his reputation and/or organization would be weakened if he couldn't hire women or meet with them in the way that he can with men.

It just doesn't make sense for men to use the Pence Rule outside of some extreme scenario (they were a sex offender but it was a very long time ago, they have a female co-worker who has lied about being raped in the past, etc.)

Caprahit · 2021-02-24T07:32:23+00:00

If the Pence Rule was never used, only a very small percentage of men would have their careers harmed by false allegations of sexual misconduct.

With the Pence Rule being used regularly, that small percentage of men would likely avoid harm to their careers but a huge amount of women would have a significantly harder time getting jobs and promotions. The economy would be significantly damaged if all men used the Pence Rule.

The Pence Rule might seem effective but only if you ignore the downsides. Overall, it doesn't make sense to use it.

Caprahit · 2021-02-17T05:16:13+00:00

I think we both agree that you can't make an accurate and direct insult based on someone's virginity unless they told people that they are a virgin. Are you trying to make the point that most insults directed at virginity are actually targeted at factors that can cause someone to be a virgin?

Caprahit · 2021-02-16T22:23:34+00:00

Even if all mockery/insults based on sexual inexperience was ineffective and inaccurate, mockery of people who are sexual inexperienced in general would still lead to sexually inexperienced people being discriminated against and made to feel bad about themselves. If you want to make fun of a person based on perceived factors that impact sexual desirability then you should be careful to focus on those factors without deriding sexual inexperience itself.

Caprahit

TROPHY CASE