Agreed, just making a joke because of the context.

Real men sit to pee so they don't have to clean their own piss up later.

Whenever I talk about this, some asshat will come along and make a comment about sitting on a tree. No, dumbass, I don't sit to pee on a tree. Or a urinal. I sit to pee on my toilet at home so I can tell you what an idiot you are while I'm pissing just to prove how manly I am.

it's almost like we are trying to out-stupid them.

Well I wouldn't go that far lol

It would still be a dumb article.

Yeah I'm not arguing that. But the point is different... He's talking about longevity, not acumen.

He's talking about how long young people will last on the supreme court. Still gross, but this article is click-baity and dumb with its premise.

The "staggering" amount they're spending is nothing for them. It would be the equivalent of multi-millionaires giving 10s of thousands of dollars.

They'll save more in taxes in a day.

On Saturday, competing couples did not have to be married, nor did they have to be a man and a woman.

Awesome. Looks like a lot of fun!

Finally, one for the kids.

At least a bunch of ad/marketing execs are going to make big money!

Agreed. As I mentioned elsewhere, Falcon 9 is still revolutionary, but I was just clarifying that the SRBs were recycled, as that is sometimes forgotten.

The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) from shuttle launched were recycled. They parachuted into the ocean after being jettisoned and were recovered and refused. They just didn't land themselves. The external fuel tank was not reused.

Yes, but it’s essentially incremental engineering, made possible by ginormous funding, including NASA money, and a private company doing things that NASA can-t politically afford.

NASA spent about 50 Billion today-dollars developing (not launching) the shuttle program and that went to private contractors (Boeing, Lockheed, United Space, etc.) Starship has a long way to go to hit those numbers.

I really don’t find anything SpaceX is doing revolutionary

Really? Nothing? Many people said what Falcon 9 now does on a regular basis could not be done. No one was even trying. The closest plans were still going to land horizontally and went nowhere. Now, you have to explain why you're not landing your booster, and what your plans are to fix that going forward: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international/2024/09/11/china-wants-to-replace-jeff-bezos-as-musks-greatest-space-threat/

They quite literally revolutionized the space industry in terms of the cost to launch to orbit.

Imagine NASA crashing 4 Shuttles before getting landing right. There’d be no NASA by now.

Yet another way they've revolutionized the industry. Almost everyone is doing expendable tests now so that they can move forward quickly. Columbia started construction in 1975, launched for the first time in 1981. When they launched it, it was a fully decked out space shuttle and they put the whole thing on the line - including two astronauts. Imagine NASA trying to do that now. They'd be grounded so hard they'd be jealous of Mankind having a table to land on.

Didn't get walled for me. I think they give you a number of free articles each week before triggering the paywall. I grab the url and go to archive.is or another archiver when it happens.

I would have expected that to be a prime suspect and eliminated or confirmed quickly...

In terms of the overall point, I was talking about Unreal specifically. If it makes you understand better that all engines are geared toward specific game features, great, read it that way. However, you still don't seem to understand that UE5 isn't the right engine out-of-the-box for every game. So even if I buried that, and now it's clear, you're still in denial.

You keep saying it, but at the scale of games Bethesda makes it isn't simply a fact that switching engines will be faster or easier. Even switching a code base from UE3 to UE4, or UE4 to UE5 wasn't/isn't a simple task (I've done it, I know.) Completely switching engines means you're losing almost everything. You simply don't seem to understand the scale of work entailed with moving major features from one engine to another. Or for maintaining features in an engine you don't have full control of. I've done that too.

You've already said that you can't be convinced otherwise though, so clearly you think you're smarter than them, despite their deep knowledge of what they're making.

I'm not saying they made all the best choices (or that they will going forward), but being flippant about the obviousness of the choice, and saying it is simply faster to switch engines demonstrates serious lack of knowledge and experience in the matter.

Yes. AA/AAA dev with UE3, UE4, UE5 and several proprietary engines. I've even contributed to Unreal Engine code with bug fixes.

"Las Malvinas" tensions... FTFY

Baldur's Gate 3 is built on the Divinity Engine.

They don't make the engine to make that game.

They shouldn't, if they're going to be an engine company. But anything that isn't for keeping Fortnite pulling in billions of dollars is secondary.

It has gained features over a long period of time that would fit common use cases from other developers, regardless of what Epic has built.

Gained and lost. Very basic things necessary to make all the new features work with anything "not Fortnite" were missing when UE5 was released. It absolutely released as an engine for making Fortnite type games and everything else was/is an afterthought. You either had to make atrocious work arounds, engine changes, or wait for stuff to be fixed/added, delaying your project.

Meanwhile, nothing will convince me that Bethesda's tech stack is worth keeping.

Do you have inside knowledge? UE5 isn't the be-all end-all of game engines. Not everyone should switch to it. And frankly, as gamers and devs, we desperately need a good competitor to show up soon. Epic is gaining way too much control over our experiences.