They didn't actually make "planet swooping" any faster, just added an option to skip it. I thought it'd be Escape, but apparently you have to use Tab to skip those animations.
Annoying mini-games are a Mass Effect tradition. As far as those go, this one is certainly the least annoying, least frequent, most optional and best implemented of the lot. That's still not saying much, but... I'd expected worse, given its predecessors.
I never had any issues with minigames in earlier games. But I'm not touching this before it has same save anywhere outside combat than previous games.
Of course not everything needs to be Disney-fied. But the fact remains he had gotten big enough to be purchased by Disney - same as they purchased those other 'minor' cultural points of interest like Star Wars and Marvel Comics. Heck they even own 80% of ESPN.
To dismiss Disney's industry clout based on online followers is just foolish.
Actually, your "fact" is wrong.
Disney purchased Maker Studios, not PewDiePie. PewDiePie, along with many other YouTubers, had a network contract with Maker Studios at the time of that purchase. Now he doesn't.
Similarly, his channel got dropped from YouTube Red, but not YouTube entirely. He still has well over 50 million subs and is still making (annoying) videos and millions of dollars.
This might damage his prospects for certain types of projects outside the scope of his own channel and it does damage his reach to (some) advertisers. But you're vastly overestimating the impact this will have on his income or success going forward.
Actually, you have that the wrong way around.
The video likely required a script, recording someone voicing that script, finding/capturing appropriate game footage, editing it all together, rendering, uploading, etc. It'd have taken more time and is technically more involved / difficult.
An article would involve writing the article and optionally finding a couple screenshots or videos to link to. Maybe some editing. Then submit and done.
A video like this normally takes substantially more time and effort to produce than a similar top-X-list article, in my experience.
That being said, I did click this expecting an article, not a video. Or at least a written summary beneath the video. It might be an idea to clearly label categories of posts on the front page? "Interview", "Review", "Video", etc.
Closed vs. Open Back principles are not as cut and dried as one automatically sounds better than the other. The QH-90s (the original Cloud) imo sounds better than the open back QH-80s,and i had the same experience with the ATH-AG1x and ATH-ADG1x headsets.
Often you get a more natural soundscape with open back sets but it's not necessarily the case that the audio quality is inherently worse in closed back cans.
And audio is also one of those things that is incredibly subjective. Obviously my personal preferences will not be identical to everyone else's.
You are 100% right that if you value pure aural performance above all else then separate headphones are your best bet. I regularly use my PM3s for both gaming and music and they're fantastic. Especially with the new Tidal Master option!
I'm pretty sure class-action lawsuits don't work that way and, certainly in this case and in Europe, aren't that profitable. Also, given the update to the article, it now seems pretty clear that the story very likely was quite true. You don't do away with 5 out of 7 studios when everything is going fine :o
Actually, you are misinformed. AMD still has performance, even to this very day, even prior to launching the Vega, which on paper trumps even the new Titan X Pascal. I believe you forgot about the Fury X. It performs very similarly to your GTX1070, and outperforms the GTX1070 is some DX12 based games, but even for DX11, it still holds it's own fairly well. Obviously the GTX1070 would be a better buy in terms of performance/dollar, but you said that it "trounces and AMD card on the market right now" and that is simply not the case.
I am not misinformed in this regard. Though your post did make me double-check.
Take a look at a few benchmarks:
And FutureMark for good measure:
To sum up benchmarks across the internet:
DX12: inconsistent, but the Fury X has a slight edge.
Anything else: the GTX1070 performs 20-40 fps better than the Fury X.
In other words: the Fury X performs well in the most ideal set of circumstances, but gets trounced in every other scenario. The every other scenario is far more common in the real world, because "DX12 games optimized with AMD in mind" is a very narrow set of games still and won't really become a major factor until about two years from now when there's decent DX12 saturation.
It should also be noted that the Fury X is factory-overclocked to its absolute limits and watercooled. Meanwhile the GTX1070's being used in most benchmarks are stock, which means they have quite some OC leeway still. My factory-OC GTX1070 (Palit SC) would widen that non-DX12 gap further, quite significantly, whereas a Fury X has no meaningful OC leeway left.
Moreover, even if DX12 games were common, the Fury X isn't a purchase any sane person would undertake right now. It costs 300 euro more than a GTX1070. Add another 40 euro on top and you have a factory-OC GTX1080 that significantly outperforms the Fury X even in DX12 and has notably lower power draw.
AMD has always had fantastic on-paper performance. It has always translated to poor real-world performance, until DX12. What AMD needs is DX12. Have this conversation again two-three years from now and yes the Fury X would be a contender against the GTX1070, but both would be irrelevant by then.
"This is going to make it pretty shitty for any actual clans" ... just a lot mate.