Give it another go. There are a few guides out there on what settings were killing framerates. Turning down a few things (I think it was a specific type of AA and blur effects) you won't even notice has been getting people from 12 FPS back up in to the 60s on "recommended" spec rigs.
Oh man, that is good news. I'll give it another go. Thanks for the information brother.
To the... err... second point of your first point (lol), yes, I understand that a good segment of Trump's supporters are fired up by his statements focused on people from specific countries of origin and specific ethnicity. Yes, the idiot white supremacist movement supports him. Yes, Trump himself exploits this sentiment, no doubt. He does so in his typical sideways manner of drumming it up, then disassociating with it, then landing somewhere in the middle. It's certainly a different strategy on the surface, but it's really the same dance all our politicians go through. I would argue Trump just lacks the duplicitous finesse of people who actually have practice in the game.
But if he is to be judged by the most extreme individuals that openly support him, then by that metric shouldn't Hillary be judged by the women supporting her while claiming all men should be castrated? Should Johnson be judged by a few nuts that believe the Second Amendment protects a citizens rights to own a nuclear weapon?
Building on that, to your first point, there are going to be a lot of people who are against Goldman Sachs committing wide scale financial malfeasance while facing no penalties... but they will consider voting for a candidate who will allow that cycle to continue business as usual, because they see the alternative (rightly so) as potentially far more disastrous. I would never label them as sociopathic "money over people"-ers just because they vote for someone based on the over all spectrum of what they see in the persons message.
Trust me, I know there are wide degrees of difference between how many Trumpers are legit racist and my other examples, but the point stands in relation to my comment that supporting Trump does not by default make you agree with everything he or his followers say. It should not automatically make you a target for a site that should be engaged in objective coverage. Again... this is meant to be a news site, not an opinion/blog site. It's supposed to be covering things, not spinning them.
And that brings me back to my ACTUAL original point. Kirk's comment that, because Luckey has donated to a pro-Trump organization, he somehow is incapable of being interested in a fair environment or diversity in his industry is unfair. It is just not demonstrably true. It is an assumption that is not based on any substantive fact. It taking the views of one segment of a politician's support base and projecting it on to everyone else who has considered that candidate as their preferred choice for president. And from what I understand... Luckey is actually considering voting for Johnson, not Trump. His main interest was undermining support for/targeting Hillary. (And perhaps doing so in meme-y durptastic Pepe troll fashion)
My statement that this is not video game news is directed at the fact that it is being updated not with actual news related to the developers and video games, but rather continued focus adjustments on the political narrative that the author is personally trying to push. Again, that's fine for him to have that opinion but THAT aspect of this story is not what I would consider video game news.
Granted... the YouTube video he linked to did do a great job of illustrating something. The people I see being intolerant, violent and hateful are the people PROTESTING Trump, not the rally attendees. Both sides are being overtaken by insane, far flung zealots that are immune to reason and discourse.
Keep it out of my damn PC news. Anyhow, your response does go to my final point... I would say the typical discourse on this site is above par from the other outlets I mentioned in my original post. I'd like to see this place stay somewhere that isn't poisoned by political/social drum beating.
This is a great response that demonstrates a genuine degree of cohesion, but it strikes me that it also suffers from a bit of false equivalency. To start, I haven't seen Clinton actively advocate more deregulation in the financial industry--the opposite, in fact. Scouring her congressional voting record produces HR 1424 as the only actual piece of legislation that might possibly fall under the accusation that Clinton inordinately favors the financial industrial complex, and that was the banking bailout in 2008.
I have, however, seen Trump call for a flat ban on Muslim immigration as well as the construction of a wall (on top of the one that already exists) to block out "rapists" and "murderers". These are actual policy points he has espoused, beyond the list of racist dog-whistles employed by Trump. And it really cannot be dismissed that his performance in the polls during the primaries rose after each of these statements. I suspect from the above that you would agree his very being the nominee rests on the support he receives from the white supremacists you also mention--support which would not exist without his political stance. As you say, he has exploited their support specifically, as none of the other Republican nominees did. On the other hand, there are no policy platforms coming from Clinton which expressly or even remotely call for any sort of disenfranchisement of the male populace--it would indeed be utterly far fetched to say that a Clinton supporter automatically supports male castration.
That is to say, this is not a case of guilt by association, but actual substance. As Trump has trumpeted racially discriminatory policy as foundational planks in his campaign in as substantial a fashion as any of his economic proposals, a vote/support for Trump actually is a vote/support for those policies, as distasteful as that reality may seem. Again, it actually does not matter if you are racist or not if you support a candidate whose candidacy is built on racist rhetoric and policy--it still rather flies in the face of building diversity, to put it mildly, does it not?
As to the reportage here, it's a bit surprising that such a well-considered individual such as yourself as revealed in your comments would take a rather innocuous deduction that Luckey's backing of an alt-right group is counter to diversity promotion so personally. The alt-right, after all, has explicitly been identified by numerous hate watch groups as white supremacist in philosophy and substance. This deduction isn't exactly indicative of a "belligerent attitude towards large sections of [this site's] readership," and outside of that one case the rest of this post is straight reportage--quotes and developments expressly pertaining to the actions of game devs in the public sphere, with two of the updates dealing with business decisions as well.
I do agree, however, that this election season and everything it has touched has been quite disheartening and exhausting.
I have to say--and this is not a personal attack--unpack what you're arguing here for a minute. Put aside the person of Trump and consider the following question purely in the abstract: does it actually matter if you, personally, are not racist if you support someone that promotes racist policy and rhetoric? It's rather irrelevant if it's just "part" of the "package"--it's still a part of it. Ignoring it doesn't make it disappear. To put it harshly, that's more than appeasement, that's facilitation. And it seems from your comment that you do, in fact, recognize that Trump traffics in racist bigotry.
At any rate, that several developers have cancelled their intentions of producing for the Oculus following this news rather clearly suggests that it is firmly within the area of "gaming news". And the updates reporting such developments are unquestionably within that realm--they are directly about the business decisions of game devs, as much of the news on this site is.
Full comment below
... you really are the worst.
I made an account just to say that.