Jump to content

RandomGuy

Member
  • Posts

    296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RandomGuy

  1. According to your donations record, you had $39,000 in donations in 2020, and per your SocialBlade, ~$15,000 in YouTube money assuming a $2 CPM and a 45% cut for the website. $54,000 is over four times the gross median income in Poland. It's equivalent to a low six figure income in the United States when Poland's PPP conversion factor is applied. You also appear to live mostly off of canned beans and $10 games in what I presume is a 1 bedroom apartment. 

     

    I'm a bit confused as how you're only set for the next few months.

  2. It's an old thing, but rewatching this video I got reminded about Ross's DLC vs expansion pack rant. I think Ross wasn't quite characterizing the former fairly, or at least painting them with too broad a brush. When you look at DLC totally for a lot of games, it's more that the developers chose to release what would have normally been an expansion pack in an episodic format, for about the same price and length. The standard for an expansion pack in the late 90s to mid 2000s was, roughly, a single-player story-driven campaign one third to one half the size of the base one, a few new weapons/powers/units/whatever, a few new bosses, a few new enemy types, and occasionally some minor new gameplay mechanics. A lot of collective DLCs give a similar value for what an expansion pack would have retailed at, e.g.

     

    (total cost listed in parenthesis, playtimes ascertained via howlongtobeat.com) 

     

    Bioshock Infinite: Clash in the Clouds + Burial At Sea Episodes One and Two ($40)

    Dark Souls 2: Crowns of the Old Iron King, Ivory King, and Sunken King ($30)

    Dark Souls 3: Ashes of Ariandel + the Ringed City ($30)

    Doom Eternal: The Ancient Gods Parts One and Two ($40)

    Dragon Ball Xenoverse: GT Pack One + GT Pack Two + Resurrection F Pack ($30)

    Elder Scrolls Skyrim: Dragonbord + Hearthfire + Dawnguard ($45)

    Fallout 3: Broken Steel + Operation Anchorage + the Pitt + Point Lookout + Mothership Zeta ($50)

    Fallout 4: Far Harbor + Nuka-World ($45)

    Fallout New Vegas: Dead Money + Honest Hearts + Old World Blues + Lonesome Road ($40)

    Mass Effect 2: Price of Revenge + Stolen Memory + Firewalker + Overlord + Lair of the Shadow Broker + Arrival + various weapon/armor DLCs ($40)

    Mass Effect 3: From Ashes + Leviathan + Citadel + Omega + various weapon DLCs ($50)

    Witcher 3: Hearts of Stone + Blood and Wine ($30)

     

    This isn't even getting into multiplayer DLC, which for the most part is free and, in concert, easily doubles or triples the content of the game in question (or its multiplayer mode). Especially for fighting games.

     

    EDIT: I forgot to mention this, but inflation must be considered too. $40 in 2002 is equal to $51 in 2012 (to give a random example).

  3. On 5/8/2020 at 1:43 AM, Ross Scott said:

    Sure, growth is slowing down, but it's still growing.  I've heard that we're due to level off at 11 billion.  My point is we're overextended RIGHT NOW. 

    Yeah there's no scientific basis for this claim at all.

    Quote

    The stat is misleading because it only counts forests, not industrial timber plantations. If you count them then the Earth actually has significantly more trees than it did a few decades ago, and is continuing to increase. Which isn't hard to do, since trees are a renewable resource and extraordinarily easy to produce.

    https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-than-ever-thanks-to-china-and-india/

    https://e360.yale.edu/features/conflicting-data-how-fast-is-the-worlds-losing-its-forests

    You're losing biodiversity. Not much else. Also, the article you're citing specifically says that most tree loss is happening in central and western Africa, which... isn't really capitalist. Places like North America and Europe have actually increased their forest coverage independent of their industrial timber since twenty years ago:

    FNTon6s.jpg

    Even the losses in Africa can be rather casually taken care of by more tree planting as is happening in the USA and China, through both public and private initiatives.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

    Quote

     

    As for the socialism v. capitalism thing, I'm not saying either would preserve the environment.  My point is I think the very core of capitalism makes it impossible.  The purpose of capitalism is to maximize profit for those with capital, correct? 

    Incorrect. Capitalism doesn't have a purpose because it's not an ideology, it's a tool to distribute scarce resources. You're confusing it with socialism, which is both an economic and a POLITICAL system. You can have intentionally low-growth capitalism, it just likely won't manifest for the same reason that intentionally low-growth socialism won't (people like to have more stuff).

     

    Ask any economist to justify capitalism, and the word "growth" probably won't even be part of his spiel. You won't even find that in Econ 101. In Econ 101, capitalism works because people gain from trade, not because they have more and more to trade over time. Efficiency, not growth, is the point.

     

    In fact, some of the earliest challenges to the free-market orthodoxy came from adding growth to the models. Back in the 1950s, Paul Samuelson showed that growth provides a rationale for Social Security. Later, "endogenous growth" theories called for a government role in supporting research and development.

     

    Quote

    That means exploiting any and all resources.  Taking a more reserved or long term sustainable approach means you fall behind and can lose competitively to those who are more aggressive and can capitalize in the shorter to medium term. 

     

    Incorrect, at that point it means you simply have a dependable but extremely low-return firm, which totally exist in the current economy and are relied on for being safe (e.g. railroad and utilities companies).

        

    Quote

     

    EDIT:

    Going back to the deserted island scenario.  Say we realize that if we overfish we won't have enough food for the year, here are some ways of handling it:

     

    Ideal socialist approach: Everyone votes and collectively agrees to impose limits on how much we will fish, so we can continue eating all year.

     

    Likely socialist approach: Everyone votes that they don't want to reduce how much fish they eat, because they like fish, so they will continue overfishing until there aren't enough left, people starve.

    Actual socialist approach:  the central planning committee decides that they'll harvest exactly 10,000 tons of fish this year and exactly 20,000 tons the next year, despite demand being less than 5,000 tons of fish, and orders the island's population to make it happen. Various officials do so and fudge their numbers on top of it. Steve tries to set up a sustainable fishing farm but is shot for attempting to construct private industry. When only 5,000 of the 30,000 tons are actually consumed, the other 25,000 are thrown in the nearby ocean along with other waste products, causing widespread pollution.

    Quote

    Capitalist approach: Steve fishes as much as possible right now so there will be more for him, but Jim and Charles also do the same so that Steve doesn't get all the fish.  The fish are depleted rapidly, people starve.

    Actual capitalist approach: Steve, Jim and Charles fish as much as possible in the short term, making about equal profits. Charles wants a leg-up on Steve and Jim, so instead of fishing, he sets up a sustainable fish farming operation using investment from the local coconut tree farmer, Larry. Charles and Larry can now out-produce Steve and Jim allowing them to sell their good at a lower price; Steve and Jim subsequently have to find a way to compete with Charles and Larry.

     

    Steve and Jim make a partnership and agree to invest in research conducted by the school led by the local professor, Alex, in the hopes of long-term return. Alex eventually figures out how to farm more fish in a smaller area for a lower cost than Charles and Larry, which benefits Steve and Jim as they set up their own opposing operations. The price of fish is now even lower than before, but the cost of producing fish is infinitesimal, so Steve and Jim still make bank.

     

    Your whole worldview makes three major mistakes:

     

    1. Assuming resources are finite: just about everything that humanity uses is renewable, conceivably renewal, or so plentiful that it may as well be infinite on our human time scales.

     

    2. Assuming market economies offer no incentives to save: it's the exact opposite. In a market economy, as a good becomes rare, its price will increase. This allows the economy to slowly wean itself off of it and producers to find alternatives to stay in business (why do you think electric vehicles, GMOs, solar power, etc. were developed in capitalist countries? By contrast what important advances have socialist countries made in the area of sustainability?). And guess what? That's exactly what's happening, it's what happens every day: people cutting down consumption of certain goods in response to increased prices. This can't happen in a non-market system. 

     

    3. Assuming growth can only come from more resources: the main oneAs I noted, we're actually using LESS resources for the value we produce, and this has been the case for decades now. It continues to fall.

     

    The vast majority of 'growth' in postmodern economies is driven by more efficient use and allocation of existing resources, not extraction.  Nearly all American growth, for example, comes in the sectors of finance, information, professional/technical services, or health services/sciences. The information economy ensures that an obscene amount of value can be produced for almost no resources (e.g. dozens of people have made billion-dollar companies in their basements with single computers). In fact, some economic growth inherently uses LESS resources, like improving energy efficiency.

     

    Point three is particularly odd since you simultaneously subscribe to the theories that robots will make humans obsolete in most jobs (despite 80% of jobs being service-based) due to being so extremely cheap and efficient, AND that we can only have economic growth with more resources. These two ideas are mutually contradictory. 

  4. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.GD.PP.KD

     

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=XD-1W

     

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD

     

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/the-world-will-get-half-its-power-from-wind-and-solar-by-2050

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Growth_regions

     

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096511718300069

     

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-worlds-resources-arent-running-out-1398469459

     

    ~Energy usage per dollar of value produced is going down, i.e. wealth can increase without further use of resources.

     

    ~World population growth is going down, and is currently nearly static in high and middle income countries (it would actually be negative without immigration, looking at birth rates; nearly the entire first and second world are below replacement fertility rates). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate#Country_ranking_by_Intergovernmental_organizations

     

    ~CO2 emissions per dollar of value produced is going down.

     

    ~Going by current market trends and how increasingly cheap and economical alternative energy sources are becoming thanks to private and public research and investment, renewable energy is projected to make up 71% of world electricity generation capacity by 2050. The difference will mostly be solar and wind eating into coal's share, as the latter will soon no longer be competitive in the market.

     

    -Going by current demographic projections, world population will peak in 2100 and then decline. 

     

    -In the past few years, renewable energy has actually become cheaper per unit energy than oil, and it's only getting cheaper.

     

    Also, Ross, if someone tells you that socialism can save the environment, immediately ignore everything they say from then on. Socialist regimes are far, far more wasteful than equivalently rich capitalist regimes, objectively and statistically, and no useful green technology has ever been developed in them due to lack of incentives. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Russia

    The destruction of the Aral Sea, the rapid deforestation (RUSSIA is running low on trees to this day), the extinction of whales, the rampant pollution, Chernobyl, etc. were hallmarks of Soviet environmental policy. Furthermore, here is energy use per dollar of value produced in 1990-1991, the twilight of the USSR:

    08dlK0R.jpg

    Pollution per dollar of value produced at the same time:

    Na68zbc.jpg

    The World Bank data for 1992 (just a year after the dissolution of the USSR, therefore the ex-USSR's economies shouldn't be totally unrecognizable yet) has Russia/Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan at ~x2.5 the U.S.'s emissions per dollar and nearly x4 the EU's or Japan's. Check any other ex-socialist country at the earliest point data is available (usually 1992, just a year or two after socialism fell) and you can see how awful they all were. 

     

    It wasn't just the socialists in eastern Europe and central Asia, nor was it limited to the 20th century. Cuba, probably the last socialist nation remaining (besides North Korea, which doesn't have a lot of data available, and Venezuela, which is a petrostate), emits nearly three times as much CO2 per dollar of GDP as comparably poor Latin American countries like Guatemala and El Salvador. It even emits more than vastly wealthier nations like the Dominican Republic.

    Qjqugb8.png

    This is actually due to the exact opposite reasoning of what you said in your "island" scenario; rather than everyone deciding production via market signals, as happens in a market economy, production is decided at the top by central planning, resulting in quotas that have to be met even if the products are literally thrown into the trash (as happened with the USSR's eradication of whales). If some bureaucrat says that they need to produce X cars or harvest Y whales, it happens, regardless of whether that's actually going to be benefit anyone, much less be sustainable. There is also no real mechanism for scarcity to be effectively and subtly communicated in a socialist economy (as opposed to a capitalist one, where the prices will progressively go up, thus encouraging slow easing on consumption or developing substitutes) because prices are totally arbitrary due to being subject to government change at a whim.

  5. Ross, I know you usually like to play games blind, but I highly, HIGHLY recommend having some sort of guide with Dark Souls 1. It can get infuriatingly cryptic and lead to wasted time and sections being even more unfairly difficult than they were supposed to be. At the very least, definitely look up how to find Havel's Ring and the Ring of Favor and Protection, and slap them on immediately (and then never take them off, because the latter disappears if you do and the game never tells you this). The game can border on unplayable without them.

  6. The protagonists in Star Trek were always huge pricks. The Prime Directive seemed to be completely arbitrary and defied at will, yet when it came time to save a civilization from extinction with literally just a press of a button or a single sentence, suddenly the Prime Directive was well-defined and important again.

  7. Once again, France makes a terrible regulatory decision. They seem to have a talent for it.

     

    Big publishers will be hurt but overall fine, since the used game scene is alive and well on console, they'll deal with it the same way they deal with GameStop. Meanwhile, assuming a PC resale market actually picks up steam (pun intended), mid-sized and indie developers are done-for unless they switch to only online multiplayer games. There is a reason there is literally no independent small publishers ala Stardock Paradox etc for consoles. Switching to multiplayer is very difficult as well since smaller games have less players and generally don't sell well due to their inability to attain a critical mass of players.

     

     

    Basically, if this actually turns out to work and spreads, it will be the death of the modern indie PC scene. Big publishers can still use an advertising blitz to frontload sales (e.g. Call of Duty: WWII grossing over $1 billion in five weeks) but indie games that relied on word of mouth and a constant stream of sales over a few years will see revenue completely dry up after the first year due to resale. This is exactly what happens with console games, and it's why nearly every game that relies primarily on console sales makes the bulk of its revenue in the first few months.

    Any single player games that are made are likely to be console focused in the future like Skyrim, GTA, etc.

  8. 2 hours ago, ScumCoder said:

    Oh come on, are you actually trying to pull this card? 😀 Horrible work conditions are a standard in gamedev.
    As for development costs - Witcher 3 was an absolute financial success, meaning that its sale figures were good enough even from the perspective of USA companies. Lower development costs just mean that it was even more profitable for CDPR, but it's in no way the reason why it was successful.

    Horrible work conditions are not "standard" on the level CDPR has them; they'd literally be illegal in the first world. And they can't make their games without those conditions; consider that, even with these bottom of the barrel labor costs, Witcher 3 still costed nearly $90 million to make. Thus, it is not a remotely sustainable model and doesn't solve the underlying issue of single-player games dying.

    Quote

    There is nothing special about CDPR (actually they look pretty good compared to American companies in this regard).

    You're just blatantly lying at this point. CDPR would have absolutely no one working for them if they were based in any developed country, and Poland is rapidly approaching that level. 

     

    EA, the devil of the industry, pays its developers $90-100k on average with great benefits. 

    Quote

     

    Nice argument you have there. I guess I'll just answer in the same way as you did: "No it doesn't".

    Just off the top of my head, here's a game trailer that I accidentally stumbled upon an hour ago while browsing VK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBBWudCldxM

    Obviously it's not a masterpiece, but it is being done by one guy in his spare time.

    O N E.

    And there are hundreds of projects like this being done.

    And the vast majority of them are either total crap or never get made. They're no replacement for dedicated studios with hundreds of millions in resources.

    Quote

    Once again, you operate on the basis of information that's been outdated for almost a decade. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to spend "tens of millions of dollars" to make a game that looks good enough. ATOM RPG (again, just one of dozens of examples off the top of my head) was created for a budget of $33K (that's thirty three thousand dollars).

    And it looks like crap. I don't want games to be either online-only MMOs or perpetually locked in the level of the 90s (even though I still play games from that time).

    Quote

    I don't give a flying frak about "the vast majority of people". I care about great games being made. 

    The vast majority of people disagree with you about what constitutes a "good game." One of them is me. Thus, why I consider this an issue, and you may not. Which is fine for, you I guess, but other people actually like modern AAA single player games.

    3 hours ago, Enguzrad said:

    Yes, I said the same ("Sure, there probably wouldn't be any AAA ultra realistic graphics games anymore,...").
    Point is the only high-quality thing here are the graphics and voice acting. The actual gameplay is on par with what we had 10 years ago (sometimes worse, depends on microtransactions). There is nothing wrong with liking high fidelity graphics, but you can make serviceable looking yet fun small game in your free time. Thats why I am not worried about games being profitable (don't take it as a support for piracy though, I do buy my games).

    It's not just graphics and voice acting, though both of those are a big issue (particularly the latter). It's also just presentation/polish in general as well as depth of mechanics. When all of this is considered I don't see how an indie dev could ever make something like, say, Fallout New Vegas.

    Quote

    Yes, thats why I said "some". I agree there is too much scamming there. Though too many people will throw money on promises. You could say publishers were scamming people for a long time already with unfinished products, preorders and now GAAS.

    I don't consider any of the above scams. You get what you pay for and there's tons of information available on what you're buying. Crowd funding, on the other hand, is a complete crapshoot. They can take your money, give you nothing in return, and there's nothing you can do about it. Additionally, there's no real oversight and no real incentive for them to do what they say. Even actually good indie games like Minecraft fell into this trap (prior to becoming, well, not indie, thanks to Microsoft). That game was alpha funded; this is better than crowdfunding because you actually have to show the customer something first, then they pay you, and you promise to give them more later. But when the developer got his millions he stopped bothering to develop the game, there is a chart someone compiled that showed he spent over 50% of 2011 on vacation. The final product was also nothing like what was promised, showing how easy it is to scam people with such a funding scheme in even the most high-profile scenario.

    Quote

    Could you elaborate on that? How would a bunch of friends be unable to work on game in their free time? Heck, what would push small developers out of the market? People buy indies now, the same people will buy them in future. The market for those games may be small but it is there.

    "Hobbyists" will not crank out games to the same extent that full studios will: these are, after all, thousands of man hours worth of work, even if the tools themselves advance to the point where they cost nothing. A consistent stream of good games, even indie ones, are only viable if the devs can do it full time and are compensated for their work.

     

    The problem with that? Well, there are two. One, indie developers are in the same boat as AAA developers: if they're not making a multiplayer game riddled with microtransactions (cf. Star Citizen), then they're effectively losing money when opportunity cost is considered.

     

    Two, the elephant in the room, digital piracy. Entire companies have folded because of it. While the exact figure varies, PC indie games without significant DRM tend to have around a 90% piracy rate. World of Goo had that. Some games, such as Heavy Hogur, can get a 98% piracy rate.

    http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/11/acrying-shame-world-of-goo-piracy-rate-near-90/

    http://m.slashdot.org/story/139522

     

    http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JakubKasztalski/20171027/308436/So_5245_of_People_Playing_my_Indie_Game_Have_Pirated_it.php

     

    http://forums.indiegamer.com/threads/confirmed-98-piracy-ratio.23669/

     

    https://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/03/22/indie-developer-sells-300000-copies-game-finds-1-million-pirated-copies/

     

    Even 'casual' games get 92%+ rates:
    https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/108301/Casual_Games_and_Piracy_The_Truth.php

     

    ...and games that cost literally 1 cent to purchase get 25% rates.

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100576-Who-Would-Pirate-the-One-Cent-Humble-Indie-Bundle

     

    This means only the most insanely successful games can survive in spite of said piracy, essentially off of donations. How do you get around piracy (beyond actually enforcing penalties on everyone which no one is going to bother to do)? Make the game always-online. This has consistently been found to be the absolute best way of proofing it. Online games like League of Legends and World of Warcraft are a far larger percentage of the gaming market these days than ever before, and there is no significant piracy of MMOs and similar games because the server data is kept secret. You literally have to physically steal the hard drive from a company server and even then your pirate server is going to be out of date and really crappy.

     

    A good example of this trend in action is China. People in China are primarily PC gamers, and play all types of games. In fact, China is the biggest gaming market in the entire world, having surpassed the U.S. two years ago. But the only games that Chinese studios make are multiplayer always-online ones (F2P FPSes, MMOs, freemium mobile games, etc.). I'm serious, check; it's every single one. Why? Because it's essentially impossible for any other types of games to make money. There is no mass output of single player passion projects in China, even though Chinese gamers DO like to play single player games (we know, because Western and Japanese games are pirated or bootlegged en masse on there), and even though China itself is the world's largest producer of programmers (and second largest producer of software developers). Instead, the whole sub-market is just dead.

     

    This shift is happening right now, and it worries me. We can't close this box. In 20 years, single player AAA games may very well be extinct, and single player game output in general declined significantly outside of mods for decades-old games and engines. I don't see any way to reverse this.

  9. 2 hours ago, Enguzrad said:

    Even in the case of games becoming completely unprofitable there will still be people making them.
    There were and still are people who make flash games and freeware games. They didn't see any money from that yet they made them because they wanted to.

    People will still make mods for 20-year old games or flash games, but no one is going to hire hundreds of people (from programmers to to managers to artists to voice actors to writers) and spend tens of millions of dollars and 2-4 years making an actual high-quality modern game (or anything close to one) "just because."

    Quote

    but there would be enough passion projects, some crowd funded games and maybe even more open source games (think of the modability).

    I have no confidence whatsoever in crowdfunded games, at least not without severe reform in that area to bring it in line with 'regular' businesses. It's way too easy to scam people. 

    Quote

    And personally I am more interested in these than what major publishers shell out lately.

    Good for you, but I'm not, and neither are the vast majority of people who play video games. I'll also reiterate that soon enough there won't even be much room for these smaller developers. 

  10. 10 hours ago, ScumCoder said:

    This is only one half of the truth. The other half is that it's become ridiculously cheap to create a game that looks good enough because numerous engines, tools, assets etc. are now in abundance. It was impossible to even imagine 7 or 10 years ago that a team of 3 guys with a shoestring budget will be able to make a game that looks and plays almost like a AAA title.

    It really hasn't. Making a game still takes enormous amounts of resources that are becoming increasingly harder to justify with piracy increasing, real game prices DECREASING, and online microtransaction-ridden MP games becoming increasingly popular.

    Quote

    Now add this fact to the notion that there will always be creative and talented people obsessed with making a great game first and foremost, and considering money as nothing more than means to achieve this goal, not vice versa; and you'll see that we will never see great games stop being made. Gaming world is like a vessel and developers are like gas that always fills all available volume; as soon as some corporate creep starts talking bollocks like "PC is dead" or "nobody plays singleplayer games today" or other bullshit like this, projects like Star Citizen (proudly PCMR) or Witcher 1/2/3 (proudly singleplayer) instantly emerge.

    These are both absolutely terrible examples of whatever point you're trying to make. Witcher is viable because costs in Poland are very low and CDPR treats its workers like absolute dog shit. Star Citizen is viable because it scammed hundreds of millions in crowdfunding money for promises they'd never deliver on  and is, you know, a multiplayer game loaded to the brim with microtransactions. The exact kind of game I am talking about.

     

    Neither model is remotely sustainable, in fact had a big game corp done the same things as these companies in the USA they'd probably have gotten sued by the federal government.

  11. I'm not really interested in this whole ongoing discussion because I fundamentally don't think that online-only games dying is the biggest problem facing gaming today (and of course, in the context of society as a whole, it's so minuscule as to not even be worth thinking about). I'd say the biggest issue facing gaming today is actually that online-only games are increasingly becoming the only way to make big games profitable in the first place. This seems to be because of absurdly high PED (games today cost about half as much to buy as games 25 years ago accounting for inflation, yet cost far more to make, and consumers have gotten used to it), rampant piracy ("indie games will save us when AAA can't" is a common refrain yet they can reach literally 98% piracy rates), and overall just how absurdly profitable microtransactions are compared to literally everything else (Clash of Clans, a crappy primitive freemium phone game, made more money than most of the actual biggest game franchises: $6 billion). It's gotten to the point that when opportunity cost is considered, publishers are effectively losing money by making single player games at all.

     

    I don't want every game to become CS:GO or LoL.

  12. According to his donations record page, Ross got $35,545 in donations last year. Assuming a CPM of $2 (Youtube gets 50%), which seems average from everything I've read, his YouTube revenues should have come out to ~$16,000 in the same year per Social Blade. Meaning his income in 2018 was around $51,000 before taxes. By the standards of the area he lives in that should be solidly upper middle class.

     

    Assuming his wife brings in no income, he's making slightly over the median full time gross salary of the U.S., 30% more than the average full time gross salary of France (median should be lower), and over three times the average full-time gross salary of Poland (median should be lower). Though, I'm not sure what the taxes and transfers would be like for a non-citizen, self-employed immigrant in Poland, especially one who earns all of his income via either donations from around the world or commission from an American company. I do know that, after taking into account costs of living, subtracting taxes and, adding transfers (goods and services provided by the government such as health care, education and housing, received either free of charge or at reduced prices), median household income in Poland, France, and the U.S. is at $18,906, $31,137, and $44,049 respectively.

     

    Interestingly, Ross's donations have only grown over the years. Wasn't expecting that.

     

    2018: $35,544.14 

    2017: $29,598.33

    2016: $26,060.62 

    2015: $24,105.81

  13. Ross, that political incident you're referring to is Preston Brooks' caning of Charles Sumner. It started when Sumner gave a speech attacking slavery and slaveholders. Brooks, whose family were slaveowners, took offense and ambushed him in the house a few days later and beat him nearly to death with a stick while his friend, Laurence M. Keitt, held a gun on the other representatives and threatened to shoot them if they tried to intervene. Later a Congressman named Anson Burlingame called Brooks a coward for the incident. Brooks then challenged him to a duel; Burlingame accepted Brooks' challenge, and then watched Brooks wuss out of it when Brooks learned Burlingame had a reputation as a marksman. Brooks resigned soon after and was found guilty of assault but was not incarcerated and only fined a little over $300 (about $9,000 today). He was reelected (the assault was very popular in his home state of South Carolina) but died of a respiratory disease in 1857 before he could serve his term.

  14. Yes, the ultimate quote mine is BACK!

     

    "What the hell?! What's going on? Desperate women love me!"

     

    "I got my degree under the tutelage of Dr. Pepper."

     

    "It's best to grab it out of someone's hand on the street. Because they'll chase you, but they won't file a police report over a stolen hotdog."

  15. 1. What was your opinion on that Mass Effect 3 ending fiasco nearly five years back? I recall that blowing up to the point that even publications and groups that usually showed no interest in video games covered it. This question is not so much about the content of the endings themselves (since I'm not sure if you've even played those games), but more like: was the fan backlash justified, was Bioware's response sufficient, and does this whole event say generally good or generally bad things about the future of gaming in general, in your opinion?

    2. Are you a fan of Mike Judge's work, besides Office Space?

    3. Do you vote from abroad? (note: not asking WHO you vote for)

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.