chryan

In your hyperbolic, unrealistic scenario, are the ultra-wealthy going to be permanently renting?

They're doing it for the short amount of time it's going to take for them to buy another mansion - they're in the rental market because of a disaster. Once they've recuperated, they're gone.

But let's say your exaggeration comes true. Do you think landlords would be able to continue renting for 5x the amount once their ultra-wealthy market dries up?

You seem to think I'm a proponent for the price gouging practice, so I'll reiterate: I'm not arguing that the problem should be ignored, and something needs to be done about it.

I simply have no sympathy for those looking to rent where a 20% increase equates to $3000 a month.

You are arguing about the difference between price gouging of a Toyota Corolla vs a McClaren GTS - necessity vs luxury.

The price gouging has been happening legally for years and nothing has changed or been done to fix it. The high-end clients in the article clearly own property if they're willing to spend that much on rent.

I have no sympathy for that specific example because it's reported like this is some novel, new experience, as opposed to it being a systemic issue that's plagued everyone else. My sympathy goes to the others mentioned in the article who clearly aren't in the market for luxury-class rentals.

Don't want to be priced gouged? Don't rent those luxury houses from the parasites. Lower your expectations and you might find something else more reasonable.

But sympathy, or lack thereof, isn't a requirement for the practice to be illegal and action to be taken, and I never said something shouldn't be done about it.

I don't disagree with you at all.

My comment assumed that they're making enough to own passive income properties that they rent to people who don't own properties, which is not uncommon amongst those making enough to afford that kind of rent.

Renting doesn't make you part of the proletariat if you own private property that gives you money without working.

However, it's definitely presumptuous of me to make such assumptions about who they are and what they own, as much as it is of you to assume that they are part of the labor force and aren't just wealthy investment bankers, so I won't belabor the point.

Class consciousness? Last I checked, a 3-4 bedroom rental house in the LA area has plenty of options in the $4k to $8k range.

Here's a few examples for you.

Zillow doesn't even have a "price minimum" filter option greater than $10k a month.

The article specifically states some rental properties were increased, and the only example they gave was a property in a range that literally 99% of the population can't afford. Is the 1% now suddenly in the same class that I need to be conscious about?

15 to 20 percent increases overnight

the listing agent raised the monthly cost by $3,000

That's $15,000 a month, $180,000 a year before the price increase. Maybe try hunting for normal people rentals and others would have an ounce of care or sympathy for you.

I'd also wager that most of these people have properties themselves that they use to gouge money from others for "passive income". Well, they can passively suck it.

The key point I took away from this was that at the end of Barnes and Noble's first life, someone had the wisdom to appoint a CEO who clearly understands AND loves bookstores, and the experience it brings to those who love reading.

Just shows that maybe big companies need to completely fail before the greedy money people lose interest and get their grubby hands off from everything good in the world.

It helps because it can be a counter to whatever propaganda Putin is feeding to his populace. It won't be spread far and wide, but this video's existence shows the reality of a completely avoidable war that leads to what you pointed out: dead people from fighting someone else's war.

It would be delightfully ironic if Musk's right-wing audience he gained from going absolutely batshit insane turned on him as well, further driving away people from his vanity-feeding platform, leaving him destitute and craving for attention he has to lick off the floor.

Can you imagine? A world where we get to talk about Twitter as a thing of the past?

What a dream..

When you worked in games, how did your team deal with the unplanned scenarios where a feature, or even the core game, wasn't fun and you needed to go back to the drawing board?

You're completely missing the point I'm making - it's nothing to do with how matchmaking works or how to get self-hosted servers to work.

Your quote about "every game before the mid 2000s" is just reinforcing what I'm trying to tell you: no modern PvP game can get away with it anymore.

The current average player who's played any modern PvP game in recent memory expects to be able to click a PLAY button that puts them into a match. That is your default user experience expectation.

If you require players to have to dig through a server list like people had to during the pre-mid-2000s, you lose players FAST.

You dilute your player base by allowing people to play in self-hosted servers because your default user experience of clicking PLAY and getting into a game gets worse (less players means less diversity of player skill and longer queue times).

For a game and studio that has no existing reputation and players who will jump on their stuff, you don't have the luxury of splitting your already potentially small player base.

Modern PvP games that allow you to have custom games are all well-established and already have a healthy player base.