Crazycrab

I'm not optimistic.  Even if it is Silent Hill, and the people writing these articles are being VERY presumptuous if ask me, every FucKonami release release since their split with Kojima has been a disaster.

I've read the article and essentially what's happening is Capcom have decided to impose monetary restrictions of Street Fighter Tournament Organisers.  Under these terms the prize fund is limited to $2000 per event and $10,000 for a TO per year.  Sponsorship revenue is also limited to $5000 per event and $20,000 per year.  Also under the new terms Capcom retain the rights to any media from any event including photos, video and livetreams.
 
Capcom are saying they made these changes to the licence agreement to "make organising easier and faster".  On that note I can see what Capcom think their doing.  The idea being that by having these terms fixed in the licence agreement TO's don't have to spend time negotiating the monetary terms with them.  The obvious problem especially for players and TO's of bigger events id that these are very low amounts of money.  So low that it's not even bothering, especially after the costs of trademark fees, renting venues and so on are taken off.
 
These kind of terms are a fairly common thing in many licensing agreements in professional sports, but Capcom have taken this WAY to far.  These limitations are absolutely absurd.  How the hell are they supposed to attract any top players when the prize pool is only $2000?  It's fucking ridiculous.

There has been a couple of smaller acquisitions since then.  Like Haven Studios, who have worked on some big AAA games as an outsourced contractor. Including Assassin's Creed, Tomb Raider and EA Star Wars Battlefront.
 
I expect that there will be bigger acquisitions coming.

Very funny indeed, pyramid head pencil sharpeners aren't in existence, unless you're taking about 'Pencil sharpers xD. I know you made an illustration using such facts, I got your information and I know that not All trademarks brings forth new development. I believe they renewed the trademark to keep their profile active. 

It could also mean their going to launch a new line of Pyramid Head pencil sharpeners.
 
Companies file trademarks all the time, often with no intentions of even releasing any products or services related to it.  It's likely in this case that Konami just want to maintain their rights to IP.
 
EDIT:
 
Actually, do Pyramid Head pencil sharpeners exist?  That would actually be pretty friggin dope!

As far as I can tell the only thing that has happened recently was Konami renewing the trademark.  That means nothing but of the fanbase are blowing smoke about it.
 
https://www.ign.com/articles/silent-hill-renews-trademark-reboot-konami

The 2nd amendment right to "Bear Arms" in the US needs to removed or at very least updated.
 
Back when it was drafted young was America was governed by frontier law, so for most settlers the only defense against bandits, horse rustlers and whatever else was themselves.  Not to mention the firearms at the time were one, maybe two shot pistol's, rifles and muskets that to from 30 seconds to a minute to reload.  Things are VERY different now but that law has not evolved nearly enough.
 
 
Your quick to blame the mentally ill and criminals for America's gun problems.  While I agree that those things can play a factor but I'm certain that you must have noticed that America is the only 1st world country that a consistent problem with mass shootings and other gun crimes.
 

 
All countries have problems with mental health, criminal activity, substance abuse and numerous other issues.  So why is that despite these issues existing everywhere it's only America that seems to have this problem?  I'm sorry to burst your conservative bubble but the reason is because the the guns laws as well as gun culture in America are to relaxed.   
 
I know some people are going to say they need guns for "protection" but let me tell you a story.  In my home country (Scotland) back in 1996 there was a mass shooting at a primary school in the small town of Dunblane (not actually that far away from where I live).  The perpetrator, Thomas Hamilton, armed with two 9mm Browning HP automatic pistols and two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers shot and killed 16 children between the ages of 5 and 6, the Primary 1 school teacher, injured 15 others before shooting himself.  Here is the wiki page if you want to know more but the main point I want to make here is that in the year following the incident new legislation was passed in the House of Commons that pretty much banned the private ownership of all handguns in this country and guess what... There hasn't been an incident like this in the UK since. 
 
You might have noticed that Japan is sitting at the bottom of the chart with a grand total of 0 mass shootings.  That's because it is pretty the hardest place in the world to legally own a firearm and, "big shock", gun crime is almost non-existent.
 
Face the facts, guns are useless for protecting, only attacking.  Carrying a weapon doesn't prevent trouble, it attracts it.  All humans no matter how "responsible" are walking chemical factories ruled by unstable impulses and emotions.  That is even before all the numerous external chemicals like alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and recreational/prescription drugs that many of us add to that mess.  We are biologically not stable enough or socialy responsible enough to be in any circumstance where any random person has the power to end someone's life with the ease of pulling a trigger.
 
The reason why these laws won't change is because gun companies like Remington have lobbyists that keep enough politicians swimming in money in exchange for protection against legislation that would save lives, but their bottom line is obviously more important right?
 
The only people who should be carrying in public are law enforcement and even then only under very specific circumstances like guardian potential hot spots for terrorism or other high profile criminal activity.  Private ownership should be limited only to people with jobs that genuinely need them like farmers, hunters and vets.

What you've said is right, I looked into it and saw the need to believe what you've said so far man. I think though, Santa Monica studio is right too on their delay with God of war Ragnarok release, it is better for them to be confident of what they're releasing than going on to release crap. 
 
I saw exactly what happened with Cyberpunk 2077, we know that 'CD Projekt RED didn't do something expected during the initial release, it was a crap indeed, it took enough time and resources for the company to get the game back in order. 

I have to disagree with you there.  The fact that they haven't announced an exact release date means their doing the right thing as far as I'm concerned.
 
The trap that so many other publishers/developers let themselves fall into these days is announcing the release date of their games to early.  That's exactly what CD Project Red did with Cyberpunk 2077 and we all remember how that turned out.  They should wait to announce a date until they are confident beyond reasonable doubt that they will deliver.  So even if Santa Monica Studios wait until just a couple of months before release to make the announcement I am 100% on board with that.

A sassy redhead shoots wooden arrows at giant armoured metal animals and pokes them with a stick somehow expects them to die?  WHAT AN IDIOT! (Horizon Zero Dawn)
.....
....She still hasn't learned! (Horizon Forbidden West)

We actually have another thread going on about that one.
 
 
I did watch it as a kid, it's one of the better adaptations especially at the time.  The 2021 film was a bit of a mess.  It has the fact that it's R rated going for it and the guy that played Kano is a lot of fun, but the story is all over the place and this new character their pushing is such a fucking bore.  It should have been better.

A sassy redhead shoots wooden arrows at giant armoured metal animals and pokes them with a stick somehow expects them to die?  WHAT AN IDIOT! (Horizon Zero Dawn)
.....
....She still hasn't learned! (Horizon Forbidden West)

A sassy redhead shoots wooden arrows at giant armoured metal animals and pokes them with a stick somehow expects them to die?  WHAT AN IDIOT! (Horizon Zero Dawn)
.....
....She still hasn't learned! (Horizon Forbidden West)

This one really stretches it if you ask me.  The test was that they allowed 3 sets of children to play 3 different versions of Minecraft, one with guns and monsters, one with swords and monsters and one with no guns, swords or monsters and then put the children in a room full of toys.  Among the toys was a realistic looking gun and (big surprise) the kids that played with the gun in Minecraft tended to be drawn to the gun in real life.
 
 
If you ask me, it seems pretty obvious that after playing a game and having fun they would be drawn to something that relates to that experience, it doesn't mean that they are more violent.  The article itself even admits:
 
 
Yeah, this is not real life!  Also in it's conclusion it states:
 
 
Frankly, if need research like this to tell you that then you shouldn't be breathing, let alone breeding.
 
 
There are a lot of problems with this so let me break it down.
 
I want to state first this is a survey, not an experiment.  The the "results" are based purely on what the subjects already believe.
 
Secondly, despite it's title "Too much gaming makes kids aggressive,violent: Survey" as @Reality vs Adventure pointed out it barely talks about violence.  The subject mostly under discussion is video game addiction which, I will state for the record, I do consider to be a legitimate problem.  Video games should be enjoyed in moderation and should not be played to the excess that they are controlling one's life and/or effecting your health.
 
This is one of only two part's that are relevant to this topic (I'll get to the other a little later):
 
 
This is purely speculative, I could believe that children could experience desensitisation to violence when playing violent games in the same people tend to get desensitised to violence by watching violent films.  But I've seen plenty of other research that shows that it doesn't make them more violent people.
 
The last thing comes back to that clickbait title again.  It is literally by the results presented by it's own survey.... A LIE!  Check this out from the article!
 
 
By their own fucking results 81% of the survey subjects believe that video games have no negative effect on their children.  More said that video game have positive effect rather than a negative one!  So where the hell is this asshat even drawing that bullshit conclusion earlier!
 
Nice job @egghead, you literally just charged down to the other end of the field and kicked an own goal!  Thank you!

This one really stretches it if you ask me.  The test was that they allowed 3 sets of children to play 3 different versions of Minecraft, one with guns and monsters, one with swords and monsters and one with no guns, swords or monsters and then put the children in a room full of toys.  Among the toys was a realistic looking gun and (big surprise) the kids that played with the gun in Minecraft tended to be drawn to the gun in real life.
 
 
If you ask me, it seems pretty obvious that after playing a game and having fun they would be drawn to something that relates to that experience, it doesn't mean that they are more violent.  The article itself even admits:
 
 
Yeah, this is not real life!  Also in it's conclusion it states:
 
 
Frankly, if need research like this to tell you that then you shouldn't be breathing, let alone breeding.
 
 
There are a lot of problems with this so let me break it down.
 
I want to state first this is a survey, not an experiment.  The the "results" are based purely on what the subjects already believe.
 
Secondly, despite it's title "Too much gaming makes kids aggressive,violent: Survey" as @Reality vs Adventure pointed out it barely talks about violence.  The subject mostly under discussion is video game addiction which, I will state for the record, I do consider to be a legitimate problem.  Video games should be enjoyed in moderation and should not be played to the excess that they are controlling one's life and/or effecting your health.
 
This is one of only two part's that are relevant to this topic (I'll get to the other a little later):
 
 
This is purely speculative, I could believe that children could experience desensitisation to violence when playing violent games in the same people tend to get desensitised to violence by watching violent films.  But I've seen plenty of other research that shows that it doesn't make them more violent people.
 
The last thing comes back to that clickbait title again.  It is literally by the results presented by it's own survey.... A LIE!  Check this out from the article!
 
 
By their own fucking results 81% of the survey subjects believe that video games have no negative effect on their children.  More said that video game have positive effect rather than a negative one!  So where the hell is this asshat even drawing that bullshit conclusion earlier!
 
Nice job @egghead, you literally just charged down to the other end of the field and kicked an own goal!  Thank you!

In terms of gaming it doesn't make a lot of difference since gaming performance is much more GPU dependent, but as of right now Intel is marginally beating AMD:
Both chips around £255
Intel Core i5 12600K vs AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
 
Both chips around £340
Intel Core i7 12700K vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
 
It has to be said it is AMD we have to thank for this.  It was the release of the first generation Ryzen's that finally gave Intel their long overdue kick up the arse.  Before Ryzen you would have to pay nearly $1000 if you wanted anything above a quad core from Intel since they pretty much had a monopoly on the market.

First off,surveys are opinions.Don't rely on surveys if you want facts.Also the links supplied are tabloid headlines trying to scare people.This is an example of shit news being taken seriously.I've been on gaming websites for years and never heard of a kid attacking their parents because they wouldn't allow them to play games. Never. As noted the gun industry and some hack politicians like to blame violence on video games.Or rap.Or heavy metal.Living in tabloid  world may be fun but not everyone believes the bullshit in the real world.Look to the un biased studies that have taken place over many years.

Oof mate, I'm so sorry. I'd feel bad, but I'm not sure if it is a insult, or if your posts are too good for them.

You're not worthy of being plagiarized. Your posts are too thoughtful 😉

I read both those links. The survey comes right out to say gaming makes kids aggressive but mentioned almost nothing on aggression and only talks about gaming addiction. This is what the survey says on aggression: 
"Parents of teens who play games are generally neutral on the effect of games on their children, with nearly two-thirds believing that games have no impact one way or the other on their offspring."
"62 per cent of parents say that video games have no effect on their child one way or the other. 19 per cent of parents say that video games have a positive influence on their child. 13 per cent of parents say video games have a negative influence on their child."
So that survey is redundant.
 
The study in your first link starts off saying this:
"Kids exposed to violent video games are more likely to pull the trigger in real life situations, as compared to those who do not indulge in such gaming habits, researchers have warned."
There were 3 groups (gaming with guns, gaming with swords, and gaming with non violence). The kids gamed for 20 minutes and then went to a room to play with toys. 2 disabled handguns were left there for the study and the kids found them and 'touched a gun.' How did they get from touching a gun to "most likely to pull the trigger in real life situations" when they are in a fucking toy room? How does that resemble real life situations? WTF? 
And the ones who touched a gun did it out of familiarization or curiosity. That's not aggression. And the ones who played the game without violence and who also touched a gun, are they considered aggressive too because of gaming? 
Sorry but I declare bullshit
 

He is a great mod and we all share in frustration of people posting nothing but bullshit all the time. This forum is for expression of ideas, not robotic chit chat. If you caught the shit end of the stick, man the fuck up. You want a regime, go to fucking Russia!!! Don't throw around that kind of talk lightly like it's nothing. I'm greatly offended and I'm sure others are too by that shit talk. I've been in your boat. And I realized I'm a conceited idiot. You and anyone else with the same mentality should look in the mirror. I've had respect for you, and I never would have thought you would stoop to this. Swallow your pride and man the fuck up. 

If you look at the titles you'll see the first one is "Lara Croft Tomb Raider" and the newer one is just "Tomb Raider".  He made what he meant pretty clear if ask me.

Ok, I'm confused and I think you two are going to have to be a little more specific.
 
There have been several games and movies across both the original and rebooted franchises, and opinions about these can be quite... divisive.
So is it this movie (safely assuming it's not the sequel):
 

 
Or this one:
 

 
If you ask me, neither film was as good as it's game.  The first movie with Angelina Jolie and was just cheesy, sellout hollywood.  The other one starring Alicia Vikander was a better movie, but a worse adaptation. I hold it to a higher standard since the story in the rebooted Tomb Raider is head and shoulders above the original.

I am waiting for this thread to be copied. 😅