Ominous

Not sure if this is the same problem, but it might work. Windows has always had a bit of an issue with running two different refresh rate monitors. My old setup worked fine for years, until it suddenly didn't. Watching a YouTube video on my 60Hz screen, for example, caused serious stuttering on my primary 144Hz display. Try enabling GPU scaling in the Nvidia Control Panel. Do this for both displays: If that fails, I've also read that disabling Hardware Acceleration in Windows Graphics settings can fix the problem.

Ok, and how exactly will it know where to position your crosshair? Your "coach" will need to know where an enemy player is to do that. It's easy enough to place your crosshair at head height, but the critical part of crosshair placement is knowing where an enemy will be to get a frag. Good crosshair placement is heavily supported by aim experience, map knowledge, and game sense. This coach is trying to skip learning arguably the most critical parts of basically any competitive FPS game.

Game State Integration won't help you here; it's used to connect game state to custom gameplay interfaces for live streams and visual effects for crowds at eSports arenas. The endpoints you would need for this app are locked behind spectator-only permissions. Are you expecting to run this program during a live match? That's cheating.

Summary Discord plans to enforce age verification next month. All users will automatically receive age-appropriate protections unless they verify that they are adults. Limiting access to sensitive content, age-restricted servers, and certain comms settings will require age verification. Quotes My thoughts I think this is a pretty drastic measure. They had a massive data breach late last year, in which Discord claims 70,000 user IDs were exposed. While I doubt this will be a fatal blow to Discord, I can still see this having a pretty significant impact on its user base. Companies that have abandoned self-hosted online communities in exchange for Discord communities might be in a bit of trouble right now. Sources https://discord.com/press-releases/discord-launches-teen-by-default-settings-globally

It is complicated. An incorrect signature or name isn't proof of misdelivery, they are almost never verified with ID. I've signed deliveries for countless people who aren't me, but I've had the authorisation to sign for. Razer sees the same thing you do: the tracking shows as delivered, the status shows it was signed for, and the delivery name might not match the buyer. If you raised a complaint with FedEx and they closed it, it is very likely they reached the same conclusion with Razer. How exactly is Razer supposed protest and prove that FedEx did wrong? If FedEx are denying fault, there is no recoverable insurance claim, and there is no admission of misdelivery. Razer's options are to eat the loss and send a goodwill replacement; they fucked that up, and I agree with you there. But their only other course of action in your favour is proving it's FedEx's fault when they deny it. They have very little power there.

On Razer's end, they handed the product over to FedEx for shipment, and FedEx informed both you and Razer that the item had been delivered. How are Razer supposed to know you aren't chancing your luck and trying to get a free mouse? I'm still not sure how you're failing to understand that the liability for misdelivery lies entirely with the shipping company. Razer have absolutely no control over FedEx screwing up. As others have said before, Razer could have handled your case better, but refer to my question above: how are they supposed to know you're not pulling a fast one on them? I'm not one to defend a multibillion-dollar company, but come on, this is ridiculous.

I think we're essentially in agreement that the state of title launches, like BL4, isn't good enough. I think you're shifting far too much blame onto consumers when the real accountability lies with the publishers. Primarily because there is no longer a need to? For physical games released over a decade ago, it made sense to ensure you had a copy to pick up if it was a big release, though that was rare. Nowadays, there is really no point. Though I know what exactly you're getting at, and I do agree that people really should stop pre-ordering shit. That still does not negate studios releasing poorly made games on their scheduled release dates. Edit: They're not perfect. They often drop just before release under embargo, they don't capture every technical problem and they definitely don't excuse a developer shipping a shitty product. Treating shoddy launches as the norm and blaming people for expecting better is backwards. Consumers should not have to gamble with their money or rely on refunds to get a working product. The onus of that is on the developer to release something functional at launch. It is quite simply the bare minimum for a fair transaction. Sure, people blinding preodering do feed into the problem. But they didn't create it, publishers did by deciding that it was fair game to release half-baked games in the first place. Putting equal blame on the buyer for being disappointed by a faulty product is like blaming passengers for boarding a plane that the airline knew wasn't safe to fly. I agree that consumers can push back with their wallets, but it does not in any way diminish the fact that the ultimate responsibility lies with the company releasing unfinished games. Saying "don't buy day one" is not the solution.

I never bought the game. I don't pre-order stuff. Tell me, how are you supposed to know a game is fucked without buying it? Some people have to buy the game to find out that it's a bit of a mess. I am voting with my wallet. That doesn't make it any less excusable for studios to publish a seriously broken product willingly. I'm well aware that Steam has solid refund policy in place, I've, sadly, used it many times. Why are you defending this?

I understand your point about waiting to see how a game performs before making a purchase. That's not necessarily bad advice for most customers. However, I think the obvious issue here, and you've pointed it out yourself, is that releasing broken and unfinished games is becoming normalised. This makes the game industry worse for everyone involved. When a company like Gearbox releases a game like Borderlands 4 in a state where even high-end machines struggle to run it properly, at reasonable settings, the message is clear: they can charge full price for a product that isn't ready, then patch it later. And if the consumer response is: "Well, it is what it is, don't buy at launch", then the incentive for studios to stop the practice will never change. They benefit from early sales without the accountability of shipping a polished game. Sure, buggy game launches have happened before, but that doesn't make it acceptable. If anything, it makes it even more critical to push back. We've all known that Randy Pitchfork is a prick for a long time. But why would you, when so many customers are telling you that the game they want to love is unplayable, say, "It's a premium game for premium gamers. Buy better hardware", even though it's still encountering critical problems on high-end gear. Imagine applying the same logic to other industries: if a car manufacturer shipped a car with faulty brakes, would we say, "Well, you should've known better than to buy on release day"? Obviously not. While I know that analogy is not quite in the same ballpark, a broken game won't put anyone in harm's way; we should be able to buy a working product on release. It's the bare minimum I should get for my money. I don't mind a few bugs here and there; it's impossible and entirely unreasonable to expect developers to catch everything. However, the complete inability of so many to play the game on reasonably capable hardware isn't good enough. I agree that it's not as much of a problem for indie developers to have rocky releases (depending on their ambitions and promises). Still, big studios like Gearbox must have the capability to test their games on many hardware configurations before releasing them. And surely they invited independent playtesters to try it out for feedback on their own hardware. It makes no sense for them to have such a rocky launch, and it makes even less sense for their CEO to insinuate that their customers are poor and are stupid for thinking their studio is incompetent. Don't shift the responsibility away from the developers/publishers to the consumer. We should not have to gamble on whether the thing we bought will actually work. Accepting the current state of affairs encourages even more half-baked launches, and that's why it's crucial to call it out and not just shrug it off as a "risk".

What? Gearbox released the game. The game should be finished and playable. This isn't impatience or FOMO; Gearbox released a shitty product, and people are quite rightly voicing their opinions on it.

Unless you plan on crunching through obscenely large datasets (which you probably shouldn't be doing on your machine), it doesn't matter that much. Anything with at least 16-24GB of RAM and a reasonably fast processor is enough for 99.9% of development. I would recommend a MacBook if you've got the budget. There is a reason they're the standard issue laptop for most developers. The M chip machines are almost unrivalled in terms of development. Incredible performance for the battery life, and most Apple machines have historically lasted a lot longer than their non-Apple counterparts. This MSI machine is alright, but if you have a preference for Windows or Linux, or if you're not a fan of Apple, your best bet is probably a ThinkPad X1 Carbon or a Dell XPS. I've generally found them to be the non-Apple issued programmer laptops. I've personally found Lenovo laptops to be a bit more stable than Dell.

It's a cheap panel, and the firmware probably isn't the greatest either. You could try adjusting the onboard settings to see if you can minimise the "grainy" effect. I don't have a manual for your monitor settings, so I'm taking shots in the dark here to try to fix it. Some monitors offer an "overclock", pushing their refresh rate higher than they can realistically support. Check if your screen has a similar option in the settings, and try turning it off. There may also be a "game mode" or some other visual preset enabled; try setting it to something else. Although unlikely to be the cause, you can try slowing down the "response time" setting if there is one. Obviously, these solutions will lower the "performance" of the screen, but it's up to you how you balance them if they do end up working.

That makes more sense. It is probably just a cheap panel, but you may as well check if a different cable or port on the monitor helps. I can't find a manual for the monitor's settings. Check if there is some refresh rate overclocking or some other crappy tech on the go and disable it.

In what way are the colours uneven? Is there a sharp line on the screen where the colour is not right, or is it blotchy? We're missing a lot of details here. It's a bit strange that a camera can't pick up that the colours are uneven? When you say it feels smooth, is the whole screen smooth, or just a part of it?

Is it shiny? Have you maybe stripped off the anti-reflective coating?