i would like to apply thanks @igor-lt

@baby Hey i apply

@SpeedyKoala Hey I apply have so many good ratio proofs

@MalIsAngry Yes so crazy

SONY LIV

olah

It was an awesome match

As once-confidential court documents continue to emerge from Epic's ongoing legal battle with Apple, it's now been revealed that Fortnite earned a staggering $9.1 billion between 2018 and 2019. In a financial presentation dated January 2020 (via The Verge), Epic reports that the battle royale raked $5.8 billion in 2018 and $3.7 billion in 2019. That grossly outshines any other game owned by Epic (including Rocket League and Battle Breakers), which account for $108 million over those 2 years. The Unreal Engine achieved a more impressive $220 million—over double what non-Fortnite games earned, but still vastly less than Fortnite itself. Epic's overall profits for those two years came to $5.5bn. That includes all sides of its business, including the Epic Games Store—which, as we found out this year, has been running at a loss in trying to brute force a space as a viable Steam competitor. What's staggering is the extent to which Fortnite dominates Epic's income streams. A presentation from later in 2020 (via Eurogamer) further breaks down Fortnite's successes. Marvel has been by far the most successful brand collaboration, and Epic plans to move Fortnite even further beyond battle royale as an "open world simulation sandbox". Epic had also planned to give Fortnite's revenue a shot in the arm by partnering with Apple on mobile optimisations, Party Royale promotions, and a bigger Marvel push. Something tells me that's not exactly in the cards right now. Epic's three-week court case with Apple began in earnest today, and has already been spilling secrets such as Sony's cross-platform charges, and the amount Epic pays for those store exclusives. That is, when the case hasn't been halted by an open phone line leading to hundreds of kids shouting "free Fortnite".

Black Panther 2 has been in the works for some time now, with Ryan Coogler back as writer-director. There aren’t many details about what the film will be about and the sequel had to be reworked following Chadwick Boseman’s untimely and tragic death last year. However, Marvel Studios confirmed the title of the film, officially called Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, and it’s actually quite perfect for various reasons. Black Panther: Wakanda Forever is a nod to the salute used by citizens of the fictional African country. The Wakanda Forever salute became especially popular following the release of 2018's Black Panther. With hands curled into fists and arms crossed over one’s chest, the gesture was used as a greeting by Wakandans and it was also a symbol of utmost respect. It was also a phrase and salute employed right before battle, as exemplified by T’Challa right before fighting Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War. Wakanda Forever signified longevity and meaning well beyond the framework of the first film, while also denoting Black excellence and pride. The phrase was all over social media when Black Panther first arrived in theaters and, years later, remains a central symbol of the film, one that has taken on even more meaning than ever before. While the title is a reference to the gesture itself, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever also speaks to the lasting impact and power of the first film, which is now firmly embedded in pop culture. Most everyone knows what it means when someone does the Wakanda Forever salute, even when they might not say the words. Black Panther made history — as both a film and as an individual character and the effects of either cannot be overstated. In this vein, Wakanda’s influence lives on forever and the sequel’s title is very much a nod to this idea.

Konrad Tomaszkiewicz, who served as director of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and as second director and head of production on Cyberpunk 2077, has left CD Projekt Red. Bloomberg reports that Tomaszkiewicz was the subject of a lengthy internal investigation based on accusations of bullying. While a commission formed for the investigation found him not guilty, Tomaszkiewicz still chose to resign from his job. Tomaszkiewicz wrote in an email to CD Projekt Red's staff that despite being cleared, "a lot of people are feeling fear, stress, or discomfort when working with me." He left with an apology "for all the bad blood" he caused, and said he planned to work to change his behavior. The Witcher 3 director was a long-time CD Projekt Red employee, with credits stretching back to story design on 2007's The Witcher, the studio's first game. He served as lead quest designer on The Witcher 2 before taking on the director role for The Witcher 3 and its expansions Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine. On Cyberpunk 2077, he first held the title of design director, before eventually moving into the position of vice president of game development at CD Projekt Red. Tomaszkiewicz's resignation comes a month after Cyberpunk 2077's lead gameplay designer Andrzej Zawadzki left the company.

A sequel has the potential to fix Tenet’s mistakes and create a more audience-friendly and enjoyable cinematic experience. Christopher Nolan’s latest film starring John David Washington (The Protagonist) and Robert Pattinson (Neil) pitted the duo against the future in a race against time to save the world using time-inversion technology. Designed to be a self-contained palindrome, this non-linear epic featured overly complicated character timelines that left many scratching their heads upon leaving the theater. Consequently, the film failed to capture the same hype as Nolan’s other films; especially Inception, which set the bar for mind-bending sci-fi thrillers. As a result of the film’s complicated time-inversion and entropy-reversing technology, some lengthy exposition was required to maintain any semblance of audience comprehension. While this exposition certainly harmed the film - as it is Nolan’s lowest-rated film on Rotten Tomatoes - Tenet also suffered from a major external factor: the COVID-19 pandemic. Tenet, on Nolan’s mistaken commands, was the first major blockbuster to receive a wide theatrical release since the beginning of the pandemic and as such debuted to such a lackluster box office it forced Warner Bros. to shift their release strategy to include same-day HBOmax premieres.

Here are the biggest parts of J.R.R. Tolkien's source material that Peter Jackson omitted from his Lord of the Rings movie trilogy. Introducing Middle-earth to a brand new audience, it's no exaggeration to describe the Lord of the Rings movies as a cultural sensation. Through The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, Peter Jackson crafted three box office behemoths that enjoyed widespread critical acclaim, and tasted glory at the traditionally fantasy-averse Oscars. Compared to most book-to-movie adaptations, The Lord of the Rings is generally faithful to its source material (perhaps thanks to the presence of a book-toting Christopher Lee on set). Jackson makes no major additions of his own, and the most important blocks of Frodo's journey through Middle-earth remain intact. But so detailed is Tolkien's mythology, it was inevitable that a Hollywood adaptation would cut a great deal of material. Each entry in the Lord of the Rings trilogy nudges the upper limits of acceptable blockbuster length (and, for many, bladder endurance), but still comes nowhere close to adapting the books in full. Many of these go unnoticed, even to those who have read the original books. Other omissions, however, are impossible to ignore. For one reason or another, entire sections, characters and settings from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings are conspicuous by their absence on the big screen. These are the most significant cuts made by Jackson's trilogy.

A document released as an exhibit in the Apple v. Epic lawsuit that got underway Monday reveals that Epic dropped more than $11.6 million dollars on free games in the first nine months of its operation, between December 2018 and September 2019. GameDiscoverCo founder Simon Carless, who tweeted the image earlier today, explained that the document in question was one of several that were released prematurely: They weren't meant to go public until later in the trial, but were mistakenly included with Epic's documents, which were released today. All of the documents were quickly removed from the archive, but appear to have been restored since. The full doc paints a very interesting picture of the early days of the Epic Store, and reveals a remarkable disparity in what it paid for various games in order to be able to give them away. Edmund McMillen's The End is Nigh earned him $200,000, for instance, while Annapurna's What Remains of Edith Finch only drew $125,000. Epic paid PlayDead $350,000 for Limbo and $800,000 for Inside, but Alan Wake only warranted $150,000. The top getter was Batman: Arkham trilogy, which cost Epic $1.5 million, followed closely by Subnautica, at $1.4 million; the best bargain (for Epic, that is) was Metro 2033 Redux, which Deep Silver apparently decided to throw in for free. More interesting than the amount of money Epic threw around for these freebies, though, is the "UA Cost" column (aka user acquisition), which is the buyout price divided by the number of new Epic Store accounts that each game attracted. That metric, indie developer Rami Ismail said on Twitter, demonstrates that indie games are a very big part of attracting audiences: Big releases like the Arkham games draw huge raw numbers, but games like Oxenfree, Hyper Light Drifter, Super Meat Boy, and Fez add up—and at a fraction of the cost, too. In spite of all that expense and the number of users who have created accounts in exchange for free games, the actual impact of the regular givaways seems relatively minimal. The document indicates that only about 7% of EGS users who have acquired at least one free game have also made a purchase through the storefront, which does not strike me as a very impressive conversion rate. The numbers only go to mid-2019, which mean the doc doesn't tell us how much Epic spent for some of 2020's high profile giveaways, like Grand Theft Auto 5, and whether Epic's UA costs started to climb noticeably over time. If the chief goal is to attract new users, diminishing returns means it's going to become increasingly difficult to do so—and, you'd have to think, too costly to continue doing so at some point. Regardless of how it decides to proceed with weekly giveaways in future years, there's still a long way to go before the Epic Games Store stops burning money: CEO Tim Sweeney acknowledged in April that the Epic Store isn't currently profitable because "it has front-loaded its marketing and user acquisition costs to gain market share." He doesn't expect it to start making money until 2027. Epic declined to comment on the document.

Always double check your conference call settings. The Epic v Apple trial began this morning with kids yelling overtop each other on a packed phone line. "I would suck all of you to get Fortnite mobile back," said one voice. I missed the commotion when I dialed in to hear Epic's opening statement, but QZ reporter Nicolás Rivero caught it, as did The Verge. While much civil court business has been taking place over Zoom since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Epic v Apple trial is being held in-person. Participants are required to wear masks, and the number of people in the courtroom is restricted. So that the public, press, and each party's extended legal team can listen in, the speakers have been mic'd and audio from the court is being broadcast live on dial-in lines that support a few hundred people. The lines are not supposed to let anyone outside the courtroom talk, but apparently this morning they did. The Verge heard people say "free Fortnite" and "bring back Fortnite on mobile please judge," as well as play Travis Scott songs.

A new image from the long-awaited A Quiet Place Part II reveals Emily Blunt's new underground hiding place. Director John Krasinski's follow-up to his well-received 2018 thriller A Quiet Place has faced a longer than expected road to the big screen thanks to the coronavirus pandemic. A Quiet Place Part II was originally scheduled for March 2020 and was mere weeks away from release when theaters across the globe began to shut down. Paramount pushed it back multiple times, and it currently remains slated for release on May 28. With Paramount already planning for a streaming release 45 days later, A Quiet Place Part II just might stay there.

i would like to apply @baby

Bump....Thread Edited

Topic is locked, Re-Applying For Bonus Points 2x Bit-HDTV 2x Concertos

@Aguia @Ulquiorra @Nergal The Giveaway is completed please lock the topic

Giveaway Completed ,Topic will be locked 2x Bit-HDTV 2x Concertos

@Ulquiorra This Giveaway is completed and topic can be locked

@Maistron Apply

Jane The Virgin

Supergirl

Ed,Edd and Eddy