That's true, but the reason that the budget is so high is because we of the need for product differentiation. If your game is largely the same as all the others, it needs some way to stand out. It needs huge levels, amazing graphics, a killer soundtrack, and all the rest or nobody's interested.

A more original concept is also product differentiation, and people are way less concerned about it looking anything more than decent. Decent is a lot cheaper than amazing.

No it's not. Just copying an idea is not enough it make it a derivative work.Ideas are cheap.

Why do we need to test each device? GSM devices only emit in specific frequency ranges. All of them emit in the same set of frequency ranges in the same way. Same with any other class of device.

Planes are allowed to fly over populated areas where digital and analogue TV signals are being broadcast, CB radio, digital radio, FM, and AM radio, electricity substations, telephone masts, as well as signals from satellites above, not to mention lightning, all kicking out EM noise. Surely those all interfere with the sensors. And I'm sure there's been a phone left on in a plane at least once in the past 30 years.

Absolutely, the law in Britain has veered way to far from allowing freedom of speech, but the difference there is the libel suits can succeed with a much harsher burden of proof on the defendant. Even then, an article critical of a lawyer would be unlikely to succeed.

The US has the first amendment. The lawyer is suing parties who have a lot more to lose than money if they give in to his demands. There's no way the Washington Post or ABA are going to back down and it seems highly unlikely that the lawyer will win. The bloggers might settle but not for much since bloggers are typically pretty average people. I quite simply can't understand this guy's strategy.

Thing is, a DUI test is an annoyance. If you're driving somewhere you want to get there without being stopped and having to prove your innocence.

I'm sure this is used by a lot of non-drink-drivers for this reason.

The issues here are framerate and buffering.

Computer displays are double buffered. That is, you have an image being displayed and an image being drawn to. Finish drawing and you flip them. This is all well and good, but a 1080p 32 bit display takes 8 Megs. We need another 8 for the back buffer, possibly another 8 for a depth buffer and the same again for player 2. That's 48 Megs allocated just to drawing the graphics. You might be able to do something simpler with triple buffering but that doesn't save you a lot.

Framerate - we're drawing twice as many pixels and twice as many polygons. There's very little scope for optimisation here.

If you can make the scene a lot simpler, then you can actually gain in both of these. If you are absolutely certain that a display will be drawn in less than a sixtieth of a second, then you can just draw that while the other image is visible. This means you only need a single buffer per player. You might even find another way of dealing with depth if things are simple enough.