Yeah or just do something more interesting like making more specialised games. The idea well with history can be endless, I just hate that all the games are such a catch all.
I'm appreciative of some of the stuff they've done. Of the newer games I've only played Odyssey, but having an open world game that fully supports stealth is something I can't get somewhere else.
Other open world games feature very light stealth mechanics, but not to the degree that Odyssey deliberately designed its world and outposts to have spots to hide and maneuver in stealth. It's the only one where I've been able to actually play an open world game as a stealth game where combat only happens if I mess up (or it's one of the unique bosses).
The stealth genre is almost on its deathbed compared to the 2000s, so I'm glad there's a few big games still carrying the torch, or maybe just this series when it comes to the AAA space.
We removed it way before the pricing change was announced because the views were so low, not because we didn’t want people to see it.
(emphasis theirs)
I don’t believe that in the slightest. While yes, they did do that quite a while before the change took place, it was hosted there as an easy way to track changes to the ToS. I bet it was more of a “Any changes we make will stand out a lot more”, not realizing that any big change they make was going to stand out regardless (this whole thing being an example).
I mean come on, they could’ve at least tried with a better lie. I would’ve gone “Eh, maybe” if they’d said something like “Our legal team suggested that we keep it hosted in a central location, on our website”. But really, “not enough people looked at it”?? What a joke.
To be honest, in the face of how dumb that lie would be and how I have come to view stats-based decision-making (where companies favour decisions they can point to some KPI for because it makes them seem scientifically grounded over ones made “just” with human reasoning), I’ll invoke Hanlon’s Razor and say:
I absolutely think it’s possible some middle-manager looked at the view stats and decided they’d look better if they cut some chaff, never mind just what that chaff may be. Protests - if issued ar all - went unheard or unheeded, and the change went through because the numbers told them to make it.
It’s awful optics, in any case, but I’m willing to concede it may be dumb coincidence paired with dumb decisions, probably made by someone wholly uninvolved with the pricing change decision, rather than actual dumb malice.
(Doesn’t excuse the rest of their bullshit, of course)
I definitely wouldn’t completely discount that as a possibility for sure, but Unity sure is bad at damage control (as are most companies that make dumb decisions like this) - even if this is true, it would’ve been better to just not mention it, as it could only ever just douse fuel onto the already out-of-control PR fire that has erupted due to all of this.
No dispute on that front, it’s a dumb move to excuse a dumb move with a dumb excuse at a dumb time where nobody will believe that it was genuinely just dumb instead of malicious. And who knows, I might be totally wrong too.
My giving them this much credit is really just out of (possibly misplaced) idealistic desire to find alternate explanations before jumping right to accusations of malice. I’m not even entirety sure I believe it myself, to be honest.
Literally no one but legal should have the authority to remove a contract from the website, and allowing any other human being to do so is gross negligence at absolute best.
It should have sent a cascade of giant red flags the second it was touched.
Oh it definitely would be grossly negligent, but the amount of technical systems I’ve seen that somebody should have a stake in but wasn’t actually involved with… well, if Legal’s purview ends at writing up those terms, Compliance made sure they’re up in an appropriate place and nobody thought to put “make sure they are automatically involved of any change affecting this” on the checklist, all the boxes have been ticked and they won’t notice until the fallout starts hitting.
In an ideal world, any change to the master branch of that repo or to the repo itself should require the approval of a technically versed member of Legal/Compliance (or one of each, if they’re separate teams). In reality, that approval process may well exist only on paper, with no technical safeguards to enforce it.
Epic Game Store is focused so hard on making it good for devs but they have also intentionally neutered it for gamers. Does it even run on Linux yet? We all know that’s the direction Valve is taking things and it’s why Microsoft is starting to panic.
It kinda does? You have to use a third party app like lutris/heroic.
You could argue that steam doesn't fully work on linux either (multiple windows like chat, friendslist or library opened on the same workspace regularly crash on Wayland and I havent had the steam overlay working on any non linux native game) but these features arent even part of the epic launcher
Huh, I’ve never used chat, I rarely use the friends list, and I think I’ve intentionally used the overlay maybe a handful of times. So I don’t think that’s a big loss.
However, they did work fine on xorg (I haven’t used any of them since switching a few months ago).
Regardless, the launcher works for the primary use cases: buying, organizing, installing, and playing games. So I think that qualifies as supporting Linux, even if there are some bugs here and there.
It’s (relatively, don’t use the embedded browser) pure Python and runs anywhere. I also use it on my Win7 retro machine because the Epic Launcher sucks. It also supports epic DRM and can log the game in.
Wait… that math does not possibly check out. In the worst case scenario (Steam), they pay 30% of the revenue from the game in platform fees. If they spend less than that for settlement, simple math tells us that there is at least 41% of the revenue basically unaccounted for.
There’s a bit of overhead in every company, like HR, IT and facilities, so maybe these don’t count for “development cost” (which makes no sense tbh, that’s not how project budgets work). Marketing can eat a ton of money, too, but the numbers still seem bafflingly high.
What? It just means that they spend less than 30% on development. That doesn’t sound too far off, as a lot of the money probably goes to marketing, management, administration or (gasp) profits.
Unless I live under a rock I don’t see the point of spending a lot on marketing ads for games. Two big examples of games that sold extremely well that I never saw an ad for were elden ring and boulders gate three. If you just make a good game word of mouth will tell how good the game is not an ad on TV.
It seems like it can make sense. Platform fees aren’t an initial outlay, they’re effectively a cut of profits based on sales.
For the sake of argument using fake numbers, if a studio spends $1m making a game, and then they put it on Steam and it does $10m in sales, then Steam’s cut of that at 30% will be $3m
So, spending more on store fees than development seems possible - especially if your game is selling really well
Just to echo what Marc said, we are so sorry for our earlier actions.
We are so sorry you took our earlier actions so poorly.
Genuinely disappointed at how our removal of the ToS has been framed across the internet.
Genuinely disappointed that our removal of the TOS was noticed and publicized across the internet.
This new Runtime Fee policy will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity shipping in 2024 and beyond. And Marc’s response is true, you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity you are using as long as you keep using that version.
This new Runtime Fee policy will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity, whereafter we will do everything we can to invalidate prior versions of Unity, and force upgrades on users.
We do have a fireside chat ongoing with Marc where he will answer some Q’s live
We do have a fireside chat ongoing with Marc where he will answer whichever Qs live we find convenient to our narrative, and ignore any that are not.
Please forget about our attempted greed, so we can try again in a stealthier manner in the near future, at our earliest convenience.
Marc’s response is true, you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity you are using as long as you keep using that version.
Oh shit, our lawyers have just informed us (again, but this time I listened) that trying to change terms of service after they’ve already been agreed is actually not legal and could get us in trouble.
Heck yeah! I’m in Dreddit, the founding corp in TEST Alliance, and we have a mentorship program, free ships/skillbooks/etc program, and a no-nonsense help channel. It’s a great place to learn how to play or re-learn after a hiatus. We’re in Soverign Null Security Space, which is where all those big EVE stories come from.
Inverted y for anything first person. I grew up with a joystick for flight sims, and that felt natural to me when I later played FPS games on controller.
Inverted x makes no sense to me (and yes, I read your explanation below), but I can ignore that setting just fine, so every game should have it.
Microsoft-Activision sold streaming rights for their games to Ubisoft as a concession to avoid being labeled a monopoly so the merger could go through.
It’s not a especially big surprise they are that scummy if you know their CEO (even EA let go of him because he was too greedy for them) but fuck is that another dick move, I am totally sure they didn’t do it to hide upcomming changes…
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.