I’m just sad. When I first played payday 2 it was on my crappy laptop. I had to turn everything to its lowest (even resolution) and turn off my internet (this really made it playable). I am sad to see that some kid will not be able to do the same one day.
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.
Tbf PD2 was the same way yet I had tons of fun with it. At some point the horde shooting is just about overall performance and resource management, not combat itself, while the main gameplay is doing the objective alongside it. I preferred going with stealth most of the times anyway.
That being said, if the objectives sucks and combat is unchanged then there's nothing to make it actually fun and yeah, that's an issue.
Never understood the appeal of a game purportedly about bank robberies being mostly about killing literally hundreds of cops, it’s not so much unrealistic as it is completely farcical. It would be like Al Qaeda flying a plane into the WTC and everybody in New York going about their business like normal the next day.
lol at choosing to present it in a way that implied there was no way to avoid the retroactive license change (which you explicitly said you wanted to apply retroactively, charging fees based on activity prior to your license change), then blaming the community for interpreting it how you told us it works.
Instead of doing their due diligence, they just bought up as many studios as they could and are now considering selling, shrinking or closing them (I assume while keeping the IP for themselves if there is any as well as any valuable assets).
This reads like a „we need to homogenize the game industry so lobbying for anti competitive measures becomes easier.“
I still don’t understand why shit like this is even legal.
At the same time, the industry is looking towards massive monopolization. I think Embracer move was also motivated by seeing how ABK was able to make a sale to Microsoft and cash out. Now everyone is trying to sell themselves, including EA. The buyers are usually trillion dollar tech, or Saudis (who currently own a very big part of the industry), and Chinese megagiants (who own the other big part of the industry). As days go by, we are looking at a landscape which could be similar to early era console wars where players were forced to tie their wagon to one horse and hope that it keeps releasing titles. This might sound a bit doomer speak, but if a studio the size of gearbox can shut down, then absolutely anyone can.
Thanks for elaborating. In other words, we need to make it illegal to buy other companies if you‘re larger than sum x and make it illegal to sell a company (because all industries have that problem) to someone like that. Got it. :)
I mean, isn’t the point of OpenCritic to get as wide an opinion base as possible? Of course you’ll have a bunch of weird ones in there, but you hypothetically get the best overall view of a game.
Words have meaning. If they want to convince people removing the ToS was an honest mistake (almost unbelievable bad timing, but whatever), they shouldn’t make a non-apology beginning with “genuinely disappointed” and saying they’ve been “framed”.
Because they get to never say in whom they’re disappointed, and I choose to interpret it as “disappointed in all of you people for being meanies and assuming the worst”.
Unity: Disappointed to discover denying access to a document with legal standing to the affected parties could have legal implications, and now trying to make up a cover story.
games
Najstarsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.