I am playing the trails series for the first time, and I’m doing it by order of release. I’m at the finale chapter of Trails to Azure and I’m super excited to finally reach the cold steel saga, but should I play Nayuta first? (I kind of think I should, but I don’t know if it’s related to everything else.)
I haven't played Nayuta yet (got the GOG release a few days ago though) but I've played all of Cold Steel I~IV and did not notice anything in them that would suggest that Nayuta even existed -- unlike Zero/Azure where not having played those (due to no official English release at the time) led to some "who the heck is this and WTF is going on here?!" moments as well as some "I would probably appreciate this more if I'd been able to play those games..." sections.
If you want to carry on into Cold Steel after Azure you'll be fine.
Curious to see the differences between the "real" plans and the leaked ones. Obviously, some of the dates are off since some of those games haven't been released yet and I have a hard time believing Elder Scrolls 6 is coming out next year. I could see some of those games being canceled, but it's hard to see plans around the midgen refresh changing up too much. It makes sense to have something to compete with the PS5 Pro that Sony is probably going to release next year and an all-digital Series X would be a good way to test the waters for going completely digital next generation.
A lot of the planned release dates got pushed back a year or two because of covid, so add a year to each date to get closer to when things are probably going to actually come out, I reckon.
I haven’t heard about any plans for PS5 Pro, but all that leaks have said what’s coming out is more like a Slim, since it’s going to be smaller, and not have a built-in disk drive. We’ll see, tho.
I have been sitting in matchmaking for over 3 hours at this point.
Looks like big streamers can access the game just fine, but I get spinning wheel that is occasionally punctuated with getting an error message and kicked out of the game.
The beta was like a week and a half ago, and matchmaking was crumbling under the small organized stress test. I KNEW that once the open internet hit the matchmaker the whole thing was going to implode.
So if you've published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.
I figured this must have been in here. No professional organization would allow a TOS to pass into publishing that allowed a company to unilaterally change fees.
Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.
So if you've published a game, just keep on keeping on. You can sell that game, maintain an older copy of Unity to update it for bugs, even develop new content for that game with the older version of Unity.
According to the article, probably no.
Many devs may have updated unity and used it for minor updates, but also the clause in question probably doesn't protect anyone anyway. There's a broader ToS that supercedes it with much more restrictive language.
According to the article, it's not that simple. This is from the ToS for the Unity Editor, which is subservient to a broader Unity ToS that has much stricter legal language about changing anything without warning and the customer being able to go fuck themselves.
So, yes, technically this bullshit may be completely legal. Devs who were sold Unity on "no royalties" may be forced to pay royalties. Which is definitely healthy for our society and not obviously a problem.
He’s said that way before 2020, also. Publicly. It seems that has not changed. Most in that kind of position would come to the same conclusions of buying up the competition and making money off their products. It’s cheaper, it’s easier, you already get the infrastructure and customer base, etc. What capitalist wouldn’t try to go that route?
Honestly might not be such a bad idea. Unity is built on .Net, which Microsoft also owns. The teams could work together to get Unity modernized and cleaned up, and I bet developers would trust Microsoft more than Unity (Consider that Microsoft also owns VS Code, Github, npm and more that tons of devs frequently use)
Why do you think corporate consolidation should happen? Every time it does it benefits the corporations and never the consumer. Anti-trust is incredibly important to keep business from taking control of aspects of our culture and socialization.
This corporate consolidation helps more people than it hurts.
Corporate consolidation isn’t just always a bad thing. This would be a good thing for basically everyone that’s not exclusively a PlayStation-only player.
No corporate consolidation is how you end up with companies like Sony to begin with. And even then, they’re funding the creation of new pop culture while this is Microsoft wanting to grab up existing culture so they can profit from it. One is an example of something being created and the other is something being hoarded.
Any short term benefit a consumer sees from consolidation is simply a cost the corporation pays to achieve a scenario where they no longer have to provide those benefits. Microsoft is already very well know for the Embrace, Envelop, Extinguish strategy so assuming good will on their part is painfully naïve.
Corporations are not your friend and don’t care about your well-being, they just want your money.
gaming
Gorące
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.