Which does not change how logical a decision from a company is. To me, the decision to cancel the game makes sense. I wish they would not, but I understand why. And my understanding is not affected by my feelings about how much I like or dislike the company.
To be fair, Ubisoft isn’t in a good position right now, to be able to experiment or do whatever they want. So the cancellation is understandable, if they expect it to be controversial and flop because of that. In the end, its the fault of the people who had political issues with prior games. I wish people would stop, so that companies can experiment and be more creative.
This is not a “loophole”, but normal business. Game Pass is not the only service who keep the old contract for current subscribers. This way people think twice if they cancel, because they would “loose” the cheaper price and day one releases and so on, its the same contract as before, which is a huge difference to the new.
At this point, with all the charts and videos dedicated trying to explain what Game Pass is and deals exist, I really think a DLC approach would have been better. Like with pizza, you would have your Game Pass + any number of DLCs to enable additional features. So everyone could have their own Game Pass setup and pay only what they are interested into. In example:
<span style="color:#323232;">$10 Game Pass Base
</span><span style="color:#323232;">+ $8 Day One First Party
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> (exclusives for a month, and added to Base after a year)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">+ $8 Premium Streaming
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> (shortest wait times, highest quality)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">+ $5 Additional Library
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> (EA Play & Ubisoft+ Classics)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">+ $4 Loyalty Benefits
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> (Rewards program, game specific benefits, icons, walllpapers, soundtracks, stickers etc)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Note: Online Console Play is always included.
</span>
I just made up price numbers, so don’t quote me on that as being bad or so. At least from marketing standpoint it would be easier to market, and nobody pays extra for stuff they won’t use such as some vbucks for free to play games.
Depends on the private holder. Look in example to Valve (Steam), who are a private company and do well and good for themselves, the gaming industry and their fans (relative speaking for the most part).
But a super rich Saudi Arabia people and Kushner, Affinity Partners’ CEO and the son-in-law of President Trump connection, I don’t know man. BTW its not just one owner, as I understand. The difference to stockholders is, that a few people who don’t understand videogames have direct power and control over the company, while stockholders are many little.
That’s interesting! I didn’t know Yuzu was still available on Flathub (don’t remember to have checked it). There is also Ryujinx (the other big Switch emulator that was available alongside Yuzu) still available on Flathub. Its less performant and Tears of the Kingdom had early after 7 hours or so a game breaking bug hindering progress, that made me to play on Yuzu. Then I stayed on Yuzu. But I have it installed too, just in case. :-)
Yuzu works great, but I did not test with newest games. You also need Firmware and prod keys (I’m not sure if the keys are actually needed in Yuzu). Some games could require a minimum Firmware version. I’m not sure if its allowed to post links here, so I’m leaving it to you for home exercise.
search for “yuzu” on archive.org should give lot of interesting results. There are source codes and latest builds available. I can’t be sure if even the sources are not tempered with. Use at own risk.
I think the latest Yuzu version from the original developers is “1733”. I have the version “1731” (2024-03-01) only 2 days before the shutdown. I had archived everything that day when reading about NOntendo going after Yuzu.
If you don’t get it from the original developers before the closure, then there is always a little bit of risk getting malware filled builds. So I would be highly cautious. That’s why you should build either from source, or archive before its shut down. If you search the web, there are many sources, sites and users offering the executable for either Windows or other operating systems. I personally wouldn’t download and execute random executables like that.
That’s the reason why I don’t give links, because I can’t guarantee its free from malware. Really, the best is you build from source. I know most people don’t do that, but this is the best.
I was just looking in the web to learn more about Devon Pritchard (the woman who becomes America’s next president as Nintendo of America) and found following line in another blog post article: economictimes.indiatimes.com/…/124139537.cms
She holds a Doctor of Law (JD) degree from Gonzaga University School of Law (1998–2001)
You have to “work” hard to get the privilege to give them money and buy something, that is made rare. People will buy, because they think they “earned” the right to, and that they get something others don’t have. Not the biggest fan of something like that.
So does humans with copyright and capitalism, even more so, with more competition and incentive to make money or get fame. Let’s say without Copyright 10 people do art for fun, take ages and quality does not matter. Its all fun yes, maybe 1 of them is talented. Add Copyright and incentive to earn money, suddenly you have 100 competing for money, try to make the best it can and earn it.
Copyright is not all about making money either. Without it, someone could “steal” your open programming code and then do modifications and sell it for anyone who desperately needs it. In example to hospitals. And because there is no rights and licenses to “own”, the GPL can’t be in effect and protect the Open Source of it.
The problem with such a world is, that innovations would be hurt, because there is less incentive to be the next incredible invention. Either to make money or to get fame. It’s never a simple solution, there are always caveats and side-effects.
I personally don’t think that “Copyright” itself is bad idea. In example without Copyright, we could not have Open Source rights like the GPL. However I acknowledge that there are negative effects of the Copyright system and companies and lot of people misuse it to make money or to hurt.
The song is mine. I wrote it with June, I sing it, I created the melody, I recorded my vocals in my studio, and they do not own it.
That’s not enough to “own” a peace of copyrighted material or work. This depends on the license and contract. Note, I am not arguing against his opinion that this work is his own, I just argue that the given reasoning can be not enough (depending on the situation). He claims to be the owner and to get paid, but WE as the reader who don’t have all details don’t know if that is really his right (to get the money). From the outside it looks like another victim of capitalism. But really, without all the details, I would not automatically empathize based on claims. I wish him good luck, if there are no bad intentions behind it.