That's actually a very good point, especially with the number of EULAs that we encounter on such a regular basis. How hard would it be for Adobe to slip a clause in about royalties without us noticing?
Is there even a stated reason for this change beyond just simple greed? To my knowledge they aren't maintaining any servers or other cost centers for the games developed on Unity.
As you said, hopefully there's still enough of a negative reaction to this that it doesn't take hold elsewhere.
I may be misunderstanding their new fees, but this still feels like a major disincentive for using Unity. Even with revenue sharing instead of per-install fees, it is still being sprung on all the developers. Unity is now being upfront about not needing to use the newer Unity versions; but if there are engine bugs in the older versions, there is not much choice in if they have to update.
I would certainly think twice before choosing Unity at this point.
I'm not so many episodes in, so I'm not sure how strong a character she'll be; but how could anyone not like a character played by Whoopi Goldberg?
My understanding is that most games come with the full game data on the disk, though it's a little more of a gamble if some will be left as a download on the Switch carts since they charge by cart size if I recall correctly.
Having said that, it would still be the unpatched game data; but that's still more playable than a digital copy when the servers are no longer maintained.
It's also worth noting people with bad internet speeds can prefer the disks since copying 50-150GB is a lot faster than downloading it from the internet for them.
I do find it a little interesting that Phil Spencer is ignoring the content of the leaks and instead just focusing on the fact the documents are out of date. I would imagine the contents of the leaks are likely still pretty close to accurate, even if plans have changed a little, as a result.
I also wonder if Xbox will use the reaction to the leaks to determine potential changes going forward (ie: reactions to the console being all digital, reactions to the next gen console processor, etc).
... And it turned out Tasha really died, though the article did mention the actress returning on a few occasions. It sounded like the first season was a little rough behind the scenes, and the actress was also worried that the role would be too repetitive(?)
Ultimately, I feel kind of bad for the actress since TNG is widely revered as one of the best sci-fi series and she missed an opportunity to be a major part of it; but I can understand why she felt the need to leave. Plus this change gave Worf more time to shine, and also made room to introduce Guinan; so I really can't be mad.
I also still find it pretty touching when the cast references Tasha and mourn her (like Data's hologram in the episode where they legally have to prove his sentience).
I recently started TNG and saw that episode for the first time a week or two ago. When she died, I literally did not believe it right up until the end of the episode because of how anti-climactic her death was. I was absolutely sure it was going to be a fake-out.
When the episode ended, I had to look up why she was written out because I was so utterly perplexed.
Unfortunately, it seems like Craig of the Creek is ending after its current season. Jessica's Big Little World appears to be its successor, though.
While the continuation of the world is a welcome concept, I'm a little worried that tone may skew even younger than the original (which was already a kid show to begin with).
Having said that, as Craig of the Creek continued, it felt like its visual style evolved as well to have more exaggerated facial expressions and movement; and based on this "key art," it looks like that exaggerated style may continue on in Jessica's Big Little World. I'm definitely hopeful that's the case, since it definitely took some time for those choices to emerge.
Primarily the manner in which they contemplated the purchase of Nintendo. It was not presented as wishful thinking, but an inevitability. Microsoft has the money, and all they need is a moment of weakness on Nintendo's part in which to spring a hostile takeover (or at least, that's how the email reads).
The fact that Microsoft could leverage its considerable wealth from being the market leader in a different market segment to buy out an entire competitor that makes up a very significant portion of the gaming market, and that doing so would not be for any reason than to be a feather in the cap of the Phil Spencer makes them very dangerous.
Xbox/ Microsoft clearly have money to burn and are on no uncertain terms willing to use it to bully their way into a monopoly of the gaming market.
Regardless of how realistic their plans to take over Nintendo really are. They think the plan is feasible, and they have the money for it. They are incredibly dangerous.
The leaks emerged from attachments to a single court document uploaded to a website hosted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where the FTC is suing Microsoft over the $69 billion buyout of Activision Blizzard.
In a new court order posted today, the judge in the FTC vs. Microsoft case, Jacqueline Scott Corley, confirmed that Microsoft seemingly accidentally provided the court with a version of the documents that "contained non-public information" to the link that held public documents in the trial. The documents have since been removed from the link.
What an incredible own-goal. I've felt this acquisition was severely monopolistic from the start, but I know not everyone felt that way. I have to imagine/ hope this helped convince more people how dangerous Xbox/ Microsoft is. Hopefully the acquisition will be blocked now
@UrLogicFails
@beehaw.org