gila @ gila @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

354

Joined

2 yr. ago

Eh, I only meant hyperbole in terms of antipiracy affecting the pirates that had to figure out how to crack it. As a broad gesture at the fact piracy (consumption) depends on piracy (effort) to work

Wait, but they already launched it without Denuvo. So pirates can easily crack the launch version without it, and only paying customers need to deal with the antipiracy bullshit? Nice, they took a pro-piracy hyperbole and made it actually real.

I'm sure some will, the result will still be as intended though: a higher Metacritic score

I agree it ends in a weird spot. From my experience as a wetjala/pākehā growing up in Pilbara town with indigenous Australian majority, and having lived in NZ from 2017-2021, I feel that NZ is a better example of cohabitation between indigenous ethnic groups and British colonists, not to mention many other Pasifika and other ethnic groups. I think with my individual frame of reference, the positive impact of actually honouring the treaty over time is clear to see in compared outcomes. Of course, this isn't to say Māori people enjoy equality of outcome to westerners. NZ continues to have a shocking amount of poverty, and I don't have any data to support my comparison favouring NZ. Just a bit of a shame that other than with use of language, the outcomes examined in the article seem totally abstract.

Also, I think the implied equivalence between the treaty of Waitangi and the indigenous Australian voice to parliament is silly and demonstrates an eagerness to forget the bloodiness of our history, which is not equally shared by NZ's. Neither in terms of casualties nor the recency of systemic discrimination.

Literally swap the word Fediverse in that pinned post for Lemmy and you'll get more engagement with it. Because you're right, even if the current reddit user has heard of lemmy and mastodon, they still most likely don't know what the fediverse is, don't understand the site linked to is a lemmy instance / reddit alternative. Subbed to !futurology@futurology.today btw, if the current activity there can be sustained I think it'll shape up to be a nice community

I'm curious if you feel the same way watching movies? It's not as if Idris Elba's live-action movie roles depict "reality". What is it about the presence of a real actor which breaks your immersion in games but not movies, or do you just feel similarly about both?

Yeah, I think it depends heavily on your recent experience. The Pixel 7 experience is much improved over my previous 2020 Xiaomi phone, but the SoC is only marginally better. Software optimizations and ditching MIUI seem like just as big of a factor in the improvement, if not the main factor. If I'd had another flagship in-between those devices maybe I'd find Pixel 7 performance lacking too, it's simply the most performant smartphone I've used.

The California attorney general already said CCPA can't be used to legally enforce DNT requests because it isn't specific enough. So I'm guessing this is a more specific mechanism that can be included in regulations like CCPA and GDPR in future. People protected by them are already meant to be able to opt out

A totally fine argument to make. Misquoting to make it seem like Trudeau is blaming it on Russia isn't though, because that didn't happen.

It's just 2 different quotes about different topics. P1 is about the mistake of honoring the person. P2 is about conjecture that Russia will use the footage to further denazification narrative

Affiliate marketing is what they're doing under "Hustler's university". Probably the same thing.

The clause is:

If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to. However, if we make changes to this Agreement, you will not be allowed to access certain Epic services or download the Licensed Technology unless you have accepted the amended Agreement.

My understanding is this is fundamentally different to the Unity clause you're pointing out.

Another thing is that Unreal is open source source accessible. If there's a bug in 5.0 that is resolved in 5.1 but you don't want to accept the amended terms for 5.1, it's possible to fix the bug and build the engine yourself. In the event of a significant change like the one with Unity, I imagine some dev group would just fork it and maintain it themselves.

It's allowed by a specific clause in their TOS which assigns a EULA version dependent on the engine version. The EULA itself is different for different versions.

The point is that devs choosing to stay on an old version would not be good for Epic, so they are unlikely to directly create the circumstances where that is the logical result.

It's like you're making all these connections and then still coming to the conclusion that my premise is false. Yeah, the 2.0 controller is bad, because the choices Apple made to design the iPhone 15 SoC weren't about bringing new features to users. They are about posturing features in a particular way for business reasons. Churning through models means each year they need new features to sell. They need to introduce compelling new features at a faster rate than they are being developed, so they drip-feed them instead. And if you actually care about getting the baseline i/o upgrades on new models you'd get from literally any other manufacturer, you have to buy a Pro.

Epic allows devs to stay under the license terms for specific versions of the engine. If they started charging for installs, devs can just use the older engine versions and avoid the charges.

The cost difference to a 3.2 controller is trivial. It's an arbitrary limitation to differentiate it from the Pro model. They are capitalising on the work done by USB-IF to improve the spec in a way no other member would dream of

Edit: Thanks for telling me about how a $1000+ flagship phone shipping with industry subpar connectivity is OK because they used the SoC from last gen. Truly a revelation.

I'll upvote any constructive interaction, but I think a big reason why aggregators got popular was the ability for a user manifest their general disagreement with something in a way that can impact the visibility of that info. So I don't think the overall nature of upvotes/downvotes could manage to be substantially different to Reddit or any other aggregator. The user behaviour is ultimately determined by the availability of the function, rather than the nature of the community that uses the platform/function

And I'm going a step further to say that's not actually a defensible argument. The distribution is a distribution of game licenses with associated terms, and those terms don't dictate a limit to the consumer on the number of installations on hardware they own for private/non-commercial purposes. For Unity to argue additional installations per license represent lost value is an argument against the terms of the licenses, not the terms of their arrangements with devs.

Lost revenue obviously isn't the reason for it, anyway. It's almost certainly due to technical limitations of their data collection method resulting in them not being able to associate unique installations with their associated license. So the reason devs must accept a degree of inaccuracy that inherently favours Unity is that it would be illegal for Unity to be accurate.

It's not really an intricacy of IP law though, it's kinda one step away from a contract saying "I get to write a blank cheque from you to me. Don't worry, I'll put in the right amount you owe, and if you don't think I did just tell me and we can talk about it. I reserve the right to say no though"

To legally charge the dev, an invoice has to be raised. That's a legal document, there's an item on it, a quantity, and a price. If the details of the invoice cannot be verified by either party, it is invalid. About as fundamental a principle in contract law as you can get, I imagine.

The way it's different to reddit is that Unity wants to charge per installation on unique hardware. That is, if you buy a license for the game, and install it on your PC as well as your Steam deck, then the devs need to pay 2x install fees.

Without providing any basis for their charges, and without a way for devs to independently validate them, I can't see how the charges could even be considered valid legally, let alone pull them out of insolvency. A dev fee per fingerprinted installation doesn't have any precedent in the SaaS space to my knowledge. I don't think it would be illegal for an IPO to do this if it was truly meant to increase longterm profitability - e.g. price speculation that's happened today could similarly happen for any reason at any time on any stock. But the point is it won't work without a monopoly they don't have - they'll have to go back on it (at least with regard to games already released), or end up in costly litigation