I’d probably take this suggestion, just to see where its going with this. (I know there’s no design behind these suggestions, but it’s funny).
I’d probably take this suggestion, just to see where its going with this. (I know there’s no design behind these suggestions, but it’s funny).
If you have a goose that lays golden eggs, butchering it for feathers is a poor move.
That’s because there’s a review count requirement for both the extremely good and the extremely negative level. So you can’t buy your own game, review it, and have it be overwhelmingly positive because the only review is positive. Thing is, bad games tend to not get bought by many people, so overwhelmingly negative is rare. So yes, mixed reviews are already damming.
Here’s some picture of commie blocks for reference I guess:
So, now antivax mothers can’t get ultrasound anymore while they’re pregnant?
Well, one thing is taxes, which are payable in the local government’s fiat currency, which ensures that there’s always demand for the fiat currency, assuming a responsible monetary policy.
I suppose a non-compliant browser will need to be build if this comes to pass.
That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying.
My understanding is that tax write-offs are deducted from the revenue, as in profit is revenue - expenses - write-offs, with different things being written of over different periods of time. So, let’s say vehicles are written off over 8 years, and I buy a truck for 40,000$, I can deduct 5,000$ each year from my revenue, meaning my taxable profits are 5,000$ less each year.
As much as the ESRB fucking sucks ass and can go burn, at least it isn’t a government agency and has to at least play nice enough with the industry and consumers in general.
I don’t think any industry can really be trusted to self-regulate in the long term.
The last triple A game I bought at launch was ‘Watchdogs Legion’, to comemorate my new PC. I figured I just build a new computer, so why not celebrate by buying an expensive game. It was a stupid impulse buy.
The best PR move for Unity at this point would be to fire their CEO. Preferably out of a cannon.
There’s a social cost associated with buying it, namely, that you support live service games. So please don’t buy it.
There’s this one guy on youtube(https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup), who said about business: [paraphrasing] “Sometimes things go well, and sometimes, you dry to get the change stuck between the couch cushions”. And you’re right, this pretty much does seem like a desperate move if you think about it.
Is this whole thing a “Springtime for Hitler” esque plot?
Could also be. I’m not sure about how the legal situation works exactly. My understanding is that you can’t change a contract, such as a license agreement without the other party’s consent. Maybe they have a clause in it allowing them to revoke the existing licenses, meaning the developers would be forced to agree to the new license or be without a license.
I also asked the question, and got an answer. The hypothesis is that they’ll release new versions under a different license, also meaning that if the devs never agree to the new license, they’d avoid the fee. Of course, that would mean that any engine level bugs in their game would become unfixable. This also means that large developers would be exempt, as they likely have contracts in place that supersede the license agreement.
Most businesses get ruined if you alienate your customers. The exception would be monopolies.
Makes sense. I hope the unity guys come to their senses. This whole thing seems rather self-destructive on the company’s part. Unity is far from being a monopoly, with one competitor being free and open source (Godot). And pulling stunts like these, even if you walk them back later, does not engender trust.
I think it is called the network effect. People are still using Twitter because the messages they want to see are being posted there, and those messages are being posted there because that’s where the audience is. So, basically, people are locked in.
This also means that any loss in user count has a double effect, as not only users are lost, but the utility of the service for the remaining users decreases. So, what I’m saying is, if Elon continues this way, at some point there will be a large exodus of users from Twitter, as each loss of users reduces the utility of Twitter further, triggering a chain reaction.
Of course, we can’t know when that happens, and since we’re both on Lemmy, we’ve already self-selected as people with little tolerance for enshittification.