You see, some NATO members have been known to use the internet. Artifacts of that usage may have been archived, like their statements and voting choices. For example, if IA stored a page where Jens Stoltenberg called a polandball comic “funny and accurate” in 2019. That would be bad for Gaza.
Genuinely though, they’re right I’m surprised it’s not a 2025 release date.
2026 is plenty of time to finish an animation-heavy linear “CoD/Battlefield in space” campaign that is supposed to be feature complete and playable already.
Squadron 42 is nothing like Star Citizen. It’s about as impressive as a 2004 Morrowind-lookalike single-player Elwynn Forest to Deadmines to Onyxia campaign with a preset character running around in a modified World of Warcraft engine, while the devs are struggling and failing to make 40 player raids and Alterac Valley possible.
I’m not particularly interested in Chris Robert’s toy space opera, using SC’s fantastic assets to make a silly Top Gun space parody while SC fails to realize its actually interesting goals, like large scale combined arms “star wars” warfare in a completely open space and planetside theater where boarding capital ships is possible.
I don’t see them stabilizing SC ever, it seems like it’ll never be playable by anyone without an incredible patience for bullshit and faff. I’m just $90 deep but I’ll be very happy if I’m wrong and my Arrow gets to see their grandiose galaxy.
But SQ42? Sure. 2026 makes sense.
621 is more or less the site they go to for seeing the illustrations of dog dicks that they’re so fond of.
Slaves can’t end their own contract at will.
You people will never understand the difference.
Can’t Stardew Valley, Undertale, Outer Wilds and No Man’s Sky also be legally removed from your Steam library for any reason?
They’re just gonna go all in on marketing to Kyle and his CoD buddies, and ignore the nerds who care about weird shit like ownership.
The EULA is a wall of text that means nothing to most people, just like the TOS. The CLA (California License Agreement) or whatever this will be called with be no different, unless they specifically demand a very short and to the point.
*"You are buying a game licence that can legally be revoked without providing a refund.
Ubisoft can revoke the game license at any time for any reason.
Ubisoft guarantees access to the license for 0 days."*
I have no expectation that it will be that clear and concise.
Edit: Looks like they have chosen not to discuss the language of the “clear expansion” at all. Likely because whoever wrote the law didn’t know the subject they’re regulating.
From the article:
The official phrasing in the bill’s summary reads, it will “prohibit a seller of a digital good from advertising or offering for sale a digital good, as defined, to a purchaser with the terms buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand.”
Alternatively, storefronts can clearly explain that you’re buying a license and that your purchase isn’t a permanent transaction, meaning the license can be revoked at any time by the issuer. The most important part of the bill states that passing it will be “ensuring that consumers have a full understanding of exactly what they have bought.”
It’ll probably be a wall of text like maybe a big fat paragraph and a little vague line at the bottom, or somehow manage to be short but still vague enough to not discourage sales while just barely straddling the line of being acceptable to the Californians who might one day end up bothering to look at how this ends up going, if they don’t forget to.
They should consider doing obscure 2D games instead.