This is actually the world’s oldest cat flap. True fact.
This is actually the world’s oldest cat flap. True fact.
This is brilliant! You must have been practicing for a long time to draw so well.
It’s a bad headline dude. Really misleading.
The processor in 3 is a pretty sizeable improvement over 2. A quick and dirty a/b test I did found frames rendered in 13ms on q2 would render in 9-10ms on q3, so that’s a good 20 - 30% faster, even though it’s rendering a lot more pixels.
I think the important bit for meta though is making sure their range of headsets all have decent passthrough. No one is going to develop MR apps, and it’ll never take off, unless the whole user base can use them.
Personally I’d take the better lenses and resolution of the q3 over better passthrough though.
The first one did a really good job of having an interesting range of guns and abilities which were very well balanced. There was no ‘best gear’. I’m sure they’re able to have things worth buying that don’t give you an unfair advantage over people who haven’t. It’s a morally hazardous area though.
Slap City is a brilliant super smash style brawler. I play it couch coop a lot, it’s always a blast. Very well made.
Thanks for pointing that out, it is Discovery’s decision. For their part though, Sony is still at fault as they didn’t demand perpetual use rights for content sold on their store, or at least a full refund for the customer.
It looks like the biggest culprit is poor or non existent lod’s on the models. Strikes me as odd though as that’s a pretty basic art requirement for a game like this. I don’t see how this took them by suprise.
I guess the good news is that’s it’s easily fixable. It’s not like ksp2 which looks like it has some pretty unsolvable core issues.
I’m not sure why they they threw that in… that’s not really a problem as far as I’m aware. Maybe they consider it a gateway to gambling?
Enter the Gungeon is a steal at that price. And so is West of Dead.
Huh, you’re right. I must’ve caught a misleading headline then.
Swappable batteries and gyro controls. Good stuff.
Sorry wired just came to hand. You can find it referenced elsewhere.
But it did change from ‘have to’ to ‘have to, if possible’ which is a massive climb down. It’s basically not possible to have a backdoor in e2e encryption so I think it’s dead in the water. It may even make other companies shift to e2e to avoid this legislation, which would be ironic.
And I think the quote is from the minister in charge of the bill, so he/she would talk it up.
The bill is awful. But at least it’s weak(er) and awful.
Time will tell.
I think the bill words it as ‘if feasible’ or something similar. But that’s enough wiggle room to drive a bus full of lawyers through.
Sure. I’ve not read it either but here’s what I’ve found.
Removal of encryption backdoors - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/britain-admits-defeat-in-online-safety-bill-encryption
Removal of ‘harmful but legal’ - https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/29/uk-online-safety-bill-legal-but-harmful-edit/
Age verification isn’t so clear cut but there’s room for a lot of hope. What ‘age verification’ is going to be in the bill is yet to be determined by Ofcom.
… Which is law makers kicking the can down the road… or passing the buck. Probably because it’s unenforceable and a technical/ privacy nightmare. Maybe it will amount to something, in which case we should be afraid, but I think most likely it will amount to not much.
Full bill is here if you have a spare 3 days to read it all - https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/52368/documents/3841
After bouncing back and forth between the house of lord’s and the house of commons This bill is a shadow of it’s former self. I’m glad to say.
Three things that were massively damaging for privacy and security have, as far as I can see, been scrapped.
And what’s left in the bill is going to be regulated by Ofcom, a toothless underfunded shell of a regulatory body.
Unity is a game engine and a bunch of ancillary services, analytics and tracking and what not. It’s been free to use and publish games with as long as your company revenue was under a certain amount. Over that amount and you’d have to buy a license for I think about $1600 a year.
The brouhaha was because they changed their income model to charge people/companies who create their game using the unity engine to make games on a per install basis. Up to 20cents per install of your game ( but only if your revenue was over $200k AND installs was over 200k, raising to $1m AND 1m installs with the unity pro license) .
The changes would take place next January leaving developers with very little time to make any changes to their revenue model. Unity (the company) also changed the terms of use of Unity (the game engine software) so that it was retroactive across all previous versions of unity, ie. If you didn’t like the new terms you couldn’t just carry on using an older version of it.
If you were being charitable you’d call it a clumsy launch or even ill considered. But it went down like a bucket of cold sick with the game dev’ community who viewed it like a greedy shakedown.
Am I the only one who thinks this is funny? It’s a joke people.
Thankyou for digging past the headlines and showing your findings. No one has the time to do it all the time but together we can.