Kind of clickbaity title. The media companies will still stay under Alex Springer, it's some advertisment divisions which are being sold. Nothing's changing here.
The transitions between these eras will offer the chance to select a fresh civilization, with a range of options determined by your previous choices.
Wait a minute. I feel like I've seen that one before...
Oh well, fair enough. Humankind drew heavily on Civ in its design anyway.
Huh. A tribune by Sophie Binet (general secretary of the CGT, one of the biggest French trade union, and major player in the june elections as well as the protests last year) in the Guardian?
Certainly wasn't on my bingo card today.
Thank you for the link! It helped putting things into proper nuance and context (indcluding throwing away that ridiculous notion that the 'Steam Store' and the 'Steam Gaming Platform' are two completly different things in different markets).
However, reading the whole thing, it sounds to me like while the court dismissed some of the claims (1 to 4 and 7 apparently), they agreed that Wolfire and the other plaitiffs had the right to 'plausibly allege unlawful conduct' about the 'Most-favored-nations restraints' (the part where Steam forces publishers to set prices on all stores without steam keys being involved) without mentioning anything more on the subject.
I'm not americain so I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but that means the ruling isn't over and it'll go into an appeal court, right?
Um, I've read the complaint from top to bottom and it claims way more than just 'Valve wouldn't give them keys to resell' if they're not at the same price as on steam. It also claims Valve puts a 'Price Veto' clause which allows them to delist games from Steam if the publisher gives bigger sales on other platforms, even if they do not using steam keys, which does sound super uncompetitive to me.
Although I'll agree the evidence listed in the complaint seem a bit on the light side. Do you know if the trial happened yet? And if so, do you know where I can find what resolution they reached?
The only downside is that it's not really supported anywhere at all yet. But I do hope it becomes a real thing some day.
AFAIK there's a lot of talk about making GNU Taler the basis for the 'digital Euro' which is curently being debated at the EU Parliement.
I feel like that's just a very loud minority among those who play games. As you've so stated, the majority of people who play these games either do not care for politics in video games, and another subset prefer it that way.
If even the greediest of companies in the video game industry keep doing that, that means they've analyzed the market and having politics in video games might have between no to a positive impact on sales.
Yeah, but the new guy's gonna be cheaper than the one with experience!
I mean, think about the next quarter benefits! Stop searching for stuff like 'reliability' or 'long term'. That doesn't mean anything to the shareholders who'll jump ship the next month.
(It's definitely an hyperbole, but it does raise a good point over hyper short-termism leading to mass layoffs for 'profitability'. The sick days are just the excuse needed to part the employes that will support their hyper toxic management structures from the ones who aren't 'team players')
For the first part, I agree with you. An international agreement, like what was done for baseline multinational taxes, would be preferable. However, given the sway many million/billionaires hold over smaller (autocratic) countries, I don't hold out much hope on that front, unfortunately.
As for your second point on moving decision making away from the voter, this is ideology. The EU parliement needs to vote on every text, and members are directly elected by EU citizens. For me (in France), I feel as though the EU has been much more respectful of democratic pressure than our national institutions (point in case, all the chat control proposals so far have been dismissed, where as our president has passed many suveillance and other highly unpopular laws unopposed).
There is certainly a point that can be made regarding regarding the fact that less populous countries send so few EU MEPs that they don't feel that they hold much sway ovet the EU, and we clearly need to find a better system than we do now.
As for your last point, though I understand your position, I thouroughly disagree. There is no such thing as economics -let alone foreign policy- without politics, and it's something that was clearly meant to be with the establishment of the EU Comission, Council, and Parliement. There are many political topics that are difficult to being up on each single national levels, but that can cause positive effects in each EU country if not around the world (the so called 'Brussels effect', notably with standardisation of plugs, the creation of carbon emmission roofs for cars, or even GDPR).
(btw I'm not one downvoting you, I think your point is interesting and needs to be discussed :) )
On the contrary, I feel as though a tax like that can only be done at EU level rather than a national level if it wants to have any efficiancy. The ultra-rich are not bound by the same rules of territoriality as the rest of us, and would have no problem moving to another country in the EU if a local tax displeases them.
In fact, this has been a key argument put forward by right-wing politicians against high-wealth tax on a national level for quite some time, that they would flee the country the first chance they get. But by registering it at the EU level, the million/billionaires won't have anywhere to run if they still want to enjoy the benefits of being in the EU :)
AI may have its uses, but the easy counterpoint to your argument is to look at FTX at its peak and where it is now (bankrupt). The stock exchange is the exact opposite of rational, and is terrible at estimating the use one can get out of tech.
A collar or other physical appariments wouldn't stop you from abducting it either. Where I come from and (I assume) in many parts of the world, cats have an electronic chip in their neck with basic info about the owner and how to contact them, which would be discovered when you bring them to the vet.
But I think that's more of a cultural thing. Personally, I consider not letting your cat roam free in the neighbourhood (if you have the ability to let them) unjust and borderline animal abuse, close to how I would consider it if you kept your dog inside all the time.
Finally, taking a cat home out of, what, pettiness(?) sounds like a terrible idea, because beyond any notion of ethics, dealing witha cat you keep away from their territory and the people they know would be both a psycological and financial perspective. If you want to be hurtful to someone, there are easier and cheaper ways to do it than to abduct their pets.
So no, as a pet owner, abduction is really not anywhere near being a concern for me. Getting run over though? That IS a concern, particularly when cats panic. However, cats have far better hearring than we do and can hear cars from a mile away (esp when they're familiar with them).