NeryK

That's barely 15 months of console exclusivity for a flagship title. Sony's getting there with PC releases as time goes on.

Reminds me of Guns of Icarus, but on land and extraction shootery.

Sure this is about protecting their bottom line. However the argument that this contradicts the Apple vs Epic verdict seems sound.

OMG it's finally happening !

He's well liked because he came from the trenches and has a good track record of knowing his shit. When compared with the likes of Kotick or Guillemot, it's a breath of fresh air (despite being such a low bar). However as one of the highest execs in the entire gaming industry, this is the kind of stuff he does all year long.

Plus you know, his public-facing image is well curated and people like it.

The Epic Games Launcher is so far behind on features compared to Steam it's not even funny. Epic chose not to try and compete with Steam on that front and to try and force users onto the platform with exclusivity deals and sweeten the deal with free games.

The one user-centric killer feature Epic has in their stack IMHO is the built-in multiplayer crossplay. Except it's not even exclusive to their store ironically (you do need an Epic account for it though).

Probably referring to the 6-month timed exclusivity on PC for EGS that Borderlands 3 went through.

In the space hulk og board game and most video game adaptations, Space Marines die very quickly to genestealers and such.

Even in the first SM game, the resilience came from doing melee executions (akin to glory kills from doom) which triggered health regen. And you were not even immune to damage during the animation !

Yeah, that's PR-speak for "our game design and/or performance does not scale well to more than 3 players".

In the middle of their marketing blitz they try and cover all their bases I guess.

Same here. My main issues with Anthem were the technical issues at launch and that they abandoned it so fast.

I really enjoyed the gameplay and visuals. I sometimes fire it up again, only to find I already know pretty much all this game has to offer.

Mes 2 centimes: ça part d'une bonne intention. J'irai même jusqu'à dire que ça serait une bonne idée si ça avait la moindre chance d'être adopté.

L'explication de Mozilla: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution L'idée est de proposer une alternative aux trackers lourds et invasifs auxquels recourent les publicitaires, dans l'espoir que les publicitaires cessent d'utiliser ces trackers.

A mon avis c'est un coup d'épée dans l'eau car Firefox n'a depuis longtemps plus la quantité suffisante d'utilisateurs pour influencer les tendances de développement du web. C'est aussi un espoir naïf car les publicitaires se repaissent de données personnelles pour alimenter leur profils, et n'ont aucune raison d'abandonner leur systèmes déjà en place, juste parce qu'une alternative devient possible.

Rendre cette option activée par défaut est maladroit, puisqu'elle provoque des réactions négatives de la part des utilisateurs de Firefox. Personnellement je me suis empressé d'aller décocher l'option. Toutefois j'apprécie que quelqu'un cherche des solutions pour assainir les relations entre les publicitaires, qui financent directement ou indirectement une bonne partie du contenu hébergé sur le web, et les utilisateurs.

Because Google is eating the monumental costs of hosting and delivering video content. The cost of maintaining client apps is negligible in comparison. YouTube is not going anywhere unless Google deems it so, or enshittifies it enough to drive users away.