Ubisoft, anti-consumer for decades. I'm actually surprised they even made this change, it's unlike them.
Read it again?
Any person subject to this code who intentionally exposes, in an indecent manner, [...] buttocks, [...] is guilty of indecent exposure and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Paragraph C doesn't mention "Private area" therein defined under paragraph D(5). It is, however, mentioned under prior paragraphs, such as A(2).
I'm saying the shorts, with holes in them, expose more than typical shorts without holes would.
Note, I don't agree with the officers assessment, but I'm sure that's the legal line they could tow if they wanted to, among others.
LaCaze-Lachney is shown wearing a black t-shirt that covered her shoulders and was cropped just above the belly button, paired with cutoff denim shorts and a studded belt.
The jeans were distressed, which exposes the skin underneath (albeit barely), including her "buttocks" as the law cites.
That just confirms my point.
You'd think they'd be extra careful, given the game was already broken.
TBF, the original version had a pretty game-breaking bug at the end too. Not to mention it was unfinished too.
I actually never finished it because of that particular bug.
Clearly the developers porting this have no knowledge of the actual history of the games they're porting.
Does Tim know about the original's sordid history?
It doesn't have to be flawless, it just has to have little to no false positives. False negatives aren't an issue in this case, since they won't affect legit users in any way.
That said, sales up 300%? Sounds worth it to me.
There was never a concern for PS4 players. Timothy doesn't even remember the article he linked in the first paragraph, that he wrote.
The problem was with PSP, PS3, and PSVita owners. PS4 was never a problem.
It would eventually be a problem, when Sony decided to shut down PSN for the PS4, but that's not what they announced.
I'm surprised, techdirt isn't usually this badly wrong.
Honestly, I agree with this.
It made sense to make the argument for titles that already existed on the platform at the time the policy was enacted.
However this developer chose to knowingly publish a game that takes less time than the refund window that already existed at the time of development/publishing.
I don't have much sympathy for this developer, and I am a developer.
> that you refuse to make available legally
Well, not entirely true. They've tried before. The Wii had the "Virtual Console" where they made a selection of older games available. Though it was poorly implemented as it was locked to that specific console.
Ubisoft has been anti-customer for over a decade.
This won't change.
People will still buy their games.
>> This is the FBI using its powers for good, which makes this effort pretty benign.
Nothing I read in this article is "good" or "benign."
Unless these were government computers, the FBI doesn't belong there.