I think its kind of standard for these things but the defensive termination sounds like a trap. If you make a claim about an unrelated patent against “EA, their partners or affiliates” then they revoke your access to the pledge.
I’m not sure how partner or affiliate is defined in this context but EA have business dealings with a lot of companies…
I think one of the better compromises is to post a direct link to the source (bluesky, twitter, whatever), and then post a screenshot or quote as a top level comment.
That way people can follow the link if they want the community responses over there or just read the copy of the post here.
GOG launched in 2008 (when windows vista was current), some of the titles added to the catalog over the years will have problems with modern operating systems, hardware, drivers, etc.
Anything they add to the preservation program has confirmed comparability with Windows 10/11 and popular hardware currently in use. There is an element of housekeeping here that goes beyond simple PR.
Important to note that:
Our Pledge
Electronic Arts (EA) promises not to enforce against any party for infringing any of the listed EA patents. A list of patents subject to this pledge can be found below, and EA may add additional patents to this pledge at a later date.
EA makes this pledge legally binding, irrevocable (except as under “Defensive Termination”) and enforceable against EA and all subsequent patent owners of the listed patents. This pledge does not provide any warranties or assurances that the activities covered by pledged patents are free from patent or other intellectual property infringement claims by a third party
Defensive Termination
EA reserves the right to terminate this pledge for a specific party or its affiliates going forward if that party files a patent infringement lawsuit or other patent proceeding against EA, its affiliates, or partners.
https://www.ea.com/commitments/positive-play/accessibility-patent-pledge
Stupid article needs a before and after comparison.
Instead it has way too many ads.
“It’s a bit technical,” begins Birdwell, "but the simple version is that graphics cards at the time always stored RGB textures and even displayed everything as non linear intensities, meaning that an 8 bit RGB value of 128 encodes a pixel that’s about 22% as bright as a value of 255, but the graphics hardware was doing lighting calculations as though everything was linear.
“The net result was that lighting always looked off. If you were trying to shade something that was curved, the dimming due to the surface angle aiming away from the light source would get darker way too quickly. Just like the example above, something that was supposed to end up looking 50% as bright as full intensity ended up looking only 22% as bright on the display. It looked very unnatural, instead of a nice curve everything was shaded way too extreme, rounded shapes looked oddly exaggerated and there wasn’t any way to get things to work in the general case.”
This should have been easy enough to illustrate.
Edit:
Here is a greyscale illustration of a similar phenomenon:
From https://www.odelama.com/photo/Developing-a-RAW-Photo-by-hand/
Of course in reality it get a bit more complex when we perceive colors as having different brightness too:
From https://www.vis4.net/blog/avoid-equidistant-hsv-colors/
Alternative link for the same story:
Cool that they are getting into the weeds looking at UI design.
My son and I are very casual players and it always seemed scammy how much they push spending vbucks to boost though the season pass. To my mind that should be an uncommon occurrence and presented as a secondary option, but of course Epic presents it as perfectly normal selecting the button as default on some screens.