Why does Steam does the same thing but nobody cares? Steam also takes 30% of the price just because. Ubisoft has 100x more employees but always gets hate.
Sure, but Steam sells the licenses and holds them for you in your account, so it does not quite answer the question. To me they still have all the same issues other platforms that deal in licensing have. Steam just has better PR and is not overtly a dick the way others have been.
And to get ahead of a new law they passed in California, they’re already putting it on the screen before check out that you’re buying a license to the game, not the game itself. Of course, I think just like Prop65, it will be too broad. Prop65 is the law that says that anything with even a trace amount of carcinogens has to have a warning that announces the presence of carcinogens.
That, and there is no penalty for giving a false positive warning although there is for noncompliance. So manufacturers will just stick a Prop 65 label on everything rather than put forth the brainpower required to verify if any of their products or materials sourced from any of their innumerable suppliers and subcontractors might actually contain a chemical from the naughty list or not. Therefore the label becomes less than meaningless.
Why does Steam does the same thing but nobody cares? Steam also takes 30% of the price just because. Ubisoft has 100x more employees but always gets hate.
Steam is a reseller, it’s not the license holder
Sure, but Steam sells the licenses and holds them for you in your account, so it does not quite answer the question. To me they still have all the same issues other platforms that deal in licensing have. Steam just has better PR and is not overtly a dick the way others have been.
And to get ahead of a new law they passed in California, they’re already putting it on the screen before check out that you’re buying a license to the game, not the game itself. Of course, I think just like Prop65, it will be too broad. Prop65 is the law that says that anything with even a trace amount of carcinogens has to have a warning that announces the presence of carcinogens.
That, and there is no penalty for giving a false positive warning although there is for noncompliance. So manufacturers will just stick a Prop 65 label on everything rather than put forth the brainpower required to verify if any of their products or materials sourced from any of their innumerable suppliers and subcontractors might actually contain a chemical from the naughty list or not. Therefore the label becomes less than meaningless.