J.Random

Not in this case. Big fish sets the price, and you either like it or get nothing and kiss your business goodbye. When the hell did you change your name? It's weird. Change it back. /jk

Meh. Developers got poached, so not an issue for them. Players will still get their game (whatever becomes of it). Boycotts don't work and will never work because for every person refusing to buy there will be tens of those who don't care. What's waaaay more interesting in this situation for me is this: after what has happened, who in their right mind would ever agree to partner in any way with Private Division, knowing that at any point they can go all Darth Vader on you?

I could probably find and link all or most of the threads regarding similar stuff where users voiced their concerns and these concerns were universally met with "you're paranoid": the whole takeover by T2, EULA, redshell spyware, probably starting with whatsitsname, the Netherland company which somehow was an actual IP owner... But I'm lazy. So just imagine I did all that and added a "surprised Pikachu" meme at the end.

I'd rather not have a skybox at all. Mostly because it will look pixelated unless you use a ridiculously huge texture for it, and even then banding will probably ruin it anyway. Pitch black background with procedural star field (shimmering, fading when there are other sources or lit surfaces visible, etc) should be possible.

Except, ironically, for Unity games. For some freaking reason, mouse issues (not registering clicks or registering one click as multiples, randomly resetting pointer position to 0,0 or completely freaking out when mouse controls the camera) are rather common when running Unity games with Wine/Proton.

You mean "it shouldn't", and I agree. In a logical world, that would be the case. In game (or software in general) publishing world, however, Microsoft monopolizied this term long time ago, so multiplatform titles usually have to specify release as "PC, Mac and Linux".

Whether there will be Linux release or not might actually be a decently accurate "miner's canary" for planned bait and switch on EGS exclusivity. If Linux support is dropped, the canary is dead.

Yeah, heard this story before. Words don't matter. Existing Steam store page doesn't matter. What matters is their actions. This isn't a question, a request, or a threat. The closest you could call this thread is a "statement of intent", I guess. They're free to do whatever they want.

...and having heard about decisions your bosses make lately, I'll just say it once and leave it here (I don't care if there will be discussion because for me there's nothing to discuss): If it's Epic-exclusive, you will enjoy 88% of 0$ of my money. What happens next is entirely on you.

Is this update going to be Epic exclusive for a year?

*remembering all the EULA threads, especially the "private data collection" part of those Naaaah, you're all just awful paranoid pitchforking people, there is no telemetry or private data collection, and there never was any.

You forgot that two month long celebratory dev break during which customers were left hanging with a wonderful memory leak. :D

Fun fact. Whenever somebody points out a possibility of some bad stuff happening, there's always a lot of those who (a) equate criticism to hate and (b) answer concerns with "nothing has happened yet, you're hysterical" and whatnot. Then, when inevitably, sooner or later, bad stuff happens, the same people who pointed at the problem in the first place get to say "I told you so" and receive another answer: "Well, it's too late _now_, bad stuff happened, you should get over it and move on". I love this community. Stay weird, you weirdos.

Yeah, well, there's this thing called "fair use" which also applies to critique. And this "clearly" of yours isn't that clear, really, as it requires a decision about how much transformative a specific gameplay/commentary/critique video is. It's a grey area and my understanding is that people aren't getting sued because nobody wants to change status quo because it may go both ways in court, creating an unpredictable precedent. As things are now, companies tend to look the other way but sometimes can't resist the temptation to strike someone. If this someone is an unimportant nobody, nobody cares; but if said someone manages to raise enough pitchforks, Big Bad Company may back off and even apologize sometimes, promising never to do it again and trying the "we listen and we care" routine. But nobody wants to go to court over DMCA vs Fair Use issue.

Does it say that you have to use KSP to create mods? "Software may allow you to create content" may just mean that KSP supports mods. "Allow" as in "you can create custom content and the game will (try to) load it". The proper interpretation of this legalese should also be in the FAQ in a human-readable form. Also, are PartTools covered by the same license? Also also, random thought: while FAQ says you can monetize your videos of KSP gameplay, this EULA paragraph leaves T2 rights to DMCA you into oblivion if you say something they don't like in said videos (kinda like Wargaming incident, only worse because this time publisher actually has a leg to stand on).