Connect with us

Technology

Fortnite could face year-long Apple ban, says Epic Games | Fortnite

Published

on

Fortnite could be banned from iPhones and other Apple devices for a year, the game’s developer, Epic Games, has revealed, as the court battle between the two companies continues.

The scale of the ban was revealed in a legal filing from Epic, which asks the court to force Apple to allow the game back on the iOS App Store while the wider lawsuit winds its way to a full hearing.

Epic is “likely to suffer irreparable harm” if the ban continues, the company’s filing says, because it has more than 116 million registered users on Apple devices, who are now unable to update the software or reinstall it if it is deleted.

Previously, Apple’s position had been that Epic could restore its access immediately if it conceded the main point of its lawsuit and removed the unauthorised payment system it had built into the game.

But according to Epic’s latest filing that stance has changed. The company quoted the August email from Apple that terminated its App Store access, which warns that “we will deny your reapplication to the Apple Developer Program for at least a year considering the nature of your acts”.

The year-long ban means there is little chance of Fortnite returning to the App Store before the conclusion of the full court hearing, which begins at the end of this month and could last up to a year itself, unless the company wins a preliminary injunction it filed on Friday.

On Tuesday, Apple countersued, calling Epic’s conduct “wilful, brazen, and unlawful”, and arguing that the entire lawsuit “is nothing more than a basic disagreement over money.”

Apple’s 67-page response argues: “Although Epic portrays itself as a modern corporate Robin Hood, in reality it is a multibillion-dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store.

“This court should hold Epic to its contractual promises, award Apple compensatory and punitive damages, and enjoin Epic from engaging in further unfair business practices.”

Epic has a history of using the power and popularity of Fortnite to attack what it sees as unfair restrictions from platform holders. In 2018, the company won a standoff with Sony, which had banned it from enabling “cross-play” between PlayStation and Xbox users. Later that year, Epic launched its own PC game store, in an effort to end the domination of Steam, the largest distributer of computer games. And alongside the Apple lawsuit, Epic launched a second aimed at Google after it was banned from the Android app store as well.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Technology

Washington’s crackdown on Google is the greatest threat yet to Big Tech | Google

Published

on

By

For decades, companies like Google have enjoyed exponential growth and an almost unobstructed rise to power. But the tide appears to be turning, as US lawmakers crack down on alleged monopolistic practices and public sentiment sours on the former wunderkinder of Silicon Valley.

Antitrust charges brought against Google on Tuesday by the US justice department mark the latest – and most significant – legal challenge yet for big tech.

Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Markets Institute, and a longtime critic of tech monopolies, calls the case “an incredibly important statement of intent”.

“By the time this ends I think we will see a radically different company and industry,” he said.

But the charges are also “just a start”, he said, and questions remain about exactly what laws will be created to regulate big tech, with partisan bias and a disorganized smattering of agencies investigating tech firms muddying the waters.

The charges filed against Google are not without controversy. The case was reportedly rushed through by Donald Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, who pushed for it to be filed against the wishes of lawyers who wanted to take more time on the case. Doing so on the cusp of an election that may result in a change of administration “could be detrimental” to the long-term goal of reining in tech giants, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor.

“It is altogether messy,” he said. “It is not clear whether what comes out of it will be systematic and well-thought-through.”

The Department of Justice is just one entity racing to take action against Google. In September 2019, attorneys general in 50 US states and territories announced an investigation into both Google and Facebook over alleged “monopolistic behavior”. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has been separately investigating Amazon and Facebook to determine if they abused their massive market power. And in October, a major report detailing an investigation by the House judiciary committee concluded that big tech wielded “too much power” and was censoring political speech, spreading fake news and “killing” the engines of the American economy.

The investigations are made more complicated by the fact that opposition to big tech has become largely politicized, with Democrats mostly targeting companies for their monopoly power and Republicans accusing them of censoring conservative speech.

The latter view is championed by one of the most vocal critics of big tech, Donald Trump. The president has repeatedly accused Twitter and Facebook of censoring him and threatened to take away their protections under Section 230, a statute providing protections for content hosts, which he inaccurately believes would give him more freedom online. The justice department’s charges may represent Trump’s final vendetta against tech companies for their perceived slights against him.

“This may be the last gasp of an administration that we won’t see again for awhile,” Tobias said.

The charges against Google, which describe the company as a “monopoly gatekeeper for the internet”, also highlight a changing perception of the tech industry from benevolent innovators to menacing corporate superpowers.

“Two decades ago, Google became the darling of Silicon Valley as a scrappy startup with an innovative way to search the emerging internet. That Google is long gone,” the suit alleged.

And by taking aim at Google’s search and advertising operations, the justice department has opened a path that could have a wide-ranging impact not just on Google but on the entire tech industry, Lynn said.

“This could lead to investigations of other large parts of their business. Mapping is a search service, YouTube is a search service,” he said. Other companies including Amazon and Facebook are reliant on search to dominate their sectors, he said.

The justice department is modeling its attack on Google as a parallel to the famous Microsoft lawsuit of 1998 – the last time the US government accused a company of operating a monopoly under the Sherman Act, a law that dates back to 1890 and encourages competition between enterprises.

In many ways, Google’s rise to power has become emblematic of the problems posed by big tech. In its infancy, the co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin reviled Microsoft as a technological bully that ruthlessly abused its dominance of the personal computer software market to choke off competition that could spawn better products.

Their disdain for Microsoft spurred Google to adopt “Don’t be evil” as a corporate motto, one that remained its moral compass during its transition from a free-wheeling startup to a publicly traded company suddenly accountable to shareholders. Google abandoned that motto in 2018, and now confronts an existential threat similar to what Microsoft once faced.

The onslaught of antitrust action against big tech comes years after the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed that the massive power of Facebook may have been used to sway US elections. Consumers have suffered through years of major data breaches. This year the world watched Amazon executive Jeff Bezos grow $24bn richer while the rest of the global economy suffered from the shocks of a pandemic. Consumers, Tobias said, are fed up.

“People feel like they don’t have control, that they’ve lost all their privacy to companies that just don’t give a damn about them,” he said. “You have to imagine members of Congress have to be responsive to that.”


Source link

Continue Reading

Technology

Robot basketball and absurdist golf: five of the weirdest sports video games | Games

Published

on

By

When you think of sports video games you might think of Fifa or Madden, which obsessively mimic their real-life equivalents – or Track & Field, which valiantly if unsuccessfully tries to. But not all developers play by the rules. From impossible athletics to fantasy baseball players with 27 fingers, these are some of the weirdest virtual takes on sport around.

QWOP (Bennett Foddy, 2008)

Playable online

Screengrab from QWOP



Unintentionally hilarious … QWOP. Photograph: Foddy.net

Bennett Foddy loves the Olympics, especially the 50km race walk “for its heartbreaking reversals in fortune”. He has also always loved physics-based video games, like the arcade game Gravitar (1982) and Ski Stunt Simulator (2001). So it was natural that he would want to make an athletics game with proper dynamic physics. “What I didn’t realise at the time,” he says, “is that this is actually an incredibly hard robotics problem, and I was an extremely incompetent self-taught coder.”

Foddy took the batsman from his earlier cricket game Little Master Cricket, chucked the bat, and connected his thighs and calves to the Q, W, O, and P keys. The result was the unintentionally hilarious QWOP (2008), in which you clumsily control the sole athletics representative of a small nation with an underfunded training programme, flailing down the track like a ragdoll. Even making it past the starting line is an achievement here.

Behold the Kickmen



Photograph: Size Five Games

Behold the Kickmen (Size Five Games, 2017)

PC

Dan Marshall has an “actual deep-seated hatred” of football, thanks to its prominence in the news alongside war and the climate crisis, the “extortionate” salaries of players, and its general unavoidable ubiquity. But one day, when his newborn son had left him too sleep-deprived to focus on bigger tasks (like working on his latest game Lair of the Clockwork God, out now on Switch), he thought it would be funny if he made a football game anyway. So he tweeted about it. “And it went like wildfire,” Marshall says. “As a game developer, you can’t buy that sort of publicity.”

The joke became a game, complete with comical story mode, its design influenced by the flippant Twitter personality Marshall adopted when politely informing “actual livid football fans” that it was an umpire, not a referee, who would give you a little kiss when you scored a goal. The pitch is round and striped, and you start in the Premier League, “which makes sense. Premier means first.”

Regular Human Basketball (Powerhoof, 2018)

PC

Screengrab from Regular Human Basketball



Machines of the future reinterpreting an ancient game … Regular Human Basketball. Photograph: Powerhoof

In Regular Human Basketball, players cooperate to control a giant robot from the inside. Developer Dave Lloyd says: “I thought, what’s simpler than picking up a ball and putting it in a net?” Co-creators Barney Cumming and Louis Meyer, basketball fans themselves, agreed, and Meyer injected his knowledge of the sport into a commentary about machines of the future reinterpreting this ancient game.

Using a real sport meant the designers didn’t have to teach the player what to do, especially since more complex basketball rules were left out for the sake of simplicity. “[It] reinforced to us how powerful real-world sport can be as a tool to give players a clear objective,” says Lloyd. “But the main lesson was that, like real-world sport, it’s the interaction going on between the people as they play that generates most of the fun.”

The developers also made a free game that’s closer to actual basketball, “but with a lot more kicking people”, based on the “natural shooting motion” of NBA player Draymond Green. “It got more attention than we bargained for,” Lloyd says. “And reps from Golden State Warriors, uh, asked us kindly to remove the references to their players.”

What the Golf? (Triband, 2019)

PC, iOS (Apple Arcade)

Screengrab from WHAT THE GOLF?



The flag and green are the only constants … What the Golf? Photograph: Triband

Tim Garbos, creative director of developer Triband, doesn’t like golf. “It’s perfectly neatly trimmed grass, perfect round balls, perfectly dressed white people, often. Everything is just terrible.” For those who feel the same, What the Golf? markets itself as “the golf game for people who hate golf”.

Triband was trying to make a regular golf game when “we realised that golf is just not fun,” as Garbos puts it. So they started to subvert it: “OK, what if the flag moves?” Then they started designing levels from the punchline backwards, like the one where you send a hole across the green into a crater shaped like the number one. When they realised golf is just about getting from A to B, they started seeing it everywhere: “We looked at Brexit and made a prototype where we golfed the UK away from Europe.” The flag and green are the only constants; everything else is changeable.

Blaseball (The Game Band, 2020)

Playable online

Screengrab from Blaseball



‘Something that could bring everybody together while we’re isolated’ … Blaseball. Photograph: Blaseball.com

Then there’s Blaseball, the browser-based absurdist fantasy baseball league where players gamble fake currency and vote for decrees like “Open the Forbidden Book” or “Peanuts”. Thanks to the interplay of the data simulation running in the background and the unpredictable whims of human fans, nobody ever knows what’s going to happen next. Creative director Sam Rosenthal says the goal was to design a game “for the platforms of this moment […] and something that could bring everybody together while we’re isolated”.

He had initially pitched a similar concept but with horse racing: “I distinctly remember there being this, like, deafening silence.” But developer Joel Clark, a baseball fan, set them on the right path. “It is a game where we’re doing a lot of die rolls and playing with that randomness, and letting fans tell a story in that randomness.”

The game’s world is progressive, anti-capitalist, and ripe for fan theories. Recently, a player who spontaneously combusted in a previous season was brought back to life, and promptly started taking out other players with pitches to the head. As developer Stephen Bell puts it: “Normally sports are aggressively pushing an idea of what’s normal, and if you allow yourself to get weird people will be drawn to that and will run with it.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Technology

Why are 400,000 people watching AOC play the game Among Us on Twitch? | Twitch

Published

on

By

Hi Patrick, I keep seeing lots of screenshots of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez playing some game involving little Telly Tubby-type creatures. What’s all that about?

Hey Josh. So basically AOC (and Ilhan Omar, for a bit) is playing a video game called Among Us with some internet-famous people, and she’s broadcasting the whole thing live on the internet to anyone who wants to tune in!

How does the game work?

It’s a social deduction game like the party games Mafia or Werewolf, basically, but set on a spaceship or space base or something. Players are either normal players or an impostor. Players have to continually complete tasks to stay alive, while the murderer(s) stalk their ranks, sabotage the ship or murder players. But if a body is discovered, or players get suspicious enough, everyone gets together for a meeting and votes someone out. If there’s ever an equal number of impostors to regular players, the impostors win, and if all the impostors get voted out, it’s a victory for the normal folk. By the way, it’s common etiquette only to talk to one another in the meetings, so fast talking and frantic persuasion is the best path to victory.

So the premise of the game is to deceive and mislead people until you win? Sounds like politics!

AOC agrees with you – she basically said that verbatim, right after another player blatantly lied to her face and then proceeded to backstab her to win the game!

Why are they doing this?

Among Us is free on PC and mobile, so it’s a huge hit with the kids these days … and the teens … and the 20-somethings … basically anyone with a computer, an internet connection and a vague awareness of what Twitch is. AOC and Omar are pitching this as a way to get the ‘get out and vote’ message to a youth audience. Possibly they also just wanted to stream on the internet with friends, because that’s pretty fun.

How many people have been watching it?

Looks like they peaked at about 430,000 viewers, and it was at about 400,000 or so when they wrapped. That’s worldwide though.

Wow, that’s a lot of people. How many people usually watch Twitch streams?

Well, the record is about 628,000 when Drake was streaming with well-known streamer Ninja on Fortnite, but those are megastar numbers. Regularly popular streamers might pull anywhere from the low thousands to low hundreds, while regular folks without an already existing social media following might get 10 or so viewers – if they’re lucky.

Will it win new voters?

Probably not new voters – if you’re excited about Democratic celebrity AOC streaming on Twitch, you’re already four-fifths of the way to being a terminally online leftist in any event. But it could encourage more people to talk about the stream and about voting, and AOC was encouraging people to proactively make “voting plans”, voter suppression being what is in the United States, so it certainly can’t hurt.

Is this the first time politicians have been using video games to try to encourage people to vote for them?

I seem to recall multiple politicians, Hillary Clinton included, trying to get in on virtual MMO Second Life back when that was the next big thing, but that was mostly unofficial. Certainly this is the first I recall a politician even knowing how to play a video game at all, let alone exhibit some competence in it and seem genuine while doing so. Most gamers tend to see politicians, who are generally older and less tech-savvy, coming into their space as at least a little suspicious. Or to put in Among Us terms … a little suss.



Source link

Continue Reading

Breaking News

Shares