Only a quarter of US iPhones are sold through Apple
September is now an unofficial free iPhone bonanza. | Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge
A new report from CIRP says that only about 24 percent of recent iPhones purchased in the US were sold directly by Apple. Instead, the most popular way to buy a new iPhone was through a wireless carrier, which accounted for 67 percent of sales. That’s certainly a perception shift from the time of lines around the block at the Apple store on launch day, but it’s not at all surprising given how aggressively AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile now promote iPhone giveaways every fall.
CIRP (Consumer Intelligence Research Partners) surveys iPhone buyers to find out which models they’re buying and where they’re shopping — information Apple doesn’t disclose. Outside of carriers and Apple retail, CIRP attributes 4 percent of iPhone sales to Best Buy and 5 percent to “other,” which includes Target and Walmart. Those are just tiny slivers of the pie compared to the gigantic piece wireless carriers are eating.
None of this is entirely surprising. In the US in particular, carriers have a lot of advantages when it comes to phone sales. For starters, there’s a wireless store on every street corner in this country, while Apple stores are far less easy to come by. It’s also likely that many people are just used to buying phones from their carriers, so that’s where most people start when it’s time for a new iPhone — not Apple’s website. So even though Apple and Best Buy offer deeply discounted iPhones with carrier activation, they struggle to overcome the inertia that carriers have accumulated.
Taking the free phone deal from their carrier seems to be the path of least resistance for most of us in the US. And who’s to blame anyone for taking a free phone when a loaf of bread costs roughly half your paycheck? If you do take your carrier up on an aggressive upgrade offer, just remember to read the terms carefully, know how long the repayment plan is, and be sure you’re happy sticking with that wireless company for the duration.
Xbox boss: Sony wants to ‘grow by making Xbox smaller’
Photo illustration by William Joel / The Verge.
Xbox chief and Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer says Sony’s opposition to the Activision Blizzard deal comes down to the PlayStation maker wanting “to protect its dominance” in consoles. “The way they grow is by making Xbox smaller,” said Spencer in a recent Second Request podcast (Via Eurogamer).
Sony has been opposed to Microsoft’s $68.7 billion deal to acquire Activision Blizzard, and has focused on the future of Call of Duty in filings with regulators. “Sony is leading the dialogue around why the deal shouldn’t go through to protect its dominant position on console, so the thing they grab onto is Call of Duty,” says Spencer. “The largest console maker in the world raising an objection about the one franchise that we’ve said will continue to ship on the platform.”
Microsoft has reached a 10-year deal with Nintendo to make Call of Duty available on Nintendo consoles if the Activision Blizzard deal closes. That could potentially lead to Call of Duty releasing on Nintendo Switch for the first time.
Whether Call of Duty arrives on Nintendo consoles or Xbox Game Pass hangs in the balance right now, after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a legal challenge to try and block Microsoft’s plan to buy Activision Blizzard. Regulators in Europe are also closely examining the deal, with the EU on a March 23rd deadline to complete its in-depth investigation and issue a decision. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is also performing a deeper review of the deal.
WhatsApp’s ‘View Once’ feature might expand to include text messages
Photo by Thomas Ricker / The Verge
WhatsApp’s “View Once” feature, which currently lets you send photos and videos that disappear after the recipient has viewed them, may soon also support standard text-based messages. WABetaInfo reports that it found evidence of the in-development feature in the latest beta version of WhatsApp’s Android app, which might one day let users send messages that are only viewable once before disappearing into the ether.
Much like the current “View Once” feature, the new functionality could one day be useful for sending sensitive information that you don’t want a recipient to have ongoing access to, like a password or credit card details. In fact, when WhatsApp announced the launch of View Once for photos and videos, it used the example of someone sending a photo of their Wi-Fi login details as a case where it might be useful. It’s not hard to imagine this same information being sent in the form of a disappearing text message.
WhatsApp already offers a disappearing messages feature which allows you to set every message sent in a chat to disappear after a set period of time. But the new “View Once” feature would only apply to a specific message rather than a whole conversation, and would have a message disappear after it’s been viewed, rather than after a set period of time.
As it stands, WABetaInfo reports that the feature may one day be accessible via a button in the app that has the traditional send message logo on it combined with a padlock. But since the feature is in-development, and currently isn’t even available to beta testers, this design may change before it’s officially released.
WhatsApp currently prevents recipients from being able to screenshot a piece of view once media if they’re using the most recent version of its app, but it’s unclear whether this same protection will be extended to text messages.
A spokesperson for WhatsApp declined to comment on WABetaInfo’s report on the upcoming feature, so it’s unclear when, or even if, it might be officially available.
The Game awards: three patience-testing hours of video game advertorials
By focusing on the near-future of the industry, the honours failed to adequately celebrate its present
The high point of the ninth annual Game awards arrived within its first 15 minutes. A charmingly unkempt Al Pacino arrived on stage to present the award for best performance, quickly admitting that he neither played “a whole lot of video games” nor could read the teleprompter especially well. Still, he managed to hand the gong out to actor Christopher Judge for his electrifying performance as Kratos in God of War Ragnarök. Dressed in a sparkling gold suit, Judge began his moment in the sun by hugging the Hollywood star. This was just the start of a further 10 heartfelt minutes on stage, the actor relaying the personal anguish he went through leading up to the game’s production. As the minutes wore on, the show’s producers seemingly began to fret about the night’s schedule, eventually playing orchestral music in an attempt to hurry him along. Yet this only made Judge’s words more epic – all the more affecting.
Judge’s time on stage was a rare moment of spontaneity and personality in a three-hour awards show otherwise sorely lacking these ingredients. Creator, host, and producer Geoff Keighley, had promised a “streamlined” runtime compared with its predecessors, and so Judge’s extended appearance left less time for other winners. However, this year’s glitzy event continued to show the extent to which the Game awards lack balance. The length of time given to the awards and their winners was dwarfed by that allocated for what the show calls “world premiere” trailers of new and announced games. The awards should be a celebration of the year’s interactive excellence yet the evening demonstrated the extent to which it remains fixated on a hype-filled future, often to the detriment of the creators it purports to recognise.
US agency moves to block landmark merger of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard
Regulators voted 3-1 to stop the biggest acquisition in video game history, citing concerns over thwarting of competition
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has moved to block Microsoft’s takeover of video game company Activision Blizzard, citing concerns that the deal would thwart competition by denying rivals access to popular gaming content.
Microsoft, which owns the Xbox video game console system, said in January 2022 that it would buy Activision for $68.7bn, which would make it the biggest gaming industry deal in history. Activision is the maker of popular games including Call of Duty and World of Warcraft.
Elsewhere, NASA’s Orion spacecraft successfully returned to Earth over the weekend, splashing down in the Pacific Ocean on Sunday. Although this Artemis I mission was uncrewed, NASA hopes that will change with an upcoming 2024 flight that’ll send a group of astronauts around the Moon.
Finally, although 16GB has long served as the default amount of RAM recommended for most PC games, Returnal’s upcoming port looks set to buck the trend if its Steam listing is to be believed. The listing lists 32GB of RAM as the recommended amount for decent performance, though you should be able to scrape by with 16GB as a minimum.
And now, here’s a silly tweet:
absolute madman has claimed his front and center solo seat for Avatar 2 the day it opens at the biggest IMAX in town pic.twitter.com/ZoCJ53TKLT
Returnal is coming to PC, but you’ll need 32GB of RAM to play comfortably
Returnal demands more RAM than even Microsoft Flight Simulator. | Image: Sony
Sony’s Returnal is the latest PlayStation exclusive to make the jump to PC, but it comes with a hefty RAM recommendation (via WccfTech). While you’ll need a minimum of 16GB of RAM in your rig just to get it in a playable state, Returnal’s Steam listing recommends at least 32GB to get the most out of its gameplay and graphics.
Returnal is a third-person roguelike shooter that features undeniably stunning visuals, but it’s still not clear why the game demands so much RAM to unlock its full potential. The rest of the system requirements seem pretty normal for a game ported from a next-generation console, as you’ll need at least an Intel i7-8700 or AMD Ryzen 7 2700X CPU, along with an Nvidia RTX 2070 Super or AMD RX 6700 XT GPU or better to meet its recommended specs.
However, a leaked video of the game (which has since been taken down) might shed some light on the high RAM recommendation. As noted by PC Gamer, the video suggests that Returnal could include support for both Nvidia’s DLSS and AMD’s FSR upscaling technology, ray-tracing for both shadows and reflections, as well as unlocked framerates.
Mikael Haveri, the brand director at Returnal developer Housemarque, appears to hint at some of these perks in the Sony blog post announcing the PC port. “For our PC version there will be an array of PC specific tweaks and upgrades to make sure that the experience is as fluid as possible,” Haveri explains, while adding that more details about this will become available “later.”
Even if Returnal does support ray-tracing and upscaling technologies, it still doesn’t explain what it does differently for Sony to recommend 32GB of RAM as a baseline. Both Marvel’s Spider-Man: Miles Morales and Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered support ray-tracing and DLSS, but only their highest ultimate ray-tracing options require 32GB of RAM. Otherwise, you can still play both games comfortably with just 16GB of RAM.
In addition to Returnal, Sony also announced that it’s bringing the PS5 exclusive The Last of Us Part 1 remake to PC next year. Sony hasn’t revealed the required specs for this game yet, so we’ll have to wait and see if the company ups the RAM recommendation on this, too.
The developer who unlocked 90Hz on the Pixel 6A needs help finishing the project
Photo by Vjeran Pavic / The Verge
Remember that Pixel 6A mod that unlocks a 90Hz refresh rate? Well, the developer behind it, Nathan Brooke (aka Lunarixus), just made the changes public in hopes that other developers can finish off the tweak.
In a post on Twitter, Brooke includes a link to the project on GitHub and says that he just doesn’t have enough time to work on it. The mod activates a seemingly untapped 90Hz refresh rate on the budget-friendly Pixel 6A, which would otherwise ship with a 6.1-inch OLED display running at 60Hz. While The Verge’s senior editor, Sean Hollister, confirmed that the mod does work, there are a few caveats.
Note: Green tint is not fixed, this is why we never released it officially, you won't notice green tint on max and lowest brightness, only in the middle, my hope is other devs can figure out how to overwrite the gamma table and finish this off, the rest is stable.
For one, some users report seeing a green tint on their displays when trying the mod, but that’s something Brooke and his team hope other developers can fix. “The screen tints the exact way high refresh rate OLED panels do when they’re not correctly calibrated,” Brooke tells The Verge. “I know it is fully possible to overwrite these tables but I don’t have the time to work on it myself so I open-sourced the driver edits so that other developers can work on it.“ Brooke adds that you shouldn’t notice the green tint when the display is on the max or lowest brightness; the problem persists when it’s set in the middle.
The process of installing the mod is still pretty complicated, and if you do actually get it to work, we don’t know whether running the higher refresh rate affects the device. It’s still not clear whether the 90Hz option is software locked, or if the mod just overclocks the device, something developer Kuba Wojciechowski pointed out on Twitter a couple of months back. The Verge reached out to Google to see if the Pixel 6A’s display really does support 90Hz, and we’ll update this article if we hear back.
Hopefully, we’ll get some solid information about any possible effects on the device once more developers start diving in. Brooke tells The Verge that developers will eventually “be able to release their own kernels with improved versions” of the driver, so we’ll just have to stay tuned for a finished product.
Ex-Theranos executive Sunny Balwani sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison
Term slightly longer than one given to Elizabeth Holmes for defrauding investors in now-defunct blood testing firm
Sunny Balwani, the former Theranos executive and ex-romantic partner of Elizabeth Holmes, has been sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison over his role in the now-defunct blood testing firm.
The sentence is slightly longer than that given to Holmes, who was his accomplice in one of Silicon Valley’s biggest scandals, just a few weeks ago.
Toilets spew invisible aerosol plumes with every flush. Here's the proof Every time you flush a toilet, it releases plumes of tiny water droplets into the air around you. These droplets, called aerosol plumes, can spread pathogens from human waste and expose people in public restrooms to contagious diseases.
Twitter relaunches blue tick service with higher price for iPhone users
Users willing to pay $8 on the web or $11 a month via Apple’s app store will get more prominence on the platform
Twitter is relaunching its subscription service on Monday, offering users verified status for $8 (£6.50) a month or $11 a month on their iPhone.
The move follows a botched revamp of the service last month that resulted in a host of impersonator accounts appearing on the platform as some users took advantage of the chance to launch bogus “verified” accounts for major companies and public figures.
What was Dracula really like? 550-year-old clue to life of Vlad the Impaler emerges
Scientists are hoping ‘historical biomolecules’ on a 15th-century missive written by Vlad Dracula, the inspiration for Bram Stoker’s vampire count, will reveal more about him
On a dark and stormy night in May this year, exactly 125 years to the day that Bram Stoker published the definitive vampire novel, two people pored over a document more than 500 years old in a room in Transylvania – signed by Dracula himself.
Gleb and Svetlana Zilberstein’s mission? To extract genetic material from the letters written by Vlad Dracula – the historical inspiration for Stoker’s vampiric count – left there by his sweat, fingerprints and saliva.
Elon Musk’s $8 Twitter Blue subscription is coming back with phone number verification and a higher price on iOS
Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge
Twitter’s relaunching its Blue subscription on Monday, one month after abandoning a chaotic first attempt that spurred hoax accounts and general mayhem.
As reported previously, the subscription will cost $8 per month to purchase on the web or $11 per month via the iOS App Store to make up for the up to 30 percent commission Apple takes off of in-app purchases. This time, anyone paying for Blue who wants to display a “verified” checkmark on their profile will need to register a phone number first, and changing your “handle, display name or profile photo” will remove the label until your account is reviewed again.
we’re relaunching @TwitterBlue on Monday – subscribe on web for $8/month or on iOS for $11/month to get access to subscriber-only features, including the blue checkmark pic.twitter.com/DvvsLoSO50
In a thread on Twitter, the company says subscribers will get access to the blue profile checkmark along with a number of features, including the ability to edit tweets, upload 1080p videos, and access reader mode. The company lists fewer ads and prioritization in search and replies as “coming soon.”
Esther Crawford, the product manager at Twitter, says the company’s adding the phone verification requirement before users are granted a blue checkmark to combat impersonation.
Last month, The Verge’s Alex Heath reported that Musk told Twitter employees he wouldn’t relaunch Blue until the company’s “confident about significant impersonations not happening.” In addition to requiring Blue subscribers to provide a verified phone number, Musk previously said accounts will “be manually authenticated” before the blue checkmark appears on their profiles.
Concern as US media hit with wave of layoffs amid rise of disinformation
Wider economic uncertainty is behind cuts at companies including CNN, BuzzFeed and Gannett, executives say
A wave of layoffs have hit the beleaguered American media industry as several major companies, including CNN, BuzzFeed and Gannett, have laid off hundreds of workers in recent weeks citing economic volatility and uncertainty.
The job losses are the first major slate of cuts since the beginning of the pandemic, when a handful of companies laid off workers over the unpredictability of Covid’s impact on the economy. As the economy rebounded with the introduction of the Covid vaccine in 2021, the news industry saw the lowest number of layoffs in years.
The New Chat Bots Could Change the World. Can You Trust Them? Siri, Google Search, online marketing and your child’s homework will never be the same. Then there’s the misinformation problem.
Stellantis is blaming EVs for its upcoming Jeep layoffs
One of Stellantis’ EV concept vehicles. | Image: Stellantis
Stellantis, the company behind Fiat, Dodge, and Jeep, has announced that it plans to halt one of its plants and lay off 1,200 workers come February. Its reasoning? Pressure from COVID-19, sure, along with a dash of chip shortages — but mainly all those electric vehicles it has to make.
The factory in question is one that builds Jeep Cherokees in Illinois, and the news comes as the automaker is gearing up for union negotiations. While United Auto Workers argues that “the transition to electrification also creates opportunities” at the plant, an unnamed Stellantis spokesperson told CNBC and The Wall Street Journal that it was instead the reason for the halt. “The most impactful challenge is the increasing cost related to the electrification of the automotive market,” the company claims, adding that it’s exploring other uses for the plant, and that it’s trying to find jobs for the workers it’s laying off.
But let’s back up for a second — one of the world’s largest automakers is saying it has to shutter a plant indefinitely because of how much electrification is costing? That’s a bold claim, especially since it’s coming from a company I’d consider to be in distant third in the big three American automakers’ race to move their lineups from gas to batteries. It also doesn’t help that Stellantis has been promising quite a few electrified Jeeps, and it’s hard to see why this factory couldn’t play a role in making those vehicles, at least one of which is due out next year (and many of which have been very difficult to find).
This isn’t to say that Stellantis isn’t spending big on EVs — it’s promised to split an up to $3 billion bill with Samsung for a battery factory in Indiana, and it’s investing $4.1 billion in a similar facility located in Canada, this time with LG. But that’s not an unthinkably large investment compared to some of its peers: GM is spending a whopping $7 billion on one of its three EV battery factories in the works, Honda’s helping build a $4.4 billion plant in Ohio (and spending $700 million more to retool existing facilities), and Ford has announced it’s building three EV-related locations with a price tag of over $11.4 billion.
Ford’s an interesting comparison, though, because it also went through a recent round of layoffs, cutting around 3,000 jobs. No prizes for guessing one of the excuses it gave employees; “We have an opportunity to lead this exciting new era of connected and electric vehicles,” read a memo from CEO Jim Farley and chairman Bill Ford. “Building this future requires changing and reshaping virtually all aspects of the way we have operated for more than a century.” That, of course, meant cutting jobs.
It’s too early to say whether EVs are going to become a common scapegoat if the auto industry keeps carrying out layoffs, but now we have at least two companies trying to paint thousands of peoples’ livelihoods as the cost of the future. (EV-native companies like Tesla or Rivian, which have also had their own massive rounds of layoffs this year, don’t have that luxury.)
FTC Sues to Block Microsoft’s $69 Billion Acquisition of Activision The move by the commission signals an aggressive stance by federal regulators to thwart the expansion of the tech industry’s biggest companies.
Sunny Balwani, No. 2 Theranos Executive, Is Sentenced for Fraud Ramesh Balwani, the former chief operating officer of the failed blood testing start-up, was convicted of 12 counts of fraud in July.
Indiana Sues TikTok for Security and Child Safety Violations The lawsuits are the first by an American state against TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, in a sign of mounting legal pressure.
Disney Plus with ads isn’t a very good deal
If you want the cheapest tier of Disney Plus, you’ll be suffering through some ads. | Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge
Disney Plus’ new ad-supported tier, Disney Plus Basic, is now available, which means I’m back for another blog about what ads look like in your streaming services. The tier itself didn’t surprise me too much; if you’ve seen ads on other web videos, actually watching Disney Plus’ ads won’t feel much different. But the service’s new pricing, including a price jump for no ads, means the ad plan isn’t a very good deal.
Any ad content on Disney Plus is noted with a little “Ad” box in the bottom-left corner of the screen with a countdown showing how much longer you’ll have to suffer through it. You can pause an ad, though you can’t fast-forward through it. On the progress bar for whatever you’re watching, you’ll see little notches marking where you can expect ad breaks.
In a browser, if something about an ad has really grabbed your attention, you can click a small “Learn More” text box to be directed to a related website. This option wasn’t available in the ads I watched on the iOS app.
Screenshot by Jay Peters / The Verge
Here’s an ad I saw on the first episode of Andor.
Unlike Netflix’s ad plan, which I tested in November, the volume of Disney Plus’ ads per show or movie was generally predictable. Typically, there’d be ads at the beginning of whatever I was watching, and then there would be two ad breaks in the middle. That wasn’t always the case; Avatar and three Star Wars movies had no ads at all, while Avengers: Endgame and Turning Red had three mid-movie ad breaks. I obviously wasn’t able to check the entirety of Disney Plus’ vast and ever-growing library, so there’s always a chance the ad load may differ for you.
Sometimes, even though a video’s timeline showed I was at a spot where there should be an ad, the show or movie I was watching just kept on playing. I didn’t see any ads on content geared toward younger kids or on anything I watched while testing a kid's profile, though that’s in line with what Disney said would be the case.
One thing Netflix was upfront with about Basic with Ads was that some shows wouldn’t be available to watch. On Disney Plus Basic, as far as I can tell, you get access to all of the same shows and movies that are on the no-ads tier.
Besides ads, Disney Plus Basic has a few other downsides. But if you want to download shows to watch them offline, that’s not an option. (Offline viewing is also unavailable in Netflix’s ads tier.) And for some reason, the Disney Plus Basic isn’t available on Roku devices or the Windows Desktop app, according to a Disney support article.
In short, Disney Plus with ads is pretty much what you’d expect from Disney Plus with ads. But the value proposition is a bit different than it is with Netflix. At $6.99 per month, Netflix Basic with Ads is a new tier that’s cheaper than the $9.99 per month Netflix Basic. Disney Plus Basic, on the other hand, costs $7.99 per month and replaces what’s now known as Disney Plus Premium, the ad-free version that just got a big price bump to $10.99 per month.
This is where I should disclose that I am freeloading my primary Disney Plus account from somebody I know. (Thank you!) If they cut me off or Disney cracks down on password sharing like Netflix is, though, I would pay the higher Premium price so I could watch The Mandalorian and Loki’s second seasonwhen it’s out next year without commercial interruptions.
Diablo IV finally gets a release date and performance by Halsey
Image: Blizzard
Days after the first impressions of Diablo IV hit the internet, Activision Blizzard has announced the game will release on June 6th. The game also got a brand new trailer premiering during tonight’s Game Awards broadcast featuring a brief performance by Halsey. Unfortunately, because of all the blood and demons, you’re only going to be able to watch the trailer directly on YouTube.
Hideo Kojima’s next game is Death Stranding 2
Norman Reedus in Death Stranding 2. | Image: Kojima Productions
Death Stranding is back. Hideo Kojima revealed his next game at the Game Awards this evening — and yes, it still has creepy babies. Death Stranding 2 will once again star Norman Reedus and Lea Seydoux and it looks just as strange as its predecessor, at least based on the debut trailer. It also appears that DS2 is a working title right now. The game doesn’t have a release date but it’s coming to the PS5.
The developers of Celeste debut the first trailer for their next game, Earthblade
A screenshot from Earthblade. | Image: Extremely OK Games
Extremely OK Games, the makers of the beloved indie platformer Celeste, shared a first trailer for the studio’s next game, Earthblade, at The Game Awards 2022 on Thursday.
In Earthblade, you play as a character named Nevoa as you explore a “free-roaming, dynamically-loading map,” according to an email sent shortly after the trailer debuted. The game has 2D pixel graphics to Celeste, but Earthblade looks to take place in a more fantasy-inspired world.
Image: Extremely OK Games
The main character from Earthblade approaches a mysterious mirror.
The trailer doesn’t reveal too much about the game itself, but the email has a few details about what you can expect. “We think that this ‘seamlessness’ will likely be Earthblade’s defining feature, and it is related to why we hesitate to call this game a ‘Metroidvania,’” Extremely OK Games’ Maddy Thorson wrote in the email. “It does feature character growth and progression — your moveset is not static as in Celeste — but structurally it doesn’t feel quite right to promise something that fits nicely in line with those storied Metroids and Vanias.”
Earthblade was first shown in April 2021 in a limited “vibe reveal.” At the time, it was listed with an extremely vague “20XX” release date, but at The Game Awards, Extremely OK Games said the game will be released in 2024.
Among Us’s hide ‘n seek mode will be out on December 9th
Image: The Game Awards
Among Us’ Hide ‘n Seek mode finally has a release date, and it’s coming really soon. You’ll be able to play the new mode beginning December 9th, developer Innersloth announced at The Game Awards 2022. Innersloth first announced the mode in 2021, and it seems like a delightful new reason to jump back into Among Us if you haven’t played in awhile.
The new update won’t just have Hide ‘n Seek; Innersloth also says it will add new “surprises to survive from,” new cosmetics, the ability to pet your pets, and... screaming? The new additions mean I’ll probably be jumping back in with my friends and family over the holidays.
️ EMERGENCY MEETING ️
our official Hide n Seek mode is coming out extremely soon on all platforms Dec 9 2022
new surprises to survive from
a beanload of new cosmetics and pets
pet your pets!!
screaming
The new update is just one big expansion to the Among Us universe since the game became super popular during the early days of the pandemic. The VR version of the game released just last month, and it looks quite fun, too.
How to watch The Game Awards 2022
Geoff Keighley is once again hosting The Game Awards. | Photo by JC Olivera / Getty Images
It’s almost time for gaming’s annual end-of-year awards and announcements extravaganza. The 2022 edition of The Game Awards takes place on Thursday, December 8th, and the opening act kicks off at 7:30PM ET / 4:30PM PT. While the show itself takes place live at the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles, you can stream the event for free on platforms like YouTube and Twitch. For a more detailed list of where to stream the show, check The Game Awards website.
We don’t know exactly how long The Game Awards will be, but host Geoff Keighley said in a Twitch stream that the main show will last about two and a half hours. That’s a good thing, if you ask me; the 2021 Game Awards, including pre-show, was a nearly four-hour event.
Depending on where you watch The Game Awards, you might be able to win some free stuff. If you catch 60 minutes on Twitch, you can earn perks like the Geoff Keighley Among Us mask and a digital copy of the original Rogue Legacy. Valve is giving away a free Steam Deck every minute of the show if you watch it through Steam.
The Game Awards is technically an awards show, but the main draw is the expected deluge of gaming announcements that help set the stage for 2023 and beyond. While most announcements are still under wraps, you can expect news about games, including Among Us, Tekken 8, Baldur’s Gate 3, and Star Wars Jedi: Survivor. There’s always the chance we get updates on some games teased at last year’s event; perhaps we’ll hear more on Alan Wake 2.
I’m looking forward to the event, and it sounds like Keighley is, too. In a Reddit AMA, he said he hasn’t “felt this good about a show in a while.”
Update December 7th, 12:12PM ET: Added link to The Game Awards’ website detailing where you can watch the show.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney thinks ‘every politician should fear’ Apple’s power
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney. | Illustration by Laura Normand / The Verge
Sweeney says he’s willing to go to the Supreme Court to fight Apple’s control of the App Store. But first, he’s hoping Congress will act before it’s too late.
The clock is ticking for Tim Sweeney.
As the CEO of Epic Games, no one wants to see the Open App Markets Act become US law as much as he does. If passed by Congress before this lame-duck session ends and Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January, the legislation would force Apple and Google to let developers distribute apps outside of their respective stores and also use other in-app payment providers. It would be a seismic moment for app makers like Sweeney, who argues that the App Store of today is “strangling the digital economy.”
But the fate of the bill hangs in the balance. Even though its lead sponsors, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley, have been saying for months that it has the votes it needs to pass, it’s unclear if Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will hold a floor vote before the end of the year. Meanwhile, Apple and Google have ramped up their criticism of the proposed legislation. Tim Cook himself was recently in Washington, DC, meeting with key lawmakers.
Since Epic sued Apple and Google alleging antitrust violations in August 2020, Sweeney has regularly thrown darts at the two gatekeepers on his Twitter account. He leaves his most pointed attacks for Apple, which he recently tweeted was “a menace to freedom worldwide.”
After seeing a tweet of his on Wednesday on the subject, I messaged Sweeney to see if he’d be down to chat. A few hours later, we were on a Zoom call, the full transcript of which is below.
The first phase of Epic’s argument against the App Store was focused on the business implications, complaining about Apple’s market dominance at a time when antitrust was a hot topic among Democrats. Now, as Republicans rail against a perceived curtailing of free speech by Big Tech, Sweeney is joining the growing chorus that sees Apple’s control over iOS app distribution as a societal problem.
To Sweeney, Apple’s ability to reject apps like Twitter is something “every politician should fear,” no matter what side of the aisle they’re on. “I think it’s incredibly dangerous to allow the world’s most powerful corporation to decide who is allowed to say what,” he told me. Elon Musk recently personified this concern by dragging Apple into the culture wars for allegedly threatening to ban Twitter from the App Store — an insinuation he has since walked back on.
We covered a lot of ground in our conversation, including why Fortnite isn’t coming to VR anytime soon, why he thinks it’s a lost cause to build a new mobile platform, and the revelation that Epic last year submitted an iOS version of its games store for PCs and consoles that Apple never approved.
The submission to Apple App Review was made in late April 2021, right before Epic and Apple went to trial, according to Epic spokesperson Tera Randall. A spokesperson for Apple, Marni Goldberg, confirmed that the Epic Games Store developer account was shut off in December 2021 after the court ruled that Epic had breached its Apple developer contract.
Here is where I’ll do a self-plug and note that if you want to read more stuff like this, you should sign up for my upcoming newsletter:
Anyway, here is my full interview with Tim Sweeney, the transcript of which has been lightly edited for clarity:
I’d like to jump right in with what you tweeted today, what I DMed you about,the tweet sayingthat “Apple and Google astroturfers and lobbyists are out in full force” to oppose the Open App Markets Act from potentially being pushed through by Congress before the end of the year. Do you think they’re winning?
I think we’ll only know when there’s a Congress vote or a lack of one. They certainly brought vast resources to bear onto the problem with their army of lobbyists and trade groups that are opining and lobbying and constantly injecting really false statements of the tradeoffs in the platform into the public discourse.
What I don’t understand about the ‘App Store being better for security’ argument specifically is that the Mac is open.
Exactly. We know, everybody knows, and every programmer at Apple knows that it’s the operating system kernel that provides the security. It prevents apps from accessing data and services they aren’t allowed to access. And that’s why macOS and iOS are incredibly secure operating systems.
The app store layer on top of it doesn’t provide security. And we know from the Epic v. Apple trial that Apple reviewers spend an average of six minutes of human time looking at each app and that these are app enthusiasts who are not engineers or security analyst analysts. And so, it’s incredibly clear that app review and the monopoly App Store do nothing to improve platform security.
Apple’s argument that resonates with me the most as a longtime Apple user and watcher like yourself is that they built the platform, they invested billions of dollars into it, and they’re entitled to a return on their investment and their IP. Do you see any kind of logic to that argument? Can you sympathize with that at all, even to this day?
Yes. And I think we need to look at the argument in comparison to the other monopolies that were stopped by antitrust regulations, such as the railroad monopolies. Yes, Apple built the iPhone hardware and they designed iOS, and they deserve to earn a fantastic return by selling their devices with their operating system, as did the railroads deserve to earn a fantastic return by profiting from selling railroad tickets and transportation services.
But what they cannot do under the law, and under any principle of fair competition, is Apple cannot use its control over the hardware and operating system to impose trade restraints on related markets. Apple prevents other companies from establishing competing stores on iOS. That’s similar to the railroads blocking the oil refineries from shipping their products on the railroad in order to take over those related industries.
And it’s these ties, right? The antitrust law calls these situations ties, when a company uses its monopoly on one product or service to force you to use another product or service and to prevent other companies from competing to provide a better product or service. That’s the core problem. Not Apple profiting from selling their hardware. They utterly deserve every penny of hardware profits that they make.
How much time have you been spending lately talking to US lawmakers about passing the bill?
I’m not close to the lawmakers. I don’t think I’ve talked to a legislator in the United States in the past six months. Except for when I post on Twitter. [Laughs]
I was curious if you’d talked to Senator Chuck Schumer because,based on the reporting I’ve seen, it seems like he has been mostly responsible for stalling the bill. And I’m not quite sure why.
Well, perhaps it has something to do with the vast amount of lobbying that Apple and their associated lobbying and trade groups are doing to prevent the legislation.
Republicans, they take control of the house in January. If the bill isn’t passed before then, what do you think happens to it?
I think there’s something in antitrust enforcement for everybody, regardless of partisan political views. Apple’s monopoly, it truly is strangling the digital economy. They’re strangling the app market, they’re strangling the music market, they’re strangling the TV market. And this has implications in a lot of ways.
It’s inflating the prices of all digital goods that Americans purchase. Apple is using its control of these markets to restrain speech of different platforms, so free speech advocates are really concerned about that, about the world’s most powerful corporation controlling the means of communication in particular.
There are general fair competition are arguments all around. Consumers and developers in all 50 states are hurt by Apple’s policies. And the entire US economy would be a lot more efficient if Apple’s bad practices were stopped. And if Apple’s bad practices aren’t stopped, then the situation could get considerably worse.
If you look at Apple’s arguments made in Epic v. Apple in their defense, Apple holds that they can impose any terms and conditions on any app without any limits whatsoever. So, right now, they tax all digital goods transactions at 30 percent, at least in many categories of apps. They could decide next to tax all physical goods purchases at 30 percent or 15 percent or some percentage and, therefore, demand a percentage of all Amazon’s profits.
So far, they’ve only imposed these restrictions on apps and not blocked websites, but Apple, under its antitrust theory, could block websites. Apple could demand that to regain access to their web browser, these websites have to pay Apple a percentage of their revenue under Apple’s own stated theory and their own antitrust defense. So, they can do anything. And over time, they’re doing more and more, which suggests that they’ll stop at nothing that they think they can get away with.
Yourecently tweetedthat monopoly “control over the digital economy and online discourse infringes the rights of all Americans.” What specific rights does it infringe on?
Well, two things. You really have to look at the enlightenment period, in which the basic foundations of modern democracy were established: the 1700s when European philosophers and American philosophers really wrote down the fundamental principles of rights. And one of these rights is the right to share our ideas with others and hear the ideas of others. And if one corporation decides what ideas people are allowed to share with each other, they’re not going to use it only for benign or altruistic purposes.
Every time you give any party that level of control, they quickly turn it to a profit maximization strategy. In countries where there are no protections on freedom of speech, politicians use their power to shut down all competing political parties. That’s been Russia’s playbook for the past 20 years.
And in a corporate environment, what does that mean? Apple having further political influence by deciding which politicians are allowed to speak through its control of the app distribution channel. And also, deciding what commercial speech is allowed in a platform. For example, through the App Store, Apple does not allow developers to tell their own consumers that they can save money by buying their items on the developer’s website.
I mean, it’s one thing for Apple to claim that it’s not allowing apps to spread misinformation, whatever that is and whoever’s opinion that might be based on, but here’s Apple preventing true statements from being made by developers to consumers. They’re greatly in the consumer’s interest. The district court shot that down as an illegal practice, and the issue is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court with the stay on the injunction that the court issued. But there are really fundamental rights that are key to the liberty of our society on the line here.
Ron DeSantis recently attacked Apple for Elon Musk’s claim that it threatened to ban Twitter from the App Store, and it’s unclear exactly what conversations Musk has had with Apple. To me, that seems like sentiment, especially on the right, is maybe shifting toward this argument you’re making that this is actually becoming also a speech issue. What’s your take on that situation and kind of what DeSantis was saying?
I think it’s incredibly dangerous to allow the world’s most powerful corporation to decide who is allowed to say what. And right now, this is seen as a Republican issue because the tech companies are Democrat-leaning, and so Republicans fear that this control over speech that Apple imposes will hurt their political prospects. But if the tech companies were right-leaning — and now we have an example of one that appears to be in Twitter — everybody’s going to be afraid of it for the politically opposite reasons.
Liberals have every bit as much reason to be concerned about corporate control over speech as conservatives because if suddenly Apple found itself with a deeply conservative CEO who was on a power trip, it could just legislate that social media apps aren’t allowed to host speech by Democrats. Apple in its own claims of its rights under the antitrust law said it has the right to make those sorts of policy decisions. And so every politician should fear the rise of corporate power that Apple is creating. And the risk to America is far, far, far greater, five orders of magnitude greater than the amount of the political donations they’re making. They are really trying to buy off the American political system in a corrupt bargain to protect their marketing power and their ever-increasing profit stream earned at the expense of everybody who builds apps and content that’s consumed digitally.
I’m curious to hear if you think that maybe what could happen is that the market itself could actually regulate this. Where, yes, Apple has a stranglehold on its own platform’s distribution right now, but if it were to go that direction you said and do something drastic like what you said, do you not think that consumers are in a position to vote with their dollars? Elon has saidhe would make another phone, for example, if it came to it.
Consumers are in no position to vote with their dollars here because there are two monopolies. One hundred percent of all smartphone users that are either outside of China are either governed by Google, which is Android’s terms of service, or Apple’s terms of service. One hundred percent domination by two companies, and they’re largely operating in lockstep. They have some superficial policy differences but they are both doing the same illegal things in the same general illegal ways.
If you switch to an Android, you’ll just face the exact same lockstep policy enforcement by Google. And over time, Google’s and Apple’s rules have been converging closer and closer together. You have to look at that and say that there’s intention. Whether or not they’re holding secret meetings where they decide how to lock out competition and further their joint duopoly, they’re doing that in practice and that must be stopped.
Elon agrees with you that Apple and Google’s fees are too high. He’s tweeted about it. I’m curious, have you talked with him about this or Apple at all since he took over Twitter?
No. I talked to Elon Musk once a few years ago, but nothing about social media.
What do you make about his feud with Apple that kind of played out recently? Apparently the beef has been squashed after he met with Tim Cook. I don’t know exactly what happened, but observing it from a distance like I am, I’m curious what you’ve made of it.
There’s an old parable that ends with a wise man saying, “We’ll see.”
All right, your legal battle with Apple then. It’s been a long, messy battle. And so far, I think, it’s mostly been Apple winning. Your antitrust case is being examined now by the appeals court; after that, it will probably go to a lower court or even to the Supreme Court. The judges so far, they don’t seem very sympathetic to the argument that the App Store should be totally open, and the judges have seemed relatively in favor of Apple’s view that there’s a pro-consumer reason for maintaining the store the way it is.
And I think Apple has actually been emboldened by this. They havestarted taking a cut of boosted social media posts, basically taking a cut of advertising from apps like Meta’s for the first time. Do you think that they’ve been emboldened by this?
Personally, I can’t imagine what’s going through Apple’s mind. At a time when they’re under unanimous criticism by all of their ecosystem partners, software developers, and content makers and media companies and politicians and antitrust regulators, they’re rapidly increasing their control and revenue extraction and self-preferencing. It seems a little bit crazy to me.
The judges were clear that even if the store was opened and alternative payments were allowed, Apple could still charge a fee. They’re doing this in South Korea, for example, where they’re still taking commission of 26 percent. And with Xcode, they could literally just charge you to run code, to run binary on their phone, no matter what. So I’m curious what happens if Apple is forced to open up distribution but Epic and other developers, they still have to pay the potentially double-digit percentage for in-app payments somehow. Is that enough for Epic?
In the district court trial, Tim Cook said that if Apple couldn’t charge 30 percent by controlling payments, that they could just move their monopoly rent to license fees and continue on. And at one point, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers echoed that sentiment. But, I mean, Epic certainly doesn’t think that’s allowed under antitrust law. And again, if you go back to settled antitrust cases such as the railroads, they are prohibited not only from attaching restrictive monopoly conditions — horizontal restraint on competition, using their power in one market to foreclose on a current position in another market — but they are also barred from using their monopoly power to extract unlimited rents from other markets and to effectively smother them in a slightly different way. And whether Apple collects 30 percent of the payment processing fee, the largest in the history of the world, or they try to impose it as a software licensing fee, it’s the same thing.
It’s a monopoly rent imposed on a related market by a monopolist in a primary market. And to be more specific, they control the hardware market, and they’re using that to impose a rent on the payments market and an absolute monopoly on the independent app distribution market. And antitrust law says you can’t do that. And in particular, antitrust law says you cannot do that even if it’s pro-consumer. And in some restrictions of trade that monopoly is imposed, there’s a balancing test where you have to ask if the anti-competitive effects of the practice are outweighed by pro-consumer benefits. That does not apply here. And I’d refer you to the arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court, that what Apple is doing is simply outright illegal without any balancing test involved.
Do you plan to take the case to the Supreme Court if you have to?
Certainly, if Epic intends to take this as far as possible and necessary to achieve victory, and I believe Apple does, too.
And so we could reasonably expect that, whatever the ruling of the Ninth Circuit, that the decision would likely be appealed, and then it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide to hear or not. It’s the appellate court has to take an appeal so this sort of case from the District Court, but the Supreme Court does not so it would be up to them.
What would it take for you to settle with Apple? Is there any settlement they could possibly give you that you would accept at this point, that isn’t exactly what you’ve asked for?
It’s the same thing it was in 2015 when I asked for it and the same thing that we asked for in 2020. Epic would settle for, and only for, unfettered ability of developers — it’s not just Epic but all the developers — to compete in the app distribution market. And freedom of developers and consumers to engage in direct distribution where consumers can download apps from the developer’s website, and the unfettered competition in payments for in-app purchases. And all of that with no monopoly rents extracted from revenue generated by apps after they’re sold or downloaded for free from the App Store. In other words: eliminating all of the monopoly ties.
And what we’re asking for is how this should have been, how the iPhone should have been established when it was first released. That is how all platforms, all general computing platforms, should operate. It’s how Windows operates, it’s how macOS operates, and this should just be an established foundational piece. And so Epic is not conducting any sort of elaborate negotiation here. We are simply going to fight as long as it takes to get to what we’re asking for. And if Apple would settle for that, we would settle it today.
In the meantime, I’m curious, how has your iOS app review process been lately? Are you aware of any holdups?
You mean with respect to apps that we’re-
To Epic’s apps, yes. Because, for example, a common tactic Apple uses, as you know, is to hold apps up in review. How has your iOS, as far as you know, app review process been since this whole trial started?
Well, several things. On the developer-facing apps that we distribute on iOS, such as the RealityCapture tool, various Unreal Engine support pieces, and then the Bandcamp app distributed by Bandcamp. Apple has not departed from their ordinary processes in any way we’ve been able to observe. And so we don’t have any concern that we are treated unfairly with respect to those products.
So far undisclosed, Epic noticed that both Valve’s Steam PC game store and Sony’s PlayStation store distributed apps on iOS, which were able to sell games for those platforms, and because they’re selling games that don’t work on iOS but run on PC and PlayStation, that Apple allowed that and didn’t block those apps and didn’t block their ability to accept direct payment. And so Epic Games built the Epic Game Store app for iOS as a PC game store distributing our own PC game apps, and we submitted that to Apple for review. And they replied just outright rejecting it based on their unilateral ability to decide what apps are allowed on iOS and without reference to any actual App Store rules. They were not going to accept the Epic Games PC game store app as an iOS app.
When was this?
It was the first half of 2021.
Interesting. I’m curious what you think about the metaverse as a platform these days. You seem ideologically aligned with Meta and how once its VR platform operates. Do you see yourself collaborating with them more, like bringingFortniteto Quest?
We’re a very open company. We’ll partner with any company on metaverse collaborations and open metaverse efforts in any way that we can be productive with them. And that applies even if we’re not aligned with other parts of the business.
So, that’s a yes?
We work with any company in any way. Epic has no plans to build a VR version of Fortnite. Not out of any grand business strategy, but just because the thing that we do in Fortnite every day as gamers is run through an environment rapidly, and it’s the kind of experience that involves intense motion and doesn’t work as well in VR. And so if we were to ever do anything in VR, it would have to be something that’s really custom tailored for the experience. And it’s not that we have any negative view of that. We just have 101 things to do.
I’m glad you mentioned that because I was curious for you personally.. I don’t know when you made the mental leap to go, “I’m going to make this fight a priority with Apple, and I’m going to really go to the mat over this.” I’m curious, in hindsight now, do you regret it? Has there been a level of distraction that you wish you hadn’t had from all the other stuff you have to do on a daily basis? As a CEO and managing a large company, how do you balance this fight that you obviously feel very passionate about with everything else you have to do?
No, it’s one of the things I’m most proud of in my whole 31 years in the gaming business is actually taking on this fight for the principles of open platforms to underline the industry. It’s an incredibly painful and expensive process but also an absolutely necessary one. If we didn’t fight this but we did succeed and achieved all of our wild dreams in building an open metaverse, then we’d end up with an open metaverse where Apple and Google extract all the profits for themselves and leave developers who are doing all of the creative work fighting for crumbs underneath the table.
So, no regrets. And we expected this was most likely to be a really protracted fight that would ultimately be decided either by the Ninth Circuit Court or by the Supreme Court and might have to be fought on multiple continents — as we are fighting on multiple continents — and might take many years.
You’re in it for the long game? There’s no amount of time that could pass where this fight doesn’t become worth it for you?
No, we will fight on to victory, whatever it costs. And I say whatever it costs, I truly mean whatever it costs. If Fortnite is forever designed access to iPhone, then Epic will lose the metaverse war because we just won’t be able to compete there at all for that billion users.
And Google’s policy also, while they don’t block all competing stores entirely, they disadvantage them so extensively that we don’t think that we have an opportunity to compete on Android fairly, either. And so that locks us out of the large majority of the world’s software-capable devices until there’s a victory on some front. And victory is... there are many paths to victory. I think prevailing in court it’s just one of them. Regulators prevailing is another, legislators prevailing is another. Third parties could prevail and change the conditions of the whole industry. There are many paths by which this could come about. Or Apple could wake up one day, and the CEO at Apple — whether it’s a current one or anyone — might decide, “We’re on the wrong side of history and we just need to change all of this.”
This has not caused you to look down the stack of tech like [Mark] Zuckerberg and decide you need to build your own platform from the ground up, has it?
I think if you want to build a competing smartphone platform, you’re not competing with the smartphone of 2006 when they first debuted. You’re competing with the smartphones of 2022 and beyond. You should expect to spend at least $20 billion building a new hardware and software platform and at least 10 years creating the thing. Such a long period of time that by the time you get to that, you might find that the world has changed to augmented reality or some other completely different paradigm and your investments all wasted. And then after this decade passes and it’s 2032, you’ll find 100 percent of the world’s smartphone users are still locked into Apple and Google. They’re locked in much harder because they’ll accumulate that much more purchases and iMessage contacts and other things, which are utterly locked into the platform. And you’ll find that without a $100 billion 10-year marketing budget, you won’t have a chance to compete in that industry, either.
And so I think you’re going to be out the greater part of a trillion dollars just to have the chance of that. And furthermore, unless your end product isn’t so much better than Apple and Google products that people are willing to abandon all that and switch, you lose it all. And there’s not a single company in the world that’s willing nowadays to take on that level of investment. And even if Epic wants to do it, it couldn’t possibly raise enough money to do it. How do you raise a half trillion dollars? End up with investors owning 99 percent of the company and gaining what? So I think, you have to look at that and say like, “They’re not building more railroads now.” The economic system won’t make it possible to build new ones, and they’re not going into smartphone platforms anymore.
And I think we’re stuck in a world where the only way the economy isn’t completely taken over by these companies is if antitrust regulation prevents them from taking their honestly earned monopolies in the hardware market. And using the dishonesty seize control of the store market and the payments market and the music market and the film market and every other market that’s developed in contact with that device.
Zuckerberg thinks he can invent a new platform and that we’ll shift to eyewear and headsets. It sounds like you don’t agree, or you think that phones will still be dominant in a decade. Is there a world where Epic could invest in the hardware platform like Meta is and that could give you some leverage to potentially have your own destiny, so to speak?
Well, I think that augmented reality is the platform of the future. But it’s very clear from the efforts of Magic Leap and others that we need not just new technology but, to some extent, new science in order to build an augmented reality platform that’s a substitute for smartphones. And it’s not clear to me whether that’s coming in 10 years or in 30 years. I hope we’ll see it in my lifetime, but I’m actually not sure about that. Because augmented reality has to project images in your field of view, compellingly and realistically, and it has to somehow mix and mask them with your view of the real world. And it has to be acceptable as everyday, all-the-time eyewear. It has to be no bigger than the human glasses and no heavier than that.
And that requires solving problems of optics and manufacturing, which nobody knows how to solve yet. It’s like going back to the 1980s and saying, “Hey, why don’t we build a 30 billion transistor chip?” It’s like, “Well they were building 10,000 transistor chips, and you better sign up for 40 years of research work to get to that point.” And that’s augmented reality, right? Virtual reality is no substitute for a smartphone. It’s a helmet you put on your head to immerse yourself in the ether, and that’s not going to be a device for billions of users, and it’s not going to be something you’re going to carry around with you everywhere you go.
Windows 11 is finally getting a built-in screen recording tool
The Snipping Tool will get a screen recording feature soon. | Image: Microsoft
Microsoft is finally bringing a built-in screen recorder to Windows. The Snipping Tool in Windows 11 will soon be updated to include screen recording, meaning Windows users won’t have to rely on the Xbox Game Bar or third-party tools just to record their screens.
Windows 11 testers will start getting access to the updated Snipping Tool today, and the new record option will allow you to record an entire screen or even a section that gets cropped. The update comes more than four years after Microsoft first introduced a new screenshot experience for Windows.
“We know that Snipping Tool is a favorite among the Insider community, so we are very excited to introduce a built-in screen recorder with this update!” explains Dave Grochocki, principal product manager lead for Windows inbox apps. “Snipping Tool has always made it quick and easy to capture and share content from your PC, and with screen recording built-in, we are expanding these capabilities to even more types of content.”
Image: Microsoft
The region selection feature.
The region selection feature will make it useful for those who just want to capture an app instead of their entire display. The Xbox Game Bar has been good at just recording individual apps, but there’s far less control over exactly what you’re recording there.
Microsoft has only just started testing this with Windows 11 testers in the Dev Channel, so it’s likely some weeks or months before this Snipping Tool is released to everyone using Windows 11. Still, it’s great news that Windows will finally have a built-in screen recorder.
Unsocial hours: the best video games to play in ‘goblin mode’
Draw the curtains, pull up your weighted blanket and hunker down with these cosy sims, expansive fantasies or, for actual goblins, subterranean dungeon crawlers
Earlier this week, “goblin mode” was announced as Oxford’s word of the year, bringing a new level of awareness – and hopefully acceptance – to this previously misunderstood and maligned lifestyle choice. It is defined as “a type of behaviour which is unapologetically self-indulgent, lazy, slovenly, or greedy, typically in a way that rejects social norms or expectations” (also known, throughout lockdown, as simply “existing”), though the exact parameters of the term have been much discussed. But one thing is certain: video games are the perfect goblin mode entertainment. They can be enjoyed from bed, they require little energy and yet they simulate a lot of real-world activities so you can at least pretend to be a functioning member of the human race.
But not all games are suitable for goblin mode. Pokémon Go is an absolute no-go (you have to go outside) as are Just Dance (you have to stand up) and driving sims such as Gran Turismo 7 (waaaaay too intense). It is important to play games that complement your slovenly state of mind. Here, then, are some perfect picks for those dank, dungeon-dwelling days of duvet exile.
Labour calls for crackdown on rip-off UK Christmas broadband and mobile ads
Watchdog must stop misleading ads locking consumers into deals up to £240 more than thought, says opposition party
Labour has called on the advertising watchdog to fast-track new rules to protect consumers from misleading marketing that could encourage them sign up to mobile and broadband deals this Christmas that will cost them hundreds of pounds more than they expected.
The call follows the closure of a consultation by the Committees of Advertising Practice (Cap) – which writes the codes that all UK advertisers have to follow when running ads in any media – investigating whether telecoms companies are clearly telling consumers about looming price rises in their campaigns.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24279810/Screenshot_2022_12_09_at_9.37.12_AM.png)
Screenshot by Jay Peters / The Verge
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24277937/Earthblade___Game_Awards_Reveal_1_32_screenshot.png)
Image: Extremely OK Games
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24277402/ST_RecordingSetup.png)
Image: Microsoft
