In my opinion, the best movies in the Marvel franchise so far. I'm eager to see this one. I'll be sorry to see it end, but I think the actors can be really proud of what they made.

18 a month seems really steep for the content Ubisoft can offer. Sure, there are some great games in there, but really? 18 a month? Game Pass is less and has a lot more games than that, plus if I take the time to collect points throughout the month I rarely actually have to pay any money for it at all. I don't think their expectations are very realistic.

Given how ready publishers and developers are to shut down the servers on any game that underperforms even the smallest amount, any game made that requires an online connection is a very poor investment. This lesson has been hammered home this year, with multiple shutdowns and closures of games. I'd also be willing to bet that, like always, the servers will not be up to snuff on release day and will prevent playing even single player during the first month. Game companies seem unable to get servers right, ever.

It's a shame, I was at least sort of interested in this game. Now, I'll be passing on it unless it shows up on Game Pass or Playstation Plus. Single player mode should never require anything more than a console or computer.

In the US, normally it is everyone pays their own lawyers out of their own money or with a percentage of the settlement. In some cases, legal fees and costs may be awarded, but that usually requires some sort of special condition be met. It's not automatic by any means. Contingency payments are actually very common in civil law, and it literally does mean if the client doesn't get paid, the lawyer doesn't get paid. That's a simplification of the situation of course, as some contracts with lawyers might still require the client cover costs or the like even if they lose, but it's the general gist of how contingency payments work.

I have nothing but the greatest of respect for Steven Spielberg. He is a great director and a fabulously creative man, with the drive and desire to make wonderful stories that thrill and uplift people. That said, he is also an artist. Not a bad thing, but it does lead him to seeing things more through the eyes of a creative, not a consumer. He keeps talking about the "social experience" of the theater, as though the venue and the process was part of the fun.

In an ideal world, he would be right. And maybe it once was that way, though it hasn't been to my memory. But can anyone really, honestly say that the actual theater experience, minus the movie itself, was fun?

Going to the theater was what you put up with to see the movie, not something you really want to do. The movie, the story and the visuals, that was what people wanted. Theaters, at least in my lifetime, were uncomfortable and dirty places, where the drinks and snacks were mortgage level expensive, and you had a fair chance of having some jerk talk though the entire movie and ruin the fun. But, they also were the only places to see the film on a big screen, with a clear picture and full sound, so I put up with them, for the sake of seeing the movies I wanted. (Actually, they were the only places to see the movies, period. I come from an age before VHS even, much less Blu-Ray)

Today, we have HD televisions, 4k and 8k are becoming common. Surround sound gives a full audio experience, and is very affordable to almost any budget. Even if you don't have that, headphones and even TV speakers are much, much better than they used to be. So, we have big screens, great sound and are able to sit on our comfortable recliner with some Pop Secret and a beer or soda with what friends or family we want, in a room we control the temperature in. We can pause the movie to use the restroom, or rewind if we missed a bit of dialog or want to watch a good scene again. We can stop it and come back to it if something comes up.

Streaming is much more affordable and much more user friendly than it used to be, and is so easy to access. On your computer, your smart TV, your game console, on a myriad of devices, if you have the internet, you have entertainment. Even if you don't have the internet, or it just isn't good enough where you are, you can still get DVD's and Blu-Rays, and players for those are easy to come by and inexpensive.

The so-called social experience Mr. Spielberg harps on exists only in his head, it never really existed. And now that our home theaters rival the local AMC, there aren't many reasons to go back. Again, nothing but respect for the man, but I just can't agree with his opinion in this case.

Seems a pretty underwhelming list.

@blaznwiipspman1: I'm like you, I'm not a fan of racing games, but for some reason, the Horizon games suck me in. They are fun, period. I don't really care what genre a game is if it's fun, that's the whole reason for playing games. FH5 is just flat out beautiful as well. The scenery is amazing, the cars look awesome, and being able to design your own paint and vinyl jobs can keep even creative types who really don't like racing busy for hours and hours. I'm not surprised at how successful it has been.

@sabredj: Not likely. They really don't much care, because they think (probably rightly) that even amongst those who really dislike this change (count me as one of them) very few will stop watching YouTube. I hate this idea, but I'm still going to go to YouTube for entertainment and information every day. They know this, so why would they care what the audience thinks? They only care what we actually do.

@bdrtfm: Big companies with legal teams regularly settle even when they have a decent case. Litigation is expensive as heck, for both sides, and the risk of losing even after spending all that money is a real thing. Both sides no doubt weighed the risk and costs of the case carefully, determined what the real monetary threat was, and both decided to compromise for a less definitive settlement than they might have gotten. In Scarlett's case, she got less than what she was asking for, but gets it immediately, not after years of delays. Disney pays less than they would have had they lost, and might be able to maintain relationships with a talent who has a huge draw, as well as avoiding further PR issues. They also avoid having their internal documents brought to light through discovery. If this had gone to court, Scarlett and her lawyers could have demanded they get a lot of Disney's private information as part of the case. Settling avoids any possibility of that.

And don't forget that in Disney's case, Disney may not have been able to make a unilateral decision on this. If there were insurance or bonding companies involved (insurance against litigation awards and the like isn't uncommon), they would have had strong input on the decision. Obviously, we don't know how Disney is insured, they may very well keep all that in-house, but it's a possibility.

Don't think that companies settle just because they know they will lose. They settle when it makes sense, money wise. I'm only surprised it took them this long to reach a settlement, was expecting this result from day one.

Hadn't heard anything about a sequel. This is the first I've ever heard about a mailing list. And, I'm sorry, I don't really want anything more hitting my inbox as it is. Mailing lists are a little 1980's, and if this is the best plan he could come up with to show interest for EA, American's creativity has fallen off.