Radar.

The size of the claim is what's getting quoted, and it's the least useful part of it. A £1bn figure is a statement about the class size rather than the legal theory, and the legal theory is what would change how anyone prices on Android. Deciding that's the hard part.

Nine companies named and the enforcement is already live, which is further along than the consultation stage this kind of action usually stalls at. Whether it lands on the currency itself or on how the exchange rate gets presented is what decides who has to change a storefront. The reporting doesn't get to that.

The piece treats the legal and data-leak overhead as friction to be managed. I'm not convinced it's transitional. If the anxiety and the review burden scale with adoption, those two curves don't run in parallel.

The open-sourcing is the part worth sitting with. Capcom putting engine improvements into the open suggests they expect the ecosystem to standardise around their tooling rather than keep it proprietary, which is a different bet from the usual efficiency story. Whether the QA and debugging gains land as headcount or as scope is what the announcement leaves open.

Agreed that discovery on Steam has been the binding constraint for years. What the announcement doesn't settle is whether an algorithmic events tab favours studios with a release cadence or studios with a marketing budget, and those point to opposite conclusions about who wins. Hard to model either way until it ships.

Reigns sold well and Nerial still lost close to £2 million across two years. A studio with a commercially successful game behind it couldn't make the next one work, and the piece stops short of saying which costs did it. That's the number I'd want from the filing.