Apple’s new gaming subscription service Apple Arcade may have been a bit of a footnote at its Services event earlier this month compared to the stage time given to more prime time-ready efforts like Apple TV+ and Apple News+, but the company is throwing some major funding behind its effort to get people paying a monthly fee for exclusive titles.
The company has already set aside a budget of more than $500 million for its Arcade service, according to a report in the Financial Times.
The service, arriving in the fall, will let users play exclusive gaming titles across their Apple devices ad-free and offline. The titles will be free of micro-transactions, unlike many of the popular gaming titles on the App Store.
While the company has already reportedly spent more than $1 billion on its TV+ content service, the gaming subscription world marks another uncharted territory for Apple as it will put the tech giant in the position of curating with its cash by directly funding titles for exclusive launches on Apple Arcade. At its event, the company detailed that it will have more than 100 new and exclusive gaming titles launching as part of its service.
The report states that in order to receive funding from Apple, developers will have to eschew releases on the Google Play Store and refrain from taking part in other gaming subscription services. After a “few months” of exclusivity, developers will be able to release their games on non-mobile platforms such as PCs and gaming consoles. The company is focusing its efforts on funding indie titles as opposed to bankrolling AAA studios to create an exclusive epic.
As with Apple TV+, we’re still waiting on exact details regarding price and availability.
Quiz Khalifa aka Host Malone aka Trap Trebek aka HQ Trivia’s Scott Rogowsky has been …
The French 18th-century chemist Antoine Lavoisier is a complicated historical figure. Scientifically, of course, he is an undisputed giant, helping usher in the chemical revolution as the field shifted from a qualitative to a quantitative approach, among many other achievements. He was also a wealthy nobleman and tax collector for the Ferme Generale, one of the most hated bodies of the Ancien regime as the French Revolution gained momentum. Those activities added to his fortune, which he used to fund his (and others’) scientific research and to foster public education. But it’s also why he ran afoul of the revolutionaries in power during the infamous Reign of Terror; they beheaded both Lavoisier and his father-in-law on the same day in 1794 as “enemies of the people.”
Something of that complexity is evident in a new scientific analysis of the famous 1788 portrait, now housed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, of Lavoisier and his wife, Marie-Anne, by the Neoclassical painter Jaques-Louis David. The painting shows husband and wife posing with a collection of small scientific instruments—a tribute to their intellectual endeavors.
But cutting-edge analysis techniques have revealed that David originally painted a different version, without the scientific accoutrements, depicting the couple as more typical French aristocrats. He cleverly obscured the underpainting in the final portrait, most likely in response to the growing backlash against the aristocracy, according to a recent paper published in the journal Heritage Science. As the authors wrote in an accompanying online article for the Met:
In addition to modifications of existing formats and poses popular in 1780s portraiture, the overall development of the Lavoisiers’ portrait moved away from foregrounding their identity as tax collectors (the source of their fortune that allowed for such a luxurious commission) and toward underscoring their scientific work. It is, of course, the latter identity that is so clearly defined today and has helped perpetuate their fame both in art history and the history of science. But another identity has been quite literally concealed in the present portrait, and its revelation offers an alternate lens for apprehending Lavoisier not for his contributions to science but simply a wealthy tax collector who could afford the whims of fashionable dress and portraiture that sent him to the guillotine in 1794.
Antoine Lavoisier’s marriage to Marie-Anne Paulze—the daughter of Jacques Paulze, a colleague at the Ferme Generale—was actually arranged by the bride’s father. Apparently, a much older count wanted to marry the 13-year-old Marie-Anne, and Paulze couldn’t outright refuse without losing his job. So he persuaded the 28-year-old Lavoisier to propose instead. Marie-Anne proved to be an excellent choice and took an active interest in her husband’s scientific work. She became an excellent laboratory assistant, making sketches of his experiments, translating English scientific texts into French, and helping maintain meticulous records of the procedures used. She was also a charming hostess for the couple’s scientific soirées.
David was one of the most pre-eminent painters of this period, equally renowned in his field as Lavoisier was in science. David tutored Marie-Anne Lavoisier, enabling her to accurately sketch her husband’s various experiments, and was a guest chez Lavoisier on several occasions. So naturally, the couple commissioned him to paint their portrait. The finished product is considered a landmark of neoclassical portraiture. The Lavoisiers appear to be the very model of “a modern scientifically minded couple in fashionable but simple dress, their bodies casually intertwined,” the authors wrote in their accompanying article.
David’s portrait is remarkably well-preserved, which is perhaps why nobody suspected the existence of an underpainting until 2019, when the piece arrived in the laboratory of conservator Dorothy Mahon after a curator noticed some degradation in the surface varnish. Before she could remove the varnish, Mahon had to analyze the painting quite closely under a microscope to make sure any solvent mixture she used would protect the painting and not put her own health at risk.
That’s when she noticed bits of red paint peeking out in the area above Marie-Anne’s head and through the blue ribbons and bows on her dress. Mahon also noted dried cracks around the red tablecloth in the painting’s foreground. Clearly, a closer analysis was warranted.
As Silvia Centeno et al. point out in their paper, much of the technology this interdisciplinary team used to examine the painting is fairly recent and would not have been available to them when the Met acquired the painting in 1977 from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. First, the researchers used infrared reflectography (IRR) to peer through the upper layers of paint. A specialized camera enabled the imaging of the entire nine-foot-by-six-foot canvas. The resulting reflectogram showed evidence of a carbon-based black underdrawing and dark, unclear shapes hinting at possible significant compositional changes.
Next, the researchers employed macro X-ray fluorescence imaging (MA-XRF) to map out the distribution of elements in the paint pigments—including the paint used below the surface. That process took some 270 hours and produced a huge amount of data. It was Centeno’s expertise, supplemented with chemical analysis of tiny paint samples, that enabled the team to create detailed elemental maps for further study.
Back in January, when we attempted to explain the meteoric rise of GameStop’s stock price, we wrote a lot of words about the potential role of a short squeeze on what was happening. The theory was that a large number of short sellers were being forced to cover shares they had previously borrowed by buying shares at rising prices, thus helping to drive the price even further upward.
This week, a 45-page report from the Securities and Exchange Commission takes a detailed look at the situation and concludes that while “short sellers covering their positions likely contributed to increases in GME’s price… a short squeeze did not appear to be the main driver of events.”
Among the so-called “meme stocks,” GameStop was particularly susceptible to a short squeeze in January. That’s because the level of “short interest” in the stock—the ratio of borrowed shares to total outstanding shares—spiked to an unprecedented 122.97% (reborrowed shares essentially count a second time, which can drive the ratio past 100%).
For context, the SEC points out that “few stocks, if any, have short interest greater than 50% on a given date” and that “until recently, short interest of more than 90% was observed only a few times—in 2007 and 2008.” And while other meme stocks also had high short interest in January—Dillard’s came closest with a 77.3% ratio, followed by Bed Bath and Beyond at 66.02%—the SEC notes that “GME is the only stock that staff observed as having short interest of more than shares outstanding in January 2021.”
That extreme level of one-sided betting against GameStop’s stock price was ripe for disruption, especially once some bullish retail investors started driving the price up (partly in response to Chewy co-founder Ryan Cohen being named to the board of directors on January 11). And looking back at the individual trading data, the SEC found some evidence that short sellers covering their positions helped contribute to the initial stages of GameStop’s January price spike.
The report observes that “buy volume from participants identified as having large short positions” increased heavily starting January 22 and that “during some discrete periods, GME had sharp price increases concurrently with known major short sellers covering their short positions after incurring significant losses,” patterns pointing to a short squeeze. SEC staff also “observed discrete periods of sharp price increases during which accounts held by firms known to the staff to be covering short interest in GME were actively buying large volumes of GME shares, in some cases accounting for very significant portions of the net buying pressure during a period,” the report says.
What else was going on?
But while a short squeeze contributed to GameStop’s initial stock price spike, the report suggests that’s not the whole story. Buyers with short positions were “a small fraction of overall buy volume,” the report says, even during the biggest price spikes, meaning that other buyers were driving the bulk of the demand for the stock. And demand for GameStop stock was incredibly high during that period; as the report notes, “From January 13-29, an average of approximately 100 million GME shares traded per day, an increase of over 1,400% from the 2020 average.” Short sellers covering their positions were part of that, but they were far from the bulk of it.
In addition, the SEC notes that “GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned.” If this were nothing but a short squeeze, the price should have fallen back to earth once the short interest fell to more reasonable levels.
Valve says it has started the process of reviewing all of the tens of thousands of games in the Steam catalog for compatibility with the upcoming Steam Deck portable. The company is doing the review as part of a new informational program called “Deck Verified.”
Games that provide “a great smooth experience” and “work great on Steam Deck right out of the box” will receive a green “Deck Verified” check mark on the Steam store and library interfaces. They will also appear on the default “Great on Deck” tab when the Store is viewed on the Steam Deck itself. Games will receive that check mark if they meet the following criteria:
Input: Games must have “full controller support” and the ability to access all content using the Steam Deck controls, with no adjustments necessary. This includes the use of on-screen “glyphs” that match those of the Steam Deck buttons or those on the Xbox 360/One (many Steam games already do this for compatibility with console versions or console controllers). Any in-game text entry must be done using only the controller or an on-screen keyboard.
Display: Games must include native support for 1280 x 800 or 1280 x 720 resolution and include a default configuration that runs at a “playable framerate” on the hardware at that resolution (Valve has previously promised that “really the entire Steam library” can meet this threshold on the Steam Deck hardware). On-screen text should also be legible when the screen is held 12 inches from the face; Valve says this means no letter should be less than 9 px in height, though a 12 px height is recommended.
Seamlessness: Games shouldn’t throw up any compatibility warnings when running on Steam Deck, and players must be able to navigate any third-party launchers with the controller.
System support: The game must be compatible with the SteamOS natively or with the Proton compatibility layer that allows Windows games to run on the Linux-based system. This includes any middleware and/or anticheat software used in the game.
Games that don’t quite reach the Verified ideal can still earn a yellow “Playable” badge if they run but “require some extra effort to interact with or configure.” That includes game that require manual controller or graphics configuration on first launch, games with “missing or inaccurate controller glyphs,” and games where players need to use the touchscreen for whatever reason.
Other games will simply be listed as “Unsupported” on Steam Deck. Those include all virtual reality games and games that are incompatible with Proton for whatever reason (the latter group will have any compatibility issues logged by Valve to fix going forward). Games that haven’t yet been reviewed for Steam Deck compatibility will simply have their compatibility shown as “Unknown” in the Steam interface.
Let the reviews begin
Steam developers can request a Steam Deck compatibility review for their games manually, but some back catalog games which “Valve identifies… as important to Steam Deck customers” will be added to the review queue “based on automated heuristics.”
The review process should take about a week, according to Valve’s estimates (subject to demand), after which developers will receive “detailed point-by-point results” of the review. After that, developers will have an opportunity to fix any outstanding issues and request a re-review before the results are published. Otherwise, any results will be automatically published after a week. Titles will be re-reviewed “as the developer releases updates or the Deck’s software improves,” Valve says.
While players can hook the Steam Deck up to a monitor and use a mouse and keyboard with the hardware, Valve writes that “we believe most customers will be treating the Deck like a handheld appliance, most of the time.” The Deck Verified program will thus be focused on how games work when the Steam Deck is being used without any external peripherals.
Despite that, Valve’s developer guidelines make clear that “customers browsing the Steam store on Deck aren’t prevented from viewing or purchasing content that may not work well on their device… You’ll always have the option to run whatever you want on Steam Deck. After all, it’s your Deck.”
Back in 2013, when Valve first tried to target console gamers with its Steam Machine hardware initiative, we suggested that the company roll out a certification program to set minimum standards for which games would run well on the wide variety of SteamOS-based hardware. The Deck Verified program fulfills some of that promise and should make it easy for Steam users to figure out how much of their library will work with this new Steam hardware at a glance.