I can't find any list of what they actually released in 2024.

But dredge and blasphemous 2 are still pretty recent that they explicitly mention as back catalogue that make sense to be doing OK.

It's a collection of games you pick from a menu. The premise is that they're all from the same studio back then, but they're mostly standalone.

I've only tried a couple so far (the first couple) and they feel pretty basic. I guess if the theory is that they're progression in their development over time the more compelling stuff would be later? Regardless, I wasn't expecting 50 masterpieces, and they've made a point of communicating that they won't all be huge and heavily featured.

I'd definitely be interested in suggestions of ones that stand out though.

Edit: Mortol is the first one I can really see spending some time trying to master. It's a platformer where you have finite lives and need to kill yourself one of three ways to make a path forward for the next guy. I'm going on to new ones for now, but I like it.

Most of the stuff people think are RCS aren't though. They're proprietary extensions to RCS that only work on Google's text message apps, transmitted through Google's servers, with RCS junk as fallback for other services.

It's not actually meaningfully different than Apple doing iMessage with fallback to RCS now.

Intercommunication is still going to be bad because the standard that carriers support isn't where all the features are.

Photos without extremely well backed provenance are not and have not been credible evidence for a long time.

You realize that your article says it's a pipe dream right? Because even Google, pushing it, has no interest in actually supporting it in its tools, and neither does anyone else?

Advertising tracking is the primary space your privacy is invaded online. The fact that what phone you use is one of the most valuable data points they have that isn't "you actively being signed in somewhere that shares it" is the evidence that telling people what phone you have to share a photo is a massive privacy issue. Because what phone you have is a lot of information.

What device you use is one of the biggest data points advertisers and trackers use to fingerprint you across the internet. No, "I use a Google Pixel 9" does not, by itself, de-anonymize you, but it does make a big dent when combined with other information.

You keep talking about "proving the authenticity of an image" with something that does not even move you .00000001% towards an image being legitimate. It is literally zero information about that question in every possible context. It is, eventually, if you throw out every camera on the planet and use heavy cryptography, theoretically possible to eventually, in the future, provide some evidence that some future picture came from some specific camera, but it will still not be proof that what that camera processed wasn't manipulated.

You very clearly have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. This is all complete nonsense.

Anyone can write exif data to say anything they want it to. You "showing an image with earlier metadata" is completely arbitrary and doesn't tell anyone literally anything about which one is more likely to be "real". Again, it's not "weak" or "bad" evidence. It is literally not capable of being evidence.

RCS still sucks. It's a marginal improvement over MMS, and not more.

Basically all the stuff people actually care about are proprietary Google features because they had to use proprietary extensions and send everything through their own servers to make it work.

It's really not different than iMessage. It's no more open to any other messaging app or any other OS than iMessage is, and it isn't really capable of being so unless the standard improves.

No, you cannot use metadata as even extremely weak evidence that an image is real. It is less than trivial to fake, and the second anyone even hints at making it a standard approach, it will be on every photo anyone uses to mislead anyone.

Most photos on the internet are camera phones, and you absolutely are not entitled to know what phone someone has. Knowing someone's phone has infinitely more value to fingerprinting a user than including metadata could ever theoretically have to demonstrate whether a photo is legitimate or not.

Photos without a specific, on record provenance from a credible source are no longer useful for evidence of anything. You cannot go back from that.

A. It's not even the weakest of weak evidence of whether a photo is legitimate. It tells you literally zero.

B. Even if it was concrete proof, that would still be a truly disgusting reason to think you were entitled to that information.

The device is no more anyone else's business than anything else.

It should absolutely not be shared by default.