There are plenty of anti-cheat measure that doesn't require invasive access to your system or performance hits. The objection is not to fighting cheating, it is with the specific overreaching methodology chosen to do so.
Also I personally rarely play multiplayer so it's even more frustrating to have bullshit installed on my system for a feature that doesn't even apply to me.
Sadly, a lot of their customers will be pissed about this but will be first in line buying other Rockstar games.
Then they aren't pissed enough. But yes, talking the talk is completely meaningless if you don't also walk the walk, I agree.
Companies like Rockstar certainly would meet any requests for refunds outside of very recently purchased with “Go kick rocks.”
If you let them, sure. The reason we use phrases like "fight for a refund" is because these things are hard and they take effort. Like yes it sucks to have to do that and yes I understand our time is valuable, but as I see it there is value in both having your voice heard and punitively costing an offending company manhours in having to deal with you - even if you ultimately do not win the fight.
Again, the point isn't about winning or getting your money back, it's about not being passive and just accepting the things that happen to you as if you do not have autonomy.
and demand refunds on any game that adds it after purchase.
The way I see it, adding it, even this late, is changing the terms of the agreement and thus justification for a refund. Steam will often see it that way too if you word it as such. And if not, hell, you can still badger the publisher for a refund incessantly so at least it still costs them the equivalent in man hours even if you don't get the refund. The point is not to be passive, even if we don't get to win every single battle.
Don't buy games with invasive user-side anti-cheats that hamper performance, and demand refunds on any game that adds it after purchase.
I don't understand why this is so hard for people. If everyone gave a shit, we could end this. But instead, people would rather just complain while still forking over the money to these companies.
There are so many good indie games without this kind of bullshit. We have better choices.
I'll accept the lowercase L (in my East Coast based US education we were taught liters should also be capital L, but that seems to either be flat-out incorrect or have fallen out of fashion), but googling images of the cans shows me no space between the number and the unit.
For real. Every single time I see an article about anything this jackass says, all I can think it "why are we reporting on the words of a liar?" Why are still playing this dumb game as if we can't read between the lines? Why are we still playing respectability politics as if any of this has been normal behavior of polite society? Can we please just start calling this shit what it is? Why isn't this headline just "Lying Man Lies Again"?
This misses what makes Star Trek special and what makes the Nu-Trek shows such a failure, in my opinion.
What make Star Trek what it is is that in a world filled to the brim with hopeless dystopian stories and prudent allegorical warning signs in story format, Star Trek offered a uniquely hopeful Utopian view of the future. No, things were not perfect, but it's clear that many of the trivial problems of our world as well as nearly all scarcity issues were effectively "solved."
Meanwhile, Nu-Trek seems actively and solely focused specifically on tearing down or critiquing that Utopian view. I'm not opposed to critical consideration of a property, in fact in most cases it's an excellent way to re-evaluate a property. But in the specific case of Star Trek all it really accomplishes is turning this uniquely hopeful thing of beauty into just another generic and cynical piece of mild social commentary in a field absolutely crowded with exactly that sort of content already.
I'm not precious about Star Trek, I'm not above the idea of critiquing and reevaluating it, but when doing so accomplishes only taking away what makes it unique so it becomes just another interchangeable piece of Sci-Fi in the crowd.... Well I guess I just have to ask "What was the fucking point?"
Yeah I'm sorry, but imo "Star Trek" ended in 2001. What we have after that is a bunch of fanfic and parody. No shame if you're into that, it has genuine appeal, but it's not for me.
Imo I think observing a crime like that but not reporting it (so more crimes can be amassed by that person) should be considered legal endorsement of the activity. You were aware of the infraction and chose not to report it or otherwise act on. That you were hoping to "bank" more crime from the criminal seems irrelevant to me - you chose not to pursue legal action even after clearly being aware of the infraction, which tells me you chose inaction.
But of course bringing our laws in line with morality and reason would require an enormous overhaul of the system, so instead we have this bullshit.
Not in the slightest. I'll happily talk dicks with you all day; I'm extremely sexually liberal.
But talking about dicks isn't the same as listening to a bunch of chud weirdos whining and crying about the world's least consequential issue that's they're only mad about because deep down they ignorantly think their tiny dicks would be bigger if they hadn't had their foreskins stolen.
Again, it's just a weird fucking thing to focus on. Bring it up when the topic comes up, of course, but to fucking insert it in conversations as if it's relevant, as was done in this post, will always be weird.
But hey, if you wanna talk about dicks for fun, I'm game. Mine curves slightly to the left, how about you?
I think we'd have to take a poll from the general population and compare it with a poll from an anti-circumcision group and compare it to be sure.
My guy, please be for fucking real right now. There is a difference between an unfounded claim and an outlandish one. If I said "all of the smartest people on earth believe Poland borders Peru," we wouldn't need a study or poll to confirm I was full of shit, we could just reasonably deduce it. Likewise we don't need a survey to tell us that any man who genuinely tried to bring up circumcision as tantamount in the abortion conversation would be rightly laughed out of serious consideration.
Again, I acknowledge you aren't wrong and I will acknowledge both abortion and circumcision exist under the same very broad umbrella of bodily autonomy, but frankly the scale and scope of the two are so wildly and enormously different as to instantly render any attempts at comparison moot.
And honestly, I really think that you know this too. I truly believe that if you can divorce yourself from your personal investment in this topic, you will also see what an absurd comparison that is.
Perhaps, and I'll admit this is overthinking a silly comic, but it seems to me that the coffee is a given assumption and it is only the addition of poison which is variable, so I think any implications of the coffee are entirely incidental
To the first point, I'd argue that men centering themselves in the discussion which largely centers around attempts to remove bodily autonomy from women only hurts, not helps the cause.
To the second point, it has come up a few times, but yes, the reason I said "leave this on reddit" was preemptive,before the problem migrates here from reddit where the topic is rampant is insanely zealous most often.
It's a dick topic of extremely minimal consequence in the grand scheme that just makes spaces like this looks like a bunch of dick-obsessed weirdos complaining because their dicks are too small.
Like I said, you're not wrong on the topic, it's just being so focused on the topic in the first place is fucking weird.
Where did I even remotely imply otherwise?