the launch of the game was very poorly received. they had pre-made videos sold off as actual gameplay and the worlds and space were very shallow. it wasn't anything they had promised. they have spent over a decade rectifying that.as someone who didn't refund I'm happy now, but it was a very rough and rushed launch.

If purchasing isn't buying, how can it be stolen? Seems like a pretty self defeating stance regarding "piracy."

HBO next! you pay for "Ad free" but then get bombarded with ads for their own shows and mobile slop games.

Apple TV has entered the room.

I don't understand this logic, just existing means you genocide someone and it's illogical.

I'm NOT supporting the OP, but I thought that maybe what's he's saying is somewhat similar to the following position: according to some basic principles of economy (at least as I know them), all resources are limited. Therefore, by taking up enough resources to "just exist", you may prevent someone else from existing, essentially "killing" them - because there's not enough resources for two of you. Alternatively, if you consider a larger scale - because economic resources in the world are limited, the USA has one of the wealthiest middle classes in the world, while millions of people in Africa are starving to death, and those who don't are suffering from diseases that could easily be cured by advanced US medicine.

But (an important "but"), first, while resources are limited, there may be enough for all of the humanity (probably; at least that's what I think, maybe I'm wrong), so by using some resources to "just exist" you're not killing someone else because they still have some resources to just exist as well - so in terms of individuals this logic may, maybe, apply to billionaires but not to people who "just exist"; and second, it's not all that simple, and while there's some "grain of truth", the real world is a bit more complex.

If there's one thing we can be sure about it's that people starving in Africa are not starving because an American got themselves a new lawn mower. This type of discourse may have worked 30 years ago, but not anymore.

> If there's one thing we can be sure about it's that people starving in Africa are not starving because an American got themselves a new lawn mower.

Exactly what I think, personally.

Telegram has a major issue with bots and bad actors though. They paywalled privacy features making it truly a terrible experience for users. 3-10 per day random messaging you.

Can't say I have had literally anyone ever message me on telegram. And I have been a daily user for years.

I get occasional spam - I'd guess it's because you've never joined a public group or shared your handle anywhere?

I indeed never have joined a public group and never shared my handle with non-people I know.

It's especially bad when you have a public username that is also kinda popular. They made "hide chat and mute for unknown contacts" free at least...

If you join public groups with a lot of users you end up on a bunch of spam lists and get smashed by bots.

I don't know I have straight up calls for violence against jews on my TikTok pop up and when I report them, TikTok almost always comes back with "No Violations Found"

It was the "greedy corporate fucks" entirely though?

LANs empowered gamers with full ownership and a better ability to self organize player communities and tournaments. The always online model was heavily hamfisted by Activision Blizzard who wanted to launch their esports ambitions with SC2, seeing the KR broodwar scene as missed revenue. Look at the failed Overwatch League (OWL), Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone and even reforges of classic RTS.

DOTA/League spawned from lan/bnet use map settings games and arguably Dota rise to success started in Lan cafes before hitting mainstream success on bnet.

I acknowledge that many likely don't ship Lan because it's being seen now of days as extra, but I think that's pointing to the consequence as the root cause what the major entities wanting control and ownership on their platforms. It didn't used to be an extra feature 0.1% used, we were pivoted into this to profit larger corps and it's not a tinfoil hat conspiracy, it's just following where the real money was and investors want to be middlemen on platforms.

It's bad because it takes someone's job? However, that job was mundane petty work that seniors didn't want to bother with. Were cars terrible for taking all of those stableboy jobs? Is Excel or data engineering terrible for the obliteration of data entry and low level bookkeeping jobs? Or is it not just a slippery slope argument, when what's happening is IMO evolution of tech? IMO People will adapt. While it's up to any event organizers to decide their rules, AI witch-hunts are a Luddite response. AI/LLM can be major tools in the belt of indies to dethrone AAA. I'd like to be clear that I'm arguing in favor of tooling such as the example of placeholder usage and a pipeline to remove it. I wouldn't defend a scumbag leveraging AI to ripoff another game, artist, or dev. It just seems like the lines are being blurred to justify AI witchhunts.

The game industry, especially AAA, is actually having major identity crisis right now as technology evolves and jobs adapt around the new tool of AI/LLMs. The game awards (not indie) should demonstrate this dolphin committee you fear already exists because the limiting factor in all industries are major resources: time, capital, experience. AI/LLMs will enable far more high skill work to be accomplished with less experience, time, and possibly capital (sidestepping ethics/practicality of data centers).

Pay a bunch of money to Disney+ to watch any popular release and get terrible streaming quality and functionality. It makes complete sense to me why consumers would toss their hands up and find better and more accessible options.

I believe the issue is Visa PayPal, and Mastercard are capitualating to interest groups bombarding them with complaints and then celebrating censorship on social media posts. I agree with your sentiment, it's ridiculous.