It was not originally for just the activation and licenses. Their plan was for it to launch as "always on". If I recall correctly, it was going to require phoning home every 24 hours; hence the outcry at the time and the infamous Keighley interview. They rolled back a ton of the stuff with that console that they said was a "requirement" for functionality. Regardless of whether it launched, if it wasn't for the outcry, they would have launched it. That's an entire console. I have a hard time believing they wouldn't roll out a "cloud only" game - you feel me?
flamingarms
joined 1 year ago
How would they even break up Steam? Separate their software and hardware development from the store? Can't imagine that making any real impact on their practices.
Last generation, Microsoft was trying to sell the Xbox One as "always on" and told Keighley that, if people didn't like it or didn't have internet, they could buy an Xbox 360. An entire console was going to roll out as always online. So, video game companies have already rebutted your argument themselves.
I've played a few hours of Ender Lilies. It's a metroidvania where you play a young priestess who is protected by spirits that you equip to attack for you. It's pretty, has solid music, and the combat so far has been pretty fun and well-balanced for me. Grow the shame pile...
But just because something existed before the Internet doesn't mean it doesn't still exist now. You say you're using pre-90s expectations, but it's a modern object still - so why would that help at all?
Saw the other comment about Linux and did some searching. Found it on Wikipedia; appears to be a window system for Linux or a protocol that enables a window system for Linux? Don't know enough about this stuff, but here's the link I found: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(protocol)
It should be noted that canvas is only one method of fingerprinting, so just randomizing that will not be enough to prevent fingerprinting.
Ok!
Ah, the arrogance of not knowing what you don't know. Except people are telling you that you are lacking knowledge of mergers, and you're still demanding that you're right. So now it's willful ignorance.
...they're talking about that ToxicAvenger person in this thread that you're replying to.
I may be off here because this is the first I'm reading about STAR, but it seems worse than instant-runoff ranked-choice voting because of the "top two candidates based on first results are the final two candidates". It seems like ranked-choice but broken to keep the States in a two party system.
For instance: Let's say there are 4 parties: blue, red, green, and yellow. Let's say the majority of people have red (27%) and blue (26%) as their top pick, so those are automatically #1 and #2. Green is a close third (25%). The remainder (21%) vote for yellow, then green, then red, then blue. STAR would say every other candidate is eliminated except Red and Blue, and then redistribute the other votes. Instant-runoff would say: eliminate yellow and redistribute based off their second choice. In this example, all those votes would switch to green and green would become first. Then blue would be eliminated, those votes redistributed, and then you'd have to see what would happen. Instant-runoff to me allows for the opportunity for a meeting in the middle - everyone potentially agreeing on their second choice; while STAR seems like it will just continue to encourage people to put their primary pick up top.