Downloads on my Surface for the sake of my vacation were the reason I resubscribed. Seems fitting it should be the reason I unsubscribe. I only worry about finding a good point of communication to let them know about this reason.

I had a lot of fun with my Vita even without hacking it. It had a longer lifetime than people realize, in part through digital sales and indie games that were planning to do PS3/PS4 releases anyway.

“We’d like for our software to ThingDo. Our team has estimated 4 weeks for this work. What’s your estimate?”
“Wait, you want to write it from scratch? Why not just plug in ThingDoer library?”
“…ah, right. Damn libs.”

What, you don’t like entering a fight only to lose all your HP in an instant to someone that spent 2000 hours grinding critical hit chance stats?

I upvoted you for at least naming a potential candidate, rather than vaguely saying “someone else”.

I have an idea for the practice that could help us better explore practical uses. Basically, a company may train an AI off an actor’s voice, but that actor retains full non-transferable ownership/control of any voices generated from that AI.

So, if a game is premiering a new game mode that needs 15 new lines from a character, but their actor is busy drinking Captain Morgan in their pool, the company can generate those 15 lines from AI, but MUST have a communication with the actor where they approve the lines, and agree on a price for them.

It would allow for dynamic voice moments in a small capacity, and keep actors in business. It would still need some degree of regulation to ensure no one pushes gross incentives.

So which would you consider crazier: The random Helldiver streamer, or:

I WANT TO LICK THE OCEAN

I get the impression “opening a file” is treated as a different action in Linux from “executing a file”. They don’t want the user request of “Oh, I guess I’ll look at this image” to accidentally result in a system takeover - so any “run this file” actions are more manual.

The postal service has recently been a victim of a lot of theft targeting checks. People are willing to rob postal workers at gunpoint for their box key. Then, thieves sift through all the letters for a chance of finding a check.

Worse, they have ways of “washing” the check to turn it into a blank check, and reuse it with a new amount and recipient.

Most people would be fine with this in the case of a home user duplicating one or two copies for his kids to watch and as backups. But we have seen whenever a rule permits something, someone will work out the MAXIMUM way in which they can abuse it for profit. Give them an inch, and they take a mile.

Ideally, we could have laws that are really finely built to be specific to that first scenario. But I honestly don’t know how you write those.

I think the issue is, asking people to set up PSN was the plan all along - and they somewhat ineptly realized months after their hit game’s release that caused a problem for Steam users not in PSN countries.

Xbox and EA all require accounts for their games too, but they’ve done that forever, and are a bit more territory-neutral.

Careful, if it’s only good enough to be GOTY that could get them fired. Gotta aim for them GTA 7 levels of success.

It’s a question of whether to reward a player that can see that the opponent is using rock, take a step back, start building paper, and send them out even if they take time doing it; versus a player that just super-optimizes building an army of rock to send against armies of paper, and give them the best chance of winning by perfectly kiting every attack on the field.

There’s certainly an argument that some groups would like the tournament of APM, but I think a lot of people didn’t bother with high level StarCraft because they saw Koreans clicking 15 times a second and figured they can’t keep up. It’s like how fighting games work to demonstrate they’re not rewarding button mashing.

My issue is less around changing the story, more around incompleteness.

They’re making the turnout of certain events hazy and mysterious to allow for multiple future turnouts, and let them keep merchandising certain characters. And, they’re letting the conclusion keep going for multiple games.

It’s more of a monetary strategy than a storytelling one. Notably, FFXIV sells each of its expansions, but each one has an ending that feels like a victory and a satisfying conclusion to a story even when it sets new things up.

What did they do twice?

There’s been one debacle based around PSN, as a service, only being available in certain countries, and Helldivers initially launching in others to simplify their launch.

As of yet, I could believe there are Sony execs that didn’t even realize such a gap existed for their PC releases, and are still deciding what they can legally do. (Premiering their service in new territories isn’t simple, and a lot of their PC investment, plus their multiplayer workings, might be based around the account expectations)

No matter how poorly thought Sony’s international release plan is for PC, that’s far easier to assume brief incompetence than malice around. Firing people who made a GOTY is a whole different level of evil.

No, YOU’RE the one claiming speculation. The null statement is “Without a PR statement, we don’t know who delisted the game”. The speculation was “We believe Sony delisted it.” It just means he’s not satisfied by any evidence in place. You don’t demand sources to make someone disprove a speculative.

According to new info, it did.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/arrowhead-ceo-says-helldivers-2-steam-situation-isn-t-looking-positive/ar-BB1mhic0?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ce142cde76b24fbb97e65a911400d60d&ei=13

Do NOT trust journalists using hazy sources like job postings, replies from support, or patent claims as proof of anything. There’s plenty of places looking to generate headlines and clicks.

No no no…

Support techs do not have access to insider industry information. They deal with dozens of region-blocked game support issues a day, and in 95% of cases that block was placed by the publisher. The tech is likely just using that term out of assumption and familiarity.

I’m not saying it’s impossible that Sony are the culprit, but a random support reply to an individual is not how we’d find out. It’s happened before that a Valve official puts out a correction to something support says.

EDIT: Seems like I was right.

They should have been part of the original restriction and it was noticed when the restriction was put in place for Tsushima. This was noticed and executed independently by Valve.

They were not misleading or miscommunicated terms. They literally banned negative subjective reviews.

So now they’re guilty of both controlling reviewers, and lying.