Eh, they deserve a little hostility.

Last time I fired up a game I owned on steam that required the ubi launcher was a few years ago now and it was really bad then. Like to the point of it automatically creating a new account for me and forcibly linking it to my steam profile despite it not being the account I already had with ubisoft from a registration I had created on an Xbox console previously. It permanently divided my library between multiple ubisoft logins and made accessing the right one really annoying. Their support wouldn't let me refund or even migrate the title to the correct account and they made it an even further inconvenience by not letting me unlink my steam profile from my (wrong) ubisoft profile without writing in a physical letter for some stupid reason. Something to do with purchase history not overlapping with the steam profile or honestly I don't even remember anymore but it was more than enough to no longer want to do business with them.

If it's improved to the point that it's just a pop-up I'd be willing to consider them again. I really don't want to support ubisoft themselves but I'd love to support Prince of Persia games. If any other studio owned the IP I would have bought it on release day

They are making progress by not delaying all of their releases on steam but man that launcher is a nuiscance.

I was too hostile to the company in my last message, honestly I used to enjoy their games. And in general I enjoy the types of games they produce. I'm a sucker for open world stuff but I stopped buying their games when they started trying to emulate the EA strategy of remaking the same game every year and inflating dlc.

I'll happily welcome them back into my library when they drop the launcher component and lean in to steams networking features for easy coop and such.

Just the other day my buddy and I were looking for a coop open world action game with decent combat, he stumbled onto ghost recon wildlands or maybe it was the sequel but either way once we saw it was ubisoft we moved on to look for other title and ended up choosing an entirely different genre despite that being what we were looking for

Ubisoft is in the hotseat because they let their suits have too much power over the games they produce.

I am a fan of the prince of persia series and based on the reviews I'd seen I was really interested in this title. But their absolute refusal to participate in the steam ecosystem and insistence on pushing their launcher means that I, as someone who values my own time, am not going to bother with their nonsense.

They don't understand their customers anymore. Not well enough to shift the direction of their company's initiatives. They deserve to fail even when they do manage to produce fun and interesting games because they are bad at the business aspects of being a game publisher/developer.

Yeah I mean obviously all these people must be wrong. It is a masterpiece whether you vibe with it or not but I just don't see how it comes off as repetitive to someone.

Reasonable assumptions are a fundamental requirement for communication. It's not that you are wrong in what you are saying. There is a chance that the poser of the question made a visual representation of the triangle's sides appear to be complementary and appear to construct a straight line across their bases while not actually definitively indicating them as such.

The way these triangle's are represented is already skewed so perhaps that is what they are trying to do.

The thing is though, at that point they are defying convention and reasonable assumptions so much that they aren't worth engaging seriously because it's flawed communication.

The version people are choosing to answer seriously is equivalent to a guy holding up a sign that says "ask me about my wiener to get one in a flash for free!" while standing next to a hot dog stand. If you ask he flashes his junk at you and says cheekily "haha you just assumed wrong! Idiot!"

That's already dumb enough but some people could see the clues that suggest he was actually intended to flash people the whole time through a series of reasonable assumptions about his outfit lacking pants or the hit dog stand not even being turned on.

Your argument that we can't assume the line at the bottom is straight is like saying we can't assume the theoretical trenchcoat man won't toss a rabid dachshund he was hiding under the coat at us because the hot dog stand has no buns or condiments on it.

You might not be provably wrong but it's really not worth thinking like an insane person just because a few conventions were defied

Is not what Kate Lister or feminist in general are doing. They're saying that they are afraid of being alone with a man, this is just how they feel.

Isn't it though? That's the subtext of saying you are afraid of men. It pretty directly carries the idea that all men are a group that should be feared by women for the potential dangers they represent.

Here in France, 96% of sexual assaults are performed by men. I don't think you could find a country where the statistic goes the other way. "a few correlations from time to time" really doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. It's not some correlation, it's a systemic issue in our society.

That does little to establish the likelihood of any given man to sexually assault a women. A stat like that is talking about a populate that is comprised entirely of perpetrators of sexual assault. This would be like saying saying "96% of drowning happens in bodies of water" The stat we would need to see instead would be "what % of men will commit at least one instance of sexual assault in their lifetime" and the population sample would need to be all men that resided in a specific location for say 60 years of their life. I'm sure someone more skilled with statistics than myself could express what I'm trying to say more accurately but I hope I explained well enough you can see what I was trying to convey atleast.

I actually agree that critical thinking goes out the window ! "I chose the bear!" is meant to express that women are afraid of men. The fact that most women would actually be terrified of an encounter with a bear or that they are statistically safer with a man than with a bear is irrelevant. Women want to send a message and instead of listening, you are correcting them on a technicality.

When a message predicates itself on a falsehood it should be criticized. How can you have a worthwhile discussion when your invitation to the conversation is a a lie? It's like a time share or a MLM, the premise is a lie so everything that follows is not tainted by that even if there is some truth in it.

The fact that you are only talking about the discourse and not the actual problem makes me wonder if you really want the issue to be resolved

So disagreeing with a conversation being built on a lie and advancing a stereotype implies I want oppress women? That's reaching pretty hard. I'm not saying women aren't experiencing an unfair circumstance and that their feelings are invalid. I'm saying that this is the wrong way to discuss it because it means the audience who needs to hear it most is presented with cognitive dissonance upfront and a very vocal portion of the women trying to share their experience are shocked and insulted that the men won't listen or try to defend themselves. Of course that was going to happen when you open the conversation up with nonsense rhetoric and now we silenced women with credible stories to share while galvanizing the very men who need to hear this shit the most from trusting the women with the stories to tell.

You wouldn't bring loud-mouthed, personal insult slinging demagouges to a debate and expect a favorable outcome would you?

This is a terrible comparison. When woman say they are afraid of men, it's a dominated group being afraid of its dominators. With your black perso/alligator question, it's a case of dominators being afraid of a group its dominating.

It doesnt matter what order you put the adjectives in. It's a terrible comparison because any comparison like this is predicated on stereotypes whether they are gender, racial, religious, or whatever. There is no valid stereotype for individual psychology at such a broad demographic level.

I'm not trying to defend someone here, I was trying to seek understanding while also expressing that I think any person assuming stereotypes are a valid way to think about people you have never met is a bad mindset to have because it elevates the "value" of confirmation bias.

You say the women in my life are blessed with their experiences but are you sure the opposite doesn't apply? That the women you know weren't more unlucky than the usual experience?

The finger being pointed by the discourse around this is just saying "I feel like men in general are more of a danger to me than a wild bear" and statistically that is just false. If a majority of men were truly so bad then the patriarchal structure we live in would be significantly worse and there would be absolutely zero advancements of women's issues for the simple fact that a majority vote would almost never occur in favor of women.

But that isn't the case. Things have improved slowly over time and the biggest set back recently is access to abortion care and reproductive rights but I think that has much more to do with religious influence (which is inheritelt patriarchal) in the republican portion of the population.

Finally, an olive branch. I have simply been presenting a viewpoint counter to your own and I have appreciated your input. I'm sorry that the lack of tone and subtext available through written communication seems to have made you think I was being rude or something but the knee-jerk reaction to insult and belittle me and my opinion by aligning me with a group that carries a negative connotation is sort of similar to what we are arguing about is it not?

We can disagree and have opposing views and opinions without having to be adversarial. I am unique in my experiences just like you are in yours. Grouping me with others is unfair to both of us because just like the innocent men at the end of that pointed finger, you grouped me up with people who make having dipshits psuedo intellectual takes their favorite hobby. You lose something from this assumption of stereotypes too.

I assume your perspective of our conversation was colored by stains of past experiences you had with members of that group (or atleast those you assume belong to that group) and it meant that even though I was being genuine you saw my messages as if they were an attack against you personally and motivated by malice.

And don't get me wrong, I'm still not trying to blame you or anyone for that. Perception is reality afterall. But thats the mindset I'm trying to advocate against. The mindset that a group stereotype allows for a realistically useful assumption about any given "member" of that group's personality, demeanor, or temperament.

They didn't say that at all. What they are trying to express is that stereotypes, such as "men are usually dangerous to women", or "women should fear men just in case", are disingenuous ideas that harm both sides.

Some men are good people and some are bad. Some women are good people and some are bad.

Condemning either group for the actions of a few perpetuates the stereotype by making impressionable indiviuals on both sides of the equation start accepting the "complimentary" stereotypes just because they observe a few correlations from time to time.

Before long, critical thinking goes out the window, correlation is assumed to be causation and you've got men reacting aggressively to posts that say they are dangerous and women saying "I chose the bear!" even though they know that is staticallyess safe because it aligns with the message they think they need to share because they buy into the same stereotype the men did and vice versa.

It runs parallel to the same sort of thing playing out in politics around the world though it's certainly more pronounced in the US thanks to the two party system and volume of communication.

Talking about the issue is fine but this discourse is flawed. Imagine how it would play out if the question was "white people, would you rather be stranded on a island with a black person or an alligator?"

And now your argument would be "white people should be afraid of black people until they are given a reason not to be."

Doesn't that sound really messed up to say? I hope so because it felt bad just to type out for the purpose of this comparison.

Each person is an individual unto themselves and I think if you can agree with that, then there is no rationale that can support group stereotypes in human psychology.

I'm sure you have friends outside of work right?

That's the part I never understand about people who connect working in office and with the fun of seeing others is person.

Why are you so willing to put up with commuting, office quality furniture, public restroom facilities, sick people who realllllly should have leverage optional work from home days or just regular old sick time... When you could just have more time for friends outside of the workplace.

I see my friends on weekends or they come over and we have game nights spending quality time with each other rather than infrequent unplanned interactions when we both should be doing something else.

My personal life friends are the people I "jump" for. Not coworkers. Having to "jump" for a coworker is and should be an inconvenience in the workplace because it means a failure of planning occurred somewhere. You can still have friendly camaraderie in the face of inconvenient circumstances but I don't think you need to have some deep relationship to help out a colleague. That comes with the job to some extent.

When I've become friends with people from work, I invite them into my entirely separate personal life and in fact that is the case for one of my closest friends.

I just feel like If you wanna hang out with people from the office invite them to something outside of the office. The whole captive audience thing is such a demoralizing foundation to start a friendship with.

I too have ADHD and my in office days are so full of interruptions I just don't plan productive work during that time anymore and instead just book them full of pointless meetings.

Working at home I get interrupted exactly once a day by my girlfriend while she plays with our cat on her lunch break since she had a permanent work from home position even before covid.

A single quiet Thursday or Friday let's me out pace all my peers books of work. The company just wastes their money when they make me show up in person. I don't even by lunch or snacks out there or anything so it doesn't even support local economy. Just wasting time and money for people who can't keep their home organized enough to effectively work from.

It's the kind of short sighted strategy you always see from upper level corporate execs. They make impulse decisions on limited data and justify it with predictions based on old data.

You know, the only kind of data it's possible for them to have at the time of their decision because they refuse to pay for external analysis or external data when they can use their own people and records!

So some jackass sets up a slicer on an excel file assigning an arbitrary value to the asset based on headcount capacity and woudknt you know it? The numbers go down when there are less people there.

Well that answers everything you need to know. Keep people in office, property retains value. Simple stuff really but they will say in their speeches and presentations that they have gone over the numbers and this is the way to go.

Never having considered that they could leverage the square footage in other equitable ways than they already do because, well, that data simply wasn't available.

And it's all bs anyways because real estate value is speculative and determined by the buyer. So when larger business embrace the hybrid or work from home model they give themselves a market advantage and can purchase or lease smaller office space at lower costs than they would have previously so really the only way this grift works is if all they big players keep overpaying for property.

Sooner or later it gets solved by the market whether that want it to be or not. The genie of work from home is already out of the bottle it's just a bunch of "boomer" businesses death gripping and smoking copium as much as they can until they are forced to adapt

I bought it digitally on release day so my slightly-above-casual-gamer GF could play on the switch and then a few days later I pirated a copy to play on my steam deck and pc interchangeably. While I would have no major qualms about buying additional copies, Nintendo's insistence on maintaining their native control scheme in a western market will guarantee that many core gamers like myself, who are familiarized with Microsoft and Sony control schemes, will shy away from their products.

I can only have my immersion and fun interrupted by canceling out of a menu or action so many times before I'm just not that interested anymore despite having given it an honest try more than once.

Whine all they want about piracy but I doubt they aren't losing a significant number of legitimate sales from it. Most people who buy Nintendo consoles and games are loyal to that ecosystem from my own experiences and wouldn't bother with learning how to access pirated materials.

So yeah I also pirated it and would pirate another game from them too if I felt like giving it a shot but even if pirating wasn't an option, I would never buy a Nintendo product for myself.