Incorporates 3rd-party DRM: Denuvo Anti-tamper 5 different PC within a day machine activation limit

Requires 3rd-Party Account: Ubisoft Account (Supports Linking to Steam Account) Requires agreement to a 3rd-party EULA

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands EULA

From the steam page

There are so many amazing games to play. If you wanted to, you could cut off all future content from this day on, and still have more than enough to remain entertained for the rest of your life.

If you can’t make each game better than the last, people will just go back to the last game. But if you take away the last game, they’ll go to the new game simply because the same game but worse is still better than nothing.

Isn't this true for every form of media though? Books, TV shows, movies, music; there are multiple lifetimes worth of content for anyone that wants to look for it. What makes video games so special?

I don't know, I kind of gave up trying to buy one after the first one didn't work out. Mapillary recommends the GoPro Max (this was why I was interested), but I couldn't tell you if it needs an app to work.

https://www.iso-ne.com/ Looking at my own region of New England, renewables are only at about 8% right now. And that includes burning wood, refuse, and landfill gas as renewable sources.

That's all well and good, I'm not trying to deny that those methods work, but booty was claiming that the article telling us this year is the hottest on record was a lie without any real clarification why he thought that.

So either he read the he only read the headline and wanted to feel smug about it, or he was trying to downplay the seriousness of the situation by saying it used to be worse millions or billions of years ago. I don't really care which, the outcome is the same either way.

I know there were a bunch of subreddits with bots that automatically commented Are you looking for this specific thing? on every post, and a lot of posts were answered correctly by those bots.

Am I supposed to be seeing a fact check during the debate? Because it seems more like "I want to move on to another subject" and "well anyways" the first few times the moderator speaks.

Alright, if you’re not convinced that there ought to naturally be differentiated pricing, and that the uniform pricing we see is artificial, I don’t know where else to go.

I think my point was more that publishers aren't going to do that. Back when digital wasn't the default, it was acknowledged that selling a download was a fair bit cheaper and easier than manufacturing disks or carts that could easily be resold by the customer after they were done with it, but the pricing didn't change to reflect that. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time, and not just with steam.

Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion but I’m going to call it here.

Fair enough, good night.

I don’t know what you envision when you say “stick around”.

I would expect people to start buying games from the epic games store. They'd be using it regularly and have a sense of ownership over the games they have in their libraries.

What evidence would be needed to convince you?

Honestly, I'm mostly just being pedantic. I'm perfectly willing to believe this kind of clause exists, but I want to acknowledge that at least for now there's no actual evidence of it.

What other explanation for the observed behavior can be put forth?

For games being the same price on different store fronts? Whatever the justification for selling digital games at the same price as physical games was back when digital purchases were becoming mainstream, or for the same reason that Nintendo games will rarely go on sale: because there are still people willing to pay.

“Selectively enforced” is the wording used by Valve’s own employee.

Is it? Because I pulled the term from the complaint filed Apr 27, 2021 under the Price Veto Provision section. Where did you see a valve employee saying it?

I don't know how to use this site. Samsung is a Korean company, so I look there, but I don't see anything about samsung or phones. Clicking on "mach & elec" or "consumer goods" doesn't seem to help either.

I don't want to debate the finer points of what makes a fascist. Maybe just take a minute and do some self-reflection as to why so many people see the things you write and instantly think "this belongs in the red-pill, right wing section of the internet."

Should I start to assume when someone says they are a feminist, they are NOT a feminist? This line of logic does not fall in very well with the act of consenting. If someone says they are a feminist, they ARE a feminist. No debate. A woman says she is a feminist, she IS one. Counter her points about female privilege and how good it feels.

Nowhere does she say she's a feminist. She's telling a story about being a model in California. Feminism isn't just being a woman. Google "feminist pretty privilege" and the top reddit post you find is way more compelling for what a feminist would say about "pretty privilege" than a random tiktoker your favorite youtubers managed to find.

I am not asking about what someone is saying. Does the preaching get practiced in real world? It is all that matters.

Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?

You very literally were asking about what people are saying. You asked "why don't women get told to talk to guys?" and the answer is "they do."

Why am I assuming a body positive feminist is a body positive feminist? What is this kind of argumentation? An apple is not an orange, and a banana is not a papaya.

At no point in the video does anyone even claim the woman was a body-positive feminist. Your favorite youtubers start talking about body-positivity as if she was, but she never claimed to be one and we never get to see any kind of evidence that she actually is.

Men are told not to approach. Men are obeying feminist agenda. Young feminists are sad and pissed the dating market is Sahara desert. Men chose to adapt and become risk averse in the same ways women neurobiologically have behaved in all of human history. Laws favour women and ignore men. Feminists favour women and ignore men (not their responsibility). Society favours sympathising with women to earn brownie points with other women. Nobody helps men, so men help themselves.

Maybe watch the podcast.

Again, I watched the part labeled "What is causing the rise in sexless men?" and the expert didn't say anything at all about feminism. The podcast host brings it up briefly as a possibility, but then they move on to another topic. They aren't talking about feminism. You're bringing it up like it's the most natural thing in the world, but to do that you need to make a lot of assumptions that aren't supported by these things you're linking. I'd tell you to watch some of these videos again, but I'm sure you'd just inject your own narrative into them again.

Your argumentation is based on a false premise that I indirectly love rape fantasies and locker room talk.

You're the one that keeps bringing it up. "Locker room talk" has become a euphemism for sexualizing and objectifying women. I asked if you meant private conversations between boys, but the one real world example you brought up of locker room talk was a group chat where a bunch of teens were sharing photos of their classmates. If you want to be talking about private, girl-free conversations, tell me. Otherwise I'll keep assuming you think the kinds of things described in the "locker room bois" story should be normal and acceptable.

Women objectify men in girl locker rooms more than men could ever objectify women in boys locker rooms,

I've never heard of a girls' only chat where they shared fake nude photos of guys in there class, and yet here's a story from last week of your "boys locker room chat" that ends with a someone killing themself.

because objectification of women is very normalised in porn

You'd think this right here would be enough of a reason to understand why the feminism movement exists, but oh well.

Taboo factor is the core tenet of what entices people towards BDSM, gore, zoophilia, pedophilia and other acts of depravity. The more exclusive something is, the more exciting and demanded it secretly is. These locker room talks provide space for taboo discussions more than anything else.

You'd think there'd be a much larger audience for the truly taboo subjects, like cannibalism and cutting your arm off with a rusty pocket knife. The kind of things everyone knows you obviously shouldn't be doing. They definitely exist, but they're a very small group considering how "exciting and demanded" it should be based on your logic.

They are what I consider to be the most balanced, sensible, non-controversial and non-reactionary centrist social commentators on YouTube. That is the consensus.

Where are you getting this consensus from? One of the videos you sent me was literally all about how one of the guys said something controversial on twitter, and all they do is react to other people's content. Even if you use the more relevant definition of reactionary, they seem like they'd be pretty opposed to feminism making any real ground and actually changing the way they life their lives.

They are the reason why Pearl and Fresh&Fit, giant redpillers close to Tate/Sneako, got demonetised.

I'm pretty sure JustPearlyThings got demonetized for her pro-hitler song, not even Fresh&Fit know for sure why they got demonitized but I get the feeling it wasn't because of Aba N Preach. I just don't think the 0.5-2 million views they get per video is enough clout to get a video demonetized.

You are labeling and cancelling them without knowing about them

What does it even meant to cancel them? I'm absolutely labeling them, but do you think I have the power to make them stop producing new content? Or is canceling something just the same as not liking something?

I consider it very fascistic that feminists choose to call masculinity “fragile” and masculinity is somehow weak and strong at the same time.

Alright, what does "fascism" mean to you? Because it seems to just be "insulting a thing I like/believe in". And what does it mean to "cancel" someone? Because all that can happen to you here is you get some downvotes, unless you do something to break the rules.

Fragile masculinity means that a person is so insecure about their "manliness" that they go too far in the other direction and overcompensate, usually to the point of being either annoying or actively harmful in some way.

Women have a lot of privilege that got carried over on top of all the equality stuff going on

Do you want to describe any of these privileges? I'd hate to keep making assumptions about your beliefs.

men continue to shoulder the burdens of creating and maintaining society, and men are only surviving due to their strong masculinity and natural biological advantages, which the current feminist agenda does seem to want to equalize.

There are plenty of jobs that aren't involved with construction. I'd be willing to bet that most men don't work in construction or infrastructure repair. And at least in the US, the percentage of women working in construction is growing, so maybe someday it'll be an even split and your entire argument will be moot.

Too many are “dumb” and “hurtful” and are amplified by social media. Harvard research on Twitter shows misinformation gets 6x faster amplified than facts. Similar thing is said about common sense being not so common. There is a reason why men are leaving the dating market in droves, population growth is slowing down and men are refraining from having sex at an alarming rate. They do not want to deal with crazy.

You won't catch me saying that social media has been a net benefit for society. All the more reason to step away from it.

Declining population growth is normal in any developed/developing country. These are society-wide trends that can be seen in countries all around the world. You're going to have to give some kind of evidence that it's because men "don't want to deal with crazy," instead of just following the population pyramid like so many other countries in a similar economic situations.

forgot to tell about locker room part

I don't know much about the story other than what you posted and this article says. It's tragic that someone unrelated became the center of attention and was targeted by online vigilantism, but you still shouldn't want to normalize what you're calling "locker room talk".

It turned out that members were sharing images of their classmates and other underage girls without their knowledge or consent along with crude comments ranging from body shaming ~~to jokes on sexual assault and rape~~.

I'm pretty sure this article was written before all the information about the case was sorted out. But even if you remove that last part, the "locker room talk" should in no way be acceptable.