ObsidianBlk

The point was, the only reason only two parties exist in this country has less to do with any mechanical reason why and more to do with the fact that a huge number of people, such as yourself, continue cementing into people's minds that any alternative choice is worthless. Effectively, by continuing to perpetuate this idea over and over again in peoples minds, you have effectively created a self fulfilling prophecy.

You are technically, right. A third option has little to no chance, but only because people, such as yourself, have continued to tell others that a third options had little to no chance.

The sad thing is you're technically correct only because it's people with a similar mindset to you on the matter that perpetuate this idea.

Amsterdam, Doughnut Economics, Time article from 2021 While the long term viability of this may still be in questions, this at least answers your questions of "Name an economic system on planet earth"

You're absolutely right... it's a game. Larian could do whatever they wish. Then again, what's the point of utilizing an IP and Ruleset for your game if you're not planning to adhere to that IP and Ruleset as closely as you can within the limitations of PC game? And if you do adhere (as much as you can) to the rules, then there are going to be some things that are possible in one ruleset that are not possible in another (and vice versa) while maintaining a fun player experience in a medium (PC gaming) that cannot adapt rules like a human can while still being accurate enough for those players that know the ruleset and those that have never used that ruleset before.

Just to be technical, here... Those past games, BG1 and BG2, utilized a very different ruleset (the ADND ruleset, if I recall correctly) to the ruleset BG3 utilized (5e). While they share a lineage, ADND and 5e are quite different.

To start with, you're right. Digital distribution in general is volatile for consumers. While I will say that Steam, at present, is leagues better in that you must download the game purchase in order to play it (meaning, you have a direct copy of the game on your hard drive, which will remain there even if the game is removed from the Steam store), it is not outside the realm of possibility that this could change in the future.

That said, publishers having their own launchers, I'm sorry to say, has absolutely nothing to do with their fears over "the valve guy" retiring (his name is Gabe Newell, by the way), and significantly more to do with making more money. These publishers figure if they can get you, the consumer, to buy their games directly from them, they can make 100%+ of the money, instead of having to pay Steam a percentage for any transaction. Due to the limited scope of these Publisher-run launchers, purchasing a game from them is even more volatile than purchasing from Steam (at least in the current climate), in such that if the Publisher suddenly finds their launcher is not bringing in customers (which, on average, compared to the draw of Steam at present, they generally don't) publishers could simply drop their launchers and the catalog of games you, the customer, may have purchased from that launcher would go with them... again, yes, this could happen if Steam went down, but presently, pound for pound, the publisher's launchers are far more likely to fall than Steam will.

Also... for any of these services (Steam or publisher launchers), you have to download the game locally in order to run them. The games are not streaming as most movie and music content is. As such, once you install a game, you could crack them to remove any DRM attached to them (barring any game that's strictly online), then, yeah, you can self-host/store these games yourself all you want. If you buy games from GOG they make this even easier for you.

This is what makes this technology anxiety inducing at best...

So, for yourself, you have no issues seeing the artificiality of the image due to your extensive exposure to and knowledge of photographic principles. This is fair... that said, I have read your earlier comment about the various issues with the photo as well as this one about light sources, and I keep going back to scrutinize those elements, and... for the life of me... I cannot pick out anything in the image that, to me, absolutely screams artificial.

I'm fairly sure most people who look at these verification photos would be in a similar boat to me. Unless there's something glaringly obvious (malformed hands, eyes in the wrong place, a sudden cthulhu-esk eldritch thing unnaturally prowling the background holding a stuffed teddy bear) I feel most people would accept an image like this at face value. Alternatively, you'll get those same people so paranoid about AI generated fakes they'll falsely flag a real image as fake because of one or two elements they can't see clearly or have never seen before.

And this is only the infancy of AI generated art. Every year it gets better. In a decade, unless there are some heavy limitations on how the AI is trained (of which, only public models would ever really have these limitations as private models would train be trained on whatever their developers saw fit... to shreds with what artists and copyright said), there would probably be no real way to tell a real image from a fake out apart at all... photographic principals and all.

Interesting times :D

I mean... The Enterprise is always doing questionable things with that deflector dish.

My head cannon says the Enterprise explored a wormhole to the Farscape universe, did a reverse gravaton beam on Moya, then immediately went back through the wormhole... And that's how Moya got pregnant.

Would also explain why all starships in the federation, after that point, were female (no dangly deflector)

Actually, no... it's telling you that it thinks it's not a legal copy. The company doesn't actually know. It's not like they sit down and write out by hand every key that is created. Those keys are generated by some algorithm. The company can identify if an algorithm was compromised (either the generation method identified or a significant portion of keys from said algorithm being used without them having been generated by the company), or they surmise that a chunk of codes, that had been previously generated for distribution, were nabbed when a number of them start to get activated without the company seeing a corresponding increase in sales. They more than likely do not have an exact list of which codes were stolen, just an assumption.

Here's an example for ya... Company gives Legit LTD a set of codes to sell. Unfortunately, the thieves seal hack into Legit LTD's systems and are able to copy a chunk of those codes. Legit LTD does not realize the breach for a day, or a week, and sells those codes to customers. At the same time, the thieves setup a seeming legit web store and started selling their ill gotten codes on that site. Two different customers are looking for Company's software. One buys a code from Legit LTD. The other buys from thieves seemingly legit store. Just so happens that both stores sold the same code. Now two people have a copy of the same code. Both customers, in this case, believed they were buying a legit code. Both believe their code is valid. Before either can activate those codes, however, Legit LTD realizes they've been hacked and tell Company. Company, not knowing exactly which codes were stolen, decides to invalidate the batch... but there are legit customers in the wild that have codes from that batch and there's no way for Company to tell who bought from who. BOTH customers, at this point, go to activate their code and both are told they're running a pirated code. Neither of them really pirated, however. The thief did, but the thief isn't the run using the code.

As such, no... Company and Legit LTD would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to determine who bought legitimately. Most companies, when this happens, would say, fuck'em and let both customers suffer. This company chooses to tell them they're running suspected pirated codes (though, they don't know for sure), and, regardless, neither customer would be pirating because both believe they purchased legit codes all above board.

Welcome to software, my friend. :D

That's the key, though... KNOWINGLY stolen! If you purchased an item but where unaware that it was stolen, there's no legal issue and, unless there's something that can link that item back to it's original owner... I guess it's yours then.

As far as the digital key is concerned, this is even more nebulous. Sure, their database or software thinks the key is stolen, but that's just a binary bit somewhere which could, by accident or by a bug in the software, be in error. If, as a purchaser, you were unaware that the dealer from which you purchased said key was selling keys illegally, they is the same as buying a stolen TV from the flea market. Unless you knew, you did nothing wrong. As for the software telling you it's stolen... again, that's only what the software things. It could be wrong.

Additionally, purchasing suspect keys is even more legal as there's no intrinsic value to the key itself. It's just a string of numbers and symbols. Keep it, it's yours. Have fun. Play hangman. The company who owns the software for which that key was intended... didn't loose anything. They still have their software. If the key worked? Well, if the key worked, that means the company and/or software doesn't think the key stolen or otherwise illegitimate (which, can also be an error on the companies part).

In this case, the company says, in essence, "We think this key is stolen, but we cannot prove you did the stealing. We're not going to belabor the issue. Keep on, and let your conscience guide you"

Sounds like that may rankle your sense of right and wrong, but, them's the fact. You have never seen someone arrested for purchasing a software key, nor have you seen anyone arrested for purchasing a physical product they believed to be legit even when it wasn't.

I am not a lawyer, but... This does not prove you're pirating the software. It's informing the customer (who, as far as they may be aware, obtained the key in a totally legit manner) that the company thinks the key to be a pirated key (of which, it might not actually be, but, rather identified as such by the company or software in error). It is definitely designed to illicit some form of guilt if you did in-fact pirate the software (which is between you and your conscience), but it is not proof that you pirated it. That said, I totally back what this company is doing!

They don't... But the option is still there if you want an emo-ink display