Senal

I disagree somewhat, though not entirely.

TL;DR;

It's advertising and or brand/cause awareness.

This is effective in drawing attention, good or bad attention is subjective i suppose.

It's one of those brand awareness things, but instead of a brand it's a cause.

You aren't supposed to see this type of demonstration and think to yourself "they have made an excellent point, I'm going to immediately do all i can to support this cause".

It's a background awareness thing that builds trust and/or familiarity and works in concert with other things to try and ensure that if/when you are "ready" for action in the same vein, this is the name/cause you have in the forefront of your mind.

Because it's people, there are probably many different goals and approaches.

There are definitely people doing this just for the attention, others who are working with a ted from scrubs mindset and I'm sure many others that are less than kind.

It absolutely has downsides as well, you'll piss off a lot of people by disrupting their daily life, a lot of those people have their own immediate survival shit to deal with and lofty causes aren't a thing they are going to get to any time soon.

Point is, just like any advertising, just because it doesn't feel like it's working doesn't mean it isn't.

It might put you off entirely but it's a numbers game.

Fair enough.

You realise that the fact you're even talking about it means it's doing more than just making cars idle.

Now, whether it's actually helping anything in a tangible way, that's a different conversation entirely.

Possibly , but that's not what you said.

The implication was that making cars idle was the point of blocking in the road, which is wasn't/isn't.

How does ?

A failure of sentence structure or purposeful trolling.

That's like looking at a tennis match and asking "how does wearing white win the game?".

Ignoring context to feign confusion is some weaksauce trolling.

Yes, but I don't think it's because he's angling for a social group that's into doing a bunch of hate crimes.

It's much more likely he's doing it for political reasons.

I could be very wrong however.

Not the op but I'd assume the cruelty without repercussions leading to an actual response by the oppressed that will be deemed an "uprising" resulting in a "justification" to call in the army or something on whoever they want to blame.

Probably with a massacre or two, like, a traditional bloody one.

Not the slow behind the scenes killing off of people through deprivation of services, rights, due process with some old school SS thrown in, just in case; that ones building up just fine on it's own.

Closer to Alexander than Farage.

An authoritarian bootlicking shitbag as opposed to a racist, opportunist prick.

Though I suppose there's some overlap.

Is direct trade that only issue that determines whether or not sanctions could be applied?

Surely there's general politics bulshittery in the mix ?

At Launch the game was heroically broken on ps4, literally unplayable.

PS5 was buggy but doable.

PC was hit and miss, i had a reasonable time with it though.

Agree about the turnaround, like a faster no mans sky, which i would hope with the difference in budget.

Not understanding how it doesn’t qualify under my original statement.

I wasn't addressing your original post, but i can give my opinion i suppose.

Your original criteria of "AAA done right" were:

"solid ending, no monetization beyond a full expansion for less than retail, and good story".

So the comment:

Releasing a broken beta version for full retail price is not “AAA done right”

Doesn't so much point out how cyberpunk doesn't fit your proposed criteria, but rather that "baseline release quality" should also be in the list.

Which i agree with, I'd go as far as to say "should be a playable, functional game at launch" is a baseline requirement for any type of studios that wishes to be considered "Doing things right".

Luckily "garbage at launch" isn't a phrase used to indicate something is bad "right now" so no steam need be held.

What kind? Genuine question, I don't know shit about this

Fair enough, came in a bit hot there, my bad.

I'd argue that it not being a legal threat doesn't matter too much in this case because they aren't looking for legal control, so much as "effective" control.

If they can stop you without needing for it to be signed in to law, then they'll take that, if they can get a law as well, then I'm sure they'll take that too.

Don’t get me wrong- its not that I don’t care about censorship, its that I don’t really view this as censorship because the consumption and purchasing of the “censored” product is still completely possible. Contrarily, if this were signed into law I would have a big fucking problem with it.

Censorship isn't a binary, but we can agree to disagree on that one i suppose.

To this part though

purchasing of the “censored” product is still completely possible

Not really, there are numerous titles available exclusively on itch.io and steam, those are effectively censored by your rationale as you can no longer purchase them at all.

Honestly steam gift cards don't work at all here because it's not a ban on buying the games using a card, it's a ban on steam listing the titles at all, on threat of losing the payment services.

Crypto cash and gift-cards are great if you have effective access to them.

• Crypto is out for most people for obvious reasons (technical knowledge, dearth of places that actually accept crypto)
• Cash works until it doesn't and governments and big tech are trying their hardest to make it as difficult as possible, there is a big push to go cashless.

It's not that people find cash less convenient because they are lazy (some are i suppose), it's because it's being purposely deprecated as much as possible, or just straight up doesn't apply to the paradigm, such as online purchases.

The reason I brought this up is because I have seen it proposed that this issue will expand beyond the scope of digital marketplaces, which I find downright laughable.

As i said, this already happens, it's weird in how it's applied tbh, but that's neither here nor there.

https://www.adyen.com/legal/list-restricted-prohibited

Mastercard just says : "brand-damaging Transactions" and doesn't elaborate, at a quick glance.

A good example of this is casino's and other gambling related physical locations, there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a payment processor to work with gambling, assuming they even give you the time of day.

People WILL stop using visa cards if you can’t use it to buy condoms and there’s an ATM in the gas station.

Sure for that specific thing, hard to pay cash at amazon or other online only retailers.

I firmly believe that if this issue is pressed further, at the very least Valve will js stop accepting payment directly through payment processors.

That i'd be interested to see tbh, because as i said there isn't an equally available alternative to card payment processors (and it's not even close).

If they did go crypto only for instance, there'd be a big move to crypto for some, but that'd be a significant loss to take on principle alone.