Which jurisdictions have this regulation? I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as a leading retailer having to implement a disadvantageous sales agreement for the sake of their competition.

Again, this is a standard retail clause that has existed long before Steam. It would apply no matter what combination of retailers they choose to sell at because they all have this. This is why digital games are sold at the same price as physical copies when they cost less to distribute: the brick and mortar retailers have this same clause.

There’s no good reason to treat this like a Steam-specific thing. Every retailer has such a clause, big or small. This entire idea is based on a frivolous class action suit that is not going anywhere because it’s launched on the shaky grounds of the belief that Steam exclusively uses the MFN clause and that they think a 30% cut is too much.

That’s a pretty standard retail agreement clause that’s been around for decades before digital distribution. It’s not unique to Steam at all, letalone them doing it uniquely.

This would be the comment I would write if I was promoted to respond like the most stereotypical reddit gamer possible.

The purity politics of… not aligning with those who significantly fund far right national political parties??

Nobody wanted it. It’s the Americans who stupidly and ignorantly chose that path without even thinking they did.

Except Mullvad put out that statement in question as a defense. Their response is enough to turn people off the company.

Having a pre-calibrated profile from someone else with the same model is better than nothing. A second-hand colour probe is not easily available in all regions, and buying a new one for use maybe twice a year isn’t a worthwhile investment for most people since they’re only useful for monitors, not TVs. Especially now when OLED monitors are more common, and those require even more expensive colorimeters.

The problem is he only took one pill instead of ten.

If that was really your concern, why did it start with you saying international sports competitions shouldn’t ban any countries?

Oh so suddenly you found the means of determining what actions disqualify a country now?

What does that have to do with you not knowing that when countries get banned from international competitions, it’s easy to find out exactly why, and that having such policies is pretty simple?

What do you mean “Yeah…”? They already replied to you a while ago and it wasn’t anything at all like this whining above.

Go respond to the legitimate misgivings about your source instead of pretending like this guy’s stupid prediction came true.

Don’t pretend like you’d read such a list. You just said you had no way to figure out why a country would be banned from an international competition just one comment ago. If you couldn’t even think of reading an official explanation, we’re supposed to believe that a list that would be published in the same place would result in you being better informed?

It’s pretty dead simple to ban a country from competition for being warmongering and genocidal. What would be complicated?

There’s no means of determining what actions disqualify a country?

You really think Russia was banned from IOC participation for no clear reason and that it wasn’t explained at all? There are some very simple means you can employ to determine what actions disqualified them.

deleted by creator

They started adding ads all over that Google news feed when you swipe right from your homescreen last year, the one that’s built into the Pixel launcher.

Australian wines are pretty popular in Canada.

That’s California’s problem with the rest of their own country and their POTUS, not Canada’s problem.

What is your point? That Canada should accept Californian wines to stick it to Trump?