I got reminded of people who said that they complained about certain (licensed) professionals who failed to deliver good services to them, only to find out that while they were "successful" in having the licenses of such professional service providers revoked, they only lost money and time in the process !INDEED. ๐คฏ
!WEIRD !HOPE !WINEX !PIXY
Indeed, a license means nothing, other than perhaps buying into the lie that we need to pay to exercise our inherent rights. ๐๐๐โจ๐ค
!ALIVE
!BBH
!HOPE
!INDEED
!PIZZA
!WEIRD
I have already played a few games where "licenses" in-game (part of the game itself, not those games where you buy only the license and not the full game) are directly said to be unnecessary (or something similar), but then the "government", "council", or whatever powerful in-game "organization" does require them. ๐ฎ๐คฏ๐ค
Licenses in a game can serve a purpose, since they created the whole framework. Licenses in life are scams to the max, because they're making us pay for the the 'privilege' to exercise our own inalienable rights. ๐๐๐โจ๐ค
!ALIVE
!BBH
!PIZZA
!SLOTH
I edited my previous comment to prefer to licenses right within the game !INDEED, to explicitly differentiate from the "licenses" that gamers "buy" to be allowed to play the game. ๐คฏ
What's so !WEIRD is that even if such players already "bought" certain games (their "licenses" in particular), they won't be able to play the game if they haven't been online for a week or so (because the game client must connect to its corresponding server periodically). ๐คฏ
!PIXY
!HOPE
!WINEX
OK, and so noted.
That seems like a very poor design choice and implementation. ๐๐๐โจ๐ค
!ALIVE
!BBH
!HOPE
!INDEED
!PIZZA
!WEIRD
While that may be a "(very) poor" decision, those games seem to still generate a whole lot of sales though. ๐ค๐คฏ
!WEIRD
!LOLZ