This is a bit complex because of the way people define own.

Technically no one but the company who developed the games own the game.

Publishers effectively own it as they usually monopolize the entire licensing control of the game.

Gamers never own but merely have the license to play. This is true even with games from long time ago. While you do own the physical disk, you only license the data inside the disk.

Some people may define ownership of a game by the fact that no one is going to take it away from you. In that way, gog does do that. Since you can download a DRM free version you can install as many times as you want for as along as you want.

Yeah. If there's a Saudi that is rich enough to buy EA on a whim, he'd definitely think $1000 for a game is very cheap and don't understand what pricing issue exists.

I would have no issue with vibrator usage, since that's a tool, not a person. But I don't think I want anyone else dunking on my gf while I make the alley-oop.

From the emasculated male perspective, LeBron is the competitor, not your teammate.

Could've been just a greasy hand when it was off and not hot. The patina can then build differently there because of the residue.

Wtf pepe is considered alt-right because alt-right uses them sometimes??? I hear they also use English! Maybe English needs to get banned!

Here's the origin article from torrentfreak. https://torrentfreak.com/modded-hardware-defendant-denies-nintendos-copyright-claims-in-court-241006/

Shitty IGN is just re-reporting based on torrent freak with less info.

Just pay for a good offline sudoku app. It probably costs less than a cup of coffee. Then we'll all be happier.

Not sure who these foolishly brave Americans are who think they can beat an elephant and a grizzly bear bare handed.

Article doesn't say no attorney would take the case. It says they talked to a lawyer. And they're in limbo. Meaning they're still deciding how to pursue this matter.

“We’re still in this process of figuring out what to do,” she said. “We keep pressing in different directions to see if something is going to happen.”

So they're looking for the best approach. Not that there is a lack of approach.

An attorney would happily take a losing case. They get paid either way. Their job is to get the best outcome possible, not to win a lawsuit--though that may end up being the best outcome.

It is actually a deliberate corp strategy. Plastic straws were never a real concern, save for that ONE turtle. Plastic straw make such a negligible amount of plastic waste that stop using it will have virtually zero measurable impact in amount of plastic waste we create. All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.

That's not to say all plastic reduction initiatives are pointless. But the straws definitely belong in the least environmentally impactful category.

Sure, I'll play this game.

The premise of the convincing is loaded. No one deserves shit. Steven Crowder made the format famous and therefore he is attributed to it.

Whether or not the person is a piece of shit is irrelevant and ad hominem. If Hitler said 1 + 1 = 2, Hitler is right. You don't get to deny that just because you hate the person. Shitty people can make correct statements and they can achieve things. Doesn't matter which name we apply to it. We must be able to argue on the merits of the statement or format without sorting to personal feelings on the person, lest you become the one who is intolerant.

Not sure what the meme is referring to, but this is actually true in some aspects.

If there are 100 people in a room and 1 person is just super loudly talking the entire time, it silences out 99 people. The ability to talk of the 99 is silenced by the 1. If you limit the amount the loudest can talk, you give the other 99 more freedom of speech. From a utilitarian view, you gained more freedom of speech as a whole by reducing the freedom of speech for one.

People who say things like these generally conflate the concepts of "I want to remove others' right to freedom of speech" with "my freedom of speech was taken away" when they often want to do the former.