You really can't though, not if the games have an online component or you want the game to be patched/updated as frequently as it would be on steam.

Almost all games these days are basically like a work in progress, so if you pirate them then the game doesn't stay up to date.

Pirating games is just really inconvenient compared to tv/movies/music.

> Almost all games these days are basically like a work in progress, so if you pirate them then the game doesn't stay up to date.

Which, as a mod author and consumer, isn't always a bad thing. More than once, I had to drop just enjoying a game, to patch my published mods because some update that is automatically pushed out, and people have to accept in order to even boot a single-player game. Why? I don't know, but it's really annoying sometimes.

Besides, nowadays cracking groups release smaller patches too, so while you might not get the update the same hour it was published on Steam, usually within a week or two the same group that uploaded the original release, has released another patch.

Yup. They can’t change the contract unilaterally.

Remember when Netflix inttroduced ads they added a lower tier to go along with it.

When you start a subscription, you're agreeing to pay X amount every Y period of time; you're not starting a new agreement every single Y period of time.

They can cancel the prior tier or bump up the price on renewal though. This is the problem with subscriptions, you become complacent and accept incremental changes until you finally notice that you’re being rinsed.

And actually some subscriptions can include unilateral price increases in the contract (a subscription is a contract) with early termination fees. It just isn’t commonly done because word gets around and you will lose business. You typically only see this in predatory industries where there are few alternatives and the service is necessary, like local waste management.

If the contract is unfair enough you can usually escape it in court or arbitration, but nobody wants to go through that.

No, that doesn't make sense at all. You've paid for consistent terms for that Y period of time. Not cancelling the subscription when it's up for renewal is an implicit agreement to any new terms. And I'm sure if you'd read those terms in the first place, you'd come to the same understanding.

(And it's not even that: the X you're charged is subject to change upon renewal!)

I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad thing, just pointing out the reality of every single subscription agreement I've signed up for online.

Of course you are. Either party can adjust a contract on renewal, just like a lease.

Also you aren't agreeing to pay to renew the contract. It isn't a rent payment in a structured contract. You can cancel at any time.

They can cancel the subscription if you don't agree to the new proposition after they fulfilled their contract. But they can't just change the terms of the agreement after it was made.

But doing so would mean risking to loose customers who were just too lazy to cancel. So most Businesses don't like it. (Spotify did cancel their old contracts though, for people who had not agreed with the recent price hike)

At the very least they could not increase prices while simultaneously putting ads.

Yep, the cable industry used to do this. Add more ads but increase fees to viewers. Streaming is the new cable.

I think your question is reasonable, but no, I do not think a company gets to promote a service as having no ads as part of the sell, and then put ads in by default.

They can do it legally if it's within the terms. Otherwise it's bait-and-switch.

I can't sign a contract with you for $10/month for no ads and then start showing you ads.

Because I have a better life to live than always monitoring which shitty company wants to scam me out of my attention and money next.

Not the person you're replying to, but it just feels like rent-seeking. Amazon is already a gigantic corporation, pretty much everyone spends lots and lots of money on Amazon, it just felt like a way to try and squeeze more money out of their existing customers.

ETA:

I mean, I'm sure there is some exception to this, but generally speaking everyone hates ads. Part of the reason that the whole "cable cutting" thing happened was because everyone hated paying a lot of money to some cable company just to be bombarded with advertisements. At least that's a big reason as to why I did it.

Now all these media companies realized that they can start shoving ads at us again and people will keep paying.

Obviously I'm not entitled to having media at a specific price indefinitely, but I'm perfectly allowed to not like it when companies engage in rent-seeking bullshit.

But have you considered the shareholders? The line must go up.

Cynicism aside, I wish there was a happy medium where companies could just _make money_ and not always have to make _even more money_.

It wouldn't bother me as much if you could still buy media, but as far as I can tell most TV shows don't get Blu-ray releases anymore. The media companies realized that it's more profitable for them to make you pay for the same media forever instead of a lump cost, I guess preferably with you watching corporate brainwashing to buy products.

I suspect once the heat on this settles down, every streaming service is going to start forcing ads on us at all times, and then the only way to fight back on this will be bittorrent.

I recommend looking into private usenets. The initial setup is quite a hassle, but after that everything is smooth sailing.

We have to educate them again that taking our convenience means them loosing money.

Or just stop watching. I seem to be out of tune with what people want in a TV show nowadays, I don't find much enjoyable. I accept there was never that much, but given how much content is produced now I would have expected more in my sweet spot.

I agree with you, though I would say what is happening here is more like strip mining vs cutting dead wood.

I don't know that it should be legal to buy a company and then pay for it by loading up the company with debt obligations. It seems like a form of value destruction in order to enrich a bunch of vultures.

Fundamentally it is basically saying maybe we could buy this company and then plunder it with some % chance that it will still stay afloat and keep generating profit after they gut the company to try to service a debt that should not be attached to the company at all and provided no value to anyone but the vultures.

I don't see how you can outlaw it without being authoritarian. If they buy it they can do whatever they want. They can liquidate the entire company.

I'm not sure, but this seems like a form of anti-social behavior that destroys value for everyone except the people plundering the company. It is almost like piracy and we should honestly try to figure out a way to not allow large companies to be destroyed in this manner.

We just shouldn't let people buy profitable companies because they think they can make a return by destroying the business and then bleeding out a small profit once the company had been gutted. It isn't good for the economy, the employees, or really anyone except the plunderers.

Well that isn't what they are quite doing though. They are using the money they force the company to borrow to pay for the purchase.

They don't "force" the company to do anything (at least not any more so than any other CEO / owner). They are the company.

The same reason payday loans are illegal in 9 states. Companies who follow this pattern of behavior are more likely to go into bankruptcy.

Then, fuck em, let them go bankrupt. Companies have no right to continued existence.

That is unfortunate, but it is good for society to have rapid turnover of unprofitable businesses. The employees will be fine and get new jobs. When one company goes under, they will go to another. You don't work for a company, you work for an industry, and unless the layoff is due to industry wide issues, you will be fine.

It's bad for society to have rapid turnover full stop. It's disruptive and stressful to the humans involved and can be disastrous for the environment (if a bankrupt company just leaves a bunch of waste behind or already did and can't be sued to cover the cleanup), disastrous for the rest of the economy, local or larger (both their customers and their suppliers are affected), and causes a huge amount of wasted time and resources that should be avoided where possible.

We've learned that businesses are lazy, cheap, and untrustworthy, and will lie, steal, cheat, and abuse everything unless you write strong rules and enforce them regularly. It's in society's best interests to incentivize running good businesses, not creating messes and declaring bankruptcy.

The last damn thing I ever want is some centrally planned hell with some worthless bureaucrat telling me how to run my business when he has no idea how. This is a competition. Sink or swim. And if you can't swim you should be out of the game.

Some problems are much easier to solve than others. The problems you are bringing up are far more intractable and far harder and more expensive to solve.

Domestic hunger is really not a hard problem to solve. Rice, beans, and vegetables cooked in bulk and handed out at every fire station.

OK they’re harder but they’re also potentially more important and valuable to solve.

They’re still solvable but we simply do not value solving them.

Nobody even knows about this, no one thinks "Microsoft, hell no, they are a key player in the gaza conflict."

No one really associates human rights with Microsoft's reputation. That is the domain of Palantir, Meta, etc.

I guess you speak for everyone?

I very much do look very negatively on Microsoft as a collaborator with modern fascist regimes, along with Meta, Palantir, X, etc.

Yet. How do you think Meta acquired that reputation ?

What about Apple there? Bringing golden offerings to their god-king and so supporting the further corruption of the regime. One of the few with the power/money to stand against them instead kneeling before Trump like a teen beauty pageant hopeful.

as a former MSFT employee (who quit for reasons, well before the layoffs) I am not permitted to disparage or portray my former employer in a negative light.

I'm just mentioning this for no reason whatsoever. It popped into my head, for some reason.

As a former MSFT employee who disparages Microsoft on a regular basis, I ask: ‘dafuq did you get that idea?

That seems literally illegal, unless the disparagement would reference specific, classified programs.

For life? How can you be bound by this? Unless you sold yourself out for an extra month pay.

I'm also a former employee but based in the US where such things are illegal.

In what country are you bound by clauses like that? I've never heard Microsoft doing something like that before.

Steam has been selling these games for years without ever saying there was a problem with this. So has itch.

So why did this happen now as opposed to 5-10 years ago? What changed?

F2P games are very different in design from regular games(and far worse imo)

You can't even realistically have a F2P game that requires a high spec machine because of how the market works.

There's quite a few F2P games requiring high spec machines, Throne & Liberty for example.

Its kind of ironic that I realized I was scrolling through this article for 30 seconds and just picking up the highlights.

The democrats obviously weren't going to destroy the ACA like this.

All governments have some amount of corruption. What matters is the scale of the corruption. Trump and his people are stealing Pelosi's entire net worth like 4-5 times a month.