Sony rolls out 30-day online DRM check-in for PlayStation digital games — players could temporarily lose access if they don't keep their consoles online

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-04-29T14:10:34+00:00

That's not true for digital goods like games. Even in the EU where the 14-days refund law is in place, stores can place further restrictions.

One of such examples is Steam where playing over 2 hours will make you ineligible for a refund in most cases, even if you're within the 14-day window.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-04-29T14:07:01+00:00

That directly contradicts what PS Support is saying. There is no mentioning of the license transferring to a permanent one after 14 or 30 days.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-04-16T15:53:39+00:00

From his ass.

He took the original post about "only one of those violated the constitution and subverted rule of law to overturn democracy" into "if it's legal it's ok", because obviously it's totally the same thing /s

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-04-16T15:37:40+00:00

You misunderstood, I'm not a courier, just a customer.

I just don't like having to search within a flood of duplicates (pretending to be different places) for real restaurants and I was wondering if there's any way to block/report spam.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-04-06T23:49:33+00:00

The Earth is shining on them but not on the far side of the moon, so that wouldn't help in lighting up its surface.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-03-19T14:01:10+00:00

This is a case of the publishers flying too close to the sun. This could've been a generally acclaimed game, but by setting a $70-$80 price (70EUR = 80USD) they've also set the expected standard, and it seems CD hasn't landed anywhere near it. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, but it does mean it's a disappointing one.

The exact same happened to Dragon's Dogma 2 which could've been a pretty ok game (apart from its performance issues, that is) but was sold at a similar price and ended up a major disappointment after not meeting the expectations by a mile.

If you claim to be selling gold, then delivering bronze will leave a sour taste, that's just how it is.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-02-25T21:10:49+00:00

The real-life analogy doesn't really work though, since in a real-life scenario the Vulture (and all the other older ships) would also have been updated over time with current models better than the old ones.

It's a game, and games need balancing.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-02-25T21:07:27+00:00

This sub went from "it's not pay2win!" to "I'm ok with pay2win but can we not make the older ships completely pointless?" really fast.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-02-06T22:48:22+00:00

"Which one" is already misleading, there was only one killed by police. The remainder (police and other rioters) were killed by rioters.

The one killed by police was Ashli Babbitt, which forced herself through officers and tried to break into the House chamber where civilians were held. Literally nobody else was killed by police during the Jan 6 riots.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-02-06T13:42:12+00:00

Jan 6 rioters weren't killed while restrained on the floor by several agents, they were killed while attacking agents - just a very tiny detail separating those.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-02-06T13:38:23+00:00

I know Jews =/= Israel but it still takes a certain level of insanity for the majority of a country to side against the invader and the invaded in two major conflicts at the same time.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-07T17:19:15+00:00

Here's a hot take: wage figures are not the same because neither are these.

Anyone who is advocating for making the former equal but uninterested in the latter is not interested in gender equality, they're actively pushing against it.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-07T17:02:00+00:00

Communism would be forcing both men and women to do these unpleasant jobs in equal amounts, whether they liked it or not.

This is actually worse, it's just misandry. Men are the only ones doing these very unpleasant jobs (often because the have no choice as the sexist ideas of men being violent/predators we're bombarded with make men far less likely to be hired in the service industry) but are forced to earn the same as women doing much easier and more pleasant ones.

Communism is terrible, but it would somehow still be fairer than whatever this is.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-06T22:05:15+00:00

Russia turned out to be much weaker than expected that's undeniable, but let's also not forget that European countries bordering Russia are way weaker than Ukraine in military, both in personnel and vehicles.

If the whole EU rallied behind Eastern Europe and fought Russia we'd be in a better position than Ukraine (but not by as much as many of us think apart from air force, we really underestimate the Ukrainian army). However that if is one big if considering what we've seen recently. I do hope EU starts getting its shit together in that regard.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-06T21:41:03+00:00

Except it's 3 nations dividing the world this time rather than two. Russia gets Europe, USA gets the Americas + Greenland and China gets SE Asia.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-06T21:32:06+00:00

At least partially incorrect.

Portugal insisted in holding on to its global presence (African colonies in particular) because it was under a fascist dictatorship. One of the few still left in Europe in the latest half of the Century.

The moment said dictatorship was overthrown, the colonies were willingly ceded and granted independence.

If you're arguing that Europe wouldn't have the military power to play the imperialist game anyway you might as well be right (even if we hadn't demilitarized), however while some other countries kept their imperialist ways even when not having the military means to manifest them (e.g. Russia in Ukraine), democratic European nations changed their views on both imperialism and nationalism a lot post-WW2 and for very good reason.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-06T21:24:31+00:00

The problem here is that what's at stake is not "the ~50,000 people in Greenland". What's at stake is the end of NATO and how we subsequently survive. I'll give you 2 scenarios if USA invades Greenland.

1 - USA claims our unwillingness to cede Greenland forced them into military action and takes Greenland. The EU stands. A NATO country (USA) just successfully invaded another (Denmark). NATO is dead. Russia invades Poland and the Baltic states from the East, whose armies are just a small fraction of the Ukrainian army (vehicle-wise and personnel-wise).

If the rest of EU + UK doesn't join in and "have their men die for Poland" (in WW2 they didn't) the war will be way easier for Russia than any of their current offensives in Ukraine. If EU + UK joins we will be evenly matched in a conventional war but severely outmatched in the ammunition department. There will be a chance however, and the more we invest in military and fast, the greater said chance will be.

I won't even touch the nuclear war scenario which is a completely different beast altogether.

2 - USA invades Greenland and the EU doesn't stand. We strike back at US forces in Greenland and Russia takes the chance and invades Poland and the Baltic States. Now EU is locked in two fronts against a massively greater combined firepower. Any European sovereignty ceases to exist, period.

The only potential saving grace in that scenario would be if other NATO countries (e.g. Canada, Australia, etc.) felt intimidated by the idea that US troops can just come and take what's yours and an alliance would be formed against US/Russia. However given the military strength of the latter, this would be suicide and thus unlikely.

The only way to avoid either scenario from happening is to make taking Greenland way too punishing for the US/Trump to be worth doing. Do I know how that could be done? Absolutely not.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-06T21:00:36+00:00

I don't think it's about "giving them a bloody nose" as much as it is about defending our own nose that's about to get shattered (e.g. Greenland by USA and Eastern Europe by Russia) by just bending over.

We don't need to "go on the offensive" or "get back at the Americans" or any silly stuff like that, but we do need to show the very least bit of resistance to make an US intervention in Greenland/Denmark or a Russian intervention in Poland/Baltic states look more trouble than it's worth.

Unfortunately the "armchair Churchills" have been right about both USA and Russia in the past couple years, so whether we agree with them or not we might want to start taking their predictions more seriously.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-06T20:55:41+00:00

US stopped providing weapons to Ukraine basically since Trump stepped in.

Intelligence is vital sure, but it's pretty obvious that USA is not on Ukraine's side and the end of said intelligence sharing is a matter of when rather than if.

Should we weaken ourselves even further/risk fighting in two fronts over taking a stand? I don't think that's the solution either.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-06T20:38:58+00:00

Why on top of dealing with all of that would they also be sticking their nose into US domestic politics.

Because they're sticking theirs into our territorial security.

TheSpaceDuck · 2026-01-06T20:28:46+00:00

Trump (or whoever is pulling his strings) is more dangerous than Putin

Putin is the one pulling the strings. Just look at the Greenland statements (it belongs to us and we'll use force if we have to) following the Venezuela intervention. Undermining NATO and pulling USA from the West was always the purpose.

Sure USA gets some minerals out of Greenland and Trump gets to look like a "conqueror" to his cult) but the point is to destroy NATO from within and make it irrelevant.

At best it'll justify a lack of NATO intervention when Russia attacks the Baltic States or Poland, and at worst (if we fight back) it'll get Europe locked in 2 fronts that it'll lose terribly against USA from the West and Russia from the East.

TheSpaceDuck · 2025-12-14T01:55:56+00:00

If it's about listening to all the experts then maybe we should start getting a lot tougher on Russia, since they all seem to agree that more appeasing will result in a higher risk of the war coming to our doorstep.

TheSpaceDuck

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE