But why do they care? You're paying the transaction fees. They're getting their money. If anything isn't it good for the payment processor to get more transactions?
It's a real transaction. Nobody was deceived, the money really changed hands, and the payment processor got their fee.
If I own a physical shop I'm allowed to buy stuff from it if I want, why isn't that also the case for an online store?
I'm not saying it isn't against the ToS, but I agree with OP it isn't obvious why it should be and it seems like almost everybody would test at least one real transaction at some point.
I feel like there has to be some weird cultural problem at Microsoft where nobody wants to speak up about obviously bad ideas.
They destroyed the entire Xbox brand overnight and hampered any chance at recovery with a stupid confusing naming scheme... now it seems like they've learned nothing from that?
Yep. I've been an Xbox player since 2002. Huge Halo fan. Thousands of hours on 3 different generations of Xbox. I still have my Halo 3 special edition helmet. I keep up with gaming news and listen to multiple gaming podcasts every week.
But even I can't reliably name the last two generations of Xbox without a pause. I always have to stop for a second and think it thru because the naming scheme is so abysmal.
"Digital" has become this weird overloaded term with a second meaning that means "no physical media". You see it mostly in videogames, "bought digitally" means buying it from Steam or another online store as a download, as opposed to a physical disk.
Obviously you're right and and literally every commercial* videogame ever released is digital in the sense that it's binary information, and the movies that person was talking about were already digital on Blu Ray.
You can kind of justify it as literally correct if you infer the context of "digital" referring to the method of transferral, rather than the method of information storage - I.e when I bought a game disk from a shop, the game was transferred to me physically on a disk, but when I bought one from Steam it was transferred digitally. Doesn't really apply as much for this situation tho.
(*I almost said every videogame ever made, but I suppose Tennis For Two and some other experimental games ran on analogue computers)
Exactly. I feel like this author doesn't realise how long ago 32 bit was replaced. Only specifically retro gamers are still playing on PCs that old, and they're probably not online.
I'm surprised the launcher still supported any 32 bit operating systems this long.
A bit clickbait. EA is still running a store and you won't lose your games, it's just a new app and not called Origin.
Also the bit about 32 bit PC users having to buy a new one is a bit overblown. Who's still using a more than 20 year old computer as their main gaming rig?
That's so cool!! I'm kind of sad I mostly missed that era of computing. Always thought the ZX Spectrum was a cool system. It's neat that writing your own software was accessible and practical all the way back then. I'll probably buy one when I have the money and room to collect that sort of thing.
There's something that seems very satisfying about loading software from tape, too.
That's what I love about coding. All you need is a computer and an idea and nobody can stop you creating it.
Yeah. Looking at stats without context of their audience is what caused the Xbox One disaster. They saw a huge number of hours on Xbox 360 being used for watching streaming shows, so they thought that was all anybody cared about, ignoring the fact that their audience still bought the device as a game console and that alot of those hours were relatives and housemates.
I warned people not to buy games on Stadia. I specifically told them this was going to happen. Nobody should trust Google for anything long term at this point, ever.
"The FF 91's 142.0-kWh battery pack is rated for an EPA-estimated 381 miles of range "
That's... pretty terrible. That's only 609km. The 438km-rated Model 3 battery pack is 66kwh. I could understand this vehicle being somewhat heavier but that's only 64% as efficient. Even compared to the Model X, which is also an SUV but gets 348 on a 100kwH pack, it's pretty awful.
It's a real transaction. Nobody was deceived, the money really changed hands, and the payment processor got their fee.
If I own a physical shop I'm allowed to buy stuff from it if I want, why isn't that also the case for an online store?
I'm not saying it isn't against the ToS, but I agree with OP it isn't obvious why it should be and it seems like almost everybody would test at least one real transaction at some point.