They deleted content I paid for. I couldn't be happier to see Bungie collapse.

The Bungie I knew and loved died when they got rid of Marty, and later Joe Staten.

Suck on eggs, Jason Jones.

Star Wars Galaxies private servers are not a good experience. They don't allow two players from the same IP, so if you live with someone you want to play with you have to tell them, then send them pictures of BOTH copies of the discs and you and the other person's hands. They hide behind "preventing gold farmers" but like, who is actually going to be a gold farmer in a private server, and who actually cares if they did? The other 25 players in the server?

Nah, I'm good.

City of Heroes has been golden by comparison.

343 didn't purchase Halo, Microsoft purchased it from Bungie and then licensed it to Bungie, then transferred the license to 343 after Reach launched.

But other than that, you are correct on the other stuff.

This list actually put AC Shadows, I'm dying. Way to out yourselves, Polygon.

Shocker

If what he did is illegal, what is anyone going to do about it though? Two people with no money are going to sue each other? Perhaps maybe a law firm would want to get involved, but I can't see how this even gets enforced other than everyone forking to code anyway and completely ignoring the new terms since they wouldn't apply.

AFAIK, no. The tests you can get won't show exactly how much viral load you have, only that you have enough to trigger the test to return a positive result.

Depends on how patient you are.

If you're a patient person, its annoying but fine for the most part. If you have no patience, you'll think its completely unusable.

Absolutely deserved

Forks of versions before the license was changed would still be okay, no?

Businesses do not care about people, I can pretty much guarantee those were added in order to waive liability. Example: person commits suicide because they see it in a show, family sues show company because that is linked to the person's suicide, arguing the show encouraged the person to do it.

Would that hold up in court? I don't know, probably not, but the company doesn't want to deal with that. So they add a warning instead so they can just point to that and it gets thrown out immediately.

To my knowledge, there hasn't been a major peer reviewed study to show whether these warnings make any difference.

Now, my own anecdotal non-peer reviewed personal opinion would be that they probably make no difference at all. Businesses likely began adding them only to waive potential liability and not to actually do anything helpful. They can be frustrating because they spoil upcoming events in media that may have been unexpected or unknown, but because of the warning are now definitely known and thus feels "ruined" when it happens. They can also reinforce ideation of suicide because a person may feel like the ones that added the warning did it as a token thing, treating the person like they are a badge of honor or some kind of selling point. Whether that is true or not doesn't really matter, a person that is suicidal is almost never "in their right mind," and if they feel that way, they feel that way. Nobody can tell them how to feel, not even themselves sometimes.