Has anyone played it? I wonder if its any good… I always thought that N64 game was generally considered one of those awful 3d renditions of a 2d classic.
Castlevania 64 was clearly an unfinished game. The first couple levels make their ambitions clear, and the rest of the game is just sort of slapped together. Legacy of Darkness added the rest of the game.
Nobody really celebrates these games. I grew up with them and can appreciate the experience they were offering, but they weren’t exactly my favorites, and I don’t feel they aged particularly well. Maybe take a look through a long play video before committing any real time to it.
I’ll be a minority voice considering the other comments. But maybe just pay for onlyfans or whatever you guys use. I’m a generally attractive woman (I can surmise from interactions while trying to date) and I really don’t like the idea that my likeness would be used for something like this. Get your jollies off, but try and be a bit consensual about it. Is that so much to ask?
It isn’t too much to ask. According to Dr. K of HealthyGamerGG (Harvard Psychiatrist/Instructor), research shows that the release of non-consensual porn makes the unwilling subjects suicidal over half the time. Non-consensual porn = deepfakes, revenge porn, etc. It’s seriously harmful, and there are other effects like depression, shame, PTSD, anxiety, and so on. There is functionally unlimited porn out there that is made with consent, and if someone doesn’t want to be publicly sexually explicit then that’s their choice.
I’m not against AI porn in general (I consider it the modern version of dirty drawings/cartoons), but when it comes to specific likenesses as with deepfakes then there’s clear proof of harm and that’s enough for me to oppose it. I don’t believe there’s some inherent right to see specific people naked against their will.
I wonder if part of the emotional risk is due to the general social stigma attached to porn. It becomes something that has to be explained and justified.
If done to grand excess, deepfakes could crash the market on that, so to speak. Yeah, everyone saw your face on an AI-generated video. They also saw Ruth Bader Ginsburg, their Aunt Matilda, and for good measure, Barry Bonds, and that was just a typical Thursday.
The shock value is burnt through, and “I got deepfaked” ends with a social stigma on the level of “I got in a shouting match with a cashier” or “I stumbled into work an hour late recently.”
My main concern is for kids and teenagers. They’ll bully people for no damn reason at all and AI porn allows for bullies to do more fucked up psychological abuse, and that could be made much worse if victims have no recourse to fight back.
I think it would be too big of a privacy overreach to try to ban it outright as I think what people do on their own computers is their own business and there’s no way to enforce a full ban without being incredibly intrusive, but as soon as it gets distributed in any way I think it should be prosecuted as heavily as real non consensual porn that was taken against someone’s will.
So I’m not disagreeing with you, but you’re assuming they’re making deepfake images, and the article doesn’t specify that. In fact I’d bet that it’s just AI generated “people” that don’t exist.
What about AI porn of a person that doesn’t exist?
However, one of Salad’s clients is CivitAi, a platform for sharing AI generated images which has previously been investigated by 404 media. It found that the service hosts image generating AI models of specific people, whose image can then be combined with pornographic AI models to generate non-consensual sexual images.
Deepfake pornography is super goony but if I had to look for a silver lining, at least nobody had to undergo the actual physical degradation of making porn. It’s still gross in its own way, but it’s a different kind of gross that seems worse in some ways but better in others.
I’m not sure if I feel strongly enough about it to have a consequential opinion either way but I’m trying to at least judge the situation objectively.
I think you raised a valid point. The non-consensual nature of deepfakes pushes it into the realm of abuse material and maybe that’s worse overall than the general exploitation of women going on in the adult film industry, even if those are supposed to be “consensual” on paper.
I know someone who’s into really dark romance stuff, like really hardcore stuff, but she’d never do some of this due to safety reasons. I can totally see her generating scenes of herself in those situations.
I have a question and I hope that people here will discuss this because I really want to understand the general opinion on this.
Is it wrong to deepfake someone without their consent so long as you don’t share the content and it’s all stored locally? I’ve seen this come up and my general opinion is that it isn’t. I know that isn’t the case in the article, just want to hear why people would disagree.
My angle is that doing a deepfake of someone in private hurts zero people and is an extension of fantasy. I don’t see the creation of fake nudes any different than writing fantasy erotica about someone. And I also don’t see it as different than creating fake nude art of them by hand or with photoshop. Like if you do it in your head anyways, which is completely normal, then aren’t we just worried about the outside effects and not the fantasizing itself?
It’s at least as wrong as fantasizing about them if they aren’t already romantically involved with you.
How wrong that is, is up for debate. It will definitely creep them out and they can never find out about it.
If it’s just in your head, at least there’s no physical way they could ever find out. You’d have to admit it. But if you have it on your hard drive, a hacker could get it and blackmail you with it, or just distribute it.
So my stance is that there’s a non-zero chance of doing harm to them, and so it’s wrong. I wouldn’t do it. I also wouldn’t create it with Photoshop, or by hand, for the same reason.
If you want to jerk off, do it to existing porn, or imaginary people porn. Don’t create porn of real people without their permission, even if you think nobody will ever see it other than you. Accidents happen, and they don’t deserve to bear the cost of that.
The first part, absolutely. But I think a lot of that is biological so I don’t see fantasy as a problem. You should keep it to yourself though.
The second part I think Id somewhat agree with except the hacker can’t blackmail you with it because it’s just as likely that they created it. And even if they did blackmail you, I would view that as the damage caused by the hacker, not by the individual.
Like if someone put something nasty about me down in their diary where they expected it to be private, and a hacker sent me an email of that diary page, that’s entirely the hackers fault. The diary writer was expressing an emotion or desire or whatever in complete privacy. Was their creation wrong? No, I don’t think so.
And to be clear I’m not saying people should go to this type of fantasy, this is all a thought exercise for ethics, but I think a lot about this stuff because as much potential for bad as it has, it also has some potential for good. All of the women I know experience behaviors such as stalking, obsession, unwelcome sexual advances, etc. on a regular basis. There is a reason those men don’t turn to free porn. Incel behavior is also just as bad in many ways. So could AI and deepfake stuff result in many of those men keeping that stuff to themselves more? Maybe.
And before you say that these perverts will just send fake nudes to you and harass you that way, we should absolutely be prosecuting people that do so. That’s an entirely separate convo tho.
How anyone could think that going so far as to invoke thoughtcrime is relevant in this discussion is beyond me. It should be self evident to anyone that fantasies are a thing. They’ve been a thing for the entire history of the human race. In no way do fantasies compare to creating reproducible and sharable media of someone in a pornographic situation without their consent.
You can’t transplant your fantasies into someone else’s head. Your fantasies literally cannot hurt anyone. On the other hand, imagine if you found out that someone was distributing pornographic material depicting one of your loved ones. It can quite literally ruin someone’s reputation to be seen in a pornographic situation.
Your argument is some slippery slope fallacy shit.
Reread the comment I replied to and then reread my comment. You are putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything about sharing anything nor implied anything of the sort.
You’d have to admit it. But if you have it on your hard drive, a hacker could get it and blackmail you with it, or just distribute it.
There are lots of sick fucks that will distribute it themselves and even send it to their victims to harass them directly. It’s already happening.
I don’t think it’s possible to ban it outright, and I think what people do on their own computer is their own business so long as they aren’t connecting to other computers, but we should have strong laws against distributing it and treat it the same as distributing secretly taken real nudes against someone’s will. Victims need recourse against harassment.
I guess this was just one level of abstraction too much for you huh?
The entire issue here is AI being trained on people’s data without them knowing or giving permission. The question of who’s likenesses and which photos are being used is an excellent question and it’s a big part of the problem here.
Unfortunately with the upcoming FO4 patch in a few days, a lot of those mods are gonna be broken for a few weeks/months. Bad timing by Bethesda on that front.
The show caused me to finally buy FO4, and so I immediately hopped onto Nexus and downloaded the highest-rated mod collection for the game. It has over 700 mods, so something tells me I won’t actually be playing much of the game for a while yet. (I wouldn’t deign to play a modern Bethesda game without mods.)
i cloud game and luckily there’s back ups. but i boot the cloud, boot moonlight and click skse64… about 1.5 months skyrim will update. and its a pita. steam just be like that. it’s honestly why i havent tried fo4 lately. i wanna bad.
What i did with Skyrim was setting the update option in steam to only update when i launch the game. But then only launch the game with the script extender.
You’re gonna have to watch that mod count. I had to axe a bunch of my mods because the game kept crashing every few minutes due to scripts and visual stuff
That’s what I thought when I saw the number of mods in that pack, but after a bit of tweaking (a few mods that cause crashing in Linux) it’s been quite stable. I’m only about 10 hours in though.
Nowadays you can pick a collection and install it without having to worry about compatibility, someone else already figured it out! I think that’s worth using vortex
Wabbajack is even better! If you’re playing Skyrim, Nolvus is amazing and has its own installer, even installs an enb for you, you can choose between 4 or 5 of them
I was about to install and play, but now I’m waiting. I have ancient mods that still work, but I can live without them. I’m mostly concerned with newer mods, which generally have active support from the authors.
Yeah sure except now to make deep fake porn you just need to go ‘famous star naked riding an old man’s cock’ set 8 images for each seed and set a job of 100 images, turn the air con to antarctic and make misogynistic videos about why movies are woke while the job slowly cooks your studio
Then when you finish you probably have some good images of whatever famous star you like getting railed by an old man and you can hop on YouTube and complain that people don’t think you are an artist.
It requires almost no effort or talent to make a boatload of deep fake material. If you put any effort in you can orchestrate an image that looks pretty good.
Add to that the fact that before ai, unless you’re already pretty famous, no one cares enough to make nonconsensual porn of you. After, anyone vaguely attracted to you can snap or find a few pictures and do a decent job of it without any skill or practice.
Ease of creation shouldn’t have a bearing on whether or not the final result is illegal. A handmade vs AI generated fake nude should be treated the same way.
I didn’t argue that it shouldn’t. The difference is the ease of creation. It now requires no skill or talent to produce it so the game has changed and it needs to be addressed and not dismissed
Do you hate all amateur art, or just when it’s made with ai tools? Does a kid’s drawing, produced in scant seconds and with no training and remarkably little skill hold negative value to you, or is it worth something?
What about art produced with hours or days of effort and a specific goal in mind, but don’t so using primarily ai with perhaps a few finishing touches?
Whataboutism and JAQing off. AI models are trained off blatant mass theft; as long as the originators of the training material (1) haven’t given consent to their being scraped and (2) aren’t getting paid for said already-done scraping, then the generator is unethical and deserving of hatred. You can’t have it both ways-- if capitalism is the game that must be played, then the originators of the training data need to give their consent and they need to be paid for every byte of training data that’s been stolen from them.
I love it when people get hyper defensive about this for no reason at all. Aesthetically, AI art is obviously better than a child’s scribbles, but the problem is that AI art is pure aesthetic, with no meaning behind it at all, and if you engage with art purely for the aesthetic, then you fundamentally miss the point of it. AI can’t mean anything when it produces art. It just spits out a series of 1s and 0s based on whatever nonsense you shout into it.
It doesn’t matter how many hours you spend working on a piece, if you use AI (Edit to clarify: if you use AI to generate the art in its entirety), then the AI made the art. An AI cannot answer questions about artistic decisions it made, because it made no decisions. It’s worse than tracing—at least an amateur artist can answer why they decided to copy another artist’s work.
Because charitable interpretation is dead, I have to clarify. I’m not saying that there is no valid use case AI generated art, nor am I saying that all human-made art is good. All I’m saying is that human-made art can have meaning behind it, while AI art cannot. It’s incapable of having meaning, so it isn’t really art.
It doesn’t matter how many hours you spend working on a piece, if you use AI, then the AI made the art.
Except that artists can use ai as a tool to make art. Sure, the ai can’t say why that pixel looks that way, but the artist can say why this is the output that was kept. They can tell you why they chose to prompt the ai the way they did, what outputs they expected and why the ones that were kept were special, let alone what changes they may have made after and why.
If Jackson Pollock can make art from randomness by flicking a brush, why can’t someone make art from randomness by promoting an ai? Is there a lone somewhere that makes it become art, in your opinion? I don’t think it would be uncharitable by interpreting the above quote to mean you don’t believe it is possible at all to use ai as a tool in the production of the art.
If ai is the only tool used, it never makes an image, let alone art, because there was never even a human using language to prompt the ai. But from that obviously ridiculous extreme there is certainly a long spectrum ranging through what I described above to something as far removed as a human generating landscapes for a storyboard before fully producing a movie that doesn’t include the air outputs in any physical way. I’m sure you would claim a line exists between there, and I’m curious where.
There’s a couple of orthogonal arguments here, and I’m going to try to address them both: are you an artist if you use AI generated art, and why do I hate AI generated art?
Telling a machine “car, sedan, neon lights, raining, shining asphalt, night time, city lights” is not creating art. To me, it’s equivalent to commissioning art. If I pay someone $25 to draw my D&D character, then I am not an artist, I’ve simply hired one to draw what I wanted to see. Now, if I make any meaningful changes to that artwork, I could be considered an artist. For example, if I commissioned someone else to do the line work, and then I fill in the colors, we’ve both made the artwork. Of course, this can be stretched to an extreme that challenges my descriptivism. If I put a single black pixel on the Mona Lisa, can I say I collaborated on the output? Technically, yes, but I can’t take credit for anything other than putting a black pixel on it. Similarly, I feel that prompt engineers can’t take any credit for the pictures that AI produces past the prompt that they provided and whatever post-processing they do.
As for why I hate AI art, I just hate effortless slop. It’s the exact same thing as YouTube shorts comprised of Family Guy clips and slime. I have a hard time really communicating this feeling to other people, but I know many other people feel the same way. Even aside from the ethical concerns of stealing people’s artwork to train image generators, we live in a capitalist society, and automating things like art generation and youtube shorts uploads harms the people who actually produce those things in the first place.
Telling a machine “car, sedan, neon lights, raining, shining asphalt, night time, city lights” is not creating art. To me, it’s equivalent to commissioning art.
When art is commissioned, art is produced. If no human produced it, an ai did. If ai cannot produce art, then a human must have.
Similarly, I feel that prompt engineers can’t take any credit for the pictures that AI produces past the prompt that they provided and whatever post-processing they do.
I suppose I don’t understand why engineering a prompt can’t count as an artistic skill, nor why selecting from a number of generated outputs can’t (albeit to probably a much lower degree). At what point does a patron making a commission become a collaborator? And if ai fills the role of the painter, why wouldn’t you expect that line to move?
As for why I hate AI art, I just hate effortless slop.
I’m with you there. And I would brook no issue with completing about the massive amount of terrible, low-effort ai art currently being produced. But broadening the claim to include all art in which the most efficacious tool used was ai pushes it over the line for me.
When art is commissioned, art is produced. If no human produced it, an ai did. If ai cannot produce art, then a human must have.
Right, so this is what I mean when I say that charitable interpretation is dead. Taking my earlier assertion that AI generated art isn’t real art, along with my assertion that providing a prompt to an AI is essentially equivalent to providing a description to a human artist for a commission, should not have read as an argument for or against AI generated art being real art. Taking those statements together, the only reasonable conclusion you can make about my position is that prompt engineers aren’t artists.
I suppose I don’t understand why engineering a prompt can’t count as an artistic skill, nor why selecting from a number of generated outputs can’t (albeit to probably a much lower degree). At what point does a patron making a commission become a collaborator?
Never. It’s not an artistic skill in the same way that providing a description to an actual artist is not an artistic skill, which was the point of that paragraph. They become a collaborator the moment they make changes to the work, and the level to which they can say they’re an artist depends on what changes they make, and how well they make them.
Right, so this is what I mean when I say that charitable interpretation is dead. Taking my earlier assertion that AI generated art isn’t real art, along with my assertion that providing a prompt to an AI is essentially equivalent to providing a description to a human artist for a commission, should not have read as an argument for or against AI generated art being real art. Taking those statements together, the only reasonable conclusion you can make about my position is that prompt engineers aren’t artists.
That sounds like the interpretation I’m responding to. It either doesn’t follow from your premises, or it begs the question. Yes, if ai art isn’t real art, no art produced with ai is real art, but that’s a tautology. I’m trying to get at why you believe ai inherently makes something not art. Low effort was a reason you gave, but you also said no amount of effort could change it.
Never. It’s not an artistic skill in the same way that providing a description to an actual artist is not an artistic skill
But providing a description to an “actual artist” is an artistic skill. If you have a particular vision in your head for a character, writing that out is art the same way any kind of writing can be, no? Writing something in a way that gives another artist a mental image that matches yours takes creativity and skill. Why doesn’t the work created by that creativity and skill count as art? It seems unnecessarily gatekeep-y.
Ohhh, so this is why people tag their images by popular art commisioners
There’s a point where writing becomes art. You either agree with that, or you don’t believe any kind of literature or poetry counts as art. In the latter case, that’s a bit of an extreme take but I guess you’re welcome to your opinion. In the former case, there’s a lone somewhere between Tolkien and XanthemG where something starts being art.
For the same reason ChatGPT can’t make you any less lonely.
Only insofar as neither can a book. And yeah, there’s obviously a difference there, but the difference isn’t inherent to ai. Ai isn’t a person, it’s a tool. Dismissing anything made by the tool because the tool was used to make them is the position that I think is ridiculous. I’m not claiming that all of the “ai art” people are posting everywhere is definitely "real art"and needs to be taken seriously. I’m claiming that it’s possible for an artist to use ai in the production of real art.
There’s a line between a cup and an ocean. I don’t see what that has to do with anything.
I’m claiming that it’s possible for an artist to use ai in the production of real art.
As an artist can use a guitar instead of their own mouth. But can an artist’s art be the guitar playing itself… hm. A book in a library is art. But can choosing a book from a library be art? Ah, but what if it takes a long time. Wow, philosophy is interesting.
The argument here hinges on the definitions of inherently vague words. “Hm, you say a chair must have at least three legs and a seat, but this rock is a place people sit. Hm, what if the rock was sculpted, does it count then? Yes, yes, I am very smart”—This is boring and I don’t care.
If the script for your movie wasn’t written by people, then I don’t care about it. It’s trash. It’s garbage. I would rather watch one made by people who care. I want people to talk to me with their art. When an AI becomes sentient enough to intend to make something meaningful, then we can revisit.
Oh right, but you mean the technical caveat for the use of AI tools.
Joel Haver uses an AI filter to do his rotoscoping. I like Joel Haver just fine.
The mere presence of an AI filter in his work is not what I consider artful, though.
As an artist can use a guitar instead of their own mouth. But can an artist’s art be the guitar playing itself… hm.
Absolutely it can. Numerous artists have created work that unfolds itself into something beautiful through their planning but not through their power.
But can choosing a book from a library be art?
Choosing a urinal counts as art. Of course choosing a book can.
The argument here hinges on the definitions of inherently vague words.
Art is an inherently vague word.
I would rather watch one made by people who care.
This right here is the crux of my argument. What about art made by people who care, but made with ai? Is it so impossible that people might care about something and use ai to make it?
I absolutely do not contend that using ai makes something art. I merely contend that using ai (even as a major part of a work) is not sufficient to make it not art. To whit,
Joel Haver uses an AI filter to do his rotoscoping. I like Joel Haver just fine.
It sounds like you agree with me on that, at least in principle.
Hours of effort to create prompts to maneuver the models output until it looks closer to what you wanted, possibly with the addition of touch-up or addition steps at the end likely needed for certain kinds of image to clean up things the ai struggles with (like, say, hands) or to add something in particular the ai didn’t understand (like, say, a monster of your own invention or something).
It’s easy to say that doesn’t count, that the prompt engineer could have just come up with their final prompt in the first place, but then does it count when a digital painter sketches an outline a dozen times before deciding it’s where they want it? After all, the digital artist could have just drawn it the way they wanted at first blush. But I’d bet you’ll say the time the digital artist spent “counts” as time spent working on an art piece, even if you might be inclined to say the prompt engineer’s time doesn’t. I’d be interested to hear your take.
Dude, I don’t care how many iterations a person goes through. I care that the piece contains a bit of their soul.
The argument you’re making fails to appreciate why two images, one made by gen AI, one by a real human person, both exactly identical pixel by pixel, could possibly be valued differently.
If you want to know why I seem to lack respect for the prompt artist who spends a 3-month chunk of their life toiling over their latest piece, making everything just so, because some part of them desperately needs to say something and this piece is the only way they can—I would ask you to show me one.
But further, the prompt artist doesn’t even make it. Even if they did spend the time, credit goes to the AI. The prompt artist is welcome to claim their prompt, I guess, but I don’t often see them sharing those around. Would that even be entertaining?
Dude, I don’t care how many iterations a person goes through. I care that the piece contains a bit of their soul.
the prompt artist who spends a 3-month chunk of their life toiling over their latest piece,
I’m curious what could possibly convince you that someone put their soul into their work? Or why the assumption is always that ai is the only tool being used.
Here’s a list of artists using ai tools in their work.
But further, the prompt artist doesn’t even make it.
Again, ai is a tool. That’s like saying digital artists didn’t make their paintings, the printer did. Or maybe it’s like saying the director didn’t make the movie, the actors and cameras did. Actually, I really like the director analogy. They give directions to the actors as many times as they need to get the take they want, and then they finalize it later with post production.
Does the director take credit for their actor’s acting, though? Usually, the actors win the award for best acting.
So an ai artist shouldn’t earn any awards for best painting. Directors are still credited as artists. I’m not saying using ai makes you a painter, or any other kind of artist. I’m just saying that “ai” doesn’t magically make a creation “not art”. And yeah, it’s possible to create zero effort slop with ai that can look a lot more interesting than the zero effort slop you can make with just paint, but a kid splattering paint everywhere doesn’t make Jackson Pollock not be an artist.
Well, the word deep fake is literally from the ai boom, but I understand you to mean doctored images to make it look like someone was doing a porn when they didn’t was already a thing.
And yeah, it very much was. But unless you were already a high profile individual like a popular celebrity, or mayyybe if you happened to be attractive to the one guy making them, they didn’t tend to get made of you, and certainly not well. Now, anyone with a crush and a photo of you can make your face and a pretty decent approximation of your naked body move around and make noises while doing the nasty. And they can do it many orders of magnitude faster and with less skill than before.
So no, you don’t need ai for it to exist and be somewhat problematic, but ai makes it much more problematic.
One ethics quandary is AI child porn. It at least provides a non-harmful outlet for an otherwise harmful act, but it could also feed addictions and feel insufficient.
If I’m reading this right, it’s a program that users sign up for to donate their processing power (and can opt in or out of adult content), which is then used by client companies to generate their own users’ content? It even says that Salad can’t view or moderate the images, so what exactly are they doing wrong besides providing service to potentially questionable companies? It makes as much sense as blaming Nvidia or Microsoft, am I missing something?
so what exactly are they doing wrong besides providing service to potentially questionable companies?
Well I think that is the main point of what is wrong. I think the big question is whether the mature content toggle is on by default or not. The company says it’s off, but some users said otherwise. Dunno why the author didn’t install it and check.
However, by default the software settings opt users into generating adult content. An option exists to “configure workload types manually” which enables users to uncheck the “Adult Content Workloads” option (via 404 media), however this is easily missed in the setup process, which I duly tested for myself to confirm.
Honestly, and I’m not saying I support what’s being done here, the way I see it if you’re tech savvy enough to be interested in using a program like this you should be looking through all of the options properly anyway. If users don’t care what they’re doing and are only interested in the rewards that’s kind of on them.
I just think the article is focused on the wrong company, Salad is selling a tool that is being potentially misused by users of their client’s service. I can certainly see why that can be a problem, but based on the information given in the article I don’t think it’s really theirs. If that’s ALL Salad’s used for then that’s a different story.
Ah thanks I think I forgot that sentence by the end of the article and thought it was just a user report that it was checked by default. I really don’t think that it should be checked by default, depending on where you are it could even get you in trouble. App setup for this kind of stuff isn’t necessarily only for power users now, it has gotten very streamlined and tested for conversion.
Based on the rewards, I’m assuming it’s being done by very young people. Presumably the value of rewards is really low, but these kids haven’t done the cost-benefit analysis. If I had to guess, for the vast majority it costs more in electricity than they get back, but the parents don’t know it’s happening.
This could be totally wrong. I haven’t looked into it. This is how most of these things work though. They prey on the youth and their desire for these products to take advantage of them.
Right, so it’s not like they’re being tricked into generating porn or anything. It’s not some option that they would have turned off if they’d known about it, they just don’t care what’s happening because they only want the reward. Again I’m not saying I agree with it or that Salad’s right to do it, but if they say that’s potentially what it can be used for (and they do because the opt-out is available) then the focus should be on the client companies using the tool for questionable purposes.
Honestly what roblox kids are willing to do for pitiful pay is scary, if you work in any kind of creative digital medium those kids will do days of your job for a fiver if any real money at all. It won’t be industry quality or anything but damn we got a whole digital version of sending kids down the mines. (And some of these roblox games can have unexpectedly big players behind them exploiting kids)
They gonna let blizz be blizz, insofar as microsoft gonna keep giving the macroshaft. They gonna fuck you, but when they’re done, they let you keep your ass. Wouldn’t be much use to them without it…
pcgamer.com
Aktywne