You are thinking of Mona Sax, she makes a brief appearance in the first game, but its in the second game where she shows up in most of the chapters (often showing up right before or after Max arrives to a location) and you play as in her in some of the later chapters.
Yeah I feel too many people overlook that in 2000 it was next to impossible to find a DVD player under $500 and then PS2 came out, lots if people who didn’t even game bought them because it was known for being better than anything even close to its price range.
For those out the loop (probably everyone since no one plays this game it seems) this is Concord by Sony, which after years of dev hell launched two days ago as an online game, but has yet to break 700 players online at a time SteamDB Source. In contrast the four year old, often called abandoned, Red Dead Online has more players during off-peak SteamDB Source
Plus I am sure someone will bring up how with x86 you can play some game no one has heard of/extremely old, but realistically switch is the only actual multiplayer console left. I gave away my xbox s because literally the only game that I could multiplayer was an old xbox 360 racing game. Meanwhile I havent met anyone is 30s-40s who does not absolutely love Mario Party and/or Mario Kart
This feels like trolling or horseshoe theory in play, you skip games where you can only play male, aka most games? This is very similar to people who skip “woke” games because they can not play as male.
For me it was reading in Playstation Magazine that there were melting ice cubes in the then upcoming Metal Gear Solid 2. I’m not even sure PS2 had been released yet at the time, so I was just awe struck thinking wow it’s getting so powerful and detailed that even ice cubes in a sink are accounted for.
Well the moving party has to prove their allegations, aka Ubisoft moving to sue you means they have to prove everything they say. Since their stated public position is that they are sole owner at all times irregardless of circumstances, they would be legally barred (estoppel) from arguing that any one could hurt their possessory interest (rights and share of ownership). They essentially would have to shift the argument over, similar to a theft of service argument (not paying a train fare is a crime but you didn’t steal a train or turnstile). The question then becomes what service does ubisoft provide? Online servers that do content distribution seem to be the only thing. If you got it on the high seas you never hit their network, so all I see left with my hypothetical napkin math is all that random network traffic ubisoft games seem to always have (even offline).
NAL but technically speaking Ubisoft would lose because they would be unable to prove that they were deprived of anything or anything was appropriated from them with their current stance. Realistically they would just pivot and find some other nonsense to try, like claiming a theft of their computer server’s processing power everytime a pirated game accessed their lobby or some other nonsense that would barely fly, but fly none the less.