This group in particular (Collective Shout) is Australian, and they’re anti-gun, it’s just not a key part of their advocacy. They have claimed that GTA is responsible for mass shootings.
Or is it just the ‘humans fighting giant machines’ part that they’re likening to Shadow of the Colossus Metal Gear Solid Horizon Zero Dawn?
Jokes aside, the standard of “could confuse consumers into mistaking one for another” was meant to prevent things like essentially typo-squatting in product names, e.g. going and making Orao cookies, instead of Oreo (which is why Oreo was able to copy Hydrox).
It wasn’t meant to just be about aping a concept or art style. No one would actually mistake “Light of Motiram” for “Horizon: Zero Dawn”.
If this sticks, expect every conservative group in the US to start trying this. Pressure Visa/ MC/ PayPal not to accept charges from Planned Parenthood, or from LGBT-friendly businesses, or from book publishers they don’t like, etc. This is just censorship by other means.
Is this a criticism of the quote, or a response to it?
Once again, you’re not actually just stating your issue, and your responses are ambiguous enough that they could be interpreted either as an objection to people treating Hunter Schafer in a way that you perceive as negative, or an objection to Hunter Schafer.
Again, the issue is this is an American company setting American content policy internationally.
That is not the issue. That may be the subset of the issue that you have a problem with, but the actual issue is a payment provider setting purchase restrictions period. That it is happening in the US is not uniquely bad; it would be equally bad happening anywhere else.
Interpreting the international impact to be “the issue” would mean that if this were only affecting Americans, this would be fine, which is absolutely not the case.
Storefronts and brands can set up local branches and sell through those using the local digital payment provider without getting in trouble with their headquarter’d country.
To set up and sell in that country, they then have to comply with the local payment providers. Which shouldn’t be deciding whether people can purchase something, just as Visa shouldn’t be.
Every company is headquartered somewhere, or has some market that it cannot afford to withdraw from, and that makes them all ultimately subject to said governments. No business decision is made free from pressure when it comes to governments.
We’d be in the same place. It’s not any better or worse for a private versus a public entity to do harm.
Also, the government is already part of this. If the DOJ told Visa, “hey, stop fucking around with that, you don’t need to be trying to control legal agreements between parties, that’s our purview” (or if they even thought the DOJ might), they’d drop this behavior in an instant. They are doing this in large part because they believe it is in line with the government’s ideology. Preemptive compliance.
I didn’t check Kinetic, but Larian’s is good. This is the full termination section of the EULA:
TERMINATION
This Pact shall remain in effect for as long as you use, operate or run the Game.
You may terminate the Pact at any time and for any reason by notifying Larian Studios that you intend to terminate the agreement. Upon termination all licenses granted to you in this Pact shall immediately terminate and you must immediately and permanently remove the Game from your device and destroy all copies of the Game in your possession.
You understand and agree that certain Services connected to the Game, and the support and access to such Services are provided by Larian Studios at its discretion and may be terminated or otherwise discontinued by Larian Studios at any time, for any reason or no reason, in its sole and absolute discretion.
The first block is termination by the user, and specifies removal of the game if the user chooses to terminate the agreement.
The second block is termination by Larian, and only covers “certain Services”… “provided by Larian Studios” (so likely multiplayer matchmaking), not termination of the full agreement, and no game removal.
The places in the EULA where Larian lays out their prerogative to terminate your license to the game is based on behavior (i.e. banning you).
Every time I see someone say that most people haven’t swung a sword/ shot a gun/ been in a fight/ been in an accident, etc, I always wonder if I’m the one in the bubble or if they are.