My point is that there are still people that were never going to buy the game outside that 20% of lost revenue.

My point is, that doesn’t matter. Will there be people pirating games that never would have purchased otherwise? Absolutely. Any game is a good value for $0. But many people use this argument as some sort of mental gymnastics to justify pirating. I’m just saying, the OP is evidence that that argument is bullshit. Many many people will choose to pirate rather than paying for a game they want to play.

People that would not buy the game that will pirate it once it is cracked

That wouldn’t cause a loss of revenue. Which only leaves

people that could not wait and just bought instead of pirating it

Which was my point.

I agree but that doesn’t really contradict what I said.

Personally I only pirate games with anti-features. Denuvo or Blizzard’s online-only mode, or Playstation’s PSN login requirement.

Put simply, if the pirated experience is better than the legit one, then that’s what I’m gonna go with.

Who else would it be?

I guess that puts to rest the “I wasn’t going to buy that game anyway…” nonsense.

deleted by creator

Buy a replacement SSD and stick it in there before selling. Reinstall Windows. Maybe buy a cheap key and reactivate the license. You can get a 1TB SSD for ~$60 these days.

A lot of people are going to want a “ready to play” PC.

Yeah exactly. Passwords and OTPs are NOT the kind of thing you want to lose…

And while you obviously never want your data stolen, even LastPass they didn’t get any actual passwords. Much like 1Pass, Bitwarden or Proton Pass, none of which have had any breaches of any kind that I am aware of. Too many low-hanging fruit.

I was not. What is transmitted is not user activity. It’s all there in your link.

You just intentionally omitted a bunch of pertinent information…

Not really. The browser is tracking the user. All user activity remains local in the browser.

What?

That’s up to you

I don’t think there’s a reality where advertising disappears entirely. However I do think there is one where advertising is simply less-invasive, which is what companies like Mozilla, Brave, and Ad Nauseum advocate for.

Mullvad is great but also breaks ~20% of sites.

I have to disagree for 2 reasons:

1. What’s the alternative? We cant evaluate browsers in a vacuum.

2. Every browser is supported by ads. Advertising has been a part of Firefox since its inception. Im not sure why people are only just now realizing this, I’ve been saying it for years. I dont know that there’s another feasible way to fund development.

We can easily recommend one of the many Firefox forks. Personally I’ve been enjoying Zen browser, which has telemetry disabled and cannot be enabled.

Otherwise we’ll have to wait for Ladybird to be finished.

I self-host a Ghost blog. It’s about as safe as any other service exposed to the internet.

It seems implied that it wasn’t

Yes that’s what I said. What you said is that it was “literally what happened” which led me to believe you had some sort of proof.

That’s not the developer, that’s a Discord mod, and they said in that message specifically that they haven’t heard anything from the dev. It also says nothing about what “the agreement” is. It could very well be a legal settlement.

It says nothing of the sort.