I guess the real pisser here was that the online component worked just fine. They made an active decision to just cut off linux players which was a real dick move.

I played GTA V online with three of my friends, and had about 900 hours of play. Then one day, bam, they literally cut anyone using Linux off from being able to connect to the servers. It just leaves a real bad taste in my mouth, because I would have probably gone to RDR2 next, and might have even bought RDR on my Switch. Voting with my wallet is all I can do, and at this point it feels like voting for a president. My tiny little vote won’t really amount to much, but hey at least I can feel good about standing on my principals. Like someone else said, they have 30 year backlog of games, and I have similar. So not playing either GTA V online anymore or buying GTA VI won’t really affect me in the long run as far as hindering my enjoyment of other games so there’s that…

if it’s higher than $60, R* can lick my taint.

FTFY

Well that’s a ripe take on this. Evidently you don’t know anyone who runs Linux and played GTA V online. Rockstar can fuck right off for what they pulled. Definitely didn’t earn any trust, and Windows users should be wary as well since they did that with no notice and no fucks given to a portion of their paid users.

For all the linux and Steam Deck users who used to be able to play GTA Online here’s a cheat code for you: FuckRockstar.

Software “passing” a written test where it has been fed all of the answers is not that impressive to me, except from a programming standpoint. From the intelligence standpoint, not so much. Just because it can pass the bar doesn’t make it lawyer worthy. This software cannot think, and that is ultimately what you pay a lawyer to do. None of this software is coming up with new thoughts, it’s just regurgitating what it has been fed.

I bet they would be willing to do it right while you are in the middle of something important if you paid them an extra $30 on top of that.

Windows 11 = O.S. Ima Ad-Laden. Coincidence? I think not…

As to the suspects, at this time we are keeping our opinions unbiased.

It sure doesn’t say when that was updated, but for a long period of time the use of drone when discussing unmanned aircraft was reserved for military craft that were usually armed and used to kill people. In the attempt to demonize hobby rc use, the press started calling simple quadcopters (and other propeller configurations if we are being pedantic) drones and not what they were normally called by the people using and making them in the hobby. My point still stands, the press likes to change the wording of things, and will perpetuate their narrative in order to garner views. Manufacturing fear is part of their tactic, and is why I replied what I replied to the question of why the press continues to push the false narrative of these cars being “self driving”.

so why do articles keep pushing the false narrative, even after it’s deemed illegal?

The same reason that simple quadcopters have been deemed by the press to be called “drones”. You can’t manufacture panic and outrage with a innocuous name.

If they don’t name it the Adobe they don’t have a hair on their ass.