Take-Two Kills "Essential" Grand Theft Auto V Mod

[Skylon]

*cough* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40404622

[weissel]

On 16/06/2017 at 11:03 PM, LoSBoL said:

Do you really think that everybody is just going to roll over, die and accepts this?

No.  But I think that many times games publishers have been exceedingly stupid and trying to make a money grab.  Often at the behest of some well meaning sales guy or some executive.
T2 just did that, so ...

On 17/06/2017 at 0:02 AM, regex said:

That was literally the most exaggerated, overthought bit of fear-mongering I have read in some time, and I follow Snopes on Facebook.

Thank you for the compliment.  Now you know the wet dreams of business executives who are in it for the money.

Quote

 if they try to shut down the modding community they will pretty much destroy the community overall,

I agree.  But that has never stopped anybody with enough greed and not enough smarts in a position of power.  (Psychopaths are overrepresented in high management, BTW.)

Quote

 

As for the OP, I don't see Take Two or Rockstar doing anything wrong in shutting down that mod, especially if it exposes/helps expose content that is intended to be monetized, even for single player.

 

From what I understand, the content was free, just lately they tried to lock it up for a cash grab and/or to drive people to the online version where microtransactions rule.

 

On 17/06/2017 at 0:25 AM, Galileo said:

TT has nothing to lose, and a few dollars to gain.

T2 has a lot to lose. Reputation, sales, ...  The question is if the deciders at T2 can grasp that truth.

 

On 17/06/2017 at 0:34 AM, regex said:

[on banning MM]
If that's the best way for Squad/Take Two to protect their IP, striking at the root of the problem rather than the top-level abusive mod, then I won't begrudge them that because it is their right as owner of the IP and code.

Somebody used a machete to attack and hurt people.  Let's not go after him.  Let's outlaw all knifes and knife-like objects instead ... steak knifes, butter knifes, chef's knifes ... That (probably) works.

Quote

If OpenIV was so deep into the game code providing hooks that allowed monetized content to be exposed then that is the real problem mod, not the one that exposed the content after the fact.

OpenIV was (AFAIK) so deep into the game code that it accessed unencrypted data for cars that had been freely available in single player.  T2 then decided to make their GTA V no longer read the files until some condition indicated a microtransaction had happened.  Morally that sucks.  It is also as effective as locking the door behind you ... while you have no walls, so walking around the door is trivial.

 

On 17/06/2017 at 1:39 PM, Starman4308 said:

I'm still unclear on how this doesn't constitute piracy.

You are right, that is piracy.  Perpetrated by T2, though: taking away what they had given to their SP players and asking for money to get it back.

 

On 17/06/2017 at 2:21 PM, Starman4308 said:

Let's say I'm a preacher for religion X, distributing tickets to some event on the condition that they accept a copy of the unnamed holy book. If you start distributing bootleg tickets to that event, or take a ticket behind my back, that is still bootlegging/theft, because you are subverting the conditions of getting that ticket.

Let's say you are a preacher for religion X and you offer your holy book(s) for free for anyone who pays for and visits your convention.  Later, you decide that everybody has to either return the holy book(s) or pay a fee for them.  Now, who is the thief?

Quote

A software example might be a company including a GPL-licensed open-source library in their proprietary ARR-licensed software, or re-distributing that library under a more permissive license like MIT/BSD. While that's "making free content available for all", it's still in violation of the original license.

"making content available for all" and "proprietary ARR-licensed software" are clearly the opposite of each other.

"making content available for all" and changing a 'share-alike' license to a 'do what you want' license means that the former 'available for all' becomes a 'some things available for some people', which obviously is contrary to making content available for all.

For many proprietary libraries you have to pay money, for the GPL you have to share knowledge if you distribute it.

Quote

As a side note: I thoroughly despise the GPL license. If somebody can make a profit off my non-for-profit, open-source work? Good.

And in which way exactly does the Gnu Public License license prohibit that?

 

On 17/06/2017 at 3:15 PM, Benjamin Kerman said:

but there is still the feeling of "stealing the idea". 

Are you talking "look and feel" or are you talking "patents"?

 

On 17/06/2017 at 3:41 PM, Kerbart said:

Microsoft didn't kill mods on Minecraft when they bought it; it would kill the game. T2 is not going to kill their acquisition either. There are many ways they can monetize the Kerbals; why jeopardize their flagship game?

Corporate Stupidity.  Short-sighted money grab.  Just look around, read the news ... it's everywhere.

 

On 18/06/2017 at 1:52 PM, Kerbart said:

Yes, “Clean room design” is a thing. It's used to copy a design without infringing on copyrights. The word here is copy. If you're programming against an interface there's nothing to copy, so using a clean room design to develop a GTA V mod doesn't make any sense.

I am pretty sure that, unless that interface is well and completely documented, you still need to reverse engineer and therefore see the code ... and I can see lawyers trying to make up a case out of hot air.  It's good to have something making them reconsider such an attack.

Quote

So the claim that OpenIV went through all the trouble of building their software in a Clean room design approach and then decide that they lack the money to fight the case... It's like building your own aircraft and then deciding to not fly it because you don't have a pilot's license.

I don't know about you, but a court battle against a company with 3.700 employees, $1.7 billion revenue and $3.1 billion in assets sounds expensive and taking over your life for however long it takes.  The gain, if they win?  Zero.  They are not modding for the money.

Quote

What happens when you break the EULA in such a way that it's causing significant financial damage to the owner of the EULA? They'll take you to court.

Yes, OpenIV damaged their "turn already handed out freebies into micropay stuff" plan.  And of course the "force people to go online and spend money by making SP way less attractive".

Quote

There's legislation against legal muzzling. A big company trying to shut a small legal operation down in court? Your lawyer will happily play ball, knowing that she can succesfully sue the big company for damages and have them pay for her.

Yes, the lawyers always play ball, as long as they get paid, no matter if it's the own side or the other side.

However, if you are small fry, losing the case will ruin you.

Quote

All that's stopping her from doing so is if your case is likely to lose. So there's how "legal" OpenIV's operation was.

"... the study found that in recent years only about one in three hate crimes are ever reported to law enforcement officials." By your logic 2/3rds of hate crime are no crime at all, because they would be reported if they were. And that is when >90% of the hate crimes are violent, versus 13% of all crime.

 

On 18/06/2017 at 6:59 PM, Starman4308 said:

It's not like they're the IP owners or anything; who are they to say how GTA V can or can't be used?

Sort of like Gutenberg telling the world how the printing press can and cannot be used.  Or your favourite band declaring that their music may only be heard while bathing (and you only having a shower) ... it's not like the band are the IP owners or anything ...

 

On 19/06/2017 at 9:17 PM, Neroziat said:

Commercial quality code? Is that why you need patches on day one of a released game to get through the first level?

Yes, that is "commercial quality code".  It's not like Open Source where everyone can see how shoddy your code is!

[Starman4308]

16 minutes ago, weissel said:

You are right, that is piracy.  Perpetrated by T2, though: taking away what they had given to their SP players and asking for money to get it back.

You're not the owner of GTA V. You have not the slightest right to say what TT can and cannot do with their IP. This warped and entitled sense of fairness has nothing to do with what does and doesn't constitute piracy.

18 minutes ago, weissel said:

And in which way exactly does the Gnu Public License license prohibit that?

That is the entire point of the GNU GPL. Any work utilizing GNU GPL-licensed code must be distributed under GNU GPL itself. Therefore, there's no way to include a GPL-licensed software library in your proprietary, closed-source, ARR program. You can do that with something like the MIT or BSD license, where you have to include a copy of the license with your program, but the program itself can be under any license.

The lesser GPL does not have that stipulation, but the full GPL is basically a viral license, forcing conformity to the author's views on how software should work.

[regex]

Quote

From what I understand, the content was free, just lately they tried to lock it up for a cash grab and/or to drive people to the online version where microtransactions rule.

And there's nothing wrong with that. It's Take Two /Rockstar's intellectual property. They provided a product with certain stipulations on its use (EULA) and were rightly worried that the tool would enable online players to bypass the revenue they expected to gain from the content they provide.

Quote

T2 has a lot to lose. Reputation, sales, ...  The question is if the deciders at T2 can grasp that truth.

Okay, well, if they're going to die on that hill then let them. Businesses fail all the time from a variety of reasons. There's nothing stopping you and others from "voting with your wallet".

Quote

Somebody used a machete to attack and hurt people.  Let's not go after him.  Let's outlaw all knifes and knife-like objects instead ... steak knifes, butter knifes, chef's knifes ... That (probably) works.

The two situations (a business protecting their IP and government enacting legislation to make it harder to perpetrate violence) aren't even remotely comparable.

Quote

OpenIV was (AFAIK) so deep into the game code that it accessed unencrypted data for cars that had been freely available in single player.  T2 then decided to make their GTA V no longer read the files until some condition indicated a microtransaction had happened.  Morally that sucks.

There's nothing wrong with that morally at all; it's Take Two/Rockstar's intellectual property and they have every right to protect it from being used in a manner that may bypass paying for it online. According to at least one source (the Open IV developer) Open IV allowed players to "cheat" online.

Quote

Yes, OpenIV damaged their "turn already handed out freebies into micropay stuff" plan.  And of course the "force people to go online and spend money by making SP way less attractive".

And there is nothing wrong with Take Two/Rockstar monetizing the content they created and taking steps to protect it.

3 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

That is the entire point of the GNU GPL. Any work utilizing GNU GPL-licensed code must be distributed under GNU GPL itself. Therefore, there's no way to include a GPL-licensed software library in your proprietary, closed-source, ARR program. You can do that with something like the MIT or BSD license, where you have to include a copy of the license with your program, but the program itself can be under any license.

The lesser GPL does not have that stipulation, but the full GPL is basically a viral license, forcing conformity to the author's views on how software should work.

Going back to the original point, there is nothing in the GPL that prevents the author from monetizing the project.

There is also nothing preventing someone who has purchased the product from then distributing it under the terms of the GPL (and, in fact, attempting to monetize it themselves), but you can charge for your GPL'd project all you want.

[weissel]

3 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

You're not the owner of GTA V. You have not the slightest right to say what TT can and cannot do with their IP.

Of course I am not the owner of GTA V.  Neither are judges, juries, the supreme court, the constitution or the law of the land.

Also, last I looked, I was not under your command in any way and therefore you have not the slightest right to tell me what I may say regarding T2 and their IP --- especially not an implied "Shut The **** Up!"

 

Quote

This warped and entitled sense of fairness has nothing to do with what does and doesn't constitute piracy.

When I buy a game --- or rather, pay for the license to play a game --- I certainly feel entitled to actually play that game to the fullest, and I don't feel warped saying that the publisher removing content only to sell it back to me is not a case of fairness.  It's not like I use a time or feature limited demo or not yet registered shareware.  GTA V doesn't come cheap.

But I agree with you on piracy.  You cannot see how that is not piracy?  Let me help you:

• It is not murder/robbery/... on the high seas (or rivers).
• It is not Copyright infringement or "music piracy"... nothing was taken of code or assets.
• It is not patent "piracy", nothing to do with patents.
• It's not a pirate radio, by virtue of not broadcasting anything.
• It's not a boat or ship, hence not a 1934 designed sailing dinghy type called "Pirate".  Nor has it any relation to the steamboat "Pirate", the USS Pirate (SP-229), the civilian motorboat "Pirate" turned patrol vessel for 1917/18, the USS Pirate (AM-275), an WWII minesweeper sunk at Korea in 1950.
• It has nothing to do with:
  • sex, pimps, etc, where the word "pirate" turns up now and then.
  • aircraft hijacking
  • Space piracy (analogue to high seas piracy)
  • Films, games, toys, literature, ... even though some have "pirate" in their name
  • Sports teams
  • any Pirate Party
  • a butterfly (Catacroptera, aka "pirate")
• It is not related or involved with a  Passive Infra-Red Airborne Track Equipment
• It has no connection to "Pirate Joe's" which bought/buys at full price and resold some Trader Joe's wares in Canada, where Trader Joe's does not exist at all. 
  This is a special case of Corporate Stupidity: Pirate Joe's spends $4,000-$5,000/week. At full price, mind you!  (He clearly is their largest customers.)  Of course you need to shut them down, by litigation, banning them from the stores (with photos to other stores), because ... everybody loses that way.  Yeah, real real smart.  Take heed T2, you need to emulate that.  Instead of giving the guy a very good retailer/VIP discount, logistic and other support and a medal, because selling more stuff is apparently a bad idea.

 

Quote

Quote

Quote

As a side note: I thoroughly despise the GPL license. If somebody can make a profit off my non-for-profit, open-source work? Good.

And in which way exactly does the Gnu Public License license prohibit that?

That is the entire point of the GNU GPL. Any work utilizing GNU GPL-licensed code must be distributed under GNU GPL itself. Therefore, there's no way to include a GPL-licensed software library in your proprietary, closed-source, ARR program. You can do that with something like the MIT or BSD license, where you have to include a copy of the license with your program, but the program itself can be under any license.

And I thought you had an argument or facts instead of an (uninformed!) opinion.  Stuff like this and that paragraph.

Maybe you reread the FAQ and the quick guide to the GPLv3 and the GPLv3: yes, you may sell copies, yes, you may charge a fee for downloading a copy, etc.  More on selling free software.  You may also read how open source developers make money. 

The entire point of the GPL is to make sure that it's software stays free.  You exactly describe it: with free software, anybody can --- and should --- take it, but with MIT or BSD the result is a proprietary, DRMed, "do not touch, do not look", "mods are forbidden" AAR software and any extensions or bug fixes to the free software parts are buried, and likely never will turn up again, forcing the next guy to reinvent that wheel, again.

With the GPL, if you want to propagate or convey the program, you have to give back.

Quote

the full GPL is basically a viral license, forcing conformity to the author's views on how software should work.

And EULAs don't?  Forcing conformity of the author's view what you may or may not do with the software, like no mods and so on ...

The GPL lets you do whatever you want, unless you want to propagate or convey it --- which is an action that without permission gets you into copyright troubles anyway.  Changing the source code, adding mods, turning it upside down ... which EULA does allow you that again?

Edited July 3, 2017 by weissel

[Starman4308]

1 minute ago, weissel said:

Of course I am not the owner of GTA V.  Neither are judges, juries, the supreme court, the constitution or the law of the land.

Also, last I looked, I was not under your command in any way and therefore you have not the slightest right to tell me what I may say regarding T2 and their IP --- especially not an implied "Shut The **** Up!"

If you're not the owner of GTA V, nor the person writing the laws, then who are you to say what does and doesn't go.

I would also kindly request that you do not put words into my mouth. At no point did I say you could not continue posting your opinions; I merely said I think your opinions are incorrect.

6 minutes ago, weissel said:

When I buy a game --- or rather, pay for the license to play a game --- I certainly feel entitled to actually play that game to the fullest, and I don't feel warped saying that the publisher removing content only to sell it back to me is not a case of fairness.  It's not like I use a time or feature limited demo or not yet registered shareware.  GTA V doesn't come cheap.

You feel entitled.

Let me make this clear.

You are not entitled. You were born entitled to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. So were the executives of Take Two. They agreed to share their property in exchange for money and agreement to certain conditions. You are seeking to subvert those conditions, to go back on a deal signed in good faith.

At no point did Take Two have to distribute its product to you. You came in, you signed "I Agree" to the EULA, you are playing in their sandbox. At no point was any of this hidden from you so long as you actually read the EULA.

You signed a contract. You abide by the contract. You don't get to make stuff up because you want it.

13 minutes ago, weissel said:

Maybe you reread the FAQ and the quick guide to the GPLv3 and the GPLv3: yes, you may sell copies, yes, you may charge a fee for downloading a copy, etc.  More on selling free software.  You may also read how open source developers make money. 

The entire point of the GPL is to make sure that it's software stays free.  You exactly describe it: with free software, anybody can --- and should --- take it, but with MIT or BSD the result is a proprietary, DRMed, "do not touch, do not look", "mods are forbidden" AAR software and any extensions or bug fixes to the free software parts are buried, and likely never will turn up again, forcing the next guy to reinvent that wheel, again.

While technically you can sell open-source software... there's nothing keeping me from taking your software, and re-distributing it for free. While some customers will be honest enough to pay... many won't. People should have the right to commercialize their software and forbid unauthorized redistribution, and the open-source paradigm is not a good paradigm for commercial software.

Take the Sublime text editor, for example. There is a trial version that's free, the only issue being that occasionally it nags you to buy the full version. Guess who still hasn't paid for the full version? 

As to your case scenario with MIT/BSD... what? The original software is still out there, still open-source, still free to use. While somebody could wrap that piece of software in a proprietary package and resell... they still have to have the MIT/BSD license information in there, they still have to advertise "yes, we used this open-source software library", other people can still use that segment of code.

22 minutes ago, weissel said:

And EULAs don't?  Forcing conformity of the author's view what you may or may not do with the software, like no mods and so on ...

The GPL lets you do whatever you want, unless you want to propagate or convey it --- which is an action that without permission gets you into copyright troubles anyway.  Changing the source code, adding mods, turning it upside down ... which EULA does allow you that again?

I guess my primary argument here can be summed up as: "weeell, of course you can use it, unless you're one of those eeeeevil money-grubbing corporations, then no you can't." An ARR license says "private code, do not touch", a GPL license says "eeeeeevil corporations!".

 

[weissel]

31 minutes ago, regex said:

And there's nothing wrong with that. It's Take Two /Rockstar's intellectual property. They provided a product with certain stipulations on its use (EULA) and were rightly worried that the tool would enable online players to bypass the revenue they expected to gain from the content they provide.
[...]
There's nothing wrong with that morally at all; it's Take Two/Rockstar's intellectual property and they have every right to protect it from being used in a manner that may bypass paying for it online.

I see, we will not be able to find common ground here.  We will have to agree to disagree, I guess, with me pointing out that by that logic they could intentionally make GTA V no longer work at all and let everyone buy a patch/new version/GTA VI, and you answering that it's their IP, they get to do whatever they want.

But I stand on that Rockstar/TT building GTAO knowingly and wilfully decided not to or not sufficiently to check what the players' PCs told them, like "Here, add $10m to my account", but to believe blindly and add that sum to their account.  Checking your input has been considered absolutely needed for at least 20 years now.  And now they try to put a band aid over it by not allowing mods --- not that *cheaters* will care.

 

31 minutes ago, regex said:

The two situations (a business protecting their IP and government enacting legislation to make it harder to perpetrate violence) aren't even remotely comparable.

In their idea of a cure for the problem they are.

 

31 minutes ago, regex said:

According to at least one source (the Open IV developer) Open IV allowed players to "cheat" online.

URL for that claim?

[regex]

12 minutes ago, weissel said:

I see, we will not be able to find common ground here.  We will have to agree to disagree, I guess, with me pointing out that by that logic they could intentionally make GTA V no longer work at all and let everyone buy a patch/new version/GTA VI, and you answering that it's their IP, they get to do whatever they want.

Well, no, that's an intentionally overblown exaggeration and it would likely be incredibly easy for people who purchased the game to get refunds under a class-action lawsuit if the companies did try to do that. What did happen, though, is that Take Two/Rockstar provided some content that was meant to only be accessible via microtransaction and/or through normal gameplay, and certain people circumvented those restrictions on accessing the content via a third party tool. The company can say "We provided this content under these methods of acquisition and this tool allows those methods to be circumvented." and it will hold up. Your exaggeration there has nothing to do with what happened.

12 minutes ago, weissel said:

In their idea of a cure for the problem they are.

Okay, I guess. It would be madness to not look into what enables a particular action in trying to prevent further incidences of the same action, especially if, as you put it, "not that *cheaters* will care."

12 minutes ago, weissel said:

URL for that claim?

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywz87k/rockstar-games-talks-publisher-into-leaving-grand-theft-auto-v-modders-alone

[weissel]

4 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

If you're not the owner of GTA V, nor the person writing the laws, then who are you to say what does and doesn't go.

The Sovereign.

 

4 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

I would also kindly request that you do not put words into my mouth. At no point did I say you could not continue posting your opinions; I merely said I think your opinions are incorrect.

Sorry, but if you come along the lines "who died and made you king?" I naturally understand that as a "shut up".  '"who are you to say what" is right and what is wrong?' does have that ring, doesn't it?

 

4 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

You are not entitled. You were born entitled to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.

Actually, no.  Not even the right continent.

4 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

So were the executives of Take Two. They agreed to share their property in exchange for money and agreement to certain conditions. You are seeking to subvert those conditions, to go back on a deal signed in good faith.

At no point did Take Two have to distribute its product to you. You came in, you signed "I Agree" to the EULA, you are playing in their sandbox. At no point was any of this hidden from you so long as you actually read the EULA.

You signed a contract. You abide by the contract. You don't get to make stuff up because you want it.

Let me answer:

• T2 insists on being able to change the terms at any time.
• T2's (and tons of other EULAs) are written in dense lawyerese, so people will not be able to read them, and that is on purpose.
• T2 did not "agree to share their property" --- T2 agreed to "let me use their property (code, assets, IP) until they don't feel like it any more".  Like these free and now pay-for SP cars.
• T2 is not acting in good faith in first place, changing their tune from "as long as it's SP, mod all you want" to "we'll shut down more or less all mods", and if that is not reneging the deal I don't know what is.
• T2 is trying to shore up their own shoddy work in GTAO and doesn't care about collateral damage --- even to their own product.
• I have the right to fork over money.  And more money.  And even more money.  I might get some data or virtual goods, but no guarantees.  And that is about the only right I can rely on.  Now if my money clip was weighing me down with all these $10,000 bills, that may come in useful.

Now, if you can say that sounds like a fair deal ...

4 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

While technically you can sell open-source software... there's nothing keeping me from taking your software, and re-distributing it for free. While some customers will be honest enough to pay... many won't. People should have the right to commercialize their software and forbid unauthorized redistribution, and the open-source paradigm is not a good paradigm for commercial software.

"honest enough to pay"?  There is no dishonesty involved in getting the software legally from a place where you don't have to pay over a place where you have to pay.  I think you are totally not understanding the basic idea here.  But see the links in the last posts.

 

And of course people have the right to commercialize their software!  I don't see where on the world they would not have that right --- except maybe in criminal groups, say Daesh.  And people do not need to forbid unauthorized redistribution --- go see the copyright laws, it is not allowed, even right now, to distribute without a license.[2]

So what the ... is your problem?  That the GPL does not allow them to simply ... to say it in your words, "pirate" the GPL'd software and sell it as ARR with no source code?  Is that really what upsets you?

[2] Excluding Public Domain, which is a licence or stuff that  have lost the protection time of copyright.

 

4 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

As to your case scenario with MIT/BSD... what? The original software is still out there, still open-source, still free to use. While somebody could wrap that piece of software in a proprietary package and resell... they still have to have the MIT/BSD license information in there, they still have to advertise "yes, we used this open-source software library", other people can still use that segment of code.

I am sorry but I have to contradict you.  Other people cannot use that segment of the code.  They can only use --- probably --- from what that segment was forged[1].  Unless the maker of the proprietary software did not change a single bit of the sourcecode, that is.  Which is unlikely for anything but fairly trivial projects.

[1] There is no need to publish any changes.  The code may have gone through many hands until it arrives at the company, who may have paid for getting it.  It may never have been available outside a number of companies who were not inclined to publish it.

 

4 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

I guess my primary argument here can be summed up as: "weeell, of course you can use it, unless you're one of those eeeeevil money-grubbing corporations, then no you can't." An ARR license says "private code, do not touch", a GPL license says "eeeeeevil corporations!".

You really need to read up about the GPL.  It's not against corporations, nor against the military, nuclear power, Republicans, Democrats, ...   You even have permission to pass it, changed or unchanged, on to others, under certain circumstances.  Again, please compare that with the GTA EULAs.

[Starman4308]

Just now, weissel said:

Sorry, but if you come along the lines "who died and made you king?" I naturally understand that as a "shut up".  '"who are you to say what" is right and what is wrong?' does have that ring, doesn't it?

That is simply a natural follow-on to somebody claiming to be king, in defiance of every written letter of law and contract.

3 minutes ago, weissel said:

Actually, no.  Not even the right continent.

If you're in Europe... still the right continent.

The original French was "life, liberty, and property" when translated, the US Preamble says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness*", and I kludged those together.

*Hypocritical Southern slave-owners objected to "property".

Now, if you cannot even debate in good faith, lying about the nature of MIT/BSD and GNU GPL, making up extremely exaggerated strawmen, etc, well, I have better things to do.

[Galileo]

10 hours ago, weissel said:

T2 has a lot to lose. Reputation, sales, ...  The question is if the deciders at T2 can grasp that truth.

Last I checked, respect doesn't pay the bills. And while they may lose some sales, the vast majority of people, even the ones who moan and whine, will still buy the product at the end of the day. Cha-Ching! They don't care about your respect. So I stand by my claim that T2 has nothing to lose. 

I'm a bit confused as to why anyone is still arguing about this. 

[Vanamonde]

Tempers are getting hot and this is not a GTA 5 forum anyway. From now on, please take this discussion to other forums.