This sounds like a load of corporate bullshit that they're going to use to justify preventing modding of their games.
ante
This is a terrible idea. What stops me from uploading a broken piece of shit fork that puts others at risk while I'm driving?
I'm still not sure I would believe it at that point.
You can still think Disney is a shitty company while acknowledging that this is a stupid article/headline. They're not mutually exclusive.
I also got 10/20. The second one is fairly obvious, though, in my opinion. Look at the shape of the glasses -- the lenses are uneven and don't match.
I mostly agree with this. I really enjoyed the more insightful, introspective Johnny and there wasn't enough of it. With that being said, I'm a few hours into Phantom Liberty and it seems that we get a lot more of the meaningful conversations with Johnny.
That seems high to me as well. Obviously this is anecdotal, but I've introduced probably 20 friends/family members to VR and none of them have had issues with motion sickness.
That seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do if you're taking a picture of a milkshake.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I haven't and likely can't think of a good solution to handling the scenarios you're talking about. They are good questions that someone smarter than me should address. However, to use those scenarios to completely admonish advertising platforms for blatantly obvious scams is asinine. "Well, what if a legitimate business starts scamming people?" should have little relevancy to the question of "Should we accept this ad from a user advertising that they're going to double your money if you give them access to your financial accounts?"
I'm not saying it's simple or quick to solve, but there is very obvious low-hanging fruit that could be dealt with but is somehow not because these platforms aren't held accountable whatsoever. It has to start somewhere.
Why are you intentionally leaving out the rest of that sentence?
They are specifically talking about restricting modding.