Posted September 27, 2020
toxicTom: That seems to be the core of our disagreement.
I see stuff like that as "extra", as not essential to the game, especially when it was "tacked on" later.
No, the core of our disagreement is the fact you truly seem not to understand that what's at stake isn't any single case of missing "unimportant extra" content, but how GOG's rule either applies, or it doesn't. I am not arguing whether the content in this case is "essential" or not". I am saying it doesn't matter. The rule either applies to everything, or it doesn't apply at all, since the loophole you're defending allows the introduction of any sort of online-locked content. I keep showing you how your excuses can verbatim apply to far more egregious violations of GOG's rule, and you in response keep going back to how this is a case of "non-essential extra" content, which, as repeatedly explained, is not a relevant argument. I see stuff like that as "extra", as not essential to the game, especially when it was "tacked on" later.
You seem utterly unable to understand that it's the principle of the thing and the implications of it that are my concern, not "outrage" at the "intent" of a particular single developer you happen to like and therefore seem to feel obliged to defend.
Post edited September 27, 2020 by Breja