He said that literally right after announcing a political position.

My point is the relationship between consumer spending and a CEO’s pay (in your example) isn’t direct like he claimed. A CEO doesn’t get X dollars when I buy a product from their company. It’s not direct.

I didn’t say there’s a problem. Him receiving money directly from subs is direct. Not all rich people receive money directly from consumers. You implied they all do but they don’t.

You are purposefully ignoring the meaning of direct. He receives the money directly from his subs. As in the more they sub the more he makes. That’s not necessarily true of people who sells goods. A CEO of Activision doesn’t make more money directly from individual sales. They get paid based on prenegotiated salaries…

Where was Craig Robinson?

I think this is true for most games. But some games are almost entirely story driven and people don’t feel the need to play them once they’ve seen a playthrough. Similarly true of some puzzle games.

Because he doesn’t live in Japan. 

Not really. You’re just selectively remembering their articles.

They really don’t have a liberal bent. You just think they do. They take shots at Dems all the time when they are in power. 

He didn’t ask for this. 

Nintendo’s layout came first though. 

Did you even read it? They were disbanded under Bolton. Whether or not he literally fired all members himself doesn’t change the fact that the team was disbanded. The article says partly false. You’re being disingenuous by acting like it says it’s false. 

I think you mean 2008. Dems didn’t have them by the throat in 2016 at all.  

That’s a huge stretch. They can choose not to put the tattoos on him or put generic tattoos on him and it would still be a digital representation of him. Your logic would be like saying a digital representation of Michael Jordan in a basketball game would automatically come with the Air Jordan license since he’s so…

You can’t sell a digital recreation of the car though. As for selling those pictures, it’s different because the facade of a car isn’t the whole design of the car. That’s different than selling a photo of a painting. You’re also assuming you can sell those pics without any evidence that it’s legal. People take pics of…

No. You’re creating the false analogy. A tattoo is a design and a piece of body art. A car is a vehicle and a piece of design. You don’t own the design. You just own the vehicle and body art. The car blueprint analogy is apt because that’s what you’re equating to in the tattoo example. You act like you own the design…

Except it doesn’t. You can cover up tattoos. You’re being ridiculous with your conclusions. 

That’s not how it works in games. What a shitty analogy. 

That’s why people need to negotiate terms with their photographer. It’s not insane. You’re paying a professional to make art. You don’t own that art unless you want to pay more for rights to said art. 

If you buy a painting you can’t sell photos of that painting. Your examples are way off base.