It was, but that was also a time when the always on DRM could be attempted to be justified with the existence of the RMAH and GAH. However with both those gone, even that poor argument falls flat nowadays.

Considering there's no trading in D3, that argument holds little weight.

I raged really hard about the double standard when the SimCity reviews were coming out blasting EA for the DRM. Specifically Polygon, who moaned, "Oh we couldn't change scores back then!" while completely ignoring that they factored server stability into the SimCity review but not their D3 review, giving the massive…

As developers we see it as a great way to limit piracy/hacking.

Having an offline mode would be it not always online...Always online means there is no way to play unless you are online. Having an offline mode would be just like D1/2, which would be fine.

Yup. PC gamers playing to beta test a game for consoles. It's hilarious because that was the joke for a while, then the console version was announced and it surprisingly became a reasonable theory.

At least you finally realized that it's nothing more than anti-consumer always on DRM...even if it is a few years and articles late.

Indeed, if everything is as Kotaku says, then Kotaku/Grayson are off the hook. Though these are the least of the accusations against Zoe Quinn.

I was talking about conflict of interest in general.

Yes, he's covered stories related to her. The allegation is that he did so while sleeping with her, which is a conflict of interest.

Indeed. But maybe the story may not have even been written unless he campaigned for it? There's always that possibility too.

Only reviews can be impacted? Not any stories at all?

It is their fucking business if she's sleeping with journalists in return for positive news coverage. That's a very strong conflict of interest for them and is not something that any journalist should be engaging in.

Well, it should be but...

No, it's applicable if he covered it at all. Simply covering the game of someone he is sleeping with runs the risk of him being biased and covering it in a far more positive light than he otherwise would have. The same applies to her game jam, or anything else involving her.

Who doesn't think they're human beings?

Nobody can expect pure objectivity. But the expectation out of journalists is that they're limiting any potential influences to the areas of news that they cover in order to provide the most unbiased reporting possible.

I did, and I did a brief look at the whole shitstorm that this article is in response to.

Yup, and it's fucked up. Our government has a habit of either hiring heads of regulatory agencies from the very sectors they are going to regulate or having retired legislators get cushy jobs at many of the same large companies that they not only received donations from but wrote legislation regarded. Pisses me the…

I'm waiting for more information to come out about this. I appreciate the note, but I'm always skeptical with self investigation into situations where the outcome could be detrimental, it's far too easy to say you looked into things and report that all is well, regardless of what (if anything) was found.