There are lots of ways. I bet if you asked random people on the street who their favorite Avatar character is, you’d get a bunch of Irohs and Tophs before anybody even mentions blue people. That would tell me the movies, despite making a lot of money, have no cultural relevance compared to a cartoon from 2005.

Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.

I 100% agree. That’s what I meant by “high-tech spectacle”. It’s well-made with excellent effects that are in some ways better than what you see in action movies today, and its mocap tech was as big of a leap past LotR as LotR was past the tech of the 90s.

“Popularity is closer to net worth than any other actual metric imo.”

Is the Smurfgully franchise really “some of the most popular films in history”? It’s not even the most popular franchise named “Avatar”. Sure, the films made a lot of money, but they’re high-tech spectacle from one of the most famous directors alive, so of course they would. Does anybody actually care about the lore…

A country doesn’t need to be invaded to be subject to imperial control. The Bowring Treaty took away Thailand’s ability to prosecute British nationals for crimes, legalized British opium imports, and imposed trade and tax rules favorable to British merchants. In exchange, the Thai government was allowed to keep existin…

“It gives them greater control over the product”

“Fucking dumb isn’t it.”

Terms and conditions don’t take away your rights as the owner of a product.

I think a parody of DeSantis is more likely, because it would be less controversial and more locally relevant. Plus they could make fun of him for free advertising when he inevitably attacks the game.

Or if you played the last game, Sujimon Snap

That should make it easy for Sony to sue them for breach of contract, which will allow them to recover what they’ll be paying out to the customers who got screwed.

“they’re not selling the goods”

When I buy a game on Steam I “actually, permanently own” those games.

If Sony couldn’t guarantee they could continue to provide the shows, they shouldn’t have sold those shows in the first place.

No, I’m saying the storefront is liable for damages to the people who own the product that the storefront is repossessing.

“By paying money you are entering into a transaction and by so doing, agree to abide by the terms and conditions laid out by the party you are doing business with.”

No, when I make any kind of purchase - including digital - I OWN the thing I bought. What you are saying is that companies have the right to repossess goods I OWN because they say they can. What Sony is doing here is no different from Ford repossessing my car several years after I bought it.

Discovery owns the copyright. I own an instance of the show. Don’t gaslight me.

“You’re making a one-time payment for a rental of the license.”