Sony patents PlayStation controller that could accept tap-to-pay from phones and credit cards

[u/Nullhitter]

https://www.techspot.com/news/113988-sony-patent-shows-playstation-controller-could-accept-tap.html

[u/redchris18]

How is it vague? The lawsuit is on going, all reporting on an ongoing lawsuit uses the term alleged or allegedly

That is, by definition, vague. That's fine in the definition of simply describing an ongoing lawsuit, but not when describing it as you did, which was:

They threatened Ubisoft for selling a game cheaper on their own store for something that was completely on Ubis server and infrastructure. Steam controls pricing as much as reddit likes to pretend it doesn't.

And that's besides the fact that you misrepresented what happened in the first place.

What Valve wants doesn't matter here

Yes, it does. If they want feature-parity then they are free to set that term. Why would you say something so ridiculous? Did you really expect to bullshit people that a store has no say in the terms of their own sales?

Valve has always allowed them to do so because the Ubisoft store isn't selling Steam keys at those lower prices.

Flat out wrong, hence the lawsuit.

That's not what it says, though. I quoted the article in question to highlight that fact, so I don't know why you think you can lie about that when the text is right there for anyone to verify. Maybe you just can't read - which would explain why you appear to believe that I'm the person you originally replied to...

To reiterate, Valve demanding price parity for Steam keys and feature parity for the game itself is not anti-competitive. It's actually the opposite; it prevents studios like Ubisoft from trying to make the Uplay version seem more appealing by handicapping the Steam version via either higher pricing or missing content. Ubisoft's ire is due entirely to them not being able to convince people that their own launcher is the better deal even at lower prices. They needed FOMO on top of that to even feel like they had a chance of drawing people away from Steam, and Valve are justified in objecting to that. Besides which, their only response was going to be that that specific game would be removed from Steam.

Valve fanboys

My Steam account is older than either my GOG account or my Itch account, yet I have significantly more games on each of those than I have on Steam. Itch is a little misleading, as many of those games come from those charity bundles containing 500-1750 of them, however. Still, to this day I preferentially buy games on GOG. Somehow that all makes me a "Valve fanboy", does it? It's surely not that you can't stomach the fact that an objective observer pointed out the factual inaccuracies in your emotional outburst and corrected you on them, is it...?

In future, maybe try at least accusing someone of fanboying for something that tend to prefer, rather than something they only begrudgingly engage with.

Not interested in providing anything more just for you to excuse it away because it's Valve.

That's your pre-emptive excuse for not having a source that actually backs up your debunked claims. You hand-wave away me specifically because you can't counterargue what I said.

The fact is that you lied about that lawsuit and are provably wrong on this matter.

[u/MalHeartsNutmeg → u/redchris18]

You have been provided links by other people too and just keep refusing reality, Valve fanboys like you are so sad lol. Literally can not see the slightest fault. Hell people like you continue to refuse that Valve is wrong even when they do lose in court.

The good thing is that courts aren't run by blind fan boys like you, and Valve does get pulled in to line.

[u/redchris18 → u/MalHeartsNutmeg]

I just want to start this reply by pointing out that I have actually engaged with the sources people have cited, whereas you have fled from any such analysis as if you were terrified that doing so would reveal your opinions to be unfounded and incorrect. I invite others to draw their own conclusions as to your motives for doing so...

You have been provided links by other people too

Merely dumping a 9000-page document doesn't instantly win you an anonymous internet argument. It just means that you've offered up what you think is evidence supporting your stated position, which anyone else is then free to dispute by discrediting your source. I have shown there to be issues with the sources others have cited, and they are required to explain those issues.

refusing reality

So you think that the mere act of posting a link instantly bans anyone else from ever questioning it, do you?

I think that alone is sufficient to render your opinions invalid.

Valve fanboys like you

Why would you even try to repeat the same fallacy after it has been shown to be wildly inaccurate? Are you hoping that merely claiming something makes it true? Are you so committed to the notion that your ego can't cope with me actually favouring a rival to Steam?

It makes your assertion that:

Valve fanboys like you are so sad lol.

Look like pure projection. It clearly doesn't apply to me because, if anything, I'm a GOG fanboy, so the only plausible conclusion is that you're projecting your own prejudices onto me.

Literally can not see the slightest fault.

There's a difference between not seeing "the slightest fault" and not accepting the baseless, dubious, contentious assertions that seem to be debunked by the sources you're using to try to validate it.

You're now trying to frame any questioning of your prejudicial stance as dogmatic, which, once again, strongly suggests dogmatism on your part, not on that of those who dispute your untenable assertions.

people like you continue to refuse that Valve is wrong even when they do lose in court.

Prove it. Should be easy enough, surely...?

The good thing is that courts aren't run by blind fan boys like you, and Valve does get pulled in to line.

Ah, this is a classic one, too. You're trying to act as though the ongoing lawsuit is a foregone conclusion in your favour, and thus force others to argue as if your own desired judgment is already extant.

People do that kind of thing because they can't make their case on actual evidence, and have to rely on hypothetical future "evidence2 instead. It's a sign of insecurity.

[u/MalHeartsNutmeg → u/redchris18]

They gave you a page and section number. You don't want evidence. I gave you a short article. Too long, too short, nothing is good enough. Gave you the case so you could find evidence you deemed good enough, not good enough.

[u/redchris18 → u/MalHeartsNutmeg]

They gave you a page and section number.

And I pointed out that said cited section does not say what they claimed it said. I then asked the to quote it directly in order to ensure that we are both referring to the same section of the text.

I am actively encouraging them to engage with me and with the source itself in enough detail that there can be no confusion. Why are you so opposed to that? Are you worried that me assessing that source properly will reveal that your opinionated stance is without a rational basis, and that your entire screed is little more than a self-delusional rant at a cloud? Because that's how it looks...

You don't want evidence

I literally sought to verify their reference. Here's my exact phrasing:

I can't find anything on that page - or a couple of pages either side of it - which match what you said. Could you quote it directly?

you're trying to frame this as me fleeing from any mention of that source when the reality is the polar opposite. I'm seeking to verify which specific part of that document OP is referencing because there is a major discrepancy between how they described it and how it reads. That's what any rational, logical, objective person should do.

And you are furious at me for doing so.

I gave you a short article

And I pointed out why it was inaccurate. I directly engaged with the content. You, on the other hand, have fled from every subsequent comment of mine just to trot out an incessant series of off-topic rants and ad hominem attacks, all without ever directly addressing the issues I raised with your source - or the other users' source, for that matter.

You don't get to demand that everyone believe your claims just because you posted a link that you think supports them. If said link doesn't actually support your claims then it is bunk, and thus you are in the same position as if you hadn't posted it in the first place. That's how logic works. I suggest you get used to the concept.

Too long, too short, nothing is good enough.

I don't care in the slightest about the length of the text, as should be evident from the fact that your brief editorial and the full court document were treated equally.

What you really object to is me not blindly accepting how you and another user summarised the lawsuit, because it turns out that the facts don't seem to support your respective summaries. That is why you're upset about all this - you wanted to bluster me with bullshit and are lashing out in impotent fury because I'm not stupid enough to fall for that fallacious approach.

Gave you the case so you could find evidence you deemed good enough, not good enough.

Aside from you lying about how I addressed that document, your view of that situation is entirely wrongheaded. It is not my burden of proof, so I don't have to scour nine hundred pages to find whatever snippets OP was referring to. They do. they carry that burden of proof, so it is upon them to cite the specific segment which they believe supports their argument.

I have offered them an opportunity to do so be verifying the section that they are referencing with a direct quote, which is precisely how this kind of thing works.

You're trying to pretend that I'm the one being unreasonable when all I'm asking is that you and the other commentator uphold the burden of proof that you each carry. I'm expecting you both to behave like adults, and you are unwilling to do so. I can only conclude that it's because you're scared that you'll be proven wrong beyond your ability to deny - even to yourself - and that's why you're refusing to be honest about anything I have said in this thread. It's cowardly.