OsaErisXero

It would have gone live with yesterday's patch and didn't, so there's significant substance to their statement so far

If his business relationship with Sony doesn't consist exclusively of active hostility then he has failed his staff and shareholders.

Mixed so far. The one thing that arrowhead has taught this community is teamwork. We're on course for Mostly Negative in the next week or two.

The only change I've seen in this regard is a dramatic reduction in people's willingness to tolerate these people. They've always been here and always been like this, but we as a society used to just let them have their way to make them go away.

So I see articles like this as being nothing but good news.

You know where

I have used this software for... A decade? And never knew it had a search feature

Peering isn't Sender Pays, Peering is "I'll carry your traffic if you'll carry mine", with the understanding that when there's an imbalance in one direction or another that an exchange of some sort is had, be it dollars, bandwidth limits, or similar. In this case, where C interconnects with A which interconnects with B, if C's traffic is so substantial that it's saturating the crosslink between A and B, A would need to evaluate whether their peering agreement with C means that C needs to be paying for the network upgrade, or if there's enough traffic moving from A's network into C's to offset that, and that the interconnect between A and B is the root issue. In your example, rather than paying more into ISPs and, essentially, indirectly funding US network backbone infrastructure upgrades across the board, they solved their problem with cache servers that they handed out like candy to avoid their costs to C sky rocketing. G solved this problem by buying a bunch of dark fiber which was laid on spec by contractors and started peering directly with the Tier 1 providers, dramatically reducing their cost delta.

Where Korea's system differs is that in traditional Tier 1 peering, as I understand it, T's ISP (call them P) should be using some of the money they get from T to pay Q and R for the excess traffic of their customer, but instead Q and R were, per the government, allowed to also charge T for delivery of their packets, resulting in T having to pay both on the up and downlink side, charging them twice for the same bit. T, rather than attempt what G did, told Korea to pound sand and exited the market.

The correct answer in that scenario is C should be paying for it, as in the stated scenario C's traffic would be exceeding the peering arrangement with B and/or A, but there were/are a number of reasons that breaks down in the real world.

I would have far fewer issues with gacha games if more studios took that gacha money and used it to fund projects like this instead of swimming in it scrooge mcduck style.

Not to any meaningful degree. You're better off at Vintage Stock tbh

They would also be instantly defederated by like 90% of the fediverse

Facts. His claim of there being no performance impact is especially dubious because A) he didn't actually remove it, he bypassed an authentication step and B) The 'only checks every few seconds and at level loads' is only the parts he definitively recognized as part of denuvo. At best, he only proved that denuvo removed by a 3rd party is no more a performance hit than leaving it running, and it's more likely that all he proved is that this method of bypassing denuvo provides no performance gains. I'm sure it was neat as a project, but this comes off to a 3rd party like some 'we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing' shit.