>"Those Australian broads have a point, silly goy. Why is all this vulgar porn so easily accessible to children? Why are you defending games full of degenerate garbage like incest, rape, and pedophila?! Only real sickos would be upset with us for getting those games taken down!"
>"Oh, and if the Epstein files ever get leaked and you see my name in them, that's a different Schlomo Goldstein they're talking about. Okay?"
4chan Search
2 results for "239ff878ae085ecf9ea997e9ac0a3e32"
>>714570203
>No one gets hurt by doing this.
>cant guarantee player safety on private servers - you could get your data leaked or money stolen! or see foul language!
>releasing server code can hurt other existing products that share it, as hackers will see where to attack!
>its very expensive to modify the code to run without proprieteray third party licenses!
>have to hire expensive experts to perform the code migration to allow for private servers!
>the reputation of the brand and publisher can be harmed by private servers doing a bad job, or introducing racist or pornographic elements to the visually recognizable game!
>government forcing intellectual property sharing is theft, and communism!
>having to compete with private servers (which the publisher paid to make possible!) will hurt the publisher's other products! double loss!
>releasing a branded product may be used in court to push for further intellectual property loss! "you made it public" type arguments!
>releasing the software in the public might get the publisher sued from other property holders, liek crossovers with other brands, or licensed music, etc.
>having to release cloud server services or configurations can be bad for security, or even illegal depending on licenses!
>No one gets hurt by doing this.
>cant guarantee player safety on private servers - you could get your data leaked or money stolen! or see foul language!
>releasing server code can hurt other existing products that share it, as hackers will see where to attack!
>its very expensive to modify the code to run without proprieteray third party licenses!
>have to hire expensive experts to perform the code migration to allow for private servers!
>the reputation of the brand and publisher can be harmed by private servers doing a bad job, or introducing racist or pornographic elements to the visually recognizable game!
>government forcing intellectual property sharing is theft, and communism!
>having to compete with private servers (which the publisher paid to make possible!) will hurt the publisher's other products! double loss!
>releasing a branded product may be used in court to push for further intellectual property loss! "you made it public" type arguments!
>releasing the software in the public might get the publisher sued from other property holders, liek crossovers with other brands, or licensed music, etc.
>having to release cloud server services or configurations can be bad for security, or even illegal depending on licenses!