Uh, debit cards do all those things. Only you don't have to engage in all the "make work" that middlemen loyalty programs incur. You spend money, it comes out of the money you have, it's a card. The merchant doesn't have to pay anybody to run a loyalty program, and then pass the costs on to you. The end.

So what do you get from using a credit card if you always pay it off? Are you magically always one month behind being able to afford anything?

I'm guessing it's not that. Do you get points? Services? Goodies? I wonder how credit card companies pay for those? Oh yeah, you pay for them - and that's even if you use the stuff that comes "with" credit cards. Truly the ultimate middleman/redistribution scheme.

Yes, I'm sure Nintendo's lawyers have not considered the legality of their business practices in their largest market. *rolls eyes*

Have you taken apart everything in your home to ensure there are no recording devices embedded inside them? Get a grip, bro.

Enjoyable and appropriate reference.

You'd be wrong.

From a purely practical standpoint, codebases like this (I have 20+ years in the console games industry as a programmer) contain source code, headers, and other proprietary stuff from other vendors (to say nothing about the console SDKs) we're not allowed to just release. Finding it all, ripping it out, and being confident it's been done properly from a legal perspective is expensive, cumbersome, and risky.

Watch the opening screen of a modern AA to AAAA videogame these days. It's littered with 3rd party software. A multiplatform console game that was never intended to be open sourced is not trivially open source-able.

Also, EA gets to keep it, because it may be of value to them down the road. (I mean, probably not, but that's what they'd say. They own the work.)

And the people who think they are those people are the worst.

Okay. Is it your life's work to know about this stuff?

The fuck are you on about? There's a link to more information, if you're like .. somebody who huffs glue and can't infer what the gist of the existing policy is (hint: wear body cameras.) Why it's being cancelled is explicitly listed in the summary.

Do you just need to hear the sound of your keyboard or something?

Just to add on to this, isn't not like I'm saying it would be bad for merchants to include taxes in advertised prices. That could be nice. But "no hidden fees" can also mean just that the fee is listed along side a price. Adding it *for you* to the sticker price is a convenience, as it would be with taxes, but not adding a fee to a product price isn't what makes it hidden - it's not disclosing that that fee even exists up front during the process of shopping before intent to purchase.

You know you will have to pay taxes. You know what those taxes are. The point of saying "no hidden fees" is to prevent merchants for adding fees on at point of sale that you *didn't know about* at the point of perusal and/or adding to a cart.

Merchants take advantages of the fact that you may have spent 5 minutes, 30 minutes, etc trying to find something to add to your cart, and that the consumer will view a "surprise" fee listed at point of sale as a sunk cost to just accept.

The same can't be said about government taxes. You know they exist. You know their values. By definition they are not hidden.

it tells me here's a person who considers themselves technical, but apparently doesn't know how to evaluate or find answers for something they haven't personally experienced. That's hilarious to me.

I've used a ton of stuff, never used a whole ton of other stuff stuff, I've also used a ton of stuff I hate, I've used a ton of stuff I love - and can still formulate answers on why people might need, or want, to use them, not use, not want, etc.

No, either the OP is being disingenuous with the word "struggle" or they truly are not particularly technical.

I strongly question the technical aptitude of anyone who asks these sorts of questions.

Next you can tell us how stupid sock hops are!