As someone who is actually in the EU and actually knows how many US websites either respect GDPR or block, it is the vast majority. Those that don't usually think they're small enough to get away with it. Certainly not when it comes to something like Twitter.

They literally will. You wanna know why? Because literally no company has done it. Every US company, even those that don't even target EU users like US news sites block EU IP addresses because they don't want to comply with GDPR.

The US and UK/EU are not lawless lands, they comply heavily with each other. Imagine if copyright law was incompatible between the two.

Tell me genius, how are you supposed to target UK/EU users with relevant ads without explicitly being in the UK/EU? Do you honestly think that you, as a company, are going to be able to collect data from users in the UK/EU and not have any kind of repercussions? You're in the US, not Iran.

His point was that US websites can serve UK/EU users relevant ads without being present in the UK/EU, which is incorrect. I would understand if the US website only targeted US users but if you have UK/EU ads it means you're targeting users from those territories and could get fined.

>Do you think that means CNN has to follow uk/eu laws?

When I visit CNN.com I see a popup box asking me if I consent to using cookies. This isn't present everywhere and is there for GDPR.

So you honestly think that a foreign company can serve ads in the UK/EU, profit off of users in these countries and not follow any local laws? In what universe are you living?

I genuinely can't tell if you're being serious or not. To profit in the UK/EU (which Twitter does) you need to be registered there and follow their rules. They're not going to let you serve UK/EU users and have no control over that. Welcome to the 21st century. America also has this right for foreign companies that operate in their borders and they use it often (for example, TikTok).

The great thing about living in a democracy is that if the government intervenes, there is going to be public record about it with which you can complain about.

I mean, you can look before if you want. Still, inflation since Covid has made the $60 price tag less attractive

It's inflation, if you look at a game in 2020 that cost $60, it's like $70 now.

>in comparison to cyber punk

As I said in my comment, yes. However, they still were not in a state to be released to the general public.

>that's pretty normal for any game nowadays.

Both Witcher 1 and 2 had "enchanced editions" that literally came out one year after they released and fixed issues like loading times, bugs and graphical issues. That's not normal.

All of the Witcher games had problems at launch, while obviously not as well documented as Cyberpunk as they kind of asked for that kind of backlash, they still were not fully fleshed out and all needed definitive editions to fix issues.

Literally every single game that CDPR has released has been a mess at launch. I dunno if this comment is supposed to be satirical or what lmao