Paczynski says they once hired a private investigator to find someone living off the grid in the UK. He had unknowingly inherited the rights to several games, but was super supportive of “preserving his family’s legacy” when GOG tracked him down.
So, it happened once. And they hired one private investigator. Not that it isn’t interesting, but why exaggerate everything?
Remaining quotes from article:
“To be perfectly honest, it’s harder than we thought it would be,” Paczynski explained. “What we’ve found out is that games and how they work has deteriorated way faster than what we thought. And we are not talking only about the game not launching. We are talking about more subtle things as well, like the game not supporting modern controllers, or the game not supporting ultra-widescreen or modern resolutions, or even a simple thing like not being able to minimise the game, which is an essential feature today.”
Pacyznski says digital rights management (DRM) features are especially frustrating to circumvent, which means they’re working as designed. Heck, some rather famous games are unplayable without third-party patches because of DRM — any old Xbox-to-PC that’s saddled with a “Games for Windows Live” log-in comes to mind.
Pacyznski suggests that triple-A developers remove DRM from games after a few years to make life easier for future game preservationists. Of course, this will never happen because executives don’t care about preserving games.
Okay, so grammatically, in perfect tense we can use plural to mention a thing that has happened at least (or exactly) once? Wouldn’t using a plural imply multiple, when the known fact is singular?
It’s a fair point but it’s not as egregious as most other headlines. I personally give this one a pass since clickbaits are meta in the article space. It shows that GOG has this in their toolbox.
Is implying plurality exaggerating things to begin with in this context? The headline is pretty vague, it doesn’t overtly exaggerate. It makes a pretty simple statement without embellishing anything.
But if we’re going to get into the weeds, we don’t know how many private investigators work at whatever agency they hired, or how many were involved in tracking this person down.
Eh, when someone says “private investigator,” I subconsciously assume there could be a group involved, and not one person. If I hire a tax preparer, there are probably multiple people involved (the person preparing the tax docs, the accountants auditing those docs, people auditing their software, etc).
If someone says “private investigators,” I assume they contacted multiple agencies, perhaps on multiple occasions.
I mean, we’re all being pedantic, aren’t we? honestly, I don’t even know why we wasted the time we have on this lmao. for me it’s probably because I’m working and bored to death.
that could refer to an agency. when somebody says they “hired a plumber”, it isn’t an incorrect statement if that company employs multiple plumbers, despite the quote being singular.
that’s not what it means… investigator could mean a single person, investigators could mean they hired a firm to do the job and multiple people work for the firm.
People love to look for a reason to be offended by things.
So, it happened once. And they hired one private investigator. Not that it isn’t interesting, but why exaggerate everything?
Remaining quotes from article:
that’s not exaggerating anything. it’s merely saying it has happened at least once before.
Okay, so grammatically, in perfect tense we can use plural to mention a thing that has happened at least (or exactly) once? Wouldn’t using a plural imply multiple, when the known fact is singular?
It’s a fair point but it’s not as egregious as most other headlines. I personally give this one a pass since clickbaits are meta in the article space. It shows that GOG has this in their toolbox.
Is implying plurality exaggerating things to begin with in this context? The headline is pretty vague, it doesn’t overtly exaggerate. It makes a pretty simple statement without embellishing anything.
But if we’re going to get into the weeds, we don’t know how many private investigators work at whatever agency they hired, or how many were involved in tracking this person down.
Yes. Yes implying plurality for a singular thing is, by definition, exaggerating.
It did feel like exaggeration to me, but it could be my bias. May feel differently about it later.
You are right about the fact that it could be an agency. Maybe I was just being pedantic 😀
Eh, when someone says “private investigator,” I subconsciously assume there could be a group involved, and not one person. If I hire a tax preparer, there are probably multiple people involved (the person preparing the tax docs, the accountants auditing those docs, people auditing their software, etc).
If someone says “private investigators,” I assume they contacted multiple agencies, perhaps on multiple occasions.
I mean, we’re all being pedantic, aren’t we? honestly, I don’t even know why we wasted the time we have on this lmao. for me it’s probably because I’m working and bored to death.
lol, same here. Except leaning towards super annoyed because of some work related things.
Yes
“investigators” is plural tho so that is indeed wrong
Not really. It could be they hired several for this one case.
If a person is off the grid in Yorkshire, you wouldn’t get someone from London to go up to do something.
Well, the quote specifically says “a private investigator”.
that could refer to an agency. when somebody says they “hired a plumber”, it isn’t an incorrect statement if that company employs multiple plumbers, despite the quote being singular.
That’s an interesting point. You are right about that.
That is simply a generic way of referring to the concept of private investigators, as I’ve also just done in this sentence.
that’s not what it means… investigator could mean a single person, investigators could mean they hired a firm to do the job and multiple people work for the firm.
People love to look for a reason to be offended by things.