We Americans have been bamboozled into thinking our connections are fast because we don't have any basis of comparison. Not having lived abroad for any reasonable length of time, 16 to 25 megabits downstream is all we've ever known. Thus, we remain contented sheeple, not realizing just how much the providers are…

Now would probably be a good time to mention that we're losing the war on net nutrality. The FCC is trying to put together a proposal which sounds like its in favor of net nutrality but really isn't.

Essentially, this new bill is on the verge of being passed (I heard today is the last day). If you want to keep using…

That's just a benchmark. If you're doing any serious work with very large file transfers, the Internet in the States is so bad, it hinders workflow.

It's cleverly avoiding a monopoly by being a cartel system. Small monopolies that fly under the radar.

Internet is obviously a integral part of our society. If a country like the US is overcharging and underselling its bandwidth then you have an issue. It doesnt matter how long X takes.

Well sure, but that's probably how people felt when 99% of the US had dial-up, and a few had cable. If the technology is available, and is that inexpensive, it just sucks that we pay so much more for less. I don't need gigabit internet, but if someone offered me 12 mbps internet for $10, I'd certainly be cool with…

It isn't the inconvenience that is the issue, it is that the companies are essentially robbing us for services available at much more competitive prices elsewhere. So you are paying more for others, but getting less, with the only reason being the greed of the provider.

I really don't understand how all of this doesn't qualify as a Monopoly. Especially when AT&T pretty much owns every peer agreement ever.

facepalm you can't be this stupid can you? That isn't cherry picking.

But that's the thing: the presence of all that other stuff doesn't somehow negate the bits she talks about. The question isn't "Is there other stuff in the game?", because there ALWAYS is. There's always going to be some justification, some reason why X is there in the game.

When looking at larger trends, though, it…

Are you deliberately repeating GG talking points about Sarkeesian? Because I think they don't understand the term "cherry picking." Or how academic critique works. Or anything they're talking about.

I have a some issues with her work, but the angry mob that follows her around really isn't doing the community any favors.

"Cherry pick data"? If you're referring to Sarkeesian's videos, that's...not what's going on. Like, at all. Unless, of course, you want to argue that a huge chunk of academic cultural and media criticism is "cherry picking data".

And everyone has a political agenda. Choosing not to talk about this stuff is political;…

I hear you. I'm conflicted on playing further. I haven't invested in the DLC yet. I'd love to try the new stuff. But I don't want to grind more to make the higher level needs of the new upcoming raid when the raid gear is just same stuff "now with more light!"

You're saying without Sony or Microsoft paying for exclusive dlc, Destiny would be limited to the current end-game it has? Seems unlikely to me, as that content is needed to keep the current subscriber base invested. Players are leaving as it is.

I feel like the question is: One year from now, when there have been 3-4 at the most DLCs adding apparently 3-4 raids and 3-5 strikes to the Xbox version to grind on over 12 months, will anyone on Xbox still be playing this game?

To me that sounds more like Activision pulling the strings on this one.

Another important question is this: 1 year from now, when this is no longer exclusive, does everyone who bought this DLC get it? Or does it become a separate purchase (meaning you pay the same amount for less, and then pay even MORE to get just as much).

Was it really Bungie though, I wonder? I'd kind of like to know how much control Activision has over this sort of thing.

Not a good decision Bungie.