Well, lots of countries have shitty ISPs. I live in Canada, and were I live, we have two major ISPs to select from, both can offer nice speed, but at a high cost, and usually only “affordable” through pricey bundles that includes cable TV as well (that we don’t want). And both have beyond shitty service and tons of…

I’m still trying to figure out who this service is aimed at. There may be some specific people that may see it as good for them, but from the start, I don’t understand how anyone at Google thought that this had “mass appeal”.

I didn’t say battery technology won’t improve. What I’m saying is that most companies won’t use it to give us better battery life in our portable devices. We’ve been showing them time and time again that we’re perfectly ok with phones and smartwatches with “all-day battery life!” (I’m not, but most people are).

How millions could vote for him - let alone defend him now, after four crazy years - is beyond most of my fellow Danes.

As long as people don’t mind buying devices with about a day of battery life (phones, smartwatches), it won’t happen. In fact, I’m pretty sure more efficient batteries won’t matter, as manufacturers will see it as an excuse to use smaller batteries and reduce their cost (more profits!!), while providing the same…

This is what the world is seeing....and they are wondering what the fuck is wrong with us to have this douchebag in the big chair

Anything that would back up what they believe, is right, no matter where it comes from. And so anything that would contradict what they believe is thus wrong, biased, stupid, paid for, and false, no matter where it comes from.

The point is that technology evolve. I can buy a cheap phone for $100 today that would be 1000x more powerful than a PS2 back then, that costed much, much more. The problem is that we’re currently reaching a “plateau” of diminishing returns, technology speaking. And to get the same feeling of advancement, we need to…

The PS4 pro isn’t selling near as good as the regular PS4, BTW. Thinking that mostly everyone is ok with prices like these because “some” people (a minority in the whole picture) are paying more for it only means that “some” people might not see it as being an issue.

The closer we get to launch dates, the more things we learn about these new consoles, the more I think all of these things are signals for me to simply start not caring anymore and move full retro and finally get to my ridiculously large backlog and all the titles I missed or haven’t finished since forever...

I’d like to say that if, over the last couple of years, the vast amount of stupidity on social media didn’t convince us to massively invest in education, then maybe it’s because we should massively invest in education.

Both new consoles will be problematic for me, as the only place I have where they can fit, is on the floor in front of the media unit (which actually houses drawers). So... nope.

The whole Apple strategy revolves around locking customers into their ecosystem. To many, the idea of losing all the content they paid for (music, movies, apps & games) by moving elsewhere is all they need to stay in there. I have some friends like this - and they acknowledge it themselves - they’re too far into the…

I think it’s because they simply used a bad choice of words. Just replace “energy” with “R&D money”, and it makes much more sense. At least, from a business perspective. It’s still insulting to the consumer, but hey, at least it makes a bit more sense.

In Canada, new games are $80. Add sale taxes, and you’re bordering on $100. No way I’m going to spend that much on a collection of 3 retro titles.

I know a lot of people will say that most consoles never had any form of BC, and that’s true. But this had mostly a thing to do with the game distribution model of the time, and the fact that most of the older consoles used completely different hardware every generation.

$70 US, will translate roughly to $90 in Canada, which is not only a lot, it’s completely insane. Add sale taxes, and we’re literally going over $100. For a single game.

Yeah, but it’s not all that. The reality was much different back then. Games weren’t selling as much as they are now, as videogames back then was still mostly categorized as a “nerdy” activity. So the market was much smaller. Prices needed to be high to make good profits.

I wasn’t going to say it like you did, but it makes sense. I think many participants in these events are seeing the word “competition” as something lesser than “sport”. Like calling it a “sport” makes it sound more “professional”, more “serious”. Well, I think that depends on how you see it. I personally think that…

Same boat here. I know it’s just semantics. But I just have a problem with the “sports” part in “esports”. I can definitely see the exciting competition aspect to it, the spectacle and everything. Just not the “sport” part.