“Will people be giving a woman who already has an empire a trickle of more money? Yes.”

Because more people own Playstations. It’s simple selfishness. It’s understandable, but it doesn’t make it rational.

“Xbox is growing by trying to shrink PlayStation.”

Yeah you’re right. Every artist that made any piece of protest art wanted it disseminated and seen by no one. The less eyes on it the better.

Citation needed.

I never thought I’d read a “the people living in $1M condos have it just as bad as the poors!” take on this site, yet here we are.

MyPillow employs 1,500 people, would you consider them when you had to get a new pillow?

Fuck all would be my guess.

They’ve been paid. If they have bonuses that they may not get because of a lack of sales, they could easily unionize and bargain for better pay so they aren’t reliant on bonuses.

But it’s not called Self Driving, is it? It’s called Full Self Driving so I would imagine it needs to drive itself, you know, fully.

Yep, that was my bad.

Worldwide, Sony accounts for 88% of console market share. That’s pretty damn close to a monopoly, and in certain segments (Japan, and other Asian markets) it has a literal monopoly. The notion that MS acquiring ActiBlizz is going to result in everything swinging the other way around and create a MS monopoly is absurd.

I’m not defending anything. The thing you said made no sense.

Microsoft get a bigger monopoly? First off, Microsoft isn’t even close to being the market leader, and you can’t get a “bigger” monopoly.

You still don’t need a Hollywood actor, a voice actor can do the required “acting” for mo-cap.

Or, and I know this is a radical idea: stop getting movie actors, pay voice actors more, and keep your development and marketing costs lower?

Releasing Bout is a miscarriage of the small justice for all of his victims, many who were impoverished Africans in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Rwanda. Bout should never have been released. He should have had his life prolonged as possible so he spent as much time in jail as possible.

A boycott is an active campaign against an entity. A consumer saying “I don’t want to buy this” is one consumer making a choice. Even if it’s a group of consumers making this decision, it doesn’t make it a boycott. All I see in these comments is people saying they don’t want to purchase future products associated with…

This has nothing to do with screwing over anyone. As consumers we have the choice to purchase a product (that is years old, mind you) or not based on the information at hand. We are not under any obligation purchase a product that we don’t want to, regardless of motive for not wanting to buy it, whether or not one…

So because you didn’t no one else should?