Whirlybird @ Whirlybird @aussie.zone

Posts

0

Comments

1,262

Joined

2 yr. ago

What does 343i, an internally created studio, have to do with ABK?

You have an odd definition of permanent. I guess the screen is permanently glued down too?

Jerryrigeverything takes the battery out on these phones easily. People already replace the batteries in them. How is that possible if they’re permanently glued in?

Yep, and that makes literally no sense as any code I do has to go through a peer review and be checked off by 2 other devs, who would catch the back door. Our government has no idea how technology works.

Isopropyl alcohol and heat removes them just fine. Watch some of the jerryrigeverything teardowns.

The iPhone 15 is smaller than the 14 series with the same size screen.

How about you actually try and refute any of my points if you disagree? Let me guess…..you only own a PlayStation?

I didn’t say any corporation is my friend. Not sure where you’re getting that from?

No one is going to make them with a removable battery. They will however make them easily replaceable, which they already are.

If it makes the phone smaller like it did with the iPhone then I’m all for it.

They were and they weren’t. They literally said they don’t think Microsoft would make COD exclusive like the FTC were saying they would, and that they would be absolutely fine if Microsoft were to buy them and make all games exclusive, unlike the ftc said, but they wanted to stop the deal because of course they do, Microsoft are a competitor.

I’m saying that even Sony disagreed with the FTCs reasons for challenging the acquisition.

This case shows she’s not fighting on behalf of the people though, but on the behalf of other corporations - Sony specifically. Their entire argument was how it would hurt sony. They basically didn’t mention the consumers at all lol. It was a complete joke. At least the CMA and EU had concerns, however weak they were, around competitiveness in the cloud market which could hurt consumers.

Correct, but unfortunately she’s not a big fan of picking her battles well either.

It’s all well and good to “go after big tech”, but you should only go after them when you’ve got a leg to stand on, otherwise you’re going to be made to look stupid by the ludicrously highly paid big tech lawyers. Under khan the FTC has lost almost everything they’ve tried, and most of the times you could take 1 look at their case and know they had no chance in hell.

The Microsoft/ABK case is a perfect example. There’s no lt even the slightest hint of a monopoly or anti-competitive behaviour. Then the ftc basically made their entire argument about poor old market leader Sony potentially being hurt.

Whoever advised them of their strategy in this case should have their credentials stripped. Who thought fighting for the market leader to maintain their dominance and to keep last place in last place was the angle they should take? They’re supposed to look out for consumers and competition, but this case did the opposite.

Eh, people always say this yet data shows it’s not true. Many competitive games have had controller vs m+k and found no discernible advantage. Halo for one, gears of war is another I remember.

I play with an elite controller and I have had zero problem winning and going mvp against m+k players in any game I’ve played. I play PUBG where m+k use is rampant and I still maintain a 30-40% win rate in squads, often in 2 man squads.

This isn’t a new swing, this is a last ditch effort. They’ve already been absolutely embarrassed in court over this case, basically laughed out.

FTC: Microsoft owning COD will give them a monopoly!!!! Poor sony will be run out of business!!! Won’t somebody think of Sony?!?!

Sony: nah we’re good even if we lose COD. We don’t think they would take it from us anyway because we make them the most money.

All other publishers: Nah this deal is great for us as if they did take cod away it makes it easier for us to sell our games.

Nintendo: this deal is great for us as we’ll now get more games for our players.

You just listed a bunch of Microsoft made products + GitHub + openAI (who they don’t control) - why shouldn’t they be allowed to control products they created?

You’re also talking like Microsoft is the market leader in game consoles when they’re a distant last and getting further behind. If this acquisition was blocked it would basically be game over for Xbox, and I would bet it would be sold off or go third party software only and exit the hardware market within a few years. Sony are the ones people need to be worried about here as they have a long history of abusing their dominant position and making blatantly anti-consumer moves based on that position.

Without Xbox as a competitor Sony would have free reign with no one to stop them. The video game industry is one of the most expensive industries any company can get into. Google tried and failed. Sega exited. Xbox is the last real competitor that entered and stayed and that was over 20 years ago, and the only reason it’s still around is to stop Sony from getting a monopoly in the living room.

Like COD, the best selling game on every platform it’s on every year?

Microsoft are far, far, far from being close to the leader in the market even with ABK on their books, so your FUD makes no sense. Pretty much no one in the entire industry is against the acquisition apart from their main competitor, Sony, who are the market leader and abuse that position every day of the year to pull content away from Microsoft.

ABK will operate like they do currently, just like Bethesda do, only now they have Microsoft money and backing.

The only people that this deal is bad for are people who only play on PlayStation consoles. Everyone else benefits.

Cool, but our governments have passed some of the absolute worst privacy laws in the world so this means basically nothing.

Our ISPs are forced to log all the metadata about everything you do on your internet service, and the government can basically just request it for any reason they desire.

I’m not and never have advocated for that.

Also 20% is quantitively a big percentage.

That’s not at all why I’m voting no.

The poll being cited isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. 732 people. It’s irrelevant. You can make a poll say whatever you want, especially with such a tiny number of participants.

Almost every indigenous person I personally know and interact with - which is a lot since my wife works in the indigenous health field and I went to a school with about 40% indigenous population - are voting no.

You said I am saying the majority are against it. I didn’t say that, and we don’t know either way. I’m saying that 20% in a shitty poll is still a LOT of people and that shouldn’t be ignored, and that’s in the shitty poll that was no doubt run and paid for by Yes leaning organisations/people.

I’ll us whatever is available to me to make my decision on how to vote, including what other people I trust think, especially those that were supposedly doing this for. If you shouldn’t be voting based on what others think then why is the 80% poll still being brought up?