Athan Immortal

It's not review bombing when it's a legitimate complaint about the software that's being reviewed. The term review bombing has become too overused and minimises legitimate complaints. To my mind, review bombing is when a developer makes some unpopular statement or an announcement about an upcoming game for example, and people make false reviews on that developers other products to protest against them, that's review bombing. Leaving negative reviews about the actual product affected by a bad change is just user agency at work, and one of the few things customers have left.

I agree with this. During the Apple V Epic lawsuit lots of internal e-mails and documents from the court showed that Epic paid influencers to "Disrupt Steam's organic traffic coverage", so with Linus in the middle of his month long Steam Deck usage, and the amount of coverage that's getting, I find the timing of the sponsorship from Epic very convenient. * Buying companies and removing them from Steam (Rocket League) where there was already a large user base. * Swooping in to get exclusivity rights for games that already had Pre-orders on other platforms (Metro Exodus) * Claiming that they are all about developers, but refusing a game on their store because the developer wouldn't agree to exclusivity. (DARQ) LTT has had some sponsors in the past that didn't work out, I really just accept that in the post ad-pocalypse youtube they're a necessity of business. But at the point where LTT can pick and choose it's sponsorships, this is the first one that's really made me want to come and make a post about it. A lot of people assume that Epic Hat3rZ are just Steam fan boys who don't want a broken up library. I have libraries with Origin, Ubisoft, Gog, Humble, Gamers Gate, Itch, Indiegala. I even thought them giving away free games wasn't a bad idea to try and build their userbase, but once the exclusives started and their attitude towards customers by sniping games that already had release dates, pre-orders, pages, fully funded with promises made, I thoroughly dislike the company for that. Blame also lies with the devs for doing that, but Epic are the ones laying out the opportunity.

Not giving up? They own a perpetual license for the ARM processors anyway? I don't see what would have changed. Exactly!

It's sad to see. Seems they've just fallen behind on this generation of memory. They're much like CPU fabrication factories, they're laid down years in advance and you don't really know how good it will be until near the time. A bit like Intel's 10nm having problems and stranding them on 14nm for years. When I ran a computer shop I sold mainly Crucial memory, came with a 10 year guarantee which at that point was industry leading, and unlike so many of the other brands , Crucial was the brand for Micron that they used for memory chips that had passed testing and certification first time. No "major on third" BS (where you'd get Samsung chips soldered by some third party company with poor control), no memory that had failed initial test then been re-soldered. Crucial meant it was perfect first time and the reliability was better than anything else I sold. Sad to see it go, but better they do that than try to compete with memory they know won't hold up.

It goes back further than that, he protests absolutely everything SpaceX does. Blue Origin protested over SpaceX getting Pad 39A, every step of the way they show themselves to be lobbyists rather than actually pushing forward and being the better product. They haven't even been able to deliver the BE-4 engine to ULA yet. Meanwhile SpaceX made orbital rockets that can land themselves, strapped an experimental engine to a flying water tower, are building rocket engines in tents, and deploying a first of it's kind world wide internet satellite ISP.

Surely benchmarking could sort this out? If they benchmark and it's within expected ranges then it is just a vbios issue. Not like Dell can just shave some cores off, and I'm sure Nvidia wouldn't be shipping another variant without public knowledge or press release etc.

Sorry bud, dinner was in the oven and I had just seen the notifications. Was only looking to give that link as I'd saved it from before when a similar argument had gone on on Reddit. All best, have a good day.

Happily. https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2019/05/27/socket-am4-platform-longevity-getting-ryzen-3000-ready "With the launch of the AM4 platform in 2016, we at AMD made a commitment to maintain and support socket AM4 through 2020. During that time, we have continued to evolve the platform to offer new features, more performance, and greater functionality. With a single socket ranging from entry level to enthusiast class motherboards, consumers have the flexibility to start with the hardware that meets their needs today, and upgrade to their growing performance demands tomorrow. " Oh sorry. Did you try to click that link and AMD has removed it because it contains a narrative they want to bury? No problem. https://archive.is/uMFkA

In 2017 they promised support for AM4 through 2020, that's when AMD 5000 was released. That's why I adopted early, because Intel had landlocked me into 1 generation updates. I can get up to a 3000 chip and that's great, but don't pretend like they "never promised" that's horseshit.

Microsoft didn't patent it. You don't even need to read the source, just the first line of the quote to understand it's a company called Ironburg that holds the patent, and Microsoft correctly licensed it for use. Not only that, 4 people actually ticked agree or like on your comment... yikes.

Oh come on now, it will also be briefly mentioned on WAN Show before being derailed to talk about water bottles, underwear or floatplane.

Nvidia is manually reviewing the orders to try and weed out the bots https://www.pcmag.com/news/nvidia-is-manually-reviewing-rtx-3080-orders-to-stop-scalpers

Thanks, I've marked you as an answer so it appears at the top of the post.

Just want to settle this one, because I understand where the confusion is coming from. Bombastinator is right. Then I know because of the order the quotes read it may not make sense at first, but it seems Sony was betting in July that because of all the people staying at home there would be even more demand, and increased their order, but then found by now (September) the yields wont support that, so they've revised it down.

I tend to agree, I genuinely think cutting production targets could be down to stretching some of the silicon too far. Demand wont be the issue.

UPDATE: Per GamesIndustry.biz article, Sony is denying the rumour. Summary Sony has apparently cut production target of the PS5 by 4 million units due to yield problems with the SOC (System On Chip, i.e AMD's CPU and GPU). Quotes Please note, original article is from the Japanese Bloomberg, hence the reference to Japanese release dates and pricing. My thoughts The yield issue is interesting. We know the PS5 includes fewer CUs in the graphics unit compared to Microsoft's Series X, but clocks much higher to make up for this. This yield problem could be down to graphics cores that are unable to reach that higher almost 2ghz level rather than all out failures.The demand for PS5s was expected to be more than PS4s, but now they will have fewer PS5 units, this is could cause quite a supply problem on top of the usual price gouging. Sources Original Bloomberg Japan article - https://www.bloomberg.co.jp/news/articles/2020-09-15/QGFJPPDWLU6M01 Bloomberg paywalled article - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-15/sony-is-said-to-cut-ps5-forecast-by-4-million-due-to-chip-woes Reddit translation - https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/isz6aw/sony_cuts_ps5_production_by_4m_units_due_to/g5badew/ Additional sites now picking up the story: https://www.gematsu.com/2020/09/bloomberg-sony-cuts-ps5-initial-production-orders-by-four-million-units GamesIndustry article says Sony are denying the rumour - https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-09-15-sony-reportedly-cuts-ps5-production-by-4m-units

I'm not as sure. Think about a commuter train or subway for example. How many people take out their phone and pair some Bluetooth headphones. Someone could ride the train for a few hours and hack several phones with a perfectly legitimate reason for being there in close proximity. I guess it really depends what they can do with whatever access this vulnerability gives them. Written from my Nokia 8 with Bluetooth turned off and a headphone jack.

They've definitely been playing a bit of a stand off. I feel like Nvidia made their announcement because they knew they had a compelling product, they wanted to get out ahead of the console and AMD announcements (basically all three are AMD in one way or another). and set the price bar comparatively low (obviously I don't think $699 is pocket change). AMD doesn't seem to want to announce RDNA 2 before the consoles, maybe contractual stuff, maybe they don't want to skew perception of the consoles which will make them a lot of money for the next 8 years. And they now will have to contend with Nvidia's performance jump and "reasonable" pricing. Microsoft and Sony wanted to wait for the other to move first. I think particularly Microsoft wanted to let Sony announce their PS5 and PS5 digital at ~$50-100 less, then come out of no where with a $299 console. I think in their mind that was a hay maker, but their hand was forced with the credible pricing leak, and now Sony has seen all the positive coverage Microsoft has gotten. Microsoft has even given some dummy units out for youtubers to look at, and now Sony have to contend with the perception that their discless version isn't going to be as good value as Microsoft's. Most people will not get the performance angle, they'll just think Microsoft has undercut Sony. Sony could still deal a huge blow by having a disc based PS5 at $499 and subsidising the discless (but still full 4k 60 performance) PS5 at $299. Unlike Microsoft they don't have as compelling a subscription model, but every sale they make would be digital, and so no used market, they could make their money back on the life of the console instead. All speculation of course, we really know very little about the PS5 so far.

It's possible, however discless PS5 offers them much more in terms of future revenue. There's no used games, every copy is bought through their store or economy. While $50 might seem like the literal price that should be taken off, the discless one is the one that is much more open to subsidizing as they will make more money per game sold on that in the long run.

Why the hell is this in Tech News?

Oh FUCK OFF WD. This is such a political answer. Like an "Aha, but we worded it like this." What the hell is the problem just labelling the drives as what they are. 5400rpm, 7200rpm, SMR, CMR. I bought two 4tb WD RED Drives last year then had to go through all the worry of checking if they were SMR when that story broke. I just bought a 14tb Elements drive about a month ago after a couple of weeks of research making sure I wasn't going to accidentally buy an SMR drive and now this. Sure 7200rpm instead of 5400rpm, it's not as big a deal as SMR, but the point is Western Digital is being dishonest... again! The 4 drive failures I've had in the last 8 years are all Seagate. Drive failures are an anecdotal and personal thing (usually because of what's lost being important to the person), because I'll hear the same thing about WD from other people, but for the moment they've been the only spinning disk I trust, but their company is working really hard to erode that it seems. I wish there were more players in this space.

Paying for online is stupid. You pay for the console to play the game You pay for your own internet connection The game you're playing, say EA's Battlefield, has to pay for their servers What part of that does the Gold subscription benefit. Nobody. It's just an arbitrary "we'll let the packets through" charge. I'd have felt different if Gold was used to host servers for games so that they wouldn't get the plug pulled on them or something, but there's literally nothing Microsoft was doing in that chain that warranted the money. Phil Spencer is really turning Xbox around from the train wreck Don Mattrick left behind. If he torpedoes Gold, all the more proof he's the best thing to happen in years. He finally made good on Microsoft's years of broken promises to bring their games to Windows, the Game Pass has been a phenomenal value for money (and looking at the Digital only Xbox Series S, it may have been the long game for that very console) and Microsoft are actually buying up studios and focussing on games again. Let's just hope Gold is going away, and this isn't just a hopeful rumour.

I'm also on board with the theory that Sony having their hand in the TV market is one of the reasons the PS4 Pro was made. It so clearly cannot handle 4k, but it can do 1800p and upscale just enough, but it lets them slap 4k as a sales number which in turn helps them sell TVs. I cannot imagine for the life of me, any Nintendo title that would benefit from 4k. Their party piece is that this is a viable gaming console in your hands.

If posting about the cheapest phone, it's worth including the price GSM arena estimates ~120 euros, so that's about £108 GBP, $142 USD or $186 CAD.

Hopefully the other rendering technologies can incorporate something similar (Not even sure if that's possible). I've no problem with Direct-X, but I don't like anything having a full hold over everything.