babyjoker1221's forum posts

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts

@pyro1245: Google could've absolutely dominated the entire gaming industry, streaming or otherwise. If they had taken the proper steps to do so of course. Some of those steps having needed to be taken several years ago. The story of steps?

Having aquired Youtube. Google realized that they could generate significantly more revenue if only more people could watch YouTube videos. The problem was that many homes still had internet speeds that were still too slow to stream the videos. At least decently. While Netflix's movies were long enough to allow even slower connections to buffer ahead enough that only the first few minutes was of poor quality, YouTube's content consisted mostly of videos only a couple of minutes or so long. By the time the background buffering caught up enough to adequately display the content, the video was over. The process would then repeat once they clicked on the next video.

Google knew that tech was good enough to adequately supply all those homes with capable internet. The problem was that the ISP's just didn't want to spend the money to upgrade their infrastructure to actually do it. ISP's in the US aren't nearly as competitive as they should be. The major suppliers all sort of had a gentleman's agreement to not constantly one up each other in regards to connection quality and speeds for obvious cost reasons. So seeing all the ISP's basically sitting on their hands... Google announced and began installing Google Fiber.

And boy was Google Fiber a resounding success. Having seen what Google Fiber would offer, those ISP's immediately crapped their pants, and likely their hands as well seeing as they'd been sitting on them. Once it was clear that those ISP's had been scared into upgrading their infrastructure in order to compete with Google Fiber... Google immediately did an about face, and canceled any further development. Their primary objective having been a success, with many times more households now being able to adequately watch YouTube content.

The missed step here is that had Google decided to actually go through with Google Fiber, and roll it out nationwide as they alluded to early on. Google would currently be the de facto ISP for much of the US. If such were the case, they could then wall off certain segments of it for themselves... Such as gaming. Even back then Google was well aware of this, as more than a couple of consulting firms told them so. Even as it pertains to game streaming. Despite the quality not being what it is now, it was still obvious that it would head that direction in the future. Despite Google being aware of all this, they still decided to exit the market anyway.

Had they not done so. Google would own the infrastructure to dominate the game streaming industry. MS and Amazon could own all the cloud services they wanted, and it still wouldn't matter. If Googled ultimately controlled the internet pipe that fed into everyone's home, they literally held the cards that mattered. Assuming they developed all that and integrated it with game streaming in mind. Game streaming right now would probably be significantly further ahead than where it is. Perhaps even at almost imperceptible levels from traditional gaming by most people.

Had that actually happened, Google would've been far more likely to get away with such brazen tactics, like charging for a subscription as well as for the games.

Had Google made such a serious investment earlier, instead of focusing only on ad revenue from YouTube. They might've been a major player in gaming today. At least compared to what they are currently.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts

Sorry, but it's obvious this is pretty run of the mill pr in reference to Sony's sinking position in Japan.

Not only does Hulst reference those "rumors", he then goes on to counter them by stating...

That they are currently "building out" Asobi under Nicolas Doucet. Hulst used the term "building out" vs "expanding" for a very specific reason. Thats because he wants readers to assume they're expanding, while they're actually not doing so. Marketing jargon 101. Also, Nicolas Doucet doesn't sound very Japanese to me, but I could be wrong.

The rest of his statements are nothing more than "We love our Japanese games" and "Don't forget Polyphony". Nothing more than attempting to placate those who are concerned over Sony's recent moves away from Japan.

Sony has bailed on Japan, and Japan has bailed on Sony. This is pr to hide this fact from those who are obsessed with Japan.... But have never even been there. Which is not an insignificant amount of people.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts

I find the whole impeachment thing hilarious. It's provided some of the best content for comedy thus far.

Watching the Dems make Trump flip out and make crazy tweets is pure gold. Knowing that this whole impeachment charade has no chance of working in their favor whatsoever, means that the comedy will continue when the Democrats suddenly learn this.

I'm just enjoying the show.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts

It's strange how much of a difference there is between what the right sees in those transcripts vs the left.

The left says that the facts are right there. For everyone to see.

The right says that there's nothing there that supports impeachment.

There can only be one correct answer.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts

What keeps failing to be presented is any sort of solid evidence, that would support Trump getting impeached.

1. First it was quid pro quo. I heard Democrats say this so many times Monday and Tuesday. They were so positive that it was there, that they launched the impeachment inquiry before the evidence was even released. Despite knowing that it was coming only a day or so later.

2. The transcript is released, and there is no quid pro quo. The Democrats immediately cease any mention of the phrase. They then claim that quid pro quo isn't really needed anyway.

3. Democrats then focus on the whistle-blower report. They claim that it contains very disturbing info that supports impeachment. The WB report is released, and contains nothing that supports impeachment or that could be considered disturbing in lieu of the transcript.

4. With nothing of relative importance in the report, their focus shifts back to the transcript, but there's nothing there. So they simply claim that it's really a memo, and that the real transcript is being hidden.

Go home Dems... You're drunk.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:
@babyjoker1221 said:

Wether or not Trump's payoff to Daniels was legal doesn't really matter. Was it a slimy thing to do? Sure, but there was no evidence that he used campaign funds to pay her off. If Trump used his own money (which he most certainly did), then his paying money to Daniels was legit as far as campaign finance laws go. I'm not sure Trump would even be smart enough to know to use his own money vs campaign funds, but Cohen and advisors most certainly would have.

But none of that really matters, because your objective here is to deflect and steer the the conversation away from Omar breaking campaign finance rules. Which if the info in the story is correct... She most likely did. You can cry "What about Trump?" all you want, but he's already been through an investigation, and been hammered by the press. This is about Omar. Period. It has nothing to do with Trump, so please stop the poor attempt at deflection. It's a bad look.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. FYI. Also trump has not been investigated.

Yet more deflection...

It's pretty bad that you can't discuss the topic at hand. The best you can muster is "Bu Bu Bu but what about Trump?"

Others in this thread have drawn comparisons between the two as well. Of course they're also able to discuss the current topic at hand as well, where you apparently can't.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@ad1x2 said:

I didn’t post this thread with the idea that there would be zero attempt to deflect any criticism of Omar to Trump. I’m only surprised of the lengths people went to excuse her and ignore the allegation (which may or may not be true) that she’s literally paying off the guy she talked into leaving his wife and son.

Congress isn’t like the military, you can’t be thrown in jail for cheating on your spouse or sleeping with a married person not married to you while you're single. But you can be thrown in jail for campaign finance fraud.

As for me not adding too much detail, the following post was something I considered bringing up:

I decided not to when I originally posted the thread because I had a feeling some of the first few people responding may have accused me of Islamophobia or something. But to address what was said in that post, yes Omar would be violating her religion. According to the Qur'an the penalty for adultery is flogging, or a hundred lashes.

Here's the thing, I'm not a fan of Islam and I'd probably agree that a strict interpretation of Islam would condemn her actions...harshly even.

Let's also remember one other thing when comparing these 'payoffs' or campaign violations: The payments to Stormy Daniels were illegal and helped land Michael Cohen in jail. They were considered campaign violations as well. This is even assuming these allegations stick. Bring an inquiry on it, doesn't matter to me as long as we expect the same kind of retribution to people like Trump (which won't happen).

If we're apt to compare let's do so honestly.

Tell me no one in here is arguing the payoffs to Daniels were legal.

Wether or not Trump's payoff to Daniels was legal doesn't really matter. Was it a slimy thing to do? Sure, but there was no evidence that he used campaign funds to pay her off. If Trump used his own money (which he most certainly did), then his paying money to Daniels was legit as far as campaign finance laws go. I'm not sure Trump would even be smart enough to know to use his own money vs campaign funds, but Cohen and advisors most certainly would have.

But none of that really matters, because your objective here is to deflect and steer the the conversation away from Omar breaking campaign finance rules. Which if the info in the story is correct... She most likely did. You can cry "What about Trump?" all you want, but he's already been through an investigation, and been hammered by the press. This is about Omar. Period. It has nothing to do with Trump, so please stop the poor attempt at deflection. It's a bad look.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts

What happens in people's bedrooms is their business.

That being said... The people here that are attempting to draw the comparison to Trump is pathetic.

Trump paid Daniels to keep quiet about their affair. All evidence points to him paying her with his own money.

1 out of every 3 dollars that Omar has taken in campaign funds has gone to this guy. Over $130,000 in 2019 alone, and it's not even a campaign year.

If you can't see the difference between the two, then you're just blind.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts

Nah, I find it hard to believe that there's a large swath of Republicans that support banning assault rifles. Saying that it's just the NRA alone and it's lobbying is simply being naive.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
babyjoker1221

1313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

3

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 babyjoker1221
Member since 2015 • 1313 Posts

I think MS are feeling it out.

If they get enough Gamepass subscribers, they'll maybe drop the Gold fee at some point.

Right now I think that it's too early to say really. If they were to drop the Gold fee now, and then Gamepass ends up not working out... They're fucked. They'd have a hard time going back to charging for Gold.

I think they're taking the Wait and See approach. It'll be some time before they ever drop the Gold fee if they ever do.