Unless the AI is going to give us a cure for cancer or something I’m not really bothered. Seriously the environmental cost is ridiculous I don’t care how open weight they are they still practically need a fusion reactor in order to operate and increase the temperature of the local environment by 12°
It’s not based it’s just that every investor can see that AI has no actual profitable future. Also no one wants to have anything to do with the company run by Elon Musk, he has nothing to contribute and tends to spend his entire time generating bad PR.
These are what we call financially sound decisions.
They’ve sold 3 million units and they’re not profitable yet? They’ve made a new hitman map, how has it cost more than $3 million for them to make that
So once again the United States has attempted a complicated technical solution to a legal problem.
Why don’t you just implement safe gun laws. You don’t even have to ban people from owning guns, although that would be a good idea. You just need to have basic background checks on gun purchases.
If I have to mod the product in order to make the product viable I’m just not going to bother.
They don’t need to drop the price there are plenty of sales available
Everything is going up in price because of AI anyway
So which one is it?
Well if they had some games I was actually all that interested in it might be a compelling product. All it got is a Mario Kart game which looks ok but not enough for me to buy a console for it and another Zelda game.
The big problem is that there isn’t a reason for me to buy a switch 2 over the original switch, and there isn’t a lot of reason me to buy a switch over a steam deck or another handheld. They’ve entered into a pretty saturated market with a niche product. Every other handheld can play wider selection of games.
It’s because Nintendo executives don’t really understand the Western world.
Apparently Nintendo of Europe and Nintendo of America are constantly at loggerheads with Nintendo of Japan over their various brain dead, ultimately self-defeating, schemes.
For starters I cannot imagine that having two product lines with minor differences can be economically viable, and secondly what’s the point in pissing your customer base off? There is zero logic behind this decision.
Nintendo makes the first version of all of their products deliberately mid just so the second version can be considered to be an upgrade, when everybody else would just consider the second version to be what they should have made from the beginning.
It’s like the OLED switch, why didn’t they just make the first version OLED? There hasn’t been a significant cost reduction in that area lately, so it’s not as if it’s suddenly cheaper to put one in.
Is it though or is this just them being spiteful?
How often do the batteries in the non-user replaceable version fail, they can’t have the failure rate be too high or else word would get around. So they’re doing this against the cost of some theoretical future benefit may very well not come to pass. I suspect this decision hasn’t been properly costed out.
It does it’s just Nintendo going out of their way to be awkward even to their own detriment.
Look at Apple, everyone gets USB-C iPhones now they could have made a USB-C version for the European market and a mag-safe port for other markets but that would have meant two different power boards and different body designs but each market which wasn’t worth it. Nintendo however have decided to actually put the cost into making two different body moulds and two different circuit boards one for non-replaceable batteries and one for replaceable batteries.
Nintendo have been anti-consumer for a long time but I’m surprised that they’re willing to waste money on it.
Yeah because the truth is it’s actually pretty rubbish cheese. I’m allowed to say that, you can’t, but I can.
That’s more en massif
Fusion power is still basically TRL 3 and every time it looks like they might be going to move up a level everyone loses their damn minds. It’s not really possible to put a timeline on any of this because the technology doesn’t exist yet and we can’t simulate in computers what we’ve never seen before, not with any degree of accuracy.
Dude I’m only using your numbers.
I feel like that whenever I’m driving my parents petrol car, when I’m used to my diesel car. It’s exactly the same car it’s just got a different engine, but it does totally different performance.
If I could afford one and could somehow figure out a way to charge it at home so I wasn’t relying on public charges then I would already have an EV.
The trouble is at least in my country the infrastructure is just not there, there will be like two chargers in a supermarket car park for 500 plus cars, and the markup on electricity is ridiculous.
For a lot of people EVs are just not practical yet, the issues that people have with them aren’t really to do with the cars themselves but all of the ancillary stuff surrounding them. E.g. my local mechanic has explicitly told me he can’t do EVs because he would have to buy all sorts of software products to be able to perform maintenance on them. That’s got to change that’s a ridiculous artificial lockout from the companies.
Also quite a lot of people don’t want a sporty car EV they would like other car types, and those don’t seem to really be provided by the manufacturers yet.
Doesn’t the door opening mechanisms on Tesla’s famously break all of the time?
How often are you driving 300+ miles?
Perhaps a tendency not to give your kids guns would be part of the background check, other countries managing.