Nah, if you've put enough ricin in your mouth that you can actually taste it, you are most definitely going to die soon. Because ricin is one of the most potent plant toxins around. It would only take about a milligram in your coffee to kill you.Eacaraxe said:
That's the thing. If this was truly a "Netflix of Gaming" - a service where you could play God of War one day then play Gears of War the next all for a simple subscription fee then an argument could easily be made for "eh, it's worth giving a try." You'd be trading stability for convenience: games from all platforms accessible for the price of a controller and a subscription fee. But the fact that you've got to buy each game individually - at full market price, for that matter - just puts this in the realm of "are you fucking kidding me?"Elfgore said:I'd be fine with needing to purchase the controller and a monthly subscription, so long as I didn't have to buy games. All I can imagine is wanting to listen to an album on Spotify and get asked to drop ten bucks to buy it and listen in addition to my ten dollar a month subscription. I'd be finding an alternative in a week.
Google seems to either give up right before release or only after being bled dry. I see the latter with this one, it'll be Google Plus all over again!
I believe you're thinking of OnLive.Drathnoxis said:Isn't that exactly like the last company to attempt the streaming games service who's name I can't remember that ended up failing horribly?
Silicon Valley is notoriously out of touch with the rest of the country and subsist on huffing their own farts.Meiam said:but wow, what idiot thought this was a good idea?
Economists and tech industry hacks said the same thing about mobile gaming years ago and that Nintendo should stop making handhelds and consoles and just make mobile games if they wanted to survive into the next generation. These same tools were saying mobile was the next big thing that would kill console and PC gaming and possibly cure cancer too. Now mobile is one of the most toxic markets because everything has microtransactions, premium pay versions, and lootboxes. Don't listen to The Economist when they speculate on new trends because they're just lyrically fantasizing and jerking off into your face.Meiam said:The article sounded like it was possibly going to become the next big thing, with few mentions of the massive drawback. So google probably has the same problem, there only video game people only cover shitty mobile game and can't understand why stadia will burn.
That's not so much a Google problem as it is a FANG/Silicon Valley problem in general; basically any corporation that fetishizes kaizen and has an "innovation uber alles" corporate culture. Google, for as bad as it is, from what I hear is practically a standard-bearer for industry practices compared to other tech giants, particularly Amazon. The elephant in the room is that Amazon's success isn't cultivated through CIP, hell they all but excise the planning phase of the PDCA cycle. Amazon has a ludicrously high failure rate in kaizen projects across the board, I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but it is astounding; and I don't mean "this project failed to improve KPI's", I mean "this project failed to yield relevant data to shape future projects".RJ 17 said:The thing about Google is that employees are given a nice big bonus if they come up with an idea that takes off, yet there's absolutely no detriment to coming up with an idea that completely flops. That is to say that Google employees are fully encouraged to simply throw shit at a wall and see if it sticks.
bluegate said:They were just a couple of years too early, AR glasses are pretty sweet, the technology to make them work comfortable just isn't there yet.
Apparently AR glasses do have their niche within the business market.Adam Jensen said:The idea is dumber than Google glasses. Remember those?