Since you’re so incapable of thinking for yourself I’ll go through it again with everything you mentioned. Same prerequisite except now everyone has a phone and excess phones turn instantly to waste, or do you need a point by point explanation on how excess supply turns into waste?

Scenario 1: Every year 1000 new phones get released.

• Y1: 500 people buy new phones and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 phones just go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y2: Same thing. End of year waste is 2000 phones.
• Y3: Same thing. End of year waste is 3000 phones.
• …
• Y10: Still the same thing. End of year waste is 10k phones.

Scenario 2: Every 3 years 1000 new phones get released.

• Y1: 500 people buy new phones and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y2: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y3: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y5: New phone comes out. 500 people and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 2000 old phones
• Y6: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 2000 phones
• Y7: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 2000 phones
• Y8: New phone comes out. 500 people and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 3000 old phones
• Y0: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 3000 phones
• Y10: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 3000 phones

As you can see. Even with supply meets the demand exactly you generate waste if you release a new phone every year. If the supply exceeds the demand it generated waste. I don’t see how it could be made any clearer beyond also going over your comment point by point.

Why would you make your scenario supply constrained?

Because how do you create a secondary market that would buy used phones? I could’ve gone with “people are poor” but that is much harder to put into an example. The supply constraint itself doesn’t matter, but I did my best with the new example.

Your argument is simply if we sold less phones, less would go to e-waste, and duh.

Nope. My argument was that if we made less phones less would go to e-waste. That also covers unsold phones that go straight into waste as evident from my new example.

That wasn’t debate, it was whether releasing new phones every year was wasteful vs new phones being released every 2-3 years.

If you release a new phone every year you manufacture more phones. I guess technically you can manufacture the same amount of the same model for 2-3 years as you would manufacture yearly new phone. But that makes no sense from an enterprising point of view because you reach market saturation and the phones simply don’t get sold, you’re just manufacturing a loss for the company. Even if you manufacture the same model yearly you’re still going to manufacture them less (due to demand dropping) than if you made a new model every year.

Your scenario also assuming people buy used or they just don’t have a phone. People who buy a used phone generally do so instead of buying a new phone.

If you paid attention you would’ve noticed that in both previous scenarios 800-900 people bought used phones and only 100-200 people bought brand new phones. I did that deliberately because you argued that reselling the phone has an effect when it really doesn’t. At the end of the line the person who bought the last used phone throws their current phone away because you can’t sell that to anyone. Which means as long as phone is manufactured regardless of whether it gets sold or not or resold or not, eventually it will go in the bin as e-waste. The best way to reduce waste is to not produce excessively like we’re doing right now.

Are you stupid? Let’s say we have 1000 people and they all want the latest phone, all manufactured phones get bought and everyone sells their old phones. And phones don’t break.

Scenario 1: Every year 200 new phones get released.

• Year 1. 200 most willing to pay the highest price buy a new phone, 800 are without a phone
• Year 2. The same 200 buy the latest model and sell their old one. The next 200 get the “new” used phone. 600 are without phones.
• Year 3, 4 and 5 I imagine are self-explanatory. By the end of year 5 everyone has phone.
• Year 6. The most willing buy the 200 new phones and sell their old phone. The next group buy the previous group phones and sell their current phone. The last group has nobody to sell to because nobody wants their phone. 200 phones go into e-waste.
• Year 7. Goes like year 6 except now there’s a total of 400 phones in e-waste.
• Year 8, 9 and 10 follow the same pattern. By the end of year 10 there 1000 phones in e-waste.
• Year 20. By the end of the year there will be 3000 phones in e-waste.

Scenario 2: 100 phones get released (to better stimulate the real world because someone is going release a phone anyway, but you can also imagine 200 phones releasing every 2 years as the numbers will the same for every even year).

• Year 1. 100 people get a phone.
• Year 2. 100 people buy the new phone and sell the old one. 100 people buy the old phone.
• Years 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the same pattern. By the end of year 10 everyone has a phone
• Year 11 the first year phones go into e-waste because nobody wants them. Total 100 phones in e-waste.
• Year 12 the next 100 phones go into waste. Total 200 phones in e-waste.
• Years 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are the same pattern.
• Year 20. By the end of the year 1000 phones are e-waste.
• Year 40. By the end of the year 3000 phones are e-waste.

It literally cannot be empirically untrue because what I said is mathematically true. Let’s say that in both scenario 1 and scenario 2 at the end of year 50 they decide to throw away all phones and never create another phone again. In scenario 1 there would be 10 000 e-waste phones. In scenario 2 there would be 5000 e-waste phones. The more you create the more waste will come down the line. If you want less waste, make less phones.

And before you go “but recycling?” only about 20% of e-waste gets recycled and the recycling process doesn’t recycle all the waste.

Trade ins and selling old phones doesn’t really reduce e-waste. What reduces e-waste is manufacturing less phones.

Well, for starters Xbox was dead on arrival, they had no system sellers lined up and the series S has held this generation Xbox back since the beginning. Sony on the other hand started off well, but then got the GaaS hard on and almost all of their gaas projects are failing hard. That’s why they barely have a library of exclusives.

Not to mention this generation has also been a technological flop (not just on the consoles side but also on the PC side). The next big thing to change gaming is ray tracing, but the tech is still too raw to fully utilize it. Because of that we’re largely getting the same tech as last gen, just higher fidelity.

And considering console exclusives started coming to PC I think there’s even less of a consumer pull towards consoles. A lot of PC gamers owned a console and now they don’t need one because the get to play their console games on PC at higher quality with better performance.

The next generation needs to be marvelous or I think console gaming, as we currently know it, will be dead.

Right. So let’s imagine everyone uses Puppy OS for the phone OS? How does that prevent phone manufacturers from creating a new phone every year? It doesn’t. I’ve already pointed it out with Pixel phones, TWICE. Pixel 5 runs the same OS as Pixel 9 and obviously it hasn’t prevented Google from releasing 3 different version of Pixel 6, 7 and 8, and then also Pixel Fold and 4 different version of Pixel 9. If every Pixel phone moving forward would be stuck on Android 14 they’d still be able to release a new version every year because you still get marginally better camera, marginally more memory, marginally better processor etc. Using Puppy OS wouldn’t prevent manufacturers from spitting out a new model every year because the other issue with phones is that they’re not repairable. If your screen breaks or battery dies or charging port stops charging you can’t really fix it without paying usually over half the price of a new phone, which means people just buy a new phone. A fixed OS doesn’t solve hardware failures which leads to people buying new hardware. Regular wear and tear is the main reason for e-waste, because you can’t fix your fucking phone. This is literally the reason EU is forcing phone manufacturers to make replaceable batteries a thing again, because it’s the primary point of failure for most phones.

Solving e-waste doesn’t start with the OS, it starts by making hardware easy to repair or replace. And that’s exactly what fairphone does. And it’s super weird how you’re both “the hardware on fairphones sucks” and “hardware necessity is an illusion”. You’re undermining your own points.

I’ve already pointed out that most Pixel phones run on the same OS, it doesn’t prevent Google from churning out new phones on a yearly basis because hardware is independent from software. The same OS doesn’t prevent sticking in a better camera of a better CPU, it only prevents adding new features to the OS.

What you’re suggesting could work if ALL pixel phones had to run on the same OS which effectively stifles technological advantage. I don’t think you fully understand the impact of your suggestion. What you’re basically saying is that 99% of personal computers should be using windows 3.1 (or I guess actually MS DOS) because that’s the OS Microsoft created and that’s what ran on the first PCs. Even the jump to Windows 95 is impossible because it literally might not fit on hardware that’s designed to run windows 3.1. You could argue that it’s a silly argument as it would start now, but guess what, 40 years from now Windows 11 can be just as ancient as Windows 3.1 is right now. If we somehow figure out quantum computing for consumer market you couldn’t really benefit from it because you need to support windows 11 that has no idea how quantum computing works. Not to mention it actually makes entire companies obsolete because a brand new company could make an OS that supports quantum computing and everyone switches to that company OS because that OS doesn’t need to support decades old hardware.

Forced baseline OS does not solve the issue. It only creates worse issues.

I say to all manufacturers and developers just get one OS and stick with it, and then there is no further e-waste if it’s cross compatible from a dual core spec hardware upward it just runs faster the higher spec you go, there will be no hardware or OS incompatability just an ever improving OS one fits all old and new.

But where does the new hardware come from? Google has one OS that is the same over all Pixel phones, it doesn’t stop them from churning out a new Pixel every year. It also doesn’t solve the problems Fairphone aims to solve which are a) ethically sourced materials and b) reducing ewaste by having higher repairability.

Let’s say they create their own OS. How is the OS going to make sure the underlying hardware is “fairly” acquired? It’s not. Nor is the OS magically going to turn a non-repairable phone into a repairable one. That’s the reason why Fairphone makes their own phones, so they can verify their materials are ethically sourced and the phone is repairable.

All fairphone are goinn to do is become e-waste just with a smaller footprint than the rest but e-waste none the less, I do not see them surviving long either.

Actually the company recycles its phones. If you don’t like your Fairphone you can send it to them and based on the model and the state of the phone they’ll reimburse it. And how long is long because Fairphones are over a decade old?

The idea behind the fairphone is that it’s made fairly. It looks overpriced because they’re paying a fair price for the raw materials + production costs. If other companies didn’t exploit third world countries their phones would be priced similarly to fair phone.

You don’t buy fair phone for the specs, you buy it so you can be certain some child in south Africa didn’t have crawl in a mine to get the the metals that go into phones, or have a child sit in a factory putting together the chips that go into phones. Or you buy it because you don’t want to throw your phone away after 3 years because you couldn’t replace the battery or the screen or the charging port.

I guess it’s regional bang-per-buck. I just bought a 4070 over a 7800XT because it cost only 20€ more and for that 20€ I get a better upscaler (I personally find DLSS visually better than FSR) and much better ray-tracing performance with only a marginal drop in rasterization performance. Oh and also better wattage which is a factor considering my cost of electricity, probably offsets that 20€ over the duration of me using the card. And I got the new shitty Star Wars game for free. I’m not trying to be an Nvidia fanboy here. When I decided to get a new card I was absolutely certain I’m getting an AMD card because Nvidia cards were supposed to be overpriced as hell. Well, turns out bang-per-buck Nvidia card came out on top.

I think my 4070 example is probably why they’re going to target more budget cards, because xx70 cards are already outside the budget of the average gamer. If you look at the Steam hardware survey xx50 and xx60 cards make up the lion’s share of the cards from the last 3 generations. There’s literally only 3070 in the top 10 most popular cards, everything else xx60 or xx50. 3080 is the first xx80 card and that’s only 15th most popular and 4090 is the first xx90 card while being 30th most popular. Why waste resources trying to compete with xx70, xx80 or xx90 cards when you could just beat the xx60 card and get most of the market.

I do hope their plan works out for them.

I agree the genre isn’t exactly for me, but I don’t think that’s really relevant. Stardew Valley and Sims more or less fall in the same genre and I loved Stardew Valley and could see the appeal of Sims. I don’t have an issue with those games being on the list but New Horizons just felt shallow. Outside of collecting things for the Museum there really wasn’t anything that engaging. I remember also checking if I’m just playing it wrong and the sentiment from the AC vets was that the gameplay of New Leaf is better.

I did a quick check to see New Horizon is still in the same state as I remember and some people are claiming the 2.0 update made the game better so I guess I’ll give it another shot one day. Maybe my opinion is dated because I haven’t really played since 1.3 update.

I’m going to give my probably controversial opinion. I don’t think Animal Crossing New Horizons should be on that list and the main reason it got critical acclaim is because it released at the height of Covid. Had it released any other time people would’ve seen that it’s a shallow game where in long term it’s mostly a repetition of the same menial actions. There’s nothing wrong with repetition, but having to check the store every day isn’t exactly the peak of compelling gameplay.

Because putting them together in most physical sports would push women out of the highest echelons of that sport. Just look up what female MMA fighters and female tennis players have to say. They literally can’t keep up with men. Serena Williams and her sister boasted that they’d beat any man outside the top 200, Braasch (then #203) took the challenge and on the day of the challenge played a round of golf drank 2 low ABV beers before easily beating both sisters

Probably the most detrimental thing you can do for women in sports is to get rid of the women’s league. Most “men’s” categories are already open for women, so you should ask women why they don’t want to partake. The answer is what female athletes already say, they’d get absolutely dumpstered before they even get close to the top. Of course the less physically demanding the closer men and women will be, but for most sports the physical differences make women’s leagues necessary.

No idea what you want to say in the first paragraph. I understand that you think it’s toxic to have a different opinion? Pretty sure that’s not what you meant.

I most likely misunderstood what you were saying so we had a miscommunication. I don’t think the miscommunication is particularly relevant so I’ll leave it at that.

There is a big difference between corporations and people. Bigotry against people cannot compare to bigotry against corporations. And then there’s a difference from that to an industry. Most notably there’s something called “industry standard” which (most often) the market leader sets and the competition copies in an attempt to catch up. To resist this means to potentialy lose money, something only few companies want or tolerate.

There is a difference between corporations and people, but the underlying fallacy is the same. If companies A, B and C are bad it doesn’t mean all the companies from D to Z are also bad. And industry standard doesn’t mean every company will follow the industry and industry standard doesn’t guarantee making money. We have a lot of examples of companies following the industry standard and flopping hard, and we have examples of companies that don’t follow the standard and are wildly successful.

I can recommend searching for Cory Doctorow’s idea of “Enshittification” to get an understanding why companies might use costumer favourable policies at their beginning which they revoke in favor of more money later. It’s what made Amazon big, or Facebook. I’m sure you won’t, but there might be readers of this dialogue that might be interested.

I’m well aware of enshittification and I completely fail to see how that’s relevant in this particular instance. In fact your entire premise of “they might add it later” makes no sense because literally the best time to have DRM is at launch when the potentially demand is the highest, and once your game is pirated the cat is out the bag and adding it later makes very little sense.

No, I don’t know Saber’s internal politics toward this, and no, I don’t share your chipper attitude towards their intentions.

That’s fine.

I do recognize they were nice to their customers, which is a good thing. But they were recently acquired by Beacon Interactive which doesn’t even have a wikipedia page. The future remains unclear. I don’t know where their path will take them, neither do you. You trust them at your own risk.

Beacon interactive was founded by the co-founder of Saber interactive for the purpose of buying out Saber from Embracer. That was literally the second result (the first one was a completely other company called Beacon Interactive Systems) on DDG if you searched for Beacon interactive. Google has the article a bit more downward as most suggestions are about that other company but in the top results are Saber interactive wiki page that has the exact same information. I can only assume that you did a search just to confirm your “company bad” bad and didn’t look any further because it took just a nudge more effort to find out that Saber interactive is effectively an independent company.

But I guess it doesn’t matter because you automatically assume company bad, so it’s not like that is going to change your mind.

If you come from Windows Mint is an excellent starting point. People shit on it because it doesn’t have all the fancy bells and whistles you get with more latest releases, but on the flip side it’s super reliable and as a new user that reliability is worth more than all the bells and whistles.

What? The leds that go in the bulb sockets take 3W so the RGB ones going into the case probably take like 1.5 to 2W. RGB led strips seem to take 8W per meter. We’re talking about 5m of led strips and 25 individual lights and still not hitting 100W.

I don’t put RGB in my cases so I don’t know what the trend is. If it’s to turn your PC into a Christmas tree then I can understand 100W not being enough.

It is incredibly toxic, do you think that I do that? Over a “Why the over specific denial”?

But you did. Everyone else was either optimistic or “yeah, whatever” about the statement, only you went “there must be something wrong with the statement”. You are literally the only person in this thread questioning if it’s genuine.

It’s a lived example of the “one bad apple spoils the bunch”. There are quite a few bad apples in the publisher space, some on the developer side. Do normal people just not recognize patterns in an industry? Are normal people apathetic about how an industry treats them?

This is how bigots talk. “Some black people are bad people so I will treat all black people as bad people”. “Some immigrants are bad people so all immigrants are bad”. “Some young folk are lazy so all young folk are lazy”. etc.

People notice patterns, as I pointed out with Ubisoft and Blizzard and EA. But people don’t make sweeping generalizations based on those patterns. Just because Ubisoft is shitty doesn’t mean we should be questioning everything Larian says. The problem isn’t skepticism, the problem is that you’re making huge generalizations to then be skeptical which leads you to make unfounded criticism.

I’m just going to repeat what I said. Normal people don’t go “but what if they’re lying” any time something is said. They do it when it’s the same entity doing the saying, like if Ubisoft said they’re going to try something different normal people wouldn’t believe then, but normal people don’t generalize everyone. Just because Ubisoft or EA or ActiBliz has told lies doesn’t mean EVERY developer tells lies. It’s incredibly toxic to think everyone is lying.

Actually I found it pretty disturbing that you’d make shit up just to throw a shade, so I’d consider the concern genuine even if poorly communicated.

Seriously, normal people don’t go “but what if they’re lying” any time something is said.

Have you considered taking therapy? Because you’re literally making up shit to hate on a game, it’s not healthy.

You mean the “at launch” part that the writer added to the article and isn’t a part of the official Saber statement? Something you’d know if you read the article past the introductory paragraph?