dafdiego777

Per Kotaku:

Funko, the toy company behind the adorable/creepy/vacant-eyed parody dolls of beloved cultural icons ranging from Spider-Man to David Cross that time he covered himself in blue paint for in episode of Arrested Development, announced in a new blog post today it will soon be selling cereal as well. It’ll be called FunkOs and each box will come with its own Funko Pop. Yes. Of Course. Why not.

Looks like you can get them at your neighborhood Hot Topic (that's a sentence I haven't said in a decade). On one hand, fuck Funko Pops. On the other hand, the gaming cereal of my childhood was hilariously bad???

If you absolutely need something now, buy something now. But new video cards are coming soon (it could be in two months, it could be in 5-6 months).

• More on the mario tennis game
• info on the fire emblem game
• Odyssey kingdom DLC

I want to say Pokemon announcements are usually done separately by the Pokemon Company and have been later in the spring (April/May).

How the fuck are they going to explain all of this to people that have only played 1+2? I know they’ve been trying to get those rereleases of all the side games out, but I’m sure a large majority of the audience has only played the core series.

I just finished the Witcher 3 + DLC yesterday for the first time. I think it's truly tremendous in certain aspects. The writing is solid and I like the characterization of everyone. But the combat is boring (and straight up broken in B+W), it moves really weirdly, and the overarching plot falls apart once you find Ciri. I put 80 hours into it, and felt like I could have put 20 more. I wish there were more incentives to do the side-quests though.

The people who liked dream daddy (People btw, not person) made a better argument than the people cared about horizon (which there were none). There were also nine other games people agreed were better than horizon as well.

I think that MESH one is the best. An i5 that can be OC'ed and 1060 6GB for 900 quid is not unreasonable IMO.

@oursin_360: I'm not really playing devil's advocate - it's more like this whole circlejerk around NN is absurd and that there are real tradeoffs (like any major piece of regulation). Frankly, there's not enough information to know if it's needed or not. I know this is a dirtbag center take - but both sides make gross over-exaggerations without a lot of facts to back it up.

From a consumer standpoint - I don't think much will change. Comcast isn't going to package the internet up into tiny plans (the economies of the industry are different from cable tv). I think we will see some flexibility on the lower end packages (ie pay $5-$15 and you get access to all the NBC sites, etc). The paid prioritization stuff will be interesting to watch (if only because I might be able to finally play on west coast servers with some friends).

This is (and always has been) a pissing match between the content providers (google, fb, netflix, etc) and the infrastructure holders. Before today's ruling, the law has favored the content providers (with the cost falling on the infrastructure holders, and by proxy, the consumer). Now, the infrastructure holders can charge the content providers for access as well. The aggregate price between the isp service and the content providers should roughly remain the same, but the individual prices could change (ie netflix may go up in cost but my comcast bill should go down - this might not be a 1:1 factor due to inefficiencies but will be fascinating to watch).

I do think that this will cause a shakeup on the provider side though. I guess the grey area would be if Comcast is going to charge content providers based on bandwidth they use - or on visitors. Are there any high-bandwidth content sites that don't have subscription models (maybe youtube / twitch)?

@milkman: Congress ultimately has the final decision in this - take it up with the people who voted for the party that controls the house, senate, and executive branch (I'm not one of them before you go there)....

@chaser324: I'm not being willfully ignorant - but a lot of people don't understand the difference between neutrality and title II designation. For instance -

Comcast blocking P2P traffic

This was a network congestion issue (ie there weren't enough ports to go around). Title II designation allows for regular network maintenance, so it wouldn't have effected this.

cell providers blocking video/voip chat programs, zero-rated content, video speed throttling

Wireless broadband is held to an almost completely different standard (that was already much looser). Today's ruling won't change much on that front.