It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Oh no, not at all, it's oftentimes really difficult to have such conversations because we don't hear/see each other.
My mistake on the intent of your responses!
Maybe that's the thing, it can be "active". I was discussing this with a friend of mine as we've seen others say that "TV" or watching movies isn't active. For us it is. Not only active "internally" but very social as well.I don't actively antagonize folks who watch them. Just don't understand the appeal.
Then again, aside from sports and watching things with the girlfriend, I don't watch TV in general, either.
I prefer actively participating in my entertainment.
Except Amazon didn't curate them. They most likely just offered refunds. Had they curated them they wouldn't be there. Amazon doesn't really curate as far as I can tell. They just say "you didn't get what you paid for? Here's your refund".
When those vendors found out that they had glasses for the eclipse that weren't effective, I don't remember them attempting to sidestep the issue by claiming "well, it's not our place to curate offerings for any quality, no matter how basic."
I believe it's the "matching system" that they outsourced that is patented. The technology behind it.Annwyn said:Wonder how a case in court on a patent like this would turn out. I mean, Activision didn't invent anything here, they're just leveraging psychology to entice players to spend more. Hardly re-inventing the wheel, let alone worthy of a patent.