Trundlebug

@-wc- that's fair, I'd taken it out of context. I apologise for that.

@-wc- have I misunderstood the context of what you said? I'm happy to be corrected.

@-wc- so you do decide that some people are worth caring more about?

And how does your caring in this instance benefit anybody?

It's all meaningless armchair activism and virtue signalling. The guy who owns the company will not have his bottom line meaningfully affected if nobody buys his console. The ordinary people who actually do the work, and their families, would be the ones hurt if the console division went bust.

@-wc- true. But there's always something you could be doing for somebody instead of video games. Do you ever play them?

@-wc- you said that "of course you should care about people over video games".

Which people are you caring about and why? Which ones have you judged to be unworthy of caring about?

@-wc- you talk as if there's a clear line between good people and bad people, and that it's objectively easy to decide what things to accept and not accept.

If you want to find something unpleasant about any given large company, you'll find it.

@PKDuckman I love that you think that your opinion of who is a legitimate combatant is objective truth.

No doubt the people with opposing views believe the same.

I find it really strange that you say that the original review "regrettably failed to mention" his involvement. Why?

It's a review for a piece of tech, not a political opinion piece.

A review should be about the thing that's being reviewed, with reference only to things that are relevant. If the reader is more interested in the opinions and activities of the maker than in the actual product, they can investigate that themselves.