Yes, I was addressing the broader discourse more generally, specifically Reddit. But you're right that the article did directly address this though I would say the tone and title of the article are incongruous with the simple fact that they were able to get the game to run well with minor tweaks.
I take issue with "only got 50fps". This is not Counter Strike or a game that demands 300fps. 50fps (if your 1% lows are within reason) is completely playable.
I will fully concede that the trend of game makers releasing half-baked, poorly optimized games that are buggy and unplayable at launch is totally a thing and it is frustrating and we should demand better (though we keep buying so why would they stop?).
BUT.... the online game community is so insufferable and this Cities Skylines II launch is a great example of it. The game is not about 4k 120 fps gameplay. It is a simulation game that runs fairly well even on last gen's hardware if you drop SOME of the fidelity settings. But that's not the predominant discourse. If people can't play it at 4k out of the box on their overpriced 4090 then they take straight to the internet to complain (and mind you they have tried fiddling with exactly 0 knobs to make it runnable).
I am by no means making excuses for game makers who certainly share much of the blame for creating an environment of distrust among game fans. But the online discourse is just rage baiting and looking for anything to hate with minimal evidence or sometimes even outright lies. Makes me want to go into a cave and play my games without seeing any content or discussion about it.
Every comment I have seen is flabbergasted by the price but I think there is a lot more interesting about these headphones. For example, they're clearly being marketed as "premium" over-the-ear headphones but they get the Airpods branding and not Beats? What does that mean for Beats? A 20 hour battery life beats my Bose 700s so it will be interesting to see if that holds up. Perhaps more jarring is the high price tag for what amounts to a cloth cover for a case but I suppose they are making the claim that you don't need to power it off?
Not saying that Google is or isn't breaking the intention of GDPR here but thinking as a critical reader:
- this complaint is lodged by an upstart privacy-based browser which directly competes with a Google product (Chrome) so they are not objective players here
- reading through the PDF linked in the blog post, it seems there is no "canary in the coal mine". It is a spreadsheet with a lot of empty cells and red backgrounds. The post and the facade of the spreadsheet scream "look at this, something's wrong" but the content doesn't match that at all. The impression is that they have found Google to be doing something wrong but the reality is that they want regulators to check and see if Google is doing something wrong. Is there presumed innocence in this circumstance (really asking here because I don't know)?
As with most things, the truth often lies in the middle. It seems to me at least that this is both a click-baity blog post and complaint meant to drum up media and press for Brave as much as it is a spotlight on Google's data practices. Both are bad.
I take issue with "only got 50fps". This is not Counter Strike or a game that demands 300fps. 50fps (if your 1% lows are within reason) is completely playable.