Kyval

Nah. You were right. There's nothing we can do about it so why bother trying? Guess I'll start rolling coal, trowing my trash directly into the river, and not voting at all as my impact means nothing. I'd also say let's celebrate but it's not worth it to start small get together outside that our neighbors might join us for the festivities so we might as well just cough ourselves to sleep.

That's exactly the response that I'd be going for as a pro-oil propagandist: Nothing you can do matters! The government (the only entity that can rein in these corps though regulation) won't listen to you so don't even bother to vote!

People who pay attention to their carbon footprint are much, much more likely to vote for candidates that support climate change infinitives. Many don't see it as blaming themselves, but as a roadmap on how to do things better. Again, everyone starts somewhere. For many people, that starting point is their own impact, how ever so small.

I agree but, again, if they want to spread propaganda that they think it benefits them but, in reality, it only hurts them in the long run, I'm not going to stop them.

Getting some uncaring person to the level of going after oil companies and billionaires doesn't come at a flip of the switch. It's a process that starts with small actions, like these, and can lead to them attempting bigger actions. "If I can make an impact, my family/social circle can make a larger impact, getting Big Company to do something similar will make a massive impact".

The Perosnal Carbon Footprint and similar small scale activism has done more to inspire new climate change activists than most things in recent years. There is no logical way this helps the oil companies. If anything, it hastens their decline. If what you said is true about them being behind the personal carbon footprint, they really fucked up. The fastest way to change a systematic issues is to give people hope that it can change at all, even if their individual change at the begining is negligible.

Meh, and I'll get downvoted to hell for this but getting people to care about an issue is the only way to bring about real change. Showing how they could actually make a difference, no matter how small, on their own power is the first baby step in the process. If this is anti-climate propaganda, it is an absolutely terrible choice that has and continues to backfire. If I was a corporate propagandist, I'd be telling everyone how they cant do anything about it so why try.

Considering that PS3 and 360 were both HDMI systems, with online play, friend lists, private messaging, bluetooth/wireless headset supporting, and both have achievements, tell me, is that very different than the systems that are currently available?

The 360 orignally didnt have HDMI (started with the launch of the Elite about a year after the 360 originally launched, iirc) and the OG xbox supported many of those when Xbox Live launched. On the other side, the Wii barely had any PS3/360 era hallmarks listed above and the ones it did support were almost never the main focus of the game. I honestly can't remember the Wii even supporting a headset.

The paradigm shift currently underway is a transition to non-physcial distribution media and games-as-a-service. Streaming boxes aren't viable enough over the internet, yet, but local downloads sure are. The PS3/360/Wii would all be retro if the defining factor was the average person not relying on an internet connection to play an average game. Yes I know eariler systems had digital downloads too but the average person still played more physical games than digital. Today it's more even, if not a digitial lead. Most games of the Seventh Gen era didn't require digitial updates; today you'd be hard pressed to find one that works without needed to download half or more of the game just to install.

Streaming will almost certainly be the next era after the current digtial one, but the internet isn't quite good enough for a wide enough audience for that, yet.

That's pretty much what emo/scene was back in the mid 2000s. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

We were supposed to be replacing hard repetitive manual work with technology.

That already happened, for the most part, 30-40 years ago in manufacturing and industrial applications. Factories employ a fraction of people they did before the 80s.

As a result, I would expect all companies to either invest in backward compatibility on unprecedented level, or more likely start porting their games to PC (because they will keep being produced), even if that meant selling copies to be used with emulators. When there is money on the table, or perspective of losing money, corporations are really quick to find solutions.

We're already there. Backwards compatibility is the highest it's ever been. With the rise of digital stores, popular retro games are on every platform that publishers think they can make money on. Re-releases of popular classics seem to happen all the time.

However, the sad reality is vast majority of those 87% wouldn't be profitable to release. They are the games that sold poorly on release or have been out of the spotlight for so long that most people have forgotten they even exist. There needs to be work porting the release to new platforms, there are licenses to pay for music and licensed characters. I have no idea if residuals are a thing for video games but if they exist they cost money too. If a game hasn't been re-released at this point, it's not becuase there is some backwards compatibility issue; it's because the bean counters have decided the cost of porting outweighs any sales it may generate. There is no "money left on the table" for them as it would cost more to port than they believe the game's re-release would ever make. Those games will never be legally re-released and should fall into some sort of public domain.

how many of these do you think will be on the road 20 years from now?

While I agree with the basic premise of your argument, this isn't the knock you think it is. The majority of passenger cars won't be on the road in 10 years, let alone 20. Between poorly designed cheap econo-cars, people who want the latest new thing, and people who abuse their car (insanely long commutes, deferring maintenance, etc), they just don't last that long on average. I rarely see a 2013 model or earlier let alone a 2003 or eariler.

Doesn’t change expectations of others for you to respond to work emails or other shit at all hours.

That was still a thing before the internet/cellphones. My dad would receive phone calls at home at all hours back in the 90s and he was just a low level manager. He just pretended to not be home. When work gave him a cell phone, he would just turn it off when he left work and pretend his phone died.