text
stringlengths
11
654
[1585.18 --> 1587.96] that games sell many more copies now
[1587.96 --> 1588.70] than they did,
[1588.78 --> 1590.04] and this offsets the inflation.
[1590.82 --> 1593.48] Okay, you can make that argument,
[1593.76 --> 1595.24] but the price of an item
[1595.24 --> 1599.24] has never been dictated by the cost of it.
[1599.38 --> 1600.98] The price of an item is dictated
[1600.98 --> 1602.66] by what it's worth to the buyer,
[1602.66 --> 1604.54] and then it kind of scales
[1604.54 --> 1607.06] with the market from there.
[1607.06 --> 1612.52] So if it was worth $60 or $50 or $80
[1612.52 --> 1614.46] or some of these older games people are tweeting
[1614.46 --> 1615.14] or even more,
[1615.20 --> 1617.20] if it was worth that to the buyer then,
[1617.70 --> 1618.90] then it's probably still worth
[1618.90 --> 1622.40] that relative amount of income to the buyer now.
[1622.98 --> 1626.48] So yeah, the fact that they're selling more copies of it
[1626.48 --> 1627.70] means that they're going to make more money,
[1627.70 --> 1631.16] but it doesn't mean that the cost...
[1631.16 --> 1633.08] The value of it has gone down.
[1633.08 --> 1635.88] Yeah, it doesn't mean the value goes down per user.
[1636.04 --> 1637.04] It doesn't really work that way.
[1637.96 --> 1639.18] I mean, they're businesses.
[1640.04 --> 1641.60] They are trying to make money,
[1641.68 --> 1643.44] whether we sort of like this or not.
[1643.48 --> 1644.04] And you know what?
[1644.40 --> 1646.42] Indie developers are businesses.
[1646.80 --> 1647.16] They...
[1647.16 --> 1649.18] If they make money,
[1649.26 --> 1649.90] they're not going to be sad.
[1649.96 --> 1650.98] You watch Indie Game the movie,
[1651.28 --> 1652.72] you think the Super Meat Boy guy
[1652.72 --> 1655.60] is like sad that his game sells lots of copies
[1655.60 --> 1657.60] and he makes shed loads of money?
[1657.90 --> 1659.84] I mean, yeah, they do it out of passion, sure,
[1659.96 --> 1661.66] but that doesn't mean they don't want to make money
[1661.66 --> 1663.72] and they're not going to try to make money.
[1664.08 --> 1664.80] What about Notch?
[1665.82 --> 1666.42] I'm sorry?
[1666.80 --> 1667.52] What about Notch?
[1667.80 --> 1669.10] What about Notch?
[1669.12 --> 1671.80] He's made more money than like...
[1671.80 --> 1671.96] I know.
[1671.96 --> 1674.24] Probably everyone in the town I'm in combined.
[1674.60 --> 1676.64] But he is also taking a step
[1676.64 --> 1679.52] that will potentially make him a lot less money.
[1679.98 --> 1682.34] Right, but he has lots of money already.
[1682.34 --> 1686.44] So he's reached a point of moneyness
[1686.44 --> 1688.64] where it doesn't really make a difference anymore.
[1689.12 --> 1690.50] It kind of feels like that.
[1690.80 --> 1693.44] All right, so why don't we move on to our next topic here,
[1693.54 --> 1695.68] which is fast charging batteries
[1695.68 --> 1697.54] with a 20-year lifetime.
[1697.74 --> 1699.96] This was posted by Meechev on the forum
[1699.96 --> 1702.20] and the original article is from engadget.com.
[1702.24 --> 1702.94] I'm just going to go ahead
[1702.94 --> 1705.16] and pop that up for you guys to enjoy.
[1705.80 --> 1708.70] But this looks freaking promising.
[1708.70 --> 1712.56] Apparently the technology is not super expensive to produce
[1712.56 --> 1714.34] and we could be looking at batteries
[1714.34 --> 1716.62] that can charge up to 70%
[1716.62 --> 1718.52] and these would be new lithium-ion batteries
[1718.52 --> 1721.34] up to 70% in two minutes.
[1722.50 --> 1723.34] That's ridiculous.
[1723.90 --> 1724.80] Yeah, I mean...
[1724.80 --> 1724.98] Wow.
[1725.40 --> 1726.02] I mean, okay.
[1726.24 --> 1728.12] Here, question for you guys
[1728.12 --> 1729.76] and you can debate amongst yourselves,
[1729.92 --> 1732.52] but what's more important to you?
[1732.66 --> 1733.82] Long battery life
[1733.82 --> 1735.10] or fast charging
[1735.10 --> 1736.72] with the same battery life we have today?
[1736.72 --> 1739.86] I'll go for long battery life
[1739.86 --> 1742.62] because I'm pretty good about plugging in my phone every night.
[1742.80 --> 1745.24] If my phone can last all day with heavy use,
[1745.38 --> 1747.28] then it's going to get a full charge every night.
[1747.48 --> 1749.64] So yeah, that would be it for me.
[1749.78 --> 1750.92] Fast charging is nice,
[1751.32 --> 1752.32] but at the end of the day,
[1752.38 --> 1754.20] you still need something to charge it with.
[1754.60 --> 1757.40] I would prefer just having a self-contained battery
[1757.40 --> 1759.46] that lasts as long as it does,
[1760.24 --> 1761.52] regardless of where I am
[1761.52 --> 1763.52] or if I have an AC power outlet near me.
[1763.78 --> 1765.72] I guess it's a lifestyle thing too, though,
[1765.72 --> 1767.82] because if you go to work
[1767.82 --> 1769.72] where you have an outlet next to you,
[1769.78 --> 1770.78] like you work at a desk,
[1771.08 --> 1772.62] then fast charging is great.
[1772.70 --> 1774.10] You just give it a zap whenever you need it.
[1774.16 --> 1775.52] However, if you go to work
[1775.52 --> 1777.72] where you're on the go all day
[1777.72 --> 1778.74] and you're moving around
[1778.74 --> 1779.98] and you're using your phone a lot,
[1780.06 --> 1781.78] then I guess longer battery life is more useful.
[1781.96 --> 1783.12] But either way,
[1783.52 --> 1786.10] this will enable potentially devices
[1786.10 --> 1787.40] with larger batteries
[1787.40 --> 1789.50] to also be charged much more quickly.