Comments on: Peripherals Shouldn’t Require Internet Access, But Razer’s Do

By: Rob Williams

Rob Williams — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:36:00 +0000

On-board is still the way to go as far as I’m concerned. Let’s be real: how many people actually move their mouse to another PC, or happen to go to another PC (like at a LAN) that has their exact same mouse? It’s just truly nonsensical to me that this service even exists. I’d be fine with it existing if it could be opted out of, though. But to have it as a requirement… ugh.

By: Rob Williams

Rob Williams — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:34:00 +0000

Lately, I’ve realized we really haven’t taken a look at Razer products in a while, and myself, I’ve been wondering if I’d actually like to give one a test, just to see where things stand. But with this sort of functionality… I’m not even a little bit interested. Your hardware should not require the Internet to properly function. That’s just ridiculous.

By: Tharicnar

Tharicnar — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:34:00 +0000

The reduction in on-board memory is a growing concern of mine. Logitech has reduced the functionality of its on-board settings with peripherals, instead relying on a very extensive software suite. While an effective suite, it does mean that changing systems without the software installed, means you lose about 70% of the product’s functionality. Mad Catz has no memory at all. With Razer moving the software online, I would agree that this is more like DRM than a feature extension. Peripherals as a Service anyone?

The internet may be ubiquitous, but reliable Internet… far from it.

By: Bilal Khan

Bilal Khan — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:31:00 +0000

No more Razer for me! Its just they die just when they start to feel like an extension of ur hand! :(
Now I have another reason for a no Razer policy!

Logitech and Steel Series, thats what me is going for now!