I suspect they have a great deal of the digital market. I made a realization the other day that the vast majority of games I purchase are from 2 sources: Steam or Amazon. I haven't made a conscious effort to use those 2 exclusively, they just happen to be the most convenient and have very frequent sales.
I think the most startling thing for me is that 2 years ago, I didn't buy games from Amazon at all, but since then, they have managed to become my #2 go-to game shop, and I didn't even realize it.
In the case of Skyrim, the game didn't work AT ALL with Crossfire on my system when it was first released. Had to disable Crossfire at first, then ATI released a profile that finally got it working, but it wasn't a performance boost, it was a bug fix.
I'm not saying Crossfire/SLI didn't give any performance boosts, what I'm saying is that for most models of graphics cards, it is a marketing gimmick to get you to pay twice for something that might average out to a 10% performance boost across all your games. In some cases, it was buggy and causes games to crash, in some other cases, the games didn't even support it.
Yes, at the bleeding edge, with super high resolution, you probably require SLI or Crossfire, but for those of us not in that 1%, who build our PC's within a budget, SLI and Crossfire are a waste of that budget
Bear in mind, this is just my experience. It's purely anecdotal, take it with a grain of salt. It's possible that newer cards may have gotten a lot more efficient at SLI/Crossfire, but given my experience last time with video cards, I can't justify paying for something twice when I can't see any real noticeable improvement.
I discovered this about a year ago, when i wanted to add a 3rd monitor to my system, and discovered I couldn't do it in Crossfire mode with my dual 4850s, but COULD do it if i turned it off. Productivity being slightly more important to me than game performance, I turned it off and hooked up my 3rd monitor.
A few days later I decided to fire up Skyrim, and didn't notice any discernible drop in performance at all. My settings were all on medium, just because the cards were a few years old, but still, I expected to see *some* performance hit going from 2 GPUs to 1.
I have since upgraded to a 7950 that supports 3 monitors, but I'm never doing that SLI/Crossfire shit again.
That was the only reason I liked WinAmp. WinAmp kicked the llama's ass. When it stopped kicking the llama's ass, I stopped using it. Get in line for your asskicking, little llama!
Hey waitaminute! When did it STOP whipping/kicking the llama's ass? I still use winamp, quite simply, because I haven't found anything that works better
I'm too busy flushing the toilet to hear the commercials.
You have a toilet in the kitchen?
Apparently, the cloud storage is so a user can take their mouse with them and use their profile from anywhere. The problem I have is that this particular scenario seems extremely rare, and I'll explain:
1. The general consensus seems to be the LAN party scenario, but every LAN party I have ever attended, I had to bring my own equipment, including my computer, which already has my mouse profiles on it, so no need for cloud storage, and in fact, local storage would be preferable in case the LAN party doesn't allow outside connections. Hell, the last LAN party I was at was probably 7 or 8 years ago. With high speed internet connections, are LAN parties even a thing anymore?
2. using the mouse in multiple locations (ie. work and home). In this situation I would just bring my profiles with me on a USB stick, or email them to myself. It's something I would only need to do once, and maybe once or twice later for adjustments or setting up profiles for different apps/games.
The only situation I can see where cloud storage would be really useful is a situation where you are using your mouse on a different computer every day. Even in that scenario, cloud storage would only be a useful secondary feature, if the mouse can't find profiles locally. Certainly not the primary storage medium.
This whole situation seems to be either that Razer wants the data for nefarious purposes (They pretty much claim the right to use anything their software can grab), or the marketing team was adamant about needing to add "new technology" and "cloud storage" was the buzzword around the office that day.
Their older devices actually had onboard storage. Not sure why they are moving away from that.