Polygon reviewed the Nintendo's Wii U and have come out particularly disappointed with the new tablet controller. Most interestingly, it uses resistive touchscreen not allowing for multitouch input, and the battery is extremely lacking.

In the past resistive touchscreens have been favoured when accuracy is needed for single point touches, its advantage over capacitive touchscreens like on the iPad. However in Nintendo's case the input feels inaccurate and requires too much force to register.

The battery's 3 hour playtime is also considerably weaker than competing tablets, and may end up seeing the controller perennially plugged in. I imagine these hardware choices were made in favour of cost reduction, but it makes it hard for consumers to take the Wii U tablet experience seriously in an arena dominated by more robust tablets.

Gaming news sources have been popping up with analysis of a patent filed by Microsoft, detailing a system whereby a video monitoring device (like the Kinect) could determine the amount of people attempting to view content and adjust availability depending on the licenses purchased.

I can understand the thought behind it: charge for the experience per person. However if anything like this was applied there'd be backlash unless prices dropped considerably. Not to mention the amount of people attempting to circumvent it.

It is being sensationalised as Orwellian technology. Journalists are dismissing that patenting something is often about making sure no one else can, and jumping to the more exciting conclusion that Microsoft intends on becoming Big Brother.

Anil Dash gives a positive spin on Twitter's much criticised API version 1.1 announcement. 

Ars Technica analyses some of the graphics improvements in Mountain Lion, and while the statistics show the changes to be marginal, the overall effect is the 'feeling' of a faster OS.