I've tried this mic as well, and didn't find the sound quality to be all that great. Not terrible, but I've definitely heard better at this price point (with my own voice and my own ears).
There are some odd takes/speculations in this review:
Describing $59.99 as "relatively budget friendly" when this is very much on the low-end for a brand name USB condenser microphone. Sure, there are the off-brand products that are dirt cheap, but I don't think that justifies this not clearly being a budget product. USB electret condensers can easily go into $150 or more.
While I agree that being able to dip a bit lower than 70 Hz would be nice, it's worth pointing out that this is plenty for vocals, which is what this product is built for. Especially chat vocals, as opposed to studio-quality musical vocals, voice overs, etc.
Adding to this, saying that 20 Hz - 20 kHz is "standard" is a bit of a stretch. This is the range of human hearing. Many manufacturers only measure within this range, and some may not even be able to properly measure this, but put it anyways (mainly for testing lower frequencies, which require a properly treated room). This spec can often be taken with a grain of salt and it's always good to independently measure and hold manufacturers accountable (within reason; there is not just 1 standard piece of measurement equipment and testing methodology, so there will be some variance).
"It's cardioid polar pattern seemed a bit wider than average" without any kind of backing data whatsoever is just speculation. This should be measured with proper equipment or at the very least, if doing a rough sanity check, the testing methodology should be listed. Also, how is this "average" defined?
Listing "need to be close for best sound" isn't directly a con but standard for directional microphones. You could say that the included stand makes it difficult to place the microphone where it sounds best (closer), but to be fair, that is true of the majority of microphones that include a small desktop stand.
This change in frequency response as the user gets closer to the microphone is called proximity effect and is a phenomenon that directional microphones exhibit. Different mics will exhibit varying degrees of it. Sometimes this is good (think "voice of God/radio DJ voice"), but sometimes it can make a microphone sound very muddy up-close. For example, using some of the standard broadcast microphones, the Electro-Voice RE20 has virtually no proximity effect, while the Shure SM7B has a very pleasant sounding and obvious proximity effect. On the other hand, I've tried some other, cheaper dynamic broadcast mics that sounded horribly muddy to me when very close (I won't name names).
Similar to the point above, stating "The mic didn't do a great job of keeping out background noise without software intervention" is completely valid, but it should be pointed out that this is expected for a standalone microphone, especially a condenser (electret or externally-polarized), which is more sensitive than a dynamic mic (due to dynamic micrphones typically having considerably heavier diaphragms).
Full disclosure: I'm a test engineer for another major brand in this space, but am commenting on behalf of myself and my own opinions. I'm happy to point out flaws in the products of the brand I work for as well. I acknowledge that end-user testing isn't the same as lab testing/measurements (I mostly focus on end-user testing, but use measurements as needed), but there's a difference between being an end user and writing a professional review with speculation without any data behind it at all.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram