Slashdot Mirror

Pretty much what Gord did. http://www.actsofgord.com/Wrat...

Sounds like she rented from the Gord.

http://www.actsofgord.com/inde...

The idea that Sony lost money on every console ever made is false. After all, Sony is a hardware company.

The PS3 may have lost money on initial units sold. The PS1 and PS2 did not.

There is nothing stopping you from taking him to court yourself. If he doesnt show *THEN* the local sheriff gets involved and brings him in.

Just remember the police do this on behalf of the city. You just do not have the powers to arrest people. They arrest them so they can get their hands on them for court.

Also judges look down pretty badly on people who dont bother to show up for court. You probably dont even need a lawyer. Small claims and a court summons... Just that alone probably would have been enough to get your stuff back. Then just do what the gord would do put it into their credit report. Also it was petty theft so he probably would not have spent much time in jail if any at all. Really all you want is to get your stuff back or mark him somehow that he is a credit risk (credit agencies and collection agencies are good at this).

Also a letter to your local attorney general, mayor, and local congress critter would have done wonders. These dudes *LOVE* to look like they are making the system better. Also your pestering them every few days probably did not help your case. You became an annoyance instead of someone they wanted to help. You should have made it clear up front 'I will be calling once a week to find out what is going on'. Setting expectations up front is important in things like this. Government workers can be a lazy lot who have amazing god like powers of looking swamped. Show them you are going to hold them accountable and they do their jobs more willingly. You let it go and that is exactly what he wanted out the annoyance you became. You should have started walking the chain of command. They have procedures for this sort of thing. Why are they not even bothering to do their jobs when they have an 'easy case'? What are they doing with the 'hard ones'? You put those bugs in peoples ears and things happen.

Also if you havent read Acts of Gord do so. Now.
http://www.actsofgord.com/

Well, he didn't really succeed at it. I think he folded up shop after a couple of years.

Not exactly. Someone tried to execute a power play to liquidate his assets and freeze him out on decisions, but he caught wind of it and closed shop amidst serious fraud between a partner of his and the leasing agency. His business methods were sound, as were his observations. Also, it was more than "a couple" years... try about seven.

I go to an obscure reference; Acts of Gord, specifically the Book of Chronicles, Chapter 1, wherein the great Gord spake thusly:

The public does NOT buy a system unless they feel it will give them lots of new games down the road. Look at MS. They are screaming "Xbox has
developers! Honest! More than we can fit into a bus!" which is the right approach. Joe Average will NOT buy a system if he feels that there won't be lots of new stuff coming out. And Nintendo burned a lot of bridges with their barren N64 release schedule for good games. They need to come out and say "hey! Hundreds of games are coming out!" except that would be a lie.

I highly encourage you all to go read Acts of Gord, not only because it's hilarious but because it's written by a guy who actually RAN a video game store. For several years. The bottom line is this: You screw the developers and no games get put out. No games = no consumer interest.

I suggest everyone reads this. It especially helps if you've done or are currently doing tech support. This chronicles the Almighty Gord, and details how to deal with stupid customers. http://www.actsofgord.com/

This reminds me an awful lot of a story from the Acts of Gord....

oh Lord, who art in heaven

I think you misspelled Gord.

Somewhere on the site, there was an addendum - basically, the person he left in charge, a shady accountant and the landlord tried to screw Gord over by claiming he 'abandoned' the property. It took some friends to sneak in and retreive what was left and teh police to sort it all out if I recall correctly.

Ah - here we go: http://www.actsofgord.com/apocalypse/index.html

http://www.actsofgord.com/ excellent reading. all the horrible things he did to customers in a undisclosed video game store.

sell your console at under their cost of manufacture

This strategy has never yielded a financially-successful console. Microsoft has lost billions since 2001. Sega went out of business partly because they were selling hardware at a loss. Enlighten yourself.

If you've been around retail for a while, Acts of Gord will take you to tears.

I spent 3 ok, 4 hours of my life reading through it. I don't regret it.

http://www.actsofgord.com/

If you don't agree with me, the door's to the left.

I have misunderstood nothing. You, however, have misunderstood the distinction between "fact" and "analysis". Microsoft losing 4 billion is a fact. What this means is a matter of analysis.

That said, your argument here doesn't make sense. It is true that theoretically, a company could sell a console at a loss and make it back through game royalties. However this means that they either have to sell more games per console, or charge higher royalty fees per game. Charging higher fees will drive developers and publishers away from your system, so that probably isn't a good idea. And good luck if you can find a way to make people buy more games, but for your system only.

Also, your supporting "factors" do not lend any help to your argument. The PS2 was profitable at launch. And the reason the PS2 had more million-selling games was because more people owned the system, and it was released earlier.

Does anybody actually know that Sony is selling these consoles at a loss, or is this all just wild speculation? So far as I know, the only company that has ever sold a console at a loss was Microsoft, and they explicitly were not interested in making money on the console, but rather spending a boatload of money to make their way into a new market.

According to this guy, Sega lost money on the Saturn and the Dreamcast, and Nintendo lost a little money on the Gamecube in the beginning. As for the current line-up, the only things I've read were reports from financial firms that just guessed at the cost of things (which I assume is the material that everyone else is looking at), so I don't know for sure who is losing money, but I haven't seen anyone claim that, at $600, Sony is making a profit on those things.

Ahhh, everyone. Everyone knows.

http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02. html

The PS3 will not be "sold at a loss most of it's lifetime". Sony is not in the business of losing money. Thank you.

There was a big lead up to what the price point would be, and when it would be launched. Finally, the president of Sony walked out slowly on stage and a silence fell upon the room. We all awaited his words, and finally he spoke.

"Two hundred ninety-nine dollars."

...

Everyone was in awe. Sony was bringing the super console known as the
PlayStation to America for almost half the price it was selling for in Japan.

This brought force claims of dumping by Atari. Atari swore that they would have the PlayStation stopped before it came out at that price "because itwas being sold below cost and that's dumping!"

The myth was born.

Then we look at Sony's stock report for Oct-Dec 2000, and there is an interesting little blurb. It said that had Sony been able to meet demand with another 1 million PS2 units, they would have pocketed $175 million in profits.

Considering they will be selling the PS3 at a loss, as is the case with most any console

Consoles are not, as a rule, sold at a loss. As for the PS3, we have yet to hear anything official from Sony as to whether they will be taking a hit on the system or not. My guess, following past evidence, is that they won't.

1. That's an urban legend.

2. Nintendo has NEVER sold below cost. They make a profit on each unit sold.

3. The reason why Microsoft had to sell the XBox at a loss was because they put PC Hardware into a game console. Which made it a lot more expensive than the Nintendo and Sony counterparts.

Make the photograph the runner up price, and $250 goes to third place.
It will remind people that second place is just the first loser.


(As previously seen in The Acts of Gord)

Please stop saying this falsehood - most game consoles have NOT been sold at a loss. And the only reason MicroSoft can do so is because of the buttload of money they get from their OS and Office.

<ring>

"Gamer's Edge."

"Yes, I'm stuck in Tomb Raider 2."

"I'm sorry, we don't give advice for games over the phone."

"You have to! It's the law!"

"What?"

"When you sell someone a game, you have to help them with it!"

"Oh really."

"The law says so!"

"If you are so smart, then why are you stuck?"

"You just have to help me."

"Uhm, no. When a car lot sells you a car, do they have to teach you how to drive and how to find your way around Vancouver?"

"uhmm"

"Exactly."

"make money off of selling the hardware for the first time."

It's a common misconception that game consoles always sell at a loss, mostly propogated by the amount of press Microsoft gave out about their X-Box business plan when that console was released. Fact is, Nintendo and Sony make money on the hardware.

Allowing homebrew games on a console would suck out a lot of the profit for the console producer, so it will probably never happen.

In both the press conferences for follow-up questions pertaining to the 2000 and 2001 stock report for investors, which were available online in audio files on Sony's website for months after the publication of their annual report, Sony openly discussed how the PS2 is profitable on each unit sold.

The PS2 and the PSP both sold at a loss. (Note: The PS2 eventually became profitable. That is a big difference between the PS2 and the XBOX.)

Sounds like youa re repeating something you heard somewhere. The big difference between the XB and the PS2 is that the per-unit net profit on the PS2 was always positive. The only way it didn't start out turning a profit is if you include R&D costs as part of production costs... in which case the first PS2 cost $4.2 billion, and every one after turned a profit. This guy explains it in an easy to understand way.

I wish people would quit repeating this myth. Only 3 consoles have ever been sold at a loss: the Sega Saturn, the Dreamcast, and the Xbox (well, probably 4 now, I assume they're taking a loss on the 360 also). Losing money on console hardware is NOT the norm, and it's something only Sega and Microsoft have done. And look at what happened to Sega when they did that. Here's an article that has a decent rundown on the subject. It was last updated in 2003, but nothing has really changed since then. http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02. html

Ten year old child brings Grant Theft Auto to the counter and asks to rent it. Gord speaks to the father.

"Sir, might I suggest a different game? This title isn't really a title for children due to inappropriate material."

"Why is that?"

"Substantial violence and swearing."

"Holy fuck! You're shitting me! I can't expose my son to god damned swear words at his age. That sort of shit will fuck him up. That's bullshit they make games with swearing. What son of a bitch would make a game like that?"

<dramatic pause>

<Gord types into the computer>

Note: Nathan can rent mature games - so says his father.

"Here's your game. See you in a couple days."

NOT all consoles are sold at a loss.

That's wrong actually. "Most" video game hardware is not sold at a loss. To date, there have only been 3 consoles that have been sold at a loss: the Sega Saturn, the Dreamcast, and the Xbox. No other manufacturer has done this. Go here for a rundown on the myth vs. the truth: http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02. html

Those who read the Book of Gord knew this day was coming.

If "Teh" Web 2.0 is anything like what that guy was saying, it must be all design and process documents; pages upon pages of content free words. I swear to gord I read that 3 times and I have no idea what he said. Aside from Feng Shui. And then how he said he doesn't believe in mystical BS. Which is Ironic, because all he's talking is mystical BS.

One thing I saw at a local store was a 'gift registry' sort of thing; a kid with a birthday or whatever coming up would get a big bucket. The bucket would be placed somewhere in the store. The kid would put, into this bucket, stuff they wanted. People shopping for the kid could then come in, grab something from the bucket, and buy it for the kid.

Otherwise, go read http://www.actsofgord.com/ and learn from the Master.

Just be careful about who you are letting stay on the couch , and for how long. I'll refer you to http://www.actsofgord.com/ for reasons why.

I saw something like this happen to a local gaming (D&D) store - the regulars wre actaully responsible for keeping a lot of new blood out, due ot just being obnoxious or (worse) having some hygiene issues.

The OP is right though - getting your name out there - at local LAN parties, gaming events and such is key. If you go the extra mile for them, most will go teh extra mile for you.

Running a video game store was hard work even for Gord Himself

First read the Acts of Gord. Then really consider if you want to run a game store.

That's not too surprising. The original xBox is, after all, an x86 PC, but sells for less than one. The PS2 is a low-end MIPS processor and some wierd vector units, hard to program but cheap to make. The xBox 360 is a new architecture, but not, apparently, a cheaper one.

In the end, Microsoft stockholders would be better off if Microsoft got out of the game console business. It's a money drain.

Actually, until Microsoft and the X-Box, the "lose money on the hardware" idea was a myth:

http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02. html

Maybe you'd prefer a game of Tetris?

If parents like this one get to decide what is and isn't appropriate for other people's kids, gaming is in serious trouble.

been reading Acts of Gord huh?

I was reading an article way back (as in four-years-way-back) about the failure of the sega dreamcast. The author mentioned that one contributing factor was that Sega was notorious for stealing ideas from other game developers. They would meet with a game developer, which would pitch a game to them. There would be artwork, digital renderings of characters, and sometimes video. Sega would get interested, feign loyalty towards the game developer, and when they had enough info, they would cut ties with the game developer and make their own knock-off. It obviously became a gamble for game developers to enter into a relationship with Sega. Piss off enough game developers, who are already interested in the next-gen consoles (PS2, XBox, GameCube), and you have a recipe for sucky games and a shortened life cycle.

Related link, but i don't believe it's the one i originally read. Respect the Gord.

From Acts of Gord, The Book of Annoyances, Ch. 23:

"We would like a quote for the front page of the newspaper talking about videogame violence, and it's possible impact on society."

"Video games don't make people more violent, and I'll kill anyone who disagrees."

<dramatic pause>

"I don't think we can print that."

"Bullshit all around."
Really? A loss leader is something you consistently sell at a loss. Both the Gamecube and the PS2 have been sold at either break even or a profit for the majority of the time they've been on the market. The Dreamcast was a loss-leader and look where that got Sega. The XBox is a loss leader because Microsoft are willing to throw as much money as it takes. They are clearly exceptions to the rule.

"The success of the GB's various revisions (both aesthetically and technologically) over the years means nothing?"
Do you have figures on how many people are replacing functional Gameboys as opposed to buying new ones? In either case, all of the Gamebody revisions were completely cross compatible. They had the same capabilities. Thus, you're not fragmenting the market.

I find your quotes most interesting, especially the Spaceworld one. Let's take the full quote, shall we:
'In more general matters, Mr. Main admitted that the GameCube's pricing would not initially follow Nintendo's rule of turning a profit on every console sold. "We expect to incur a small loss on the GameCube hardware initially, and you're right that it hasn't been our habit in the past but we expect it to turn okay early next year."'
Oh look, Nintendo's general rule is to make a profit on the console.

Back in 2004, the Gamecube was sold at a tiny loss at $99, but that was for a short amount of time. They were making a profit all the time before that.

Here's a handy link for you:
http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02. html

Librarians are not allowed by federal law to restrict what people view on the Internet.

Which federal law? As I recall, the federal government tried to pull the purse strings on libraries that didn't install internet filters.

(Luckily, they didn't put any clauses in the law requiring that the filter actually work to any standard. A content-neutral proxy would have counted as a "filter.")

This sounds like something a patron of The Gord might say.

I think the words of the master will show there is no sort of bias in video games. From Acts of Gord: The Book of Annoyances, Chapter 23, Verse Quotation:

"We would like a quote for the front page of the newspaper talking about videogame violence, and it's possible impact on society."

"Video games don't make people more violent, and I'll kill anyone who disagrees."

<dramatic pause>

"I don't think we can print that."

The game systems themselves are sold at a loss inorder to get market share with the games sold for profit.
Stop propagating this myth. It is not common industry practice. A quick google search, a click to slashdot.. a search for "myth" and a link easily refutes your claim.

...
- "Yes, we're looking for a game that doesn't have any violence."
"Easy enough. I've got lots of games without violence. Anything in particular you want?"
- "The game can't have any violence at all."
"Ok."
- "I mean nothing."
"Well, Crash Team racing doesn't have any violence in it."
- "Yes it does. You can hit each other's cars."
"Uhm.. ok...so, no conflict at all you mean?"
- "Yes."
"Hmm... Here, try Bust A Move. It's a very good game with no conflict."
- "We've tried it before. It's too violent."
"...Too violent? There isn't any violence in the game at all."
- "You shoot things and monsters fall out."
"Ok...here, try Intelligent Cube. Great game, no monsters and no shooting."
- "You can fall off the edge and the moving blocks can kill the character. Too violent."
"Uh...ok...uhm...well, there are a lot of racing games without violence."
- "Racing games have competition. The game can't have any competition." ...

An excerpt from The Acts of Gord

He misspelled it, it should be spelled Gord.

~S

Most consoles have NEVER been sold at a loss, and the PS2 made OODLES of profit from day one (enough to recoup the R&D costs within a year).

The Sega Saturn was sold at a loss and failed. The Xbox was sold at a loss but M$ could afford it. We'll see if the PS3 actually gets sold at a loss or not.

Don't believe me? The numbers and such are available if you search, or just read the Gord's little article ... http://www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02. html

By the time the PlayStation came out in North America 4 months later, a lot
had changed during the year. RAM had gone from $50US a megabyte to $20. The Yen had gone from 80 yen per US dollar to 110. And Sega had dropped the price of the Saturn to $299. At this point the PlayStation was indeed profitable, and the Saturn was a minor money pit for Sega.

In the end, before the first PS2 rolled off the production line for consumers, Sony had spent $2 billion! TWO BILLION!

Then we look at Sony's stock report for Oct-Dec 2000, and there is an interesting little blurb. It said that had Sony been able to meet demand with another 1 million PS2 units, they would have pocketed $175 million in profits. $175 million divided by one million consoles equals $175 per console profit.