Also, why aren't they also outlawing the Zune since it also has proprietary DRM that isn't licensed to anyone??
Perhaps because that's not true. MS's PlaysForSure is, in fact, available on MP3 players not made by Microsoft. There is even software available using that brand of DRM that isn't made by Microsoft (specifically, MusicMatch). So, the logical conclusion is that Microsoft's DRM is less restrictive, at least in the sense that you don't have to go through Microsoft to get the software and the MP3 player in order to make use of those songs (and, presumably, videos). Apple, on the other hand, has you locked in from the start of the download to the playback of the song, unless you format shift to CD or [violate the DMCA and] strip FairPlay from the file.
Again, I find myself agreeing with Norway's position here, in that I don't have a problem with DRM (which, by the way, is just a fancy term for "copy protection," something that has been around since I was a kid playing computer games in the 80s) as long as it works and as long as it doesn't force me to give all my business to one company. Even the DRM on Blu-ray and HD DVD, which people here go on and on about, allows you to buy your discs from whomever you want and then play them back in any [competently built] Blu-ray or HD DVD player.
For example: Macintosh computer, Windows computers, and AppleTV, and Motorola ROKR.
Two of those are manufactured by Apple, the ROKR is sold on a licensing agreement with Apple, and Windows support is simply acknolwedgement by Apple of the MS operating system monopoly.
I think folks are getting a little hung up on the idea that because iTunes has competitors, they can't be a monopoly. That's just not the case. Windows has competitors but most people (including the feds) consider Microsoft to have an operating system monopoly.
Frankly, it seems odd to me that people would defend Apple on this, considering the shrieking that goes on around here whenever the term "DRM" is used. I say that if Norway can make a case under their law that Apple is doing wrong with iTunes, then they should definitely go after Jobs and Company.
Oh, and are you really that certain that an MP3 player could be built using the process you describe without violating Apple's IP (patents, copyrights and licenses)?
Why shouldn't it be a criticism? The Xbox 360 sold comparable numbers during its launch period (actually, more as I recall) and at this time last year you would have had a bitch of a time finding one. As has already been noted, right now the Wii has sold [many] more units and it's still a crap shoot whether you'll find one to buy.
The bottom line is that Sony has missed all their predictions from production numbers to sales numbers, and I think it can probably be attributed entirely to the price of the unit, which most would consider a very valid criticism. The PS2 had a similar [tiny] number of decent games at launch, yet it sold like hotcakes.
I could even see stores specializing in used games discounting the console when there are more games available. The margin they make on used games is so big that jump-starting it with some console discounts could make sense.
In fact, the more I think about it the more I wonder why used retailers don't attempt to take a slight loss on selling new consoles in order to "prime the pump" for their used market. The only two reasons I can think of are:
1. Greed - in the sense that they could easily afford to take a smallish hit on hardware considering the money made on used games. 2. Agreements with manufacturers - Maybe they won't get consoles shipped to them if they offer any significant discounts on new hardware. Sony, MS and Nintendo already dislike them for reducing sales of new games.
I'm sure there's probably a "reasonable explanation." My question is whether there's a "good reason." CD/DVD burning has always seemed like a touchy issue with Windows from 95 on up. Some combinations of software and drive worked beautifully and others could have you spending hours hunting for a particular file missing from the driver/OS. I was pretty depressed when I got XP and found that the CD burning integrated into the OS worked poorly at best and most often ended up making coasters for me (I know it worked great for some people but something about my hardware just didn't agree with XP). I installed Nero and, bam, everything worked perfectly.
I'm glad on some level that I don't have a "personal personal computer" right now so that I don't have to think about upgrading to Vista anytime soon. My next PC will be an OEM machine, so I'll at least have someone to cuss at if Vista doesn't work - unless I break down and finally go iMac, in which case I might not even dual boot and leave the gaming to WoW and my console(s).:)
That particular game was such a programming abortion that it seemed like pure luck when it works in any OS. Too bad, too, because once the thing is patched the AI can play a reasonable game of Magic. It was one of many early W95 games that was just poorly done.
Sure, but how much time per hour did he have to be funny and pointed, shooting down critics? 30 minutes? Maybe?:)
All I know is that everything about the old shows I've heard seems stilted and constrained compared to the current incarnation. They do "Mastertape Theatre" with replays of [apparently] classic shows on Fridays and I find it almost unlistenable. Of course, a large part of that may be changes in my own perspective/taste since switching to satellite. It's similar to how I feel about TV these days - if it's not on Tivo (apart from football) it's just too hard to watch.
Can you give some examples of programs you love and/or can't do without that worked with XP but won't work under Vista? I'm both honestly curious and "calling you out" because a post such as yours should have included such examples in the first place.
Oh, and basing your post on RC2 (a "release candidate" - not the final version, if that needs to be said) doesn't help, either.
1) Blu-ray was launched mere months before the release of the PS3 - one player (not even a Sony) at $1,000. It's not even close to comparable to the situation with PS2 and DVD, particularly considering that even as the PS2 was released DVD players were coming down towards $200.
2) There are around 140* titles available on Blu-ray currently, where the number of DVD titles was several times that at the time of the PS2's release. The number of retail outlets is pretty meaningless since back then retailers and rental outlets were only just coming around to the idea that VHS would ever die out - having been through it once, they now know that the tech can change.
3) What about the 360? It sold very well in its first year of release despite the fact that the "acceptably priced" version was considered by many to be "crippled." Also, despite Microsoft's own supply troubles at launch, the 360 still sold more units than the PS3 during its launch period.
4) I can't argue the scratch issue. I know that the DVD format has suffered significantly in the market due to scratching - wait, it hasn't? Damn! As for a single format for movies and games - you mean, like DVD? Wow!
5) Blah, blah, yes, the PS2 has tons of games and is still a very viable console.
6) Are you sure about that? I don't know that Japanese companies are as willing to reduce numerical expectations as US companies. Part of the reason that US companies do this is to avoid running afoul of the feds (the SEC and the FTC) because if their numbers are invalid it can cause problems with stock prices. As far as I can tell, Sony's plan is to make PS3s as fast as they can, which is neither unexpected nor new. Considering that they've missed their targets so far, your faith in them on this matter seems a bit blind.
Personally, I'm format agnostic since I don't own either HD DVD or Blu-ray yet, but the level of apologism for Blu-ray and the PS3 reaches new heights daily. Further, the attempts to read crystal balls to determine the eventual winner are lame since nobody has released a standalone Blu-ray or HD DVD player for a price that would be considered affordable by the masses. I'll only start believing in a future winner when there is a sub-$300 standalone player - at that point, the race will be close enough to the finish line to make a reasonable call.
*This number comes from a count of titles at "DVD Empire," an Internet DVD site. For the sake of completeness, I'll also note that there are 150 HD DVD titles available, and that Blu-ray and HD DVD sales at this site are split up about 57/43 in favor of HD DVD on the year, with a more recent advantage for Blu-ray (presumably spurred by the release of the PS3).
Actually, according to this article, Sirius has already started experiencing "positive free cash flows" which means profits are, literally, right around the corner. It gets somewhat more complicated since Sirius will continue to pursue desirable content and technology improvements (such as, I believe, launching at least one more satellite this year or next) in an effort to improve their service, but subscriber numbers have already been increasing at a higher rate for Sirius - when they signed Stern in 2004 they were at around 600,000 subscribers and they are now over 6 million - than XM over the last year which would seem to indicate that their numbers are going to keep going up.
They didn't do it because someone was going to have to foot the bill to put satellites in orbit. That [monstrous] cost (obviously far greater than erecting a radio tower) was going to take years to recoup and the government certainly wasn't going to do it. Thus, private companies funded the project and decided that subscription-based services (which have to be based on some form of "DRM" in order to avoid easy piracy) were the way to first recoup the startup costs and then make profit in the future. If the FCC wants to lay controls on new broadcast technology, they should float their own satellites, and if you want [over-]regulated radio content, you can still listen to your "standards-based" AM/FM receivers.
One problem with the idea that another satellite radio company could pop up is that a Sirius/XM hybrid would already have six satellites up. Merging and then providing radios that could receive and decode the combined signals would double their available bandwidth, not to mention all of the "exclusive" contracts that would be possessed by the merged company (Stern, Oprah, Martha, the various sports, etc.). The amount of money it would take to compete would be astronomical (hehe), both in terms of equipment and acquisition of content.
The reason that standard AM/FM can't be considered by the anti-trust folks as competition for a Sirius/XM "super service" is that, though there are a couple of big companies on top of the broadcast radio heap, it's still possible for other companies to get frequencies and start broadcasting. So, while Clear Channel owns several stations in a particular market, they don't (and can't, legally) own all of them. The way the satellite companies are currently set up, they each control all of the channels on their respective services. Maybe if Sirius and XM put up channels for open bidding (with not more than one channel able to be bought by a single company, I would hope), then the anti-trust issue could potentially go away.
Personally, I love Sirius, mainly for the Howard Stern show which is the funniest radio I've ever heard - edging out Phil Hendrie thanks to being uncensored and with "limited" commercial interruption. I was never a Stern listener before Sirius, but I've heard a few of the old shows in a "best of" context and the oldies don't begin to compare with the current incarnation. It's not for kids, but it's not just for dirty old men, either...though that group would probably find satisfaction.:)
I should've been more clear that the mail she received was indeed regular postal mail. She doesn't have a PC and never will. I think her DVD player is the last high-tech item I'm going to be able to get her to adopt. In any case, you're probably right.:)
"Tru' dat." As I was writing that this was not a problem that's easily solved, I thought for half a moment that it is actually easily solved by people just not responding in any way to these spam e-mails. After that half-moment, of course, I came to my senses and realized that there will always be people falling for e-mail scams. If the things never worked there would be no spam at all, and wouldn't such a utopia be lovely?
It actually reminds me of my grandmother who received junk mail from someone (I don't recall the details), and the letter looked so genuine to her that she was fretting about how she should respond. Fortunately, she's bright enough that she wasn't going to send them money, but she still felt like she was under some kind of obligation. I got kind of impatient with her and spent some time explaining (at least twice) that she doesn't have to respond to anything sent to her in the mail by people with whom she has no relationship. I think I convinced her to just ignore it (she didn't mention it again and still owns her house), but it was very strange to me that she could be so affected by junk mail.
Here's one of [many] problems faced by investigators trying to unravel the mess: You can't know who the first person was to receive the spammed e-mail. If I (as someone who's not participating in the fraud) get one of these spams and decide to buy the stock, and I do so within minutes of the e-mail's propagation, I could end up making huge profits on the deal.
Now, when the SEC goes over the records and sees that I have made a large amount of money on this now-"corrupted" issue, was I simply an investor who saw an opportunity based on what I perceived as - and, in fact, was once the spam was sent out - public information, or was I one of the scammers? You and I (since I just told you and we're assuming I'm being truthful) know that I picked up the stock only after the scam was initiated. The SEC, on the other hand, can't tell if I was simply lucky or if I timed my purchase based on foreknowledge that the scam was being initiated at that time on that day.
In other words, if a scammer changes the timing of their purchase to occur after the spam has gone out, large profits could still be realized thanks to the naive and the opportunistic who subsequently receive the e-mail.
Of course, even the purchases made before the scam could be masked to a large extent by giving tips to a few people one knows will keep their mouths shut (if not to the SEC then at least to other "investors" before the scam) and having them buy the issue.
In short, it's a problem that's not easily solved.
I actually think that the "full" full-price game followed by subsequent episodes is probably the right way to go - maybe not for consumers, but for the industry as a whole.
The up-front investment in developing a new game is huge. Developers have to build (or build upon) a graphics engine for the game, writers and artists have to create a world and a story and, at the most fundamental level, hardware and software have to be purchased in order to do all the creation. All of those costs need to be recouped sooner rather than later, or the money will stop flowing with investors/publishers going somewhere else. With a full game at full price - assuming successful completion and at least an average game - it's going to be much easier to get that cash coming in. On the other hand, a game created to be episodic from the start, with prices to match, runs the risk of being poorly received, which could result in severe losses when nobody wants to keep on playing.
I'm sure some would argue that such a developer might deserve to go under, but considering that even good developers can put out a bad game I would disagree. Perhaps even more important, there have been games where I thought the first hour or three were boring (establishing characters/story, ramping up difficulty, teaching controls, etc.) and ended up loving the rest.
It's a bit strange to think that putting out a bigger game might be a lower risk than putting out a small one but I really do think this would be the case for many. While an established franchise (Halo, Half-Life, Star Wars, Warcraft, etc.) might be able to survive a bit of clunking in the first episode and get the chance to continue development of more content, any new gaming IP carries with it such a high risk total failure that I don't think new stuff should kick off with short episodes.
Note that all of the above primarily applies to the more "high-end" games. Obviously, Xbox Live Arcade and similar services on thePC and other consoles can provide homes for the "smaller" games that don't require the same kind of development resources as, say, a Gears of War. Episodic gaming on a smaller scale such as this could indeed work out being episodic from the start. I would also note that we've had "episodic" gaming for years thanks to the "expansion pack" phenomenon.
You seem to be confusing "strategy" with "tactics" - this is a tactical device. The bottom line is that if you have a sniper firing at your troops you have two options: Find the sniper and take him or her out, or leave the area (well, three, if you count just going on by in an armored vehicle). You're right that you wouldn't want to take out a sniper with a bomb if the sniper is in a densely populated area, but you can still use the described device to locate the sniper for either evasion or evasion plus attack (going into the apartment building in your scenario or using a friendly sniper to take out the enemy).
Once the sniper is shooting, it's a bit too late to prevent him from doing so by making him your friend.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. It's the difference between the literal meaning and the inferred meaning. If I ride around in a spaceship that travels at the speed of light and I saw "I'm 5 years from home," someone who knows how fast I can travel can infer from my statement that I'm 5 light years from home. While I admit it's more than a semantical difference, I still think that calling someone on it is a little nitpicky.:)
I wonder if Bethesda is aware how nice it is to be able to have 10 (or, obviously, more) games ready to play at a moment's notice without first deleting data from the hard drive and then installing another game to be played. I'll bet they are...
I don't know about other console owners, but NOT having to deal with a hard drive installation is one of the [many] things I like about console gaming as opposed to the PC.
Besides, the advantage of Blu-ray over DVD in terms of gaming is its increased capacity (as I recall, 20GB for single-layer and 40GB for double-layer). The most hard drive a PS3 comes with is 60GB and the junior version is 20GB. That means that if developers takes advantage of all that space, and you decide to install games to the hard drive, you have space for at most 1-3 games (forgetting about downloaded games, the space reserved by the OS, music, video, and whatever else one might want on their PS3). In a long session of playing games on the 360 I've played up to 7 different games - if I have to install to hard drive to get "decent" performance, I could spend more time space-juggling on the HD and less time playing.
Then again, maybe Sony has a deal with hard drive manufacturers and we're just supposed to buy huge hard drives in order to enjoy the system.
Yes, it's a unit of distance, but it can also function as a unit of time because the basis of the measurement is speed [of light]. So, when you have something (like radio waves) traveling the speed of light [constantly], the term "light years" covers both distance and time.
The only reason we know that there are loose ends to tie up after season 10 is because we've been told so. They haven't even finished showing season 10 yet.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Which you can be almost certain will be on a Wii near you within the next year. It would be just too perfect. :)
Perhaps because that's not true. MS's PlaysForSure is, in fact, available on MP3 players not made by Microsoft. There is even software available using that brand of DRM that isn't made by Microsoft (specifically, MusicMatch). So, the logical conclusion is that Microsoft's DRM is less restrictive, at least in the sense that you don't have to go through Microsoft to get the software and the MP3 player in order to make use of those songs (and, presumably, videos). Apple, on the other hand, has you locked in from the start of the download to the playback of the song, unless you format shift to CD or [violate the DMCA and] strip FairPlay from the file.
Again, I find myself agreeing with Norway's position here, in that I don't have a problem with DRM (which, by the way, is just a fancy term for "copy protection," something that has been around since I was a kid playing computer games in the 80s) as long as it works and as long as it doesn't force me to give all my business to one company. Even the DRM on Blu-ray and HD DVD, which people here go on and on about, allows you to buy your discs from whomever you want and then play them back in any [competently built] Blu-ray or HD DVD player.
Two of those are manufactured by Apple, the ROKR is sold on a licensing agreement with Apple, and Windows support is simply acknolwedgement by Apple of the MS operating system monopoly.
I think folks are getting a little hung up on the idea that because iTunes has competitors, they can't be a monopoly. That's just not the case. Windows has competitors but most people (including the feds) consider Microsoft to have an operating system monopoly.
Frankly, it seems odd to me that people would defend Apple on this, considering the shrieking that goes on around here whenever the term "DRM" is used. I say that if Norway can make a case under their law that Apple is doing wrong with iTunes, then they should definitely go after Jobs and Company.
Oh, and are you really that certain that an MP3 player could be built using the process you describe without violating Apple's IP (patents, copyrights and licenses)?
Why shouldn't it be a criticism? The Xbox 360 sold comparable numbers during its launch period (actually, more as I recall) and at this time last year you would have had a bitch of a time finding one. As has already been noted, right now the Wii has sold [many] more units and it's still a crap shoot whether you'll find one to buy.
The bottom line is that Sony has missed all their predictions from production numbers to sales numbers, and I think it can probably be attributed entirely to the price of the unit, which most would consider a very valid criticism. The PS2 had a similar [tiny] number of decent games at launch, yet it sold like hotcakes.
I could even see stores specializing in used games discounting the console when there are more games available. The margin they make on used games is so big that jump-starting it with some console discounts could make sense.
In fact, the more I think about it the more I wonder why used retailers don't attempt to take a slight loss on selling new consoles in order to "prime the pump" for their used market. The only two reasons I can think of are:
1. Greed - in the sense that they could easily afford to take a smallish hit on hardware considering the money made on used games.
2. Agreements with manufacturers - Maybe they won't get consoles shipped to them if they offer any significant discounts on new hardware. Sony, MS and Nintendo already dislike them for reducing sales of new games.
I'm sure there's probably a "reasonable explanation." My question is whether there's a "good reason." CD/DVD burning has always seemed like a touchy issue with Windows from 95 on up. Some combinations of software and drive worked beautifully and others could have you spending hours hunting for a particular file missing from the driver/OS. I was pretty depressed when I got XP and found that the CD burning integrated into the OS worked poorly at best and most often ended up making coasters for me (I know it worked great for some people but something about my hardware just didn't agree with XP). I installed Nero and, bam, everything worked perfectly.
:)
I'm glad on some level that I don't have a "personal personal computer" right now so that I don't have to think about upgrading to Vista anytime soon. My next PC will be an OEM machine, so I'll at least have someone to cuss at if Vista doesn't work - unless I break down and finally go iMac, in which case I might not even dual boot and leave the gaming to WoW and my console(s).
That particular game was such a programming abortion that it seemed like pure luck when it works in any OS. Too bad, too, because once the thing is patched the AI can play a reasonable game of Magic. It was one of many early W95 games that was just poorly done.
Sure, but how much time per hour did he have to be funny and pointed, shooting down critics? 30 minutes? Maybe? :)
;)
All I know is that everything about the old shows I've heard seems stilted and constrained compared to the current incarnation. They do "Mastertape Theatre" with replays of [apparently] classic shows on Fridays and I find it almost unlistenable. Of course, a large part of that may be changes in my own perspective/taste since switching to satellite. It's similar to how I feel about TV these days - if it's not on Tivo (apart from football) it's just too hard to watch.
PS- I prefer to be called "Mac-hine."
Can you give some examples of programs you love and/or can't do without that worked with XP but won't work under Vista? I'm both honestly curious and "calling you out" because a post such as yours should have included such examples in the first place.
Oh, and basing your post on RC2 (a "release candidate" - not the final version, if that needs to be said) doesn't help, either.
1) Blu-ray was launched mere months before the release of the PS3 - one player (not even a Sony) at $1,000. It's not even close to comparable to the situation with PS2 and DVD, particularly considering that even as the PS2 was released DVD players were coming down towards $200.
2) There are around 140* titles available on Blu-ray currently, where the number of DVD titles was several times that at the time of the PS2's release. The number of retail outlets is pretty meaningless since back then retailers and rental outlets were only just coming around to the idea that VHS would ever die out - having been through it once, they now know that the tech can change.
3) What about the 360? It sold very well in its first year of release despite the fact that the "acceptably priced" version was considered by many to be "crippled." Also, despite Microsoft's own supply troubles at launch, the 360 still sold more units than the PS3 during its launch period.
4) I can't argue the scratch issue. I know that the DVD format has suffered significantly in the market due to scratching - wait, it hasn't? Damn! As for a single format for movies and games - you mean, like DVD? Wow!
5) Blah, blah, yes, the PS2 has tons of games and is still a very viable console.
6) Are you sure about that? I don't know that Japanese companies are as willing to reduce numerical expectations as US companies. Part of the reason that US companies do this is to avoid running afoul of the feds (the SEC and the FTC) because if their numbers are invalid it can cause problems with stock prices. As far as I can tell, Sony's plan is to make PS3s as fast as they can, which is neither unexpected nor new. Considering that they've missed their targets so far, your faith in them on this matter seems a bit blind.
Personally, I'm format agnostic since I don't own either HD DVD or Blu-ray yet, but the level of apologism for Blu-ray and the PS3 reaches new heights daily. Further, the attempts to read crystal balls to determine the eventual winner are lame since nobody has released a standalone Blu-ray or HD DVD player for a price that would be considered affordable by the masses. I'll only start believing in a future winner when there is a sub-$300 standalone player - at that point, the race will be close enough to the finish line to make a reasonable call.
*This number comes from a count of titles at "DVD Empire," an Internet DVD site. For the sake of completeness, I'll also note that there are 150 HD DVD titles available, and that Blu-ray and HD DVD sales at this site are split up about 57/43 in favor of HD DVD on the year, with a more recent advantage for Blu-ray (presumably spurred by the release of the PS3).
Actually, according to this article, Sirius has already started experiencing "positive free cash flows" which means profits are, literally, right around the corner. It gets somewhat more complicated since Sirius will continue to pursue desirable content and technology improvements (such as, I believe, launching at least one more satellite this year or next) in an effort to improve their service, but subscriber numbers have already been increasing at a higher rate for Sirius - when they signed Stern in 2004 they were at around 600,000 subscribers and they are now over 6 million - than XM over the last year which would seem to indicate that their numbers are going to keep going up.
While I don't disagree with your points, I consider it important to note that it is DirecTV, not Dish Network, that has the exclusive NFL contract.
They didn't do it because someone was going to have to foot the bill to put satellites in orbit. That [monstrous] cost (obviously far greater than erecting a radio tower) was going to take years to recoup and the government certainly wasn't going to do it. Thus, private companies funded the project and decided that subscription-based services (which have to be based on some form of "DRM" in order to avoid easy piracy) were the way to first recoup the startup costs and then make profit in the future. If the FCC wants to lay controls on new broadcast technology, they should float their own satellites, and if you want [over-]regulated radio content, you can still listen to your "standards-based" AM/FM receivers.
One problem with the idea that another satellite radio company could pop up is that a Sirius/XM hybrid would already have six satellites up. Merging and then providing radios that could receive and decode the combined signals would double their available bandwidth, not to mention all of the "exclusive" contracts that would be possessed by the merged company (Stern, Oprah, Martha, the various sports, etc.). The amount of money it would take to compete would be astronomical (hehe), both in terms of equipment and acquisition of content.
The reason that standard AM/FM can't be considered by the anti-trust folks as competition for a Sirius/XM "super service" is that, though there are a couple of big companies on top of the broadcast radio heap, it's still possible for other companies to get frequencies and start broadcasting. So, while Clear Channel owns several stations in a particular market, they don't (and can't, legally) own all of them. The way the satellite companies are currently set up, they each control all of the channels on their respective services. Maybe if Sirius and XM put up channels for open bidding (with not more than one channel able to be bought by a single company, I would hope), then the anti-trust issue could potentially go away.
:)
Personally, I love Sirius, mainly for the Howard Stern show which is the funniest radio I've ever heard - edging out Phil Hendrie thanks to being uncensored and with "limited" commercial interruption. I was never a Stern listener before Sirius, but I've heard a few of the old shows in a "best of" context and the oldies don't begin to compare with the current incarnation. It's not for kids, but it's not just for dirty old men, either...though that group would probably find satisfaction.
I should've been more clear that the mail she received was indeed regular postal mail. She doesn't have a PC and never will. I think her DVD player is the last high-tech item I'm going to be able to get her to adopt. In any case, you're probably right. :)
"Tru' dat." As I was writing that this was not a problem that's easily solved, I thought for half a moment that it is actually easily solved by people just not responding in any way to these spam e-mails. After that half-moment, of course, I came to my senses and realized that there will always be people falling for e-mail scams. If the things never worked there would be no spam at all, and wouldn't such a utopia be lovely?
It actually reminds me of my grandmother who received junk mail from someone (I don't recall the details), and the letter looked so genuine to her that she was fretting about how she should respond. Fortunately, she's bright enough that she wasn't going to send them money, but she still felt like she was under some kind of obligation. I got kind of impatient with her and spent some time explaining (at least twice) that she doesn't have to respond to anything sent to her in the mail by people with whom she has no relationship. I think I convinced her to just ignore it (she didn't mention it again and still owns her house), but it was very strange to me that she could be so affected by junk mail.
Here's one of [many] problems faced by investigators trying to unravel the mess: You can't know who the first person was to receive the spammed e-mail. If I (as someone who's not participating in the fraud) get one of these spams and decide to buy the stock, and I do so within minutes of the e-mail's propagation, I could end up making huge profits on the deal.
Now, when the SEC goes over the records and sees that I have made a large amount of money on this now-"corrupted" issue, was I simply an investor who saw an opportunity based on what I perceived as - and, in fact, was once the spam was sent out - public information, or was I one of the scammers? You and I (since I just told you and we're assuming I'm being truthful) know that I picked up the stock only after the scam was initiated. The SEC, on the other hand, can't tell if I was simply lucky or if I timed my purchase based on foreknowledge that the scam was being initiated at that time on that day.
In other words, if a scammer changes the timing of their purchase to occur after the spam has gone out, large profits could still be realized thanks to the naive and the opportunistic who subsequently receive the e-mail.
Of course, even the purchases made before the scam could be masked to a large extent by giving tips to a few people one knows will keep their mouths shut (if not to the SEC then at least to other "investors" before the scam) and having them buy the issue.
In short, it's a problem that's not easily solved.
I actually think that the "full" full-price game followed by subsequent episodes is probably the right way to go - maybe not for consumers, but for the industry as a whole.
The up-front investment in developing a new game is huge. Developers have to build (or build upon) a graphics engine for the game, writers and artists have to create a world and a story and, at the most fundamental level, hardware and software have to be purchased in order to do all the creation. All of those costs need to be recouped sooner rather than later, or the money will stop flowing with investors/publishers going somewhere else. With a full game at full price - assuming successful completion and at least an average game - it's going to be much easier to get that cash coming in. On the other hand, a game created to be episodic from the start, with prices to match, runs the risk of being poorly received, which could result in severe losses when nobody wants to keep on playing.
I'm sure some would argue that such a developer might deserve to go under, but considering that even good developers can put out a bad game I would disagree. Perhaps even more important, there have been games where I thought the first hour or three were boring (establishing characters/story, ramping up difficulty, teaching controls, etc.) and ended up loving the rest.
It's a bit strange to think that putting out a bigger game might be a lower risk than putting out a small one but I really do think this would be the case for many. While an established franchise (Halo, Half-Life, Star Wars, Warcraft, etc.) might be able to survive a bit of clunking in the first episode and get the chance to continue development of more content, any new gaming IP carries with it such a high risk total failure that I don't think new stuff should kick off with short episodes.
Note that all of the above primarily applies to the more "high-end" games. Obviously, Xbox Live Arcade and similar services on thePC and other consoles can provide homes for the "smaller" games that don't require the same kind of development resources as, say, a Gears of War. Episodic gaming on a smaller scale such as this could indeed work out being episodic from the start. I would also note that we've had "episodic" gaming for years thanks to the "expansion pack" phenomenon.
You seem to be confusing "strategy" with "tactics" - this is a tactical device. The bottom line is that if you have a sniper firing at your troops you have two options: Find the sniper and take him or her out, or leave the area (well, three, if you count just going on by in an armored vehicle). You're right that you wouldn't want to take out a sniper with a bomb if the sniper is in a densely populated area, but you can still use the described device to locate the sniper for either evasion or evasion plus attack (going into the apartment building in your scenario or using a friendly sniper to take out the enemy).
Once the sniper is shooting, it's a bit too late to prevent him from doing so by making him your friend.
So, you're being purposely obtuse and forcefully literal. That's certainly your prerogative! I'll just tip my king now.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. It's the difference between the literal meaning and the inferred meaning. If I ride around in a spaceship that travels at the speed of light and I saw "I'm 5 years from home," someone who knows how fast I can travel can infer from my statement that I'm 5 light years from home. While I admit it's more than a semantical difference, I still think that calling someone on it is a little nitpicky. :)
I wonder if Bethesda is aware how nice it is to be able to have 10 (or, obviously, more) games ready to play at a moment's notice without first deleting data from the hard drive and then installing another game to be played. I'll bet they are...
I don't know about other console owners, but NOT having to deal with a hard drive installation is one of the [many] things I like about console gaming as opposed to the PC.
Besides, the advantage of Blu-ray over DVD in terms of gaming is its increased capacity (as I recall, 20GB for single-layer and 40GB for double-layer). The most hard drive a PS3 comes with is 60GB and the junior version is 20GB. That means that if developers takes advantage of all that space, and you decide to install games to the hard drive, you have space for at most 1-3 games (forgetting about downloaded games, the space reserved by the OS, music, video, and whatever else one might want on their PS3). In a long session of playing games on the 360 I've played up to 7 different games - if I have to install to hard drive to get "decent" performance, I could spend more time space-juggling on the HD and less time playing.
Then again, maybe Sony has a deal with hard drive manufacturers and we're just supposed to buy huge hard drives in order to enjoy the system.
Yes, it's a unit of distance, but it can also function as a unit of time because the basis of the measurement is speed [of light]. So, when you have something (like radio waves) traveling the speed of light [constantly], the term "light years" covers both distance and time.
The only reason we know that there are loose ends to tie up after season 10 is because we've been told so. They haven't even finished showing season 10 yet. :)