1.) Get users addicted to our software 2.) Profit!!!
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 1
That doesn't change your comment:
Also, the increase in stock values as a result of successful games made could outweight the profit gains from revenue of games/console selling.
You're implying that, even if they are actually losing money overall, if they have one or two hits, it could make their stock go up. And that could be a goal, as oppossed to sales and profitability. The problem with this, as we have seen, is that it doesn't seem to work in the long run.
Yes, companies STILL have to make money in the 21st century to be sucessful..
Huh? The N64 made a LOT of money for Nintendo. It wasn't as big of a success as the PSX, but it was definitely profitable. There is no way in hell the GC is going to "beat" the PS2, and I think they know that. They just want to keep making a tidy profit, as they have been.
I love Sega, but you can't say Sega won with the DC. It was their last gasp. Sure, it was a great console for the in-between era, and still is pretty darn cool... but it was Sega's hardware death rattle.
Sega Saturn was superior to Sony Playstation (two processors, more memory, etc).
Eh, not exactly. The Saturn was superior as far as 2D graphics goes. But their 3D processor was added on late in production, and just couldn't hang with the PSX. Also, the multiprocessor made it hard to develop for (like the PS2, but the PS2 has a better market position than Sega had at the time).
Re:that doesn't mean they'll produce good games
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 1
Also, the increase in stock values as a result of successful games made could outweight the profit gains from revenue of games/console selling.
Come on, that's the sort of logic that led to the dotcom "boom".
You are saying that even if they lose money on the games and consoles, if they look succesful, the stock windfall that follows could be profitable.
The problem with this, as we have discovered, is that it doesn't last.
How about Crazy Taxi? I think that's a great game.
And your comment about VF is harsh, since it WAS the first 3D fighter... If it seems to lack ingenuity, it's because it was there first.
Re:Ownership of the TM != ownership of the meshes
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 1
Ever heard the phrase "work for hire"? Basically it means when you hire someone to work for you, they give up the ownership of the work that results. I'd imagine the situation is the same here. If not, the new development team will just re-model DK. No big deal.
When Zelda comes out, they'll probably sell 100,000 extra consoles that month alone. Seriously, if not more. Both me and my roommate plan to buy Gamecubes for when Zelda comes out, AND each get a copy of Zelda. He is Dreamcast guy who wants an Xbox, but isn't buying it so he can use the money for the GC/Zelda, and I already have a PS2.
Plus, when that happens, the people that buy the GC will pick up other games, too... It'll be a big boost for them, similar to when Final Fantasy first hit the PSX. I remeber shopping at Electronics Boutique and 4-5 different people came in and preordered FF and bought a PSX while I was in the store.
I don't think Nintendo is going anywhere because they have such a huge fanbase for games like Zelda, Mario and Metroid.
Perfect Dark sold $55 million, or so I read... is that poorly for a console game? I guess that is only 1 million sold. But that sounds good for an N64 game.
The thing about Indymedia is that anyone can post an article. Most of the people that do are left of center. But I've seen some intense right-wing stuff going on there, too. It's all biased, but I think that most journalism is, it's just less obvious about it.
Indymedia isn't really journalism. Anyone can post an article, so there's not editor or quality control person. It's like a more out of control Slashdot.
Now, I don't see why you are railing against her statement so intensely, since she stated that she did not know if that was a solution that would work, or if there even _was_ a solution. The only definitive statement she made (in that section) that was she was sure P2P isn't gonna just go away.
As far as the "ignore the problem" and "let" aspects go, I don't feel there is anything that can be done about it. If you can listen to something, you can copy it.
However, this goes back to my previous point - that your flowchart isn't actually far off, since the labels ARE still making a profit even though people are copying their music. People have been copying music for years and, though P2P is definitely more of a threat than tape trading, they have always made a profit.
I really don't think that record companies will ever go away, at least not in my lifetime, since people like to buy stuff. They like to be in Wal-Mart, and pick up that cd from the shelf and just buy it. No matter how easy it is to copy a CD, many people will still just buy it.
I mean, I buy music all the time, and I'm a very savvy guy, I could easily copy anything I want. But the bands I buy from are smart and release their stuff at a low enough price where I'm happy to just buy it. Assumming demand for major-label music decreases due to file-sharing (it hasn't yet, not appreciably), they'll drop prices in response. It'll cut into profits, sure... But the system is going nowhere in the short-term or medium-term.
You are just quoting sections of the article, but they have nothing to do with what you stated.
You said: 1. Let people copy your music for free. 2. Pad your CDs with premium content that they can also copy for free. 3. ??? 4. Profit
If at first you don't succeed, try try try again. When scientists/alchemists figure out how to get blood from a stone I'm sure it will be frontpage news.
But nowhere did she say she encourages free copying of music. She said she thought it wasn't going away, but that's not at all the same thing.
The quote you use doesn't say "Let's say that technology has evolved to the point where one can transfer complete, same as CD-quality albums in less than a second, and imprint them onto CD for free", it just mentions the possibility.
She even goes on to say that artists should worry about it.
Where did she encourage "letting people copy it for free"? She said she didn't tink file sharing was going to go away, that's not the same thing at all.
Also, CDs currently can be copied for free and record companies DO still profit. And have for years. And are likely to still make money for years. There is a large, very large group of people who would rather pick up the cd at wal-mart than try to download all the tracks from a p2p service.
Well, in their defense, it is very hard to predict whether or not a band will succeed. When you sign a band to record an album, you are gambling that they will actually make a good one, for one. And that people's interests will be in line with their sound, etc.
The key is that the record labels should take a less aggressive, manufactured approach... Let bands build up a following over time, like they used to, as opposed to the current strategy of throwing money and advertising at the problem, thus creating a horde of one-hit wonders.
2. He did drafts and touch-ups of the lackluster movies you mention. That doesn't mean even a page of his writing ever made it to the movie. Quentin Tarantino "touched up" Crimson Tide... There are exactly 4 lines in the movie that are his. Sometimes a dozen people work on one screen play.
Slashdot Mirror
I will never buy another CD again.
That's silly. There are plenty of independent record labels.
Aren't we all libertarian here?
What in the world makes you think that?
Why is this offtopic? This is exactly what MS is doing. I could see calling it REDUNDANT, but not off-topic.
MS is turning a blind eye to piracy in markets where they don't have a stranglehold, in order to get users hooked on their products.
Why the question marks? This is more accurate:
1.) Get users addicted to our software
2.) Profit!!!
That doesn't change your comment :
Also, the increase in stock values as a result of successful games made could outweight the profit gains from revenue of games/console selling.
You're implying that, even if they are actually losing money overall, if they have one or two hits, it could make their stock go up. And that could be a goal, as oppossed to sales and profitability. The problem with this, as we have seen, is that it doesn't seem to work in the long run.
Yes, companies STILL have to make money in the 21st century to be sucessful..
Huh? The N64 made a LOT of money for Nintendo. It wasn't as big of a success as the PSX, but it was definitely profitable. There is no way in hell the GC is going to "beat" the PS2, and I think they know that. They just want to keep making a tidy profit, as they have been.
Actually, they address that. RTFA.
The ratio of crappy:non-crappy games is significantly higher on the PS2.
Maybe, but there are, what, 500 PS2 games out? Compared to less than 100 for the Xbox?
Even if only one in five PS2 games is good, that's more than the xbox's whole library.
I love Sega, but you can't say Sega won with the DC. It was their last gasp. Sure, it was a great console for the in-between era, and still is pretty darn cool... but it was Sega's hardware death rattle.
Sega Saturn was superior to Sony Playstation (two processors, more memory, etc).
Eh, not exactly. The Saturn was superior as far as 2D graphics goes. But their 3D processor was added on late in production, and just couldn't hang with the PSX. Also, the multiprocessor made it hard to develop for (like the PS2, but the PS2 has a better market position than Sega had at the time).
Also, the increase in stock values as a result of successful games made could outweight the profit gains from revenue of games/console selling.
Come on, that's the sort of logic that led to the dotcom "boom".
You are saying that even if they lose money on the games and consoles, if they look succesful, the stock windfall that follows could be profitable.
The problem with this, as we have discovered, is that it doesn't last.
How about Crazy Taxi? I think that's a great game.
And your comment about VF is harsh, since it WAS the first 3D fighter... If it seems to lack ingenuity, it's because it was there first.
Ever heard the phrase "work for hire"? Basically it means when you hire someone to work for you, they give up the ownership of the work that results. I'd imagine the situation is the same here. If not, the new development team will just re-model DK. No big deal.
You are forgetting one thing, though : Zelda.
When Zelda comes out, they'll probably sell 100,000 extra consoles that month alone. Seriously, if not more. Both me and my roommate plan to buy Gamecubes for when Zelda comes out, AND each get a copy of Zelda. He is Dreamcast guy who wants an Xbox, but isn't buying it so he can use the money for the GC/Zelda, and I already have a PS2.
Plus, when that happens, the people that buy the GC will pick up other games, too... It'll be a big boost for them, similar to when Final Fantasy first hit the PSX. I remeber shopping at Electronics Boutique and 4-5 different people came in and preordered FF and bought a PSX while I was in the store.
I don't think Nintendo is going anywhere because they have such a huge fanbase for games like Zelda, Mario and Metroid.
Perfect Dark sold $55 million, or so I read... is that poorly for a console game? I guess that is only 1 million sold. But that sounds good for an N64 game.
The thing about Indymedia is that anyone can post an article. Most of the people that do are left of center. But I've seen some intense right-wing stuff going on there, too. It's all biased, but I think that most journalism is, it's just less obvious about it.
Indymedia isn't really journalism. Anyone can post an article, so there's not editor or quality control person. It's like a more out of control Slashdot.
Anti-Semite means someone who hates Jewish people. The Israeli state does NOT represent all Jewish people, though Israel would like you to think so.
Thank you for clarifying.
Now, I don't see why you are railing against her statement so intensely, since she stated that she did not know if that was a solution that would work, or if there even _was_ a solution. The only definitive statement she made (in that section) that was she was sure P2P isn't gonna just go away.
As far as the "ignore the problem" and "let" aspects go, I don't feel there is anything that can be done about it. If you can listen to something, you can copy it.
However, this goes back to my previous point - that your flowchart isn't actually far off, since the labels ARE still making a profit even though people are copying their music. People have been copying music for years and, though P2P is definitely more of a threat than tape trading, they have always made a profit.
I really don't think that record companies will ever go away, at least not in my lifetime, since people like to buy stuff. They like to be in Wal-Mart, and pick up that cd from the shelf and just buy it. No matter how easy it is to copy a CD, many people will still just buy it.
I mean, I buy music all the time, and I'm a very savvy guy, I could easily copy anything I want. But the bands I buy from are smart and release their stuff at a low enough price where I'm happy to just buy it. Assumming demand for major-label music decreases due to file-sharing (it hasn't yet, not appreciably), they'll drop prices in response. It'll cut into profits, sure... But the system is going nowhere in the short-term or medium-term.
You are just quoting sections of the article, but they have nothing to do with what you stated.
:
You said
1. Let people copy your music for free.
2. Pad your CDs with premium content that they can also copy for free.
3. ???
4. Profit
If at first you don't succeed, try try try again. When scientists/alchemists figure out how to get blood from a stone I'm sure it will be frontpage news.
But nowhere did she say she encourages free copying of music. She said she thought it wasn't going away, but that's not at all the same thing.
The quote you use doesn't say "Let's say that technology has evolved to the point where one can transfer complete, same as CD-quality albums in less than a second, and imprint them onto CD for free", it just mentions the possibility.
She even goes on to say that artists should worry about it.
They really said that? HAHAHAHA! I don't remeber that at all, but I'd love to read that press release, do you have a link?
Where did she encourage "letting people copy it for free"? She said she didn't tink file sharing was going to go away, that's not the same thing at all.
Also, CDs currently can be copied for free and record companies DO still profit. And have for years. And are likely to still make money for years. There is a large, very large group of people who would rather pick up the cd at wal-mart than try to download all the tracks from a p2p service.
Well, in their defense, it is very hard to predict whether or not a band will succeed. When you sign a band to record an album, you are gambling that they will actually make a good one, for one. And that people's interests will be in line with their sound, etc.
The key is that the record labels should take a less aggressive, manufactured approach... Let bands build up a following over time, like they used to, as opposed to the current strategy of throwing money and advertising at the problem, thus creating a horde of one-hit wonders.
Uh no. The MPAA claims (take it for what it's worth), that most movies don't make their money back until video.
They also say that most movies don't ever make money, but the big hits make up for the losers. The RIAA says the same thing about CDs, incidentally.
1. Roseanne was emmy nominated many times.
2. He did drafts and touch-ups of the lackluster movies you mention. That doesn't mean even a page of his writing ever made it to the movie. Quentin Tarantino "touched up" Crimson Tide... There are exactly 4 lines in the movie that are his. Sometimes a dozen people work on one screen play.