"We can't seem to sell any games, and we need to generate some PR. Lets tell people that the Gamecube is a piece of shit. That will stir up some noise and make people notice us. It's even better than trying to disrupt tennis tournaments! Yay!"
Note to Acclaim: You're not making any money on your cube titles because they SUCK ASS compared to the other games available on the platform. GO OUT OF BUSINESS ALREADY!
I wouldn't be upset if Epinions disapeared. In fact I would be overjoyed. My experience has been that the site sucks, most new things have a listing and no reviews, and the only advocates of the site are people who write the reviews.
Maybe one out of a hundred things I search for reviews on has a useful epinions page. If only google would have a way to include '-epinions' in every search by default, I wouldn't waste so much time loading what seems like a good page from the search results but turns out to be yet another useless epinions listing with no reviews attached.
For a review site to be useful they need to have access to the things they're reviewing before they go on sale so the review is available when the product comes out, or at least shortly afterward. Epinions only seems to have reviews available for things that have become common. If something has become common enough to have a epinions listing I've probably already seen one and don't need a review. Reviews about new, unseen products are the useful ones. That makes the entire Epinions concept flawed.
Yes, well as long as they think I should think their game is worth more to me than all the other games on the rack, including all the ones that are better than their Star Wars games, they can scratch me off their list of potential buyers.
DigiKey sells the individual cells that make up the battery packs in all APC UPSes. You should check it out if you ever need cheap exact replacements of APC UPS batteries.
hmm I don't know how much the PS2 network adapter costs, but that doesn't sound right to me unless you're talking about the 'greatest hits' games and the adapter runs $20-30 or less.
Actually I drive a Cadillac and it doesn't have GPS (It's old). I picked up a GPS reciever (bare PCB) on eBay for $28. GPS is cheaper than 802.11. Way more reliable on the highway too. If you thought GPS was out of your price range, check it out. Search for "superstar GPS" to see the one I picked up. It's tiny and I have no trouble placing it out of sight in my car. The only seller I've seen with them provides excelent instructions and diagrams for hooking it up to a PC.
it just bothers me a bit that my XBox is sitting there with a DVD decoder I've been told (and shown) is better than the PS2 decoder, but I can't use it without spending US$30.
I was at Sears yesterday, and they had an Apex DVD player for $39 after rebate. It came with a remote. If Apex can sell the whole damned player and remote for $39, why can't Microsoft sell their remote for less?
I think I'd rather have the Apex DVD player and the Xbox than the Xbox and the remote. At least that way if the Xbox or the DVD player broke I wouldn't be out both. Hardly seems like there's any "Bonus" involved in buying an Xbox. I won't even get into the XBox live kit costing more than the PS2 network adapter plus a game...
I can think of many uses for internet access while driving, even if only for a few seconds at a time.. You could have real time traffic updates superimposed on real time updated maps. You could correlate available local radio stations to your current position based on GPS. You could record logs of your trips without ever needing to go home and offload the data. You could pull updates that require lots of computing power from a remote machine so you don't need a power/fan hungry PC in your car. You could check your e-mail and stocks on trips (while you're parked) without a slow-ass celluar bottleneck.
To do any of that stuff you need some kind of network detection software.
If I were to wardrive, it wouldn't be for the thrill of detecting somebodies network, to cause somebody harm, or to map wireless access points and mark them with chalk; it would be to make oppotunistic use of momentary network access to use self-made services I listed above.
GUI wardriving software is stupid in my opinion. The software needs to be transparent. The user shouldn't be interfacing with the software at all. Give me a CLI for my scripts and go away.
PER TITLE sales are way down. Overall software sales are up sheerly on the basis of a larger installed base, but the average sales per game has dropped.
Did you go to business school or something? Overall sales are up. That means when you say this:
but the large majority of existing installed base is not buying games at the same rate that they were in the past.
...you're contradicting yourself. They're buying MORE games. There are more games out there too, so the reason per-game sales are down is that the sales are spread across more titles, not because "the number of worthwhile NEW titles is waning" as you say. If there were less titles and overall sales were up, per-title sales would be up too. The percentage of games that are good is irrelevant because the per-title average would be the same wether all the games were great or only some of them were. The only two pieces of information needed to compute the average are the overall sales and the total number of titles.
I work in recruiting and staffing and can say for a fact that NOBODY in an organization (this even goes for an entire group) is irreplaceable.
Of course it seems that way to you. They must all just be warm bodies, huh? Judging from the terminology you use you probably lump a top notch computer scientist and software designer in with the system administrators and programmers in that single "IT" category too. I'd hate to be a manager that had to hire engineers through your department.
Sure, technically you're correct. You can always replace the entire team, however irreplaceable has a different meaning in business context that in the dictionary. Irreplaceable means that you can't replace that person without unjustifiable costs. There are many engineering organizations that would be better off closing up shop than trying to start over if they lost a few specific people. For all practical purposes, those people are irreplacable.
If you treat all you employees as equal "human resources" you're potentially doing your company great harm. Unless your company is gigantic there's a good chance that there is somebody in your organization you would be much better off trying to keep around than treating as just another resource that can be replaced if he/she quits.
How many major game consoles were released in 2001? Two. How many in 2002? NONE! Perhaps sales were up in 2001 because everybody rushed out the get the latest and greatest and now that they've all got it there's nothing new out there to buy.
Similar reasoning for games. There are less titles out for new consoles, so when a console is new, per-title sales are high. That's why developers like to have their games be release titles along with a new console. As the number of games in the market goes up it only makes sense that per-title sales are down.
Look at the size of your Wavebird, and look at the size of the GBA [SP], and it should be clear why this isn't going to happen any time soon. The Wavebird's hardwave for communication is so large they didn't even put rumble into it, a standard GC controller function.
Most of the difference in space between my Wavebird and the regular controllers is taken up by two AA batteries. The place in the controller that held the "rumble" motors is empty. Open one up and take a look. My guess is that they left "rumble" out to save power, not because they lack space. I'm sure they could fit a transmitter inside something the size of the silly plastic semi-circle that is attached to the end of the GBA->GC link cable... Especially when you consider that they can fit an 802.11 interface in a CF card.
Besides, there's an equal chance that would get companies to leave the country instead of staying and hiring people. It also unfairly punishes sectors of the economy that have remained strong dispite the downturn.
Given the choice between giving money to the rich or the poor, you suggest giving it to the rich will help the economy more?
No, I think in today's environment giving it to the rich will help the economy more. If you asked me in a different economic climate I may give a different answer.
Your logic being that the poor would just spend the money on foreign goods while the rich will invest it.
However, what makes you think that the rich won't just invest it in foreign companies too? As fewer people in the lower income brackets have money to spend, less money is spent.
Given the current statistics (too many to quote here. Go read any financial publication) it is more likely today that a dollar will remain in the US when given to an investor than when given to a consumer. To stimulate the US economy the dollar has to stay in the US economy. It almost doesn't matter who has it.
Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.
He couldn't be more short sighted. His $800k will probably be given to an institutional investor who will put his money in a company (comapnies more accuratly) who will spend it on paychecks. His secretary will probably go to the store and buy things that were made in another country. Her $400 tax cut will have helped her, but not the economy. His $800k tax cut will not have helped him, but will definatly help the economy at least a little.
I still think the tax cut that passed was stupid; just for different reasons than you apparently.
Why is this important? Bush was elected president, not king. The difference seems to be lost on this administration.
It was important because he proposed a plan to stimulate the economy, and I think his plan had at least a chance of working. The latest tax bill doesn't implement his plan, and it's practically doomed to failure.
but you're right that a bunch of it is. American business owners (small and large alike) WILL MAKE MORE MONEY from increased spending from the working class
Unfortuantly given the tax cut that passed I don't think they're going to benefit enough to justify the cost.
Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.
Exactly. You're practically making my argument for me. If you want to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, you have to put the money where it will work best under the current conditions. These business owners don't want to take on the risk of loans in the current climate, but they'll probably spend the money from a tax cut. Judging by the recent statistics, they're at least more likely to keep that money in the US than the average US consumer these days. It almost doesn't matter who has the money, as long as it stays here. If we're going to take a $350 billion risk, I think we should be betting on the horse that's most likely to win.
The only other practical options I see are a tax cut for the least wealthy and a huge "Buy American" advertising campaing, or just sitting on the cash and hoping things work out on their own...
Yeah, cut taxes for the rich and they will spend it on American jobs and improvements. Sure they will.
Do you live in the US? If you do, and you're employed, take a look at who writes your paycheck. It's probably some rich American guy. Which would you prefer, a few extra dollars a week, or no fear of being laid off soon? The types of jobs that can be farmed out of the country are a small percentage of the overall job market here, and tax cuts can be made to favor those types of businesses. How about a payroll tax cut for manufacuring companies? Sure, it would be considered a tax cut for "the rich", but you'll never convince me that the extra money wouldn't be used to hire more workers in this country. My family owns a manufacturing business, and I know for a fact that if their payroll taxes were cut every penny would be spent on additional local labor. Even if it wasn't all used for that, it's likely that a higher percentage of it would be spent here than if the same amount of money were given to cash strapped consumers who are vertually guaranteed to by inexpensive foriegn goods...
If you want to stimulate the economy with a tax cut for low income individuals, you have to give them some incentive to keep the money in the country. If you can find a way to do that then I'm all for whatever kind of tax cut you want. Otherwise, if you want to give government money to people who are unemployed you may as well start some "New Deal" style government work programs. Being wishy-washy won't get us anywhere though. It'll just give people on both sides of the issue ammo for the debate about who's economic policy sucks more.
They'll pocket it is pure profit snip Now, providing relief for the people who are actually spending money and driving the economy, THAT makes some sort of sense.
What do you think rich people do with their money, put it under the mattress in small non-sequencial bills? Of course not, they invest it. They're also more likely to invest it in US interests than your average wallmart shopper is to spend it on goods produced in the US. Think about it this way: When you cut taxes by $350 billion you can either give everybody and extra $5 a week, give people that make less than the median income level an extra $10 a week, or you can try and give some unemployed people a steady paycheck. Since we have a MASSIVE trade deficit, consumer spending is *not* driving our economy as you say it is. It's driving the economy of Asia and Mexico. Even at minimum wage ~$5-10 a week is statistical noise compared to the cost of living. It's not going to improve anybodies confidence. Worst of all, it's going to put $0 in the pockets of the people who need it the most: the people without jobs who aren't paying any taxes that can be cut.
I would agree with you completely if a tax cut for the lower income groups were combined with some way of getting people in the US to spend the money on things from the US, but a big "Buy American" campaign right now would just piss the rest of the world off towards us more than they already are. If we're not going to keep the money in the US (the only place it'll stimulate the US economy from) than we shouldn't cut taxes at all.
I just can't get over the stupidity of this administration. Bush gives a huge tax cut, most of which goes to very rich people
The people who need the money the most are the people who are unemployed. When you are unemployed you have no income, and hence pay no taxes. The only way to help those people with a tax cut is to cut taxes of people who will either:
Spend the money by hiring more people
Invest the money so that somebody else can hire more people
If you're one of the 8% or so of people out there in the US with no job, that's the only kind of federal tax cut you should be looking for, because it's the only kind that's likely to have any chance of helping you.
Cutting taxes for people with low income won't help the unemployed people because the money will be spent on retail items that will probably come from China given our current trade deficit, so while such a tax cut might help those low income people, it won't help the economy or the unemployed.
All that said, I think this most recent tax cut is stupid. It's not the tax cut Bush asked for, and because it was renegotiated to go more to the lower end of the income scale it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.
Slashdot Mirror
"We can't seem to sell any games, and we need to generate some PR. Lets tell people that the Gamecube is a piece of shit. That will stir up some noise and make people notice us. It's even better than trying to disrupt tennis tournaments! Yay!"
Note to Acclaim: You're not making any money on your cube titles because they SUCK ASS compared to the other games available on the platform. GO OUT OF BUSINESS ALREADY!
I wouldn't be upset if Epinions disapeared. In fact I would be overjoyed. My experience has been that the site sucks, most new things have a listing and no reviews, and the only advocates of the site are people who write the reviews.
Maybe one out of a hundred things I search for reviews on has a useful epinions page. If only google would have a way to include '-epinions' in every search by default, I wouldn't waste so much time loading what seems like a good page from the search results but turns out to be yet another useless epinions listing with no reviews attached.
For a review site to be useful they need to have access to the things they're reviewing before they go on sale so the review is available when the product comes out, or at least shortly afterward. Epinions only seems to have reviews available for things that have become common. If something has become common enough to have a epinions listing I've probably already seen one and don't need a review. Reviews about new, unseen products are the useful ones. That makes the entire Epinions concept flawed.
Yes, well as long as they think I should think their game is worth more to me than all the other games on the rack, including all the ones that are better than their Star Wars games, they can scratch me off their list of potential buyers.
Why does LucasArts feel that if it says Star Wars on it it's worth 10-20% more than other similar things?
DigiKey sells the individual cells that make up the battery packs in all APC UPSes. You should check it out if you ever need cheap exact replacements of APC UPS batteries.
hmm I don't know how much the PS2 network adapter costs, but that doesn't sound right to me unless you're talking about the 'greatest hits' games and the adapter runs $20-30 or less.
$29.99 and came with the game...
Actually I drive a Cadillac and it doesn't have GPS (It's old). I picked up a GPS reciever (bare PCB) on eBay for $28. GPS is cheaper than 802.11. Way more reliable on the highway too. If you thought GPS was out of your price range, check it out. Search for "superstar GPS" to see the one I picked up. It's tiny and I have no trouble placing it out of sight in my car. The only seller I've seen with them provides excelent instructions and diagrams for hooking it up to a PC.
it just bothers me a bit that my XBox is sitting there with a DVD decoder I've been told (and shown) is better than the PS2 decoder, but I can't use it without spending US$30.
I was at Sears yesterday, and they had an Apex DVD player for $39 after rebate. It came with a remote. If Apex can sell the whole damned player and remote for $39, why can't Microsoft sell their remote for less?
I think I'd rather have the Apex DVD player and the Xbox than the Xbox and the remote. At least that way if the Xbox or the DVD player broke I wouldn't be out both. Hardly seems like there's any "Bonus" involved in buying an Xbox. I won't even get into the XBox live kit costing more than the PS2 network adapter plus a game...
I can think of many uses for internet access while driving, even if only for a few seconds at a time.. You could have real time traffic updates superimposed on real time updated maps. You could correlate available local radio stations to your current position based on GPS. You could record logs of your trips without ever needing to go home and offload the data. You could pull updates that require lots of computing power from a remote machine so you don't need a power/fan hungry PC in your car. You could check your e-mail and stocks on trips (while you're parked) without a slow-ass celluar bottleneck.
To do any of that stuff you need some kind of network detection software.
If I were to wardrive, it wouldn't be for the thrill of detecting somebodies network, to cause somebody harm, or to map wireless access points and mark them with chalk; it would be to make oppotunistic use of momentary network access to use self-made services I listed above.
GUI wardriving software is stupid in my opinion. The software needs to be transparent. The user shouldn't be interfacing with the software at all. Give me a CLI for my scripts and go away.
That depends on who "we" is.
Did you go to business school or something? Overall sales are up. That means when you say this:
but the large majority of existing installed base is not buying games at the same rate that they were in the past.
I work in recruiting and staffing and can say for a fact that NOBODY in an organization (this even goes for an entire group) is irreplaceable.
Of course it seems that way to you. They must all just be warm bodies, huh? Judging from the terminology you use you probably lump a top notch computer scientist and software designer in with the system administrators and programmers in that single "IT" category too. I'd hate to be a manager that had to hire engineers through your department.
Sure, technically you're correct. You can always replace the entire team, however irreplaceable has a different meaning in business context that in the dictionary. Irreplaceable means that you can't replace that person without unjustifiable costs. There are many engineering organizations that would be better off closing up shop than trying to start over if they lost a few specific people. For all practical purposes, those people are irreplacable.
If you treat all you employees as equal "human resources" you're potentially doing your company great harm. Unless your company is gigantic there's a good chance that there is somebody in your organization you would be much better off trying to keep around than treating as just another resource that can be replaced if he/she quits.
Did you read the article? It says exactly the opposite of what you said. Console sales are slowing, and software sales are up.
How many major game consoles were released in 2001? Two. How many in 2002? NONE! Perhaps sales were up in 2001 because everybody rushed out the get the latest and greatest and now that they've all got it there's nothing new out there to buy.
Similar reasoning for games. There are less titles out for new consoles, so when a console is new, per-title sales are high. That's why developers like to have their games be release titles along with a new console. As the number of games in the market goes up it only makes sense that per-title sales are down.
Websters 1913:
Barratry:
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.]
What did you look up?
Look at the size of your Wavebird, and look at the size of the GBA [SP], and it should be clear why this isn't going to happen any time soon. The Wavebird's hardwave for communication is so large they didn't even put rumble into it, a standard GC controller function.
Most of the difference in space between my Wavebird and the regular controllers is taken up by two AA batteries. The place in the controller that held the "rumble" motors is empty. Open one up and take a look. My guess is that they left "rumble" out to save power, not because they lack space. I'm sure they could fit a transmitter inside something the size of the silly plastic semi-circle that is attached to the end of the GBA->GC link cable... Especially when you consider that they can fit an 802.11 interface in a CF card.
HAH! Good luck getting that passed.
Besides, there's an equal chance that would get companies to leave the country instead of staying and hiring people. It also unfairly punishes sectors of the economy that have remained strong dispite the downturn.
Given the choice between giving money to the rich or the poor, you suggest giving it to the rich will help the economy more?
No, I think in today's environment giving it to the rich will help the economy more. If you asked me in a different economic climate I may give a different answer.
Your logic being that the poor would just spend the money on foreign goods while the rich will invest it.
However, what makes you think that the rich won't just invest it in foreign companies too? As fewer people in the lower income brackets have money to spend, less money is spent.
Given the current statistics (too many to quote here. Go read any financial publication) it is more likely today that a dollar will remain in the US when given to an investor than when given to a consumer. To stimulate the US economy the dollar has to stay in the US economy. It almost doesn't matter who has it.
I couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.
He couldn't be more short sighted. His $800k will probably be given to an institutional investor who will put his money in a company (comapnies more accuratly) who will spend it on paychecks. His secretary will probably go to the store and buy things that were made in another country. Her $400 tax cut will have helped her, but not the economy. His $800k tax cut will not have helped him, but will definatly help the economy at least a little.
I still think the tax cut that passed was stupid; just for different reasons than you apparently.
Why is this important? Bush was elected president, not king. The difference seems to be lost on this administration.
It was important because he proposed a plan to stimulate the economy, and I think his plan had at least a chance of working. The latest tax bill doesn't implement his plan, and it's practically doomed to failure.
but you're right that a bunch of it is. American business owners (small and large alike) WILL MAKE MORE MONEY from increased spending from the working class
Unfortuantly given the tax cut that passed I don't think they're going to benefit enough to justify the cost.
Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.
Exactly. You're practically making my argument for me. If you want to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, you have to put the money where it will work best under the current conditions. These business owners don't want to take on the risk of loans in the current climate, but they'll probably spend the money from a tax cut. Judging by the recent statistics, they're at least more likely to keep that money in the US than the average US consumer these days. It almost doesn't matter who has the money, as long as it stays here. If we're going to take a $350 billion risk, I think we should be betting on the horse that's most likely to win.
The only other practical options I see are a tax cut for the least wealthy and a huge "Buy American" advertising campaing, or just sitting on the cash and hoping things work out on their own...
Yeah, cut taxes for the rich and they will spend it on American jobs and improvements. Sure they will.
Do you live in the US? If you do, and you're employed, take a look at who writes your paycheck. It's probably some rich American guy. Which would you prefer, a few extra dollars a week, or no fear of being laid off soon? The types of jobs that can be farmed out of the country are a small percentage of the overall job market here, and tax cuts can be made to favor those types of businesses. How about a payroll tax cut for manufacuring companies? Sure, it would be considered a tax cut for "the rich", but you'll never convince me that the extra money wouldn't be used to hire more workers in this country. My family owns a manufacturing business, and I know for a fact that if their payroll taxes were cut every penny would be spent on additional local labor. Even if it wasn't all used for that, it's likely that a higher percentage of it would be spent here than if the same amount of money were given to cash strapped consumers who are vertually guaranteed to by inexpensive foriegn goods...
If you want to stimulate the economy with a tax cut for low income individuals, you have to give them some incentive to keep the money in the country. If you can find a way to do that then I'm all for whatever kind of tax cut you want. Otherwise, if you want to give government money to people who are unemployed you may as well start some "New Deal" style government work programs. Being wishy-washy won't get us anywhere though. It'll just give people on both sides of the issue ammo for the debate about who's economic policy sucks more.
They'll pocket it is pure profit snip Now, providing relief for the people who are actually spending money and driving the economy, THAT makes some sort of sense.
What do you think rich people do with their money, put it under the mattress in small non-sequencial bills? Of course not, they invest it. They're also more likely to invest it in US interests than your average wallmart shopper is to spend it on goods produced in the US. Think about it this way: When you cut taxes by $350 billion you can either give everybody and extra $5 a week, give people that make less than the median income level an extra $10 a week, or you can try and give some unemployed people a steady paycheck. Since we have a MASSIVE trade deficit, consumer spending is *not* driving our economy as you say it is. It's driving the economy of Asia and Mexico. Even at minimum wage ~$5-10 a week is statistical noise compared to the cost of living. It's not going to improve anybodies confidence. Worst of all, it's going to put $0 in the pockets of the people who need it the most: the people without jobs who aren't paying any taxes that can be cut.
I would agree with you completely if a tax cut for the lower income groups were combined with some way of getting people in the US to spend the money on things from the US, but a big "Buy American" campaign right now would just piss the rest of the world off towards us more than they already are. If we're not going to keep the money in the US (the only place it'll stimulate the US economy from) than we shouldn't cut taxes at all.
it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.
Yes, I meant billion... Oops..
The people who need the money the most are the people who are unemployed. When you are unemployed you have no income, and hence pay no taxes. The only way to help those people with a tax cut is to cut taxes of people who will either:
If you're one of the 8% or so of people out there in the US with no job, that's the only kind of federal tax cut you should be looking for, because it's the only kind that's likely to have any chance of helping you.
Cutting taxes for people with low income won't help the unemployed people because the money will be spent on retail items that will probably come from China given our current trade deficit, so while such a tax cut might help those low income people, it won't help the economy or the unemployed.
All that said, I think this most recent tax cut is stupid. It's not the tax cut Bush asked for, and because it was renegotiated to go more to the lower end of the income scale it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.