You're posing your opinion as the gospel of all families.
I have a family myself. There is no one right answer.
My only point was originally that there ARE in fact a large number of people that DO like what the PS2 offered, and would like more products along that line.
You insist I am wrong because that isn't the case for families...I'm sorry, but come on now.
Oh don't get me wrong, I never suggested that what we want or even need is what MS and Sony are proporting to stuff down our throats. I suggested that there is indeed a market for convergeance devices, but within the realm of reality. Tripling the price of a console, and stating it's because 'I' want these bloody useless crippled unavailable technologies at my fingertips, screw that.
My point is really that MS and Sony are falling COMPLETELY out of step with the desires of the consumer. How? Who knows. The PS2 is arguably one of the best consumer entertainment products EVER. It's price rocks, it's stability is awesome, it's usefulness is extraordinary. I have NEVER gotten so much use out of a $350 piece of tech, NEVER. XBbox didn't even come CLOSE to the ROI of the PS2 from the PoV of the consumer.
Why Sony is taking a big shit on that, I'll never know. MS I get, because they never 'got' it in the first place, so it's not like they're making a fresh new blunder here and about to destroy something that was very good...they're just plodding along with mediocrity that works for them as their marketting force does an awesome job of generating fanboy mentality. Sony on the other hand WILL cease to exist, in a single generation, if they don't figure this out real quick like. There is simply NO CHANCE IN HELL that I will pay anywhere NEAR what Sony is proposing on charging for the PS3. Why would I when I could just buy a bleeding edge PC, that I can UPGRADE at my whim, for about the same cost? It would be a very stupid thing to do. They are about to price themselves right out of the console market. A console is not competition for a PC, a PC will slaughter a console any day of the week if they're on a similar price footing.
Sony's being braindead, shockingly so, in so many ways.
Man, they gave themselves a WHOLE EXTRA YEAR to get it right, and instead are GIVING this round to MS, and creating a RIPE opportunity for Nintendo to steal a HUGE amount of market share from both MS and Sony. (This is conjecture, but I would suspect that most consumers that were loyal PS fans, but decide not to go with a PS3, but DO go with a next gen console, will be WAY more likely to go with Nintendo than MS)
When I was discussing available market segments in relation to Nintendo, I was talking the changes in the market since NES. There may not be a larger market this year than last year (don't agree on this even but...), however the market has grown MASSIVELY since the days of NES.
As for current market growth, it's still growing. People that never have bought a console, and never will, die every day. Children that will become gamers are born every day. The market is absolutely still growing. It's slowed a lot from the glory days, but it is certainly still growing. The gaming market will be in a transitional period for a good 30 more years anyways.
I'm about at the end of my rope with Sony, this time around they appear to be about to take SERIOUS advantage of my loyalty, which I will not stand for.
In the past though, I've stuck with Sony because my game library is MUCH bigger than it would have been since I can (and do) still play PS1 games, AS WELL as use it as my dvd player and cd player. I didn't always use it for this, but in the time I've owned my PS2, I've had a 6 disc dvd player die, a high quality pure dvd player die, and my old trusty cd player die.
It wasn't a hard choice to NOT go out and spend a few hundred dollars a few times over the past number of years. As a consumer, I've been tickled pink with my ROI on my PS2.
I'm about to get raped though, and I won't stand for it. No bloody way. The Sony-BMG corporate culture appears to be leaking into the rest of Sony and poisoning the entire company from the inside out. I already cut off Sony-BMG COMPLETELY a number of years ago now for their frankly disgusting business practices, I will do the same with Sony if they continue in this direction.
Brand loyalty is stupid if it stops working in both directions. As soon as your loyalty starts to be taken for granted, move on, because anything else will only result in reinforcing a companies bad behavior.
This is why Nintendo is just as strong and innovative as they always have been. They understand the loyalty of their customers, and wouldn't DARE piss in their face just to make a few extra bucks.
Not to be rude, but so what? Should Nintendo take a loss so they can sell you a console that is only 1/4 of your salary? or is that too high...how about 1/10th?
What other consoles do you have? Or is this kind of stuff simply overly expensive in Poland? You do know that you don't have to buy one right?
Or, to look at it another way that may make more sense: What percentage of your salary would a new car be? (Something modest and reasonable) Oh, you can't afford it on this pay? Well, it must be too expensive then.
I expect to pay more than my weekly salary on certain things, especially things that are high tech and will get used a HUGE amount over a number of years. It's nice to think the world would be great if EVERYTHING was affordable on this weeks salary, but I really hope you don't have your hopes up!
That's pointless, even if Nintendo RAISES their launch price to lets say $250USD, 50 more than they every have before, they're still blowing the competition OUT OF THE WATER on price, what kind of message would selling themselves short send? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Nintendo has very sound, and more importantly, PROVEN business practices in the gaming industry. Why would they screw with what works? The only real reason Nintendo has lost some ground is that there is now so much more ground out there, and there are 3 MAJOR other competitors out there these days: xbox, playstation, and PC.
Nintendo will continue to relegate all major changes and innovation to their actual products, not to their business practices. Just as it has always been with Nintendo, and as long as they are viable, will likely continue to be.
The real work used to be in taking a lovely 3D model that an artist created, and then dumping insane amounts of time into whittling that model down so that a) it could actually be used in the game while b) still resembling the artists original model to some extent.
As we get better and better hardware, less and less of this work is required.
Further, as the industry matures, more and more STOCK textures/models/effects etc are available. There is no REQUIREMENT to spend 10x the money to generate 10x the textures/models/pixels whatever...some do, some don't.
Again, I must pull in the movie industry for reference. The game industry is maturing into a similar structure as the VERY mature movie industry. Games are not some unknown amigma. Games are Pure And Simple, business. THAT is the truth here. Games are created to generate REVENUE. Games that spend too much simply to be technically best, fail, just like movies. People are discussing this like games are some mysterious entity that are on a cost curve that is going to continue to go up exponentially as a REQUIREMENT for them to even continue to exist.
All you're doing is giving Sony et al the ammo they need to continue to spread this kind of FUD so that they can bleed your wallet dry, it has NOTHING to do with any particular game whatsoever.
Games are NOT SPECIAL.
There is absolutely NO good reason why used games should be treated ANY differently than ANY other product out there...DESPITE Sony's attempts to persuade us otherwise, OR a large number of people out there that quite obviously simply can not think for themselves.
Games are already way WAY too bloody expensive...well, the ones the big boys are selling anyways, and very VERY rarely are then actually very good, let alone any better than some of the best games of old.
Certainly it's fair to factor in Actual Costs, but to generalize is just stupid and ignorant.
It is one HELL of a lot cheaper to license a game engine than to create one.
How many ~$80 bleeding edge games came out last year? And how many other rehashes, small time, middle budget, repackages, web/bargain/whatever games came out last year?
Stupid f'ing argument going on here.
Look, how much do movies cost to make? The answer? It depends. Even if limiting this discussion to movies released to major theatres, we're talking anywhere from ~1/2 million up to ~1/2 billion dollars.
And yet, how much does it cost to see a movie? Right, they all cost the same amount to see.
Which movies are the best? Well, not necessarily tied to their cost to produce is it? Which movies make the most money? Right, that's not necessarily tied to the cost of production either.
Stupid black and white arguments in a world made up of shades of gray.
a) I claim to be an insider? Where? News to me...but anyways
b) I actually DO have insider info on this subject (Not that this is the first I have mentioned or insinuated or even hinted at this point). You know where a lot of the inflated costs of game development are going? Business analysts, publishers, big swinging dicks...the industry is simply maturing like every other entertainment industry out there...and with that comes both sides of that coin, good and bad.
But trying to make us feel bad that an Entertainment Company would like MORE money simply because games cost more now? You fail to mention how many more games are sold now. You also focus entirely on top games....a TINY market segment...you're a business analyst in the industry right? You damned well should know this then. What was the biggest grossing game last year? Now what percentage of the entire gross game sales and income for last year was that? Care to start over again, skipping the FUD this time?
Interesting, this would imply that it is actually either a) illegal for minors to use windows or b) illegal for MS to require licensing contracts of minors to use their products.
You've got a very very brief amount of time I'm willing to give you to provide cites for these numbers you're pulling out of your ass. Never mind the variables involved.
Now, lets for the sake of argument assume you're right anyways. (You're not even close, but hey) You're still completely and totally wrong.
How long did it take to make that NES game? What was the turn around? What was the sale price? What was the profit margin?
Here's a clue you fool: Profits are up. WAY up.
Now to take this in another direction, pretend we're talking movies here. Where'd your argument go? Right.
You don't happen to work for a game company do you?
Wow, you're an idiot...you don't retain context very well do you?
You can't reply to a quote without understanding the context from which the quote originally came...and yet you keep replying to quotes, but as if they have originated in the context in which they were quoted.
Further, I did not tell you specifically to fuck off. If you look again, and read it properly, you will see that that was entirely generic and directed at people that insist upon regurgitating the record companies excuses for the requirements of DRM...specifically that it's simply too easy to make exact copies of music now. You took that very personally, maybe rightly so...but from there, wow man.
Anyways enough of this crap, you just don't get it at all.
That's fine, as long as you realize you're using a hack...you are absolutely NOT using the 'correct' tool for the job here.
It may work, and it may be done a lot, but there are actual tools for doing this sort of thing.
Part of the problem though is that a lot of people believe that every tool available for use on a computer is to be found in MS Office, somewhere. It's not.
To prove this, here's a thought excercise for you: Given the raw data you're crunching in excel briefly...describe how you would come to the same end result WITHOUT A COMPUTER. Would you pull out a ledger? Didn't think so. It's the wrong tool for the job.
Now, what people should keep in mind though, is it isn't _always_ wrong to use the wrong tool for the job. Sometimes the wrong tool works good enough or the right tool is too expensive or complicated or limited in it's availability for use. It's just usually wise to know when this is the case however and not start believing you are using the 'right' tool when you aren't.
The problem is, MS knows this very VERY well. Thus, MS Office products are chock full of every conceivable 'feature', hoping that you'll find a way to do what you need to do somewhere in there without going to someone elses software...damned if it's the right tool or not.
If you're on a construction site and you always use your crowbar to drive nails, expect to get fired. It might work in a pinch, but it is deffinately NOT the right tool for the job.
Any sort of analyst plotting a million data points knows the right too for the job, and here's a hint: It's NOT a spreadsheet.
Where the FUCK did I make any such blanket assumption? Where did I accuse you of doing anything illegal?
I was blunt, perhaps an ass, but nowhere did I do such a thing as you now DIRECTLY accuse me of.
You just accused me of doing something to you, by doing the exact same thing you accuse me of to me.
'People such as myself'. What people? Such as what? You generalize about me while knowing absolutely nothing about me, and then proceed to call ME A HYPOCRIT?
Now this one is personal, and just for you, ready?
FUCK YOU RED FLAYER.
But notice how I STILL have not done anything such as call you a liar, thief, hypocrit, or anything else of the sort.
I'll have you know just to set the record straight that I damned well practice what I preach. I own ONE SINGLE DRM'D CD. The FIRST AND ONLY CD I BOUGHT THAT WAS CRIPPLED. I was some pissed when I tried to rip it to ogg when I got home. And before you pick up and run with this ball, no, I DO NOT BUY DRM'D MUSIC ONLINE, and I also DO NOT STEAL MUSIC ONLINE. I abide by the record companies wishes, by NOT BUYING ANYTHING FROM THEM OR LISTENING TO ANYTHING THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL!
I was already being sarcastic, and a bit facetious to boot, so I'm not too surprised that some of that was taken wrong. For the most part, your points are good. I wasn't really suggesting things are so bad, I was being extremist, but so are you in your response.
Anyways, I have to set one part straight though. I was not implying that the artists are greedy bastards sucking up all of these extra fees. I was stating in a tongue in cheek way that I might actually not mind the fees so much if that money was actually going TO the artist, and not into some 3rd party schmucks wallet that did absolutely fuck all to facilitate either my seing said artist live, or having any part whatsoever with 'creating' said artist.
IE: When I'm paying almost 50% again on a god damned ticket, and all of that PLUS further kickbacks of the actual ticket price go into lining these peoples pockets...I take some pretty serious offence. It's a racket, plain and simple. And it disgusts me. The last time I actually paid TicketMaster's prices to see a big show I simply could not enjoy the show because of how much I'd been shafted for the simple priviledge of buying a ticket.
Heck, if tickets for shows cost twice as much as they do now, but I knew that every single penny of that was going ONLY to people directly involved in presenting that show, I'd be happy paying it. But charging me more and more and more for what? No thanks, I'm done being used.
As a brief aside: I live near Toronto, Canada. I make a reasonable middle class living, as did my parents when I was growing up. I've never been to a leafs game. It's too expensive. Even when they suck, it's too expensive. ~50 (give or take) oppurtunities EVERY SINGLE YEAR to see them at home, and it's simply too expensive.
Just because some people are willing to live in a cardboard box so they can afford season hockey tickets does not mean that tickets to things like this are reasonably priced.
Wow, so innovation is convenience, which costs more...interesting.
Aside from that horrible chain of arguments there, I did not state that convenience CAN'T cost more, but the idea that they are intrinsically linked is a fallacy.
Sometimes, convenience is expensive. Sometimes, convenience is dirt cheap. Sometimes we pay through the ass for convenience that is dirt cheap to provide. THAT is my point.
TicketMaster saves a STUPID amount of money by providing this 'convenience', but instead of passing those savings on to the consumer, they charge MORE. If they didn't have a monopoly, who in their right mind would pay an extra fee to print off tickets on your own printer that don't mean a damned thing anyways? Given an open competitive market, this would never fly. Can your local small venue get away with levying the kinds of charges and fees that TicketMaster does? Not a chance, as there's actually reasonable competition at that level. TicketMaster has no competition, none, and we get screwed for it. Remember when TicketMaster was in every little record shop in town and that was how you got your tickets? Yeah, they were expensive then too...but now...wow. They have a license to print money, and what kind of costs do you think they have? One hell of a lot less than they were 15 years ago, that's for damned sure. Except 15 years ago, when I was a poor teenager, it was pretty much still reasonable to pay to see a top act. You can't say that anymore. Even though we might pay these prices to see some shows, can you really say it's worth it?
[blockquote] Me: You can't compare copying audicassettes to copying digital files, because digital files are lossless. [/blockquote]
Now some context: The discussion is not about the quality of copies made of various types of media, it is about DRM and it's validity. Given the true context of this thread, and not the context you have tried to suddenly shove this little discussion into, I damned well CAN AND WILL COMPARE copying of cassettes and newer media, because as far as the reasons for why we're having DRM shoved down our throats, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE...except all of a sudden I am a thief, as are you, and everyone else out there.
So again, quit labelling me a thief if you don't mind.
See? You didn't even listen to my point, and rather, regurgitated your point yet again.
Why is copying music today different than it was 25 years ago?
The only difference is that now we are assumed to be guilty of theft from the outset, and you're enforcing that viewpoint.
That is why the FUCK YOU. I understand your point, but it is WRONG, and yet, supposedly smart educated people keep regurgitating it as FACT, when it is not.
You are directly undermining EVERYONE'S rights every time you propagate statements like that. I am NOT A CRIMINAL and I take SERIOUS OFFENCE TO BEING LABELLED ONE. You are indirectly labelling me, and everyone else as criminals when you repeat statements as seemingly inoccuous as what you stated above. The harsh wording was to get your attention. (You as in EVERYONE, don't take it personally...your point about the guilty overreacting may apply to yourself here) Now that you're listening, I kindly ask that you quit undermining my rights and aiding in labelling me and everyone else as criminals. That is what I take offence to.
You should take offence to that as well. At least, given the assumption that you indeed are not a criminal yourself.
Yes, BUT, as a consumer, if I want to go see a live act, I Want To Go See A Live Act...Dealing with the venue where they happen to be playing, and worse, dealing with some third party JUST TO GET A CHANCE at attending...this is NOT part of what I desire. It's a necessary evil though. The problem is, if I want to see this act, but TicketMaster is doing the tickets, I have NO CHOICE but to either not attend, or allow myself to be extorted by TicketMaster.
If I had a choice, if there was ANY sort of free market option available in this matter, I, as well as probably 100% of everyone else out there, would probably send a very loud and clear message to TicketMaster: YOUR SERVICES ARE NOT WORTH WHAT YOU TAKE FOR THEM. PERIOD.
Centralized ticketing SAVES companies like ticketmaster money, HOWEVER you imply that these 'features' are valid reasons for the huge surge in ticketing fees.
Convenience != increased cost as a rule. Why everyone insists it does is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
You're posing your opinion as the gospel of all families.
I have a family myself. There is no one right answer.
My only point was originally that there ARE in fact a large number of people that DO like what the PS2 offered, and would like more products along that line.
You insist I am wrong because that isn't the case for families...I'm sorry, but come on now.
Oh don't get me wrong, I never suggested that what we want or even need is what MS and Sony are proporting to stuff down our throats. I suggested that there is indeed a market for convergeance devices, but within the realm of reality. Tripling the price of a console, and stating it's because 'I' want these bloody useless crippled unavailable technologies at my fingertips, screw that.
My point is really that MS and Sony are falling COMPLETELY out of step with the desires of the consumer. How? Who knows. The PS2 is arguably one of the best consumer entertainment products EVER. It's price rocks, it's stability is awesome, it's usefulness is extraordinary. I have NEVER gotten so much use out of a $350 piece of tech, NEVER. XBbox didn't even come CLOSE to the ROI of the PS2 from the PoV of the consumer.
Why Sony is taking a big shit on that, I'll never know. MS I get, because they never 'got' it in the first place, so it's not like they're making a fresh new blunder here and about to destroy something that was very good...they're just plodding along with mediocrity that works for them as their marketting force does an awesome job of generating fanboy mentality. Sony on the other hand WILL cease to exist, in a single generation, if they don't figure this out real quick like. There is simply NO CHANCE IN HELL that I will pay anywhere NEAR what Sony is proposing on charging for the PS3. Why would I when I could just buy a bleeding edge PC, that I can UPGRADE at my whim, for about the same cost? It would be a very stupid thing to do. They are about to price themselves right out of the console market. A console is not competition for a PC, a PC will slaughter a console any day of the week if they're on a similar price footing.
Sony's being braindead, shockingly so, in so many ways.
Man, they gave themselves a WHOLE EXTRA YEAR to get it right, and instead are GIVING this round to MS, and creating a RIPE opportunity for Nintendo to steal a HUGE amount of market share from both MS and Sony. (This is conjecture, but I would suspect that most consumers that were loyal PS fans, but decide not to go with a PS3, but DO go with a next gen console, will be WAY more likely to go with Nintendo than MS)
Since when is a Media Centre 3 completely separate entities usable and viewable completely independantly by 3 different people at the same time?
Let's stick to reasonable expectations, that's just plain fucking stupid, and I have to suspect trolling as being your motive for posting that.
[sarcasm]Damned the PS3, it won't make me breakfast![/sarcasm]
When I was discussing available market segments in relation to Nintendo, I was talking the changes in the market since NES. There may not be a larger market this year than last year (don't agree on this even but...), however the market has grown MASSIVELY since the days of NES.
As for current market growth, it's still growing. People that never have bought a console, and never will, die every day. Children that will become gamers are born every day. The market is absolutely still growing. It's slowed a lot from the glory days, but it is certainly still growing. The gaming market will be in a transitional period for a good 30 more years anyways.
Actually, a lot of consumers do too.
I'm about at the end of my rope with Sony, this time around they appear to be about to take SERIOUS advantage of my loyalty, which I will not stand for.
In the past though, I've stuck with Sony because my game library is MUCH bigger than it would have been since I can (and do) still play PS1 games, AS WELL as use it as my dvd player and cd player. I didn't always use it for this, but in the time I've owned my PS2, I've had a 6 disc dvd player die, a high quality pure dvd player die, and my old trusty cd player die.
It wasn't a hard choice to NOT go out and spend a few hundred dollars a few times over the past number of years. As a consumer, I've been tickled pink with my ROI on my PS2.
I'm about to get raped though, and I won't stand for it. No bloody way. The Sony-BMG corporate culture appears to be leaking into the rest of Sony and poisoning the entire company from the inside out. I already cut off Sony-BMG COMPLETELY a number of years ago now for their frankly disgusting business practices, I will do the same with Sony if they continue in this direction.
Brand loyalty is stupid if it stops working in both directions. As soon as your loyalty starts to be taken for granted, move on, because anything else will only result in reinforcing a companies bad behavior.
This is why Nintendo is just as strong and innovative as they always have been. They understand the loyalty of their customers, and wouldn't DARE piss in their face just to make a few extra bucks.
Not to be rude, but so what? Should Nintendo take a loss so they can sell you a console that is only 1/4 of your salary? or is that too high...how about 1/10th?
What other consoles do you have? Or is this kind of stuff simply overly expensive in Poland? You do know that you don't have to buy one right?
Or, to look at it another way that may make more sense: What percentage of your salary would a new car be? (Something modest and reasonable) Oh, you can't afford it on this pay? Well, it must be too expensive then.
I expect to pay more than my weekly salary on certain things, especially things that are high tech and will get used a HUGE amount over a number of years. It's nice to think the world would be great if EVERYTHING was affordable on this weeks salary, but I really hope you don't have your hopes up!
That's pointless, even if Nintendo RAISES their launch price to lets say $250USD, 50 more than they every have before, they're still blowing the competition OUT OF THE WATER on price, what kind of message would selling themselves short send? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Nintendo has very sound, and more importantly, PROVEN business practices in the gaming industry. Why would they screw with what works? The only real reason Nintendo has lost some ground is that there is now so much more ground out there, and there are 3 MAJOR other competitors out there these days: xbox, playstation, and PC.
Nintendo will continue to relegate all major changes and innovation to their actual products, not to their business practices. Just as it has always been with Nintendo, and as long as they are viable, will likely continue to be.
FUD, fud Fud FUD. Sheesh.
The real work used to be in taking a lovely 3D model that an artist created, and then dumping insane amounts of time into whittling that model down so that a) it could actually be used in the game while b) still resembling the artists original model to some extent.
As we get better and better hardware, less and less of this work is required.
Further, as the industry matures, more and more STOCK textures/models/effects etc are available. There is no REQUIREMENT to spend 10x the money to generate 10x the textures/models/pixels whatever...some do, some don't.
Again, I must pull in the movie industry for reference. The game industry is maturing into a similar structure as the VERY mature movie industry. Games are not some unknown amigma. Games are Pure And Simple, business. THAT is the truth here. Games are created to generate REVENUE. Games that spend too much simply to be technically best, fail, just like movies. People are discussing this like games are some mysterious entity that are on a cost curve that is going to continue to go up exponentially as a REQUIREMENT for them to even continue to exist.
All you're doing is giving Sony et al the ammo they need to continue to spread this kind of FUD so that they can bleed your wallet dry, it has NOTHING to do with any particular game whatsoever.
Games are NOT SPECIAL.
There is absolutely NO good reason why used games should be treated ANY differently than ANY other product out there...DESPITE Sony's attempts to persuade us otherwise, OR a large number of people out there that quite obviously simply can not think for themselves.
Games are already way WAY too bloody expensive...well, the ones the big boys are selling anyways, and very VERY rarely are then actually very good, let alone any better than some of the best games of old.
Certainly it's fair to factor in Actual Costs, but to generalize is just stupid and ignorant.
It is one HELL of a lot cheaper to license a game engine than to create one.
How many ~$80 bleeding edge games came out last year?
And how many other rehashes, small time, middle budget, repackages, web/bargain/whatever games came out last year?
Stupid f'ing argument going on here.
Look, how much do movies cost to make? The answer? It depends. Even if limiting this discussion to movies released to major theatres, we're talking anywhere from ~1/2 million up to ~1/2 billion dollars.
And yet, how much does it cost to see a movie? Right, they all cost the same amount to see.
Which movies are the best? Well, not necessarily tied to their cost to produce is it? Which movies make the most money? Right, that's not necessarily tied to the cost of production either.
Stupid black and white arguments in a world made up of shades of gray.
And further:
a) I claim to be an insider? Where? News to me...but anyways
b) I actually DO have insider info on this subject (Not that this is the first I have mentioned or insinuated or even hinted at this point). You know where a lot of the inflated costs of game development are going? Business analysts, publishers, big swinging dicks...the industry is simply maturing like every other entertainment industry out there...and with that comes both sides of that coin, good and bad.
But trying to make us feel bad that an Entertainment Company would like MORE money simply because games cost more now? You fail to mention how many more games are sold now. You also focus entirely on top games....a TINY market segment...you're a business analyst in the industry right? You damned well should know this then. What was the biggest grossing game last year? Now what percentage of the entire gross game sales and income for last year was that? Care to start over again, skipping the FUD this time?
Fucking jackass.
Yep, all games, every single one, and increased costs are not related to a maturing market, inflation, or anything else whatsoever.
Jackass yourself fuckwit.
Interesting, this would imply that it is actually either a) illegal for minors to use windows or b) illegal for MS to require licensing contracts of minors to use their products.
Anyone able to shed some light on this?
You've got a very very brief amount of time I'm willing to give you to provide cites for these numbers you're pulling out of your ass. Never mind the variables involved.
Now, lets for the sake of argument assume you're right anyways. (You're not even close, but hey) You're still completely and totally wrong.
How long did it take to make that NES game? What was the turn around? What was the sale price? What was the profit margin?
Here's a clue you fool: Profits are up. WAY up.
Now to take this in another direction, pretend we're talking movies here. Where'd your argument go? Right.
You don't happen to work for a game company do you?
If you find yourself at the brink of the end of the world, and all you have is a crowbar, well, I won't tell your boss :)
Wow, you're an idiot...you don't retain context very well do you?
You can't reply to a quote without understanding the context from which the quote originally came...and yet you keep replying to quotes, but as if they have originated in the context in which they were quoted.
Further, I did not tell you specifically to fuck off. If you look again, and read it properly, you will see that that was entirely generic and directed at people that insist upon regurgitating the record companies excuses for the requirements of DRM...specifically that it's simply too easy to make exact copies of music now. You took that very personally, maybe rightly so...but from there, wow man.
Anyways enough of this crap, you just don't get it at all.
That's fine, as long as you realize you're using a hack...you are absolutely NOT using the 'correct' tool for the job here.
It may work, and it may be done a lot, but there are actual tools for doing this sort of thing.
Part of the problem though is that a lot of people believe that every tool available for use on a computer is to be found in MS Office, somewhere. It's not.
To prove this, here's a thought excercise for you: Given the raw data you're crunching in excel briefly...describe how you would come to the same end result WITHOUT A COMPUTER. Would you pull out a ledger? Didn't think so. It's the wrong tool for the job.
Now, what people should keep in mind though, is it isn't _always_ wrong to use the wrong tool for the job. Sometimes the wrong tool works good enough or the right tool is too expensive or complicated or limited in it's availability for use. It's just usually wise to know when this is the case however and not start believing you are using the 'right' tool when you aren't.
The problem is, MS knows this very VERY well. Thus, MS Office products are chock full of every conceivable 'feature', hoping that you'll find a way to do what you need to do somewhere in there without going to someone elses software...damned if it's the right tool or not.
No, they aren't actually, making them potentially more problematic since there is a now proven likelihood that people will confuse the two.
Yes, probably. Right tool for the job.
If you're on a construction site and you always use your crowbar to drive nails, expect to get fired. It might work in a pinch, but it is deffinately NOT the right tool for the job.
Any sort of analyst plotting a million data points knows the right too for the job, and here's a hint: It's NOT a spreadsheet.
Where the FUCK did I make any such blanket assumption? Where did I accuse you of doing anything illegal?
I was blunt, perhaps an ass, but nowhere did I do such a thing as you now DIRECTLY accuse me of.
You just accused me of doing something to you, by doing the exact same thing you accuse me of to me.
'People such as myself'. What people? Such as what? You generalize about me while knowing absolutely nothing about me, and then proceed to call ME A HYPOCRIT?
Now this one is personal, and just for you, ready?
FUCK YOU RED FLAYER.
But notice how I STILL have not done anything such as call you a liar, thief, hypocrit, or anything else of the sort.
I'll have you know just to set the record straight that I damned well practice what I preach. I own ONE SINGLE DRM'D CD. The FIRST AND ONLY CD I BOUGHT THAT WAS CRIPPLED. I was some pissed when I tried to rip it to ogg when I got home. And before you pick up and run with this ball, no, I DO NOT BUY DRM'D MUSIC ONLINE, and I also DO NOT STEAL MUSIC ONLINE. I abide by the record companies wishes, by NOT BUYING ANYTHING FROM THEM OR LISTENING TO ANYTHING THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL!
So again, kindly fuck off already.
I was already being sarcastic, and a bit facetious to boot, so I'm not too surprised that some of that was taken wrong. For the most part, your points are good. I wasn't really suggesting things are so bad, I was being extremist, but so are you in your response.
Anyways, I have to set one part straight though. I was not implying that the artists are greedy bastards sucking up all of these extra fees. I was stating in a tongue in cheek way that I might actually not mind the fees so much if that money was actually going TO the artist, and not into some 3rd party schmucks wallet that did absolutely fuck all to facilitate either my seing said artist live, or having any part whatsoever with 'creating' said artist.
IE: When I'm paying almost 50% again on a god damned ticket, and all of that PLUS further kickbacks of the actual ticket price go into lining these peoples pockets...I take some pretty serious offence. It's a racket, plain and simple. And it disgusts me. The last time I actually paid TicketMaster's prices to see a big show I simply could not enjoy the show because of how much I'd been shafted for the simple priviledge of buying a ticket.
Heck, if tickets for shows cost twice as much as they do now, but I knew that every single penny of that was going ONLY to people directly involved in presenting that show, I'd be happy paying it. But charging me more and more and more for what? No thanks, I'm done being used.
As a brief aside: I live near Toronto, Canada. I make a reasonable middle class living, as did my parents when I was growing up. I've never been to a leafs game. It's too expensive. Even when they suck, it's too expensive. ~50 (give or take) oppurtunities EVERY SINGLE YEAR to see them at home, and it's simply too expensive.
Just because some people are willing to live in a cardboard box so they can afford season hockey tickets does not mean that tickets to things like this are reasonably priced.
Wow, so innovation is convenience, which costs more...interesting.
Aside from that horrible chain of arguments there, I did not state that convenience CAN'T cost more, but the idea that they are intrinsically linked is a fallacy.
Sometimes, convenience is expensive. Sometimes, convenience is dirt cheap. Sometimes we pay through the ass for convenience that is dirt cheap to provide. THAT is my point.
TicketMaster saves a STUPID amount of money by providing this 'convenience', but instead of passing those savings on to the consumer, they charge MORE. If they didn't have a monopoly, who in their right mind would pay an extra fee to print off tickets on your own printer that don't mean a damned thing anyways? Given an open competitive market, this would never fly. Can your local small venue get away with levying the kinds of charges and fees that TicketMaster does? Not a chance, as there's actually reasonable competition at that level. TicketMaster has no competition, none, and we get screwed for it. Remember when TicketMaster was in every little record shop in town and that was how you got your tickets? Yeah, they were expensive then too...but now...wow. They have a license to print money, and what kind of costs do you think they have? One hell of a lot less than they were 15 years ago, that's for damned sure. Except 15 years ago, when I was a poor teenager, it was pretty much still reasonable to pay to see a top act. You can't say that anymore. Even though we might pay these prices to see some shows, can you really say it's worth it?
To point:
(And I quote)
[blockquote]
Me: You can't compare copying audicassettes to copying digital files, because digital files are lossless.
[/blockquote]
Now some context: The discussion is not about the quality of copies made of various types of media, it is about DRM and it's validity. Given the true context of this thread, and not the context you have tried to suddenly shove this little discussion into, I damned well CAN AND WILL COMPARE copying of cassettes and newer media, because as far as the reasons for why we're having DRM shoved down our throats, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE...except all of a sudden I am a thief, as are you, and everyone else out there.
So again, quit labelling me a thief if you don't mind.
See? You didn't even listen to my point, and rather, regurgitated your point yet again.
Why is copying music today different than it was 25 years ago?
The only difference is that now we are assumed to be guilty of theft from the outset, and you're enforcing that viewpoint.
That is why the FUCK YOU. I understand your point, but it is WRONG, and yet, supposedly smart educated people keep regurgitating it as FACT, when it is not.
You are directly undermining EVERYONE'S rights every time you propagate statements like that. I am NOT A CRIMINAL and I take SERIOUS OFFENCE TO BEING LABELLED ONE. You are indirectly labelling me, and everyone else as criminals when you repeat statements as seemingly inoccuous as what you stated above. The harsh wording was to get your attention. (You as in EVERYONE, don't take it personally...your point about the guilty overreacting may apply to yourself here) Now that you're listening, I kindly ask that you quit undermining my rights and aiding in labelling me and everyone else as criminals. That is what I take offence to.
You should take offence to that as well. At least, given the assumption that you indeed are not a criminal yourself.
Yes, BUT, as a consumer, if I want to go see a live act, I Want To Go See A Live Act...Dealing with the venue where they happen to be playing, and worse, dealing with some third party JUST TO GET A CHANCE at attending...this is NOT part of what I desire. It's a necessary evil though. The problem is, if I want to see this act, but TicketMaster is doing the tickets, I have NO CHOICE but to either not attend, or allow myself to be extorted by TicketMaster.
If I had a choice, if there was ANY sort of free market option available in this matter, I, as well as probably 100% of everyone else out there, would probably send a very loud and clear message to TicketMaster: YOUR SERVICES ARE NOT WORTH WHAT YOU TAKE FOR THEM. PERIOD.
Centralized ticketing SAVES companies like ticketmaster money, HOWEVER you imply that these 'features' are valid reasons for the huge surge in ticketing fees.
Convenience != increased cost as a rule.
Why everyone insists it does is beyond me.