I'm a bit surprised plat farmers make money at all
DISCLAIMER: I don't play in MMORPG and haven't since The Island of Kesmai (and if you get that refference, say "hi":) )
My understanding is that the differences in real world economies is where this becomes a problem. If you can get cheap enough labor to sit there and farm things, and then give them a cut of the profits as their wages, then it can suddenly become a profitable buisness.
The very cheap labor available in the far east, combined with high-speed connectivity and ebay are what make farming profitable. (well... that and that people are willing to spend an amount of money THEY don't consider high, and that you consider fair value for the time you spent to accumulate it).
For the end-user the problem comes when you don't have the resources (either the time to play, or the money to buy), to compete with those buying farmed goods. If you were just competing with other spending lots of time, then there is little that can be done (hard-core players exist in all games), and the expectation is that there are:
1) only so many of those players
2) they play only so long before getting bored except that farming magnifies the impact, since everyone who buys farmed items acts as if their character has spent time in the game, additional to what it would take to procure that item.
This is where the casual gamers who spend less time, and are also less likely to spend 'real world' money on game things get clobered in the equation.
This can also artificially shorten the expected growth cycle of the average character since it allows a higher percentage of characters (especially once you factor out the farmers), to grow to higher levels with more 'stuff' so either the developers have to come out with new content faster, or people might get bored of the game faster (leaving aside the impact this has on the economy).
I'm curious about this (in part at least), because of the expectations on the new Apple Desktop. Currently the 'high end' desktop is the PowerMac G5 Quad (Two dual-core 2.5GHz PowerPC G5 processors).
The speculation is that Apple will want to keep that Quad line by putting in two Core 2 Duos. Therefore 4 cores for the desktop may be anounced as early as two weeks from now (and one would assume that once its released for Apple, it will filter into other Intel shops like Dell). There was also the speculation about AMDs new 4x4 systems. With 4 Chips, each Dual Core, that would put 8 chips on the desktop (hence probably Intel's wish to minimize the fact that they aren't about to anounce that).
I am just wondering at what point each system will start to hit the limitations of their CPU/Main Memory bandwidth.:) (and of course if AMD can keep up the preasure on Intel... and vice-versa)
This does two things, it keeps people from mucking with the PS3's internal hardware and its pretty much kills any possible demand for pirated PS3 games, or at least minimizes it.
It does one other thing: It removes a legal reason for Chip Modders to make chips. This may let them go after chip modders more aggresively, since they can claim that the only reason for a mod chip is to play pirated content.
I would disagree with 1 core being enough for most users.
It might theoretically be enough, but with pretty graphics (both OS X, and Vista), and virus/spyware scanning (MS OS/*) A second core offers a snappier GUI interaction to the end user. (Enough that the move from one to two cores was noticable using Windows XP).
I would agree with the rest of your statement though, however if the GPUs move back into the cores, or get streamlined so a GPU can be plugged into a Chip socket, then motherboards that can support 8 cores could happen relatively soon. If AMD makes a version of ATI's chip that can socket into a Chip slot, then a 2CPU, 2GPU (CrossFire enabled?) Motherboard, could also be sold to support 4CPUs for those tasks that need it.
I think this is an 'arms race' that is just starting to heat up the same way as last decades "MHz race".
Don't forget that with the exception of games, most (office) users didn't need the MHz bumps of the previous arms race (past a point). Of course once the hardware was there, and once certain other factors came into play (MS's lack of security, increase in spam, increase in spyware, etc.), the hardware was taken advantage of. I expect the same thign to happen this time also.
According to Intel's own internal testing, they had a very hard time using all of the bandwidth the current front side bus and memory offers, which means the main memory shouldn't be a bottleneck.
Was this testing done with one 'Core 2 Duo'? Two? Four?
My understanding is that the FSB bottleneck only really comes into play with multiple chips, and that AMDs solution (EV7 derived PTP connections between each Chip and the Memory, I think), was better when more chips were involved because each chip ends up with its own dedicated path to main memory instead of a shared bus.
As much as I agree with your sentiment, its been interesting to look at how I use FireFox (at home on Windows) as opposed to Safari (at work oddly enough).
At work I'll often leave windows up and if I find an interesting link, I'll pop it up in a tab and browse it later. I might not have a chance to bookmark it yet, since it might not be interesting enough that I'll come back to it, but I might want to read a technical article, or follow up on an idea.
At home, I don't tend to leave FF open longer than a day or so... of course I also shut down my windows machine at night more and more, especially since I'm not doing any dev work (and leaving my environment up and running). I've had Safari open for months now since the machine just drops to suspend when I'm not using it, and I am usually chasing one thing down on the web or another as part of my job.
I love Mozilla, (I even have it installed on the Mac in case I need an 'extra' clean browser to check something out in), but my next machine is probably going to be a Mac, and I'm looking forward to using Safari at home on a regular basis.
I think in this case, the question is 'big' relative to the 64MB card in an Xbox360.
If the games are 30MB each (pulling sizes out of my hat), then after getting one or two, I'd need another card. Good for people who have the money to spend on them, but for those who don't, or don't want to, it might make people not buy as much.
If I have a release in this size range, I might be put off on the Xbox Live, since my prospective audience might not have enough 'free space' to get the game/demo. That might be an incentive to develop for Sony's network, all else being equal (such as # of units sold, price to use the network, etc.).
Anyway bruce boxlunch had immense geek cred from Tron, so he was a natural choice:)
Yeah... I was just playing Kingdom Hearts 2 a few months ago and got a tremedous kick out of Tron making an appearence (and that Bruce voiced him). The odd thing was, I kept picturing Sheridan instead of Tron as the lines came up. It only made me break up in laughter.
Rangers... not so much. There was a lot of interesting things happening.
I think "The Legend of the Rangers" was his attempt to save the end of the story from "Crusade".
At the end of Cusade we learned that the virus was actually nano-machines. The Legend of the Rangers seems like those could very well be the evil entity that was behind the infection from "A Call to Arms"... of course Crusade got manhandled by TNTs executives to the point of killing it (and butchering it, and P!ssing on the corpse), but there are still some interesting things in it. The Legend of the Rangers just never had the chance to develop (I think). For what it was, it wasn't bad, but it is tough to take new characters in a very established universe, and pull of a (relatively) short storyline with them, that involves more developed characters, unless you have a very clear vision, good actors, and a fair amount of luck.
I think it was also trying to grab more 'casual' viewers as a possible pilot, which diluted what it could have been. (although admittedly I liked it anyway:) )
The problem with collecting descrete data (versus anonymous viewer data), is that the more exact you get, the more chance you have of truly blowing it (since anyone could be watching a given TV).
When you live in a household with three people, 1 Male, 2 Females, of various ages and interests, agregating based on the house MIGHT make sense. Agregating based on the show watched DEFINATELY makes sense.
If my wife watches All My Children and decides to FF through the commercials, it means they are meaningless to her. If I watch Eureka (on Sci-Fi), and decide to watch the Station ID spots because they are new and interesting, and that gets me to watch a commericial or two (because I'm in a good mood and the commericals mesh), the system can draw inferences about the ads for the show, but now about who is watching what...... at least until they put a camera on the TV... and that will be the end of anyone wanting one.
Yes, I can see where for AMD adding ATI's chipset over Nvidia's makes sense, especially if ATI's is less power hungry.
Interesting article, and definately in line with what we were both thinking. Suddenly it looks like Nvidia and Intel might have some competition on their hands.
Good point. I suppose since the role of Fed and States Judiciary is more to uphold the status quo then to accumulate a power base, they serve they help act as a brake on the moving too much in one direction or another (or so I hope:) )
On the other hand, the Executive and Legislative branches of the Fed seem to believe their role is to accumulate more power.
If this is really the way we want to go, then we should eliminate state government, replace it with regional governors to attend to regional issues, and stop pretending that states matter.
Hate to sound negative, but that has been the major push by most federal government for the past 50 years or so. A marked increase in Federal power and a decrease in States Rights.
Just out of curiousity, lets look at the current CPU offerings.
Intel came out with a truly Power-Hungry CPU. AMD came out with a cooler and better CPU. Intel came out with an even cooler CPU that out performed the AMD one. (Core Duo/Core 2 Duo) The ball is now in AMDs court.
In other words, the presure on Intel was that they had to compete in that area in order to be competitive.
Perhaps AMD, coming from their battle with Intel can help focus the ATI division on less power consumption/heat generation, and perhaps that is that AMD can help bring to the table.
If they even BEGIN to make inroads in this, while maintaining a competitive stance against Nvidia, it will force Nvidia to compete on this point also, which should move GPUs in a cooler direction:)
The ps2 will be a ten year system if they can still sell it for the next 5ish years. Which they probably can due to strong brand name appeal and the expense of the new system. (ps2's still outsell xbox360's week by week now).
Also add in the available library (wether you factor in backward compatibility or not).
I hadn't thought of it, but the PS3 coming out now makes more sense.
I don't think Sony expects to initially sell to anyone other than hard core gamers/fans. Once those units are sold, hopefully they will be able to drop the cost in 6-8 months for enthusiastic, but more cautious fans to start buying them. Lather-rinse-repeat and within a year or two the system is selling close to 300$. In 5 years the system is down to 200$ as a Pthree, as the PS4 comes out for launch. At that point (assuming it has managed to last), the Ptwo is retired, the library of games has been improved, and those who "must be on the bleeding edge" help pay for the next R&D cycle.
Seems somewhat similar to hard-core gamers on the PC buying video cards/CPUs/etc, compared to your average gamer (i.e. upgrading much more often, although upgrading in terms of console lifespan is still much longer than upgrading to stay on the edge in the PC world).
One of the nicest things about having the drivers exist outside the card is that you can increase the performance of the card by tweaking the drivers with little to no risk.
Sounds like another reason that the GPU companies would like this approach:) (I'm not at all convinced they like the idea of people overclocking their chips or tweaking them instead of buying higher priced components).
Release Open Source drivers, and even if there is something Nvidia can use, they theoretically can't without opening up THEIR drivers.
(Yes, they could theoretically just try to steal code, but I am not sure how likely that is to happen, or how successful that might be)
Possible End result? Open Source drivers for ATI AND Nvidia.... Of course, this is assuming there is something in the drivers that is worth it to both of them... or whichever one doesn't open source first.
Considering that Intel sells graphics cards but also works with both ATI and Nvidia cards, I don't see why AMD couldn't support Nvidia, in addition to AMD's own internal card.
The linux crowd (or at least a vocal minority of them), don't want drivers, they just want documentation for the card, they'll make their own drivers.
On the other hand, releasing either open source drivers, or a combination of binary drivers, along with documentation (so those who want to write their own CAN), would certainly be the best of both worlds.
Okay... we'll assume for a second that your right and
"thats cause WinblowsXP"
Did you miss the part of my message that said "Finally I traced the problem to an incompatibility in the nForce chipset. It can EITHER support a SATA RAID array, or it can support a SATA optical drive. Doing both unfortunately causes the system to bluescreen."
Much as I would like to blame windows, this has been an acknowledged problem with the nForce4 chipset (don't know about the ones since, but I would assume the ones before would also share this problem). This is a hardware problem. While the drivers (and poor design/support) are probably what cause WinXP to crash, it is the inability of the hardware to handle what the the drivers thought it could that is ultimately responsible.
I therefore find nVidia at fault on this one, not MS.
Forget even Linux, nForce is seriously crippled under WindowXP also.
It was very painful trying to get a new system built with nForce4, RAID 1 SATA aray, and a SATA Optical Drive (system is AMD also, but that wasn't a problem:) )
Finally I traced the problem to an incompatibility in the nForce chipset. It can EITHER support a SATA RAID array, or it can support a SATA optical drive. Doing both unfortunately causes the system to bluescreen.
(and yes, I know SATA on the optical doesn't buy you much... except MUCH better airflow for a system based around a microATX board)
AMD, after buying out ATI opens up the architecture or supports Linux as a 1st tier platform.
I bet if ATI was putting out first rate drivers it might influence quite a few purchases in that direction... of course it might also push nVidia to do the same... arms races can be fun for the spectators (and consumers:) )
yes, but if they have the confirmed order (or at least believe they do), then they can put it up for auction on Ebay and sell it BEFORE they pick it up. Or just pay for it with a creditcard which amounts to the same things.
The credit cards billing cycle ensures that you personally are only responsible for the deposit (since that payment spans multiple billing cycles), since the 'final payment' and the Ebay auction theoretically happen in the same billing cycle you can wash one against the other.
This breaks down if: 1) the 'final payment' and the auction occur in sepparate builing cycles. In which case the middle-man is responsible for the 'final payment' price (although credit cards allow you to pay only a minimum payment, they still tack on fees, and costs so this starts to eat into the profit making it less lucritive).
2) the deposit is significant enough that the middle-man can only procure X units with available funds. Since this money is the middle-mans own, they are also relying purely on speculation in the way the market will go. If they don't have alot of money, a high deposit price means they can only procure X units instead of Y units (without incurring a loss to their profit due to interest rate/fees). Additionally, if they are unsure of what the market demand will be, they might be less willing to risk more of their own money (especially if they are auctioning the units post deposit, but pre-release). If there isn't enough demand, it is one thing to be out 5UKP, and another to be out 150UKP.
Slashdot Mirror
DISCLAIMER: I don't play in MMORPG and haven't since The Island of Kesmai (and if you get that refference, say "hi"
My understanding is that the differences in real world economies is where this becomes a problem. If you can get cheap enough labor to sit there and farm things, and then give them a cut of the profits as their wages, then it can suddenly become a profitable buisness.
The very cheap labor available in the far east, combined with high-speed connectivity and ebay are what make farming profitable. (well
For the end-user the problem comes when you don't have the resources (either the time to play, or the money to buy), to compete with those buying farmed goods.
If you were just competing with other spending lots of time, then there is little that can be done (hard-core players exist in all games), and the expectation is that there are:
1) only so many of those players
2) they play only so long before getting bored
except that farming magnifies the impact, since everyone who buys farmed items acts as if their character has spent time in the game, additional to what it would take to procure that item.
This is where the casual gamers who spend less time, and are also less likely to spend 'real world' money on game things get clobered in the equation.
This can also artificially shorten the expected growth cycle of the average character since it allows a higher percentage of characters (especially once you factor out the farmers), to grow to higher levels with more 'stuff' so either the developers have to come out with new content faster, or people might get bored of the game faster (leaving aside the impact this has on the economy).
I'm curious about this (in part at least), because of the expectations on the new Apple Desktop. Currently the 'high end' desktop is the PowerMac G5 Quad (Two dual-core 2.5GHz PowerPC G5 processors).
:) (and of course if AMD can keep up the preasure on Intel ... and vice-versa)
The speculation is that Apple will want to keep that Quad line by putting in two Core 2 Duos. Therefore 4 cores for the desktop may be anounced as early as two weeks from now (and one would assume that once its released for Apple, it will filter into other Intel shops like Dell). There was also the speculation about AMDs new 4x4 systems. With 4 Chips, each Dual Core, that would put 8 chips on the desktop (hence probably Intel's wish to minimize the fact that they aren't about to anounce that).
I am just wondering at what point each system will start to hit the limitations of their CPU/Main Memory bandwidth.
It does one other thing: It removes a legal reason for Chip Modders to make chips. This may let them go after chip modders more aggresively, since they can claim that the only reason for a mod chip is to play pirated content.
I would disagree with 1 core being enough for most users.
It might theoretically be enough, but with pretty graphics (both OS X, and Vista), and virus/spyware scanning (MS OS/*) A second core offers a snappier GUI interaction to the end user. (Enough that the move from one to two cores was noticable using Windows XP).
I would agree with the rest of your statement though, however if the GPUs move back into the cores, or get streamlined so a GPU can be plugged into a Chip socket, then motherboards that can support 8 cores could happen relatively soon. If AMD makes a version of ATI's chip that can socket into a Chip slot, then a 2CPU, 2GPU (CrossFire enabled?) Motherboard, could also be sold to support 4CPUs for those tasks that need it.
I think this is an 'arms race' that is just starting to heat up the same way as last decades "MHz race".
Don't forget that with the exception of games, most (office) users didn't need the MHz bumps of the previous arms race (past a point). Of course once the hardware was there, and once certain other factors came into play (MS's lack of security, increase in spam, increase in spyware, etc.), the hardware was taken advantage of. I expect the same thign to happen this time also.
Was this testing done with one 'Core 2 Duo'? Two? Four?
My understanding is that the FSB bottleneck only really comes into play with multiple chips, and that AMDs solution (EV7 derived PTP connections between each Chip and the Memory, I think), was better when more chips were involved because each chip ends up with its own dedicated path to main memory instead of a shared bus.
(genuinely curious, not trying to pick a fight)
As much as I agree with your sentiment, its been interesting to look at how I use FireFox (at home on Windows) as opposed to Safari (at work oddly enough).
... of course I also shut down my windows machine at night more and more, especially since I'm not doing any dev work (and leaving my environment up and running). I've had Safari open for months now since the machine just drops to suspend when I'm not using it, and I am usually chasing one thing down on the web or another as part of my job.
At work I'll often leave windows up and if I find an interesting link, I'll pop it up in a tab and browse it later. I might not have a chance to bookmark it yet, since it might not be interesting enough that I'll come back to it, but I might want to read a technical article, or follow up on an idea.
At home, I don't tend to leave FF open longer than a day or so
I love Mozilla, (I even have it installed on the Mac in case I need an 'extra' clean browser to check something out in), but my next machine is probably going to be a Mac, and I'm looking forward to using Safari at home on a regular basis.
I think in this case, the question is 'big' relative to the 64MB card in an Xbox360.
If the games are 30MB each (pulling sizes out of my hat), then after getting one or two, I'd need another card. Good for people who have the money to spend on them, but for those who don't, or don't want to, it might make people not buy as much.
If I have a release in this size range, I might be put off on the Xbox Live, since my prospective audience might not have enough 'free space' to get the game/demo. That might be an incentive to develop for Sony's network, all else being equal (such as # of units sold, price to use the network, etc.).
Yeah
Third Space ... I agree
... not so much. There was a lot of interesting things happening.
... of course Crusade got manhandled by TNTs executives to the point of killing it (and butchering it, and P!ssing on the corpse), but there are still some interesting things in it. The Legend of the Rangers just never had the chance to develop (I think). For what it was, it wasn't bad, but it is tough to take new characters in a very established universe, and pull of a (relatively) short storyline with them, that involves more developed characters, unless you have a very clear vision, good actors, and a fair amount of luck.
:) )
Rangers
I think "The Legend of the Rangers" was his attempt to save the end of the story from "Crusade".
At the end of Cusade we learned that the virus was actually nano-machines. The Legend of the Rangers seems like those could very well be the evil entity that was behind the infection from "A Call to Arms"
I think it was also trying to grab more 'casual' viewers as a possible pilot, which diluted what it could have been. (although admittedly I liked it anyway
The problem with collecting descrete data (versus anonymous viewer data), is that the more exact you get, the more chance you have of truly blowing it (since anyone could be watching a given TV).
... ... at least until they put a camera on the TV ... and that will be the end of anyone wanting one.
When you live in a household with three people, 1 Male, 2 Females, of various ages and interests, agregating based on the house MIGHT make sense. Agregating based on the show watched DEFINATELY makes sense.
If my wife watches All My Children and decides to FF through the commercials, it means they are meaningless to her. If I watch Eureka (on Sci-Fi), and decide to watch the Station ID spots because they are new and interesting, and that gets me to watch a commericial or two (because I'm in a good mood and the commericals mesh), the system can draw inferences about the ads for the show, but now about who is watching what
(went back and read your comment :) )
Yes, I can see where for AMD adding ATI's chipset over Nvidia's makes sense, especially if ATI's is less power hungry.
Interesting article, and definately in line with what we were both thinking. Suddenly it looks like Nvidia and Intel might have some competition on their hands.
Good point. I suppose since the role of Fed and States Judiciary is more to uphold the status quo then to accumulate a power base, they serve they help act as a brake on the moving too much in one direction or another (or so I hope :) )
On the other hand, the Executive and Legislative branches of the Fed seem to believe their role is to accumulate more power.
It would certainly allow for local power to trickle through specific points.
I wonder what affect that would have on Lobbying.
Hate to sound negative, but that has been the major push by most federal government for the past 50 years or so. A marked increase in Federal power and a decrease in States Rights.
Just out of curiousity, lets look at the current CPU offerings.
:)
Intel came out with a truly Power-Hungry CPU.
AMD came out with a cooler and better CPU.
Intel came out with an even cooler CPU that out performed the AMD one. (Core Duo/Core 2 Duo)
The ball is now in AMDs court.
In other words, the presure on Intel was that they had to compete in that area in order to be competitive.
Perhaps AMD, coming from their battle with Intel can help focus the ATI division on less power consumption/heat generation, and perhaps that is that AMD can help bring to the table.
If they even BEGIN to make inroads in this, while maintaining a competitive stance against Nvidia, it will force Nvidia to compete on this point also, which should move GPUs in a cooler direction
Also add in the available library (wether you factor in backward compatibility or not).
I hadn't thought of it, but the PS3 coming out now makes more sense.
I don't think Sony expects to initially sell to anyone other than hard core gamers/fans. Once those units are sold, hopefully they will be able to drop the cost in 6-8 months for enthusiastic, but more cautious fans to start buying them. Lather-rinse-repeat and within a year or two the system is selling close to 300$. In 5 years the system is down to 200$ as a Pthree, as the PS4 comes out for launch. At that point (assuming it has managed to last), the Ptwo is retired, the library of games has been improved, and those who "must be on the bleeding edge" help pay for the next R&D cycle.
Seems somewhat similar to hard-core gamers on the PC buying video cards/CPUs/etc, compared to your average gamer (i.e. upgrading much more often, although upgrading in terms of console lifespan is still much longer than upgrading to stay on the edge in the PC world).
Sounds like another reason that the GPU companies would like this approach
(I'm not at all convinced they like the idea of people overclocking their chips or tweaking them instead of buying higher priced components).
Shhhh
An added bonus I just thought of.
... Of course, this is assuming there is something in the drivers that is worth it to both of them ... or whichever one doesn't open source first.
Release Open Source drivers, and even if there is something Nvidia can use, they theoretically can't without opening up THEIR drivers.
(Yes, they could theoretically just try to steal code, but I am not sure how likely that is to happen, or how successful that might be)
Possible End result? Open Source drivers for ATI AND Nvidia.
Considering that Intel sells graphics cards but also works with both ATI and Nvidia cards, I don't see why AMD couldn't support Nvidia, in addition to AMD's own internal card.
The linux crowd (or at least a vocal minority of them), don't want drivers, they just want documentation for the card, they'll make their own drivers.
On the other hand, releasing either open source drivers, or a combination of binary drivers, along with documentation (so those who want to write their own CAN), would certainly be the best of both worlds.
Did you miss the part of my message that said "Finally I traced the problem to an incompatibility in the nForce chipset. It can EITHER support a SATA RAID array, or it can support a SATA optical drive. Doing both unfortunately causes the system to bluescreen."
Much as I would like to blame windows, this has been an acknowledged problem with the nForce4 chipset (don't know about the ones since, but I would assume the ones before would also share this problem). This is a hardware problem. While the drivers (and poor design/support) are probably what cause WinXP to crash, it is the inability of the hardware to handle what the the drivers thought it could that is ultimately responsible.
I therefore find nVidia at fault on this one, not MS.
Amen!
:) )
... except MUCH better airflow for a system based around a microATX board)
Forget even Linux, nForce is seriously crippled under WindowXP also.
It was very painful trying to get a new system built with nForce4, RAID 1 SATA aray, and a SATA Optical Drive (system is AMD also, but that wasn't a problem
Finally I traced the problem to an incompatibility in the nForce chipset. It can EITHER support a SATA RAID array, or it can support a SATA optical drive. Doing both unfortunately causes the system to bluescreen.
(and yes, I know SATA on the optical doesn't buy you much
Look at the other possibility:
... of course it might also push nVidia to do the same ... arms races can be fun for the spectators (and consumers :) )
AMD, after buying out ATI opens up the architecture or supports Linux as a 1st tier platform.
I bet if ATI was putting out first rate drivers it might influence quite a few purchases in that direction
yes, but if they have the confirmed order (or at least believe they do), then they can put it up for auction on Ebay and sell it BEFORE they pick it up. Or just pay for it with a creditcard which amounts to the same things.
The credit cards billing cycle ensures that you personally are only responsible for the deposit (since that payment spans multiple billing cycles), since the 'final payment' and the Ebay auction theoretically happen in the same billing cycle you can wash one against the other.
This breaks down if:
1) the 'final payment' and the auction occur in sepparate builing cycles. In which case the middle-man is responsible for the 'final payment' price (although credit cards allow you to pay only a minimum payment, they still tack on fees, and costs so this starts to eat into the profit making it less lucritive).
2) the deposit is significant enough that the middle-man can only procure X units with available funds. Since this money is the middle-mans own, they are also relying purely on speculation in the way the market will go. If they don't have alot of money, a high deposit price means they can only procure X units instead of Y units (without incurring a loss to their profit due to interest rate/fees). Additionally, if they are unsure of what the market demand will be, they might be less willing to risk more of their own money (especially if they are auctioning the units post deposit, but pre-release). If there isn't enough demand, it is one thing to be out 5UKP, and another to be out 150UKP.