MY question is that why are MOST people completely reluctant to pay for any service on over the internet? They whine "I already bought a computer AND an internet service, why should I have to pay to access an archive of information, or to see something entertaining?" BUT, half these people have no problem paying for channels like HBO ABOVE AND BEYOND their normal cable bill, and even more of them have little problem ordering up something they like on Pay Per View. Why?
I worked at a commercial gaming site on the web until it recently closed down (due to a lack of funds). Now, we're left debating whether we should try again, this time with a subscription based service, to see if we can make this succeed. Let me show just two of our viewers' comments before AND after we announced this (these are actuall messages, just cut and pasted, so ignore the COMPLETE lack of grammar and spelling
Before:
"wow, thanx guys! i was looking for a place that had the entire MGS2 dvd trailer on a fast server. also thanx for that vid from final fantasy 8 of the final hour. worth the 250 megs. you guys are the best!"
"The mane reason I like your site was because I got to scope out games with out having to buy or rent them and this save me a ton of money to by more game and I can't find another site like yours even when do there quality suck"
AFTER:
"what the fuck is wrong with you guys?! no fucking way I'm paying for this! i'll find my shit elsewhere"
"fuck you fuck you fuuuuuck you
you want us to blow sunshine up you're ass or sumething? not going to happen you were the only nonwarez site ivisited now fuck you"
Let's just say the overall reaction was LESS than positive. Except for our core group of supporters (5% or so of all registered members), people are almost definately opposed to paying for content online. Why? We used to get bombarded with emails saying how great we were, and how we provided a service that NOBODY ELSE DOES, with a high amount of quality. Nobody likes paying for anything, and I understand it, but like it or not, you sometimes have to. Like I said, do people think we WANT to charge our viewers? NO! That's NOT why we got into this! I've watched every other person in this (small) company of 4 pour their time, sweat, and savings into this, and the LAST thing they wanted was to have to charge anyone for it.
It'll be an experiment when we re-launch the site (which I am not naming, not my place to spam slashdot) in the fall, and frankly, I don't know how things will turn out. Maybe it'll just be an excercise in futility, I don't know. What I DO know is that it takes large amounts of money to create, run, and maintain something large and unique, and that money HAS to come from somewhere. Our ISP bitched at us in our last month, because they wanted to charge us more due to the insane amount of traffic in our last two weeks (about 4TB or transfers each of the two weeks), and that's when the money finally ran out. People don't seem to understand that on the other end, money is NEEDED for things to run. Instead, they'll just bitch that they don't want to pay for it.
Personally, I'm surprised ANY company is still releasing Linux, BSD, or any open source OS for free. I respect that, and wish them the best of luck.
I agree with you about the parts of the rebates, but I said what I said and nothing more. I HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM YET. I'm not saying that there is no problem, or that no problems exist anywhere. I am simply stating that my drive, my OLD drive (has gone through 4 computers so far) has yet to fail me, or even "click" once. (Am I the only one that finds it ironic that Iomega makes a drive called "click"?).
Maybe it IS defective in the sense that it works, I don't know.:p Either way, it works, I'm happy, and that's that.
I bought my zip drive within a few weeks of its initial release, and I have YET to have a problem. Compared to today's standards: A bit slow? Yeah. Defective? Hardly.
Want to talk defective? I've got a stack of Maxtor hard drives...
Re:MS can release whenever they like...
on
No X Box for Xmas?
·
· Score: 1
So, that's announced, and we all know that means nothing. Squaresoft was originally announced as a developer for the Ultra 64, and did we see ANY Square games on the N64? No.
Besides, Factor 5 is a 2nd party developer.:p
Re:MS can release whenever they like...
on
No X Box for Xmas?
·
· Score: 1
Well Nintendo's list of "20 or so" developers is obvious. Like the N64, Nintendo is doing just about every game 1st and 2nd party. I don't think there's a SINGLE 3rd party developer for the GC.
They make PERFECT sense, and I've been saying so for years.
Think about it. If you buy a baseball game, such as High Heat or Triple Play, who are you? Who is the target audience? Who would buy a baseball game at all? THE BASEBALL FANS. So, why don't advertisers notice that their ads will be displayed to the hardcore fans on almost every game they play?! Instead of seeing a "Chork Lite" sign above the Big Green Monster in fenway, why doesn't Citgo just pay a small fee so their target audience will see that sign in every game in (virtual) Boston.
Seriously, most of the people who are IN advertising, don't KNOW advertising. They complain about how web ads are not as effective as print or TV ads when web ads are the ONLY form of advertising that let them track EXACTLY how many people see the add, how many people clicked on the ad, and how many bought the product or service. You can't do that on TV. If Coke were to drop all Sprite ads from TV/Radio/Print/Web/Etc., Sprite would still sell due to nothing more than its omnipresence in any restaurant or store that sells Coke products (such as McDonalds). Consumers wouldn't suddenly switch to 7-Up if they've been drinking Sprite the entire time. Ads are overrated.
But back to the topic, putting ads in a game allow not only a better (and cheaper) way of these companies to reach their target audience, it also adds a GREAT deal of realism to the game. Think about it. Instead of seeing a simple cleat texture map on the player's feet, why don't Nike, Mizuno, and the rest pay for the ads and have their logos plastered on the feet of the virtual players. I mean, they'll pay a basketball star (such as Jordan) millions for wearing their sneakers, so why can't they pay a virtual Jordan to wear their sneakers, at no further cost to them?! Instead of just seeing a baseball player swinging a "bat", you could have the Louisville Slugger logo plastered on it, just like they are in life.
The whole point of the ads on the players is for a type of subliminal advertising. You see the logos on everything, the hats, bats, balls, sneakers, cars, field, helmets, etc., and the only purpose is so the fans, the people watching the game will see these "mini-ads" over and over during the course of the game or event. So if Nike is paying Tiger Woods millions of dollars to wear that black Nike cap with the white Swoosh [the Swoosh and all Nike trademarks are copyright the Nike Corporation.;)], why don't they pay an insanely small amount (in comarison) of money to have their logo on the (virtual) Tiger Woods in a golf game? It only makes PERFECT sense. Hell, someone like Smith & Wesson could make sure that a game like Deer Hunter 7 (or whatever its up to now) only uses S&W guns, thus further promoting their product to the target audience (since we all know that people who would NEVER buy a S&W rifle would NEVER play a game like Deer Hunter).
They could almost make a "shopping" function in a game. Lets say you're playing NBA Live 2002 or something, and you see some new Nike sneaker that is (somewhat) "featured" in the game. Pause it, click on the shopping button, and then click on the player's sneaker. The game minimizes, and a webpage pops up with the Nike Online store, with full descriptions and information on the sneaker. Then you're only one click away from purchasing it.
It all makes PERFECT sense, but I always have to remind myself that corporations rarely do what makes sense.
I still say that they have a good chance of showing their ideas at E3 (whether you believe me or not, I don't want to start this debate again). Its only going to be filled with the media and press (~60,000 of them), so all they need is one good investor, and that could save them. It can't HURT, so they might as well try (which they won't).
Well, by this rationale, Fight Club would have to be one of the LEAST violent movies of all time, since nobody dies. Now it must be suitable for children under 6, since nobody's life has been taken away. Am I the only one who thinks that's insane?
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned The Battleship Potemkin! Einstein's classic silent film wowed me the first time, and it truly is an "exceptional multimedia production". I've still yet to see another movie that's editing and montages can match this. Its still being emulated even today, with homages in films such as The Godfather and The Untoucables.
Find it, watch it...and I won't have to tell you to love it.
So they're saying that I can't distribute my OWN songs that I have written and recorded myself without their PERMISSION?! I AM the copyright holder, and that's the only permission you should need! The last thing I want is the bloody RIAA getting involved with my music.
Yeah, in a sense, that's why I got the nickname from. My vhs copy was so crappy, I always thought it was Big Jim Slate, and not Big Jim Slade (which it actually is).
:)
Re:Thank You! Exactly what I was going to type...
on
Mario's Revenge?
·
· Score: 1
Ugh, I'm not blindly talking (besides, LOG IN and talk, anyone can be big as an AC). I have had a PS2 for over a year now (my first one was a Japanese one), and I'm well aware of its strengths and weaknesses as a DVD player.
Yes, there are others with better sound or video quality, but come on, this isn't even a dedicated machine. Yes, there's almost always a pause on the layer change, and certain discs (such as the Criterion dvd of The Seven Samauri), the second half of the movie is almost unwatchable, freezing every 10 seconds or so. It definately has its share of problems, not to mention that there's no good remote for the unit yet (and to top THAT off, on the first release of the remotes , the confirm and cancel buttons were reversed, screwing many people up.
I'm not saying "Oh! Its the greatest dvd player in the world!" and I never said anything REMOTELY like that. But I did say that just the fact that Sony is promoting it as a dvd player as well as a gaming console has helped, and will continue to help sell them.
Ugh, for the last time, I'm not a Squaresoft whore. Just because I mention them, doesn't mean I bow down before them. You see M$ mentioned here on/. all the time, but I'm sure most of the people would like to see them gone.
Re:Probably not going to happen
on
Mario's Revenge?
·
· Score: 1
Ugh, yes I know that. Square WANTS to make games for Nintendo, Nintendo doesn't WANT to have Square games for their system.
http://www.thegia.com/news/0101/n29a.html
Check that article to see what I mean. Personally, I'd love a game like Final Fantasy VI on a GBA, but unless Yamauchi kicks the bucket soon or something, it will NOT happen. He's an old guy in charge of a business that supposed to be new and modern. He'll find out that 60 year old business practices JUST DON'T WORK.
Re:Not True! Nintendo is Changeing
on
Mario's Revenge?
·
· Score: 1
Uh...I'm hardly a Squaresoft whore. Yes, they make good games, yes, they resell them dozens of times and profit from it, no, I am not devoted to the company, their games, or whatever system their games are on.
But look at the cool games the NES had! Gologo 13, Bionic Commando, Metal Gear, and quite a few others that were never in the "kiddie" area. No, it didn't have an Opera featuring a giant piece of shit (literally, from Conker), but they were still aimed at gamers well above the Pokemon age. Check EBWorld, and tell me what the FIRST game is listed for the N64 (hint: its above Conker). Yes, its Nintendo again, with Pokemon Stadium 2. Wow...yeah, they're really shifting their focus from kiddy games...
Yes, they do sell well, but carts are a HELL of a lot more expensive to make than cds, or even dvds. So yes, they do sell, but the profit is less compared to any Sony or Sega product.
They'll do anything to make a profit. So, you might conside it "selling out", but if YOU had the chance to do minimal work and make millions from it, would YOU not do it? Didn't think so.
Re:Not True! Nintendo is Changeing
on
Mario's Revenge?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and I already MENTIONED Conker. BTW, Conker isn't Nintendo, its Rare (a 2nd party Nintendo developer).
Whether you think people cared for them or not, they sold. Whether you think they're overrated or not, they sold.
Squaresoft was a dying company in the late 80's, now they're probably the biggest console game developer (at least as far as profits are concerned). So fine, mod everything down, its not like I work for them or anything.
Slashdot Mirror
MY question is that why are MOST people completely reluctant to pay for any service on over the internet? They whine "I already bought a computer AND an internet service, why should I have to pay to access an archive of information, or to see something entertaining?" BUT, half these people have no problem paying for channels like HBO ABOVE AND BEYOND their normal cable bill, and even more of them have little problem ordering up something they like on Pay Per View. Why?
I worked at a commercial gaming site on the web until it recently closed down (due to a lack of funds). Now, we're left debating whether we should try again, this time with a subscription based service, to see if we can make this succeed. Let me show just two of our viewers' comments before AND after we announced this (these are actuall messages, just cut and pasted, so ignore the COMPLETE lack of grammar and spelling
Before:
"wow, thanx guys! i was looking for a place that had the entire MGS2 dvd trailer on a fast server. also thanx for that vid from final fantasy 8 of the final hour. worth the 250 megs. you guys are the best!"
"The mane reason I like your site was because I got to scope out games with out having to buy or rent them and this save me a ton of money to by more game and I can't find another site like yours even when do there quality suck"
AFTER:
"what the fuck is wrong with you guys?! no fucking way I'm paying for this! i'll find my shit elsewhere"
"fuck you fuck you fuuuuuck you
you want us to blow sunshine up you're ass or sumething? not going to happen you were the only nonwarez site ivisited now fuck you"
Let's just say the overall reaction was LESS than positive. Except for our core group of supporters (5% or so of all registered members), people are almost definately opposed to paying for content online. Why? We used to get bombarded with emails saying how great we were, and how we provided a service that NOBODY ELSE DOES, with a high amount of quality. Nobody likes paying for anything, and I understand it, but like it or not, you sometimes have to. Like I said, do people think we WANT to charge our viewers? NO! That's NOT why we got into this! I've watched every other person in this (small) company of 4 pour their time, sweat, and savings into this, and the LAST thing they wanted was to have to charge anyone for it.
It'll be an experiment when we re-launch the site (which I am not naming, not my place to spam slashdot) in the fall, and frankly, I don't know how things will turn out. Maybe it'll just be an excercise in futility, I don't know. What I DO know is that it takes large amounts of money to create, run, and maintain something large and unique, and that money HAS to come from somewhere. Our ISP bitched at us in our last month, because they wanted to charge us more due to the insane amount of traffic in our last two weeks (about 4TB or transfers each of the two weeks), and that's when the money finally ran out. People don't seem to understand that on the other end, money is NEEDED for things to run. Instead, they'll just bitch that they don't want to pay for it.
Personally, I'm surprised ANY company is still releasing Linux, BSD, or any open source OS for free. I respect that, and wish them the best of luck.
Who would even ride an Amtrack except for suicidal criminals....*CRASH* :p
I agree with you about the parts of the rebates, but I said what I said and nothing more. I HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM YET. I'm not saying that there is no problem, or that no problems exist anywhere. I am simply stating that my drive, my OLD drive (has gone through 4 computers so far) has yet to fail me, or even "click" once. (Am I the only one that finds it ironic that Iomega makes a drive called "click"?).
:p Either way, it works, I'm happy, and that's that.
Maybe it IS defective in the sense that it works, I don't know.
I bought my zip drive within a few weeks of its initial release, and I have YET to have a problem. Compared to today's standards: A bit slow? Yeah. Defective? Hardly.
Want to talk defective? I've got a stack of Maxtor hard drives...
Thanks for the fix. Good job there michael. :p
So, that's announced, and we all know that means nothing. Squaresoft was originally announced as a developer for the Ultra 64, and did we see ANY Square games on the N64? No.
:p
Besides, Factor 5 is a 2nd party developer.
Well Nintendo's list of "20 or so" developers is obvious. Like the N64, Nintendo is doing just about every game 1st and 2nd party. I don't think there's a SINGLE 3rd party developer for the GC.
Same with sunyacc.edu
They make PERFECT sense, and I've been saying so for years.
;)], why don't they pay an insanely small amount (in comarison) of money to have their logo on the (virtual) Tiger Woods in a golf game? It only makes PERFECT sense. Hell, someone like Smith & Wesson could make sure that a game like Deer Hunter 7 (or whatever its up to now) only uses S&W guns, thus further promoting their product to the target audience (since we all know that people who would NEVER buy a S&W rifle would NEVER play a game like Deer Hunter).
Think about it. If you buy a baseball game, such as High Heat or Triple Play, who are you? Who is the target audience? Who would buy a baseball game at all? THE BASEBALL FANS. So, why don't advertisers notice that their ads will be displayed to the hardcore fans on almost every game they play?! Instead of seeing a "Chork Lite" sign above the Big Green Monster in fenway, why doesn't Citgo just pay a small fee so their target audience will see that sign in every game in (virtual) Boston.
Seriously, most of the people who are IN advertising, don't KNOW advertising. They complain about how web ads are not as effective as print or TV ads when web ads are the ONLY form of advertising that let them track EXACTLY how many people see the add, how many people clicked on the ad, and how many bought the product or service. You can't do that on TV. If Coke were to drop all Sprite ads from TV/Radio/Print/Web/Etc., Sprite would still sell due to nothing more than its omnipresence in any restaurant or store that sells Coke products (such as McDonalds). Consumers wouldn't suddenly switch to 7-Up if they've been drinking Sprite the entire time. Ads are overrated.
But back to the topic, putting ads in a game allow not only a better (and cheaper) way of these companies to reach their target audience, it also adds a GREAT deal of realism to the game. Think about it. Instead of seeing a simple cleat texture map on the player's feet, why don't Nike, Mizuno, and the rest pay for the ads and have their logos plastered on the feet of the virtual players. I mean, they'll pay a basketball star (such as Jordan) millions for wearing their sneakers, so why can't they pay a virtual Jordan to wear their sneakers, at no further cost to them?! Instead of just seeing a baseball player swinging a "bat", you could have the Louisville Slugger logo plastered on it, just like they are in life.
The whole point of the ads on the players is for a type of subliminal advertising. You see the logos on everything, the hats, bats, balls, sneakers, cars, field, helmets, etc., and the only purpose is so the fans, the people watching the game will see these "mini-ads" over and over during the course of the game or event. So if Nike is paying Tiger Woods millions of dollars to wear that black Nike cap with the white Swoosh [the Swoosh and all Nike trademarks are copyright the Nike Corporation.
They could almost make a "shopping" function in a game. Lets say you're playing NBA Live 2002 or something, and you see some new Nike sneaker that is (somewhat) "featured" in the game. Pause it, click on the shopping button, and then click on the player's sneaker. The game minimizes, and a webpage pops up with the Nike Online store, with full descriptions and information on the sneaker. Then you're only one click away from purchasing it.
It all makes PERFECT sense, but I always have to remind myself that corporations rarely do what makes sense.
Doesn't matter. They can still make a presence.
I still say that they have a good chance of showing their ideas at E3 (whether you believe me or not, I don't want to start this debate again). Its only going to be filled with the media and press (~60,000 of them), so all they need is one good investor, and that could save them. It can't HURT, so they might as well try (which they won't).
April 2nd is taking forever to come...ugh...am I the only one getting tired of this? ;)
Crap...forgot about Bob. :p
Well, by this rationale, Fight Club would have to be one of the LEAST violent movies of all time, since nobody dies. Now it must be suitable for children under 6, since nobody's life has been taken away. Am I the only one who thinks that's insane?
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned The Battleship Potemkin! Einstein's classic silent film wowed me the first time, and it truly is an "exceptional multimedia production". I've still yet to see another movie that's editing and montages can match this. Its still being emulated even today, with homages in films such as The Godfather and The Untoucables.
Find it, watch it...and I won't have to tell you to love it.
So they're saying that I can't distribute my OWN songs that I have written and recorded myself without their PERMISSION?! I AM the copyright holder, and that's the only permission you should need! The last thing I want is the bloody RIAA getting involved with my music.
I'm still waiting on that tax on oxygen...
Yeah, in a sense, that's why I got the nickname from. My vhs copy was so crappy, I always thought it was Big Jim Slate, and not Big Jim Slade (which it actually is).
:)
Ugh, I'm not blindly talking (besides, LOG IN and talk, anyone can be big as an AC). I have had a PS2 for over a year now (my first one was a Japanese one), and I'm well aware of its strengths and weaknesses as a DVD player.
Yes, there are others with better sound or video quality, but come on, this isn't even a dedicated machine. Yes, there's almost always a pause on the layer change, and certain discs (such as the Criterion dvd of The Seven Samauri), the second half of the movie is almost unwatchable, freezing every 10 seconds or so. It definately has its share of problems, not to mention that there's no good remote for the unit yet (and to top THAT off, on the first release of the remotes , the confirm and cancel buttons were reversed, screwing many people up.
I'm not saying "Oh! Its the greatest dvd player in the world!" and I never said anything REMOTELY like that. But I did say that just the fact that Sony is promoting it as a dvd player as well as a gaming console has helped, and will continue to help sell them.
Ugh, for the last time, I'm not a Squaresoft whore. Just because I mention them, doesn't mean I bow down before them. You see M$ mentioned here on /. all the time, but I'm sure most of the people would like to see them gone.
Ugh, yes I know that. Square WANTS to make games for Nintendo, Nintendo doesn't WANT to have Square games for their system.
http://www.thegia.com/news/0101/n29a.html
Check that article to see what I mean. Personally, I'd love a game like Final Fantasy VI on a GBA, but unless Yamauchi kicks the bucket soon or something, it will NOT happen. He's an old guy in charge of a business that supposed to be new and modern. He'll find out that 60 year old business practices JUST DON'T WORK.
Uh...I'm hardly a Squaresoft whore. Yes, they make good games, yes, they resell them dozens of times and profit from it, no, I am not devoted to the company, their games, or whatever system their games are on.
But look at the cool games the NES had! Gologo 13, Bionic Commando, Metal Gear, and quite a few others that were never in the "kiddie" area. No, it didn't have an Opera featuring a giant piece of shit (literally, from Conker), but they were still aimed at gamers well above the Pokemon age. Check EBWorld, and tell me what the FIRST game is listed for the N64 (hint: its above Conker). Yes, its Nintendo again, with Pokemon Stadium 2. Wow...yeah, they're really shifting their focus from kiddy games...
Yes, they do sell well, but carts are a HELL of a lot more expensive to make than cds, or even dvds. So yes, they do sell, but the profit is less compared to any Sony or Sega product.
They'll do anything to make a profit. So, you might conside it "selling out", but if YOU had the chance to do minimal work and make millions from it, would YOU not do it? Didn't think so.
Yes, and I already MENTIONED Conker. BTW, Conker isn't Nintendo, its Rare (a 2nd party Nintendo developer).
Whether you think people cared for them or not, they sold. Whether you think they're overrated or not, they sold.
Squaresoft was a dying company in the late 80's, now they're probably the biggest console game developer (at least as far as profits are concerned). So fine, mod everything down, its not like I work for them or anything.