You know what else is a useful tool in the time of war? Killing POWs.
No, it is more useful to exchange POWs or use them as "hostages" so that your soldiers who have been captured are cared for. They are also valuable sources of information, no torture required by the way.
I understand your sentiment but making ignorant statements does not really help in the long run; it undermines your credibility. Try keeping things more rationale, right now you are only preaching to the choir and being dismissed by the rest.
Re:Pills that treat every major disease costs $0.2
on
The Cost of the iPod
·
· Score: 1
Don't forget most of the R&D is funded by tax payer money to begin with.
No it is not, at least for corporations. R&D is an expense that offsets profits. I think you are grossly overestimating how much research, excluding weapon systems, is done by the government or taxpayer funded universities.
In addition to the good reasons provided by others, you should note that "copies sold" does not equal "active players" in some timeframe. The chart is showing active players. That's why the lines eventually peak and head *downwards*. Obviously, if sales were tracked the lines would only plateau.
The rules are very different when you have the public finance your business. You are legally obligated to inform investors of risks. With this in mind it is entirely reasonable to investigate whether the scene was an accident or a marketing gimmick.
Because Take Two is a publicly traded company. It is not just the ESRB and game buyers who may have been defrauded. The Take Two *investors* may have been defrauded as well, they were not aware of all risks that the company was taking. Assuming of course the scene was left in intentionally.
The rules are very different when you have the public finance your business.
Re:The Size was incredible
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
Times haven't really changed - quake091.zip is still 9 MB in size.
Link to torrent please?;-)
Pretty useless as coasters or "clay pigeons"
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Now all I get is read-only coasters.
They are pretty useless as coaster, zero water absorbancy. The water just beads and rolls off as you pick up the coaster.
They are pretty useless as clay pigeons as well. They launch just fine from the skeet launcher but they move way to fast since they are so much lighter. Worse, they present too low a profile and are a b*tch to hit while in flight.
They are so so as sihlouette targets for plinking with a.22. They prop up and get knocked down just fine, but are too easily disturbed by wind and there is no satisfying "plink". Personally I'm sticking to bright red Coca Cola cans.
I can't really find a damn useful thing to do with AOL CDs.
And, like Fox Mulder, some people WANT to believe (especially when it suits their larger purposes).
Yes, but there are also some people who prefer to err on the side of caution; better to overestimate your enemy than underestimate. Now heap on the politics of the intelligence community underestimating some idiots who want to roll the clock back 1,300 years and getting reamed over that. Between caution and the sore backside over 9/11 are you really surprised that Saddam was overestimated?
Actually the bulletproof argument in favor of the WMD claim does not involve whether or not they actually existed. Existence is a hindsight issue. The real argument is that Saddam wanted people to *believe* he still had them. The belief that someone has WMD is a detterent, actually having them is not required. Remember, the UN mandate / peace treaty from the first Gulf War did not merely require Saddam to get rid of the WMD, he had to do it under UN supervision. When he destroyed the WMD all he had to do was invite a UN inspector to watch. He did not, he wanted people to believe he still had them. He was successful.
I for one don't feel bad or find it to be news that software companies find themselves making less.
The real problem is that many smaller companies and studios are around the break even point. Making less is a big deal to them. The game industry is like many others, the press generally covers the big companies, but most people in the industry work for small companies.
Which means you cannot publish it. So no one can learn how the hole works to look for similar ones on other systems you do not have.
`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of security testing described in subsection (2), provided such technological means does not otherwise violate section (a)(2).
Clearly, publishing this research would violate this clause as it is a service that is primarily designed to circumvent a technological measure, AND has limited commerical value---violating both (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B).
`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--
`(A) whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network, or shared directly with the developer of such computer, computer system, or computer network; and
`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of security testing described in subsection (2), provided such technological means does not otherwise violate section (a)(2).
I honestly do not believe it is all that clear. From (3)(A) it seems that at a minimum you could publish to owners and users even when taking the narrowest interpretation. Under (4) it seems you could publish a test case for people to use on their own systems.
The researchers are able to research, but they are not able to publish their findings. So they can't share what they've learned legally. This is the difference between theory and practice.
"whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network"
It does sound as if, at a minimum, you can disclose the problem to people who have that system. In an odd way it's similar to the GPL, you do not have to give source to someone who is not a user of your software.
3(A) pretty much excludes full disclosure, or even any kind of public disclosure, doesn't it? Specifically "the information derived... used solely to promote the security of the owner... or shared directly with the developer".
No, I think you have greatly distored things with your snipping. Let's see it in context again. Note "the factors to be considered shall include", other factors are not ruled out. Regarding "promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer...", this does not prevent public disclosure, fixes or workarounds developed by the FOSS community promote the security of the owner or operator.
`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--
`(A) whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network, or shared directly with the developer of such computer, computer system, or computer network; and
`(B) whether the information derived from the security testing was used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security.
So, when do the researchers get formally indicted under the DMCA? It's a legitimate question.
Contrary to the FUD spread by DMCA opponents (I am not endorsing the DMCA, merely pointing out that all sides, "good" or "bad" engage in FUD), this is perfectly legal.
"David Maynor, a research engineer with Internet Security Systems and Jon Ellch, a student at the U.S. Naval postgraduate school in Monterey, California."
(e) LAW ENFORCEMENT, INTELLIGENCE, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES- This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term `information security' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
Then we also have a security research exemption:
`(j) SECURITY TESTING-
`(1) DEFINITION- For purposes of this subsection, the term `security testing' means accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network, solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting, a security flaw or vulnerability, with the authorization of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system, or computer network.
`(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to engage in an act of security testing, if such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--
`(A) whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network, or shared directly with the developer of such computer, computer system, or computer network; and
`(B) whether the information derived from the security testing was used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security.
`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of security testing described in subsection (2), provided such technological means does not otherwise violate section (a)(2).
I'd cut and paste more but I think readers will get the point.
Expensive software is exactly why people pirate stuff anyway. Why dont people learn this?
If you sell your stuff cheaper, people will actually BUY it.
That is complete nonsense. People will pirate if they can do so easily. It is as simple as that. As you make piracy more complicated, sales rise. That is why there is a thriving successful industry offering software copy protection even though the security is easily defeated by a small number of more technically capable users. The latter are irrelevant.
An example. I once worked on commercial software that was bundled with a college textbook. It was well regarded software used in the industry. We were nice and didn't use copy protection. The academic version was US$15 with the coupon shrinkwrapped to the textbook. At numerous campus bookstores the software sales volume was 10% of the book despite being required for classwork. The next quarter we had an upgraded version and used one of the lowest cost software based security products available. The sales volume increased to 90% that of the book despite there being no shortage of crack programs. Sorry, but low price doesn't work, copy protection software does.
"Soul/passion and profit are not mutually exclusive. Indy does not require a vow of poverty."
No but if you design your games thinking "what kind of game will sell the most copies" rather than thinking "what kind of game would I like to make/play?" you risk ending up as yet another clone maker. Many think "what will sell?" and make a marginally different version of some successful game.
Like passion and profit, appealing to a large audience and being original are *not* mutually exclusive. If you focus on what *you like* then your project is most likely doomed. Now if your real goal is to learn to code, model, or create art then please continue and develop these skills. However if your real goal is to create something a broad group of people will like then forget your likes and dislikes and go out and do *real* research as to what your audience likes. Create a hypothesis: "I would like better AI, more realistic and complex behaviors. Would my audience prefer better AI, or flashier graphics?" Now go perform real market research and ask AI or graphics? Now repeat on various other characteristics. Once you have a map of likes and dislike then go design your original game. Focus on your audience, not yourself.
How about designing for computers and then trivially porting it to Mac, Windows, and Linux.
Well the main reason is that this is a least common denominator approach. Many of the cross-platform libraries that get suggested around here are not that great. To be honest I would use Apple's CoreAudio on Mac.
Secondly, developing a game is only part of the process. There is testing and supporting a game too. Which Linux distributions will be supported? Will you support users who have modified/rebuilt their kernel?
On the other hand, it is only an Indie title so expectations may be lower, or perhaps a more accurate phrase would be the audience more tolerant.
if you treat it as a soulless business you will fail, but if you stick to your indy roots, you will succeed.
Soul/passion and profit are not mutually exclusive. Indy does not require a vow of poverty.
It's not just the white enclosures, or surfaces that are touched. I recall seeing old beige Macs discolor and this included the tower's case, not something that was handled very often. Also different plastic parts seemed to discolor differently. I think Apple just has a history of using plastics that are prone to discoloration, the current models may just be doing so at a faster rate.
Of course, its all part of Apple's super secret forced obsolescence campaign, everyone knows people by Macs for their looks so Apple has them age ungracefully to spur upgrqades.;-)
The Longhua plant is in Shenzhen, where the median annual household income is about 24000 RMB, or about $3000 US, or $250/month. So they're getting paid 1/5 of the median household income for the area, before their employer takes half of it for living expenses.
Something is not adding up, perhaps it is my memory. Last summer I watched a documentary on Nokia supervising their manufacturers in China. I believe the documentary stated that the average salary was $25 in the coutryside and that the factory jobs were highly desirable. As far as rent and food consuming half a paycheck, is that really very different from what many middle class families face in the US?
I think we need to know more than absolute dollars, we also need to know what buys a comfortable standard of living in this area and adjoining areas. We need to make sure we are not comparing against some outrageously priced area, their version of SF or NYC.
Are the "missing" gamers too busy playing World of Warcraft to go to the store and purchase something else? Is there a correlation between ever increasing WoW subscription rates and declining retail game sales?;-)
Those groups are acting on behalf of customers who purchased the product, for example the parents of the end user who downloaded the hack. Since the company created the scene and was involved in the delivery of the scene the customers have a justifiable complaint against the company. You can't blow that point off with "the end result is the same". In a court of law rhe actual actions that led to an event are what count, not hypothetical actions that could have led to the same outcome.
There's no difference in the real world to the end user though. They download a file from someone who's unaffiliated with the company, then run that file.
They are not answering to an end user who downloaded a hack. They are answering to the ESRB, retailers, stockholders, and the government. It matters to these folks that the comapany was involved.
If there is no difference at all in the "real world", why should there be any punishment? To anyone viewing the scene, the experience is exactly the same.
The real world difference is that the company had a part in the end result, they created the scene.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure until someone decides to hack into the mine network and reactivate the mine field.
;-)
You realize they deactivate by detonating?
You know what else is a useful tool in the time of war? Killing POWs.
No, it is more useful to exchange POWs or use them as "hostages" so that your soldiers who have been captured are cared for. They are also valuable sources of information, no torture required by the way.
I understand your sentiment but making ignorant statements does not really help in the long run; it undermines your credibility. Try keeping things more rationale, right now you are only preaching to the choir and being dismissed by the rest.
Don't forget most of the R&D is funded by tax payer money to begin with.
No it is not, at least for corporations. R&D is an expense that offsets profits. I think you are grossly overestimating how much research, excluding weapon systems, is done by the government or taxpayer funded universities.
... now that they've just sold 2 million copies.
In addition to the good reasons provided by others, you should note that "copies sold" does not equal "active players" in some timeframe. The chart is showing active players. That's why the lines eventually peak and head *downwards*. Obviously, if sales were tracked the lines would only plateau.
I don't see the problem ...
m &q=l&c=
The real problem here is that Take Two is a publicly traded company.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=TTWO&t=2y&l=on&z=
The rules are very different when you have the public finance your business. You are legally obligated to inform investors of risks. With this in mind it is entirely reasonable to investigate whether the scene was an accident or a marketing gimmick.
But why is the government involved?
Because Take Two is a publicly traded company. It is not just the ESRB and game buyers who may have been defrauded. The Take Two *investors* may have been defrauded as well, they were not aware of all risks that the company was taking. Assuming of course the scene was left in intentionally.
The rules are very different when you have the public finance your business.
Times haven't really changed - quake091.zip is still 9 MB in size.
;-)
Link to torrent please?
Now all I get is read-only coasters.
.22. They prop up and get knocked down just fine, but are too easily disturbed by wind and there is no satisfying "plink". Personally I'm sticking to bright red Coca Cola cans.
They are pretty useless as coaster, zero water absorbancy. The water just beads and rolls off as you pick up the coaster.
They are pretty useless as clay pigeons as well. They launch just fine from the skeet launcher but they move way to fast since they are so much lighter. Worse, they present too low a profile and are a b*tch to hit while in flight.
They are so so as sihlouette targets for plinking with a
I can't really find a damn useful thing to do with AOL CDs.
And, like Fox Mulder, some people WANT to believe (especially when it suits their larger purposes).
Yes, but there are also some people who prefer to err on the side of caution; better to overestimate your enemy than underestimate. Now heap on the politics of the intelligence community underestimating some idiots who want to roll the clock back 1,300 years and getting reamed over that. Between caution and the sore backside over 9/11 are you really surprised that Saddam was overestimated?
Actually the bulletproof argument in favor of the WMD claim does not involve whether or not they actually existed. Existence is a hindsight issue. The real argument is that Saddam wanted people to *believe* he still had them. The belief that someone has WMD is a detterent, actually having them is not required. Remember, the UN mandate / peace treaty from the first Gulf War did not merely require Saddam to get rid of the WMD, he had to do it under UN supervision. When he destroyed the WMD all he had to do was invite a UN inspector to watch. He did not, he wanted people to believe he still had them. He was successful.
I for one don't feel bad or find it to be news that software companies find themselves making less.
The real problem is that many smaller companies and studios are around the break even point. Making less is a big deal to them. The game industry is like many others, the press generally covers the big companies, but most people in the industry work for small companies.
Which means you cannot publish it. So no one can learn how the hole works to look for similar ones on other systems you do not have.
`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of security testing described in subsection (2), provided such technological means does not otherwise violate section (a)(2).
Clearly, publishing this research would violate this clause as it is a service that is primarily designed to circumvent a technological measure, AND has limited commerical value---violating both (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B).
`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--
`(A) whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network, or shared directly with the developer of such computer, computer system, or computer network; and
`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of security testing described in subsection (2), provided such technological means does not otherwise violate section (a)(2).
I honestly do not believe it is all that clear. From (3)(A) it seems that at a minimum you could publish to owners and users even when taking the narrowest interpretation. Under (4) it seems you could publish a test case for people to use on their own systems.
The researchers are able to research, but they are not able to publish their findings. So they can't share what they've learned legally. This is the difference between theory and practice.
"whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network"
It does sound as if, at a minimum, you can disclose the problem to people who have that system. In an odd way it's similar to the GPL, you do not have to give source to someone who is not a user of your software.
3(A) pretty much excludes full disclosure, or even any kind of public disclosure, doesn't it? Specifically "the information derived ... used solely to promote the security of the owner ... or shared directly with the developer".
...", this does not prevent public disclosure, fixes or workarounds developed by the FOSS community promote the security of the owner or operator.
No, I think you have greatly distored things with your snipping. Let's see it in context again. Note "the factors to be considered shall include", other factors are not ruled out. Regarding "promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer
`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--
`(A) whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network, or shared directly with the developer of such computer, computer system, or computer network; and
`(B) whether the information derived from the security testing was used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security.
So, when do the researchers get formally indicted under the DMCA? It's a legitimate question.
m p/~c105JANxzK:e11962:
Contrary to the FUD spread by DMCA opponents (I am not endorsing the DMCA, merely pointing out that all sides, "good" or "bad" engage in FUD), this is perfectly legal.
Quotes are from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:6:./te
First we have the government exception:
"David Maynor, a research engineer with Internet Security Systems and Jon Ellch, a student at the U.S. Naval postgraduate school in Monterey, California."
(e) LAW ENFORCEMENT, INTELLIGENCE, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES- This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term `information security' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
Then we also have a security research exemption:
`(j) SECURITY TESTING-
`(1) DEFINITION- For purposes of this subsection, the term `security testing' means accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network, solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting, a security flaw or vulnerability, with the authorization of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system, or computer network.
`(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to engage in an act of security testing, if such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--
`(A) whether the information derived from the security testing was used solely to promote the security of the owner or operator of such computer, computer system or computer network, or shared directly with the developer of such computer, computer system, or computer network; and
`(B) whether the information derived from the security testing was used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security.
`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR SECURITY TESTING- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of security testing described in subsection (2), provided such technological means does not otherwise violate section (a)(2).
I'd cut and paste more but I think readers will get the point.
Expensive software is exactly why people pirate stuff anyway. Why dont people learn this? If you sell your stuff cheaper, people will actually BUY it.
That is complete nonsense. People will pirate if they can do so easily. It is as simple as that. As you make piracy more complicated, sales rise. That is why there is a thriving successful industry offering software copy protection even though the security is easily defeated by a small number of more technically capable users. The latter are irrelevant.
An example. I once worked on commercial software that was bundled with a college textbook. It was well regarded software used in the industry. We were nice and didn't use copy protection. The academic version was US$15 with the coupon shrinkwrapped to the textbook. At numerous campus bookstores the software sales volume was 10% of the book despite being required for classwork. The next quarter we had an upgraded version and used one of the lowest cost software based security products available. The sales volume increased to 90% that of the book despite there being no shortage of crack programs. Sorry, but low price doesn't work, copy protection software does.
"Soul/passion and profit are not mutually exclusive. Indy does not require a vow of poverty."
No but if you design your games thinking "what kind of game will sell the most copies" rather than thinking "what kind of game would I like to make/play?" you risk ending up as yet another clone maker. Many think "what will sell?" and make a marginally different version of some successful game.
Like passion and profit, appealing to a large audience and being original are *not* mutually exclusive. If you focus on what *you like* then your project is most likely doomed. Now if your real goal is to learn to code, model, or create art then please continue and develop these skills. However if your real goal is to create something a broad group of people will like then forget your likes and dislikes and go out and do *real* research as to what your audience likes. Create a hypothesis: "I would like better AI, more realistic and complex behaviors. Would my audience prefer better AI, or flashier graphics?" Now go perform real market research and ask AI or graphics? Now repeat on various other characteristics. Once you have a map of likes and dislike then go design your original game. Focus on your audience, not yourself.
How about designing for computers and then trivially porting it to Mac, Windows, and Linux.
Well the main reason is that this is a least common denominator approach. Many of the cross-platform libraries that get suggested around here are not that great. To be honest I would use Apple's CoreAudio on Mac.
Secondly, developing a game is only part of the process. There is testing and supporting a game too. Which Linux distributions will be supported? Will you support users who have modified/rebuilt their kernel?
On the other hand, it is only an Indie title so expectations may be lower, or perhaps a more accurate phrase would be the audience more tolerant.
if you treat it as a soulless business you will fail, but if you stick to your indy roots, you will succeed.
Soul/passion and profit are not mutually exclusive. Indy does not require a vow of poverty.
It's not just the white enclosures, or surfaces that are touched. I recall seeing old beige Macs discolor and this included the tower's case, not something that was handled very often. Also different plastic parts seemed to discolor differently. I think Apple just has a history of using plastics that are prone to discoloration, the current models may just be doing so at a faster rate.
;-)
Of course, its all part of Apple's super secret forced obsolescence campaign, everyone knows people by Macs for their looks so Apple has them age ungracefully to spur upgrqades.
The Longhua plant is in Shenzhen, where the median annual household income is about 24000 RMB, or about $3000 US, or $250/month. So they're getting paid 1/5 of the median household income for the area, before their employer takes half of it for living expenses.
Something is not adding up, perhaps it is my memory. Last summer I watched a documentary on Nokia supervising their manufacturers in China. I believe the documentary stated that the average salary was $25 in the coutryside and that the factory jobs were highly desirable. As far as rent and food consuming half a paycheck, is that really very different from what many middle class families face in the US?
I think we need to know more than absolute dollars, we also need to know what buys a comfortable standard of living in this area and adjoining areas. We need to make sure we are not comparing against some outrageously priced area, their version of SF or NYC.
Are the "missing" gamers too busy playing World of Warcraft to go to the store and purchase something else? Is there a correlation between ever increasing WoW subscription rates and declining retail game sales? ;-)
Those groups are acting on behalf of customers who purchased the product, for example the parents of the end user who downloaded the hack. Since the company created the scene and was involved in the delivery of the scene the customers have a justifiable complaint against the company. You can't blow that point off with "the end result is the same". In a court of law rhe actual actions that led to an event are what count, not hypothetical actions that could have led to the same outcome.
There's no difference in the real world to the end user though. They download a file from someone who's unaffiliated with the company, then run that file.
They are not answering to an end user who downloaded a hack. They are answering to the ESRB, retailers, stockholders, and the government. It matters to these folks that the comapany was involved.
If there is no difference at all in the "real world", why should there be any punishment? To anyone viewing the scene, the experience is exactly the same.
The real world difference is that the company had a part in the end result, they created the scene.