GP post is talking about Xbox Live service costing a monthly fee. Work on your reading comprehension a bit.
I'm sure you're right. My mistake. When the OP said "The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online." it was not clear (to me) which prior point this was the end result of. I thought he meant it was the end result of developers having to write their own networking code, while he probably did mean it was the end result of having someone else (Live) handle the networking code for you. The OP threw me off with the $15/mo reference. Since I know Live doesn't cost that, I figured he was try to say (hypothetically) EA would be charging for Madden play ($15/mo for football) since they have to spend extra money to develop their own networking code on the PS3 - and he considered that to expensive. I also never generally think of Live as a monthy service since it is a yearly fee (which will change with the 360 - there will be monthly terms available at higher rates at that point.)
The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online. I play VERY sporatically, [sic] so I'd wind up paying $15/1 game session of football online if I only get to play once per month. Far too expensive for my tastes.:\
Is someone actually charging a monthly fee to play football online on the PS2, or are you crying wolf here? Please back up your claim...
Otherwise, I agree with you - Heck, even at $5/mo for 1 year of Live, it's too expensive for as sporadically as I play online.
My point was that there may be a few games that would request subscription from PS3 users where they would just accept a small amount of the Live revenue for X-Box users instead. My gut feeling is that these games would be a severe minority, but I can't underestimate that some publishers may get greedy and try it. I'd guess that any company that tries this (for a non-MMO game) will likely end up losing more far more in sales than their subscription system could ever hope to contibute.
I'd be really surprised to hear that MS is sharing revenue from Live. In fact as I wrote another reply it occurred to me that what you fear here could be more likely to happen on the 360, since Live Marketplace provides an easy way for publishers to charge users who have already shown a willingness to pay to play. Although I, like you, don't figure the market would be there for non-MMO games, so I doubt any Publisher would try it on either system - or if they did it would flop marvelously and that would end it.
It's quite likely that the identity persistence and integration that you mentioned (MSN Messenger for X-Box?) will end up being the only distinguishing feature separating X-Box and PS3 online systems, despite the fact that gamers will have to pay $60/yr for the X-Box (or use the VPN systems that allow you to convince the X-Box that it's on a LAN instead). Only time will tell.
Well, Live will have a few things that PS3 won't like Live Arcade, but I'm not sure how much of that is free vs pay-to-play content. And identity persistence is a cool thing - maybe even worth it. But I still haven't bought Live for the Xbox - when I have time to game, if I feel like playing online I can play on my PS2, but generally I end up playing something offline, so I've never seen Live as a must have...
You should really work for Sony's PR department. Only a mindless marketing droid could possibly see this as a "win" for Sony.
I'm curious. What the hell does this have to do with the point I made. The great-grandparent poster was implying that the free Live Silver account was a good thing. I'm still trying to understand how it's good for the customer. I totally see how it's good for Microsoft/Publishers:
1. MS can use it to upsell you to Gold so you can play games online - you cannot play online with Silver.
2. MS can use it to patch backwards compatibility. (They don't have to get it right to launch, they can abandon it as soon as they want.)
3. Publishers can sell you buggy games and patch them later. (Your fault if you don't have a HD to hold the patches)
4. MS/Publishers can sell you additional crap after you've already forked out $60 for the game.
Ok, now that I'm done being a sarcastic ass, I'll level with you. I like the unified identity part. There are things that Live is good for. But saving you money is not one of those things. So let's look at the PS3/Xbox over their lifespan which we'll call 5 years: (ignoring that the Xbox's span has been 4 years and Sony will be at 6 years for the PS2 by the launch of the PS3)
To play games online on XB Live Silver over the next 5 years you'll spend nothing, and you'll have a gamertag, but you can't actually play online.
To play games online on XB Live Gold over the next 5 years you'll spend $300+, and have the same gamertag in every game.
To play games online on the PS3 over the next 5 years you'll spend nothing, have no gamertag, but you will be able to play online - free.
Some people might consider $300 significant. To a hard core gamer, or an MMO afficiando it's nothing, and probably well worth it. But to the majority - the casual gamer - why pay all that money for something that you can get for free?
Yeah, I know - Publishers could start charging for online play.... but has that happened yet in any game outside the MMO arena, on any console or any computer? Not that I know of, and I expect it to continue that way. I'd be surprised to hear publishers are getting any of the Xbox Live revenues, so if they want to charge for the PS3, what makes you think they won't charge for the Xbox? In fact, if publishers decide to try to charge, it makes total sense to try it out on the 360 first rather than the PS3 since they can conveniently use the Live marketplace to charge users, especially since those users have already made it clear they have no qualms with paying to play since they're already paying MS $60/yr.
So yes, while Live is perfect for hardcore gamers, I'm not convinced it's worth the cost to too many outside that demographic. Me? It's not worth it to me on the Xbox now - especially when I can do the same for free on my PS2, so my Xbox is and will remain a Live virgin for the foreseeable future.
The Xbox 360 will give users a free Silver account if they buy just the 'core' package. Sony has yet to top that.
...which cannot be used to play games online. With Sony, you do not need any account, let alone a Gold account to play online (excepting MMO's which will require one account with the publisher on PS, but two accounts to play on Xbox - Live and the publisher, unless you end up using Live Marketplace to pay your monthly fee to the publisher.)
The Live system requires a subscription that might turn some people away, but it is a single subscription for nearly all online games. The PS3 system doesn't require a subscription, but individual games may. If too many games require individual subscriptions, this may alienate gamers, too.
Ok, let me recap. $60/yr Live subscription pays for most games (except MMO.) PS2 is free for most games (except MMO.) $60/yr basically pays for a consistent gamertag and possible longer server support for older games. Probably worth it if you care about identity, but if no one is playing Madden 2001 online, server support doesn't matter.
Anyway, my point here is that time and time again people compare Live to PS2 online and state that Live's fee covers most all games, but that PS2 you might have to pay to play some games - there is no difference between the two statements. The type of games that would require a monthly fee for the PS2 are the exact same games that will not be covered by Xbox Live's $60/yr fee. So games that require individual subscriptions will alienate Xbox and PS equally, or could possibly irritate Xbox users more, since they might be operating under the (false) impression that they are paying MS for unlimited access to every game.
At least up to this point, I am not aware of a single console game outside the MMO genre that charges for online play. And so far MMO's have stayed away from Live. Why? I imagine for two reasons, Live might not be optimal for massive games requiring separate dedicated servers, and paying two fees (MS yearly, MMO monthly) to play one game might not go over too well. We'll soon see how it goes when FFXI makes it's way to Live, though.
30% of supreme court justices since 1933 came from outside the judicial arena. Not sure why you're asking, though - this fact has been in every other news article about the appointment. One also said 1/3 of all supreme court justice (~109 total i think) have come from outside the judicial arena.
I mean word is the Blu-Ray drives are going to be costing them an arm and a leg.
Before the PS2 launched everyone said the same thing and Sony ended up undercutting nearly every major namebrand DVD player on the market at the time including their own players, no $30 playback kit purchase necessary! It's all hype and rumor at this point, so don't believe it until Sony gives us a price.
You know your MMOG is successful when you have more players subscribing than computers in the country....
I, kid.. actually they had 36 million in 2002 and that should have doubled by now according to estimates in that link. Of course the US had 190 million computers back then so it is still a high percentage of subscriptions compared to number of computers in the country....
I'm getting a little sick of the stuff I've been hearing about Sony and Microsoft being scared of Nintendo's new controller.
Yeah, I don't think it's scary for them, but I think you're missing the point most Ninentdo fans are getting - Nintendo plans to launch this new controller design as a standard pack in. Think about what that means - very much like the original XBox and the hard drive vs Sony and it's hard drive add on. In order for something new to catch on, it usually has to be a standard feature or it fails (dual-shock and N64 mem expansion being the exceptions to the rule, although dual-shock did quickly become a pack in proving the rule).
The second part of this is that Nintendo has not said they won't be packing a standard controller attachment or a Gamecube controller for use on standard games as well - I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, and I actually expect it to be the case. Alternatively, they may decide not to do either knowing that they can count on most people either having a GC controller or being willing to buy the attachment separately to play "regular" games.
So despite the fact it probably isn't that scary to MS or Sony, you have to admit it is both different and exciting, especially in light of both Sony and MS releasing machines that feature speed upgrades (which to me seem more incremental than exponential) and the "new" feature of wireless (not standard on the XBox Three-Shitty of course) which Nintendo already perfected and proved. (Yes, third parties did it earlier, but the WaveBird is the first *good* implementation I've owned.)
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it's cheaper than the XBox 360. (I'm also not convinced it *will* be.)
Now, cheaper than the XBox Three-Shitty at $299 isn't gonna happen.
Sony has launched in the US for $299 for both the PS1 and PS2, I suspect they are still weighing the pros and cons of trying to keep to that price point again for the PS3, no matter the cost, vs some other point up to and including $399, I seriously don't think Sony will breach $399, as there has never been a successful console launch in the US over $299 yet, let alone $399, but with MS upping the stakes, we may be looking at the first $300+ generation of *successful* console launches. That or Nintendo will make out like a bandit.
Despite buying most previous consoles within months of launch, I am not personally looking to help usher in the $300+ launch price point and will not buy until the PS3 or the real XBox 360 is under $300, so I'll get to see all three launches and decide which to buy first (I'll eventually own them all) based on games available that I want to play.
Er, I thought that the prospective replacement was Jake Gyllenhaal
You're correct. I had just watched The Good Girl when I heard that, and I was amazed how much Jake did look like Toby - they could totally swap the two of them out and no one would ever know.
When the Voyagers were launched in 1977... The Voyagers each carry a message to any extraterrestrials they might encounter. Each messages (sic) is carried by a phonograph record -- a 12-inch gold-plated copper disk containing sounds selected to portray the culture on Earth.
We're sending the aliens a gold plated disco record? Quick, send them something newer, like Britney Sp... oh, nevermind, what's the difference.
Let's just call it 500k, and we'll assume they lost $150 on every single one of those sales, and that they never recouped any profits from sales of games, accessories, etc. So they lost $75m on just the console. Again assume no profit at all on anything else, so lets just double that $75m to cover any other losses that aren't covered in the costs attributed to the console - hell triple it even.
Now they had that one quarter last year where they made $83 million during christmas, with the lauch of Halo 2. Other than that they've been losing money hand over fist every quarter - iirc, the total lost is currently over $2b, $2.4b I think including the $83m profit, but let's just call it $2b.
So, $2b lost with an estimate of $225m of that attributable to Japan, that's 11%. (and a *very* high estimate)
Go ahead, do the math any way you want. Japan won't be the biggest money losing territory no matter how you stack it, they just didn't sell enough there for it to have generated "more losses than everywhere else." The only way you might be able to spin it even close is that they *may* have lost more per console sold in Japan.
They are dumping it cheaper there, because if they repeat the xbox performance in Japan, the exact same outcome is in the cards. No Japanese market, means Japanese developer support will dry up just as fast as with round 1, and that means a serious dearth of titles that will affect the US and European markets. If the original xbox had been more successful in Japan, it would have had a more rounded selection of games - especially games that appeal to Japanese gamers - and as a likely consequence more *exclusive* games, which would help sell the system in all markets.
It's all about the games... always has been, always will be. This is exactly why Nintendo finally lost second place to microsoft. They lost so much developer mindshare and support in all territories that they couldn't contend for first place. MS only lost support in Japan - give it back that support (which requires solid userbase) and it could have contended. It is a testament to the quality of Nintendo's first and second party game development that they are only a slim margin behind microsoft in the race for #2. I still can't believe how well the Rare deal worked out for Nintendo. I mean I still can't believe the company that was so prolific at turning out solid blockbusters has in 3-4 years only provided MS with the mediocre "Grabbed by the Ghoulies" and a port of "Conker's BFD." Maybe they will redeem theselves with PDZero and Kameo on the 360, but for the Xbox they've been a complete and total bust.
How many Canadian quarters does the new iPod weigh?
Well, the exchange rate is.847, so 8 american quarters is $2.36 canadian. Now, $2.36 canadian is obviously 9.44 canadian quarters....
now I wish I was joking, but reality is actually pretty close to that number right there. The iPod nano is 1.5 ounces, which is around 42.5g. The weight of the statehood quarters is 5.67g (.20 ounces) so the nano is actually the weight of 7.5 quarters (which jives with the statement 'weighs less than 8 quarters.')
So a quick check of canadian quarters looks like those minted in 1999 and earlier weighed 5.05g and those minted in 2000 and on are 4.4g. So using older pre-y2k quarters it's 8.42 quarters (or less than 9) - and new y2k+ quarters is 9.66 quarters (or less than 10, and pretty close to 9.44, eh?)
Of course, I really just did all this to amuse myself being that I know you weren't expecting anyone to take your joke seriously...
Something still seems funny, as he said to cut "from the long end". I guess it's probably even smaller than I thought then...
Yup, he said "Now, get a pair of scissors and trim the long side of the card by 20%."
So a standard business card is 3.5" x 2" - now cut about 20% off the long edge (the 3.5" long edge.) Your card should now be about the same size as a nano, 3.5" x 1.6"
And likewise, if you are using Airport Express, you need to downgrade from firmware 6.2 to the 6.1.1 firmware.
The reason for both of these upgrades was improved WPA2 support which apparently uses a different encryption (AEBS) than standard WPA Personal. The PSP apparently doesn't support the newer standard just the older one.
I'm curious: if this is your first post, why did you register such a long time ago?
Not trying to speak for the gp post, but I originally registered simply to be able to control what I saw on the front page, both sections and slashboxes, as well as to change the preferences for viewing the comments. Of course, I don't think I waited too long before I was sucked in after that - maybe 3-6 months or so.
The scene is clearly zooming in on the Gulf if Mexico, i.e. Earth. If not Earth then somehow an exact copy!
While I haven't been lucky enough to see a sneak preview, this question was asked a lot after the first trailer came out, and people in the know (and some who saw a preview) indicated that the image of earth is from an early scene in the movie giving the history of earth that was, and how and why we left it. In this trailer, the four ships in the forground of the earth shot are leaving earth not approaching it, which supports what I've heard.
Mal: Can't get paid if you're dead.
Jayne: Can't get paid if you crawl away like a bitty little bug neither. I got a share of this job. Ten percent of nothin' is, let me do the math here... nothin' into nothin', carry the nothin'...
No. It is not a [sic] ISBN number. It is a [sic] ISBN, or ISB number. Do you also say ATM machine, NASA administration and PIN number?
Well, I don't regularly comment on NASA, and imagine I would just use NASA, but...
I do use my PIN number to get cash from the ATM Machine so I can go buy a DVD disc to play when I finish watching Navy NCIS on my DVR recorder. You'd probably never guess I'm a Microsoft MCSE, eh? Now, what was that ISBN number again?
This post brought to you courtesy of the ADAA - Always remember the 5 D's of dodgeball...
well, I placed my story submission in (Politics, The Courts) (I mention it in this post) specifically because there was no "online" component to the story except that I read about it, well, online.
Anyway, I agree, but I don't care about that as much as I care about everyone seeing and reading about it. So since someone's submission was accepted and it's on the front page that's been accomplished, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who has any allusions about cracking this scheme might be in for a surprise.
Nope, I'm just not creative enough to have any allusions. No surprise for me, I guess. No surprise to anyone who knows me, either, I'm sure.
GP post is talking about Xbox Live service costing a monthly fee. Work on your reading comprehension a bit.
I'm sure you're right. My mistake. When the OP said "The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online." it was not clear (to me) which prior point this was the end result of. I thought he meant it was the end result of developers having to write their own networking code, while he probably did mean it was the end result of having someone else (Live) handle the networking code for you. The OP threw me off with the $15/mo reference. Since I know Live doesn't cost that, I figured he was try to say (hypothetically) EA would be charging for Madden play ($15/mo for football) since they have to spend extra money to develop their own networking code on the PS3 - and he considered that to expensive. I also never generally think of Live as a monthy service since it is a yearly fee (which will change with the 360 - there will be monthly terms available at higher rates at that point.)
My bad. Sorry for any confusion.
The end result however is that the end user gets screwed into paying $x/mo in order to play online. I play VERY sporatically, [sic] so I'd wind up paying $15/1 game session of football online if I only get to play once per month. Far too expensive for my tastes. :\
Is someone actually charging a monthly fee to play football online on the PS2, or are you crying wolf here? Please back up your claim...
Otherwise, I agree with you - Heck, even at $5/mo for 1 year of Live, it's too expensive for as sporadically as I play online.
My point was that there may be a few games that would request subscription from PS3 users where they would just accept a small amount of the Live revenue for X-Box users instead. My gut feeling is that these games would be a severe minority, but I can't underestimate that some publishers may get greedy and try it. I'd guess that any company that tries this (for a non-MMO game) will likely end up losing more far more in sales than their subscription system could ever hope to contibute.
I'd be really surprised to hear that MS is sharing revenue from Live. In fact as I wrote another reply it occurred to me that what you fear here could be more likely to happen on the 360, since Live Marketplace provides an easy way for publishers to charge users who have already shown a willingness to pay to play. Although I, like you, don't figure the market would be there for non-MMO games, so I doubt any Publisher would try it on either system - or if they did it would flop marvelously and that would end it.
It's quite likely that the identity persistence and integration that you mentioned (MSN Messenger for X-Box?) will end up being the only distinguishing feature separating X-Box and PS3 online systems, despite the fact that gamers will have to pay $60/yr for the X-Box (or use the VPN systems that allow you to convince the X-Box that it's on a LAN instead). Only time will tell.
Well, Live will have a few things that PS3 won't like Live Arcade, but I'm not sure how much of that is free vs pay-to-play content. And identity persistence is a cool thing - maybe even worth it. But I still haven't bought Live for the Xbox - when I have time to game, if I feel like playing online I can play on my PS2, but generally I end up playing something offline, so I've never seen Live as a must have...
You should really work for Sony's PR department. Only a mindless marketing droid could possibly see this as a "win" for Sony.
I'm curious. What the hell does this have to do with the point I made. The great-grandparent poster was implying that the free Live Silver account was a good thing. I'm still trying to understand how it's good for the customer. I totally see how it's good for Microsoft/Publishers:
1. MS can use it to upsell you to Gold so you can play games online - you cannot play online with Silver.
2. MS can use it to patch backwards compatibility. (They don't have to get it right to launch, they can abandon it as soon as they want.)
3. Publishers can sell you buggy games and patch them later. (Your fault if you don't have a HD to hold the patches)
4. MS/Publishers can sell you additional crap after you've already forked out $60 for the game.
Ok, now that I'm done being a sarcastic ass, I'll level with you. I like the unified identity part. There are things that Live is good for. But saving you money is not one of those things. So let's look at the PS3/Xbox over their lifespan which we'll call 5 years: (ignoring that the Xbox's span has been 4 years and Sony will be at 6 years for the PS2 by the launch of the PS3)
To play games online on XB Live Silver over the next 5 years you'll spend nothing, and you'll have a gamertag, but you can't actually play online.
To play games online on XB Live Gold over the next 5 years you'll spend $300+, and have the same gamertag in every game.
To play games online on the PS3 over the next 5 years you'll spend nothing, have no gamertag, but you will be able to play online - free.
Some people might consider $300 significant. To a hard core gamer, or an MMO afficiando it's nothing, and probably well worth it. But to the majority - the casual gamer - why pay all that money for something that you can get for free?
Yeah, I know - Publishers could start charging for online play.... but has that happened yet in any game outside the MMO arena, on any console or any computer? Not that I know of, and I expect it to continue that way. I'd be surprised to hear publishers are getting any of the Xbox Live revenues, so if they want to charge for the PS3, what makes you think they won't charge for the Xbox? In fact, if publishers decide to try to charge, it makes total sense to try it out on the 360 first rather than the PS3 since they can conveniently use the Live marketplace to charge users, especially since those users have already made it clear they have no qualms with paying to play since they're already paying MS $60/yr.
So yes, while Live is perfect for hardcore gamers, I'm not convinced it's worth the cost to too many outside that demographic. Me? It's not worth it to me on the Xbox now - especially when I can do the same for free on my PS2, so my Xbox is and will remain a Live virgin for the foreseeable future.
The Xbox 360 will give users a free Silver account if they buy just the 'core' package. Sony has yet to top that.
...which cannot be used to play games online. With Sony, you do not need any account, let alone a Gold account to play online (excepting MMO's which will require one account with the publisher on PS, but two accounts to play on Xbox - Live and the publisher, unless you end up using Live Marketplace to pay your monthly fee to the publisher.)
Anyway, my point here is that time and time again people compare Live to PS2 online and state that Live's fee covers most all games, but that PS2 you might have to pay to play some games - there is no difference between the two statements. The type of games that would require a monthly fee for the PS2 are the exact same games that will not be covered by Xbox Live's $60/yr fee. So games that require individual subscriptions will alienate Xbox and PS equally, or could possibly irritate Xbox users more, since they might be operating under the (false) impression that they are paying MS for unlimited access to every game.
At least up to this point, I am not aware of a single console game outside the MMO genre that charges for online play. And so far MMO's have stayed away from Live. Why? I imagine for two reasons, Live might not be optimal for massive games requiring separate dedicated servers, and paying two fees (MS yearly, MMO monthly) to play one game might not go over too well. We'll soon see how it goes when FFXI makes it's way to Live, though.
30% of supreme court justices since 1933 came from outside the judicial arena. Not sure why you're asking, though - this fact has been in every other news article about the appointment. One also said 1/3 of all supreme court justice (~109 total i think) have come from outside the judicial arena.
I mean word is the Blu-Ray drives are going to be costing them an arm and a leg.
Before the PS2 launched everyone said the same thing and Sony ended up undercutting nearly every major namebrand DVD player on the market at the time including their own players, no $30 playback kit purchase necessary! It's all hype and rumor at this point, so don't believe it until Sony gives us a price.
Actually I think it is it a lot, when you take into account the number of computers available to the population - I just posted about that very thing.
You know your MMOG is successful when you have more players subscribing than computers in the country....
I, kid.. actually they had 36 million in 2002 and that should have doubled by now according to estimates in that link. Of course the US had 190 million computers back then so it is still a high percentage of subscriptions compared to number of computers in the country....
I'm getting a little sick of the stuff I've been hearing about Sony and Microsoft being scared of Nintendo's new controller.
Yeah, I don't think it's scary for them, but I think you're missing the point most Ninentdo fans are getting - Nintendo plans to launch this new controller design as a standard pack in. Think about what that means - very much like the original XBox and the hard drive vs Sony and it's hard drive add on. In order for something new to catch on, it usually has to be a standard feature or it fails (dual-shock and N64 mem expansion being the exceptions to the rule, although dual-shock did quickly become a pack in proving the rule).
The second part of this is that Nintendo has not said they won't be packing a standard controller attachment or a Gamecube controller for use on standard games as well - I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, and I actually expect it to be the case. Alternatively, they may decide not to do either knowing that they can count on most people either having a GC controller or being willing to buy the attachment separately to play "regular" games.
So despite the fact it probably isn't that scary to MS or Sony, you have to admit it is both different and exciting, especially in light of both Sony and MS releasing machines that feature speed upgrades (which to me seem more incremental than exponential) and the "new" feature of wireless (not standard on the XBox Three-Shitty of course) which Nintendo already perfected and proved. (Yes, third parties did it earlier, but the WaveBird is the first *good* implementation I've owned.)
Cheaper than the Xbox 360.
Ho ho! The hilarity!
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it's cheaper than the XBox 360. (I'm also not convinced it *will* be.)
Now, cheaper than the XBox Three-Shitty at $299 isn't gonna happen.
Sony has launched in the US for $299 for both the PS1 and PS2, I suspect they are still weighing the pros and cons of trying to keep to that price point again for the PS3, no matter the cost, vs some other point up to and including $399, I seriously don't think Sony will breach $399, as there has never been a successful console launch in the US over $299 yet, let alone $399, but with MS upping the stakes, we may be looking at the first $300+ generation of *successful* console launches. That or Nintendo will make out like a bandit.
Despite buying most previous consoles within months of launch, I am not personally looking to help usher in the $300+ launch price point and will not buy until the PS3 or the real XBox 360 is under $300, so I'll get to see all three launches and decide which to buy first (I'll eventually own them all) based on games available that I want to play.
Er, I thought that the prospective replacement was Jake Gyllenhaal
You're correct. I had just watched The Good Girl when I heard that, and I was amazed how much Jake did look like Toby - they could totally swap the two of them out and no one would ever know.
When the Voyagers were launched in 1977... The Voyagers each carry a message to any extraterrestrials they might encounter. Each messages (sic) is carried by a phonograph record -- a 12-inch gold-plated copper disk containing sounds selected to portray the culture on Earth.
We're sending the aliens a gold plated disco record? Quick, send them something newer, like Britney Sp... oh, nevermind, what's the difference.
Essentially Japan is getting better prices because in Japan XBox1 made Microsoft even more losses than everywhere else
You're joking, right? Installed base in Japan in June 2005 was 484k, with current sales of ~250/week.
Let's just call it 500k, and we'll assume they lost $150 on every single one of those sales, and that they never recouped any profits from sales of games, accessories, etc. So they lost $75m on just the console. Again assume no profit at all on anything else, so lets just double that $75m to cover any other losses that aren't covered in the costs attributed to the console - hell triple it even.
Now they had that one quarter last year where they made $83 million during christmas, with the lauch of Halo 2. Other than that they've been losing money hand over fist every quarter - iirc, the total lost is currently over $2b, $2.4b I think including the $83m profit, but let's just call it $2b.
So, $2b lost with an estimate of $225m of that attributable to Japan, that's 11%. (and a *very* high estimate)
Go ahead, do the math any way you want. Japan won't be the biggest money losing territory no matter how you stack it, they just didn't sell enough there for it to have generated "more losses than everywhere else." The only way you might be able to spin it even close is that they *may* have lost more per console sold in Japan.
They are dumping it cheaper there, because if they repeat the xbox performance in Japan, the exact same outcome is in the cards. No Japanese market, means Japanese developer support will dry up just as fast as with round 1, and that means a serious dearth of titles that will affect the US and European markets. If the original xbox had been more successful in Japan, it would have had a more rounded selection of games - especially games that appeal to Japanese gamers - and as a likely consequence more *exclusive* games, which would help sell the system in all markets.
It's all about the games... always has been, always will be. This is exactly why Nintendo finally lost second place to microsoft. They lost so much developer mindshare and support in all territories that they couldn't contend for first place. MS only lost support in Japan - give it back that support (which requires solid userbase) and it could have contended. It is a testament to the quality of Nintendo's first and second party game development that they are only a slim margin behind microsoft in the race for #2. I still can't believe how well the Rare deal worked out for Nintendo. I mean I still can't believe the company that was so prolific at turning out solid blockbusters has in 3-4 years only provided MS with the mediocre "Grabbed by the Ghoulies" and a port of "Conker's BFD." Maybe they will redeem theselves with PDZero and Kameo on the 360, but for the Xbox they've been a complete and total bust.
How many Canadian quarters does the new iPod weigh?
.847, so 8 american quarters is $2.36 canadian. Now, $2.36 canadian is obviously 9.44 canadian quarters....
Well, the exchange rate is
now I wish I was joking, but reality is actually pretty close to that number right there. The iPod nano is 1.5 ounces, which is around 42.5g. The weight of the statehood quarters is 5.67g (.20 ounces) so the nano is actually the weight of 7.5 quarters (which jives with the statement 'weighs less than 8 quarters.')
So a quick check of canadian quarters looks like those minted in 1999 and earlier weighed 5.05g and those minted in 2000 and on are 4.4g. So using older pre-y2k quarters it's 8.42 quarters (or less than 9) - and new y2k+ quarters is 9.66 quarters (or less than 10, and pretty close to 9.44, eh?)
Of course, I really just did all this to amuse myself being that I know you weren't expecting anyone to take your joke seriously...
...as well as a link on how to obtain the full thing for a mere $750.
Will they give me a discount if I buy in bulk?
Something still seems funny, as he said to cut "from the long end". I guess it's probably even smaller than I thought then...
Yup, he said "Now, get a pair of scissors and trim the long side of the card by 20%."
So a standard business card is 3.5" x 2" - now cut about 20% off the long edge (the 3.5" long edge.) Your card should now be about the same size as a nano, 3.5" x 1.6"
And likewise, if you are using Airport Express, you need to downgrade from firmware 6.2 to the 6.1.1 firmware.
The reason for both of these upgrades was improved WPA2 support which apparently uses a different encryption (AEBS) than standard WPA Personal. The PSP apparently doesn't support the newer standard just the older one.
I'm curious: if this is your first post, why did you register such a long time ago?
Not trying to speak for the gp post, but I originally registered simply to be able to control what I saw on the front page, both sections and slashboxes, as well as to change the preferences for viewing the comments. Of course, I don't think I waited too long before I was sucked in after that - maybe 3-6 months or so.
The scene is clearly zooming in on the Gulf if Mexico, i.e. Earth. If not Earth then somehow an exact copy!
While I haven't been lucky enough to see a sneak preview, this question was asked a lot after the first trailer came out, and people in the know (and some who saw a preview) indicated that the image of earth is from an early scene in the movie giving the history of earth that was, and how and why we left it. In this trailer, the four ships in the forground of the earth shot are leaving earth not approaching it, which supports what I've heard.
Jayne: Do you know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with until you get who's in charge.
actually it's even better than that:
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til you understand who's in ruttin' command here. ~ Jayne Cobb
Jayne always had some great lines (actually everyone did)
another good jayne quote:
Mal: Can't get paid if you're dead.
Jayne: Can't get paid if you crawl away like a bitty little bug neither. I got a share of this job. Ten percent of nothin' is, let me do the math here... nothin' into nothin', carry the nothin'...
No. It is not a [sic] ISBN number. It is a [sic] ISBN, or ISB number. Do you also say ATM machine, NASA administration and PIN number?
Well, I don't regularly comment on NASA, and imagine I would just use NASA, but...
I do use my PIN number to get cash from the ATM Machine so I can go buy a DVD disc to play when I finish watching Navy NCIS on my DVR recorder. You'd probably never guess I'm a Microsoft MCSE, eh? Now, what was that ISBN number again?
This post brought to you courtesy of the ADAA - Always remember the 5 D's of dodgeball...
well, I placed my story submission in (Politics, The Courts) (I mention it in this post) specifically because there was no "online" component to the story except that I read about it, well, online.
Anyway, I agree, but I don't care about that as much as I care about everyone seeing and reading about it. So since someone's submission was accepted and it's on the front page that's been accomplished, eh?