"You're like those people who justify anything with "evolution". "Hey, why should we save endangered species, they're dying out because they can't survive. That's evolution, survival of the fittest"."
You use irrelevant metaphors to prove me wrong, and I need to grow up? What's the matter, don't you have any real substance to your debate? Need to sugar-coat it a bit? heh.
Sorry, your comments will not cause me to lose any sleep. Good day, sir.:)
"Do you really feel that Nintendo being an aggressive bully would justify MS doing the same?"
No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying was that people are bitching about it only because it's about MS this time around. Nintendo does it, no problem. Sony does it, no problem. Microsoft does it, and suddenly it's wrong.
You all need an attitude adjustment. To you guys, this isn't about right or wrong, it's about nailing MS. Frankly, I think debates like that have no substance. This thread has generated nearly 40 replies, and most of them are attacks at me, as opposed to having alternative points of view with any substantial relevance.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If Slashdot goes into an uproar every time MS makes a headline, then nobody will ever listen to Slashdot when MS really does something rotten. "oh, it's just Slashdot, they hate EVERYTHING Microsoft does." It'd be kind of like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
"No, it's not called a PC. What I had in mind was a closed platform, one that can't be upgraded, and one that only has one hardware configuration."
You mean like the ill-fated Indrema, or the 3DO? Heh.
"You're right, I apologize, sincerely. I get a little worked up sometimes. Especially when you say stuff (if I remember correctly) like "oh another stupid slashdot post, god these people don't even understand basic economics!"
I stand by that comment. This thread has generated 36 replies so far, most of them are anti-MS bigotry. If I am wrong about you, then I apologize. If this topic were about Sony or Nintendo instead of MS, I wouldn't have all these stupid responses flooding my inbox.
" Is anyone outside of the Southeastern U.S. experiencing the effects of this outage? "
So let me get this straight: You want the users of Slashdot to report internet outages? And how are we supposed to rule out that Slashdot didn't cause them?
"But why should it be the business of the public/government to ensure that Microsoft's, or Sony's or Nintendo's business model works out? All of what you're saying is true but so fucking what? Lots of ventures aren't worthwhile. Try something else next time."
What are you asking me for? That's not my decision to make. That is the way it is today and I cannot change that. I'm not a big fan of copy 'protection'.
" I can very easily imagine a console created by the industry through COOPERATION, a machine that all the game developers would support"
It's called a PC, and it's not a very successful model. Successful games on the PC are measured in hundreds of thousands. Successful games on game consoles are measured in millions.
"You may not have imagination enough to imagine things being any different, but that doesn't mean they can't or wouldn't."
Why are you taking pokes at me? Is it that hard to have a civilized debate? Do you really feel like you need to discredit me to 'win'?
"Most normal companies would have to drop out of the market because they can't afford to keep up with the competition. MS isn't normal."
Actually, MS is 'perfectly normal'. They have invested a great deal of money into this, and they have 4 years to turn it around into a moneymaker. The worst case scenario is that they make the game market better for everybody. Oh no! Damn them!
"How is anyone "forcing" Microsoft to do anything?"
I'm starting to think that few people commenting on Slashdot have any idea how economics works.
Playstation 2 drops price, GameCube drops price, suddenly XBOX is the expensive guy on the block. MS was forced to drop price to keep up. It's called competition.
I can't wait to hear the next illogical argument. "well MS didn't have to drop their price. They just did it because they want to piss people off!"
"Why is the parent marked as a troll but it was correcting the original troll taht claimed all consoles sell at a loss... any true geek knows this is not true."
Nope, you're both wrong. Playstation 2, for example, sold at a $100 loss in Japan. This is actually quite a common thing in the game industry. The original Playstation was sold at a loss as well.
"Mod chips, legal issues aside, are one of the "value adds" of the console market... Perhaps they've shot themselves in the foot with this."
I'd agree with this comment except MS needs to sell 4 games to make up for the loss they take on each system. If people buy XBOXes but don't buy games for them (i.e. they buy them to install Linux on so they can tap tap tap at it all day), then MS doesn't want their business. They lose.
If MS believed that purchase of an XBOX because it has a mod chip would also mean sales of games, I'm sure they'd go for it. I can certainly understand their concern though, since their lineup of games isn't very strong right now.
In other words, there isn't much value in the games today, but they need to move the games in order for this whole venture to be worthwhile.
"It just goes to show you how abusive MS is, as if you needed any more evidence."
Oh really? Well I have a question for ya then:
Let's say you made a product intended to sell games. You are forced to sell it at a loss because of market pressure. You need to sell 4 games for every system sold to make your money back. Unfortunately, the likeness of your machine to a PC encourages people to buy the system (costing you money) without serious consideration to buying games as well.
Would you not shut down a place making chips that threaten your profitability? I think you would.
Sorry, but 'abusive' is not the word I'd use. Microsoft did not get big by running around and pissing people off. Most anti-MS zealots don't seem to understand that.
"I do not care how many safeguards are built into this law, it is still nothing more than legalized vigilantism."
If I get into a copyright-related dispute, I want a 3rd party to mediate. I do *not* want the guy that's mad at me to have the power to 'punish' me. I mean think about it: how are they supposed to be fair? I mean, if a Cop came to my door, then I'd know:
a.) He's not personally mad at me, therefore won't billyclub me (In theory...)
b.) He's well trained and licensed to enforce the law
c.) He's going to have a more objective outlook on who's right and wrong.
The 'victim' cannot meet any of those requirements! So how can they possibly be allowed to perform any sort of law-enforcement?
Oh, and here's a note to you copyright holders out there: If you think I'm violating your copyright and you'd like me to stop whatever I'm doing, approach me kindly. If I got a note that said "Hi, uhh you're hosting a pic on your website that I really don't want made public, could you take it down please?", I'd probably be happy to oblidge peacefully and quickly. If you attempt to attack my webserver, then we're going to have a little problem.
Funny thing is, I can see this vigilante law backfiring. If I were unfairly attacked, I'd probably overreact and do something worse. Like, in the example above, put that image up on a bunch of forums around the web.
Slashdot Mirror
"How can a more intelligent forum of critical thinkers throw out logic and be so...emotionally biased?"
Heh. These people should turn to the Vulcan way of life. Not only would they be more intelligent and logical, they'd also have sex waaaay more often!
Maybe I'm just tired, but I totally didn't understand that comment.
"Was I solving yours? :-)"
:D
Are you solving it now?
"Isn't that a cliche in and of itself?"
Does it matter? I wasn't solving your problem.
"You're like those people who justify anything with "evolution". "Hey, why should we save endangered species, they're dying out because they can't survive. That's evolution, survival of the fittest"."
:)
You use irrelevant metaphors to prove me wrong, and I need to grow up? What's the matter, don't you have any real substance to your debate? Need to sugar-coat it a bit? heh.
Sorry, your comments will not cause me to lose any sleep. Good day, sir.
"Do you really feel that Nintendo being an aggressive bully would justify MS doing the same?"
No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying was that people are bitching about it only because it's about MS this time around. Nintendo does it, no problem. Sony does it, no problem. Microsoft does it, and suddenly it's wrong.
You all need an attitude adjustment. To you guys, this isn't about right or wrong, it's about nailing MS. Frankly, I think debates like that have no substance. This thread has generated nearly 40 replies, and most of them are attacks at me, as opposed to having alternative points of view with any substantial relevance.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If Slashdot goes into an uproar every time MS makes a headline, then nobody will ever listen to Slashdot when MS really does something rotten. "oh, it's just Slashdot, they hate EVERYTHING Microsoft does." It'd be kind of like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
"No, it's not called a PC. What I had in mind was a closed platform, one that can't be upgraded, and one that only has one hardware configuration."
You mean like the ill-fated Indrema, or the 3DO? Heh.
"You're right, I apologize, sincerely. I get a little worked up sometimes. Especially when you say stuff (if I remember correctly) like "oh another stupid slashdot post, god these people don't even understand basic economics!"
I stand by that comment. This thread has generated 36 replies so far, most of them are anti-MS bigotry. If I am wrong about you, then I apologize. If this topic were about Sony or Nintendo instead of MS, I wouldn't have all these stupid responses flooding my inbox.
"There are plenty of well-reasoned responses to your post. I'm just here to call you an ass. Ass."
I dare you to call me an ass with your registerred nick. Or are you chicken? Chicken.
Cliches don't really solve problems.
"Eventually they knock down the competition enough to win."
And mod chips are competition? Nope. They are 100% non-competitive. As a matter of fact, mod chips make people wantXBOXes.
They are circumvention devices. You might have thought about that if this article were about Sony and not Microsoft.
" Is anyone outside of the Southeastern U.S. experiencing the effects of this outage? "
So let me get this straight: You want the users of Slashdot to report internet outages? And how are we supposed to rule out that Slashdot didn't cause them?
"I'm starting to think you don't know the definition of the word "force"."
So.. that's your whole debate? No response as to why you think I'm wrong? I can see why you posted anonymously. Chicken.
"Inability to compete does not imply that someone is forcing something."
Really? So if I put a gun to your head and say "Give me your money or you die", then I'm not forcing you to give me your money?
I mean you do have a choice there. It's not my fault that you don't have a bulletproof skull.
"But why should it be the business of the public/government to ensure that Microsoft's, or Sony's or Nintendo's business model works out? All of what you're saying is true but so fucking what? Lots of ventures aren't worthwhile. Try something else next time."
What are you asking me for? That's not my decision to make. That is the way it is today and I cannot change that. I'm not a big fan of copy 'protection'.
" I can very easily imagine a console created by the industry through COOPERATION, a machine that all the game developers would support"
It's called a PC, and it's not a very successful model. Successful games on the PC are measured in hundreds of thousands. Successful games on game consoles are measured in millions.
"You may not have imagination enough to imagine things being any different, but that doesn't mean they can't or wouldn't."
Why are you taking pokes at me? Is it that hard to have a civilized debate? Do you really feel like you need to discredit me to 'win'?
"But should the LAW come in and close down other businesses which might conflict with someone's razor blade business?"
Argument Rejected: Apples != Oranges.
"I haven't seen Nintendo screaming and yelling cuz of flash carts..
In fact the whole reason why I bought my GBA was because I wanted to program it.."
I believe the product was called 'Flash Linker', and yes Nintendo was very aggressive about getting it shut down.
Sony's done similar stuff against mod chips.
Frankly, the only reason this is of interest to Slashdot is because it's bent out of shape until it looks like MS is being an aggressive bully.
"Most normal companies would have to drop out of the market because they can't afford to keep up with the competition. MS isn't normal."
Actually, MS is 'perfectly normal'. They have invested a great deal of money into this, and they have 4 years to turn it around into a moneymaker. The worst case scenario is that they make the game market better for everybody. Oh no! Damn them!
"How is anyone "forcing" Microsoft to do anything?"
I'm starting to think that few people commenting on Slashdot have any idea how economics works.
Playstation 2 drops price, GameCube drops price, suddenly XBOX is the expensive guy on the block. MS was forced to drop price to keep up. It's called competition.
I can't wait to hear the next illogical argument. "well MS didn't have to drop their price. They just did it because they want to piss people off!"
"Why is the parent marked as a troll but it was correcting the original troll taht claimed all consoles sell at a loss... any true geek knows this is not true."
Nope, you're both wrong. Playstation 2, for example, sold at a $100 loss in Japan. This is actually quite a common thing in the game industry. The original Playstation was sold at a loss as well.
Following that logic, Sony, Nintendo, and Gillette would not be in business today.
"Mod chips, legal issues aside, are one of the "value adds" of the console market... Perhaps they've shot themselves in the foot with this."
I'd agree with this comment except MS needs to sell 4 games to make up for the loss they take on each system. If people buy XBOXes but don't buy games for them (i.e. they buy them to install Linux on so they can tap tap tap at it all day), then MS doesn't want their business. They lose.
If MS believed that purchase of an XBOX because it has a mod chip would also mean sales of games, I'm sure they'd go for it. I can certainly understand their concern though, since their lineup of games isn't very strong right now.
In other words, there isn't much value in the games today, but they need to move the games in order for this whole venture to be worthwhile.
"It just goes to show you how abusive MS is, as if you needed any more evidence."
Oh really? Well I have a question for ya then:
Let's say you made a product intended to sell games. You are forced to sell it at a loss because of market pressure. You need to sell 4 games for every system sold to make your money back. Unfortunately, the likeness of your machine to a PC encourages people to buy the system (costing you money) without serious consideration to buying games as well.
Would you not shut down a place making chips that threaten your profitability? I think you would.
Sorry, but 'abusive' is not the word I'd use. Microsoft did not get big by running around and pissing people off. Most anti-MS zealots don't seem to understand that.
"I do not care how many safeguards are built into this law, it is still nothing more than legalized vigilantism."
If I get into a copyright-related dispute, I want a 3rd party to mediate. I do *not* want the guy that's mad at me to have the power to 'punish' me. I mean think about it: how are they supposed to be fair? I mean, if a Cop came to my door, then I'd know:
a.) He's not personally mad at me, therefore won't billyclub me (In theory...)
b.) He's well trained and licensed to enforce the law
c.) He's going to have a more objective outlook on who's right and wrong.
The 'victim' cannot meet any of those requirements! So how can they possibly be allowed to perform any sort of law-enforcement?
Oh, and here's a note to you copyright holders out there: If you think I'm violating your copyright and you'd like me to stop whatever I'm doing, approach me kindly. If I got a note that said "Hi, uhh you're hosting a pic on your website that I really don't want made public, could you take it down please?", I'd probably be happy to oblidge peacefully and quickly. If you attempt to attack my webserver, then we're going to have a little problem.
Funny thing is, I can see this vigilante law backfiring. If I were unfairly attacked, I'd probably overreact and do something worse. Like, in the example above, put that image up on a bunch of forums around the web.
"(Of course, if anybody can figure out a Beowulf cluster joke to shoehorn into the topic at hand, I'm willing to add a #5.)"
"I cant' believe it, 3 replies and Fandango's already sold out."
How about that for #5?
... I was grounded for bending my wookie.