Yeah, but the games are priced reasonably enough that it's worth taking the risk on GOG. A brand new game is a $60 gamble. A GOG title is what, $5? Making people have to pay more and have no way to get rid of a game they didn't like is a great way to get people to not pay for it in the first place. You'll get to a situation where people will ONLY take risks on games they already know they will like, shit like Halo and Madden and other entrenched franchises. Locking out the secondary market locks out all the smaller developers, too.
To what extent are those canceled out by those of us who don't buy only BECAUSE of the DRM? I know that's only reason why I haven't gotten a Blu-Ray player or movies. And what extent is it due to the "standard" pricing being asinine? Seriously... risking $60 on a game being shitty isn't a gamble most people take. If it were $20 or $30? You'd sell a lot more, get a lot more people willing to pay to try it out. Not to mention that everyone, even pirates, recognizes the value of the "official" copy, having the manual and all that. You don't give them enough value over the pirate option, and people won't do it.
The company didn't make the discovery, though. A university did, and the company was formed to take advantage of that discovery. Basically using tax dollars to fund research, and then a company to capture the profits. Our system really pisses me off sometimes.
The problem is that life and government has become so complex that it's almost a full-time job just figuring out which one of the representatives you can vote on is fucking things up. With the average single person earning less than we did in the 50's (households do more on average, but households typically have two earners any more), hours getting longer, and higher expectations of workers if you want to "get ahead" and not just flip burgers, examining the political system takes back burner to figuring out how you're going to squeeze American Idol watching in between feeding the kids and sleeping. A lot of people just don't have the time, energy or competency to properly examine what "their" elected officials are doing without it becoming their only hobby.
Supplying it to competitors? Why? Intel essentially took the cash from the consumers, not AMD. So the fine will go to the EU general fund, and reduce the amount that consumers need to pay for various government functions and such.
The whole point of these laws is CONSUMER protection, not protection of individual companies. What if Intel had 15 competitors? How would things be divided up? Intel's actions harmed the EU consumer, so the consumer is the one that gets the benefit of the fine. AMD's reward is Intel stopping it's bullshit.
You compete fairly when you improve your product, advertise, and so on. You do not compete fairly when you kneecap your opponent. There is a VERY large difference between improving your own offerings and tearing down others. Intel is the Tonya Harding of processor manufacturers.
From what I've read, it's almost a 20% performance hit synthetically, 14% real-world benches. That's not trivial in anything I've seen.
If you're buying a processor, just don't get the Phenom 9600. It's under $100 for a quad-core CPU, but that 2.3GHz with the workaround would end up being an effective 1.9GHz or so. The 9650's and any AMD chip ending with a 50 has the TLB bug fixed.
No matter how smart an individual man is, you get them into groups and they can collectively do a lot of stupid things. I mean, Microsoft also though that Microsoft Bob was a good idea.
Hey, I just said "later games", I didn't say anything about VII not being a new one. But even then, the gameplay has changed between almost every Final Fantasy game, different mechanisms and such for magic, weapons, and so on. Those changes have accelerated with the later games, but you still had a change with every FF game. Acting like the post-VII games are completely different than VII and before is disingenuous (which is what I got from my original post's parent)
Car manufacturers can't expressly forbid you from taking the vehicle to other mechanics, or from aftermarket parts or anything like that. What gives console makers that right? Just because they say so doesn't make it true.
The question should be "why should they have to?" if it's derivative, non-commercial art. Trademarks, sure. They don't want to allow anyone to mistake it as an official Square game. But copyright? How is copyright helping progress the useful arts in this case?
Ehhh... depends. I liked VII, but I also liked X and XII. If you go into the later games expecting VII but with better graphics and a different story you will be very disappointed. But if you go into them with a "this is a different game", just like every FF before VII, the new ones are actually pretty good.
How about Redhat? They give away all their product for free (if they didn't, CentOS wouldn't exist). Yet, last time I checked their ticker they were successful. They sell the scarcity... support, expertise and time. Bits are essentially infinite... time and expertise are not. People will pay for things that aren't infinite, and will pay quite well if you do it right. Hell, that's pretty much IBM's entire services business. They sell you the contractors to make code to do what you want.
My business model is selling my piss in Mountain Dew bottles. Just having a business model doesn't mean it's a good one.
A good business model leverages a SCARCE good, not an infinite one. For example, oxygen bars. Everyone gets oxygen while breathing, but the special scented, concentrated oxygen costs extra. Apply that to software: the bits are free, but support and further, targeted development costs money. And NOW you have a sustainable business model that leverages the scarce good (your time and expertise). Why do people not get this "infinite" thing? Do your brains shut down with a divide by zero error or something?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the games are priced reasonably enough that it's worth taking the risk on GOG. A brand new game is a $60 gamble. A GOG title is what, $5? Making people have to pay more and have no way to get rid of a game they didn't like is a great way to get people to not pay for it in the first place. You'll get to a situation where people will ONLY take risks on games they already know they will like, shit like Halo and Madden and other entrenched franchises. Locking out the secondary market locks out all the smaller developers, too.
To what extent are those canceled out by those of us who don't buy only BECAUSE of the DRM? I know that's only reason why I haven't gotten a Blu-Ray player or movies. And what extent is it due to the "standard" pricing being asinine? Seriously... risking $60 on a game being shitty isn't a gamble most people take. If it were $20 or $30? You'd sell a lot more, get a lot more people willing to pay to try it out. Not to mention that everyone, even pirates, recognizes the value of the "official" copy, having the manual and all that. You don't give them enough value over the pirate option, and people won't do it.
Because using the cloud has never screwed anyone
The company didn't make the discovery, though. A university did, and the company was formed to take advantage of that discovery. Basically using tax dollars to fund research, and then a company to capture the profits. Our system really pisses me off sometimes.
The problem is that life and government has become so complex that it's almost a full-time job just figuring out which one of the representatives you can vote on is fucking things up. With the average single person earning less than we did in the 50's (households do more on average, but households typically have two earners any more), hours getting longer, and higher expectations of workers if you want to "get ahead" and not just flip burgers, examining the political system takes back burner to figuring out how you're going to squeeze American Idol watching in between feeding the kids and sleeping. A lot of people just don't have the time, energy or competency to properly examine what "their" elected officials are doing without it becoming their only hobby.
Supplying it to competitors? Why? Intel essentially took the cash from the consumers, not AMD. So the fine will go to the EU general fund, and reduce the amount that consumers need to pay for various government functions and such.
The whole point of these laws is CONSUMER protection, not protection of individual companies. What if Intel had 15 competitors? How would things be divided up? Intel's actions harmed the EU consumer, so the consumer is the one that gets the benefit of the fine. AMD's reward is Intel stopping it's bullshit.
You compete fairly when you improve your product, advertise, and so on. You do not compete fairly when you kneecap your opponent. There is a VERY large difference between improving your own offerings and tearing down others. Intel is the Tonya Harding of processor manufacturers.
Because private industry is quite obviously working in favor of the consumer in this instance
From what I've read, it's almost a 20% performance hit synthetically, 14% real-world benches. That's not trivial in anything I've seen.
If you're buying a processor, just don't get the Phenom 9600. It's under $100 for a quad-core CPU, but that 2.3GHz with the workaround would end up being an effective 1.9GHz or so. The 9650's and any AMD chip ending with a 50 has the TLB bug fixed.
The way I used "have" was the past tense. English can be tricky ;) I'd certainly hope that those mortgages don't still have AAA's.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those "toxic" mortgage bonds also have AAA ratings?
No matter how smart an individual man is, you get them into groups and they can collectively do a lot of stupid things. I mean, Microsoft also though that Microsoft Bob was a good idea.
Claiming you're a secret agent can make up for a lot of... shortcomings. Or so I hear.
If it's not in hot grits, it doesn't count
Hey, I just said "later games", I didn't say anything about VII not being a new one. But even then, the gameplay has changed between almost every Final Fantasy game, different mechanisms and such for magic, weapons, and so on. Those changes have accelerated with the later games, but you still had a change with every FF game. Acting like the post-VII games are completely different than VII and before is disingenuous (which is what I got from my original post's parent)
Car manufacturers can't expressly forbid you from taking the vehicle to other mechanics, or from aftermarket parts or anything like that. What gives console makers that right? Just because they say so doesn't make it true.
The question should be "why should they have to?" if it's derivative, non-commercial art. Trademarks, sure. They don't want to allow anyone to mistake it as an official Square game. But copyright? How is copyright helping progress the useful arts in this case?
Ehhh... depends. I liked VII, but I also liked X and XII. If you go into the later games expecting VII but with better graphics and a different story you will be very disappointed. But if you go into them with a "this is a different game", just like every FF before VII, the new ones are actually pretty good.
Who fell last, basically. If it wasn't hard enough, multiple teams would have finished and you couldn't have distinguished between them.
I find that rtorrent+screen is the way I like to roll. I'm sure Apple has an SSH app of some sort available?
In 2004 it was estimated at $10 billion a year, according to CBS
Chaotic Good FTW, baby
How about Redhat? They give away all their product for free (if they didn't, CentOS wouldn't exist). Yet, last time I checked their ticker they were successful. They sell the scarcity... support, expertise and time. Bits are essentially infinite... time and expertise are not. People will pay for things that aren't infinite, and will pay quite well if you do it right. Hell, that's pretty much IBM's entire services business. They sell you the contractors to make code to do what you want.
My business model is selling my piss in Mountain Dew bottles. Just having a business model doesn't mean it's a good one.
A good business model leverages a SCARCE good, not an infinite one. For example, oxygen bars. Everyone gets oxygen while breathing, but the special scented, concentrated oxygen costs extra. Apply that to software: the bits are free, but support and further, targeted development costs money. And NOW you have a sustainable business model that leverages the scarce good (your time and expertise). Why do people not get this "infinite" thing? Do your brains shut down with a divide by zero error or something?
I'm gonna tell your mom you called her stupid!