Show me a documented case where a defendant has used the "video games drove me to crime" defense and has been found innocent in a court of the United States.
And if you're not familiar with the fact that many governments operate in a fashion where the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing, you should become acquainted with it. The Army recruiting office has never made the claim that violent video games lead to violent children.
I realize the point of the post. My point was that comparing theft to the death of a person is trite and a foolish way to go about proving the point that software manufacturers should be held accountable.
Now, the theft was due to a vulnerability in Outlook that Microsoft has since released a patch for. How do you want MS held responsible? If you expect and demand that all software that is released to be completely secure, you will bring about the end of commercial software.
You've proven the point for why teachers should be paid more. With the current pay scale that you are describing, people often do consider teaching but then make THEIR choice to do something that pays more. These people are ambitious and talented and want to lead a good life. In this world, the people who most often succeed are the talented ones. So by having a low pay scale, you attract many people who just want a steady income and summers off as well as attracting some great people who don't care about the money. Most public schools have a number of problems. These include administrators who are being paid too much for doing a poor job, bad teachers who can't be fired, good teachers who aren't making enough money. If schools were managed in a way that got more money into the hands of teachers and less in the hands of the administrators of that school, the overall quality of teachers would improve.
I see your point about the unions. They are a problem BUT without the unions, the teachers would be getting screwed and you'd only attract the least qualified. There's got to be a better middle ground between unions and the administration.
There are differences between each Madden game. If you compare Madden 2003 to Madden 2004, the improvements are vast. The running game is much improved, with more realism involving waiting for holes and making the right cuts. The playmaker mode adds a lot to the gameplay experience as well. Many people who don't enjoy playing a video game based on football don't understand that the games are more than just roster updates. I am not a fan of the Sims but I do not criticize people who buy the expansion packs so why do you feel the need to criticize people who buy Madden each year?
As any scientist knows, such a small sample space does not a statement verify. Your small circle of friends is such a biased set that any conclusions you are drawing from this are of no actual use in this discussion.
So you're basing your conclusion that Madden is designed for non-gamers on a guess that mostly non-gamers play it? There have been numerous articles written by people who describe the rise of the game for non-gamers and games like Madden are never included in those discussions - so it's not just me that thinks you're off-base. And starting off, Madden is not "simple." Certainly not as simple as anything at popcap.com is in which all the instructions can be fit into a small dialogue box. Do a little more research on what it means to be a game for a non-gamer before you spout off. Games for non-gamers are typically puzzle games and games that are advertised to people who aren't in the target demographic. Madden is advertised during football games, targeting the prime demographic of console systems - males age 17 - 25. If this group is composed of non-gamers, what group do you think fits the bill? Women over the age of 40? Are those the mighty gamers you speak of?
I'm quite amused that you've marked me as a foe. I'll return the favor.
No, the stores don't make that much profit on the consoles. The profit margins for the stores are basically nonexistent on the consoles. Talk to some people who work at EB or Gamestop or Circuit City. There's no employee discount given for console sales because there is no profit being made there.
In the video game industry, losing money on the hardware is not the norm. This is a long standing rumor that people continue to tell. The first time this was even mentioned as a possible business model was when the PS1 came out in the U.S. and Sega said the price was too low and thus Sony was dumping. If you have any evidence that Nintendo or Sony have ever sold their consoles at a loss, I would love to see it. Until then, MS loses money on an X-Box sale and Sega lost money on Dreamcast sales but beyond those two systems, I do not know of any systems that have been sold at a loss when the system was still being actively sold. Two consoles in a market that's been around for over twenty years does not a "norm" make. You are correct that most hardware companies are making more money from the licenses and the game sales.
No it doesn't! In one statement, you're making a comment about how the game is designed. Non-gamers don't like complicated instructions and games that take a long time to get playing. On the other hand, a game simply selling well to people who don't normally buy games does not mean that it was DESIGNED to do so. You're comparing the initial process of creating a game to the end result of the sales of the game and saying that they are the same thing. This is incorrect.
From everything I've ever heard, Nintendo does not and will not sell consoles at a loss. This is a widespread rumor concerning the hardware business started by Sega when the PS1 was launched and Sega believed the price was too low. Now, the profit margin on the Gamecube at this point must be very slim but I believe there is still profit being made. Remember that since the Gamecube does not use DVDs, there is no licensing fee to pay for that. Furthermore, the PowerPC chip that the Gamecube has has probably come down in price since the Gamecube launched.
But regardless, Nintendo is very much in the black, as you seem to be implying that they are teetering towards the red. See this article for information on this. (Basically, they made 95 million in their first fiscal quarter of the year.) They may not be making the kind of money that was coming in during the heyday of the NES but Nintendo is not in dire straits.
Ah, I didn't know they were charging that much for it. That is completely unacceptable. I don't buy albums unless they come out for $10 and include some extras other than just the music. For instance, the most recent Metallica release included a user name and password to get a bunch of live mp3s and studio outtakes. (I would have bought this but it's Metallica and Lars alienated me by going after the fans.)
And yes, that Manson DVD was very bad - a little too self-congragulatory
I think they realize that it is not secure but the fact is the average person does not have a modded PS2 and would have to buy the CD in order to get the game. Sure, the game will end up being available for download but this seems like a step in the right direction for the music industry. Again, to the average user this is a nice deal because you get something extra in addition to the music. I saw a Marilyn Manson cd being sold that included a DVD along with it. This type of value-adding is what the music companies need to do in order to get people back to the store to buy their CDs - if that's the business model they want to hold onto.
By the way, everytime any Slashdot article mentions a spokesman talking about the security of a product, someone posts the "I give them a [time period] before..." It's not really needed.
Nintendo doesn't own the rights to the entire library of NES games, remember? Third party developers created quite a bit Nintendo hits. You can't have Nintendo making money off of Mega Man or the folks at Capcom will get very angry.
And the reason Nintendo doesn't do this with their own library of games is because they don't publish games for any platforms other than their own. And the reason you haven't seen a release like this for the Gamecube is because it has a limited market (nostalgia only sells so many copies) and it would cut into their eReader cards and classic ports to the GBA. Any other suggestions?
Steve Jobs would disagree regarding your price point. I believe that pay for download music sites and pay for download ROM sites have very similar markets and Mr. Jobs believes that $1 is okay. At least two dollars? I don't know - it seems like people are buying into the idea of iTunes.
How is Madden 2004 a game for a non-gamer? The sports games genre has long been a staple of both console games and PC games. I can see how the Sims can be seen as a game for a non-gamer as it does not have the typical requirements for learning to play the game (just as games like Bejeweled and everything else on popcap.com could be called games for non-gamers) but Madden? Come on. If you're using the logic that the popularity of a game with the general populace (i.e. people who haven't owned generation after generation of console hardware and/or don't know what a video card is) dictates that that game is for non-gamers. And using that logic, Halo is a game for non-gamers - a stance I think many people might disagree with you on - as it has sold to people who are typically not heavily invested in video games.
In all likelihood, you're taking the elitist view that sports gaming does not count. I play sports games. I also play first person shooters. I do not play RPGs but I don't call people who play them non-gamers.
How about this, Nintendo has a customer base of people who are loyal to their consoles. Apple has a customer base that is loyal to their machines.
Now, you said that Nintendo is in no way like Apple yet I have just raised one example of how Nintendo is like Apple. Thus I have proven your original claim incorrect. Thanks for playing and please don't ever reply to one of my posts again.
From the switchbox blurb, "I know they're claiming that they're content to make a profit and hide out in their niche market, but eventually that will be eroded away if they can't make a strong showing with the next console."
Why would Nintendo's market be eroded? If they continue to satisfy the people who buy in that "niche", why would their performance not continue as it has been? I don't know what the author means by a strong showing (similar sales to the GC or NES?) but I think that Nintendo's got a fairly good grasp of how they want their business to run. Sure, they'd probably like a larger share of the market but I believe that the executives at Nintendo aren't going to sacrifice their business model in an attempt to achieve that larger market share. Ultimately, I don't see how sticking to that business model will lead to Nintendo's market share being eroded.
I suppose that one could argue that if Nintendo continues to go after the Mario crowd and Sony and MS both come out with consoles that have games with the Mario crowd in mind and the various other gamers in mind, then Sony and MS would be a more attractive option because their systems might satisfy more than one demographic. But really, that's a stretch. Nintendo is a lot like Apple - there's a devoted following and Nintendo doesn't want to alienate that following, a good move for maintaining market share, in my opinion.
gamestop.com is showing the used GC's for $89 now and the new GC's for $99 (just to show that they have updated their pricing). At that price point, I think it's worth it just to spend the extra money and get a brand new system. Of course, perhaps the used price will go down. After all, retailers would be selling used consoles that they paid consumers X amount for on the trade-in so they certainly wouldn't want to sell them back to people for anything below X. But now that the new GC's are at 99, when you trade one in, you'll get less and therefore, theoretically, the store could sell used ones for sell and still make a profit. Who knows though - I'd say for the time being the used GC's will be at $89.
The NES, SNES, Genesis, and PSX all showed improved sales figures after price cuts. Do you think the PS2 would have an installed worldwide base of over 50 million if the price had stayed at $300 in the U.S. the whole time?
The price drop I believe you are referring to was when the Dreamcast dropped to $79.95. This came at the same time that Sega announced it was getting out of the hardware business and was clearing out all remaining inventory. Nintendo, on the other hand, has done nothing of the sort and has committed to another generation of hardware. So your comparison of the Gamecube to the Dreamcast is quite thin when one really thinks about it. Price drops help get consoles into more hands - simple as that.
I e-mailed Nintendo earlier today about this issue because of the previous article. I asked when the price drop would take effect and what would be bundled with it. Here's the response I got.
Hello and thank you for contacting Nintendo,
As far as I know, the $99.95 will be for the Nintendo GameCube Control Deck
only. There will be no game enclosed in the packaging.
Now, when will it be available? The new prices will be effective tomorrow
(September 25th), but remember that retailers always determine the prices at
which the sell their merchandise. You may want to shop around for the best
deals!!
So even though the Yahoo article doesn't mention one way or the other, the Slashdot blurb is correct - there will be no game for $99.
That really depends on the multi-billion dollar companies. Some companies care very much about the bottom line and a shift in profits of that magnitude ($149 to $100 IS HUGE - have you seen that commercial, which I believe is for some Microsoft product, where an IT worker is proud because he's found a way to save a nickel - realizing that saving a nickel a billion times, is a lot of money) will affect that bottom line. Microsoft has committed to the X-Box division losing money for this round of consoles but I would doubt very much if they will accept losses into the second or third generation. At that point, the X-Box might be (and just hypothesizing here, the X-Box 2 might break all sales records ever) abandoned in favor of a set-top box marketed more towards families than gamers. Ultimately, I think Microsoft wants to be selling you products both for your office and your living room.
In short, you're right that MS isn't concerned over losing large amounts of money on the X-Box but they aren't going to just lose indiscriminate amounts.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be a liar in the future please.
And if you're not familiar with the fact that many governments operate in a fashion where the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing, you should become acquainted with it. The Army recruiting office has never made the claim that violent video games lead to violent children.
Now, the theft was due to a vulnerability in Outlook that Microsoft has since released a patch for. How do you want MS held responsible? If you expect and demand that all software that is released to be completely secure, you will bring about the end of commercial software.
Do you fail to see the difference between someone dying and a nerd not having a computer game in time for Christmas?
I see your point about the unions. They are a problem BUT without the unions, the teachers would be getting screwed and you'd only attract the least qualified. There's got to be a better middle ground between unions and the administration.
There are differences between each Madden game. If you compare Madden 2003 to Madden 2004, the improvements are vast. The running game is much improved, with more realism involving waiting for holes and making the right cuts. The playmaker mode adds a lot to the gameplay experience as well. Many people who don't enjoy playing a video game based on football don't understand that the games are more than just roster updates. I am not a fan of the Sims but I do not criticize people who buy the expansion packs so why do you feel the need to criticize people who buy Madden each year?
Oh, don't be a liberal.
I'm quite amused that you've marked me as a foe. I'll return the favor.
Have you ever played Madden 2004? It relies on quite a bit of knowledge regarding salary caps, passing schemes, defensive sets, etc.
No, the stores don't make that much profit on the consoles. The profit margins for the stores are basically nonexistent on the consoles. Talk to some people who work at EB or Gamestop or Circuit City. There's no employee discount given for console sales because there is no profit being made there.
In the video game industry, losing money on the hardware is not the norm. This is a long standing rumor that people continue to tell. The first time this was even mentioned as a possible business model was when the PS1 came out in the U.S. and Sega said the price was too low and thus Sony was dumping. If you have any evidence that Nintendo or Sony have ever sold their consoles at a loss, I would love to see it. Until then, MS loses money on an X-Box sale and Sega lost money on Dreamcast sales but beyond those two systems, I do not know of any systems that have been sold at a loss when the system was still being actively sold. Two consoles in a market that's been around for over twenty years does not a "norm" make. You are correct that most hardware companies are making more money from the licenses and the game sales.
No it doesn't! In one statement, you're making a comment about how the game is designed. Non-gamers don't like complicated instructions and games that take a long time to get playing. On the other hand, a game simply selling well to people who don't normally buy games does not mean that it was DESIGNED to do so. You're comparing the initial process of creating a game to the end result of the sales of the game and saying that they are the same thing. This is incorrect.
But regardless, Nintendo is very much in the black, as you seem to be implying that they are teetering towards the red. See this article for information on this. (Basically, they made 95 million in their first fiscal quarter of the year.) They may not be making the kind of money that was coming in during the heyday of the NES but Nintendo is not in dire straits.
And yes, that Manson DVD was very bad - a little too self-congragulatory
By the way, everytime any Slashdot article mentions a spokesman talking about the security of a product, someone posts the "I give them a [time period] before..." It's not really needed.
So the genre has more crossover appeal. That is not the same thing as being designed for "non-gamers."
And the reason Nintendo doesn't do this with their own library of games is because they don't publish games for any platforms other than their own. And the reason you haven't seen a release like this for the Gamecube is because it has a limited market (nostalgia only sells so many copies) and it would cut into their eReader cards and classic ports to the GBA. Any other suggestions?
Steve Jobs would disagree regarding your price point. I believe that pay for download music sites and pay for download ROM sites have very similar markets and Mr. Jobs believes that $1 is okay. At least two dollars? I don't know - it seems like people are buying into the idea of iTunes.
In all likelihood, you're taking the elitist view that sports gaming does not count. I play sports games. I also play first person shooters. I do not play RPGs but I don't call people who play them non-gamers.
How about this, Nintendo has a customer base of people who are loyal to their consoles. Apple has a customer base that is loyal to their machines.
Now, you said that Nintendo is in no way like Apple yet I have just raised one example of how Nintendo is like Apple. Thus I have proven your original claim incorrect. Thanks for playing and please don't ever reply to one of my posts again.
Why would Nintendo's market be eroded? If they continue to satisfy the people who buy in that "niche", why would their performance not continue as it has been? I don't know what the author means by a strong showing (similar sales to the GC or NES?) but I think that Nintendo's got a fairly good grasp of how they want their business to run. Sure, they'd probably like a larger share of the market but I believe that the executives at Nintendo aren't going to sacrifice their business model in an attempt to achieve that larger market share. Ultimately, I don't see how sticking to that business model will lead to Nintendo's market share being eroded.
I suppose that one could argue that if Nintendo continues to go after the Mario crowd and Sony and MS both come out with consoles that have games with the Mario crowd in mind and the various other gamers in mind, then Sony and MS would be a more attractive option because their systems might satisfy more than one demographic. But really, that's a stretch. Nintendo is a lot like Apple - there's a devoted following and Nintendo doesn't want to alienate that following, a good move for maintaining market share, in my opinion.
End rant?
gamestop.com is showing the used GC's for $89 now and the new GC's for $99 (just to show that they have updated their pricing). At that price point, I think it's worth it just to spend the extra money and get a brand new system. Of course, perhaps the used price will go down. After all, retailers would be selling used consoles that they paid consumers X amount for on the trade-in so they certainly wouldn't want to sell them back to people for anything below X. But now that the new GC's are at 99, when you trade one in, you'll get less and therefore, theoretically, the store could sell used ones for sell and still make a profit. Who knows though - I'd say for the time being the used GC's will be at $89.
The price drop I believe you are referring to was when the Dreamcast dropped to $79.95. This came at the same time that Sega announced it was getting out of the hardware business and was clearing out all remaining inventory. Nintendo, on the other hand, has done nothing of the sort and has committed to another generation of hardware. So your comparison of the Gamecube to the Dreamcast is quite thin when one really thinks about it. Price drops help get consoles into more hands - simple as that.
Hello and thank you for contacting Nintendo,
As far as I know, the $99.95 will be for the Nintendo GameCube Control Deck only. There will be no game enclosed in the packaging.
Now, when will it be available? The new prices will be effective tomorrow (September 25th), but remember that retailers always determine the prices at which the sell their merchandise. You may want to shop around for the best deals!!
So even though the Yahoo article doesn't mention one way or the other, the Slashdot blurb is correct - there will be no game for $99.
In short, you're right that MS isn't concerned over losing large amounts of money on the X-Box but they aren't going to just lose indiscriminate amounts.