Yeah, but that's only because the facts have a well-known liberal bias.
Re:And this is indeed a serious problem with EBay.
on
How to Win on Ebay: Snipe
·
· Score: 2, Informative
What if eBay also had another auction type in addition to normal and Buy It Now ones: silent auctions. It tells you when it ends, the seller may optionally give a reccomended amount, and you get to put in your bid, without knowing what anyone else put down. Now you'd be more compelled to put your maximum bid down.
My sister actually has been part of a team doing academic research on auction results. They took a number of different auction models (11 or so, I think) and ran computer models and did real-world studies to see how much each auction type generated in revenue. The result was surprising, at least to me: all types of auction made approximately the same amount of money. That doesn't necessarily mean anything about how the auction types affected the bidders, but I think it might be less than you'd imagine.
Isn't the point of ads not just to create immediate sales, but also to expand brand recognition and "image", especially these days? That's why a lot of companies run ads about their company in general, rather than a particular product.
I imagine Google won't be dropping their current AdSense, though, so perhaps this is a good fit for actual physical product sales.
There's value to unspoiled areas even if they're devoid of life, though... The empty desert has a beauty to it that I would be sad to see go. Similarily, I would be somewhat unhappy if the entire moon were ravaged and I never got to see the Sea of Tranquility for myself, when I went up as a space tourist.
Think about if Coca-Cola decided to make the moon one big ad, or we decided to remove the moon entirely (ignoring the catastrophic effects on earth...) Wouldn't you miss it?
I'm not saying that the entire moon needs to remain unspoiled, but I also think that just because it's a lifeless rock doesn't mean there's something there to conserve.
Voting for President Bush's political opponents, lobbying against his policies, peaceful/lawful demonstrations are all fine.
I agree with the gist of what you're saying. But these examples are not as black and white "fine" as you say. There are numerous examples of peaceful activists getting investigated or even arrested for their lobbying or demonstrations. Knowing that, it's tough to assume that saying certain things will always be "fine", in all circumstances.
You're right about the technical experience, but in my opinion, the most important thing you can gain from being a tester is connections. You can actually meet people in the industry, you can make impressions, you can go to industry events and parties - it's invaluable. There's also the people who go on from testing positions to other positions, and can then put in a good word for you.
The main way you're ever going to get a job in another part of the game industry after being a tester is by knowing someone. That someone could be a programmer or manager that you really impressed with your professionalism and skill, or it could be a former trench-mate from the QA floor who got a producer job somewhere. Or it could be a random person that you got to talk to at E3 or GDC. I've known people to get job offers based on all three of these scenarios (including me).
Plus, being in the industry at all, even if you're just a tester, seems to give potential employers a more positive view (although, as noted elsewhere, many people look down on QA - even (or maybe especially) when they came from QA themselves).
That's essentially how the ESRB works: "representative" clips from the game are given to the ESRB panel, which is made up of regular non-industry people, who indicate where they feel the game should be rated.
It works very well, too, the rating system has been graded very highly in the past. The problem is twofold - lax or no enforcement by retailers, which the FTC report touches on, and lack of knowledge from parents, which is a much larger problem. Something like 90% of games that kids get are bought by adults, but the adults often assume that because it's a video game, it's automatically suitable for kids.
I think the second problem is one that will take care of itself. As more gamers become parents, and games enter the mainstream more and more, parents will gradually become aware that they need to pay attention to which games kids get.
The other thing the FTC mentioned, game companies not giving the ESRB accurate footage, isn't really a problem. San Andreas' footage didn't include Hot Coffee because the game itself didn't include it - at least, not for players. That was a case of Rockstar not being careful enough when expunging old code (perhaps on purpose).
"Well, how'd it become law, then?" "The Lobbyist of the Beltway, *angels sing* his arm clad in purest Armani, held forth money from the bosom of the recording industry, thus signifying that I, the DMCA, was to be the law of the land." "Listen, strange men hanging about in offices distributing cash is no basis for a system of government. Legislative power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical economic ceremony." "Be quiet!"...
This is more like if Rockstar sold a jar of candy with a secret, airtight, combination-locked portion that contained peanuts. No one not looking for peanuts would ever see them, but those that wanted could have candy *and* peanuts. The only people who got peanuts were those who desired peanuts and went to considerable trouble to get at them.
That's the thing about this: I have no problem with any company being fined for misleading consumers about the content of their product. Consumers should have the right to be free from nasty surprises. But in order to get at the content in this one took concerted effort - no one would ever see this *by accident*. I don't see why Rockstar should pay because their consumers effectively *demanded* that content.
Still its not like its hard to circumvent the DRM in iTunes. The easiest to understand for layman is to burn to music CD and rip back to MP3.
This is why Apple's DRM is the most insidious. It exacts a lot of control, but is fairly easy to get by. It gets people used to the idea of DRM, and at the same time lulls them into complacency about DRM ("It's not so bad!"). It's obvious to someone circumventing it like you propose that it's a loophole - there are a few big ones, and they're easy to find.
But in a little while, when Apple closes those loopholes? You'll have no one to complain to, because all music will be AAC DRM format, and Apple will shrug and say "It's always been this way, we just fixed the flaws." And some people might be unhappy, but most will shrug and figure it was good while it lasted, but *because* it always had the feel of a loophole, they won't feel "robbed".
Apple's DRM is like the lukewarm water, and we're the frog being put in. Don't be surprised when they turn up the heat.
I know depending on conversion rates is not a good idea, but $5 retro games seem a little expensive to me. I was hoping for the iTunes $0.99 model, personally - at least, if they decide to do sales. Some sort of monthly "all-you-can-eat" would be a good deal, too. But the problem with $5 is that it begins to be real money - sure, I'd pay $5 for Mario 3, but I wouldn't try an obscure NES game I had never heard of. For $0.99, or $5-10 a month, I'd play anything.
In fact, I hope that the publishing of things like this helps to open our society a bit farther. The fact of the matter is that most people behave in "abnormal" ways, but keep it a secret. With the internet, and the publication of various things like this (college-age risky behavior, kinky fetishes, weakness for whipped cream) maybe we can finally recognize that *everyone* is a little bit weird, and the tyranny of the majority will cease to be such a factor in society.
Yes, they are. The original Xbox still costs them money to make, so the sooner they can stop supporting it and start making money on the 360, the happier they'll be.
Absolutely. But would you or the American people vote to allow the NSA to tap your phones to fight tax fraud? Hopefully not. Terrorism, though, carries an emotional weight that many people seem unable to look beyond. Those who can look beyond it realize that these measures aren't necessary, and that giving up freedom isn't necessary either.
So my point is that the system is going to be used for investigating things other than terrorism, and we as citizens should decide whether we want that to happen on its own merits, not because the spectre of "terrorism" has been raised.
And of course, if they were sued over such a program, the Bush administration would immediately file a brief saying no evidence about it could be made public for national security reasons.
No, sorry... No one is bothering to say "this isn't true", they're saying "we can't let this come out because it will damage national security". To me, that's pretty much admitting the program exists and does what is alleged, probably more (which is why they're willing to fight so hard to keep the details secret).
This has been brewing since the initial wiretapping scandal. The reason the administration insisted so loudly that they didn't need to get FISA approval (even though it would have been easy) is because there's more going on here. They've got some sort of system set up that monitors all communications and data-mines the content for terrorist (and probably criminal) activity. They can't possibly get a warrant to examine every single phone call ever made, which is why they say they don't need a warrant.
However, I don't think they're doing it out of malice, or anything. Not yet, anyway. I think they probably are using it mostly for intelligence needs currently. But just as the Patriot Act is increasingly being used to try non-terrorist suspects, and the very terms "terrorist" and "weapons of mass destruction" are being re-defined in court, it won't be long until this data-mining is being used for everything the government wants to do.
If you're not worried about the system being used to look for terrorists, imagine it being used to look for tax fraud or illegal gun ownership. Then decide if you want this system in place.
Did anyone else notice Forbes' E3 sidebar on the article? It has a squinting, obese red-headed stepchild playing a GameCube. Talk about combining negative gamer stereotypes... I get the feeling that Forbes really has no clue about the current game market. Or perhaps they feel their audience has no clue.
This is interesting, particularly the "too soon" idea. If it's wrong to talk about something horrible, then it's wrong to talk about it at any time, surely?
But World War II killed a lot more people than Columbine. And there are WWII games falling out of every tree lately. No one is talking about how horrible it is to glorify all that violence (well, a few people, but they're in the minority). Why is Columbine more offensive? Is it really just a matter of time?
Personally, I have no problems with this game. I won't play it, but it's no more offensive than Command and Conquer, or Counterstrike.
Now, granted they have undershot the price of their launch Blu-Ray player (and everyone elses really), but if they go much lower the other companies will start screaming foul, which they already should be, because Sony is technically selling a BD player for almost 1/2 the market price. Though I still believe Blu-ray players will drop below the PS3 price sooner rather than later.
I don't think that's the case. I think the Blu-Ray partners will be happy about the PS3. Think about DVD players - the PS2 plays DVDs, but it's pretty crappy at it. When DVD players were expensive, a lot of people got a PS2 to play them. People who cared, though, the early adopters and movie buffs, they got the expensive, good-quality DVD players. Eventually, when the format was a success and prices came down, almost everyone who bought a PS2 for the DVD player could upgrade easily to another one (since you can get a great DVD player for $50-100 these days). The partners never really lost anything to the PS2, because the people who were buying it wouldn't have bought their expensive players, and the people who bought the expensive players, for the most part, wouldn't settle for the PS2. It did help the format succeed, though, and lead to long-term success for DVD and those companies.
Of course, I'm still not convinced Blu-Ray will ever be a success as a format, but I think it's likely that the PS3 won't really compete with the other Blu-Ray players for the high-end, early adopter market. It'll just be a cheap, bundled way to get the format accepted, so that everyone will build libraries of BDs and buy new Blu-Ray players when the price comes down.
I agree, and I'm worried that this will hurt the Wii. Since Red Steel is one of the highly anticipated games for the console, if Ubisoft messes up (like in the demo, which I also played at E3) many people will write off the console for similar games. Nintendo's first party games showed that the controller worked well for a lot of stuff, but Red Steel just left a bad taste in my mouth. I hope Nintendo makes them polish it a bunch before release.
Wow, if Dragon Quest Wii is the nex Dragon Quest, instead of a side-series like Crystal Chronicles, that's *huge*. Dragon Quest is the best-selling game series in Japan, and its presence on Wii pretty much assures it's going to be a success there.
Dragon Quest isn't as big as FF in the states, but Dragon Quest 8 sold a lot of copies over here nonetheless. The GameCube had a shortage of good RPGs, so hopefully this helps turn Nintendo's fortunes around.
Also, it sounds like a swordfighting title, which will fit the controller well.
"You Really Got Me" was covered by Van Halen, but written by Ray Davies of the Kinks. Credit where credit is due!
Of course, the song may be based on the Van Halen version, but since it's going to be performed by a cover band anyway, they should at least credit the songwriter. (Not that "You Really Got Me" is anywhere near the best of the Kinks' work, but they get little enough credit as it is).
It just came out that the FBI is one of the places buying these records - no pesky judges to ask for permission or anything. They just hand over cash, and get the phone records they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but that's only because the facts have a well-known liberal bias.
What if eBay also had another auction type in addition to normal and Buy It Now ones: silent auctions. It tells you when it ends, the seller may optionally give a reccomended amount, and you get to put in your bid, without knowing what anyone else put down. Now you'd be more compelled to put your maximum bid down.
My sister actually has been part of a team doing academic research on auction results. They took a number of different auction models (11 or so, I think) and ran computer models and did real-world studies to see how much each auction type generated in revenue. The result was surprising, at least to me: all types of auction made approximately the same amount of money. That doesn't necessarily mean anything about how the auction types affected the bidders, but I think it might be less than you'd imagine.
What happens if you mix the koolaid and the dogfood together, into some sort of cherry-flavored chopped-meat slurry, and then drink it?
'Cause that's what I had for lunch.
Isn't the point of ads not just to create immediate sales, but also to expand brand recognition and "image", especially these days? That's why a lot of companies run ads about their company in general, rather than a particular product.
I imagine Google won't be dropping their current AdSense, though, so perhaps this is a good fit for actual physical product sales.
There's value to unspoiled areas even if they're devoid of life, though... The empty desert has a beauty to it that I would be sad to see go. Similarily, I would be somewhat unhappy if the entire moon were ravaged and I never got to see the Sea of Tranquility for myself, when I went up as a space tourist.
Think about if Coca-Cola decided to make the moon one big ad, or we decided to remove the moon entirely (ignoring the catastrophic effects on earth...) Wouldn't you miss it?
I'm not saying that the entire moon needs to remain unspoiled, but I also think that just because it's a lifeless rock doesn't mean there's something there to conserve.
Voting for President Bush's political opponents, lobbying against his policies, peaceful/lawful demonstrations are all fine.
I agree with the gist of what you're saying. But these examples are not as black and white "fine" as you say. There are numerous examples of peaceful activists getting investigated or even arrested for their lobbying or demonstrations. Knowing that, it's tough to assume that saying certain things will always be "fine", in all circumstances.
You're right about the technical experience, but in my opinion, the most important thing you can gain from being a tester is connections. You can actually meet people in the industry, you can make impressions, you can go to industry events and parties - it's invaluable. There's also the people who go on from testing positions to other positions, and can then put in a good word for you.
The main way you're ever going to get a job in another part of the game industry after being a tester is by knowing someone. That someone could be a programmer or manager that you really impressed with your professionalism and skill, or it could be a former trench-mate from the QA floor who got a producer job somewhere. Or it could be a random person that you got to talk to at E3 or GDC. I've known people to get job offers based on all three of these scenarios (including me).
Plus, being in the industry at all, even if you're just a tester, seems to give potential employers a more positive view (although, as noted elsewhere, many people look down on QA - even (or maybe especially) when they came from QA themselves).
That's essentially how the ESRB works: "representative" clips from the game are given to the ESRB panel, which is made up of regular non-industry people, who indicate where they feel the game should be rated.
It works very well, too, the rating system has been graded very highly in the past. The problem is twofold - lax or no enforcement by retailers, which the FTC report touches on, and lack of knowledge from parents, which is a much larger problem. Something like 90% of games that kids get are bought by adults, but the adults often assume that because it's a video game, it's automatically suitable for kids.
I think the second problem is one that will take care of itself. As more gamers become parents, and games enter the mainstream more and more, parents will gradually become aware that they need to pay attention to which games kids get.
The other thing the FTC mentioned, game companies not giving the ESRB accurate footage, isn't really a problem. San Andreas' footage didn't include Hot Coffee because the game itself didn't include it - at least, not for players. That was a case of Rockstar not being careful enough when expunging old code (perhaps on purpose).
"Well, how'd it become law, then?" ...
"The Lobbyist of the Beltway, *angels sing* his arm clad in purest Armani, held forth money from the bosom of the recording industry, thus signifying that I, the DMCA, was to be the law of the land."
"Listen, strange men hanging about in offices distributing cash is no basis for a system of government. Legislative power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical economic ceremony."
"Be quiet!"
Watch as the analogy screams in pain:
This is more like if Rockstar sold a jar of candy with a secret, airtight, combination-locked portion that contained peanuts. No one not looking for peanuts would ever see them, but those that wanted could have candy *and* peanuts. The only people who got peanuts were those who desired peanuts and went to considerable trouble to get at them.
That's the thing about this: I have no problem with any company being fined for misleading consumers about the content of their product. Consumers should have the right to be free from nasty surprises. But in order to get at the content in this one took concerted effort - no one would ever see this *by accident*. I don't see why Rockstar should pay because their consumers effectively *demanded* that content.
Still its not like its hard to circumvent the DRM in iTunes. The easiest to understand for layman is to burn to music CD and rip back to MP3.
This is why Apple's DRM is the most insidious. It exacts a lot of control, but is fairly easy to get by. It gets people used to the idea of DRM, and at the same time lulls them into complacency about DRM ("It's not so bad!"). It's obvious to someone circumventing it like you propose that it's a loophole - there are a few big ones, and they're easy to find.
But in a little while, when Apple closes those loopholes? You'll have no one to complain to, because all music will be AAC DRM format, and Apple will shrug and say "It's always been this way, we just fixed the flaws." And some people might be unhappy, but most will shrug and figure it was good while it lasted, but *because* it always had the feel of a loophole, they won't feel "robbed".
Apple's DRM is like the lukewarm water, and we're the frog being put in. Don't be surprised when they turn up the heat.
I know depending on conversion rates is not a good idea, but $5 retro games seem a little expensive to me. I was hoping for the iTunes $0.99 model, personally - at least, if they decide to do sales. Some sort of monthly "all-you-can-eat" would be a good deal, too. But the problem with $5 is that it begins to be real money - sure, I'd pay $5 for Mario 3, but I wouldn't try an obscure NES game I had never heard of. For $0.99, or $5-10 a month, I'd play anything.
In fact, I hope that the publishing of things like this helps to open our society a bit farther. The fact of the matter is that most people behave in "abnormal" ways, but keep it a secret. With the internet, and the publication of various things like this (college-age risky behavior, kinky fetishes, weakness for whipped cream) maybe we can finally recognize that *everyone* is a little bit weird, and the tyranny of the majority will cease to be such a factor in society.
Yes, they are. The original Xbox still costs them money to make, so the sooner they can stop supporting it and start making money on the 360, the happier they'll be.
Absolutely. But would you or the American people vote to allow the NSA to tap your phones to fight tax fraud? Hopefully not. Terrorism, though, carries an emotional weight that many people seem unable to look beyond. Those who can look beyond it realize that these measures aren't necessary, and that giving up freedom isn't necessary either.
So my point is that the system is going to be used for investigating things other than terrorism, and we as citizens should decide whether we want that to happen on its own merits, not because the spectre of "terrorism" has been raised.
The Gimp is *played* by actors in black latex. What more do you want?
And of course, if they were sued over such a program, the Bush administration would immediately file a brief saying no evidence about it could be made public for national security reasons.
No, sorry... No one is bothering to say "this isn't true", they're saying "we can't let this come out because it will damage national security". To me, that's pretty much admitting the program exists and does what is alleged, probably more (which is why they're willing to fight so hard to keep the details secret).
This has been brewing since the initial wiretapping scandal. The reason the administration insisted so loudly that they didn't need to get FISA approval (even though it would have been easy) is because there's more going on here. They've got some sort of system set up that monitors all communications and data-mines the content for terrorist (and probably criminal) activity. They can't possibly get a warrant to examine every single phone call ever made, which is why they say they don't need a warrant.
However, I don't think they're doing it out of malice, or anything. Not yet, anyway. I think they probably are using it mostly for intelligence needs currently. But just as the Patriot Act is increasingly being used to try non-terrorist suspects, and the very terms "terrorist" and "weapons of mass destruction" are being re-defined in court, it won't be long until this data-mining is being used for everything the government wants to do.
If you're not worried about the system being used to look for terrorists, imagine it being used to look for tax fraud or illegal gun ownership. Then decide if you want this system in place.
Did anyone else notice Forbes' E3 sidebar on the article? It has a squinting, obese red-headed stepchild playing a GameCube. Talk about combining negative gamer stereotypes... I get the feeling that Forbes really has no clue about the current game market. Or perhaps they feel their audience has no clue.
This is interesting, particularly the "too soon" idea. If it's wrong to talk about something horrible, then it's wrong to talk about it at any time, surely?
But World War II killed a lot more people than Columbine. And there are WWII games falling out of every tree lately. No one is talking about how horrible it is to glorify all that violence (well, a few people, but they're in the minority). Why is Columbine more offensive? Is it really just a matter of time?
Personally, I have no problems with this game. I won't play it, but it's no more offensive than Command and Conquer, or Counterstrike.
"Any Colour You Like" is currently only $0.99 on the iTunes store. I don't know what you're complaining about.
Now, granted they have undershot the price of their launch Blu-Ray player (and everyone elses really), but if they go much lower the other companies will start screaming foul, which they already should be, because Sony is technically selling a BD player for almost 1/2 the market price. Though I still believe Blu-ray players will drop below the PS3 price sooner rather than later.
I don't think that's the case. I think the Blu-Ray partners will be happy about the PS3. Think about DVD players - the PS2 plays DVDs, but it's pretty crappy at it. When DVD players were expensive, a lot of people got a PS2 to play them. People who cared, though, the early adopters and movie buffs, they got the expensive, good-quality DVD players. Eventually, when the format was a success and prices came down, almost everyone who bought a PS2 for the DVD player could upgrade easily to another one (since you can get a great DVD player for $50-100 these days). The partners never really lost anything to the PS2, because the people who were buying it wouldn't have bought their expensive players, and the people who bought the expensive players, for the most part, wouldn't settle for the PS2. It did help the format succeed, though, and lead to long-term success for DVD and those companies.
Of course, I'm still not convinced Blu-Ray will ever be a success as a format, but I think it's likely that the PS3 won't really compete with the other Blu-Ray players for the high-end, early adopter market. It'll just be a cheap, bundled way to get the format accepted, so that everyone will build libraries of BDs and buy new Blu-Ray players when the price comes down.
I agree, and I'm worried that this will hurt the Wii. Since Red Steel is one of the highly anticipated games for the console, if Ubisoft messes up (like in the demo, which I also played at E3) many people will write off the console for similar games. Nintendo's first party games showed that the controller worked well for a lot of stuff, but Red Steel just left a bad taste in my mouth. I hope Nintendo makes them polish it a bunch before release.
Wow, if Dragon Quest Wii is the nex Dragon Quest, instead of a side-series like Crystal Chronicles, that's *huge*. Dragon Quest is the best-selling game series in Japan, and its presence on Wii pretty much assures it's going to be a success there.
Dragon Quest isn't as big as FF in the states, but Dragon Quest 8 sold a lot of copies over here nonetheless. The GameCube had a shortage of good RPGs, so hopefully this helps turn Nintendo's fortunes around.
Also, it sounds like a swordfighting title, which will fit the controller well.
"You Really Got Me" was covered by Van Halen, but written by Ray Davies of the Kinks. Credit where credit is due!
Of course, the song may be based on the Van Halen version, but since it's going to be performed by a cover band anyway, they should at least credit the songwriter. (Not that "You Really Got Me" is anywhere near the best of the Kinks' work, but they get little enough credit as it is).
It just came out that the FBI is one of the places buying these records - no pesky judges to ask for permission or anything. They just hand over cash, and get the phone records they want.
Can't let the terrists win, right?