The sentiment of your post steps on two of my pet peeves.
First, the attitude of the "entitlement" generation. Most people of my generation seem to think that a job is something employers owe them, and their pay is something employers have no right to withold from them. The don't care if they help the business or not, if it fourishes or fails, and they certainly aren't putting in any effort they don't absolutely have to. When raise time comes around, they expect to be given more than someone that has been working there for less time, regardless of performance.
You seem to think just by buying the game, you are "entitled" to all the same things as a person who plays his character to 60, organizes raid parties, and spends the time getting the end game loot. This is just as dumb as buying a FF game and being mad that a hardcore gamer passed it before you did. "I can't play as often! It's not fair! This game should have an auto-pass feature for casual players!" It's not that you're being cheated, it's that you aren't as far along in the game. Who said anything about you needing to "compete" with them? You get all worked up just because you don't have the money and loot they do, but the only problem is the one in your head.
My second pet peeve is dopey gamers that think they NEED all new loot every 4 levels. You probably spend more time trying to get all the best stuff than it would have taken you to just play to the next level with normal gear.
My question is, once you've equipped your great new item, what are you going to do with it? Take a screenshot?
Getting the items IS the game, and buying them online is just fast forwarding to the credits. You obviously hate playing the game, why don't you quit? The better way to "stick it to Blizzard" might be to stop giving them your money.
Imagine for a moment that Blizzard ran an amusement park instead of an online game. While waiting in line for a ride, you notice when one guy gets to the front, he does not go on the ride. He sells his spot to someone else and that person goes on the ride instead.
From a legal standpoint, you know Blizzard made everyone sign agreements that they would not transfer their spot in line to anyone else. What's more, you know Blizzard does not allow customers to run any business of any kind within their park. When confronted, the "line-farmer" says that he isn't selling the ride, he's selling his time spent waiting in line. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't tell you who is legally right.
From a moral standpoint, you might be thinking, only one person went before me, what do I care who it was? You see the line for one awesome ride is over eight hours long, and you think, I can certainly understand why someone would pay a line-farmer to go on that right away instead of waiting. Eight hours is a long time, a lot of people wouldn't even be able to go on that ride without paying.
What you don't see is that there are hundreds of line-farmers waiting in every line in the park. Wait times for all rides have quadrupled because they are all bloated by line-farmers. Remember that awesome ride with the eight hour line? You could have gone on that after just an hour wait if not for the line-farmers. They aren't providing a nice service, they are screwing you out of a part of the experience you already paid for, and then charging you money to get that part back.
Farmers in online games don't just "give people a chance to experience stuff they normally wouldn't be able to." They wreck the in-game economy and then charge you real money to be able to play the game like you should. Do you want to know why that sword hasn't dropped after 100 kills? It's because some jerk item farmer kills 10,000 every single week, and the developers have had to drastically reduce the droprate to prevent the item from being common. You know why you can't afford to buy that pair of boots? Because gold farmers have driven the price of all items way up past what a normal player can afford.
People complain about $15 a month being too much, but they don't care that others out there are ruining that game experience to make a quick buck. That's just crazy.
Funny, when I first read "just as parents learned to tame the TV," I thought it said "just as parents learned to blame the TV." I think it fits better my way.
...your credit score. Way to see the future, Allen. We might even see advertisements for getting credit scores online in as few as 10, maybe 20 years!
This seems like another in a string of Escapist articles that tries too hard to think deep thoughts. There's nothing here that you couldn't have said about the internet 20 years ago, and it's clear the author doesn't understand anything about economics.
"Simulation is the abstract modeling of real objects, phenomena, events or relationships. Practiced for centuries in...SECOND LIFE. JOIN NOW AND GET A BASIC SECOND LIFE ACCOUNT ABSOLUTELY FREE!"
As I have said here before, I believe NGE is the release of SWG 2. Instead of dividing their player base into 2 games they have to support, they are forcing you to play the new one. They saw what happened to EQ2 at AC2, both of which were assumed to be the successors, and neither of which ever exceeded the original in popularity. This time around, they thought they'd just overwrite the old game so that it's impossible for you to stay.
SOE's biggest problem is that they make very boring, tedious games that are no fun to actually play, but give the player a sense of advancement and accomplishment. When EQ players think about moving to EQ 2, they see their max level character and all they've been through to get him where he is. Doing all that again wouldn't be fun, it would be work.
So this is their new idea. It's just no surprise that it was an utter disregard for the players from the company who teleported a peaceful (and very reasonable) protest into space. Way to go, SOE.
I think this is an excellent analogy for showing why this isn't really possible.
For the health club, they have to buy all the machines, pay all their employees, and light and air condition the place whether you show up or not. How often a certain machine gets used has no effect on their costs. They don't charge by the workout because it doesn't really make that much difference to them how often you show up.
An online game company is much the same way. They have to maintain servers and provide content whether you log on or not. To them, it really doesn't matter all that much how often you log on.
What you are really saying is more like "I don't drive very far, why can't I pay by the mile when I rent a car?" Your usage isn't really the issue for them.
Two online games that stick out for me are Legacy Online and A Tale In the Desert.
Legacy Online is no longer in existence, but basically imagine the flipside to SimCity. You are a company that builds the housing in the residential zoned areas, builds the stores in the commercial areas, and builds the factories to supply your stores in industrial areas. It was very interesting, and if I were teaching an economics class, playing this game would have been required material. It made you understand a lot of market concepts, such as your company actually wanting the minimum wage to be higher because it gave your customers more cash to spend at your stores. You couldn't just raise wages on your own, because the effect of just one company was next to nothing, so it just raised your costs. Very interesting stuff.
ATITD is a non-combat MMORPG. If you play games to "pwnxxorz n00bz," it may or may not be for you. But if you prefer PvE, it has a free trial and it's worth a try. You only need to play it for a few hours to realize that the crafting systems you herald from WoW or other MMORPGs are pure crap with no thought put into them.
As someone who trades stocks, I don't really see this the same way. Generally, I don't buy a stock because I want to own that company, I buy it because I think later I call sell it for more. I wouldn't buy Yahoo because I think they are overvalued, and they are facing increasing pressure from Google which they aren't handling very well. In my opinion, the stock does not have very much upside potential.
Generally, making people mad is costly for a stock. Bad news is bad, but uncertainty is much much worse. Will all of their customers leave? What effect will this have? There's thousands of publicly traded companies out there, so there's no reason to buy stock in one which has an uncertain future.
While i'm glad to see there are some responsible investors out there, they don't amount to a very large portion. When you look at the ownership of Cisco, you see that the two investors mentioned in the article aren't even listed. They each own less than 1% of the company's outstanding shares.
Recently, I was amused by something that happened to Intel. They received an award for corporate social responsibility. The stock traded down that day.
Oh come on. This isn't even RTFA, you've gone a step past it to RTF summary:
The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'.
I'm sure you still think everyone is lying but the poor, poor, corporation. Here, look at her response to the lawsuit in the article you didn't read:
"I learned the only way they could get me to remove the site was with an injunction, and an injunction would mean they would have to bring this information in front of a judge," Lanteigne said.
"I thought, 'That's excellent,' because I need a judge to see what's going on here."
She's actually happy that the truth will be heard. Maybe, just maybe, she's actually the one telling the truth.
I don't think you really undestand the way the world works, buddy.
This is not a "you have wronged us, we deserve damages" lawsuit. The company knows she couldn't ever pay $2 million. This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.
Let's hear it for coporate censorship. If you say something we don't like, make sure you're willing to give up your life for it.
I think it's important to understand just what SOE is doing with SWG. Basically, they are releasing SWG 2, only they are overwriting the original SWG to force all users to change. SOE learned their lesson about sequels with EQ2, which has never had as many subscribers as the original EQ. They expected everyone from EQ to move to EQ2, but most people didn't. Now, they are stuck supporting two games instead of one just to keep the same number of subscribers. Exactly the same thing happened to Asheron's Call 2, which is shutting down soon while the original Asheron's Call continues. So from SOE's point of view, they get to keep every last subscriber, only support one game, and as you can see here, they're getting every bit of the press of a new game release.
The reason they can allow for the refunds is the same reason companies offer rebates instead of just lowering the price. Odds are good that even if you want a refund, they will not have to give you your money. Either you will fill something out wrong, you will not include all of the stuff required, or you won't get it to them before the deal expires. Heck, even if they screw it up, it means they don't give you anything.
I have a hard time applauding SOE for this. They knew these changes were coming well before the expansion pack was released. I'd wager the timing of the announcement was intentional, and SOE thought they could pull a fast one on their customers. This is just a quick fix because the public outcry was greater than they anticipated.
Perhaps you or someone else a bit more knowledgeable than I could explain what it is they're looking for?
The way I understand general relativity, which is what they're trying to prove, gravitational waves are tiny ripples in space-time which are caused by very large bodies accelerating. Bodies standing still produce nothing. In their experiment, there is nothing moving or accelerating at all, thus no gravitational wave. Just what is it that they think they're detecting?
Movies actually run at 48 Hz. They intentionally flash each frame twice specifically to attain what is called "critical flicker fusion." After 50 Hz, the human eye is incapable of distinguishing the flashes from a real life image. Ironically, raising it to 120 Hz runs the risk of any part of the system not being able to handle it perfectly, and there's a good chance your eyes will pick up on the missing of several frames or 1/20th of a second of video lag.
This is just a survey. The numbers provided under the "what MMOG are you playing most" question only tell you the demographics of the survey sample, NOT the total online population.
The best breakdown of total active subscribers can be found here.
The fact that well over 50% of the respondants were playing primarily World of Warcraft tells you more about the results of the other questions. For instance, obviously you could not have been playing World of Warcraft for longer than 12 months, which is why the results of that question reveal a huge dropoff after that. That does not mean most people play an online game for under a year before changing, simply that the one they're playing now hasn't been around for longer than that.
The point is that the "standard artist" who sold 1 million copies will make more than that $200,000 in one night for a good portion of their tour dates. It makes perfect sense that artists like Harvey Danger (and they won't be the last) would sacrifice that $200,000 to bring in more fans to their shows. Fans who are grateful to have an extra $15 they saved not buying the album.
To better understand why an artist would do this, I figured some people would like to know the actual financial breakdown of the music industry. I have several very good friends in the music industry, one is the publicist for several major artists, so here's the skinny:
For a standard artist (not yet established), out of every CD sold they receive about $0.20. For you non-math whizzes, that means when their album turns platinum (1 million copies sold), they bank $200,000. Seem low? It is, but we'll get to that.
For an established artist, there are 2 possibilities. The first is that they have their own label. If this is the case, they will still use one of the major labels for distribution, and they have to pay all those little people that made things happen, but they're pocketing more cash. The second possibility is that the record company convinced them to stay by offering a MUCH better contract, which ends up being about as much as having their own label minus the hassle.
But this still isn't a big portion of their income. That comes from several other sources.
ASCAP is The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. They dictate who can play your music, such as music at a bar or in a restaurant. They have a virtual monopoly on all genres of music (out of 100 established artists, maybe 1 or 2 are not signed with ASCAP), they are expensive, and they are about as well liked by the people that know them as the RIAA is here. Tactics include sending in "undercover agents" to places not paying ASCAP, and writing down the inevidable songs that they play. Then comes an agent, who will "aggressively suggest" that you pay up to ASCAP or be sued out of business. They've actually had people call the cops on them thinking it was a mafia shakedown. Oh, and they've never lost in court.
There's some issue over how much of that cash actually makes it to the artists, but rest assured it's much more than they're getting from their label for album sales.
Licensing of music is stepping up into a bigger payscale. This mostly refers to commercials, movies, and now video games. Obviously the pay scale varies widely based on the popularity of the artist and of the specific song, but there are virtually no costs for the artist.
Touring is where the money is really at. To give you an idea of how much, you need to understand what a "floor" is. This refers to the minimum amount an artist is willing to make in a performance. Let's take Britney Spears for example. Her "floor" is (or was, it constantly changes) $750,000. What this means is that if the show only makes $500,000, she still gets paid $750,000, and the organizers eat a loss of $250,000 plus production costs. Also keep in mind that organizers know what they're doing, and shows hardly ever hit the floor. So you can assume for her last tour, Britney pocketed $1+ million for each of the 37 shows on her last tour.
And that's just at the gate. Don't forget to buy your T-shirt, or poster, or anything else "Britney" that cost a dollar to make and $8/hr for some schmuck to sell it to you. All of that money goes straight back to her.
For the really big artists, you can cap it off with an endorsement or two. Britney's Pepsi endorsement deal was reportedly $10+ million.
Substatial evidence that music sharing doesn't effect album sales aside, there's a reason sharing music doesn't hurt artists. Singles act as commercials for all the other things that make them money. They want their music played on the radio so you can hear it for free. They want their video played on MTV so you can see it for free. It's called exposure, and it's a good thing like Martha Stewart doesn't even know. If an unsigned artist found out people had downloaded 100,000 copies of his song, he'd crap his pants he'd be so happy.
There's a reason Harvey Danger is willing to do this. It's also like VW letting people download their latest commercial. Good. It will probably make more people buy their cars.
It's not just a publicity stunt or moral stand, it's a brilliant financial move.
Have you seen the next thing that NTT DoCoMo is coming out with? They just tested their newest wireless network. To quote the article:
Officials from NTT DoCoMo say the phones could receive data at 100 megabits per second on the move and at up to a gigabit per second while static. At this rate, an entire DVD could be downloaded within a minute.
Slashdot Mirror
...that will give a cracker access...
What makes you so sure he's white?
An article about how the engineers should listen to the marketing department more. This one's going to go over GREAT on slashdot.
The sentiment of your post steps on two of my pet peeves.
First, the attitude of the "entitlement" generation. Most people of my generation seem to think that a job is something employers owe them, and their pay is something employers have no right to withold from them. The don't care if they help the business or not, if it fourishes or fails, and they certainly aren't putting in any effort they don't absolutely have to. When raise time comes around, they expect to be given more than someone that has been working there for less time, regardless of performance.
You seem to think just by buying the game, you are "entitled" to all the same things as a person who plays his character to 60, organizes raid parties, and spends the time getting the end game loot. This is just as dumb as buying a FF game and being mad that a hardcore gamer passed it before you did. "I can't play as often! It's not fair! This game should have an auto-pass feature for casual players!" It's not that you're being cheated, it's that you aren't as far along in the game. Who said anything about you needing to "compete" with them? You get all worked up just because you don't have the money and loot they do, but the only problem is the one in your head.
My second pet peeve is dopey gamers that think they NEED all new loot every 4 levels. You probably spend more time trying to get all the best stuff than it would have taken you to just play to the next level with normal gear.
He died dozens of times in the previous games I played with him. Of course he'll die in the next game. I'm not perfect you know, sheesh.
My question is, once you've equipped your great new item, what are you going to do with it? Take a screenshot?
Getting the items IS the game, and buying them online is just fast forwarding to the credits. You obviously hate playing the game, why don't you quit? The better way to "stick it to Blizzard" might be to stop giving them your money.
I think it's just crazy enough to work.
Imagine for a moment that Blizzard ran an amusement park instead of an online game. While waiting in line for a ride, you notice when one guy gets to the front, he does not go on the ride. He sells his spot to someone else and that person goes on the ride instead.
From a legal standpoint, you know Blizzard made everyone sign agreements that they would not transfer their spot in line to anyone else. What's more, you know Blizzard does not allow customers to run any business of any kind within their park. When confronted, the "line-farmer" says that he isn't selling the ride, he's selling his time spent waiting in line. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't tell you who is legally right.
From a moral standpoint, you might be thinking, only one person went before me, what do I care who it was? You see the line for one awesome ride is over eight hours long, and you think, I can certainly understand why someone would pay a line-farmer to go on that right away instead of waiting. Eight hours is a long time, a lot of people wouldn't even be able to go on that ride without paying.
What you don't see is that there are hundreds of line-farmers waiting in every line in the park. Wait times for all rides have quadrupled because they are all bloated by line-farmers. Remember that awesome ride with the eight hour line? You could have gone on that after just an hour wait if not for the line-farmers. They aren't providing a nice service, they are screwing you out of a part of the experience you already paid for, and then charging you money to get that part back.
Farmers in online games don't just "give people a chance to experience stuff they normally wouldn't be able to." They wreck the in-game economy and then charge you real money to be able to play the game like you should. Do you want to know why that sword hasn't dropped after 100 kills? It's because some jerk item farmer kills 10,000 every single week, and the developers have had to drastically reduce the droprate to prevent the item from being common. You know why you can't afford to buy that pair of boots? Because gold farmers have driven the price of all items way up past what a normal player can afford.
People complain about $15 a month being too much, but they don't care that others out there are ruining that game experience to make a quick buck. That's just crazy.
Funny, when I first read "just as parents learned to tame the TV," I thought it said "just as parents learned to blame the TV." I think it fits better my way.
...your credit score. Way to see the future, Allen. We might even see advertisements for getting credit scores online in as few as 10, maybe 20 years!
This seems like another in a string of Escapist articles that tries too hard to think deep thoughts. There's nothing here that you couldn't have said about the internet 20 years ago, and it's clear the author doesn't understand anything about economics.
...from page 2 to the ad on page 3:
"Simulation is the abstract modeling of real objects, phenomena, events or relationships. Practiced for centuries in...SECOND LIFE. JOIN NOW AND GET A BASIC SECOND LIFE ACCOUNT ABSOLUTELY FREE!"
Crap, I was too busy playing Halo to read the article. What was it about again?
It doesn't matter, whatever it was I'm sure it doesn't apply to me.
As I have said here before, I believe NGE is the release of SWG 2. Instead of dividing their player base into 2 games they have to support, they are forcing you to play the new one. They saw what happened to EQ2 at AC2, both of which were assumed to be the successors, and neither of which ever exceeded the original in popularity. This time around, they thought they'd just overwrite the old game so that it's impossible for you to stay.
SOE's biggest problem is that they make very boring, tedious games that are no fun to actually play, but give the player a sense of advancement and accomplishment. When EQ players think about moving to EQ 2, they see their max level character and all they've been through to get him where he is. Doing all that again wouldn't be fun, it would be work.
So this is their new idea. It's just no surprise that it was an utter disregard for the players from the company who teleported a peaceful (and very reasonable) protest into space. Way to go, SOE.
I think this is an excellent analogy for showing why this isn't really possible.
For the health club, they have to buy all the machines, pay all their employees, and light and air condition the place whether you show up or not. How often a certain machine gets used has no effect on their costs. They don't charge by the workout because it doesn't really make that much difference to them how often you show up.
An online game company is much the same way. They have to maintain servers and provide content whether you log on or not. To them, it really doesn't matter all that much how often you log on.
What you are really saying is more like "I don't drive very far, why can't I pay by the mile when I rent a car?" Your usage isn't really the issue for them.
Two online games that stick out for me are Legacy Online and A Tale In the Desert.
Legacy Online is no longer in existence, but basically imagine the flipside to SimCity. You are a company that builds the housing in the residential zoned areas, builds the stores in the commercial areas, and builds the factories to supply your stores in industrial areas. It was very interesting, and if I were teaching an economics class, playing this game would have been required material. It made you understand a lot of market concepts, such as your company actually wanting the minimum wage to be higher because it gave your customers more cash to spend at your stores. You couldn't just raise wages on your own, because the effect of just one company was next to nothing, so it just raised your costs. Very interesting stuff.
ATITD is a non-combat MMORPG. If you play games to "pwnxxorz n00bz," it may or may not be for you. But if you prefer PvE, it has a free trial and it's worth a try. You only need to play it for a few hours to realize that the crafting systems you herald from WoW or other MMORPGs are pure crap with no thought put into them.
As someone who trades stocks, I don't really see this the same way. Generally, I don't buy a stock because I want to own that company, I buy it because I think later I call sell it for more. I wouldn't buy Yahoo because I think they are overvalued, and they are facing increasing pressure from Google which they aren't handling very well. In my opinion, the stock does not have very much upside potential.
Generally, making people mad is costly for a stock. Bad news is bad, but uncertainty is much much worse. Will all of their customers leave? What effect will this have? There's thousands of publicly traded companies out there, so there's no reason to buy stock in one which has an uncertain future.
While i'm glad to see there are some responsible investors out there, they don't amount to a very large portion. When you look at the ownership of Cisco, you see that the two investors mentioned in the article aren't even listed. They each own less than 1% of the company's outstanding shares.
Recently, I was amused by something that happened to Intel. They received an award for corporate social responsibility. The stock traded down that day.
Oh come on. This isn't even RTFA, you've gone a step past it to RTF summary:
The general public and governmental workers lauded her for her efforts. The environmental Ministry spokesman was even quoted as saying 'Obviously we can't have staff everywhere all the time, so we depend on the public out there as surrogate eyes and ears for the ministry'.
I'm sure you still think everyone is lying but the poor, poor, corporation. Here, look at her response to the lawsuit in the article you didn't read:
"I learned the only way they could get me to remove the site was with an injunction, and an injunction would mean they would have to bring this information in front of a judge," Lanteigne said.
"I thought, 'That's excellent,' because I need a judge to see what's going on here."
She's actually happy that the truth will be heard. Maybe, just maybe, she's actually the one telling the truth.
I don't think you really undestand the way the world works, buddy.
This is not a "you have wronged us, we deserve damages" lawsuit. The company knows she couldn't ever pay $2 million. This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.
Let's hear it for coporate censorship. If you say something we don't like, make sure you're willing to give up your life for it.
Let's sing the Doom Song!
Doom doom doomy doom doom doomy doom...
I think it's important to understand just what SOE is doing with SWG. Basically, they are releasing SWG 2, only they are overwriting the original SWG to force all users to change. SOE learned their lesson about sequels with EQ2, which has never had as many subscribers as the original EQ. They expected everyone from EQ to move to EQ2, but most people didn't. Now, they are stuck supporting two games instead of one just to keep the same number of subscribers. Exactly the same thing happened to Asheron's Call 2, which is shutting down soon while the original Asheron's Call continues. So from SOE's point of view, they get to keep every last subscriber, only support one game, and as you can see here, they're getting every bit of the press of a new game release.
The reason they can allow for the refunds is the same reason companies offer rebates instead of just lowering the price. Odds are good that even if you want a refund, they will not have to give you your money. Either you will fill something out wrong, you will not include all of the stuff required, or you won't get it to them before the deal expires. Heck, even if they screw it up, it means they don't give you anything.
I have a hard time applauding SOE for this. They knew these changes were coming well before the expansion pack was released. I'd wager the timing of the announcement was intentional, and SOE thought they could pull a fast one on their customers. This is just a quick fix because the public outcry was greater than they anticipated.
Perhaps you or someone else a bit more knowledgeable than I could explain what it is they're looking for?
The way I understand general relativity, which is what they're trying to prove, gravitational waves are tiny ripples in space-time which are caused by very large bodies accelerating. Bodies standing still produce nothing. In their experiment, there is nothing moving or accelerating at all, thus no gravitational wave. Just what is it that they think they're detecting?
Movies actually run at 48 Hz. They intentionally flash each frame twice specifically to attain what is called "critical flicker fusion." After 50 Hz, the human eye is incapable of distinguishing the flashes from a real life image. Ironically, raising it to 120 Hz runs the risk of any part of the system not being able to handle it perfectly, and there's a good chance your eyes will pick up on the missing of several frames or 1/20th of a second of video lag.
...since the article doesn't give it to you, or link to it:
1. Electronic Arts
2. Activision
3. Microsoft Game Studios
4. Nintendo
5. Sony Computer Entertainment
6. Ubisoft
7. Konami
8. THQ
9. Sega Sammy Holdings
10. Take-Two Interactive
11. Namco
12. Vivendi Universal Games
13. Atari
14. SCi Games
15. Capcom
16. Square Enix
17. Bandai Games
18. Codemasters
19. Midway
20. LucasArts
This is just a survey. The numbers provided under the "what MMOG are you playing most" question only tell you the demographics of the survey sample, NOT the total online population.
The best breakdown of total active subscribers can be found here.
The fact that well over 50% of the respondants were playing primarily World of Warcraft tells you more about the results of the other questions. For instance, obviously you could not have been playing World of Warcraft for longer than 12 months, which is why the results of that question reveal a huge dropoff after that. That does not mean most people play an online game for under a year before changing, simply that the one they're playing now hasn't been around for longer than that.
The point is that the "standard artist" who sold 1 million copies will make more than that $200,000 in one night for a good portion of their tour dates. It makes perfect sense that artists like Harvey Danger (and they won't be the last) would sacrifice that $200,000 to bring in more fans to their shows. Fans who are grateful to have an extra $15 they saved not buying the album.
To better understand why an artist would do this, I figured some people would like to know the actual financial breakdown of the music industry. I have several very good friends in the music industry, one is the publicist for several major artists, so here's the skinny:
For a standard artist (not yet established), out of every CD sold they receive about $0.20. For you non-math whizzes, that means when their album turns platinum (1 million copies sold), they bank $200,000. Seem low? It is, but we'll get to that.
For an established artist, there are 2 possibilities. The first is that they have their own label. If this is the case, they will still use one of the major labels for distribution, and they have to pay all those little people that made things happen, but they're pocketing more cash. The second possibility is that the record company convinced them to stay by offering a MUCH better contract, which ends up being about as much as having their own label minus the hassle.
But this still isn't a big portion of their income. That comes from several other sources.
ASCAP is The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. They dictate who can play your music, such as music at a bar or in a restaurant. They have a virtual monopoly on all genres of music (out of 100 established artists, maybe 1 or 2 are not signed with ASCAP), they are expensive, and they are about as well liked by the people that know them as the RIAA is here. Tactics include sending in "undercover agents" to places not paying ASCAP, and writing down the inevidable songs that they play. Then comes an agent, who will "aggressively suggest" that you pay up to ASCAP or be sued out of business. They've actually had people call the cops on them thinking it was a mafia shakedown. Oh, and they've never lost in court.
There's some issue over how much of that cash actually makes it to the artists, but rest assured it's much more than they're getting from their label for album sales.
Licensing of music is stepping up into a bigger payscale. This mostly refers to commercials, movies, and now video games. Obviously the pay scale varies widely based on the popularity of the artist and of the specific song, but there are virtually no costs for the artist.
Touring is where the money is really at. To give you an idea of how much, you need to understand what a "floor" is. This refers to the minimum amount an artist is willing to make in a performance. Let's take Britney Spears for example. Her "floor" is (or was, it constantly changes) $750,000. What this means is that if the show only makes $500,000, she still gets paid $750,000, and the organizers eat a loss of $250,000 plus production costs. Also keep in mind that organizers know what they're doing, and shows hardly ever hit the floor. So you can assume for her last tour, Britney pocketed $1+ million for each of the 37 shows on her last tour.
And that's just at the gate. Don't forget to buy your T-shirt, or poster, or anything else "Britney" that cost a dollar to make and $8/hr for some schmuck to sell it to you. All of that money goes straight back to her.
For the really big artists, you can cap it off with an endorsement or two. Britney's Pepsi endorsement deal was reportedly $10+ million.
Substatial evidence that music sharing doesn't effect album sales aside, there's a reason sharing music doesn't hurt artists. Singles act as commercials for all the other things that make them money. They want their music played on the radio so you can hear it for free. They want their video played on MTV so you can see it for free. It's called exposure, and it's a good thing like Martha Stewart doesn't even know. If an unsigned artist found out people had downloaded 100,000 copies of his song, he'd crap his pants he'd be so happy.
There's a reason Harvey Danger is willing to do this. It's also like VW letting people download their latest commercial. Good. It will probably make more people buy their cars.
It's not just a publicity stunt or moral stand, it's a brilliant financial move.