First, thank you for the well-written, reasoned reply, it can be rare.
I do have a few points I'd like to rebuke though. First, the other products you mentioned are extremely high-priced high-end products, and are well outside of the majority of people's budgets so it's a bit unfair to try to compare their scarcity with a video game system. (I do understand the 360 is essentially the console equivalent of the top-end, high priced hardware for its market segment, but I think we can both agree that most people above the poverty line are far more likely to be able to afford a 360 than a custom car/chopper in their lifetimes.) Additionally, those luxury items are intended to be scarce, whereas the 360 is expected to sell tens of millions of units worldwide, so already there is a discrepency here. Microsoft is telling the world they want everyone to have one and that is their sales goal, yet then they turn around and intentionally limit supply simply to artifically inflate demand further. Also, we're not talking about MS sending only 100 or 50 consoles to stores, the articles referenced put the numbers at more like 15 to 20 consoles per store. In most places the demand is already much higher than that, so they are limiting the supply to the point of choking it off. It's one thing to send a number lower than expected demand, it's another to cut that number in half or more. That is specifically what I mean when I say that this tatic is insulting to the customer. MS knows that demand is much much higher than what they are making available and there is a good chance that more than half the demand that is already there will not be satisfied. Why not provide twice the number they're currently planning, meet 75% of the current demand and still sell out? MS doesn't want to create scarcity, they want to create rabid unfulfillable, tooth-and-nail demand like previous season's rushes on talking elmos and power ranger toys. They are wholly manipulating people, they are going to create severely overpriced second markets, and yet their stated aim of scarcity could still be acheived w/o such overkill.
I should probably note at this point, I've never been a first-adopter and certainly didn't plan to be for the 360 even well ahead of these shinanegans (sp?). So I don't represent the demographic that is willing to get the system at any price, but then if this sort of market scramble weren't being perpetrated then maybe the system would be easier to get and be a more reasonable price and then I would buy one when it first comes out.
As to MS's short/long term goals with this, thank you for the well-written explanation, however I already understand it quite well. It's the same strategy that has been used for almost every new system for about a decade, and I understand there are huge costs to overcome and they are taking a loss. For that matter, aren't they still technically taking a loss for the current xbox hardware? Perhaps they recently passed breakeven but I though the last I had heard the xbox division was still deep in the red.... What I think we're seeing in this round is version 2.0 of the take a loss/create huge demand tactic. They've taken the lessons of past releases and are applying them much more forcefully this time around, probably because they're taking a bigger loss. What I can't help but wonder is if there isn't a better way to do this? I just can't help but think that with all the resources that MS has at its disposal this is the best way they could come up with to make this product work for them? I think there has got to be a better middle ground for the consumer. But as long as early adopters are willing to spend upwards of $1000 for systems on ebay then MS is going to keep taking advantage of that fact. And with no backlash to this policy I predict this sort of thing is only going to get worse in the coming years. Just imagine this tactic applied this liberally to other products. It doesn't take long to see that such manipulation of the system (yes it's capitalism so this is essentially how ev
They're just doing it because it's a good strategy, and it's a good strategy because dumbasses like you keep falling for it. So you ought to be pissed off at yourself.
The two xboxes I mentioned receiving in my post were gifts, and both were purchased after price drops in the system, so no, I nor the people who bought the gifts "fell for it". By the time I received an Xbox for Christmas it had been on the market for over 20 months, yet no systems were available for purchase w/o getting a bundle.
That's my point, you get stuck with their package unless you wait for so long that it's almost time for the next generation of consoles to be released.
But thanks for assuming things in my post that I didn't put there, insulting me, and then being wrong, that's a great strategy.
This is the kind of thing that has always pissed me off about consoles, they bundle the console and force a certain package on you. This means that you end up spending more than you want and getting things you're not interested in. When I got my first xbox it was bundled with Clone Wars/Tetris (no interest) and before that the family xbox was bundled with Jetset Radio (again zero interest). If these games were free with the system, or if there were a choice of games it would be ok, but as it was you were basically forced to pay and extra $55 for games you probably didn't care about. And because of the (IMHO) crappy play value of these games coupled with the huge number of them out there, you could get maybe $5 reselling them to the store.
Now not only are gamers going to be forced to buy price-inflated bundles yet again, but the store won't even sell them the system if they don't drop another $100+ right then and there for two other games. I suppose if you're set on being a first adopter you'll find something you want but if you really don't care for the release titles and would rather save the extra $65 for Halo3 or something, well tough titty you're out of luck, no system for you.
Console manufacturers need to find a better way to make back costs w/o screwing over the consumer. If I want to buy just a plain console, one controller and a single game of my choosing then I should be able to. Bundles just artificially increase system prices so M$ can take less of a loss on first-sales. This is no way to treat the customers who are your primary supporters (the first-to-have crowd), although they tend to buy at any price - only making it easier for M$ to take advantage of them. And the artifical scarcity tactic only disgusts and insults me as a consumer. Either sell your product or don't but screwing around with supply to inflate demand only serves to alienate and disappoint people who are already interested in buying your product. Sorry for the rant.
Make lobbying illegal, punishable by hanging in front of the Capitol Building. Problem solved.
Your proposal intrigues me, sir. I wish to support you in your endevor to have this passed by congress, only I feel a bit unsure about the best way to lobby such a bill....
Agreed, in general it seems most every industry is so locked into "tried-and-true" solutions to marketing and product releases that they've almost over-engineered such events. It's gone from "releasing your product in this timeframe/style/venue will likely increase sales" to "OMFGBBQ! If you don't follow this recipe your company will fail utterly!"
The whole science of marketing has become sinister in its fine tuning and I think it's starting to be self-defeating. Take for instance the huge mark-downs on items after the holiday shopping rush. More and more people are realizing that if they can wait a bit longer for must-have item X then it will come down in price, causing retailers to miss sales goals, and have to mark down more mechandise to get it out of the store, etc etc. Same thing with car sales, people are becoming more sensitive when year end model-closeout sales happen and wait until then to make purchases, causing automakers to go through boom/bust sales cycles.
I didn't explain these examples terribly well but you get the gist. I think if markets would relax a bit and take seasonal releases more as suggestions than do-or-die schedules we'd see more year-round product releases and sales would likely improve since every product wouldn't be fighting for market share at the same time. It would probably help the movie industry too for similar reasons. When these marketing studies first started and pinpointed seasonal trends there were large sales improvements because not everyone was following such guidelines, however now that every industry is locked into these release schedules they're seeing diminishing returns from the strategy, and perhaps a new strategy will fare better.
There's an article here on how to remove all scratches using some Brasso. Sheesh. Also just google for IPOD and BRASSO. And next time people treat it as though it were a tiny delicate piece of hightech equipment - oh wait, it is! I know, I know, people expect these to be like walkmen that can take anything you throw at them, but that is not expressed or implied by apple. C'mon people, the tech revolution has only been in full swing for a bit over a decade, everything isn't super-idiot-proof yet. Remember when we used to treat technology with a fair amount of respect and defference? It still demands at least a little bit. Treat it as though you spent $250 on it, cuz you did. And no, spending that much on something doesn't mean it should be indestructible, it just means it was expensive.
Yes, they manipulate the popularity of individual artists by giving them more exposure, which is something that wouldn't happen if the music labels went away and artists had to compete on a level playing field (i.e. the Internet).
I agree with everything you said, however one piece of the puzzle for artists has never been well addressed in any of the comments or articles I've read related to this.
What about large concerts?
A large amount of the clout that the RIAA wields with the labels is the resources and connections needed to organize and run large concert tours. It's all very well for us to say artists should distribute songs free over the internet as this will enlarge their fanbase, then they can make their living from concerts and merch, but this would only seem to work at the local (i.e. small scale) level. It's one thing for an artist or their manager to book a show at a club or small theater for example, but the money and connections and other resources needed to book a stadium level venue, or even a national tour of stadium venues has got to be enormous. That's where I think our utopic model as it stands breaks down. This is not to say there is not a solution! Especially since I don't actually know how organizing such a tour truly works, however I do have experience with booking acts, contracts, and running those shows since I was chair of my college's comedy entertainment board and I personally have booked and run a number of shows. What I glean from those single-act, campus-provided venue experiences is that it takes a hell of a lot of work, cash, and manpower just to do a small college show, I extrapolate that to booking a national tour that's more than just small local clubs and I can see how resource needs must escalate exponentially. It's true, the more successful a band is, the more money they will have to hire managers and stage hands etc, but the vertical monopoly of the labels that covers everything from printing t-shirts to hiring crew, contracts, equipment, advertising, etc etc, provides a huge advantage in both costs and complexity that would be hard for any individual band to match. So it can be done, but I think we're also going to have to see either a seperate business form around doing large concerts, or we're going to see a decline in the quality and quantity of those concerts if there isn't some large well-moneyed backer working for the artist.
Again, I don't believe this is insurmountable, but it is an issue that I haven't seen addressed clearly yet. If we want the RIAA and the labels to change (or preferably dissolve) to an artist-centric model, we must translate all aspects of the current system to work within that framework. Leverage our synergies and all that.;)
how about giving away the songs (it's really just an ads for the artist - that's why the record companies are willing to pay radio stations to have their crap played) and then make you money on the concerts and t-shirts?
I fully agree their business model desperately needs updating, except that as I understand it, concerts and merchandise sales are where the artists make most of their money. This is not to say that the RIAA doesn't have its dirty fingers in those lucrative pies as well, however for them the media sales are where the bulk of their profits lie right now. If they move in to take a similar amount of profit from concerts and merch than the little that the artists are already receiving will dwindle even further and probably result in more backlash. Let's face it, the RIAA is addicted to the smack they've created and they don't want to be weaned off of it at any cost, including risking their public image by suing minors.
From what I've read of this case (/. linked articles) it sounds like the daughter is likely guilty of copyright infringement, or at least of having the songs available to be shared on her computer. What I haven't seen (either not presented yet or nonexistent) is evidence of the number of infringements. It's one thing for the RIAA to prove that she made the song available for download, but did anyone actually get a copy from her? If a person can be convicted of X counts of copyright infringement just because it was potentially possible (but not explicitly demonstrated that X counts occurred), then I can be charged with public urination everytime I drink a glass of water! For the record I'm only ever guilty of public urination after many pints 'o ale.;)
Always nice to get a reasoned conversation here on slashdot.:)
Being a parent you certainly know better than I the responsibilities and difficulties of shielding your children from harmful influences. I can definitely understand how any tools to aid you in that are welcome. I also believe we're on the same track here.
The distinction with this legislation as I see it is self-enforced vs state-enforced. AFAIK, and I could be wrong, there are no actual laws citing criminal charges or fines for allowing minors to view R-rated films, whereas most videogame laws proposed so far would put such penalties into place for similar level content. The argument could be made that perhaps the movies do need to have such legal restrictions placed on them, but currently I don't think there are such restrictions or that it's a good idea. Hence, the ball is in the court of the video game industry and distributors/vendors of the games. If they self-enforce as well as theaters in sticking with the M for mature means no under-17 sales, then fine, all is well and the few instances of kids getting M-rated games from the shady clerk are no worse than kids sneaking into R-rated movies. I fear putting legal reprecussions behind that; what in most cases amounts to some entirely harmless teenage fun suddenly gives someone a criminal record. That could be said about a lot of dangerous/illegal things teens do but on a scale of 1 to 10, playing a violent video game rates maybe a '2' next to pornography, tobacco, alcohol, and driving w/o a license. I also worry this might also open up an avenue of prosecution against parents if their childrens' friends play an M-rated game when they sleep over, for example. The other parents would have a law to point to and press charges instead of just having a reasoned talk along the lines of "please don't let Billy play those games when he visits." I wish it weren't like that but these days it seems most people are more interested in litigating than reasoning like adults.
I was discussing this with my girlfriend after the film, but I don't believe that this method of "breaking in" new reaver recruits would be either effctive enough or constant enough to keep their numbers at breakeven. A couple variables you have to look at are things like the fact that they run with their engines unshielded, exposing themselves to some sort of radiation that is fatal in high enough doses and must radically shorten life expectancy. They have open wounds and are constantly "cutting on" themselves, leaving themselves wide open to infections of all sorts - you can't possibly argue that savages such as the reavers have a very comprehensive medical plan or an unending supply of antibiotics. And finally, they live an extremely dangerous lifestyle, living in scavanged and hacked-together ships, performing raids where they are constantly shot at and killed, etc.
So we see that there are constant factors that kill them off, but their only method of "reproduction" is through some sort of program of phsychological abuse, torture, and conversion? Their conversion success rate has got to be abyssmally low, I'd argue that most victims placed in the situation of being converted by them might go mad, but would most likely commit suicide along the way as soon as it was possible.
Of course, no where is it said that the reavers numbers are constant or increasing, and everything else in the Firefly universe is logical enough that I would expect given time Joss would have them die out from the cumulative effects of their lifestyle.
Couple related thoughts for you to mull over. 1) If the reavers were somehow able to get ahold of the gas that created them they could become a huge terror in the verse, effectively making whole populations become docile food sources and also instanlty conveting approx 10% into more reavers. A couple problems with that are how do thye know about the gas, or acquire it, and as my GF argues, they probably wouldn't be happy eating people that were as content as cows to just be slaughtered. 2) How is it that the reavers can even survive in space? The systems they have to run, and decisions to be made about things like trajectory and mechanics seem overly complex for a group that is as violent and irrational as they appear. I feel like reavers maintaining a ship even as simple as a firefly class would be equivalent to a group of zombies servicing a big-block chevy. But again, we've never seen them in any other mode than attack, and we have no idea how much of their previous skillsets or personalities they retained. Still, the impression one gets is that they are little more than mindless killing freaks who would need keepers to survive. And given the complexity of Joss' stories it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there is perhaps some more cognitive form of reaver which acts as leadership and provides for the grunts so that they may be sent to raid when commanded.
You make some good points and I agree with the majority but you gloss over a few realities of the situation. The first and most important being that the people in power now, who will pen these laws, and the voting constituents they pander to, are older than the generation playing videogames and probably well above the average/. poster's age. Myself I am 26 and a fulltime robotics engineer to give you some perspective. My generation grew up playing videogames, and though I was on the cusp of that revolution, the kids that are in school nowadays see the NES as more than just oldschool, it's ancient to them. There's a whole mindset to the technology that is not well grasped, it seems, by anyone over the age of 35 or so right now, so when dealing with lawmakers who "don't get it" you need to put things in a perspective they will understand and relate to. In law especially one tends to build on what is already present, and in this case what is already present is media such as movies, TV, and BOOKS. There is plenty of legislation pertaining to what is and is not acceptable to sell to minors regarding printed works, and so that is why I used books to frame my example. To call that example bullshit simply because it is a different medium of information transfer is to miss the point.
I'll respond to your comments point for point: 1) I agree with you here, although I would place a far greater emphasis on parents educating their children on responsible media consumption for two reasons, one is that defining acceptable media consumption cirriculum is almost as difficult as designing a sex ed cirriculum, many parents will have different standards. I would say that a course on advertising would be best suited for this task as it really just gives kids the tools to recognize advertising when they see it and take it for what it is, an attempt to appeal to our baser brains to buy things. A lot of kids, and even adults(!) don't seem to get that one basic fact, commercials are not your friend, they serve only to sell. And two, I have a healthy paranoia of state run schools and don't doubt that whatever is taught would be about as biased as civics classes currently are.
2) Totally agree, more nonviolent game choices, and more choice-paths within games that give the player multiple options of achieving their goals - w/o necessarily using only violence - would only increase playability and make games reach a wider audience. Of course it's not as easy to implement as it sounds but as you pointed out there are already games out there that do this.
3)Here I have to disagree a bit, mostly because there already is a system designed to rate games for content and alert parents to this content. The games industry voluntarily enacted this system to specifically prevent the need for such legislation, just as the MPAA did with its rating system. By rating their own games in a consistent manner they hoped that the government wouldn't have to get it's heavy hand involved, and I think the system as it stands is effective, if parents actually bother to use it. The argument could be made that it's confusing I suppose, but only because they use different rating abbreviations than the well-known movie ratings. I'm sure there are reasons (probably copyright related) that the games industry chose different letters for their system, but let's face facts, you don't need a college degree to figure it out. It also lists on the package why the game received the rating it did - e.g. violence, language, nudity, etc. (The Hot Coffee mod is a side discussion here as that hit a few grey areas such as did Rockstar really conform to the rating standard, was the content ever really intended to be seen, is rockstar responsible for 3rd parties altering the gameplay? etc) Additionally I'm worried by your direct call to allow others to parent for parents. Firsts off, it's no one else's right to tell someone how to raise their child or being given tools to do so unless that child is in actual danger of being harmed physcially or phys
There is easily a hundred times more depravity, violence, and subversive thinking in books on a public library shelf than in any set of video games. Thank god we've already formed committees to review and rate these harmful works and prohibit minors from accessing th.... wait, what's that you say, any child can check out these seditious and violent works with nothing more than a library card? The works of the Marquis de Sade? Historical accounts of wars? Works of terror by Stephen King? What have we come to as a country if minors are allowed to view these materials unchecked? I demand that public libraries and librarians be fined and jailed for allowing such terrible influences to be given to our children!!
Sarcasm aside, I demand that any legislator writing such a vigeogame law justify how that media can be treated differently than any other work. And interaction is not a valid defense, choose your own adventure books would meet that standard.
I do agree some games are not suitable for minors, but just as the law doesn't jail or fine movie theaters if minors get into R-rated shows, there should be now such law punishing video game stores and clerks for essentially the same offense.
That's a good question. Which company is the best one for selling/buying used games? If EB/Game Stop are no good, who is more reasonable?
I admit that in recent years I buy less games than I used to, mostly having to do with graduating from college and starting a fulltime career in those years. However, before they were bought out by GameStop a few years ago there was a chain called Funcoland in the New England states (not sure if they existed outside of this region). Funcoland was much more in-tune with the supply/demand of used games and systems and actually altered prices weekly (or was it monthly?) to take this into account. They also offered better buyback prices than either GS or EB at the time and usually sold for about $5 to $10 cheaper than those two chains depending on demand for the used item.
I never found another store that was as reasonable, although I don't doubt there are likely other independent stores out there that are, but certainly haven't found another chain store.
So, I guess I have no answer for you, although I wish I or someone else did, as there seems to be no wide-scale competitor who consistently prices used games more reasonably than GameStop.
It's the doctrine of first sale. Once you sold it, it's out of your hands. Does that mean you have to like it? No. But there's nothing that says you should get another slice of the pie.
Ok, having said that, I can see hwo this is potentially a huge blow to the already struggling games industry, at least as far as smaller develoeprs go. Right now there seems to be this boom or bust tendency with games, and if you don't hit one out of the park on the first try there's little chance of getting another shot. In addition huge development and advertising costs can be hard to recoup for smaller companies, and having such a major outlet as BestBuy resell used games makes it even harder for them to make those all-important first-sales.
As a consumer this also worries me, given the used games policy of GamesStop and EB (before it was bought out) we can probably expect BestBuy to buy abysmally low and sell insultingly high. I'm sorry, but when I know a business is making outrageous margins of upwards of 80% (I did RTFA but my personal experience has been that their margins are much better than the 40% quoted) on these used games it sickens me. Basically the consumer is getting shorted on both ends. Will BestBuy reverse this and actually keep used games margins more reasonable? Probably not. Although even a $5 difference in price between them and GameStop would be a blwo to GS's used game income, and I don't doubt BB has the clout and Money to start a price war, however I do doubt that they could overcome the greed of the high margins to truly start one.
In summary to a lot of rambling, I think this could possibly be slightly good for the used games consumer, bad for the games industry, but totally inline with supply/demand economics and doctrines of first sale. I want the games publishers to do well, but if their only recourse is to legislate against reselling of used games (or reselling w/o a cut to them) I have to draw the line, once I own it I can do what I liek with it, including getting ripped off reselling it to BestBuy.
I have a Motorola V710 (yay broken Bluetooth!). The outside LCD screen is scratch free, and I carry it in my pocket every single day, and have dropped it a couple of times.
I also have a Gameboy - the old late 80's, original Gameboy that I bought in the late 80's/early 90's. No scratches on that thing's LCD, either.
Which is great for you, but your two examples hardly demonstrate the norm for portable devices. I've owned all sorts of phones and every type of gameboy, as well as the GameGear. All of them have scratched screens. All my friends phones have scratched screens. All my friend iPods have scratched screens. Every portable electronic gadget I have ever owned has gotten scratches on the screen. (And no, not because I'm some klutz, it's just years of use.) People are just whining because their new ultra-hot ultra-shiny toy doesn't stay that way forever and they wish it would. Boohoo, that's life. There was no indication by Apple before the nano, or when the nano was released that it would be impervisous to scratches (or even any better at that than previous ipods). Why else would there already be such a booming ipod skin industry? Clearly these things scratch and people knew about it, why they somehow thought the nano would be magically different is beyond me. My point in bringing up other devices was that they all scratch, some brands may be better than others but they all scratch. And I really don't believe that either of your device screens are as pristine as the day you got them. Plus a few examples of other specific devices don't undo the fact that ipod screens DO scratch, ALL of them.
Common sense says that if a device is advertised as portable and able to be carried around everywhere I go it should be designed as such. I should be able to carry it in my pocket or backpack without worrying that it's going to scratch.
They should have used a harder material to cover the screen.
So is your cellphone scratch-free? Is your Gameboy scratch-free? How about your keychains, etc etc? Scratches happen, granted you can use "scratch-proof" plastics but even those scratch and they are rather expensive. Don't believe me? Go to the optomotrist and ask to have your lenses made of scratch-proof plastic, it's at least $30 most everyplace. Sure $30 doesn't seem like much, until you start trying to hit a certain price point with your product and a certain profit margin to stay profitable.
Slashdot had a story on the materials cost for the nano and put it somewhere around $98 including assembly cost, let's say scratch-proof plastic costs a manufacturer roughly 33% of what you pay at the eye doctor, so it's $10 per screen. You've just increased the material cost of your product by 10%, that's huge! Even 5% would be a lot margin-wise. As someone else said, a good rule of thumb is every $1 extra in materials cost translates to $4 more in final product price.
iPods can take a great deal of abuse, but demanding that they not even scratch is rather rediculous. All portable devices scratch when you put them in a pocket or bag unprotected, that's why most cell phones with LCDs and the GBA-SP are clamshell style, they fold over to protect the delicate screen. Just try leaving your phone flipped open or your GBA-SP open and in a backpack, I guarantee you'll see the same amount of scratching. And aren't these portable devices expected to go everywhere with you? Phones especially are designed to take damage, I've dropped mine at a jog more times than I care to think about and it's scratched to hell but still works.
And before anyone goes off on my armchair QBing here, I own an ipod mini, and my friend purchased a nano last week. I've seen and used ipods, they're just like any other screen, take care with it and it'll be fine, treat it like the whole thing is made of stainless steel and don't be surprised when normal wear occurs.
The other point that people seem to be glossing over and that I tried to highlight in my OP was that Apple is claiming the nano screens (outer plastic) are the same material as all other ipods. So that means one of two things, either Apple is lying (not smart, and why would they, they only stand to lose in that case) or people are doing more damage and/or have higher expectations than before. Perhaps it's just people's perception, no one much noticed or cared about a few scratches when it was just B/W text song titles being displayed, but now that they have a tiny color screen every obscured pixel is a personal affront!
Again, if in fact the materials are the same then the only way they can scratch more (than previous ipod models) is through different use!
The screen does scratch very easily. A friend got one and a few hours later, the screen had fine scratches all over it. His 3G iPod had no scratches on it, so he seems to be very careful. There's something different about the Nano than other iPods that must contribute to this.
I'm only hazarding a guess here but I'll bet most of the problems stem from the fact that more people are putting the nano in more confined spaces, i.e. pockets, purses, tighter/smaller pockets. The simple reason is that it's smaller and more portable, so they say "hey, my 40gig ipod was uncomfortable in my jeans pocket, but this nano fits perfectly!" And wala, now the nano is introduced to more scratching than its predecessor.
A lot of this is unconscious, people may not even notice that they are treating the device differently. Also, I think a lot more people (at least the ipod owners I know) tend to use belt clips for their ipods, whereas with the nano it just fits in a pocket so much easier, why not toss it in there?
Look, if the materials are identical as Apple claims then the only way you can get more scratching on a nano vs older ipods is by handling it differently. Technology has always been fragile people, just because we've recently gotten much better at hardening it doesn't mean it's indestrutable. Use some caution, common sense, and a condom.;)
A bit offtopic, so be kind, but there's plenty of whining and bitching about the editors around here, and usually for good reason.
However, I thought I'd take a moment to THANK Zonk for actually editing. I see his corrections to summaries posted almost daily. Maybe there's an argument to be made about getting it right before it goes up but gorramit the man is at least making an effort when it sometimes seems like no one else is. Good job man.
Also kudos the the whole slachcrew for the HTML/CSS upgrades, no small feat for any organization this size!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitching and moaning.
The majority of the summary is a post from an anonymous author talking about how the PSP and DS face off even though he admits obvious personal bias against the PSP, and his thoughts on how others view the systems are skewed by the fact that the PSP has only recently been released in his area?
How in the hell does this constitute a summary of PSP vs the DS 6 months in??
Up next on slashdot, we ask this homeless man in Ottowa how he feels about the new upper tax bracket cuts for rich citizens of Argentina.
HP executives will not be taking any paycuts or reductions (despite poor company performance) even though many of them make many times the annual salary of any of the people being laid off.
For a while there I thought that even the trivial competition of two companies might push or at least hold down used game prices. Thank god they finally got over their differences and united around the common enemy of market-driven used game pricing!
Seriously though, I can't see this as being any good for the consumer. We have an EB and a GameStop in the mall near me and for years they've been mirror images of overpriced mediocrity. I'm not sure what other good (franchised) used game stores existed elsewhere in the country, but in MA anyway we used to have Funcoland (bought out by GS), which was at least an excellent alternative. They published a monthly price list that literally listed every used game/system/accesory they sold and what their buyback and sell prices were for it. Granted you got rather lowballed when selling them stuff, but no worse than EB/GS today. And at least Funcoland kept the resale price down, but more importantly the prices actually fluctuated with supply/demand for that title/system. What I see at EB/GS these days are retarded inflated prices for used titles for all but the crappiest or most over-printed games (ala system-bundled games, which are a whole other rant entirely). I mean for some of these games the used price is only $5 less than the new price, but it can't be demand, at least not local demand, cuz I see 5 or 6 copies of many of these in stock.
I guess it's the same old tale of companies merging into ever-larger conglomerates of Doom, but it still makes me upset. I see less competition and less selection every time I visit these places. It also irks me that you can't buy a used system from them unless you pony up 95% of the new system price. Yes, they do a full system check and provide a warantee (usually around 6 months), but when you know for a fact they're getting 50% or better margins* on these things it's hard to justify that price point - at least for me - where's the value-added here?
*Easy to calculate, just ask them how much they're willing to buy your old system for, be prepared to be disappointed.
East Coast cons far outnumber the ones we have in both quality and quantity.
I think it's more just a product of my ignorance of the con landscape than a grass-is-greener thing, for me anyway. Although another poster made the very true point that we get way way more bands around here.
Any chance you could elaborate for me on the outnumbering east coast cons that you mentioned? Someone else said Otakon, but other than that I got no suggestions.
If I could mod in the same thread as I posted then you sir would get a +1 Funny, and a +10 Firefly Rules! For now you'll just have to accept me adding you to my friends list. [clicky]
Now if you'll excuse me I must set down my fork over... hea, and give my nephew a call to ixnay on the illkay.
I dunno, maybe I'm a bit too much of a shut-in geek and am missing something, but I live next to Cambridge in Boston and time and again I hear about super-con-this and mega-con-that-9! and get interested only to be shut down when I see it's in CA, or WA, or NV or some such. I'm sure that I'll be pelted with responses about how there are tons of cons in the NE, maybe a few of you could even provide some links to good sites that list em?
We have a few awesome ones, to be sure. The Boston Anime con was pretty cool this year, I hear the toy expo is neat too. But what I haven't heard of are any sort of East Coast E3 or PAX-type gaming cons, and besides the annual Boston Anime con I don't know about any other anime/comics cons in the area.
I understand that CA is all hip and where it's at apparently, and they've got that whole silicon valley thing, but I'm smack in the middle of a tech belt here too! Just seems like the West coast is where its at for huge geek assemblies, but if you can't make the airfare then you're outta luck for most of the year up here.:(
Slashdot Mirror
I do have a few points I'd like to rebuke though. First, the other products you mentioned are extremely high-priced high-end products, and are well outside of the majority of people's budgets so it's a bit unfair to try to compare their scarcity with a video game system. (I do understand the 360 is essentially the console equivalent of the top-end, high priced hardware for its market segment, but I think we can both agree that most people above the poverty line are far more likely to be able to afford a 360 than a custom car/chopper in their lifetimes.) Additionally, those luxury items are intended to be scarce, whereas the 360 is expected to sell tens of millions of units worldwide, so already there is a discrepency here. Microsoft is telling the world they want everyone to have one and that is their sales goal, yet then they turn around and intentionally limit supply simply to artifically inflate demand further. Also, we're not talking about MS sending only 100 or 50 consoles to stores, the articles referenced put the numbers at more like 15 to 20 consoles per store. In most places the demand is already much higher than that, so they are limiting the supply to the point of choking it off. It's one thing to send a number lower than expected demand, it's another to cut that number in half or more. That is specifically what I mean when I say that this tatic is insulting to the customer. MS knows that demand is much much higher than what they are making available and there is a good chance that more than half the demand that is already there will not be satisfied. Why not provide twice the number they're currently planning, meet 75% of the current demand and still sell out? MS doesn't want to create scarcity, they want to create rabid unfulfillable, tooth-and-nail demand like previous season's rushes on talking elmos and power ranger toys. They are wholly manipulating people, they are going to create severely overpriced second markets, and yet their stated aim of scarcity could still be acheived w/o such overkill.
I should probably note at this point, I've never been a first-adopter and certainly didn't plan to be for the 360 even well ahead of these shinanegans (sp?). So I don't represent the demographic that is willing to get the system at any price, but then if this sort of market scramble weren't being perpetrated then maybe the system would be easier to get and be a more reasonable price and then I would buy one when it first comes out.
As to MS's short/long term goals with this, thank you for the well-written explanation, however I already understand it quite well. It's the same strategy that has been used for almost every new system for about a decade, and I understand there are huge costs to overcome and they are taking a loss. For that matter, aren't they still technically taking a loss for the current xbox hardware? Perhaps they recently passed breakeven but I though the last I had heard the xbox division was still deep in the red.... What I think we're seeing in this round is version 2.0 of the take a loss/create huge demand tactic. They've taken the lessons of past releases and are applying them much more forcefully this time around, probably because they're taking a bigger loss. What I can't help but wonder is if there isn't a better way to do this? I just can't help but think that with all the resources that MS has at its disposal this is the best way they could come up with to make this product work for them? I think there has got to be a better middle ground for the consumer. But as long as early adopters are willing to spend upwards of $1000 for systems on ebay then MS is going to keep taking advantage of that fact. And with no backlash to this policy I predict this sort of thing is only going to get worse in the coming years. Just imagine this tactic applied this liberally to other products. It doesn't take long to see that such manipulation of the system (yes it's capitalism so this is essentially how ev
The two xboxes I mentioned receiving in my post were gifts, and both were purchased after price drops in the system, so no, I nor the people who bought the gifts "fell for it". By the time I received an Xbox for Christmas it had been on the market for over 20 months, yet no systems were available for purchase w/o getting a bundle.
That's my point, you get stuck with their package unless you wait for so long that it's almost time for the next generation of consoles to be released.
But thanks for assuming things in my post that I didn't put there, insulting me, and then being wrong, that's a great strategy.
Now not only are gamers going to be forced to buy price-inflated bundles yet again, but the store won't even sell them the system if they don't drop another $100+ right then and there for two other games. I suppose if you're set on being a first adopter you'll find something you want but if you really don't care for the release titles and would rather save the extra $65 for Halo3 or something, well tough titty you're out of luck, no system for you.
Console manufacturers need to find a better way to make back costs w/o screwing over the consumer. If I want to buy just a plain console, one controller and a single game of my choosing then I should be able to. Bundles just artificially increase system prices so M$ can take less of a loss on first-sales. This is no way to treat the customers who are your primary supporters (the first-to-have crowd), although they tend to buy at any price - only making it easier for M$ to take advantage of them. And the artifical scarcity tactic only disgusts and insults me as a consumer. Either sell your product or don't but screwing around with supply to inflate demand only serves to alienate and disappoint people who are already interested in buying your product. Sorry for the rant.
Your proposal intrigues me, sir. I wish to support you in your endevor to have this passed by congress, only I feel a bit unsure about the best way to lobby such a bill....
The whole science of marketing has become sinister in its fine tuning and I think it's starting to be self-defeating. Take for instance the huge mark-downs on items after the holiday shopping rush. More and more people are realizing that if they can wait a bit longer for must-have item X then it will come down in price, causing retailers to miss sales goals, and have to mark down more mechandise to get it out of the store, etc etc. Same thing with car sales, people are becoming more sensitive when year end model-closeout sales happen and wait until then to make purchases, causing automakers to go through boom/bust sales cycles.
I didn't explain these examples terribly well but you get the gist. I think if markets would relax a bit and take seasonal releases more as suggestions than do-or-die schedules we'd see more year-round product releases and sales would likely improve since every product wouldn't be fighting for market share at the same time. It would probably help the movie industry too for similar reasons. When these marketing studies first started and pinpointed seasonal trends there were large sales improvements because not everyone was following such guidelines, however now that every industry is locked into these release schedules they're seeing diminishing returns from the strategy, and perhaps a new strategy will fare better.
There's an article here on how to remove all scratches using some Brasso. Sheesh. Also just google for IPOD and BRASSO. And next time people treat it as though it were a tiny delicate piece of hightech equipment - oh wait, it is! I know, I know, people expect these to be like walkmen that can take anything you throw at them, but that is not expressed or implied by apple. C'mon people, the tech revolution has only been in full swing for a bit over a decade, everything isn't super-idiot-proof yet. Remember when we used to treat technology with a fair amount of respect and defference? It still demands at least a little bit. Treat it as though you spent $250 on it, cuz you did. And no, spending that much on something doesn't mean it should be indestructible, it just means it was expensive.
I agree with everything you said, however one piece of the puzzle for artists has never been well addressed in any of the comments or articles I've read related to this.
What about large concerts?
A large amount of the clout that the RIAA wields with the labels is the resources and connections needed to organize and run large concert tours. It's all very well for us to say artists should distribute songs free over the internet as this will enlarge their fanbase, then they can make their living from concerts and merch, but this would only seem to work at the local (i.e. small scale) level. It's one thing for an artist or their manager to book a show at a club or small theater for example, but the money and connections and other resources needed to book a stadium level venue, or even a national tour of stadium venues has got to be enormous. That's where I think our utopic model as it stands breaks down. This is not to say there is not a solution! Especially since I don't actually know how organizing such a tour truly works, however I do have experience with booking acts, contracts, and running those shows since I was chair of my college's comedy entertainment board and I personally have booked and run a number of shows. What I glean from those single-act, campus-provided venue experiences is that it takes a hell of a lot of work, cash, and manpower just to do a small college show, I extrapolate that to booking a national tour that's more than just small local clubs and I can see how resource needs must escalate exponentially. It's true, the more successful a band is, the more money they will have to hire managers and stage hands etc, but the vertical monopoly of the labels that covers everything from printing t-shirts to hiring crew, contracts, equipment, advertising, etc etc, provides a huge advantage in both costs and complexity that would be hard for any individual band to match. So it can be done, but I think we're also going to have to see either a seperate business form around doing large concerts, or we're going to see a decline in the quality and quantity of those concerts if there isn't some large well-moneyed backer working for the artist.
Again, I don't believe this is insurmountable, but it is an issue that I haven't seen addressed clearly yet. If we want the RIAA and the labels to change (or preferably dissolve) to an artist-centric model, we must translate all aspects of the current system to work within that framework. Leverage our synergies and all that. ;)
I fully agree their business model desperately needs updating, except that as I understand it, concerts and merchandise sales are where the artists make most of their money. This is not to say that the RIAA doesn't have its dirty fingers in those lucrative pies as well, however for them the media sales are where the bulk of their profits lie right now. If they move in to take a similar amount of profit from concerts and merch than the little that the artists are already receiving will dwindle even further and probably result in more backlash. Let's face it, the RIAA is addicted to the smack they've created and they don't want to be weaned off of it at any cost, including risking their public image by suing minors.
From what I've read of this case (/. linked articles) it sounds like the daughter is likely guilty of copyright infringement, or at least of having the songs available to be shared on her computer. What I haven't seen (either not presented yet or nonexistent) is evidence of the number of infringements. It's one thing for the RIAA to prove that she made the song available for download, but did anyone actually get a copy from her? If a person can be convicted of X counts of copyright infringement just because it was potentially possible (but not explicitly demonstrated that X counts occurred), then I can be charged with public urination everytime I drink a glass of water! For the record I'm only ever guilty of public urination after many pints 'o ale. ;)
Being a parent you certainly know better than I the responsibilities and difficulties of shielding your children from harmful influences. I can definitely understand how any tools to aid you in that are welcome. I also believe we're on the same track here.
The distinction with this legislation as I see it is self-enforced vs state-enforced. AFAIK, and I could be wrong, there are no actual laws citing criminal charges or fines for allowing minors to view R-rated films, whereas most videogame laws proposed so far would put such penalties into place for similar level content. The argument could be made that perhaps the movies do need to have such legal restrictions placed on them, but currently I don't think there are such restrictions or that it's a good idea. Hence, the ball is in the court of the video game industry and distributors/vendors of the games. If they self-enforce as well as theaters in sticking with the M for mature means no under-17 sales, then fine, all is well and the few instances of kids getting M-rated games from the shady clerk are no worse than kids sneaking into R-rated movies. I fear putting legal reprecussions behind that; what in most cases amounts to some entirely harmless teenage fun suddenly gives someone a criminal record. That could be said about a lot of dangerous/illegal things teens do but on a scale of 1 to 10, playing a violent video game rates maybe a '2' next to pornography, tobacco, alcohol, and driving w/o a license. I also worry this might also open up an avenue of prosecution against parents if their childrens' friends play an M-rated game when they sleep over, for example. The other parents would have a law to point to and press charges instead of just having a reasoned talk along the lines of "please don't let Billy play those games when he visits." I wish it weren't like that but these days it seems most people are more interested in litigating than reasoning like adults.
Best to you and yours.
So we see that there are constant factors that kill them off, but their only method of "reproduction" is through some sort of program of phsychological abuse, torture, and conversion? Their conversion success rate has got to be abyssmally low, I'd argue that most victims placed in the situation of being converted by them might go mad, but would most likely commit suicide along the way as soon as it was possible.
Of course, no where is it said that the reavers numbers are constant or increasing, and everything else in the Firefly universe is logical enough that I would expect given time Joss would have them die out from the cumulative effects of their lifestyle.
Couple related thoughts for you to mull over.
1) If the reavers were somehow able to get ahold of the gas that created them they could become a huge terror in the verse, effectively making whole populations become docile food sources and also instanlty conveting approx 10% into more reavers. A couple problems with that are how do thye know about the gas, or acquire it, and as my GF argues, they probably wouldn't be happy eating people that were as content as cows to just be slaughtered.
2) How is it that the reavers can even survive in space? The systems they have to run, and decisions to be made about things like trajectory and mechanics seem overly complex for a group that is as violent and irrational as they appear. I feel like reavers maintaining a ship even as simple as a firefly class would be equivalent to a group of zombies servicing a big-block chevy. But again, we've never seen them in any other mode than attack, and we have no idea how much of their previous skillsets or personalities they retained. Still, the impression one gets is that they are little more than mindless killing freaks who would need keepers to survive. And given the complexity of Joss' stories it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there is perhaps some more cognitive form of reaver which acts as leadership and provides for the grunts so that they may be sent to raid when commanded.
Just food for thought.
I'll respond to your comments point for point:
1) I agree with you here, although I would place a far greater emphasis on parents educating their children on responsible media consumption for two reasons, one is that defining acceptable media consumption cirriculum is almost as difficult as designing a sex ed cirriculum, many parents will have different standards. I would say that a course on advertising would be best suited for this task as it really just gives kids the tools to recognize advertising when they see it and take it for what it is, an attempt to appeal to our baser brains to buy things. A lot of kids, and even adults(!) don't seem to get that one basic fact, commercials are not your friend, they serve only to sell. And two, I have a healthy paranoia of state run schools and don't doubt that whatever is taught would be about as biased as civics classes currently are.
2) Totally agree, more nonviolent game choices, and more choice-paths within games that give the player multiple options of achieving their goals - w/o necessarily using only violence - would only increase playability and make games reach a wider audience. Of course it's not as easy to implement as it sounds but as you pointed out there are already games out there that do this.
3)Here I have to disagree a bit, mostly because there already is a system designed to rate games for content and alert parents to this content. The games industry voluntarily enacted this system to specifically prevent the need for such legislation, just as the MPAA did with its rating system. By rating their own games in a consistent manner they hoped that the government wouldn't have to get it's heavy hand involved, and I think the system as it stands is effective, if parents actually bother to use it. The argument could be made that it's confusing I suppose, but only because they use different rating abbreviations than the well-known movie ratings. I'm sure there are reasons (probably copyright related) that the games industry chose different letters for their system, but let's face facts, you don't need a college degree to figure it out. It also lists on the package why the game received the rating it did - e.g. violence, language, nudity, etc. (The Hot Coffee mod is a side discussion here as that hit a few grey areas such as did Rockstar really conform to the rating standard, was the content ever really intended to be seen, is rockstar responsible for 3rd parties altering the gameplay? etc)
Additionally I'm worried by your direct call to allow others to parent for parents. Firsts off, it's no one else's right to tell someone how to raise their child or being given tools to do so unless that child is in actual danger of being harmed physcially or phys
Last line should read: there should be NO such law punishing video game stores and clerks for essentially the same offense.
Sarcasm aside, I demand that any legislator writing such a vigeogame law justify how that media can be treated differently than any other work. And interaction is not a valid defense, choose your own adventure books would meet that standard.
I do agree some games are not suitable for minors, but just as the law doesn't jail or fine movie theaters if minors get into R-rated shows, there should be now such law punishing video game stores and clerks for essentially the same offense.
I admit that in recent years I buy less games than I used to, mostly having to do with graduating from college and starting a fulltime career in those years. However, before they were bought out by GameStop a few years ago there was a chain called Funcoland in the New England states (not sure if they existed outside of this region). Funcoland was much more in-tune with the supply/demand of used games and systems and actually altered prices weekly (or was it monthly?) to take this into account. They also offered better buyback prices than either GS or EB at the time and usually sold for about $5 to $10 cheaper than those two chains depending on demand for the used item.
I never found another store that was as reasonable, although I don't doubt there are likely other independent stores out there that are, but certainly haven't found another chain store.
So, I guess I have no answer for you, although I wish I or someone else did, as there seems to be no wide-scale competitor who consistently prices used games more reasonably than GameStop.
Ok, having said that, I can see hwo this is potentially a huge blow to the already struggling games industry, at least as far as smaller develoeprs go. Right now there seems to be this boom or bust tendency with games, and if you don't hit one out of the park on the first try there's little chance of getting another shot. In addition huge development and advertising costs can be hard to recoup for smaller companies, and having such a major outlet as BestBuy resell used games makes it even harder for them to make those all-important first-sales.
As a consumer this also worries me, given the used games policy of GamesStop and EB (before it was bought out) we can probably expect BestBuy to buy abysmally low and sell insultingly high. I'm sorry, but when I know a business is making outrageous margins of upwards of 80% (I did RTFA but my personal experience has been that their margins are much better than the 40% quoted) on these used games it sickens me. Basically the consumer is getting shorted on both ends. Will BestBuy reverse this and actually keep used games margins more reasonable? Probably not. Although even a $5 difference in price between them and GameStop would be a blwo to GS's used game income, and I don't doubt BB has the clout and Money to start a price war, however I do doubt that they could overcome the greed of the high margins to truly start one.
In summary to a lot of rambling, I think this could possibly be slightly good for the used games consumer, bad for the games industry, but totally inline with supply/demand economics and doctrines of first sale. I want the games publishers to do well, but if their only recourse is to legislate against reselling of used games (or reselling w/o a cut to them) I have to draw the line, once I own it I can do what I liek with it, including getting ripped off reselling it to BestBuy.
I also have a Gameboy - the old late 80's, original Gameboy that I bought in the late 80's/early 90's. No scratches on that thing's LCD, either.
Which is great for you, but your two examples hardly demonstrate the norm for portable devices. I've owned all sorts of phones and every type of gameboy, as well as the GameGear. All of them have scratched screens. All my friends phones have scratched screens. All my friend iPods have scratched screens. Every portable electronic gadget I have ever owned has gotten scratches on the screen. (And no, not because I'm some klutz, it's just years of use.) People are just whining because their new ultra-hot ultra-shiny toy doesn't stay that way forever and they wish it would. Boohoo, that's life. There was no indication by Apple before the nano, or when the nano was released that it would be impervisous to scratches (or even any better at that than previous ipods). Why else would there already be such a booming ipod skin industry? Clearly these things scratch and people knew about it, why they somehow thought the nano would be magically different is beyond me. My point in bringing up other devices was that they all scratch, some brands may be better than others but they all scratch. And I really don't believe that either of your device screens are as pristine as the day you got them. Plus a few examples of other specific devices don't undo the fact that ipod screens DO scratch, ALL of them.
So is your cellphone scratch-free? Is your Gameboy scratch-free? How about your keychains, etc etc? Scratches happen, granted you can use "scratch-proof" plastics but even those scratch and they are rather expensive. Don't believe me? Go to the optomotrist and ask to have your lenses made of scratch-proof plastic, it's at least $30 most everyplace. Sure $30 doesn't seem like much, until you start trying to hit a certain price point with your product and a certain profit margin to stay profitable.
Slashdot had a story on the materials cost for the nano and put it somewhere around $98 including assembly cost, let's say scratch-proof plastic costs a manufacturer roughly 33% of what you pay at the eye doctor, so it's $10 per screen. You've just increased the material cost of your product by 10%, that's huge! Even 5% would be a lot margin-wise. As someone else said, a good rule of thumb is every $1 extra in materials cost translates to $4 more in final product price.
iPods can take a great deal of abuse, but demanding that they not even scratch is rather rediculous. All portable devices scratch when you put them in a pocket or bag unprotected, that's why most cell phones with LCDs and the GBA-SP are clamshell style, they fold over to protect the delicate screen. Just try leaving your phone flipped open or your GBA-SP open and in a backpack, I guarantee you'll see the same amount of scratching. And aren't these portable devices expected to go everywhere with you? Phones especially are designed to take damage, I've dropped mine at a jog more times than I care to think about and it's scratched to hell but still works.
And before anyone goes off on my armchair QBing here, I own an ipod mini, and my friend purchased a nano last week. I've seen and used ipods, they're just like any other screen, take care with it and it'll be fine, treat it like the whole thing is made of stainless steel and don't be surprised when normal wear occurs.
The other point that people seem to be glossing over and that I tried to highlight in my OP was that Apple is claiming the nano screens (outer plastic) are the same material as all other ipods. So that means one of two things, either Apple is lying (not smart, and why would they, they only stand to lose in that case) or people are doing more damage and/or have higher expectations than before. Perhaps it's just people's perception, no one much noticed or cared about a few scratches when it was just B/W text song titles being displayed, but now that they have a tiny color screen every obscured pixel is a personal affront!
Again, if in fact the materials are the same then the only way they can scratch more (than previous ipod models) is through different use!
I'm only hazarding a guess here but I'll bet most of the problems stem from the fact that more people are putting the nano in more confined spaces, i.e. pockets, purses, tighter/smaller pockets. The simple reason is that it's smaller and more portable, so they say "hey, my 40gig ipod was uncomfortable in my jeans pocket, but this nano fits perfectly!" And wala, now the nano is introduced to more scratching than its predecessor.
A lot of this is unconscious, people may not even notice that they are treating the device differently. Also, I think a lot more people (at least the ipod owners I know) tend to use belt clips for their ipods, whereas with the nano it just fits in a pocket so much easier, why not toss it in there?
Look, if the materials are identical as Apple claims then the only way you can get more scratching on a nano vs older ipods is by handling it differently. Technology has always been fragile people, just because we've recently gotten much better at hardening it doesn't mean it's indestrutable. Use some caution, common sense, and a condom. ;)
However, I thought I'd take a moment to THANK Zonk for actually editing. I see his corrections to summaries posted almost daily. Maybe there's an argument to be made about getting it right before it goes up but gorramit the man is at least making an effort when it sometimes seems like no one else is. Good job man.
Also kudos the the whole slachcrew for the HTML/CSS upgrades, no small feat for any organization this size!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitching and moaning.
How in the hell does this constitute a summary of PSP vs the DS 6 months in??
Up next on slashdot, we ask this homeless man in Ottowa how he feels about the new upper tax bracket cuts for rich citizens of Argentina.
HP executives will not be taking any paycuts or reductions (despite poor company performance) even though many of them make many times the annual salary of any of the people being laid off.
Seriously though, I can't see this as being any good for the consumer. We have an EB and a GameStop in the mall near me and for years they've been mirror images of overpriced mediocrity. I'm not sure what other good (franchised) used game stores existed elsewhere in the country, but in MA anyway we used to have Funcoland (bought out by GS), which was at least an excellent alternative. They published a monthly price list that literally listed every used game/system/accesory they sold and what their buyback and sell prices were for it. Granted you got rather lowballed when selling them stuff, but no worse than EB/GS today. And at least Funcoland kept the resale price down, but more importantly the prices actually fluctuated with supply/demand for that title/system. What I see at EB/GS these days are retarded inflated prices for used titles for all but the crappiest or most over-printed games (ala system-bundled games, which are a whole other rant entirely). I mean for some of these games the used price is only $5 less than the new price, but it can't be demand, at least not local demand, cuz I see 5 or 6 copies of many of these in stock.
I guess it's the same old tale of companies merging into ever-larger conglomerates of Doom, but it still makes me upset. I see less competition and less selection every time I visit these places. It also irks me that you can't buy a used system from them unless you pony up 95% of the new system price. Yes, they do a full system check and provide a warantee (usually around 6 months), but when you know for a fact they're getting 50% or better margins* on these things it's hard to justify that price point - at least for me - where's the value-added here?
*Easy to calculate, just ask them how much they're willing to buy your old system for, be prepared to be disappointed.
I think it's more just a product of my ignorance of the con landscape than a grass-is-greener thing, for me anyway. Although another poster made the very true point that we get way way more bands around here.
Any chance you could elaborate for me on the outnumbering east coast cons that you mentioned? Someone else said Otakon, but other than that I got no suggestions.
Now if you'll excuse me I must set down my fork over... hea, and give my nephew a call to ixnay on the illkay.
We have a few awesome ones, to be sure. The Boston Anime con was pretty cool this year, I hear the toy expo is neat too. But what I haven't heard of are any sort of East Coast E3 or PAX-type gaming cons, and besides the annual Boston Anime con I don't know about any other anime/comics cons in the area.
I understand that CA is all hip and where it's at apparently, and they've got that whole silicon valley thing, but I'm smack in the middle of a tech belt here too! Just seems like the West coast is where its at for huge geek assemblies, but if you can't make the airfare then you're outta luck for most of the year up here. :(