To me the problem with the crappy top 40 stuff is that it is overproduced. The artists are managed now such that every dance move they make, every note they sing, etc is planned. I'm sure there are focus groups, market surveys and statistical anlysis done to make sure that every Brittany Spears knock off hits the demographic sweet spot.
Personally, I like music that is the expression of an artist, not the iterative effort of a marketing machine.
Hey, that's pretty cool, the GP asks a legit question, I give a short answer and we get modded as Trolls! Someone just wasted some mod points, I guess.
While one individual's data might not be worth much, the browsing habits of thousands of people could be very valuable. How often to users click on ad links? Do you click on Google's sponsor links? Do you visit sites that advertise more then you click on word of mouth sites?
It seems to me that this kind of information would be valuable to a company thinking about advertising on the net.
Most middle-American families on a budget don't have 50 inch HDTVs. They'll buy a very cheap PS2 or a Revolution. They won't pay extra so that little Johnny can play with some basement living geeks online. They will see the same games cheaper on the PS2 or Xbox.
Despite your constant Xbox love, both the 360 and PS3 are expensive toys. At least with the PS3 we can get HD versions of movies (Sony Pictures) to watch. As pointless are UMDs seemed to be, people seem to be buying them, so I expect more folks will buy Blu Ray movies.
Sony has got one more thing than games to sell - HD movies. Sony Picture Studios stands to benefit greatly from millions of people having Blu-Ray players with nothing to play. Sony is betting that folks will start buying HD movies like they've bought DVDs. They might be right - people are actually buying UMDs in some quantities.
Let's see, paid for ads on TV and in print pay for most of the cost of producing the product. Like it or not if you watch TV or read a magazine the ads are what allow you to do so.
Spam, on the other hand pays for nothing. It uses up bandwidth, admin time, CPU time, in other words it costs lots of money for us all.
While the tech for gaming might be getting better and better, there is the problem of expense. It costs a ton to make textures, etc. as we all know. That means titles are more of a financial risk. Which leads to... Focus Groups! Every publisher will be trying out new games on a room full of teens in a Southern California mall and "refining" the game based on the results.
While you are right about sequels being the creative bane of the entertainment industry, they are money in the bank. Customers know the universe of each sequel, they know what to expect.
Since the RIAA is clearly an evil organization, I suggest that everyone stop purchasing music. And, stop downloading it as well.
Think about it, if no one even "illegally" downloaded music, the RIAA would go away in a big hurry. What would be worse for them, piracy or no one on earth giving a shit what they did?
I think it is important to read this realizing that the point of view is from an investment analyst. Online gaming may have a very dedicated following, but it may be a saturated market. If Microsoft paid hundreds of millions to build an integrated online system that only five million people will ever use, it will hurt their bottom line (a tiny bit).
More or less the same here. I also found a large magnifying glass that helped put "blaster" wounds in various stormtroopers. I think at one point the Starship Enterprise joined the fray along with the Falcon. There may have been a Cylon fighter involved as well.
Ok, we'll start from the day MS decided to build the 360. They needed to spec the thing out, work with IBM and ATI to develop the tech, then figure out how to build the box. Since it is a console, the price has to be pretty low, so they probably signed agreements with their suppliers (at least IBM and ATI) on a certain minimum number of units. IBM would sell them the three core chip at say $70 if MS purchased 3 million of the suckers.
The point of all this is that MS has sunk a huge amount of cash into the 360 before a unit saw the glow of a HDTV. Selling them is the ONLY way to get that cash back. Selling lots of them fast makes their money back faster. Very simple.
No, selling more doesn't equate to more money lost for MS. They've already sunk R&D, marketing, development and manufacturing costs into the console. To get a good price on the components they've probably had to order a fair number. So, even if they do lose money on each box sold, they lose way more by not selling them. An xBox360 sitting in a Target somewhere does MS no good whatsoever. Each unit sold mean more potential game sales, more potential xBoxLive gold accounts, more interest from third party developers.
Despite not directly benefitting Take-Two by buying their stock, he does benefit them in other ways. Buying stock and keeping it drives up demand for the stock. Take-Two can then issue more stock and benefit from a higher price.
It should be noted that buying common stock doesn't automatically get you invited to shareholder meetings. You have to own a fair amount for a certain amount of time to get youself really heard.
Also, since GTA is Take-Two's money machine, I very much doubt other shareholders will want to see that product go away.
At the Best Buy near me there is a huge section dedicated to consoles - complete with a tent area where you can sit and play. The PC game section, on the other hand, is a row of shelves mixed in with the regular PC software. I'd say 80% of the titles are Quake 4, The Sims or WoW. I tend to buy games on a whim, and that is virtually impossible on the PC.
I think there will always be a market for PC games. For many of us, spending $400 on a console just doesn't make sense given that we have a perfectly good computer at home.
However, PC gaming suffers from a need to be on the bleeding edge. Civ IV seemed to need a gig of RAM and a kick ass video card just to play - which is crazy.
The deaths of people in India, Thailand and Sri Lanka were probably preventable. However, if you lived in Aceh, you were screwed. They had 15 minutes after a huge earthquake to relocate to higher ground - in other words virtually no time at all.
Exactly! For an industry that really doesn't supply a fundamental need - food, shelter, energy, etc - they sure treat their customers like shit. I'm perfectly happy listening to old CD's or reading a book.
Yeah, you are probably right - plus the fact that the early adopters might just flame a system they bought for $700, but be more generous for one they bought for $400.
MS also has to deal with something of a tradition - consoles aren't that expensive and we expect it that way.
Here's the thing though - if you are willing to wait in line for 8 hours in cold weather to get your hands on an Xbox360 the day it comes out, you might be kept happy with an extra controller or a "Special Edition" box. MS can throw that in the first round of machines shipped, and still make a profit. Then, as demand slows for the special and expensive package, strip it down, reduce the price and repeat as necessary.
Those folks who rushed to get a 360 probably have HDTVs, etc. They are willing to pay extra.
You bring up an interesting point - real simulations take serious CPU power to perform. If I'm a scientist trying to test a theory about turbulent fluids under pressure, yes, every extra bit of data I can squeeze out of the CPU is important, but how far does the simulation have to go for gamers?
There are people who can hear the difference between the various sampling rates on MP3s - but most people can't. There are people who can see the difference between 4x anti-aliasing and 2x - but most people can't.
I wonder if we'll soon get to the point where the average slob can't honestly see any difference between one generation and the next? Are we there already?
Slashdot Mirror
To me the problem with the crappy top 40 stuff is that it is overproduced. The artists are managed now such that every dance move they make, every note they sing, etc is planned. I'm sure there are focus groups, market surveys and statistical anlysis done to make sure that every Brittany Spears knock off hits the demographic sweet spot.
Personally, I like music that is the expression of an artist, not the iterative effort of a marketing machine.
Hey, that's pretty cool, the GP asks a legit question, I give a short answer and we get modded as Trolls! Someone just wasted some mod points, I guess.
GE owns NBC. See http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GE.
To me Halo is good because of the story, the humor and the general feel of the games. I was a Marathon player though, so I'm biased.
Honestly, it is a pretty standard FPS. Not sure why it is as popular as it is.
While one individual's data might not be worth much, the browsing habits of thousands of people could be very valuable. How often to users click on ad links? Do you click on Google's sponsor links? Do you visit sites that advertise more then you click on word of mouth sites?
It seems to me that this kind of information would be valuable to a company thinking about advertising on the net.
Most middle-American families on a budget don't have 50 inch HDTVs. They'll buy a very cheap PS2 or a Revolution. They won't pay extra so that little Johnny can play with some basement living geeks online. They will see the same games cheaper on the PS2 or Xbox.
Despite your constant Xbox love, both the 360 and PS3 are expensive toys. At least with the PS3 we can get HD versions of movies (Sony Pictures) to watch. As pointless are UMDs seemed to be, people seem to be buying them, so I expect more folks will buy Blu Ray movies.
Sony has got one more thing than games to sell - HD movies. Sony Picture Studios stands to benefit greatly from millions of people having Blu-Ray players with nothing to play. Sony is betting that folks will start buying HD movies like they've bought DVDs. They might be right - people are actually buying UMDs in some quantities.
Let's see, paid for ads on TV and in print pay for most of the cost of producing the product. Like it or not if you watch TV or read a magazine the ads are what allow you to do so.
Spam, on the other hand pays for nothing. It uses up bandwidth, admin time, CPU time, in other words it costs lots of money for us all.
While the tech for gaming might be getting better and better, there is the problem of expense. It costs a ton to make textures, etc. as we all know. That means titles are more of a financial risk. Which leads to... Focus Groups! Every publisher will be trying out new games on a room full of teens in a Southern California mall and "refining" the game based on the results.
Unless, of course, they are doing that now...
While you are right about sequels being the creative bane of the entertainment industry, they are money in the bank. Customers know the universe of each sequel, they know what to expect.
See http://www.slate.com/id/2119701/ for some background on this, at least in the film industry.
Yes, I should have made it more clear that I meant RIAA associated music. Boycott any and all RIAA stuff and we will make them irrelevant.
Since the RIAA is clearly an evil organization, I suggest that everyone stop purchasing music. And, stop downloading it as well.
Think about it, if no one even "illegally" downloaded music, the RIAA would go away in a big hurry. What would be worse for them, piracy or no one on earth giving a shit what they did?
I think it is important to read this realizing that the point of view is from an investment analyst. Online gaming may have a very dedicated following, but it may be a saturated market. If Microsoft paid hundreds of millions to build an integrated online system that only five million people will ever use, it will hurt their bottom line (a tiny bit).
I think "firing his apprentice" is Donald's term for working his penis patch.
More or less the same here. I also found a large magnifying glass that helped put "blaster" wounds in various stormtroopers. I think at one point the Starship Enterprise joined the fray along with the Falcon. There may have been a Cylon fighter involved as well.
Ok, we'll start from the day MS decided to build the 360. They needed to spec the thing out, work with IBM and ATI to develop the tech, then figure out how to build the box. Since it is a console, the price has to be pretty low, so they probably signed agreements with their suppliers (at least IBM and ATI) on a certain minimum number of units. IBM would sell them the three core chip at say $70 if MS purchased 3 million of the suckers.
The point of all this is that MS has sunk a huge amount of cash into the 360 before a unit saw the glow of a HDTV. Selling them is the ONLY way to get that cash back. Selling lots of them fast makes their money back faster. Very simple.
No, selling more doesn't equate to more money lost for MS. They've already sunk R&D, marketing, development and manufacturing costs into the console. To get a good price on the components they've probably had to order a fair number. So, even if they do lose money on each box sold, they lose way more by not selling them. An xBox360 sitting in a Target somewhere does MS no good whatsoever. Each unit sold mean more potential game sales, more potential xBoxLive gold accounts, more interest from third party developers.
Despite not directly benefitting Take-Two by buying their stock, he does benefit them in other ways. Buying stock and keeping it drives up demand for the stock. Take-Two can then issue more stock and benefit from a higher price.
It should be noted that buying common stock doesn't automatically get you invited to shareholder meetings. You have to own a fair amount for a certain amount of time to get youself really heard.
Also, since GTA is Take-Two's money machine, I very much doubt other shareholders will want to see that product go away.
At the Best Buy near me there is a huge section dedicated to consoles - complete with a tent area where you can sit and play. The PC game section, on the other hand, is a row of shelves mixed in with the regular PC software. I'd say 80% of the titles are Quake 4, The Sims or WoW. I tend to buy games on a whim, and that is virtually impossible on the PC.
I think there will always be a market for PC games. For many of us, spending $400 on a console just doesn't make sense given that we have a perfectly good computer at home.
However, PC gaming suffers from a need to be on the bleeding edge. Civ IV seemed to need a gig of RAM and a kick ass video card just to play - which is crazy.
The deaths of people in India, Thailand and Sri Lanka were probably preventable. However, if you lived in Aceh, you were screwed. They had 15 minutes after a huge earthquake to relocate to higher ground - in other words virtually no time at all.
Exactly! For an industry that really doesn't supply a fundamental need - food, shelter, energy, etc - they sure treat their customers like shit. I'm perfectly happy listening to old CD's or reading a book.
Oddly enough, one of the Senators who wished the act would die was John Sununu. Good for him.
Yeah, you are probably right - plus the fact that the early adopters might just flame a system they bought for $700, but be more generous for one they bought for $400.
MS also has to deal with something of a tradition - consoles aren't that expensive and we expect it that way.
Here's the thing though - if you are willing to wait in line for 8 hours in cold weather to get your hands on an Xbox360 the day it comes out, you might be kept happy with an extra controller or a "Special Edition" box. MS can throw that in the first round of machines shipped, and still make a profit. Then, as demand slows for the special and expensive package, strip it down, reduce the price and repeat as necessary.
Those folks who rushed to get a 360 probably have HDTVs, etc. They are willing to pay extra.
You bring up an interesting point - real simulations take serious CPU power to perform. If I'm a scientist trying to test a theory about turbulent fluids under pressure, yes, every extra bit of data I can squeeze out of the CPU is important, but how far does the simulation have to go for gamers?
There are people who can hear the difference between the various sampling rates on MP3s - but most people can't. There are people who can see the difference between 4x anti-aliasing and 2x - but most people can't.
I wonder if we'll soon get to the point where the average slob can't honestly see any difference between one generation and the next? Are we there already?