Data is not scare though. In a P2P network, every person who demands also by definition supplies, thus demand can never outstrip supply.
You sound like you're talking about Bittorrent, with it's simultaneous uploading and downloading, as opposed to just leeching. That, however, is not the reason that demand can't outstrip supply - the reason for that is that demand does not deplete supply, as bits can be copied at as close to zero marginal cost as makes no difference.
The problem as I see it is not an inability to meet the demand for bits, but the inability to meet the demand for the content contained in those bits. Some people round here seem to think that the media companies could somehow continue to produce content if everyone just leeched everything, on the basis that they have no marginal costs, etc. This overlooks the need for the capital costs to be incurred in producing the work in the first place. Sure, distribution costs swiftly drop to nil through use of P2P, but it's the development costs that were the killer anyway. Yes, record execs take too much and screw the artists. Yes, copyright terms are excessive, and it's pretty absurd for someone to profit from a few weeks work for decades. These are problems, but they're not solved by saying that content should cost nothing. Content producers have to be paid something at some point along the way - the artists, the engineers, even the execs. Most people can't live for free. I'm all for them being paid less, and for copyright terms to be slashed, but the producers still have to be paid. At some point someone has to pay them and we can't have the utopia that people want where all content can be obtained for free forever.
Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.
I'm going to be slightly pedantic and point out that a food intolerance is very different to a food allergy. Food intolerances typically just cause you a lot of paid, food allergies can kill you. Lactose intolerance generally just gives you a sore stomach or maybe the runs. A full blown milk allergy would be the sort of thing that could kill you. It's a common misconception - I only really know the difference because my wife is lactose intolerant. This leads on to...
I can just hear you asking, "But wait! Kids don't realize that their allergens are bad for them. We currently handle selling video games EXACTLY how we handle selling milk: Making the kids PARENTS responsible for preventing them from getting their hands on things that their parents think are bad for them.
The comparison could get interesting at this point. If you regard children as having some sort of intolerance to violence, etc, then the comparison holds - we don't restrict access to things that we're merely intolerant to and the responsibility rests with the consumer. However, if we regard violence in the media as something to which children are allergic and which could result in death (be it theirs, or whoever they choose to kill while under the influence of GTA or whatever), which is arguably how things are treated, then we find ourselves in a position which is harder to compare to food allergies. It would be like saying that a shopkeeper can't legally sell, say, peanut butter to someone that they know has a severe peanut allergy, because it will likely end in death. I wonder what the legal position would be on that one?
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here... You still have control over your device. You don't have control over Nintendo to demand that they support your device.
As I've said elsewhere, you can do whatever the hell you want with the hardware, but you might not necessarily be able to expect Nintendo or other publishers to release games that will run on your non-standard hardware.
CAR ANALOGY: If you buy a car and put square wheels on it, for whatever inane reason, then you don't get to bitch when it doesn't work too well on the roads.
Parent is correct. I agree that a person buying hardware has the right to do whatever they like with it. However, I'm not sure where people get the idea that a supplier is then obliged to support their non-standard hardware/firmware with regard to games or online services.
Not always, no. How about The Co-operative Bank or Cafedirect to name two off the top of my head. I'm sure I could find more if I could be bothered to look harder.
It's a bit inaccurate to say they're losing money by not raising prices... They're not making as much as they could, but they're certainly not losing anything.
The track listing of that Best Of album is pretty abominable really... There's no ebb or flow to it at all. It's clearly the work of a label with no interest in the band.
That's exactly the problem, and why "hardcore" is in quotes in my post.
Ah, OK, so we're kind of on the same page then.
The "hardcore" audience itself is poorly defined. I have basically every Ninteo System ever made, a few of Segas, a Playstion and PS2, and an Xbox 360. But I've never spent more than five hours a week playing videogames. Am I "hardcore" because of the amount of systems I have? Or does it come down to game time?
I'd go one step further and ask whether it even needs to be defined in the first place. As for costs - does that define being hardcore? As you say, if you spend a fortune but don't play much or aren't very good at your games, is that hardcore? Or how about if you spend a lot, but it's a tiny amount of your disposable income? Surely that's not as hardcore as spending less, but it being a greater percentage of your money.
And if it comes down to game time, then there's the stigma of the Wii and that it's for "fanboys and little kids". So, even I spent one hundred hours a week mastering every game on the Wii, there's a chance I will still be mocked and not considered "hardcore" because I'm playing on a "child's system".
Indeed. You could be ridiculed for playing easy, childish games or whatever. On the other hand, I'd say anyone who finishes all of Mario Galaxy (all 120 stars, twice, plus the bonus star) is incredibly hardcore. Some people think I'm hardcore because I've got star ratings on all courses on Mario Kart. I'd also say it's pretty hardcore to finish a long game like Zelda.
Nintendo intended the Wii to target the "casual gamer" demographic, which implies we have at least two demographics, the other being hardcore. One can infer that "casual" is someone who will play a few minutes here or there, when they feel like it. However, that still leaves the "hardcore" demographic horribly ill-defined.
I think it would be fairer to say that Nintendo intended to cater to a broader audience, which could include both the hardcore and the n00bs. As we've both hinted at, if you can be excellent at a challenging game, that's pretty hardcore regardless of the console.
So, in short, I've never found two people who agree 100% on what a "hardcore" gamer is. I was using the comment to relate to the implied branding of the Wii as a fanboy or children's system.
Yeah, that makes sense. I've had plenty of arguments about what exactly it means to be a "hardcore" gamer. In my experience, people seem to want to define it at someone who plays graphically high end FPS games on a very expensive PC or a 360/PS3. I'm sure there are hardcore players out there, but I don't think the genre of game or the platform is what defines it. I'd like to think that being hardcore means playing a lot of games, and probably being pretty good at them. Hell, you could be hardcore at Tetris on the Gameboy if you were really good at it.
I think you're partly right here... The pointer gets used well in Resident Evil and Metroid Prime 3, and a couple of others, but the motion controls are utterly wasted, outside of a few titles. They're good in Wii Sports, Mario Galaxy makes some use of them, and so does Metroid Prime 3, but by and large they are just another button, and a more aggravating one.
What I really can't agree with you on is the touchscreen on the DS being gimmicky, or the best games not using it - not when you've got games like Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Meteos, Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents, Canvas Curse, Metroid Prime Hunters.
I invite you to explain to me exactly what a "hardcore" gamer is. In addition, please explain why I - being a person in possession of a Wii and a DS, who plays approximately an hour on the former and half an hour on the latter each and every day - is not within your arbitrary definition of "hardcore".
Slashdot Mirror
Infinitely reproduceable, sure.
You still need to pay someone to produce it in the first place though.
Data is not scare though. In a P2P network, every person who demands also by definition supplies, thus demand can never outstrip supply.
You sound like you're talking about Bittorrent, with it's simultaneous uploading and downloading, as opposed to just leeching. That, however, is not the reason that demand can't outstrip supply - the reason for that is that demand does not deplete supply, as bits can be copied at as close to zero marginal cost as makes no difference.
The problem as I see it is not an inability to meet the demand for bits, but the inability to meet the demand for the content contained in those bits. Some people round here seem to think that the media companies could somehow continue to produce content if everyone just leeched everything, on the basis that they have no marginal costs, etc. This overlooks the need for the capital costs to be incurred in producing the work in the first place. Sure, distribution costs swiftly drop to nil through use of P2P, but it's the development costs that were the killer anyway. Yes, record execs take too much and screw the artists. Yes, copyright terms are excessive, and it's pretty absurd for someone to profit from a few weeks work for decades. These are problems, but they're not solved by saying that content should cost nothing. Content producers have to be paid something at some point along the way - the artists, the engineers, even the execs. Most people can't live for free. I'm all for them being paid less, and for copyright terms to be slashed, but the producers still have to be paid. At some point someone has to pay them and we can't have the utopia that people want where all content can be obtained for free forever.
Hey, turn around a minute, I'm sure I recognise you from somewhere...
Wait, I thought it was the Postman who had to pony up so that you could receive the post.
I'm so confused.
Yes, and it's linked from that Wikipedia article you've linked to.
If you spend $300k on a watch, sometimes you even get less functionality.
Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.
I'm going to be slightly pedantic and point out that a food intolerance is very different to a food allergy. Food intolerances typically just cause you a lot of paid, food allergies can kill you. Lactose intolerance generally just gives you a sore stomach or maybe the runs. A full blown milk allergy would be the sort of thing that could kill you. It's a common misconception - I only really know the difference because my wife is lactose intolerant. This leads on to...
I can just hear you asking, "But wait! Kids don't realize that their allergens are bad for them. We currently handle selling video games EXACTLY how we handle selling milk: Making the kids PARENTS responsible for preventing them from getting their hands on things that their parents think are bad for them.
The comparison could get interesting at this point. If you regard children as having some sort of intolerance to violence, etc, then the comparison holds - we don't restrict access to things that we're merely intolerant to and the responsibility rests with the consumer. However, if we regard violence in the media as something to which children are allergic and which could result in death (be it theirs, or whoever they choose to kill while under the influence of GTA or whatever), which is arguably how things are treated, then we find ourselves in a position which is harder to compare to food allergies. It would be like saying that a shopkeeper can't legally sell, say, peanut butter to someone that they know has a severe peanut allergy, because it will likely end in death. I wonder what the legal position would be on that one?
I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here... You still have control over your device. You don't have control over Nintendo to demand that they support your device.
As I've said elsewhere, you can do whatever the hell you want with the hardware, but you might not necessarily be able to expect Nintendo or other publishers to release games that will run on your non-standard hardware.
CAR ANALOGY: If you buy a car and put square wheels on it, for whatever inane reason, then you don't get to bitch when it doesn't work too well on the roads.
Parent is correct. I agree that a person buying hardware has the right to do whatever they like with it. However, I'm not sure where people get the idea that a supplier is then obliged to support their non-standard hardware/firmware with regard to games or online services.
You got hired to do his bidding
Nuremberg defence, anyone?
PS OMG GODWIN!
Ethical, kind people go bankrupt.
Not always, no. How about The Co-operative Bank or Cafedirect to name two off the top of my head. I'm sure I could find more if I could be bothered to look harder.
Well, there'd be no point in him having a gun rack if he didn't even own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack.
Same in Finland, so my Finnish mother told me. Apparently you can camp on anyone's land provided that you are not visible from their property.
No mention of any time limits, but that's not to say there are none.
Wiki link about freedom to roam...
Bloody alcohol, I forgot my apostrophes.
Family Friendly hasn't done crap for shareholders, IMHO.
I ask this somewhat rhetorically and certainly drunkenly, but why does the shareholders right to income trump the workers right to life?
It's a bit inaccurate to say they're losing money by not raising prices... They're not making as much as they could, but they're certainly not losing anything.
Must not... rise... to troll...
The track listing of that Best Of album is pretty abominable really... There's no ebb or flow to it at all. It's clearly the work of a label with no interest in the band.
Did Microsoft also "go cheap" by using DVD?
That's exactly the problem, and why "hardcore" is in quotes in my post.
Ah, OK, so we're kind of on the same page then.
The "hardcore" audience itself is poorly defined. I have basically every Ninteo System ever made, a few of Segas, a Playstion and PS2, and an Xbox 360. But I've never spent more than five hours a week playing videogames. Am I "hardcore" because of the amount of systems I have? Or does it come down to game time?
I'd go one step further and ask whether it even needs to be defined in the first place. As for costs - does that define being hardcore? As you say, if you spend a fortune but don't play much or aren't very good at your games, is that hardcore? Or how about if you spend a lot, but it's a tiny amount of your disposable income? Surely that's not as hardcore as spending less, but it being a greater percentage of your money.
And if it comes down to game time, then there's the stigma of the Wii and that it's for "fanboys and little kids". So, even I spent one hundred hours a week mastering every game on the Wii, there's a chance I will still be mocked and not considered "hardcore" because I'm playing on a "child's system".
Indeed. You could be ridiculed for playing easy, childish games or whatever. On the other hand, I'd say anyone who finishes all of Mario Galaxy (all 120 stars, twice, plus the bonus star) is incredibly hardcore. Some people think I'm hardcore because I've got star ratings on all courses on Mario Kart. I'd also say it's pretty hardcore to finish a long game like Zelda.
Nintendo intended the Wii to target the "casual gamer" demographic, which implies we have at least two demographics, the other being hardcore. One can infer that "casual" is someone who will play a few minutes here or there, when they feel like it. However, that still leaves the "hardcore" demographic horribly ill-defined.
I think it would be fairer to say that Nintendo intended to cater to a broader audience, which could include both the hardcore and the n00bs. As we've both hinted at, if you can be excellent at a challenging game, that's pretty hardcore regardless of the console.
So, in short, I've never found two people who agree 100% on what a "hardcore" gamer is. I was using the comment to relate to the implied branding of the Wii as a fanboy or children's system.
Yeah, that makes sense. I've had plenty of arguments about what exactly it means to be a "hardcore" gamer. In my experience, people seem to want to define it at someone who plays graphically high end FPS games on a very expensive PC or a 360/PS3. I'm sure there are hardcore players out there, but I don't think the genre of game or the platform is what defines it. I'd like to think that being hardcore means playing a lot of games, and probably being pretty good at them. Hell, you could be hardcore at Tetris on the Gameboy if you were really good at it.
I think you're partly right here... The pointer gets used well in Resident Evil and Metroid Prime 3, and a couple of others, but the motion controls are utterly wasted, outside of a few titles. They're good in Wii Sports, Mario Galaxy makes some use of them, and so does Metroid Prime 3, but by and large they are just another button, and a more aggravating one.
What I really can't agree with you on is the touchscreen on the DS being gimmicky, or the best games not using it - not when you've got games like Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Meteos, Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents, Canvas Curse, Metroid Prime Hunters.
You've been modded funny, but I think you're probably nearest the truth.
I invite you to explain to me exactly what a "hardcore" gamer is. In addition, please explain why I - being a person in possession of a Wii and a DS, who plays approximately an hour on the former and half an hour on the latter each and every day - is not within your arbitrary definition of "hardcore".