Um "knowingly defamed Take Two with malicious intent"? I think you would never be able to prove the "knowingly" aspect nor the "malicious intent" aspect.
This would be an incredibly poor defamation case.
Do you seriously contend that USA sought to ruin Take Two by using "literally" in the slang sense of the word?
You make a strong hypothetical economics argument, and an interesting one at that, but I can't agree with your analysis.
In this case, if you buy the hamburger for $.99 you can eat it, it is self-contained. However, if you buy a PS3 for $600, it isn't self contained. You need things, like PS3 games or blu-ray discs, to use it. Otherwise you have a $600 paperweight.
A better analogy would be that you can buy the Stinkburger buns for $.10 (below cost), but meat costs another $.55 and lettuce $.15, mustard $.10 and pickles $.10. If people went in and bought just $.10 cent buns, then yes, the company would be screwed. But we assume that people will buy that other stuff, right? Or at least some of them would.
I mean, why would 1 mil. people plunk down $600 and then buy no games? It would be really cool, sure, but it isn't going to happen.
Having been a mac user my entire life, let me tell you that the only good mac developers are the independent developers (with Bungie leading the pack back in the day). If Aspyr goes belly-up, then I'll be happy - they bring nothing but incredibly bloated, expensive ports to the platform (and usually months...or years... behind schedule). The alternative cannot be worse.
I'll continue to support original mac game developers, but porting houses blow and are run by incompetent and greedy people. Inside Mac Games, an online publication, has such a love affair with Aspyr that I rarely read it anymore.
I work in the medical device industry and used to cover imaging (I just read the economist piece). Essentially, the inventor of PET is Stevens' best friend, Michael Phelps (they have all these pictures of them fishing together, etc). Stevens is trying to expand the usability of PET to boost his friend's business. The problem with PET isn't approval by FDA, since it is approved for a variety of imaging uses (and it sounds like they blow out of proportion the entire approval process for PET), but reimbursement, ie CMS payment. In the one case I'm referring to, Stevens was pushing very hard to get CMS to cover the use of PET for Alzheimer's.
The only snag? The American Alzheimer's Association was against it. I'll repeat that: against it. The science on PET detecting Alzheimer's disease was so bad, that pretty much no one saw the purpose of using PET to detect the disease. Further, because the science behind it was terrible, the results could be false-positive/negative and give patients false-hope/false-despair. In addition, the organization pointed out that detection is not the issue, since there is currently no cure for alzheimer's. And thus, the money spent to reimburse this silliness could better be spent on drugs or other diagnostics.
Despite that, Stevens pushed it through and now CMS reimburses limited PET for Alzheimer's.
PET is an incredibly small subsegment of the total imaging world, and usually other modalities are better than it. It has uses, sure. But under Ted Stevens, it has been pushed into areas it doesn't belong, seemingly solely to benefit his friend, Michael Phelps.
Oh yeah (cue the defiant "no!" speech following Hurricane Katrina). However, even that stupid-ass bridge "benefits" the people of Alaska. He's bringing sweet, sweet pork home. This broadcast flag in no way acts in their interest. Presumably with no major television producers in Alaska we can assume it isn't what his constituents want as it doesn't benefit them in any way.
Someone please remind me how this, alongside his plans to have the FCC regulate cable television, help his constituents in Alaska? I know there's a lot of scum out there, but Stevens has got to be one of the biggest Senators For Hire I've seen in a while. In the industry I follow, Stevens' bullying work on PET imaging (positron emission tomography) is truly stunning. How many PET centers/suppliers/manufacturers do you think there are in Alaska?
I agree. And even worse is attention focused on earnings per share (EPS). Both factors the company can completely tweak at will, in a way. Revenue and growth in revenue is far, far more important.
For example, lets say halfway through the quarter EA realizes its R&D costs are way too high and that their profits will be lower because of it. If investors are all jazzed about profit/loss, they could fire their work force or stop R&D in order to show a profit.
It's a relatively meaningless number unless, as was stated, it is a long trend of losses or it was completely unexpected (and without a decent explanation).
Look, don't really want to get into this, but I cover Medtech for a living and Medtronic, Advanced Bionics and ANS all have years and years of experience DBS. Safety isn't really a concern, efficacy may be.
To some extent marketing costs plays a role in the visibility of a game but really good games, and I mean really really good games such as World of Warcraft just sell themselves....Right? I know good "indie" movies sell themselves that way see "the blair witch project". Or are there just to many titles out there that we can't see the forest for the trees?
I actually think that was the problem in The Blair Witch Project.
No offense to the poster, but shareholders sue companies all the time. Nothing ever really happens with these suits and they are certainly not noteworthy. So, that part of the story isn't "news." It's more "traditional business."
IIRC, I read an article (on slate?) that discussed Uwe's continuing career was the result of a German Tax loophole, and that companies looking to write off losses for the year would provide him funds for his various efforts.
Basically his career continues because he is a guaranteed money loser. It boggles the mind.
"Jack Thompson: Game Informer already has published screen shots of the game, and has done a brief write-up of what's going to be in the game. Nobody can claim that they haven't gone into the game's content; it's already out there. We don't need to play the game; it's irrelevant to the subject. It's going in there, and children shouldn't be playing it."
Isn't this the same kind of logic that took us to Iraq? We don't need proof of WMDs; it's irrelevant to the subject. I don't mean this as a troll, I mean that it's an incredibly stupid thing to say.
Let's say I'm a huge anti-nudist. I see screen shots of Schindler's List that have naked women. Do I protest Schnindler's List - without having seen the movie - because it has nudity? The context might, just might be important.
Sure, that's true. My point, I guess, was about changing your marketing to the exact opposite of what you've always marketed on. In this case, ATI always saying - it's faster, it's better, more pipelines, more RAM, etc, but now saying "Woah, specs don't matter."
In the end, AMD having better chips that run more efficiently at lower clock speeds necessitated changing their marketing message, which is tough when you've conditioned the market to only care about MHz speed, n'est pas?
Slashdot Mirror
Um "knowingly defamed Take Two with malicious intent"? I think you would never be able to prove the "knowingly" aspect nor the "malicious intent" aspect.
This would be an incredibly poor defamation case.
Do you seriously contend that USA sought to ruin Take Two by using "literally" in the slang sense of the word?
I think you mean "jibe," as in "be in accord; agree" and not "jive," as in "a form of dance or slang talk."
You make a strong hypothetical economics argument, and an interesting one at that, but I can't agree with your analysis. In this case, if you buy the hamburger for $.99 you can eat it, it is self-contained. However, if you buy a PS3 for $600, it isn't self contained. You need things, like PS3 games or blu-ray discs, to use it. Otherwise you have a $600 paperweight. A better analogy would be that you can buy the Stinkburger buns for $.10 (below cost), but meat costs another $.55 and lettuce $.15, mustard $.10 and pickles $.10. If people went in and bought just $.10 cent buns, then yes, the company would be screwed. But we assume that people will buy that other stuff, right? Or at least some of them would. I mean, why would 1 mil. people plunk down $600 and then buy no games? It would be really cool, sure, but it isn't going to happen.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39133
I wish more people read the Onion.
Having been a mac user my entire life, let me tell you that the only good mac developers are the independent developers (with Bungie leading the pack back in the day). If Aspyr goes belly-up, then I'll be happy - they bring nothing but incredibly bloated, expensive ports to the platform (and usually months...or years... behind schedule). The alternative cannot be worse. I'll continue to support original mac game developers, but porting houses blow and are run by incompetent and greedy people. Inside Mac Games, an online publication, has such a love affair with Aspyr that I rarely read it anymore.
See: Dreamcast, Sega
The only snag? The American Alzheimer's Association was against it. I'll repeat that: against it. The science on PET detecting Alzheimer's disease was so bad, that pretty much no one saw the purpose of using PET to detect the disease. Further, because the science behind it was terrible, the results could be false-positive/negative and give patients false-hope/false-despair. In addition, the organization pointed out that detection is not the issue, since there is currently no cure for alzheimer's. And thus, the money spent to reimburse this silliness could better be spent on drugs or other diagnostics.
Despite that, Stevens pushed it through and now CMS reimburses limited PET for Alzheimer's.
PET is an incredibly small subsegment of the total imaging world, and usually other modalities are better than it. It has uses, sure. But under Ted Stevens, it has been pushed into areas it doesn't belong, seemingly solely to benefit his friend, Michael Phelps.
Oh yeah (cue the defiant "no!" speech following Hurricane Katrina). However, even that stupid-ass bridge "benefits" the people of Alaska. He's bringing sweet, sweet pork home. This broadcast flag in no way acts in their interest. Presumably with no major television producers in Alaska we can assume it isn't what his constituents want as it doesn't benefit them in any way.
Someone please remind me how this, alongside his plans to have the FCC regulate cable television, help his constituents in Alaska? I know there's a lot of scum out there, but Stevens has got to be one of the biggest Senators For Hire I've seen in a while. In the industry I follow, Stevens' bullying work on PET imaging (positron emission tomography) is truly stunning. How many PET centers/suppliers/manufacturers do you think there are in Alaska?
What a corporate tool.
For example, lets say halfway through the quarter EA realizes its R&D costs are way too high and that their profits will be lower because of it. If investors are all jazzed about profit/loss, they could fire their work force or stop R&D in order to show a profit.
It's a relatively meaningless number unless, as was stated, it is a long trend of losses or it was completely unexpected (and without a decent explanation).
Look, don't really want to get into this, but I cover Medtech for a living and Medtronic, Advanced Bionics and ANS all have years and years of experience DBS. Safety isn't really a concern, efficacy may be.
You're (presumably) thinking of Guidant, now owned by Boston Scientific.
Oddly enough, I'm sure if you dressed people as Tetris pieces and had them act out Tetris moves, it would be considered performance art.
Instead we get lame, slightly misogynistic speculation.
Good riddence. Aspyr is terrible and the ass-kissing given to them by the Mac press is pathetic.
I actually think that was the problem in The Blair Witch Project.
Just a reminder that because of the Chinese calendar, today is the equivalent of April 1.
There are so many things to disprove this (Daikana). Numerous games that waddled through development hell to end up terrible or medioctre.
No offense to the poster, but shareholders sue companies all the time. Nothing ever really happens with these suits and they are certainly not noteworthy. So, that part of the story isn't "news." It's more "traditional business."
Seriously.
Basically his career continues because he is a guaranteed money loser. It boggles the mind.
Are there Japanese-made, Japanese-backed gaming console alternatives to the American backed Xbox 360?
I guess I therefore fail to see your point. If you brought in products for which there are Japanese alternatives, then I might begin to see it.
Isn't this the same kind of logic that took us to Iraq? We don't need proof of WMDs; it's irrelevant to the subject. I don't mean this as a troll, I mean that it's an incredibly stupid thing to say.
Let's say I'm a huge anti-nudist. I see screen shots of Schindler's List that have naked women. Do I protest Schnindler's List - without having seen the movie - because it has nudity? The context might, just might be important.
Wait a minute, so I can blame Wired for hiring Lore and, in effect, ending the glorious beauty that was the Brunching Shuttlecocks?
Damn you, gainful employment!
In the end, AMD having better chips that run more efficiently at lower clock speeds necessitated changing their marketing message, which is tough when you've conditioned the market to only care about MHz speed, n'est pas?