It will obviously try to take over and kill us all....I mean that has to be the plot for at least a dozen sci-fi movies, a few of which were actually successful...
Would it have been so hard to let the game support standard (and possibly cheaper) USB hard drives as well?
It probably would have for them. Whether that is an issue of the XBox360's OS not recognizing standard USB hard drives, or Microsoft telling them that they couldn't is another question, one that I don't have an answer to. But I'm sure that even if it were technically possible, Microsoft would never allow them to release a game that could use a standard USB hard drive.
Removing the BD drive in the low-end version of the PS3 would remove it as a gaming feature for both models. Developers have to develop for the lowest common denominator.
You say that not having a feature in one model effectively removes it as a gaming feature for both models. Later on you talk about Final Fantasy XI on the Xbox360, which requires the hard drive (which isn't present on the cheaper model). While in general not having a feature prevents people from developing for it, if the install base is high enough, and the options are:
a) Require one of these "features" that aren't in all models of the console
b) Don't release for that console
Then I think you'll see a few games that will require a feature that isn't in all models of the console. FFXI is a great example -- there's no way you could release a MMORPG like FFXI without requiring a hard drive (to store updates/enhancements/etc.), so Square Enix decided that requiring the hard drive was better than not releasing it at all.
Now, what does happen is that most games get built for the lowest common denominator which may reduce the overall quality of the games. You can bet that if Sony released a version of the PS3 without the BR drive, the vast majority of the games would not utilize the BR drive, but there would likely be a few that would require it to play simply because not having the BR drive would not be an option.
Or perhaps knowingly hurting a small percentage of your customers is acceptable because it's more cost effective.
If it's more cost effective to not pursue business with a particular group of customers, then it's more cost effective. There's nothing saying that a company *has* to try and sell to every last person. The marginal cost of winning some people over is just too high.
There's a difference between not pursuing certain unprofitable customers and "hurting" a small number of your current customers. An example of the former would be like Best Buy did a few years ago when they told the customers that only bought items Best Buy was selling at a loss to take a hike. Even that example is a bit extreme -- a more reasonable example would be financial advisors refusing to work for people with less than 50k (or 500k, etc.) of investable assets.
Now, as far as what the grandparent said, "hurting" could be construed a few ways. You could financially hurt a customer, or you could physically hurt them. Let's take the financial advisor again. Let's say that the advisor decided to work with a person with only $2000 in assets, but realized that spending any amount of time on the account would just lose money, so he ignored the account. I think most of us would agree that this was very unethical. Additionally, the FA has likely broken his fiduciary responsibilities, thus breaking the law.
A final example would be an HMO that won't cover more expensive but more effective treatments, knowing that in the long run it would cost them more money to do so.
As you can see the grandparent and the parent are talking about two completely different things.
In other words, the 360 base system isn't fully functional without the addition of at least one item, that being a memory card.
And with the exception of cartridge game consoles, this is true for every other console currently on the market. Unless you don't care about saving your games, you need a memory card for the PS1, PS2, Gamecube, and Dreamcast.
Now Los Angeles has some lousy water courtesy of the concrete canal that is the California Aquaduct.
Having spent a week in the LA area, I can agree that the tap water is pretty bad. However, it's not nearly as bad as the tap water in Disney World (in Florida). I like to drink a lot of water, but I generally refuse to pay for bottled water (especially when the price is inflated like it is at Disney). Even at the nicer restaurants, the water they served was unfiltered tap water and it just tasted awful.
I've been spoiled most my life, as the tap water on Long Island and in southwestern Connecticut is very good.
Is the timing of the patches really that much of an issue? Do people install the patches as soon as they are released? I only ask because at my company we are about 2 years behind in the patches (we are still using 9i and in some cases 8), due to an inherent distrust of the stability of a patch. Likewise, not many people are in a rush to install the latest service packs of Windows until all the flaws are worked out.
I could be missing the point here, and these are minor (yet critical) patches, but if they are, how come they are taking so much time to develop?
Just understand that you pay a monthly fee for those 2 in store vouchers. You're paying for them.
Agreed, but you're completely missing the point. Free (as in beer) these days often means you are getting something additional for no extra cost, and this is exactly what is happening. While you can argue semantics and say that the $17.99/mo fee includes the cost of the B&M rentals and therefore they aren't free (and you wouldn't be wrong), you're missing the point that you are basically getting the same service as Netflix (for the same price), plus you are additionally getting the B&M rentals. You could either assign the costs proportionally (and say that the mail-order service is worth $10 and the two vouchers are worth $4 each), or you could argue that the mail-order service is worth $17.99 (this is the price that competitors have) and you are therefore getting those vouchers for $0, which is the same as free to me.
The bottom line is that assuming the mail-order aspects of both Blockbuster and Netflix are roughly equivalent (which is by no means certain -- my experiences with both lend that Blockbuster's service is actually better, but I am sure others have had the opposite experience), you are getting a considerable added value with the vouchers for the in-store rentals. If you go with the 1 a week service, you are basically getting $20 worth of vouchers (at $5/rental which is the rate at my local Blockbuster) for a $17.99/mo price, plus you're also getting the mail-order service.
If you want to be anal and say that you're not getting something free, then go ahead. For me, I'll stick with Blockbuster and my "free" vouchers because I'm getting considerable added value out of them.
It's about a 1.3 days on avg to receive a movie and 2.2 days on average for Netflix to record it received. A total turn-around time of 3.5 days per film.
I have Blockbuster Online in Southwestern Connecticut, and the distribution center is within the same city. In all but one case (out of about 30 movies so far) I've gotten the movie the next postal day after the day they ship it. I've never had Blockbuster take more than one day to acknowledge receipt of a movie I mailed back, and on several occasions they have even received the movie the same day I mailed it. Additionally, they have always mailed me a new movie the same day they received the last one. I usually watch a movie at night, mail it the next morning, and a new movie will be waiting for me when I get back from work two days later. The lag for me comes from the rate I watch movies, it's definitely not from their side.
And just because you use Netflix does not preclude doing a one-off rental at BB (or anywhere else) for something you have to have tonight.
Yes, except that if you have Blockbuster Online you get coupons for free in-store rentals (either 2 per month, valid for the whole month, or 1 per week, valid only for the week). Therefore, you can satisfy your spur-of-the-moment movie fix without paying anything extra.
Still, not a bad deal, until you realize you can't get new releases for the first two months because you're sent to the back of the line,
And this is why I really like Blockbuster online. In those cases where I can't get a new release from the online store, I have two free rentals at the local Blockbuster per month, and they are pretty good at having sufficient stock of the new releases. I usually rent the older movies online, and pick up the new releases at the store. I haven't had any issues yet where I haven't been able to get the movie I wanted in a reasonable time frame.
My only complaint is that there's currently no way to specify that you want a particular movie before they ship another. Twice I've received a sequel to a movie before I got the original, even though the sequel was much further down the queue from the original. Now I have to only put the first movie on my queue, and then add the next one when the first one gets shipped. It's not too complicated but it is a little annoying.
There are Blockbusters that still have the no late fee policy in place? The stores in my area (Southwestern CT, and also a couple that my family on Long Island frequents) got rid of the no late fee policy less than a month after it started because customers were always taking the full week grace period. I remember going in the second week of the promotion and there were almost no new releases left in stock. They quickly reversed course and again charge a late fee per day (1/3 of the rental fee per day for new releases, 1/5 for older releases).
I now have Blockbuster online, and it's really a good deal. For $15 a month I get 3 movies out at a time, and I also get two free rentals at the B&M Blockbuster for those days where I just get the urge to see a certain movie. At $5 per rental at the B&M Blockbuster, it's really a good deal. As long as I watch more than 3 movies a month (which I do easily) it pays for itself, plus online has a lot bigger selection than the local Blockbuster does.
For instance, if our legs bent inwards (backwards) at the knee... we could... sit down more easily.
Perhaps you're talking about moving to a sitting position, on a flat surface, but I think having our knees go the other direction would make sitting on a chair extremely difficult -- where would I put my feet, slung over my shoulder?
Hell, I'm a few years out and still don't have a credit card. Pay in cash, leave no trail:)
While overextending yourself on a credit card is a worse proposal, not having a credit card is probably not that great of an idea either. Unless you're never going to need to borrow money (including for a car or house), it's a good idea to get a credit card soon after you turn 18 so you can begin building your credit. What I suggest to many people is to get a credit card and only pay for gas with it, or don't use it at all. By doing this, you improve your credit score without putting yourself into debt. Use it like a debit card -- only buy what you can pay off before the next payment is due, and never carry a balance.
If you can do this for a few years while you're in college, you will build up good credit that will really help you in the years to come as you try and get auto or home loans. You can save yourself many thousands of dollars as you'll qualify for the best interest rates this way.
The only reason you shouldn't get a credit card is if you don't have the self-control to avoid abusing your credit and working yourself deep into debt.
These sites target the student demographic generally. Are students richer today than when I was in college or something?
The 18-to-25 (i.e. college) demographic is one of the most sought-after demographics by advertisers. While they may not have as much money as the 25-45 demographic, they are much more susceptible to advertising at this age, and it is at this age that people begin to really attach to brands. If Jeep can get you to buy one of their cars at this age, then you're much more likely to buy a Jeep down the line as well.
Additionally, as others have noted, this demographic has enormous spending power due to the ease at which credit is extended to those in the demographic. Between the ages of 18-25, many people are not very fiscally responsible, and can amass a large amount of debt. Then they have to cut their spending from 25-45 as they try and pay off all those debts they got during their college years.
I'd also venture a guess that the people who spend the most time on Facebook are the ones that are easily influenced by social pressures and therefore advertisements as well. It would be an interesting study for someone who needs a psychology thesis. If you take my idea, however, make sure you give me credit!
What's the expenses for FaceBook? A room full of developers and hosting fees? (Or is there a large marketing budget? I'm not too familiar with the site, being a number of years out of college...)
I'm pretty sure Facebook doesn't spend much money (if any) on marketing. There's simply no need -- in colleges where Facebook has a presence its attachment rate is extremely high, and word-of-mouth will do enough marketing. I believe Facebook currently has a staff of around 70 people -- if you figure an average cost to the company of $100,000 (which is on the low end after you take into account taxes, benefits, etc.) that's $7MM right there. Add the cost of office space, traveling expenses, and bandwidth (as the 7th most popular site on the web this has got to be pretty large as well) and you've got a significant expense right there.
Slashdot Mirror
The plots or the movies?
It probably would have for them. Whether that is an issue of the XBox360's OS not recognizing standard USB hard drives, or Microsoft telling them that they couldn't is another question, one that I don't have an answer to. But I'm sure that even if it were technically possible, Microsoft would never allow them to release a game that could use a standard USB hard drive.
You say that not having a feature in one model effectively removes it as a gaming feature for both models. Later on you talk about Final Fantasy XI on the Xbox360, which requires the hard drive (which isn't present on the cheaper model). While in general not having a feature prevents people from developing for it, if the install base is high enough, and the options are:
a) Require one of these "features" that aren't in all models of the console
b) Don't release for that console
Then I think you'll see a few games that will require a feature that isn't in all models of the console. FFXI is a great example -- there's no way you could release a MMORPG like FFXI without requiring a hard drive (to store updates/enhancements/etc.), so Square Enix decided that requiring the hard drive was better than not releasing it at all.
Now, what does happen is that most games get built for the lowest common denominator which may reduce the overall quality of the games. You can bet that if Sony released a version of the PS3 without the BR drive, the vast majority of the games would not utilize the BR drive, but there would likely be a few that would require it to play simply because not having the BR drive would not be an option.
If it's more cost effective to not pursue business with a particular group of customers, then it's more cost effective. There's nothing saying that a company *has* to try and sell to every last person. The marginal cost of winning some people over is just too high.
There's a difference between not pursuing certain unprofitable customers and "hurting" a small number of your current customers. An example of the former would be like Best Buy did a few years ago when they told the customers that only bought items Best Buy was selling at a loss to take a hike. Even that example is a bit extreme -- a more reasonable example would be financial advisors refusing to work for people with less than 50k (or 500k, etc.) of investable assets.
Now, as far as what the grandparent said, "hurting" could be construed a few ways. You could financially hurt a customer, or you could physically hurt them. Let's take the financial advisor again. Let's say that the advisor decided to work with a person with only $2000 in assets, but realized that spending any amount of time on the account would just lose money, so he ignored the account. I think most of us would agree that this was very unethical. Additionally, the FA has likely broken his fiduciary responsibilities, thus breaking the law.
A final example would be an HMO that won't cover more expensive but more effective treatments, knowing that in the long run it would cost them more money to do so.
As you can see the grandparent and the parent are talking about two completely different things.
And with the exception of cartridge game consoles, this is true for every other console currently on the market. Unless you don't care about saving your games, you need a memory card for the PS1, PS2, Gamecube, and Dreamcast.
1. Go to a restaurant that has free refills on soft drinks.
2. Drink about 36 glasses of soda (without ice)
3. ???
4. Profit!
Having spent a week in the LA area, I can agree that the tap water is pretty bad. However, it's not nearly as bad as the tap water in Disney World (in Florida). I like to drink a lot of water, but I generally refuse to pay for bottled water (especially when the price is inflated like it is at Disney). Even at the nicer restaurants, the water they served was unfiltered tap water and it just tasted awful.
I've been spoiled most my life, as the tap water on Long Island and in southwestern Connecticut is very good.
Wait...isn't that what the original game had anyway? Well, it's yellow milk I guess, but it's close.
And here I was, I thought the D in DDR stood for "Dance."
Either that or you just landed on Community Chest.
I could be missing the point here, and these are minor (yet critical) patches, but if they are, how come they are taking so much time to develop?
Agreed, but you're completely missing the point. Free (as in beer) these days often means you are getting something additional for no extra cost, and this is exactly what is happening. While you can argue semantics and say that the $17.99/mo fee includes the cost of the B&M rentals and therefore they aren't free (and you wouldn't be wrong), you're missing the point that you are basically getting the same service as Netflix (for the same price), plus you are additionally getting the B&M rentals. You could either assign the costs proportionally (and say that the mail-order service is worth $10 and the two vouchers are worth $4 each), or you could argue that the mail-order service is worth $17.99 (this is the price that competitors have) and you are therefore getting those vouchers for $0, which is the same as free to me.
The bottom line is that assuming the mail-order aspects of both Blockbuster and Netflix are roughly equivalent (which is by no means certain -- my experiences with both lend that Blockbuster's service is actually better, but I am sure others have had the opposite experience), you are getting a considerable added value with the vouchers for the in-store rentals. If you go with the 1 a week service, you are basically getting $20 worth of vouchers (at $5/rental which is the rate at my local Blockbuster) for a $17.99/mo price, plus you're also getting the mail-order service.
If you want to be anal and say that you're not getting something free, then go ahead. For me, I'll stick with Blockbuster and my "free" vouchers because I'm getting considerable added value out of them.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Just because I get calmer from drinking coffee doesn't mean that I OOOOH look at that shiny object!
All I know is that I drive a DODGE STRATUS and people are AFRAID of me!
I have Blockbuster Online in Southwestern Connecticut, and the distribution center is within the same city. In all but one case (out of about 30 movies so far) I've gotten the movie the next postal day after the day they ship it. I've never had Blockbuster take more than one day to acknowledge receipt of a movie I mailed back, and on several occasions they have even received the movie the same day I mailed it. Additionally, they have always mailed me a new movie the same day they received the last one. I usually watch a movie at night, mail it the next morning, and a new movie will be waiting for me when I get back from work two days later. The lag for me comes from the rate I watch movies, it's definitely not from their side.
Yes, except that if you have Blockbuster Online you get coupons for free in-store rentals (either 2 per month, valid for the whole month, or 1 per week, valid only for the week). Therefore, you can satisfy your spur-of-the-moment movie fix without paying anything extra.
And this is why I really like Blockbuster online. In those cases where I can't get a new release from the online store, I have two free rentals at the local Blockbuster per month, and they are pretty good at having sufficient stock of the new releases. I usually rent the older movies online, and pick up the new releases at the store. I haven't had any issues yet where I haven't been able to get the movie I wanted in a reasonable time frame.
My only complaint is that there's currently no way to specify that you want a particular movie before they ship another. Twice I've received a sequel to a movie before I got the original, even though the sequel was much further down the queue from the original. Now I have to only put the first movie on my queue, and then add the next one when the first one gets shipped. It's not too complicated but it is a little annoying.
I now have Blockbuster online, and it's really a good deal. For $15 a month I get 3 movies out at a time, and I also get two free rentals at the B&M Blockbuster for those days where I just get the urge to see a certain movie. At $5 per rental at the B&M Blockbuster, it's really a good deal. As long as I watch more than 3 movies a month (which I do easily) it pays for itself, plus online has a lot bigger selection than the local Blockbuster does.
Where can I get one of these Big Mac plants? Are they trees? Bushes? Tubers?
Perhaps you're talking about moving to a sitting position, on a flat surface, but I think having our knees go the other direction would make sitting on a chair extremely difficult -- where would I put my feet, slung over my shoulder?
While overextending yourself on a credit card is a worse proposal, not having a credit card is probably not that great of an idea either. Unless you're never going to need to borrow money (including for a car or house), it's a good idea to get a credit card soon after you turn 18 so you can begin building your credit. What I suggest to many people is to get a credit card and only pay for gas with it, or don't use it at all. By doing this, you improve your credit score without putting yourself into debt. Use it like a debit card -- only buy what you can pay off before the next payment is due, and never carry a balance.
If you can do this for a few years while you're in college, you will build up good credit that will really help you in the years to come as you try and get auto or home loans. You can save yourself many thousands of dollars as you'll qualify for the best interest rates this way.
The only reason you shouldn't get a credit card is if you don't have the self-control to avoid abusing your credit and working yourself deep into debt.
The 18-to-25 (i.e. college) demographic is one of the most sought-after demographics by advertisers. While they may not have as much money as the 25-45 demographic, they are much more susceptible to advertising at this age, and it is at this age that people begin to really attach to brands. If Jeep can get you to buy one of their cars at this age, then you're much more likely to buy a Jeep down the line as well.
Additionally, as others have noted, this demographic has enormous spending power due to the ease at which credit is extended to those in the demographic. Between the ages of 18-25, many people are not very fiscally responsible, and can amass a large amount of debt. Then they have to cut their spending from 25-45 as they try and pay off all those debts they got during their college years.
I'd also venture a guess that the people who spend the most time on Facebook are the ones that are easily influenced by social pressures and therefore advertisements as well. It would be an interesting study for someone who needs a psychology thesis. If you take my idea, however, make sure you give me credit!
I'm pretty sure Facebook doesn't spend much money (if any) on marketing. There's simply no need -- in colleges where Facebook has a presence its attachment rate is extremely high, and word-of-mouth will do enough marketing. I believe Facebook currently has a staff of around 70 people -- if you figure an average cost to the company of $100,000 (which is on the low end after you take into account taxes, benefits, etc.) that's $7MM right there. Add the cost of office space, traveling expenses, and bandwidth (as the 7th most popular site on the web this has got to be pretty large as well) and you've got a significant expense right there.
North Dakota? Why not?
apologies in advance to any North Dakotans offended by this post
Oooh! How many is a brazilian ?