If you wait three months, you allow time for a bug fix to be released. If no bug fixes have been released after three months, then you can assume that they won't get fixed ever, and you can buy a different game. The whole point is to send a message to the developers that you're willing to wait for a quality product. Waiting one week is not really waiting at all.
Mod the parent up! The real way to solve this problem is to not buy any newly released game. Wait at least 3 months, and then visit online forums to see what other players think. If the bugs have been patched, then it's okay to buy the game. If you convince yourself that no single game is ever worth the headache of bugs, then you'll be a much happier gamer.
I don't consider myself an expert in kernel programming, but I definitely think someone is off base if they're expecting programmers as a whole to do the right thing.
Well, I am an expert in kernel programming, and I can tell you that Linus has little tolerance for anyone who doesn't program the way he does. That's one reason, for example, that he doesn't support debuggers. Every other OS has a kernel debugger built-in (and therefore, generally stable and full-featured), but not Linux. Even the OS/2 kernel debugger that was created 10 years ago is better than anything Linux has.
I wonder how many people who don't already have an Xbox360 are actually going to buy one in the near future.
I know two people who just bought Xbox 360s, and I'm getting one next month. The constrained supply was a huge factor in our decisions to get them now.
Ultima Online did early on. People hoarded. The system broke. It sounds good in theory, but there are too many variables you can't easily account for in practice. What about the guy who has a nice collection of some commodity, then doesn't log in for six months?
I don't play MMORPGs, but this problem is easily solved. It should cost in-game money just to keep the character alive. In the real world, people still have to pay rent/mortgage, buy food, etc. to live, regardless of what they do. The character should starve to death if the character doesn't have any money and the player doesn't log in.
Ditto. My mom was going to buy a PC because of a single Windows app she needed to run. She was considering getting a Mac and running VirtualPC, but I knew it would be slow so I was uncertain whether it would really be a good idea. However, thanks to Boot Camp, she is definitely now going to buy a Mac.
People will still prefer OS X native apps over Windows apps under virtualization.
OS/2 users also preferred native apps over Windows apps.
I'm afraid Boot Camp will reduce the incentive to port Windows apps to OS X. Basically, we have two competing forces:
Mac users who are willing to buy, install, and switch to Windows to use an app not available for OS X. Lets call the number of these users "X".
Mac users who would rather do without the program than run it under Windows on their Mac. Lets call the number of these users "Y".
I believe that X is larger than Y for most Windows applications that are not available for OS X. Previously, only group 2 existed, so if a Windows app vendor wanted to reach the Mac market, their only choice was to port the app to OS X. They would compare the cost of porting the app against the revenue from an additional Y users, and decide accordingly.
Today however, they need to consider group 1. There is no additional cost to them to support group 1, so even if X is less than Y, it may still be large enough. So instead, they need to compare the cost of porting the app against Y minus X (the difference in size between group 2 and group 1). That could be a significantly smaller number, and it might even be negative!
Keep in mind that you need to have OS X in order to use Boot Camp. This means that every Mac that runs Windows will also have OS X installed, and the user stills has to buy a full (not upgrade) retail version of Windows XP. That's not cheap, so I really don't see this as eating away at any of Apple's revenue.
I've come to accept that the people at Apple are smarter than I am. Numerous times they released some product that I thought was a bad idea, only to realize later that I was wrong and they were right.
Only on a fiscal sense. In a social sense, Libertarians could be considered left-wing. Think of the Libertarian party as being for people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
Actually, that's rare. I've given presentations at a number of conferences, and every time either I paid or my company paid. Only high-profile speakers get their expenses covered by the conference itself, and only if the conference has a high budget.
You're not supposed to just boycott the sweatshops. You're supposed to buy instead shoes that are made not in sweatshops. If enough people do this, then sales at Nike will go down and sales at AmericanMadeShoeCompany will go up. The executives at Nike will notice this, and then start making their shoes at a better place, because they realize that consumers will pay more for non-sweatshop shoes.
How do you know they're not already doing both? You don't. You heard one particular story, and you make a unfounded assumption that that's all they're doing.
Just don't pre-order games. If no one pre-ordered any games (or pre-ordered anything, for that matter), the overall quality of all games would go up. The need to have any game "right now" is a primary reason why games are released too early. If people generally didn't care when a product was released, then we'd all be better off.
Out of curiosity, what would be a feasible price point for something like what you described?
About $500 for 10 cameras and a monitor. It doesn't matter to me that the technology may be worth more, that's all I can justify spending for what it gives me.
Given that most people's spending habits (or abilities) don't cover what's currently available, perhaps you should focus on making current technology more affordable, rather than trying to invent new gizmos?
There are lots of things I could do today that I can't afford to. For instance, I'd love to be able to put a bunch of wireless cameras throughout the house that can be remotely activated and viewed on a handheld. That would allow my wife to keep an eye on our kids without having to search through the house every time. But even though a cheapo webcam is $40, such a configuration would cost thousands with the products that are available on the market.
I also agree that this is a good move. I've been very frustrated with the TRUS "store" within Amazon. Countless times I've wanted to buy something only to find out that TRUS was selling it, which meant I also had to pay shipping AND tax. Maybe now Amazon will sell video games directly.
Slashdot Mirror
All the time. My minimum for credit card purchases is $20, and I never write checks unless I have to.
If you wait three months, you allow time for a bug fix to be released. If no bug fixes have been released after three months, then you can assume that they won't get fixed ever, and you can buy a different game. The whole point is to send a message to the developers that you're willing to wait for a quality product. Waiting one week is not really waiting at all.
Mod the parent up! The real way to solve this problem is to not buy any newly released game. Wait at least 3 months, and then visit online forums to see what other players think. If the bugs have been patched, then it's okay to buy the game. If you convince yourself that no single game is ever worth the headache of bugs, then you'll be a much happier gamer.
Well, I am an expert in kernel programming, and I can tell you that Linus has little tolerance for anyone who doesn't program the way he does. That's one reason, for example, that he doesn't support debuggers. Every other OS has a kernel debugger built-in (and therefore, generally stable and full-featured), but not Linux. Even the OS/2 kernel debugger that was created 10 years ago is better than anything Linux has.
I know two people who just bought Xbox 360s, and I'm getting one next month. The constrained supply was a huge factor in our decisions to get them now.
I don't know about the PS2, but I'm quite certain that there are no games for the Xbox that are rated "EC", which is what a six-year-old would play.
I'm not a hard-core gamer by any means. I bought my Xbox because I thought it was a user-friendly way to enjoy some casual gaming.
Which movie?
I don't play MMORPGs, but this problem is easily solved. It should cost in-game money just to keep the character alive. In the real world, people still have to pay rent/mortgage, buy food, etc. to live, regardless of what they do. The character should starve to death if the character doesn't have any money and the player doesn't log in.
Ditto. My mom was going to buy a PC because of a single Windows app she needed to run. She was considering getting a Mac and running VirtualPC, but I knew it would be slow so I was uncertain whether it would really be a good idea. However, thanks to Boot Camp, she is definitely now going to buy a Mac.
OS/2 users also preferred native apps over Windows apps.
I'm afraid Boot Camp will reduce the incentive to port Windows apps to OS X. Basically, we have two competing forces:
I believe that X is larger than Y for most Windows applications that are not available for OS X. Previously, only group 2 existed, so if a Windows app vendor wanted to reach the Mac market, their only choice was to port the app to OS X. They would compare the cost of porting the app against the revenue from an additional Y users, and decide accordingly.
Today however, they need to consider group 1. There is no additional cost to them to support group 1, so even if X is less than Y, it may still be large enough. So instead, they need to compare the cost of porting the app against Y minus X (the difference in size between group 2 and group 1). That could be a significantly smaller number, and it might even be negative!
I've come to accept that the people at Apple are smarter than I am. Numerous times they released some product that I thought was a bad idea, only to realize later that I was wrong and they were right.
Um, you do realize that Republicans are supposed to be for small government and reduced spending?
Only on a fiscal sense. In a social sense, Libertarians could be considered left-wing. Think of the Libertarian party as being for people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
Actually, that's rare. I've given presentations at a number of conferences, and every time either I paid or my company paid. Only high-profile speakers get their expenses covered by the conference itself, and only if the conference has a high budget.
You're not supposed to just boycott the sweatshops. You're supposed to buy instead shoes that are made not in sweatshops. If enough people do this, then sales at Nike will go down and sales at AmericanMadeShoeCompany will go up. The executives at Nike will notice this, and then start making their shoes at a better place, because they realize that consumers will pay more for non-sweatshop shoes.
Just wait a few months.
How do you know they're not already doing both? You don't. You heard one particular story, and you make a unfounded assumption that that's all they're doing.
Just don't pre-order games. If no one pre-ordered any games (or pre-ordered anything, for that matter), the overall quality of all games would go up. The need to have any game "right now" is a primary reason why games are released too early. If people generally didn't care when a product was released, then we'd all be better off.
The Xbox version is not free.
About $500 for 10 cameras and a monitor. It doesn't matter to me that the technology may be worth more, that's all I can justify spending for what it gives me.
There are lots of things I could do today that I can't afford to. For instance, I'd love to be able to put a bunch of wireless cameras throughout the house that can be remotely activated and viewed on a handheld. That would allow my wife to keep an eye on our kids without having to search through the house every time. But even though a cheapo webcam is $40, such a configuration would cost thousands with the products that are available on the market.
Or you wear headphones, which is what I do. These are really nice.
You obviously don't have any kids. You watch the movie at home after the children have gone to bed.
I also agree that this is a good move. I've been very frustrated with the TRUS "store" within Amazon. Countless times I've wanted to buy something only to find out that TRUS was selling it, which meant I also had to pay shipping AND tax. Maybe now Amazon will sell video games directly.