"Often exclusivity deals don't involve getting paid, but getting reduced liscensing fees. So if it only costs namco 50% of the liscensing fees to sony"
Getting reduced rates is the same thing as getting paid.
"Sometimes yes, sometimes no."
And that was primarily my point. There are arguments on both side of the issue as to why this may be good or bad for Namco - which is why I don't understand why Zonk would say that this is clearly a "big mistake."
Why exactly would this be a big mistake? I mean - I would assume that Namco would get a nice check for the exclusivity and it is not as though the game won't have a market; there have been more than a few PS2s sold, after all. So where's the mistake?
It is short-sighted to believe that the fraud protection offered by credit card companies doesn't come at a price. You claimed that credit card fraud didn't matter because the consumer doesn't pay for it - pure and simple, that was your statement. My point, yet again since you're being dense, is that fraud protection does come at a price and less fraud is better for the system. And you think just because something isn't lucrative to all involved, the system would change? Yet more evidence that not only are you short-sighted but you've also got no sense of history. Do you think historical systems that have kept segments of the population in poverty while a company profited were lucrative for all involved? Guess what pal, sometimes systems gain momentum and stay in place when only one party is enjoying the spoils. Honestly, you just sound very naive.
The merit of writing "SEE ID" has nothing to do with this argument. You made the statement that writing "SEE ID" was nothing but a waste of time BECAUSE [and this is the only reason you listed] the consumer was protected from fraud and shouldn't, therefore, take any measures whatsoever to protect himself from fraud. I merely pointed out that this is incredibly short-sighted and typical of the average citizen.
Where did I ever say that the "SEE ID" method was effective at all? I didn't. I simply showed that you don't think of larger implications in behavior and can't realize how your behavior is going to negatively impact you.
" Why? You're not found liable for fraudulant charges."
No, you as an individual are not held directly responsible but when a company has to combat fraud, who ends up footing the bill for that? The consumer. Honestly, learn to look at the big picture - it'll help you have a much better life.
And I don't care about what you wished you could have done back when you were in college.
First things first: hooked on phonics is a nice catchphrase and all but it will only allow you to gain the skills needed to function in the very lowest sphere of society. Here's a hint.
Next thing up: as I've grown older and lost a lot of free time, video games have sunk in priority. Therefore, the whole notion of a pre-order is of no value to me. I operate on a much slower cycle for video games and the new games in my collection are almost always last year's hits. The only recent exception being the latest GTA, which I got right around the day it was released - first week, I believe. But I still did not preorder. I simply found a copy in Best Buy that had been misplaced or hidden by someone within the horror DVDs.
Well, a lot of us have made friends in life who work in a variety of fields because we're not social outcasts and, therefore, can just ask our friends who are lawyers to take a look at the document in exchange for running Windows update for them.
But you go ahead and rage on and call lawyers crooks. Perhaps after your 16th birthday you'll start the long trek towards maturity and arrive there sometime by your 40th birthday.
Because the private company offers things that the city wouldn't
offer.
But your argument for adopting WiFi is that it would make the city a
nicer place to live, right? Wouldn't providing those added features also make the city a nicer
place to live? I realize that this is another slippery slope argument and I agree that those
are not on the most solid logical footing but I don't think it is that far-fetched to believe
that when the government starts to provide luxuries, the citizens will, over time, come to
expect more and more. I believe that this would have a direct impact on how citizens view
their government and what the government's responsibilities are. Furthermore, government
agencies consistently request more funding - the rationale for requiring more money would be
to provide any of the numerous additions you mention. In that way, the city's internet service
would continue to erode the marketplace. And let's also consider the additions you cite. You
and I may have use of such facilities but the majority of citizens aren't very technically
inclined, for these people the city's WiFi would be good enough. What does that lead to? A
smaller marketplace for those services [if the government is indeed not providing them] and
that leads to higher prices for you and I if the market even remains large enough for a
competiting company to stay in business. I realize that this is quite a bit of hypothesis and
that there are quite a few lynch pins holding the ideas in place [most of which you probably
take exception to] but I do believe that the above is not outside the realm of
possibility.
As for your statement regarding spending tax money to generate jobs - that's
not convincing at all. I can just as easily say that if the money remains in the hands of the
private individuals, the economy of the area will be healthier with more people spending their
money and thus more companies will be attracted to the area and create more jobs. Just to show
why your argument isn't going to fly, let's say that with the increased spending on the
economy, 2500 jobs at $95,000 a year are brought to the area. Do you see why I am unconvinced
by the whole thing? And look at the history of countries where 100% of the money goes directly
to the government. Is history on your side here?
I am of the opinion that nationalization
always leads to mediocre wages for those directly involved in the service. Continue to add
more and more "services" that the government provides and suddenly, everyone is making the
same amount of money and there's no way to climb up the ranks of society.
WiFi in the park
could be provided by a private company. Why not let a private company manage it? Quite a few
people would probably have no interest in WiFi while they're in the park. Why should they have
to sudsidize it so that you can surf the internet from a park bench? Everyone needs water.
Everyone needs police protection. Everyone needs fire services. Everyone does not need WiFi in
the park. I for one would have no interest in that. If I am in a park, I do not need internet
access. I am there to enjoy the park - not read Slashdot. And you might say that people could
work from the park if they had internet access. And that's true - I prefer to only work at my
workplace and once I leave there, know that I am completely free. That's my right and it is
other's right to work from the park. But there's not 100% coverage here. Not all the
population would have need for WiFi. What about people that don't even own computers? Why
should they be paying tax money for this service? To make the city attractive to companies? I
would say that spending that tax money in making a world class public education system would
be a much better use of money and would help to increase the attractiveness of the city just
as much as free WiFi. And if the number of people who want WiFi in the park is so high [as you
must think it is], a private company will crop up to provide that service to those who need
it.
"I read the "step towards socialism" but I don't think that what is happening here."
But you responded as if I had called the system socialist, ignoring the content of my message with your previous post. Either you made a simple oversight [I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and run with that] or you were being intellectually dishonest.
"The government providing services isn't the distinguishing factor in socialism. Socialism is an economic system where cooperation is emphasized over competition. If the various cities were to for example "nationalize" the telecom company, putting the city into ownership and management of the telecom company, that would be a step towards socialism. If cities were to FORBID anyone else from providing the same service that the city provides, that would be socialism (because wireless service is not something that is naturally exclusive of competition)."
Certainly the government providing services doesn't automatically mean that the system is socialist. And a city providing WiFi still allows for competiting companies to get a foothold in the market but, at that point, an internet provider is in competition with the city government who is being paid by the taxpayers whether they want the WiFi from the government or not. Consider this: if I am a citizen of a city where there is WiFi that my tax dollars are funding - why would I choose to pay for internet access from a private company? I would be paying twice in such a system. Once to the city, once to the private company. So this system does hurt competition, in my view. (Perhaps you see it differently.)
You see - other companies can come in and compete but it's a much different marketplace for a company to come into than a marketplace where they are competing against a private company. And the fact that citizens can't opt out of paying taxes for the city's WiFi makes your statement that competition is completely free and open a bit faulty. Now, the end result of all this is that cities who are providing WiFi are going to drive out private companies. From there, you get rural sections of a state seeing their counterparts in the cities receiving free internet access and suddenly they're lobbying their state lobbyists for the same access. And it's easy to see that if all the states start providing WiFi, overhead can be reduced by nationalizing and suddenly you've got the government providing yet another "service" that is a luxury and should be supplied by a private company.
I am all for smaller government. I believe your view of government differs from this and that is where we are running into the disagreement. I'd also like it noted that the AC who calls me a moron gets modded up while bad-mouthing socialism gets me modded down. Ah, that wonderful Slashdot moderation system in all its glory - mods always moderate based on their own personal opinions. Of course, the editors set such a poor example, what else is to be expected?
"Therefore not having internet access is an impediment to escaping poverty."
First off, thanks for calling me a moron. Because I have a different world view that automatically means, in your eyes, that I have a limited intellectual capacity. That's lovely. Now, the only thing I'll reply to in your very well spaced comment is this: How are the poor going to afford computers? As far as I can tell, it's much easier to pay $20 a month than it is to drop $500 on a new computer for a person on a very limited income. The state isn't going to start providing computers are they? After all, they're a luxury now but in the future any job you have will rely on being able to use a computer. When does the state provide that?
The obvious answer is that the state doesn't provide the hardware but rather provides the training. And I agree with that completely just as I would agree that a knowledge of the internet and working with it should be given to students in public schools. Outside of school though, the internet is a luxury and the poor can view it as a luxury to strive for.
Why did you call me a moron anyway? Is it simply because I disagree with you? It seemed out of line to me.
" I disagree with the interpretation. Satisfying a small part of socialism doesn't make it socialist."
But now you're misrepresenting what I said. I said that this was a step towards socialism. I think that that is an important distinction that you are ignoring completely in your analysis.
Sure, I'll check out Wikipedia. [As poor an authority that it can sometimes be, let's run with your suggestion.]
"Depending on the context, the term socialism may refer either to these ideologies or any of their many lineal descendants. While these cover a very broad range of views, they have in common a belief that feudal and capitalist societies are run for the benefit of a small economic elite and that society should be run for the common good. "Socialist" ideologies tend to emphasize economic cooperation over economic competition; virtually all envision some sort of economic planning (many, but by no means all, favor central planning). All advocate placing at least some of the means of production -- and at least some of the distribution of goods and services -- into collective or cooperative ownership."
Let's see - distribution of a service [WiFi] in a manner of collective or cooperative ownership. Sounds like it fits to me. Certainly providing WiFi is a step away from competition because, even if access providers compete for city contracts, the competition is based on the collective group and thus steals the individual's right to choose. While socialism does encompass various viewpoints, I think my statement stands. Do you disagree with my interpretation of the Wikipedia quote?
Of course, on Slashdot when someone dares to take a smaller government stance they are modded flamebait so I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion but what the heck...
Paved crowds are not even close to being analogous to internet access. First of all, your argument concerning the amount of money spent is not at issue at all. Where did I ever say that it would cost too much? Answer: I did not. The government does not need to step in everytime there is a service that people would like to have - especially when that service can be provided by a company. Certainly companies could crop up and establish toll roads on their own but the free and easy movement of the citizenry is vital to the functioning of the country. I would say that letting the poor or cheap onto the Internet is not vital to the functioning of the country. Furthermore, private companies already exist that provide Internet access. Let the consumer deal directly with the companies - not using the taxman as a middle man between companies that provide Internet access and the city government. Honestly, paved roads is your best argument? Please...
The Internet is not a utility. The Internet is a luxury. Therefore, the government should not provide it. What you're proposing is just another step in the movement towards socialism. It's really a shame that no one understands history anymore.
"Developers are always looking for new ways to milk pop culture for all its [sic] worth."
CORRECTION: Management is always looking for new ways to milk pop culture for all it's worth. Developers merely produce what the suits decide these days. Video games have become a pretty big business.
Furthermore, I believe those Def Jam Fighting games sold fairly well. I heard an African-American fellow in Blockbuster talking to another African-American fellow about how good they are.
The Virtual Boy doesn't belong on that list. It was not a portable gaming unit.
Furthermore, the N-Gage is in a unique position in that its market prescence may slowly rise over time as people sign new contracts with cell phone providers. For instance, when my contract runs out I may consider a N-Gage. Why not, right? The cost is going to be very similar to any other phone I choose and the feature list is fairly nice. This model for getting the N-Gage into the hands of consumers is substantially different than any of the other models you listed.
WHAT THE FUCK??? YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON! What you're rambling on about has fuck-all to do with what my goddamned point was. What the fuck is your problem asshole?
Oh, I know. You think you're smart and you've got this knowledge about media and so you've got to demonstrate it - even though it doesn't have any place here. Go fucking kill yourself asshole.
"Wrong, doom3 dropped their price in less than 6 months, halflife 2 is still going for 60+, they both sold about the same in the first few weeks/months."
This does not prove my statement "wrong", as you so boldly state. The publisher has a target number that they believe their product will sell. Apparently the publishers of Doom 3 had a lower target number than the publishers of Half Life 2 - nothing earth-shattering there. Furthermore, I've seen Half-Life 2 for $40, so your statement isn't even factually correct.
"No waiting will ensure that they go broke if noone buys the game at their artificially inflated 50+ dollar price..."
First of all, it's not artificially inflated. Why do you believe the price is artifically inflated? $50 is what the market will support. That's not an artificial inflation. Do you even know what that term means? I do not believe you do. Second of all, yes - they would go broke if "no one" bought the game at $50. The fact is, people buy games at $50.
"Do the math, 1 million games sold at 50 bucks, or 5 million sold at 20-30 dollars, which generates more profit?"
What about 3 million sold at $50 and 2 million sold at $20-30; which makes more profit? Your example is idiotic.
"When you make the games affordable so anyone can buy them you will reduce piracy and generate bigger interest in the game.. anyone remember this little title called Serious Sam? How about it's sequel..."
The prices of games are set by the publisher at a price point where they believe they can make the most profit. This price point is based on what people expect and the likelihood of people buying a game at that point and the percentage of people likely to pirate the game at that price point. Your rantings on Slashdot have a bit less weight than the research department at any major game publisher. I'd appreciate it if you were to respond with factual arguments instead of your ramblings based on no data or evidence, even anecdotal.
"If the original source is pre-broadcast then the quality could easily be higher than any off air source."
Yes, it could be. What's your point?
If the original source is pre-broadcast then the quality could easily be much lower if it was encoded by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Your comment was completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. Please don't ever reply to anything I have written ever again. It does not appear that you have the intelligence to have a conversation with me. God Bless.
" More people need to start following your lead. If you see a game that's priced out of the norm £40 for the UKers, $55-$60 for the Americans, etc...skip it."
If more people waited 6-12 months to purchase a game, the length of time before the publishers dropped the price would just increase. You should be encouraging fewer people to wait 6-12 months. The more people who buy the game on the first day it is released, the faster the publisher will drop the price.
"Last year, some publishers finally got smart, and gave us discount games like Katamari Damacy, Gungrave: Overdose and the ESPN sports titles."
Bargain games are not exactly a new innovation. The only difference is that now major publishers are taking a cue from the cheapie companies and considering development costs when pricing their games.
"Reward the good companies willing to stick their neck out like that, and punish the ones just trying to stick their hands out into your wallet."
Stick their neck out? Yes. Not putting their hands into your wallet? No. The $20 price point some companies are releasing games at is merely an attempt to take a product that they don't believe will sell well at $50 and make it more of an impulse buy at $20. At the end of the day, they all want to get into your wallet and would be happy to it empty.
"Eventually, the publishers will notice that there are pathetic sales for the games in their first weeks out of the game, and phenomenal numbers after the price drop. Then maybe they'll get it."
The market functions nothing like you think it does. The companies want to meet a certain target of units moved at the $50 price point - calculated by market research. Once they believe that they've sold all the copies they're going to sell at $50, they'll lower the price. Waiting will merely lead to the company waiting longer because their research shows the game needs to sell X number of copies before they will lower the price. Look at the cost of Mac games and how long it takes for the price to be reduced on those - it's quite a long time. Then, look at the EA Sports line of games for the PC. Those are reduced in price much more quickly than the same products on the consoles because EA believes fewer people are destined to buy at the $50 price point.
Finally, a post on Slashdot telling people not to buy games is going to in no way have any impact on an international marketplace, ever. God Bless.
Are you claiming that Sci Fi fans make repeat viewings of shows at a higher than than non-Sci Fi fans? And, if so, how do you know this? Certainly there have been DVD releases of Sci Fi television shows that have sold well but, from my glances at the DVD sections at various outlets, other shows sell just as well on DVD. With all that being said - and let's assume Sci Fi fans do make repeat viewing a habit - why would the broadcast on television be of better quality than the Internet download? Is this going to be broadcast in high def? And, again assuming you are correct and the television broadcast is a better quality broadcast, the resolution of the majority of televisions in homes today offsets any increased resolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty obvious to me. Thanks for playing. God Bless!
It is short-sighted to believe that the fraud protection offered by credit card companies doesn't come at a price. You claimed that credit card fraud didn't matter because the consumer doesn't pay for it - pure and simple, that was your statement. My point, yet again since you're being dense, is that fraud protection does come at a price and less fraud is better for the system. And you think just because something isn't lucrative to all involved, the system would change? Yet more evidence that not only are you short-sighted but you've also got no sense of history. Do you think historical systems that have kept segments of the population in poverty while a company profited were lucrative for all involved? Guess what pal, sometimes systems gain momentum and stay in place when only one party is enjoying the spoils. Honestly, you just sound very naive.
Where did I ever say that the "SEE ID" method was effective at all? I didn't. I simply showed that you don't think of larger implications in behavior and can't realize how your behavior is going to negatively impact you.
And I don't care about what you wished you could have done back when you were in college.
First things first: hooked on phonics is a nice catchphrase and all but it will only allow you to gain the skills needed to function in the very lowest sphere of society. Here's a hint.
Next thing up: as I've grown older and lost a lot of free time, video games have sunk in priority. Therefore, the whole notion of a pre-order is of no value to me. I operate on a much slower cycle for video games and the new games in my collection are almost always last year's hits. The only recent exception being the latest GTA, which I got right around the day it was released - first week, I believe. But I still did not preorder. I simply found a copy in Best Buy that had been misplaced or hidden by someone within the horror DVDs.
But you go ahead and rage on and call lawyers crooks. Perhaps after your 16th birthday you'll start the long trek towards maturity and arrive there sometime by your 40th birthday.
But your argument for adopting WiFi is that it would make the city a nicer place to live, right? Wouldn't providing those added features also make the city a nicer place to live? I realize that this is another slippery slope argument and I agree that those are not on the most solid logical footing but I don't think it is that far-fetched to believe that when the government starts to provide luxuries, the citizens will, over time, come to expect more and more. I believe that this would have a direct impact on how citizens view their government and what the government's responsibilities are. Furthermore, government agencies consistently request more funding - the rationale for requiring more money would be to provide any of the numerous additions you mention. In that way, the city's internet service would continue to erode the marketplace. And let's also consider the additions you cite. You and I may have use of such facilities but the majority of citizens aren't very technically inclined, for these people the city's WiFi would be good enough. What does that lead to? A smaller marketplace for those services [if the government is indeed not providing them] and that leads to higher prices for you and I if the market even remains large enough for a competiting company to stay in business. I realize that this is quite a bit of hypothesis and that there are quite a few lynch pins holding the ideas in place [most of which you probably take exception to] but I do believe that the above is not outside the realm of possibility.
As for your statement regarding spending tax money to generate jobs - that's not convincing at all. I can just as easily say that if the money remains in the hands of the private individuals, the economy of the area will be healthier with more people spending their money and thus more companies will be attracted to the area and create more jobs. Just to show why your argument isn't going to fly, let's say that with the increased spending on the economy, 2500 jobs at $95,000 a year are brought to the area. Do you see why I am unconvinced by the whole thing? And look at the history of countries where 100% of the money goes directly to the government. Is history on your side here?
I am of the opinion that nationalization always leads to mediocre wages for those directly involved in the service. Continue to add more and more "services" that the government provides and suddenly, everyone is making the same amount of money and there's no way to climb up the ranks of society.
WiFi in the park could be provided by a private company. Why not let a private company manage it? Quite a few people would probably have no interest in WiFi while they're in the park. Why should they have to sudsidize it so that you can surf the internet from a park bench? Everyone needs water. Everyone needs police protection. Everyone needs fire services. Everyone does not need WiFi in the park. I for one would have no interest in that. If I am in a park, I do not need internet access. I am there to enjoy the park - not read Slashdot. And you might say that people could work from the park if they had internet access. And that's true - I prefer to only work at my workplace and once I leave there, know that I am completely free. That's my right and it is other's right to work from the park. But there's not 100% coverage here. Not all the population would have need for WiFi. What about people that don't even own computers? Why should they be paying tax money for this service? To make the city attractive to companies? I would say that spending that tax money in making a world class public education system would be a much better use of money and would help to increase the attractiveness of the city just as much as free WiFi. And if the number of people who want WiFi in the park is so high [as you must think it is], a private company will crop up to provide that service to those who need it.
I realize that this
You see - other companies can come in and compete but it's a much different marketplace for a company to come into than a marketplace where they are competing against a private company. And the fact that citizens can't opt out of paying taxes for the city's WiFi makes your statement that competition is completely free and open a bit faulty. Now, the end result of all this is that cities who are providing WiFi are going to drive out private companies. From there, you get rural sections of a state seeing their counterparts in the cities receiving free internet access and suddenly they're lobbying their state lobbyists for the same access. And it's easy to see that if all the states start providing WiFi, overhead can be reduced by nationalizing and suddenly you've got the government providing yet another "service" that is a luxury and should be supplied by a private company.
I am all for smaller government. I believe your view of government differs from this and that is where we are running into the disagreement. I'd also like it noted that the AC who calls me a moron gets modded up while bad-mouthing socialism gets me modded down. Ah, that wonderful Slashdot moderation system in all its glory - mods always moderate based on their own personal opinions. Of course, the editors set such a poor example, what else is to be expected?
The obvious answer is that the state doesn't provide the hardware but rather provides the training. And I agree with that completely just as I would agree that a knowledge of the internet and working with it should be given to students in public schools. Outside of school though, the internet is a luxury and the poor can view it as a luxury to strive for.
Why did you call me a moron anyway? Is it simply because I disagree with you? It seemed out of line to me.
Are you not misrepresenting what I said?
Why is that changing rapidly? What evidence do you have? Please expound on your point. I am interested in your logic.
Paved crowds are not even close to being analogous to internet access. First of all, your argument concerning the amount of money spent is not at issue at all. Where did I ever say that it would cost too much? Answer: I did not. The government does not need to step in everytime there is a service that people would like to have - especially when that service can be provided by a company. Certainly companies could crop up and establish toll roads on their own but the free and easy movement of the citizenry is vital to the functioning of the country. I would say that letting the poor or cheap onto the Internet is not vital to the functioning of the country. Furthermore, private companies already exist that provide Internet access. Let the consumer deal directly with the companies - not using the taxman as a middle man between companies that provide Internet access and the city government. Honestly, paved roads is your best argument? Please...
Oh well. God Bless!
Furthermore, I believe those Def Jam Fighting games sold fairly well. I heard an African-American fellow in Blockbuster talking to another African-American fellow about how good they are.
Furthermore, the N-Gage is in a unique position in that its market prescence may slowly rise over time as people sign new contracts with cell phone providers. For instance, when my contract runs out I may consider a N-Gage. Why not, right? The cost is going to be very similar to any other phone I choose and the feature list is fairly nice. This model for getting the N-Gage into the hands of consumers is substantially different than any of the other models you listed.
Oh, I know. You think you're smart and you've got this knowledge about media and so you've got to demonstrate it - even though it doesn't have any place here. Go fucking kill yourself asshole.
If the original source is pre-broadcast then the quality could easily be much lower if it was encoded by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Your comment was completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. Please don't ever reply to anything I have written ever again. It does not appear that you have the intelligence to have a conversation with me. God Bless.
Finally, a post on Slashdot telling people not to buy games is going to in no way have any impact on an international marketplace, ever. God Bless.
Thank you and have a nice day.