I'm not aware of any option for a $7 cell phone plan in the US. The cheapest individual phone plans I see run around $35 a month. With Sprint's Everything Data Family Plan, it costs me $20 to add a line for my kid, who gets data and minutes.
I expect the schools to stop kids from pulling out a gaming device and playing during class. My daughter is in an after-school program at school. I know other kids there have their DS out playing games after school. No doubt many do over recess, lunch, etc. as well. A cell phone isn't any different.
But that still isn't an additional cost for gaming. If I have an Everything Data Family plan, and I give my kid a cell phone, then I don't magically pay that cost a second time as part of a gaming budget.
The median household income has risen 30% since 1990. Prices have gone up about 65%. So there is definitely a disparity, but people didn't make MORE money 20 years ago. They made 30% less.
It should be noted that we're in a recession. If the economy hadn't tanked, there probably wouldn't be as much of a disparity in income growth rate and inflation.
Those people are idiots. And that behavior will stop pretty quick given that many games now include a one-time code for some of the content. The used copy is often devalued by $10 by these online codes, making it really hard to sell a used game for anything more than $50.
If someone purchases a new game for $60, they consume that code, and then someone later buys that game used with less content for $50, then the publisher was never going to get that sale. That consumer has determined they aren't willing to spend more than $50. And the publisher likely can't afford to sell that game for $50 brand new.
You're assuming parents aren't buying cell phones for their kids.
If I'm a parent buying a cell phone for my kid regardless, and they can get cheap/free apps, that seemingly beats paying $150 for a DS and and then a bunch of $40 games. I'm not spending an additional $1,440 for gaming, because I'm paying for a family cell phone data plan regardless.
I've heard that Windows Phone 8 (based off Windows 8) will support peripherals. So you might be able to prop up your phone in front of you, but play with a wireless 360 controller.
Technically, it is the game publisher who sets the price. For instance, at one point someone decided to challenge the Madden franchise by offering a $20 alternative.
Developers and publishers have both been going belly up. Budgets on games are going through the roof. You need $20 million to put together a AAA title these days, with some games costing $100 million to make.
NES games in 1985 were $35, which is over $70 in today's dollars. But the cost of making a game is considerably higher today than it was in 1985. Some people claim that there are more consumers today, so you can sell more copies.
But there were 62 million NES consoles sold. There have been 62 million PS3 consoles sold and 65 million XBox 360 consoles sold. Given that many people have replaced 360's due to defective hardware, I'm not sure you can honestly say you can expect more sales from a console game today than during the height of the NES.
$60 isn't ridiculous when you look at it. I don't know why people felt $35 was fine in 1985, but assume better games today should sell for $15 as you suggest.
Killing used sales doesn't mean higher profits for console makers. Those who are only willing to spend $20 on a used title aren't suddenly going to drop $400+ for a new console and then start paying $60 for new games. They'll likely just spend $20 on used games for current gen titles like they do. Console makers will hurt the adoption of their consoles and lower profits. And some gamers will be less likely to spend $60 on games that already currently do so, if there is no longer an option to sell the game back and make back some of their money.
I don't understand how Microsoft and Sony think this will lead to higher profits. And frankly if Microsoft or Sony does this, but the other does not, then it will just drive business to that console.
I don't disagree with your assessment. I was just trying to make it clear what they contributed because the headline can easily be misconstrued. In proper/. fashion, I didn't read the article.
I do believe they've basically only added support for running Linux as a guest OS within their VM solution, Hyper-V. They haven't contributed to the betterment of Linux on the whole.
Steam does not require you to be online to play. Steam works just fine offline. I believe Steam games just need to be activated online once.
I've played Fallout: New Vegas offline. And I think it is funny that you choose to call that game specifically "Payus" when the developer basically didn't get paid on that game.
UK extradition doesn't require that you are first charged and found guilty of breaking a UK law. It only requires that the judge in charge of the extradition to decide that the offense in question (for which they would be tried in another country) would be against the law in the UK, which it is.
I read the relevant law and the judge's decision in full. I'm fairly comfortable in knowing that I'm right.
An ambassador noted that Spain was on a report of nations that didn't pass copyright laws the US likes, but not a single nation on that list has had trade restricted by the US.
You can try and claim the threat was implied in unspoken words, but in actuality, the US has never once acted in such fashion. So this phantom, unspoken threat would then be empty
The OP insists the US is actively enforcing their laws globally, and the best evidence for this is a threat which wasn't actually made, and one that would be hollow even if it was spoken.
You can spin it in a sinister light, but there is no evidence that has actually happened.
I believe I read that Canada for instance is one of the top six nations in the world for piracy despite a relatively small population. And despite that, I haven't once seen the United States threaten to boycott or embargo Canada.
In fact, I've yet to see the United States threaten to embargo a single nation over copyright laws. And given that Wikileaks leaked all those diplomatic cables, I do think we'd likely know if that ever happened. So you're speculating on something that we have no documentation has every occurred.
They've also allowed Ultima remakes and such to use the Ultima trademark with permission if the remake doesn't look like it will compete with EA.
There was one project that was going to use a brand-new 3D engine that looked a little too impressive at the time (Ultima I Reborn or something like that) which EA squashed.
I'm reading the judge's decision right now, and according to UK law, if you break a foreign law that would also be a criminal offense in the UK, you can be extradited for it. So the judge ruled he was breaking UK copyright law, but is allowing the US courts to handle the case.
7. Extradition – Offence/Dual Criminality. S.78 (4)(b) Ex Act 2003 requires this court to be satisfied the conduct involved if committed in the U.K. would be an offence against the criminal law. Specifically S.137 (2) (b) requires: “the conduct would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom punishable with imprisonment for a term of 12 months or a greater punishment”.
The thing to note is that they haven't gone after people hosting the files. The US government has gone after people specifically making money from copyright infringement.
1. There are international treaties and laws governing copyright enforced by Interpol. 2. Please point me to a single official statement from the White House or American ambassador on this 3. Assange has never been charged with a crime in the US. The US has not filed for his extradition. Megaupload had severs in the US that broke US law. 4. If you do business in a country you are bound by those laws. Google had to abide by Chinese laws in China for example. So they shifted traffic to servers in Hong Kong where laws are different. This isn't a difficult concept and it is global. 5. You've made a litany of unfounded, untrue statements.
You would be correct if you suggested that the US government has encouraged nations to pass copyright protection laws. But even in doing so, they acknowledge that each country has its own legal jurisdiction and legal system. The United States arguably doesn't have any exports nearly as important as IP, so the government tries to protect those interests in negotiating with other nations. It is in the best interest that they do so.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not aware of any option for a $7 cell phone plan in the US. The cheapest individual phone plans I see run around $35 a month. With Sprint's Everything Data Family Plan, it costs me $20 to add a line for my kid, who gets data and minutes.
I expect the schools to stop kids from pulling out a gaming device and playing during class. My daughter is in an after-school program at school. I know other kids there have their DS out playing games after school. No doubt many do over recess, lunch, etc. as well. A cell phone isn't any different.
But that still isn't an additional cost for gaming. If I have an Everything Data Family plan, and I give my kid a cell phone, then I don't magically pay that cost a second time as part of a gaming budget.
Actually, I was mistaken. SMB3 was $50 when it was released, which would be over $100 today.
And the median salary in the US has gone up over 30% over the past 20 years.
Option A). 3 used games on current gen consoles they already one
Option B). Spend $400 on a new console, and then purchase 1 new game for the same price as 3 used games
You honestly think the budget gamers are all going with option b?
The median household income has risen 30% since 1990. Prices have gone up about 65%. So there is definitely a disparity, but people didn't make MORE money 20 years ago. They made 30% less.
It should be noted that we're in a recession. If the economy hadn't tanked, there probably wouldn't be as much of a disparity in income growth rate and inflation.
Those people are idiots. And that behavior will stop pretty quick given that many games now include a one-time code for some of the content. The used copy is often devalued by $10 by these online codes, making it really hard to sell a used game for anything more than $50.
If someone purchases a new game for $60, they consume that code, and then someone later buys that game used with less content for $50, then the publisher was never going to get that sale. That consumer has determined they aren't willing to spend more than $50. And the publisher likely can't afford to sell that game for $50 brand new.
You're assuming parents aren't buying cell phones for their kids.
If I'm a parent buying a cell phone for my kid regardless, and they can get cheap/free apps, that seemingly beats paying $150 for a DS and and then a bunch of $40 games. I'm not spending an additional $1,440 for gaming, because I'm paying for a family cell phone data plan regardless.
I've heard that Windows Phone 8 (based off Windows 8) will support peripherals. So you might be able to prop up your phone in front of you, but play with a wireless 360 controller.
As a kid I remember saving up money to buy Super Mario 3 for $35. If you account for inflation, that's over $70 in today's dollars.
Console game prices do go up in time, but that's because all prices go up over time.
Technically, it is the game publisher who sets the price. For instance, at one point someone decided to challenge the Madden franchise by offering a $20 alternative.
Developers and publishers have both been going belly up. Budgets on games are going through the roof. You need $20 million to put together a AAA title these days, with some games costing $100 million to make.
NES games in 1985 were $35, which is over $70 in today's dollars. But the cost of making a game is considerably higher today than it was in 1985. Some people claim that there are more consumers today, so you can sell more copies.
But there were 62 million NES consoles sold. There have been 62 million PS3 consoles sold and 65 million XBox 360 consoles sold. Given that many people have replaced 360's due to defective hardware, I'm not sure you can honestly say you can expect more sales from a console game today than during the height of the NES.
$60 isn't ridiculous when you look at it. I don't know why people felt $35 was fine in 1985, but assume better games today should sell for $15 as you suggest.
Killing used sales doesn't mean higher profits for console makers. Those who are only willing to spend $20 on a used title aren't suddenly going to drop $400+ for a new console and then start paying $60 for new games. They'll likely just spend $20 on used games for current gen titles like they do. Console makers will hurt the adoption of their consoles and lower profits. And some gamers will be less likely to spend $60 on games that already currently do so, if there is no longer an option to sell the game back and make back some of their money.
I don't understand how Microsoft and Sony think this will lead to higher profits. And frankly if Microsoft or Sony does this, but the other does not, then it will just drive business to that console.
All three consoles have an online store for downloadable games, apps, etc.
Microsoft charges for XBox Live Gold. They've had other avenues for profit during this entire generation.
I don't disagree with your assessment. I was just trying to make it clear what they contributed because the headline can easily be misconstrued. In proper /. fashion, I didn't read the article.
I do believe they've basically only added support for running Linux as a guest OS within their VM solution, Hyper-V. They haven't contributed to the betterment of Linux on the whole.
Qt is open source. Nokia could make all future iterations closed source, and then open source version gets forked like OpenOffice and LibreOffice.
That comic left off Origin.
Steam does not require you to be online to play. Steam works just fine offline. I believe Steam games just need to be activated online once.
I've played Fallout: New Vegas offline. And I think it is funny that you choose to call that game specifically "Payus" when the developer basically didn't get paid on that game.
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3160-AGCB-2555
UK extradition doesn't require that you are first charged and found guilty of breaking a UK law. It only requires that the judge in charge of the extradition to decide that the offense in question (for which they would be tried in another country) would be against the law in the UK, which it is.
I read the relevant law and the judge's decision in full. I'm fairly comfortable in knowing that I'm right.
There was no threat over trade embargo.
An ambassador noted that Spain was on a report of nations that didn't pass copyright laws the US likes, but not a single nation on that list has had trade restricted by the US.
You can try and claim the threat was implied in unspoken words, but in actuality, the US has never once acted in such fashion. So this phantom, unspoken threat would then be empty
The OP insists the US is actively enforcing their laws globally, and the best evidence for this is a threat which wasn't actually made, and one that would be hollow even if it was spoken.
You can spin it in a sinister light, but there is no evidence that has actually happened.
I believe I read that Canada for instance is one of the top six nations in the world for piracy despite a relatively small population. And despite that, I haven't once seen the United States threaten to boycott or embargo Canada.
In fact, I've yet to see the United States threaten to embargo a single nation over copyright laws. And given that Wikileaks leaked all those diplomatic cables, I do think we'd likely know if that ever happened. So you're speculating on something that we have no documentation has every occurred.
And yet I just read the text of this judge's ruling and that is precisely what he said.
I assumed the job posting at the time might be for a Red Tails tie-in game, but it apparently wasn't that.
They've also allowed Ultima remakes and such to use the Ultima trademark with permission if the remake doesn't look like it will compete with EA.
There was one project that was going to use a brand-new 3D engine that looked a little too impressive at the time (Ultima I Reborn or something like that) which EA squashed.
http://www.ultimaaiera.com/orphanage/ultima-1-a-legend-is-rebornera/
I'm reading the judge's decision right now, and according to UK law, if you break a foreign law that would also be a criminal offense in the UK, you can be extradited for it. So the judge ruled he was breaking UK copyright law, but is allowing the US courts to handle the case.
7. Extradition – Offence/Dual Criminality.
S.78 (4)(b) Ex Act 2003 requires this court to be satisfied the conduct involved if committed in the U.K. would be an offence against the criminal law. Specifically
S.137 (2) (b) requires:
“the conduct would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom punishable with imprisonment for a term of 12 months or a greater punishment”.
The thing to note is that they haven't gone after people hosting the files. The US government has gone after people specifically making money from copyright infringement.
1. There are international treaties and laws governing copyright enforced by Interpol.
2. Please point me to a single official statement from the White House or American ambassador on this
3. Assange has never been charged with a crime in the US. The US has not filed for his extradition. Megaupload had severs in the US that broke US law.
4. If you do business in a country you are bound by those laws. Google had to abide by Chinese laws in China for example. So they shifted traffic to servers in Hong Kong where laws are different. This isn't a difficult concept and it is global.
5. You've made a litany of unfounded, untrue statements.
You would be correct if you suggested that the US government has encouraged nations to pass copyright protection laws. But even in doing so, they acknowledge that each country has its own legal jurisdiction and legal system. The United States arguably doesn't have any exports nearly as important as IP, so the government tries to protect those interests in negotiating with other nations. It is in the best interest that they do so.