I understand that end user payments are MS (through XBL) revenue, but clearly MS has to pay T2 a chunk of that, right?
I see what you're getting at, that this payment could be an advance on royalties for single sales.
I think that unlikely, because that wouldn't be enough to get T2 to make the content 360-only. Also, I think it unlikely that either party would think that the content will produce enough sales to come up to 50 mil, or even 25 mil of royalty payments to T2.
Could someone explain why no many people hate Hillary Clinton, is it just personality or is there something else?
Honestly, and I'm not trolling here, I think it's because she is a powerful woman. She doesn't mesh well with certain people's concept of what a wife and mother should be, and so the aggresive personality she has rubs them the wrong way.
No joke, I think it's pure mysogyny that causes so many people to hate her. "Traditional" men feel threatened by her, "traditional" women feel ashamed of/for her.
Apparently you haven't read the statement at all, let alone looked at the financials closely. Either that or your understanding of accounting is at a very basic level.
but couldn't part or all of the $50 million in deferred revenue also account for end-user payments for the downloadable content?
No. end-user payments are MS revenue, not T2 revenue. It doesn't matter to T2 where MS gets the cash from.
and they estimate a chunk of downloads, they might just be recognizing that deferred revenue now?
Perhaps you don't understand what deferred revenue is. It means they received the cash, but aren't recognizing it as revenue in their financials until later.
The deferred payment from MS means that they won't be making the payment until later, though they have already secured the rights; this is completely different from deferred revenue. In terms of accounting periods, it means that MS won't be counting the expense until the second episode is available; this is because they need to state the expenses in the same period in which they state the revenues for the transaction.
Kinda flirting around with the base issue here, which is that MS and T2's financials are separate beasts, and even if MS defers the expense, it doesn't mean that T2 has to, or will. If T2 has already developed the software in question, then they should be stating the development costs ion the same period they state the revenue from sale, which should be the same period in which MS takes delivery.
Long story short, MS should declare $25 mil during the first year (period is approximate) the first half of the content is available; they should declare $25 mil spread in the period the 2nd part is available for purchase, prorated to some extent according to sales volume.
Take2 should realize their development costs split 50-50 between the periods MS took delivery of the product, regardless of when the product is finally sold to end-users; resale by MS has no bearing on when Take2 states its revenues, unless of course their revenues are based on some sort of percentage of sales (which they are not).
Note also that MS is a public company, and it would be extremely bad juju if a MS rep stated that they'd be making those payments unless they were absolutely going to be making them.
Some people enjoy the grind. They get to shut everything off and enter a zen-like state of click pattern repeats. They get to toil endlessly for a minor incremental reward, just like a bad job.
I'm not kidding.
On the other hand, some people want the vicarious thrills of the less mundane aspects of the game -- and whether they want to grind it out or just pay for the gold necessary, that's their choice.
you're not wise, you're just a cynic, with no heart.
He's not a cynic, he's a defeatist (maybe even a nihilist). By the Greek roots of the word, he's the opposite of a cynic -- rather than wanting to draw attention to the faults of society, he wants to accept that they exist and move on.
A cynic may ascribe the worst motivations to the actions of others, and may decry those actions -- but acceptance of them is antithetical to the cynical mind.
Sorry to get off on a tangent there, but as a proud cynic, I sometimes take it personally when people use the term to refer to a defeatist.
This is what happens when you have cronyism in the guise of capitalism, paired with vastly disparate wages between the workers and mangement/ownership.
The workers in this sistuation do not have the contacts or capital necessary to get the required permits to run a business like this, let alone the capital for equipment and workspace. This is compounded by high unemployment in areas of China, so that workers are easily replaced.
It amuses me to no end (until I think of the hardships endured) that a nation whose ideals are founded on collectivism has near-powerless workers in the employment market.
Followups would be durability, then various features like bluetooth, GPS and MP3 playing. I know how to use a map, and do so, so I normally know where I am
So obviously you have no idea of how fast you are going.
Maybe a phone with a GPS would be more useful than you think, since velocity could be extrapolated from change in location?
As everyone should know, the extra heatsink is not needed. Just immerse your Xbox 360 in water, and the heat dissipation will be doubled. It also helps if you don't use your jumpjets too often.
Adding an extra heatsink is embarassing because Microsoft does not want to admit that they failed to test properly under atypical, but common, usage conditions.
1. Do not pay by snail mail. They will hold onto the check without cashing it to give you fees as you start to pay down the balance.
Anyone who deals with business leases or other financing knows that this is standard for the industry. I am forced to issue lease payments 10 days before they are due to ensure I am not assessed late fees. This is annoying for cash flow.
The other solution I've found is to send a couple payments a year via certified return receipt (make sure to mark that no signature is required!). If they hold your check, you have proof that they receivd the check on time. Then call them and offer to fax the delivery receipt; they will refund the late charge. I suspect they also then note the account, because I've found that subsequently, few checks get held.
Sorting out the media is impossible; the media is bigger than any of us because it answers to the LCD of the population. It's a vehicle for selling products to the gullible and little else. Get the media to stop chasing ratings, and hence advertising dollars? Good luck with that.
As far as I'm concerned, the best thing to do if we want better leaders is to prohibit visual likenesses of them in the two years leading up to the campaign. No video, no photography. Spoken and written word only.
Because prosecution is extremely expensive. More expensive than the amount of loss suffered by the victim here, guaranteed. DA + staff + public defender + court operating costs. Youch.
Yeah, it seems ridiculous, but the simple fact of the matter is that we do not have the resources necessary to prosecute to trial anywhere near the number of criminal cases that the justice system faces. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most important is that we have protections for citizens to ensure their rights are not encroached upon -- this is a major factor that makes criminal prosecution so complicated and expensive.
The tradeoff to having our rights defended by the courts is that it's too expensive to prosecute all our criminals instead of offering plea bargains. I know which one I consider more important.
You would have to prove that it is your very work that gave them that increase
Not at all; that didn't need to be proven in Napster, so why should it need to be proven in a library case? Any use would constitute increased traffic, which would be considered contribtuory to increased funding.
I think it's a crock, btw, but that's what happens when laws and courts can be bought and sold.
Not a joke. I'm not sure we agree on the definition of "fail to" vs. "choose to not" serve the market, but it's not a semantic game, since it totally changes the menaing of your OP and subsequent posts. You imply that Ebay was literally incapable of serving the market, due to the market not wanting to use Ebay at all, and that is just false.
Doesn't seem to fit, but who says the courts act rationally? Check out the Napster and Fonovisa cases. The financial benefit doesn't have to be direct -- just increased traffic to a revenue-generating place is enough to satisfy that requirement.
>If the library's increased user base helps it get increased funding, a copyright owner could argue that the library is getting a financial benefit.
It's murky enough that the library is open to risk of lawsuit, particularly if there are other factors that would lend themselves to vicarious infringement. Note also that coin- and card-op copiers at libraries lend a financial benefit if the cost (to the user) of a copy is greater than the cost (to the library) of producing that copy.
Haha, ya, and Slashdotters choose not to get laid all the time too.
Well, first off, speak for yourself. Second, you're saying that Ebay was not capable of serving the market for virtual transactions? Apparently you never looked at Ebay before they prohibited the trade. I suggest you do a little basic research on the topic.
How about I decide for myself how much risk I'm willing to take
As I said, Ebay stated one reason, but I explained what I thought their real reasons were.
in my experience I've been ripped off numerous times for DVD and CD transactions, but never, not once on a game transaction.
On Ebay? Because if that's the case, then apparently Ebay was able to satisfy the market. Or not on Ebay, on some other site? Did you find a listing on Ebay that directed you to another site, where the transaction actually occurred? Does it perhaps occur to you that maybe you experience isn't indicative of the norm -- maybe you were smarter about who you bought from?
Did the library post a notice regarding copyright law near the copier? If so, they are off the hook.
Did they not post a notice? If so, then they are potentially liable for vicarious infringement.
Note that libraries have this exception, other entities do not -- if the copier is in a cafeteria, for example, the cafeteria can be held liable for vicarious infringement regardless of whether it posts a notice of the applicability of copyright law.
And yet nothing is there to prevent a company from having a representative post on the site to sell gold... and commercial gold farms will likely be able to undercut individual gamers' prices.
I think they are trying to fill in, where Ebay like companies have failed, and that's to allow one person to trade with another person (more personable), rather than having to deal with a company.
Ebay did not fail to provide a marketplace. They chose not to, stating that they were trying to reduce their users' exposure to risk (assumedly, from both fraud and legal action by the game companies). I'm certain they were also reducing their risk and expenses, both from dealing with fraud (in-game currency transactions have a high rate of fraud) and from legal fees if asked to C&D by game companies.
Many MMOs explicitly state in their Terms of Service that buying and selling of in-game goods for real currency is prohibited. While Sparter does not seem to be directly violating the ToS in this regard, Sparter will likely be deriving commercial benefit from use of trademarks owned by the game publishers. Another area of possible legal liability is in enabling and encouraging players to circumvent their contracts with game companies (as with Blizzard and Vivendi's recent countersuit against the creator of WoWglider) -- this would apply to any game where trading in game items or currency using real currency is prohibited.
Can you please comment on how Sparter plans to protect itself from the inevitable lawsuits and C&D notices from game publishers?
Slashdot Mirror
I think that unlikely, because that wouldn't be enough to get T2 to make the content 360-only. Also, I think it unlikely that either party would think that the content will produce enough sales to come up to 50 mil, or even 25 mil of royalty payments to T2.
No joke, I think it's pure mysogyny that causes so many people to hate her. "Traditional" men feel threatened by her, "traditional" women feel ashamed of/for her.
Sorry, was just trying to make a lame Heisenberg joke.
No. end-user payments are MS revenue, not T2 revenue. It doesn't matter to T2 where MS gets the cash from.
Perhaps you don't understand what deferred revenue is. It means they received the cash, but aren't recognizing it as revenue in their financials until later.
The deferred payment from MS means that they won't be making the payment until later, though they have already secured the rights; this is completely different from deferred revenue. In terms of accounting periods, it means that MS won't be counting the expense until the second episode is available; this is because they need to state the expenses in the same period in which they state the revenues for the transaction.
Kinda flirting around with the base issue here, which is that MS and T2's financials are separate beasts, and even if MS defers the expense, it doesn't mean that T2 has to, or will. If T2 has already developed the software in question, then they should be stating the development costs ion the same period they state the revenue from sale, which should be the same period in which MS takes delivery.
Long story short, MS should declare $25 mil during the first year (period is approximate) the first half of the content is available; they should declare $25 mil spread in the period the 2nd part is available for purchase, prorated to some extent according to sales volume.
Take2 should realize their development costs split 50-50 between the periods MS took delivery of the product, regardless of when the product is finally sold to end-users; resale by MS has no bearing on when Take2 states its revenues, unless of course their revenues are based on some sort of percentage of sales (which they are not).
Note also that MS is a public company, and it would be extremely bad juju if a MS rep stated that they'd be making those payments unless they were absolutely going to be making them.
Some people enjoy the grind. They get to shut everything off and enter a zen-like state of click pattern repeats. They get to toil endlessly for a minor incremental reward, just like a bad job.
I'm not kidding.
On the other hand, some people want the vicarious thrills of the less mundane aspects of the game -- and whether they want to grind it out or just pay for the gold necessary, that's their choice.
I took out my qualification of (supposedly), should've left it in. The irony still strikes me, hwoever.
A cynic may ascribe the worst motivations to the actions of others, and may decry those actions -- but acceptance of them is antithetical to the cynical mind.
Sorry to get off on a tangent there, but as a proud cynic, I sometimes take it personally when people use the term to refer to a defeatist.
This is what happens when you have cronyism in the guise of capitalism, paired with vastly disparate wages between the workers and mangement/ownership.
The workers in this sistuation do not have the contacts or capital necessary to get the required permits to run a business like this, let alone the capital for equipment and workspace. This is compounded by high unemployment in areas of China, so that workers are easily replaced.
It amuses me to no end (until I think of the hardships endured) that a nation whose ideals are founded on collectivism has near-powerless workers in the employment market.
Maybe a phone with a GPS would be more useful than you think, since velocity could be extrapolated from change in location?
As everyone should know, the extra heatsink is not needed. Just immerse your Xbox 360 in water, and the heat dissipation will be doubled. It also helps if you don't use your jumpjets too often.
Adding an extra heatsink is embarassing because Microsoft does not want to admit that they failed to test properly under atypical, but common, usage conditions.
The other solution I've found is to send a couple payments a year via certified return receipt (make sure to mark that no signature is required!). If they hold your check, you have proof that they receivd the check on time. Then call them and offer to fax the delivery receipt; they will refund the late charge. I suspect they also then note the account, because I've found that subsequently, few checks get held.
Sorting out the media is impossible; the media is bigger than any of us because it answers to the LCD of the population. It's a vehicle for selling products to the gullible and little else. Get the media to stop chasing ratings, and hence advertising dollars? Good luck with that.
As far as I'm concerned, the best thing to do if we want better leaders is to prohibit visual likenesses of them in the two years leading up to the campaign. No video, no photography. Spoken and written word only.
Yeah, it seems ridiculous, but the simple fact of the matter is that we do not have the resources necessary to prosecute to trial anywhere near the number of criminal cases that the justice system faces. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most important is that we have protections for citizens to ensure their rights are not encroached upon -- this is a major factor that makes criminal prosecution so complicated and expensive.
The tradeoff to having our rights defended by the courts is that it's too expensive to prosecute all our criminals instead of offering plea bargains. I know which one I consider more important.
Well, professor, at least you're getting to get down with Maryanne once in a while.
I should hope not, as a ewe is the female version of a ram. A castrated ram (the closest to a "cute girl ram") is called a wether.
However, there is no such thing as a wethernet, so forget transmitting data that way.
I think it's a crock, btw, but that's what happens when laws and courts can be bought and sold.
Not a joke. I'm not sure we agree on the definition of "fail to" vs. "choose to not" serve the market, but it's not a semantic game, since it totally changes the menaing of your OP and subsequent posts. You imply that Ebay was literally incapable of serving the market, due to the market not wanting to use Ebay at all, and that is just false.
Sure... and I want a unicorn for my birthday... I'm just as likely to get it.
That said, what you've written makes a whole lot more sense.
The question I have is, how feasible is it to log all IP addresses from the RAM and associate them with the transactions in question?
Hmm. I think that would cripple the ability of Congress to pass laws, and thus turn into a rubber-stamp-of-approval-fest.
Besides, then each Congressperson would be required to read every line of every bill, and that's just asking for the impossible.
Here's some info from California Library Association that discusses this. To wit:
It's murky enough that the library is open to risk of lawsuit, particularly if there are other factors that would lend themselves to vicarious infringement. Note also that coin- and card-op copiers at libraries lend a financial benefit if the cost (to the user) of a copy is greater than the cost (to the library) of producing that copy.
As I said, Ebay stated one reason, but I explained what I thought their real reasons were.
On Ebay? Because if that's the case, then apparently Ebay was able to satisfy the market. Or not on Ebay, on some other site? Did you find a listing on Ebay that directed you to another site, where the transaction actually occurred? Does it perhaps occur to you that maybe you experience isn't indicative of the norm -- maybe you were smarter about who you bought from?
Did the library post a notice regarding copyright law near the copier? If so, they are off the hook.
Did they not post a notice? If so, then they are potentially liable for vicarious infringement.
Note that libraries have this exception, other entities do not -- if the copier is in a cafeteria, for example, the cafeteria can be held liable for vicarious infringement regardless of whether it posts a notice of the applicability of copyright law.
Ebay did not fail to provide a marketplace. They chose not to, stating that they were trying to reduce their users' exposure to risk (assumedly, from both fraud and legal action by the game companies). I'm certain they were also reducing their risk and expenses, both from dealing with fraud (in-game currency transactions have a high rate of fraud) and from legal fees if asked to C&D by game companies.
Many MMOs explicitly state in their Terms of Service that buying and selling of in-game goods for real currency is prohibited. While Sparter does not seem to be directly violating the ToS in this regard, Sparter will likely be deriving commercial benefit from use of trademarks owned by the game publishers. Another area of possible legal liability is in enabling and encouraging players to circumvent their contracts with game companies (as with Blizzard and Vivendi's recent countersuit against the creator of WoWglider) -- this would apply to any game where trading in game items or currency using real currency is prohibited.
Can you please comment on how Sparter plans to protect itself from the inevitable lawsuits and C&D notices from game publishers?
It was a joke, though perhaps too subtle and definitely not very funny -- should have come up with a better delivery.
What I suggested was, in essence, just adding a step to what we have now, and would incur all the same problems plus introduce some new ones.