The author provided short reviews of a few indie games that will be available on the 360 at launch. These are ports from PC Games.
He also mentioned that most computer monitors have higher def than HD.
I didn't really see anything about what to expect from indie developers on the 360, except ports of successful indie PC games. Even so, there's potential for indie games to make a bigger splash than I would have thought in the console market.
Also, without knowing the details of the case, it is possible that his agreement contract included a clause that he would retain copyright over his work. It's complicated as well by the fact that the company he worked for was not in the business of producing the product in question.
Take2 previously handled much of the marketing etc for Firaxis. Take2 doesn't deal so much with the development aspect of game publishing... that's done by the subsidiaries IIRC. Not to say that the parent co doesn't have input, but I imagine it's similar to the original Take2/Rockstar setup. Rockstar devlops games, Take2 publishes them.
Where this worries me is that the Civ franchise will probably need to be dumbed down a bit in order to do well in a larger market -- especially the console market (and you can bet they'll be pushing it there).
I'd like to see the top of the org chart for Take2's new acquisition -- will Sid continue in his current role?
FTA: "'If we won one motion or the other, we wanted to win [the summary judgment] by a factor of a million to one,' Thompson said."
Yes, because that's how the Alabama court system issues judgements.
JUDGE: I (and my 700 other personalities) find in favor of the plaintiff, by a factor of 700 to one. As soon as we figure out which one of me dissents, I will have that personality removed from the bench.
"I'm left with little option than to believe that Uncle Sam likes the way Verisign is currently running things. I'm not comforted."
Especially since the US Dept of Commerce has stated miltiple times that it reserves the right to veto any action by ICANN. Regardless of how many times they have or haven't exerted that power, as long as ICANN is in control, the US Govt is in control.
Also, it's been a little while since it's been discussed, and today's post counts are a little low. Guaranteed to get some lengthy threads going here....
Is that Europeans don't trust the US, and see a place to take a stand. To paraphrase, in '98 they didn't trust ICANN, but didn't distrust the US. Now, they don't trust ICANN or the US.
Lessig also points out that this is likely a direct result of American foreign policy over the past 5 years.
It's beginning to make sense to me... taking a stand against the US on an issue without severe economic impact. Testing the waters before taking a stand on issues with greater impact, like trade or fishing rights.
Or maybe GWB wants to destroy the internet because Al Gore really did invent the internet.
Yeah, it's the Wilson cypher. Neal Stephenson explains this cypher pretty well in one (or two) of his novels, which is one reason why we see it so much on geek sites. I haven't bothered decrypting this post, maybe I'll get around to it this weekend.
I'm not talking about investing in a company, which is what traditional finance applies to. I'm talking about speculation on rapid market fluctuation (like a lot of day traders paractice), to whci your Finance 101 doesn't apply. Maybe you were unclear on that? Tell you what, I'll retake Finance 101 when you take English Comp.
No, I understand what you are saying, even though your logic and your writing was just a jumble of words that didn't make coherent points that had anything to do with the discussion, which was an anecdotal explanation of the difference between investing based on my perceived value of a stock, and betting on spec, or what I think others will perceive the value to be -- which may or may not be the result of 'hype'.
I understand your point that it is statistically improbable to be able to beat the market regularly with predictions. But the gist of your post was:
It's all about perceived value. There's a lot of chaos. Good analysts use all the public information at their fingertips to make predictions of expected price for a stock. They make sure to cover their asses by documenting everything. But analysts have a worse performance prediction ability than a random sample does, because of extrinsics that cannot be predicted.
I'm quite aware of predictive models used to increase your chance of beating the norm over a large selection of picks. And I'm also aware that, for a small enough set of picks, you won't be able to beat the norm regularly.
But, again, show me the figures giving 52-60 percent advantage for random picks over expert picks. The link you put up says that the results were inconclusive (read the analyses of the studies), and that at worst the pros had approx the same results as the darts. Just by dollar amount, the pros won 61 out of 100. Since when is that the darts winning consistently with 52-60% advantage? Not only that, but the sample size here is pretty small. Unless its done across a large sample, it really does only show that those particular picks were bad.
"You just reiterated the point of the analyses I mentioned, which is to compare the market price with your projection for the future market price"
No, not really. What you mentioned was comparing the current perceived value with the future perceived value, which is not the same as the future market price. If I were to have compared the current market price to my future perceived value of Google as the basis for my bet, I never would have dropped a dime on Google shares.
"I can't see that type of hike continuing. At some point it has to come crashing back down to what the house is truly worth."
You're right about the rate of increase slowing down -- but that's not the same as a bubble bursting. The price crashing back down? I don't think so, not for Phoenix, which is a prime area for baby boomers to be retiring in a few years. I think a lot of real estate has been undervalued, and is just catching up in some areas now... like your experience. You might see some areas that had heavy spec going down in price, but these are areas that saw the big increases begin in 2001, not in 2003.
And still that download helps fuel the 'lost revenues' claim by the movie industry... What you should do here is just wait until it comes down in price. Reward the movie industry for lowering prices earlier, without adding fuel to their fire.
"And that claim (when it comes to products not selling, most likely because of poor quality in the first place), would indeed ring hollow if you couldn't immediately find hundreds or thousands of places "sharing" even the worst movies, all the time."
This doesn't really apply -- people willing to purchase for $0.00 != people willing to purchase for MSRP.
"but the piracy is rampant on big (good) movies because lots of people don't feel like paying for their entertainment"
This is where it is damaging to pirate movies, because it is fuel for the *AA's claims that they are losing revenue. The problem is that the *AAs claim that the 'lost sales' that can be extrapolated for the good flicks can also be extrapolated the same way for the crap films.
Some very good points, which I didn't address because they weren't in the scope of TFA or of my OP --
(1) Ridiculous DRM
Well, all this does is lower your perceived value of the product -- making you less likely to purchase it. It should lower everyone's perceived value of it, so maybe tons of people won't buy it.
(2) Falling sales figures used to calculate piracy levels
This is a huge problem. Hey, our sales are down -- it must be teh pirates! This is accounting that never should be allowed to fly.
"I'd like a lobby that supports the customers position get laws written for our benefit"
I'd like a car full of ice cream, but it won't happen unless I go out and buy the ice cream. Call or write to your legislator yet?
My point was that my investment in Google was not due to a discrepancy between market price and my perception of its value, which is a good strategy for long-term investing. My investment was based on the discrepancy between market price and my projection for future market price -- this is investing based on speculation, not on value.
A good illustration of how unpredictable things can be... The darts won consistently, about 52-60% of the time on average.
Show how unpredictable things are by demonstrating a consistent, predictable result? This doesn't show unpredictability, it shows that the analysts' picks were bad... maybe because they didn't want to publicize their real picks? Otherwise, the stocks they felt were undervalued would quickly not become so. Also, please give a source and date range for the dart anecdote, I don't buy it.
" And those who keep crying wolf are doomed to be ignored when the wolf comes.
The next big bubble will come when noone belives in the bubble cries anymore."
And those of us who remember will cash out before losing our shirts.
The big difference between the "cried wolf" fable and the bubble speculation? The villagers who didn't listen to the boy hadn't seen/experienced the wolf. That doesn't fit so well with the dotcom bubble.
Uh-oh... bad wording choice there, Mr. AP
on
Grokster Shutting Down?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Grokster Ltd., a leading developer of Internet file-sharing software popular for stealing songs and movies online, agreed Monday to shut down operations...
... bans Grokster from participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files..."
Righteous anger its-not-theft-there's-no-deprivation-of-property flamewar to begin in 3... 2... 1...
Seriously, though, if you want a certain company's product, pay for it. If you wouldn't pay $0.01 for it, then why bother downloading it at all?
And just to forestall the inevitable, NO, I DON'T WORK FOR THE RECORDING INDUSTRY. I just believe that if you don';t think a product is worth the price offered, then you shouldn't buy the product... nor should you look to the black market for the product. Do without, it won;t kill you. And by not pirating the product, you won't help drive the *AA's assertions that they are losing a ton of cash to piracy.
" The question of a "bubble" is as relevant for open source as for science. Is there a bubble in science?"
Please show me where I can invest my VC group's funds in "science".
The possible bubble relates to investment in for-profit open-source based companies. And yes, there have been bubbles in "science" -- biotech comes to mind.
People aren't investing in a field of knowledge -- they are investing in a company that operates within a field of knowledge.
Sorry if I implied that my Google experience can be extrapolated to OSS firms in general... I just wanted to point out a recent example of speculation, rather than value, driving an investment decision.
Interestingly enough, I think it's Google's market cap & cash reserve that is driving a lot of the VC in OSS. Especially as Google gets into the OS and web-based app market, there could be a lot of OSS service-oriented companies that look attractive to Google... so the in-n-out strategy may work out. I don't think so, but then again, I'm not the one with $20 mil to drop.
"The last bubble had a large number of companies "promising" great things - products that never existed. People rushed to invest.
In this case, there is an actualy product."
Except, the promises are still the same -- profits.
Old hotness: Well, we don't have a working product, but our business model rocks... you'll make a killing when we get to market.
New hotness: Our product is great, our marketshare is growing, even though our business model is unproven... you'll make a killing if we can translate marketshare to profits.
Either way, there's an unkown (or two) that presents the risk the VCs are willing to take in order to have a chance at a big payoff.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a joke, lighten up.
I understood what he was saying, but saw a humorous way to take it out of context.
He also mentioned that most computer monitors have higher def than HD.
I didn't really see anything about what to expect from indie developers on the 360, except ports of successful indie PC games. Even so, there's potential for indie games to make a bigger splash than I would have thought in the console market.
The employer would own the copyright if the object in questions is a work for hire... but it's sometimes hard to judge whether the business relationship is employer-employee or not.
Also, without knowing the details of the case, it is possible that his agreement contract included a clause that he would retain copyright over his work. It's complicated as well by the fact that the company he worked for was not in the business of producing the product in question.
Take2 previously handled much of the marketing etc for Firaxis. Take2 doesn't deal so much with the development aspect of game publishing... that's done by the subsidiaries IIRC. Not to say that the parent co doesn't have input, but I imagine it's similar to the original Take2/Rockstar setup. Rockstar devlops games, Take2 publishes them.
Where this worries me is that the Civ franchise will probably need to be dumbed down a bit in order to do well in a larger market -- especially the console market (and you can bet they'll be pushing it there).
I'd like to see the top of the org chart for Take2's new acquisition -- will Sid continue in his current role?
FTA: "'If we won one motion or the other, we wanted to win [the summary judgment] by a factor of a million to one,' Thompson said."
Yes, because that's how the Alabama court system issues judgements.
JUDGE: I (and my 700 other personalities) find in favor of the plaintiff, by a factor of 700 to one. As soon as we figure out which one of me dissents, I will have that personality removed from the bench.
"I'm left with little option than to believe that Uncle Sam likes the way Verisign is currently running things. I'm not comforted."
Especially since the US Dept of Commerce has stated miltiple times that it reserves the right to veto any action by ICANN. Regardless of how many times they have or haven't exerted that power, as long as ICANN is in control, the US Govt is in control.
"Does anyone else feel this way? About seeing this post again, and not getting to see other news that is worthy of discussion?"
Yes. Except Lessig provides additional insight (maybe) in this article. And, of course, there has been a meta-article about your concern:
Why we should discuss internet governance.
Also, it's been a little while since it's been discussed, and today's post counts are a little low. Guaranteed to get some lengthy threads going here....
Is that Europeans don't trust the US, and see a place to take a stand. To paraphrase, in '98 they didn't trust ICANN, but didn't distrust the US. Now, they don't trust ICANN or the US.
Lessig also points out that this is likely a direct result of American foreign policy over the past 5 years.
It's beginning to make sense to me... taking a stand against the US on an issue without severe economic impact. Testing the waters before taking a stand on issues with greater impact, like trade or fishing rights.
Or maybe GWB wants to destroy the internet because Al Gore really did invent the internet.
Yeah, it's the Wilson cypher. Neal Stephenson explains this cypher pretty well in one (or two) of his novels, which is one reason why we see it so much on geek sites. I haven't bothered decrypting this post, maybe I'll get around to it this weekend.
Go under? Take2 has exclusive rights for a major US sports league... that alone will keep them in the black.
Unfortunately, though, plenty of people who do not oppose Thompson's position would still be hearing his message, even if there was no mention on /.
It's important that those who would oppose him are aware of his shenanigans, because us ignoring him will not make him go away.
I'm not talking about investing in a company, which is what traditional finance applies to. I'm talking about speculation on rapid market fluctuation (like a lot of day traders paractice), to whci your Finance 101 doesn't apply. Maybe you were unclear on that? Tell you what, I'll retake Finance 101 when you take English Comp.
No, I understand what you are saying, even though your logic and your writing was just a jumble of words that didn't make coherent points that had anything to do with the discussion, which was an anecdotal explanation of the difference between investing based on my perceived value of a stock, and betting on spec, or what I think others will perceive the value to be -- which may or may not be the result of 'hype'.
I understand your point that it is statistically improbable to be able to beat the market regularly with predictions. But the gist of your post was:
It's all about perceived value. There's a lot of chaos. Good analysts use all the public information at their fingertips to make predictions of expected price for a stock. They make sure to cover their asses by documenting everything. But analysts have a worse performance prediction ability than a random sample does, because of extrinsics that cannot be predicted.
I'm quite aware of predictive models used to increase your chance of beating the norm over a large selection of picks. And I'm also aware that, for a small enough set of picks, you won't be able to beat the norm regularly.
But, again, show me the figures giving 52-60 percent advantage for random picks over expert picks. The link you put up says that the results were inconclusive (read the analyses of the studies), and that at worst the pros had approx the same results as the darts. Just by dollar amount, the pros won 61 out of 100. Since when is that the darts winning consistently with 52-60% advantage? Not only that, but the sample size here is pretty small. Unless its done across a large sample, it really does only show that those particular picks were bad.
"You just reiterated the point of the analyses I mentioned, which is to compare the market price with your projection for the future market price"
No, not really. What you mentioned was comparing the current perceived value with the future perceived value, which is not the same as the future market price. If I were to have compared the current market price to my future perceived value of Google as the basis for my bet, I never would have dropped a dime on Google shares.
That's quite different from what a VC firm is looking to do. I'm looking for cash ROI, not building the foundation for future industry advantage.
Again, the whole point is that for VCs looking for profits, it's not 'science in general' nor is it 'OSS in general'.
You're comparing apples to oranges, and perhaps didn't understand the contxt of the thread, which had to do with profitability.
"I can't see that type of hike continuing. At some point it has to come crashing back down to what the house is truly worth."
You're right about the rate of increase slowing down -- but that's not the same as a bubble bursting. The price crashing back down? I don't think so, not for Phoenix, which is a prime area for baby boomers to be retiring in a few years. I think a lot of real estate has been undervalued, and is just catching up in some areas now... like your experience. You might see some areas that had heavy spec going down in price, but these are areas that saw the big increases begin in 2001, not in 2003.
Prestwich's research into hydrogels has had some other benefits, too... look what a quick Googling turned up:
Prestwich's lab page
More info on the cancer drug delivery mechanism -- not a scientific explanation, more of a press release similar to TFA.
And still that download helps fuel the 'lost revenues' claim by the movie industry... What you should do here is just wait until it comes down in price. Reward the movie industry for lowering prices earlier, without adding fuel to their fire.
"And that claim (when it comes to products not selling, most likely because of poor quality in the first place), would indeed ring hollow if you couldn't immediately find hundreds or thousands of places "sharing" even the worst movies, all the time."
This doesn't really apply -- people willing to purchase for $0.00 != people willing to purchase for MSRP.
"but the piracy is rampant on big (good) movies because lots of people don't feel like paying for their entertainment"
This is where it is damaging to pirate movies, because it is fuel for the *AA's claims that they are losing revenue. The problem is that the *AAs claim that the 'lost sales' that can be extrapolated for the good flicks can also be extrapolated the same way for the crap films.
Some very good points, which I didn't address because they weren't in the scope of TFA or of my OP --
(1) Ridiculous DRM
Well, all this does is lower your perceived value of the product -- making you less likely to purchase it. It should lower everyone's perceived value of it, so maybe tons of people won't buy it.
(2) Falling sales figures used to calculate piracy levels
This is a huge problem. Hey, our sales are down -- it must be teh pirates! This is accounting that never should be allowed to fly.
"I'd like a lobby that supports the customers position get laws written for our benefit"
I'd like a car full of ice cream, but it won't happen unless I go out and buy the ice cream. Call or write to your legislator yet?
My point was that my investment in Google was not due to a discrepancy between market price and my perception of its value, which is a good strategy for long-term investing. My investment was based on the discrepancy between market price and my projection for future market price -- this is investing based on speculation, not on value.
A good illustration of how unpredictable things can be... The darts won consistently, about 52-60% of the time on average.
Show how unpredictable things are by demonstrating a consistent, predictable result? This doesn't show unpredictability, it shows that the analysts' picks were bad... maybe because they didn't want to publicize their real picks? Otherwise, the stocks they felt were undervalued would quickly not become so. Also, please give a source and date range for the dart anecdote, I don't buy it.
" And those who keep crying wolf are doomed to be ignored when the wolf comes.
The next big bubble will come when noone belives in the bubble cries anymore."
And those of us who remember will cash out before losing our shirts.
The big difference between the "cried wolf" fable and the bubble speculation? The villagers who didn't listen to the boy hadn't seen/experienced the wolf. That doesn't fit so well with the dotcom bubble.
"Grokster Ltd., a leading developer of Internet file-sharing software popular for stealing songs and movies online, agreed Monday to shut down operations...
... bans Grokster from participating directly or indirectly in the theft of copyrighted files..."
Righteous anger its-not-theft-there's-no-deprivation-of-property flamewar to begin in 3... 2... 1...
Seriously, though, if you want a certain company's product, pay for it. If you wouldn't pay $0.01 for it, then why bother downloading it at all?
And just to forestall the inevitable, NO, I DON'T WORK FOR THE RECORDING INDUSTRY. I just believe that if you don';t think a product is worth the price offered, then you shouldn't buy the product... nor should you look to the black market for the product. Do without, it won;t kill you. And by not pirating the product, you won't help drive the *AA's assertions that they are losing a ton of cash to piracy.
" The question of a "bubble" is as relevant for open source as for science. Is there a bubble in science?"
Please show me where I can invest my VC group's funds in "science".
The possible bubble relates to investment in for-profit open-source based companies. And yes, there have been bubbles in "science" -- biotech comes to mind.
People aren't investing in a field of knowledge -- they are investing in a company that operates within a field of knowledge.
Sorry if I implied that my Google experience can be extrapolated to OSS firms in general... I just wanted to point out a recent example of speculation, rather than value, driving an investment decision.
Interestingly enough, I think it's Google's market cap & cash reserve that is driving a lot of the VC in OSS. Especially as Google gets into the OS and web-based app market, there could be a lot of OSS service-oriented companies that look attractive to Google... so the in-n-out strategy may work out. I don't think so, but then again, I'm not the one with $20 mil to drop.
"The last bubble had a large number of companies "promising" great things - products that never existed. People rushed to invest.
In this case, there is an actualy product."
Except, the promises are still the same -- profits.
Old hotness: Well, we don't have a working product, but our business model rocks... you'll make a killing when we get to market.
New hotness: Our product is great, our marketshare is growing, even though our business model is unproven... you'll make a killing if we can translate marketshare to profits.
Either way, there's an unkown (or two) that presents the risk the VCs are willing to take in order to have a chance at a big payoff.