Re: Inno funds, sure. But the point of the article is not about small indie game companies getting major investment. It's about small innovative companies (or individuals) who do not need that kind of startup capital to make a profit, by taking advantage of cheap distribution channels for games that appeal to the growing casual gamer market.
I am writing to acquire your assistance in recovering significant assets I have inherited from my uncle. Due to a recent coup, the funds are being held up by a bunch of internet scammers.
I am willing to pay you $50 million dollars to help me liberate these assets, please provide your banking information so I can wire you the funds.
"Characterized by a free flow of information, no barriers to entry, and a large number of buyers and sellers."
Except that there are barriers to entry (development costs -- like hiring a good designer & good developer). Still, much smaller barriers than in many other industries.
Also, a perfectly competitive market assumes that all products are equivalent, which is not the case here. So, some developers will realize a hefty profit (due to a better product) and some will realize losses. In the long run, extrapolated across all competitors, you are correct... but there is still a huge capacity for profit due to differences in the product.
"How does a indie company / startup go into their local innovation funding office and pitch their great quirky game idea when they can only say 'Games like this will be 3% maybe of the game market this year!'"
Because 1% of $20.5 billion is still over $20 million. Given the low production and distribution costs of most of these small games, revenues of $100,000 would still earn major profit.
" I sold my AMD shares (all my money was in AMD) at 16.20 a few months ago after losing hope.."
I'm not sure which is scarier...
That you sold your shares at 16.2 with a net 38% increase in earnings predicted for 2005, after 52% growth in 2004, with a P/E of around 23 based on expected earnings for 2005?
You bring up good points (and explain them better than most of the responses I've gotten in this thread). I agree that the system has not, and probably should not, be in stasis.
My biggest concern is that until we better understand the consequences of our actions, we shouldn't screw around too much. There is the distinct possibility that our actions to date, and in the short-term, will have long-term implications that are at or beyond the limits of our capacity to deal with.
You are assuming that our energy needs are relatively static. I think we can do far better than to halve energy use per capita.
It's going to be tough going, and of course there will be war and famine (and toss in some death and pestilence, while we're at it:)). However, if we're smart enough, and we slow down consumption radically, then we can forestall the inevitable for a while... allowing us to continue to make improvements in energy efficiency, and to further reduce consumption.
One thing the US can do: Add $5/gallon to the gas tax, phased in over 10 years. Gives people plenty of time to switch to fuel-efficient vehicles, and to rethink their living and work situations. This will have the added benefit of revitalizing our cities.
Another thing we can do: Increase standards for energy efficiency in the home. Tax household consumption over some established threshhold; use the taxes collected to provide tax credits for people who spend money to make their home more efficient. Do the same for businesses.
Damaging to the economy? Sure. But less so than the alternative, IMO. A little short-term pain for long-term gain.
Worldwide, there are many things to be done as well. In developed nations, the same as the US. In the third world, fund energy-efficiency projects. Fund mass transit.
Your post gives a lot of information, but it's kinda nihilistic. The reasons you mention are exactly why government needs to be more proactive.
I don't agree. My view is that we are part of a system, not separate and on top. I believe our true responsibility is not to ourselves, but to the system. It's the same reason that people do works of charity, just applied to a broader target than humanity.
I don't think you grasp the concept at all. The results of OUR actions are causing problems. We don't know how bad those problems are, nor to what extent we are contributing. We are responsible for our own actions, so we need to make sure we're not screwing up.
"But we don't just say, 'I don't know but to be safe, lets send the economy back to the stone age.'"
Well, poor use of quotes, since I didn't say that. There are plenty of actions to take to minimize our impact, a lot of which would, get this, stimulate economies.
I am not saying that we should have zero impact, or that the change to more responsible actions can't be gradual.
Remeber though, that there is a cost of causing all this damage, that is not being factored in by proponents of the "don't pull the train off the tracks" crowd.
As a matter of fact, depending on how you want to assign costs, it can be said that the cost of making these adjustments derives from using irresponsible technology in the first place.
"What happens when the Earth's climate becomes unfavorable to the point where humans decide to change the environment to suit our own survival? At what point do we say "screw environmentalism, it's time to induce global cooling measures?""
Never. First, uninteneded consequences could be very dangerous. Second, we, as a species, will survive. If we truly do not have enough resources to feed the world's population, then we will have famine and people will die. It's unfortunate, but we'll never attain population equilibrium without it. At some point, our population growth has to stop.
"I don't think there is any responsibility to 'minimize our impact.'"
Oh. So the Earth is just a resource to be used to our benefit?
"But ironically, even if humans weren't on the planet, it would continue to get warmer! That's right, the globe has been warming ever since the last ice age, and would continue to do so until the next ice age, regardless of human involvement."
So you assume. But, fancy this, what if our actions forestall the next ice age, or increase the number of mass extinctions that we are already causing?
'It would happen anyway' is not a valid response, since we ARE affecting it. We DO contribute, and we don't know if our contribution is causing problems beyond our capacity to deal with them.
First, if you're going to calculate the cost of environmental responsibility, you also have to coalculate the cost of environmental damage. This is something that I don't see very often when I see the "Oh, it costs too much to conserve!" studies.
Second, it's not a matter of balancing cost and preservation. My point is that the monetary cost is immaterial to the moral question, and the cost in human life is ameliorable.
Well, the intelligent response then is to minimize activity that could potentially be causing global warming until we better understand the impact and the implications. Look before we leap. No?
When we don't know what's in the dark cave we are about to enter, do we rush in headlong, or proceed with caution? Do we attempt to find out if there is an angry bear in there before we rush in?
My view is that before continuing on our potentially devastating course, we need to re-evaluate and determine how much of an effect we are having, and whether the present course of action is still the best way to proceed. And in my view, it is better to suspend actions of questionable results than it is to continue them without knowing.
There are alternatives to fossil fuels, there is headway to be made in fuel efficiency, there are ways to lessen the envirnmental footprint of humankind. Many of these things, if done properly, will not negatively affect quality of life. So why don't we?
That's all I'm saying -- err on the side of caution.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's the province of the stupid, the ignorant, and the willfully gullible."
Now you're just being an ass. Because, of course, any perspective that differs from yours is stupid, ignorant, or willfully gullible, right?
Plus, it is no more so than acting without an understanding of the full consequences.
Oops, typo.
Re: Inno funds, sure. But the point of the article is not about small indie game companies getting major investment. It's about small innovative companies (or individuals) who do not need that kind of startup capital to make a profit, by taking advantage of cheap distribution channels for games that appeal to the growing casual gamer market.
"I have a Ms. Pacman machine (currently in disrepair unfortunately). It's been out since 1982 and it's just as much fun today as it was then."
If it's in disrepair now, and was 'out' in 1982, of course it's the same amount of fun -- it doesn't work now and it didn't work then!
I am writing to acquire your assistance in recovering significant assets I have inherited from my uncle. Due to a recent coup, the funds are being held up by a bunch of internet scammers.
I am willing to pay you $50 million dollars to help me liberate these assets, please provide your banking information so I can wire you the funds.
Sincerely, Prince Babitobe Famisippi Olemeade
"Characterized by a free flow of information, no barriers to entry, and a large number of buyers and sellers."
Except that there are barriers to entry (development costs -- like hiring a good designer & good developer). Still, much smaller barriers than in many other industries.
Also, a perfectly competitive market assumes that all products are equivalent, which is not the case here. So, some developers will realize a hefty profit (due to a better product) and some will realize losses. In the long run, extrapolated across all competitors, you are correct... but there is still a huge capacity for profit due to differences in the product.
"How does a indie company / startup go into their local innovation funding office and pitch their great quirky game idea when they can only say 'Games like this will be 3% maybe of the game market this year!'"
Because 1% of $20.5 billion is still over $20 million. Given the low production and distribution costs of most of these small games, revenues of $100,000 would still earn major profit.
Take any retail industry. Make distribution costs sufficiently close to zero. Make unit cost close to zero.
Independent producers will grow like weeds. Add in the fact that the casual gamer market was underutilized... Profit!
Here's some analysis (a little dated, 12/04) that explains where AMD's making the money. Interesting to compare the 2005 predictions with what's actually happened YTD.v estor/lamonica/
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/16/technology/techin
" I sold my AMD shares (all my money was in AMD) at 16.20 a few months ago after losing hope.."
I'm not sure which is scarier...
That you sold your shares at 16.2 with a net 38% increase in earnings predicted for 2005, after 52% growth in 2004, with a P/E of around 23 based on expected earnings for 2005?
Or that all your money was in one stock?
Got one to add:
-malware: at McDonald's, every burger would have to come with E. Coli on the wrapper, ready to infect the meat, and then the consumer.
Schrodinger would assume that all possible combinations and permutations of the keys had been pushed, until observation reveals what happened.
Actually Heisenberg would say that you can only know one of the following:
(1) which of your fingers are depressing keys (their momentum); or
(2) at which keys your fingers may or may not be depressing (their location).
Freud would add that any keys that are depressed have sexual issues with a parent.
You bring up good points (and explain them better than most of the responses I've gotten in this thread). I agree that the system has not, and probably should not, be in stasis.
My biggest concern is that until we better understand the consequences of our actions, we shouldn't screw around too much. There is the distinct possibility that our actions to date, and in the short-term, will have long-term implications that are at or beyond the limits of our capacity to deal with.
You are assuming that our energy needs are relatively static. I think we can do far better than to halve energy use per capita.
:)). However, if we're smart enough, and we slow down consumption radically, then we can forestall the inevitable for a while... allowing us to continue to make improvements in energy efficiency, and to further reduce consumption.
It's going to be tough going, and of course there will be war and famine (and toss in some death and pestilence, while we're at it
One thing the US can do: Add $5/gallon to the gas tax, phased in over 10 years. Gives people plenty of time to switch to fuel-efficient vehicles, and to rethink their living and work situations. This will have the added benefit of revitalizing our cities.
Another thing we can do: Increase standards for energy efficiency in the home. Tax household consumption over some established threshhold; use the taxes collected to provide tax credits for people who spend money to make their home more efficient. Do the same for businesses.
Damaging to the economy? Sure. But less so than the alternative, IMO. A little short-term pain for long-term gain.
Worldwide, there are many things to be done as well. In developed nations, the same as the US. In the third world, fund energy-efficiency projects. Fund mass transit.
Your post gives a lot of information, but it's kinda nihilistic. The reasons you mention are exactly why government needs to be more proactive.
That's a pretty harsh view. Anything that isn't sentient should be disregarded?
What about all the things on earth that do have needs, but aren't sentient? Are they to be disregarded as well?
The earth is a system comprised of different parts. As a whole, the earth doesn not have needs. But what of the needs of the component parts?
I don't agree. My view is that we are part of a system, not separate and on top. I believe our true responsibility is not to ourselves, but to the system. It's the same reason that people do works of charity, just applied to a broader target than humanity.
I don't think you grasp the concept at all. The results of OUR actions are causing problems. We don't know how bad those problems are, nor to what extent we are contributing. We are responsible for our own actions, so we need to make sure we're not screwing up.
"But we don't just say, 'I don't know but to be safe, lets send the economy back to the stone age.'"
Well, poor use of quotes, since I didn't say that. There are plenty of actions to take to minimize our impact, a lot of which would, get this, stimulate economies.
I am not saying that we should have zero impact, or that the change to more responsible actions can't be gradual.
Remeber though, that there is a cost of causing all this damage, that is not being factored in by proponents of the "don't pull the train off the tracks" crowd.
As a matter of fact, depending on how you want to assign costs, it can be said that the cost of making these adjustments derives from using irresponsible technology in the first place.
"What happens when the Earth's climate becomes unfavorable to the point where humans decide to change the environment to suit our own survival? At what point do we say "screw environmentalism, it's time to induce global cooling measures?""
Never. First, uninteneded consequences could be very dangerous. Second, we, as a species, will survive. If we truly do not have enough resources to feed the world's population, then we will have famine and people will die. It's unfortunate, but we'll never attain population equilibrium without it. At some point, our population growth has to stop.
"I don't think there is any responsibility to 'minimize our impact.'"
Oh. So the Earth is just a resource to be used to our benefit?
"But ironically, even if humans weren't on the planet, it would continue to get warmer! That's right, the globe has been warming ever since the last ice age, and would continue to do so until the next ice age, regardless of human involvement."
So you assume. But, fancy this, what if our actions forestall the next ice age, or increase the number of mass extinctions that we are already causing?
'It would happen anyway' is not a valid response, since we ARE affecting it. We DO contribute, and we don't know if our contribution is causing problems beyond our capacity to deal with them.
First, if you're going to calculate the cost of environmental responsibility, you also have to coalculate the cost of environmental damage. This is something that I don't see very often when I see the "Oh, it costs too much to conserve!" studies.
Second, it's not a matter of balancing cost and preservation. My point is that the monetary cost is immaterial to the moral question, and the cost in human life is ameliorable.
Besides, overpopulation is a serious problem.
Well, that's where government needs to step in... when something is necessary but the market doesn't support it in the short-term.
How about reducing our energy needs? How about minimizing our impact as best we can?
Because the mustard is implied. After all, no PB sandwich i complete without mustard!
/. is it)
(Sounds weird, but try it. If there was ever a place to popularize my favorite sandwich,
Oh, and Bacos can be substituted for the crunch if you need to use smooth PB.
Well, the intelligent response then is to minimize activity that could potentially be causing global warming until we better understand the impact and the implications. Look before we leap. No?
When we don't know what's in the dark cave we are about to enter, do we rush in headlong, or proceed with caution? Do we attempt to find out if there is an angry bear in there before we rush in?
My view is that before continuing on our potentially devastating course, we need to re-evaluate and determine how much of an effect we are having, and whether the present course of action is still the best way to proceed. And in my view, it is better to suspend actions of questionable results than it is to continue them without knowing.
There are alternatives to fossil fuels, there is headway to be made in fuel efficiency, there are ways to lessen the envirnmental footprint of humankind. Many of these things, if done properly, will not negatively affect quality of life. So why don't we?
That's all I'm saying -- err on the side of caution.