3.19 million is the number of Wiis shipped by the manufacturer worldwide. 1.1 million is the number of Wiis sold by retailers in the US. The significant difference here is the US vs worldwide numbers.
This story isn't really news. Everyone knows that, even at $600, Sony is selling the PS3 far below cost. It's an expensive product to manufacture that includes a lot of new technologies. It will take a while for their costs to drop. If Sony were to reduce the price, it would certainly increase sales. However, increasing sales and increasing your losses at the same time is not necessarily a good thing since it obviously leads to significantly more money lost.
There is always a fine line to walk when balancing your prices with your volumes. When every sale is essentially an investment in the future (for the company, not for the idiots who think buying a $600 console now is an investment for when there will be better games out), then that line is infinitely thinner. People can argue all they want about how smart Sony was to pick such complicated components for their console. However, that decision is in the past now and Sony has to make their future decisions regarding pricing based on the product they have.
It seems like the best way to go about tuning a game would be to employ a few mathematical methods and do the rest by hand. A mathematical model is only going to be as good as the data that you put into it. There's always going to be some margin of error. While statistical approaches could help developers tune a game quickly, there will still need to be manual adjustments.
Sounds good to me. Bioware makes excellent games, but they're often few and far between and very long when they do come. If ever there was a company who's games were ripe for an episodic model, I would say it's Bioware.
The calculation that gave me $11,000/year wasn't for a loan, but rather the amount of money you would have to save on a year to year basis to justify an up front cost of $100,000. In which case inflation works the other direction since the amount of money your saving in the future has less value 1)because of inflation and 2)because of time value of money (ie lost opportunity for investment), hence the 10% decline which is pretty standard.
If you read my comment, you'll notice I have no sympathy for people who were suckered in by the marketing and purchased the core pack. However, it was still a foolish decision on Microsoft's part. They have forever segmented their console into those who have storage space and those who don't have it unless they're willing to fork over a substantial amount of money. As a result, while they can make things like demos and video downloads that make use of the hard drive, any standard games for the system will not be able to require a hard drive without experiencing a backlash from the community.
Even at $100,000 over a 25 year lifespan you're paying anywhere from 5-10 times the cost of energy from conventional fuels. The project is entirely un-economical with current technology and energy prices, no matter what way you want to look at it.
Not to mention that his calculation of $4,000/year completely ignores any time value of money. There isn't a business in the world that would calculate the returns on a half million dollar investment over the course of 25 years with a 0% decline rate. Using a standard 10% decline you're looking at $11,000/year rather than $4,000/year.
Once returns to scale and all kick in, it would be less, and you have to figure in the relative dollar value you'd place on e.g. not depending on the grid or gas prices. This is the line that people have been saying for 20 years now. The fact of the matter is that solar power hasn't yet reached a point where cells are efficient enough to pay back the initial monetary cost in a reasonable time frame. Prices have fallen a lot, and will continue to fall. However, there is still a long ways to go. It will likely be yet another 15-20 years before solar power is a viable option for the average homeowner.
I think the core system was aimed at parents who would be giving a 360 as a present but would balk at the extra $100. A parent could give the core system at feel like it was a reasonable price. The child could purchase the memory card or hard drive themselves once they had the system. I think it was a poor choice for Microsoft as I doubt it really boosted sales in the long run. Technically it allows them to say that the 360 is $300, but practically in most consumers minds it's still $400.
Microsoft should have never released the core pack. However, everyone knew exactly what is was from the moment Microsoft revealed it. It was obvious right from the get go that there would be limitations when it came to memory space. If you're using the core pack, and you don't have the storage space for this, then you have only yourself to blame. What's more, it's not like this would be the first item Microsoft offered that wouldn't fit on a memory card. XBL Arcade titles are practically the only thing left on the service at the moment that clock under 300mb.
In my humble opinion, I think that engineering programs should focus on giving students a strong base which they can use to help educate themselves better once they enter a narrower field. I graduated with my BS in mechanical engineering in 2005, after which I went to work as a petroleum engineer and am now currently working on a masters in economics. While mine is probably not the typical engineer path, most will work at some point in an area that they are not specifically trained for in school. Schools should focus more on giving engineers the tools to adapt to those unique changes in their work environment as they arise.
Except that's exactly what his example says. You've been spending too much time on/.. It's entirely possible to disagree with an example without committing a straw man fallacy. I'm not pushing some anti-global warming agenda or anything. It was a poor analogy that grossly over-simplified the situation.
Did you even read my post? I disagreed with the example, precisely because of the point it illustrates. The logical answer to his example was option 1. However, this is not a logical option when you're looking at global warming, for the reasons I described earlier. The consequences are just too high. In my humble opinion, the only real answer to global warming will be alternative energy sources and more efficient uses of our energy. However, in the analogy this is not a reasonable option. Hence, my assertion that it's a poor analogy.
An analogy is useful for a discussion when it simplifies a subject by removing difficult or confusing details. However, it is not useful when it removes pertinent considerations (ie the consequences of shutting down a global industrial economy or the usefulness of alternative energy sources).
In a discussion it is important that opinions are pertinent to the topic at hand. However it is also important that opinions are factually and logically sound. If you have to temporarily derail the discussion to ensure the latter, then so be it.
The problem with your analogy is that it's a gross over-simplification of the problem.
With option 1, unplugging a washing machine is slightly easier than simply unplugging a global industrial economy. And what would happen if you could just turn it all off? With the washing machine, the worst thing that happens is you can't do your laundry for a few days. With a global industrial economy, the world would be launched into a economic depression like never seen before. Millions would die of poverty, disease, and malnutrition.
Option two sounds like a pretty bad choice when your looking at a basement that will be full in a matter of days. When your looking at a basement that will be full in 100 years, it's a bit more practical. If you're actively working to create better washing machines, then it looks even more practical (especially considering the possible consequences of choosing option 1).
No biggy, you can use robots with ion drives for that stuff. Ion drives would be worthless for your proposal. From Wikipedia:
In practice, with currently practical energy sources of perhaps a few tens of kilowatts, and given a typical Isp of 3000 seconds (30 kNs/kg), ion thrusters give only extremely modest forces (often tenths or hundredths of a newton). Hardly the kind of propulsion you want to use for something that would be constantly stopping and changing direction. Ion drives are best used for crafts that travel extremely long distances with no need to change direction.
People have shown a few concepts of using rail guns to launch objects into space. However, they require massive amounts of electricity and, unless stretched out over several miles, the force applied due to acceleration is severe enough that it would likely destroy anything useful.
Yeah, cause they did such a shitty job with Oblivion huh? And spare me that "it won't really be a true sequel" crap. If nothing else it'll be better than those half-ass spin-offs. I'll take a sequel from Bethesda over nothing any day, because that's exactly what we were getting before Bethesda bought the license.
I'm no fan of the major news outlets but this sounds like foolishness if for no other reason than the fact that the concept of "what's fair" is entirely subjective, if not in theory then at least in practice. If we aren't getting the whole story from standard media outlets then there will always be a market for someone who will give us the rest of the story. Just because that someone might not be a 24 hour news network shouldn't be a reason to regulate what people can and can't say.
Furthermore, a measure like this would only relegate the regulated mediums to a less relevant role as consumers and journalists would migrate towards the internet, or other uncontrolled mediums, where people can report things as they see them rather than how the current powers that be see them.
I don't think that that lag is as long as you think it is. Most large scale retailers, like Best Buy and Walmart, have very sophisticated inventory systems in place. Millions and millions of dollars have been put into these systems to make sure that they can react as quickly as possible to market demands. Also, this is a time of year when retailers are trying to reduce inventory after the holiday glut. We're not going to be seeing any mountains of PS3's, like we did with the 360 in December, even if the supplies and demand are there. At any one point there will probably be a couple hundred thousand PS3's drifting through the retail chain. This may sound like a lot, but even at the analysts prediction of 4.5 million by the end of March, that's only a 4% margin of error.
What's more, the expectation that console manufacturers state units sold by retailers is ridiculous. As I stated before, the manufacturers have no control over the retail chain and they have no access to these numbers other than through third parties. It would be ridiculous for them to use monthly estimates (and they are estimates) from third party groups, like NPD, rather than their own internal numbers, which are up to the minute and exact.
While the difference between shipped and sold is apparently crucial immediately after a launch for all the fanboys wanting to push their system, in the big picture it is practically meaningless.
I'm amazed at how people still don't understand the concept of "shipped" units and how it pertains to sold. The vast majority of units sold will be sold through retailers using something called just in time inventory. They monitor how much of a product they have and how fast it is being sold and and use that to calculate when they will need to order more of a product and how much of it to order. If consoles are sitting on shelves then retailers aren't ordering any more from manufacturers. There is a small amount of lag there, but over the long term the method is plenty accurate (notice how nobody is comparing shipped PS2 units to sold PS2 units even though there are probably ten times more PS2's than PS3's sitting on shelves). The margin of error is negligible.
For console manufacturers shipped is sold. Since they have no control over the retail chain, their most accurate measurement of how consoles are selling is how many they are selling to retailers. This endless discussion over shipped vs sold is just plain ignorant. It's a perfectly acceptable method of tracking your inventory.
Slashdot Mirror
3.19 million is the number of Wiis shipped by the manufacturer worldwide. 1.1 million is the number of Wiis sold by retailers in the US. The significant difference here is the US vs worldwide numbers.
This story isn't really news. Everyone knows that, even at $600, Sony is selling the PS3 far below cost. It's an expensive product to manufacture that includes a lot of new technologies. It will take a while for their costs to drop. If Sony were to reduce the price, it would certainly increase sales. However, increasing sales and increasing your losses at the same time is not necessarily a good thing since it obviously leads to significantly more money lost.
There is always a fine line to walk when balancing your prices with your volumes. When every sale is essentially an investment in the future (for the company, not for the idiots who think buying a $600 console now is an investment for when there will be better games out), then that line is infinitely thinner. People can argue all they want about how smart Sony was to pick such complicated components for their console. However, that decision is in the past now and Sony has to make their future decisions regarding pricing based on the product they have.
It seems like the best way to go about tuning a game would be to employ a few mathematical methods and do the rest by hand. A mathematical model is only going to be as good as the data that you put into it. There's always going to be some margin of error. While statistical approaches could help developers tune a game quickly, there will still need to be manual adjustments.
Vinyl? They make siding out of that right?
Sounds good to me. Bioware makes excellent games, but they're often few and far between and very long when they do come. If ever there was a company who's games were ripe for an episodic model, I would say it's Bioware.
The calculation that gave me $11,000/year wasn't for a loan, but rather the amount of money you would have to save on a year to year basis to justify an up front cost of $100,000. In which case inflation works the other direction since the amount of money your saving in the future has less value 1)because of inflation and 2)because of time value of money (ie lost opportunity for investment), hence the 10% decline which is pretty standard.
Hence the word "likely", indicating that it is my prediction, rather than a fact.
If you read my comment, you'll notice I have no sympathy for people who were suckered in by the marketing and purchased the core pack. However, it was still a foolish decision on Microsoft's part. They have forever segmented their console into those who have storage space and those who don't have it unless they're willing to fork over a substantial amount of money. As a result, while they can make things like demos and video downloads that make use of the hard drive, any standard games for the system will not be able to require a hard drive without experiencing a backlash from the community.
Even at $100,000 over a 25 year lifespan you're paying anywhere from 5-10 times the cost of energy from conventional fuels. The project is entirely un-economical with current technology and energy prices, no matter what way you want to look at it.
Not to mention that his calculation of $4,000/year completely ignores any time value of money. There isn't a business in the world that would calculate the returns on a half million dollar investment over the course of 25 years with a 0% decline rate. Using a standard 10% decline you're looking at $11,000/year rather than $4,000/year.
$
Need I say more?
I think the core system was aimed at parents who would be giving a 360 as a present but would balk at the extra $100. A parent could give the core system at feel like it was a reasonable price. The child could purchase the memory card or hard drive themselves once they had the system. I think it was a poor choice for Microsoft as I doubt it really boosted sales in the long run. Technically it allows them to say that the 360 is $300, but practically in most consumers minds it's still $400.
Microsoft should have never released the core pack. However, everyone knew exactly what is was from the moment Microsoft revealed it. It was obvious right from the get go that there would be limitations when it came to memory space. If you're using the core pack, and you don't have the storage space for this, then you have only yourself to blame. What's more, it's not like this would be the first item Microsoft offered that wouldn't fit on a memory card. XBL Arcade titles are practically the only thing left on the service at the moment that clock under 300mb.
In my humble opinion, I think that engineering programs should focus on giving students a strong base which they can use to help educate themselves better once they enter a narrower field. I graduated with my BS in mechanical engineering in 2005, after which I went to work as a petroleum engineer and am now currently working on a masters in economics. While mine is probably not the typical engineer path, most will work at some point in an area that they are not specifically trained for in school. Schools should focus more on giving engineers the tools to adapt to those unique changes in their work environment as they arise.
Except that's exactly what his example says. You've been spending too much time on /.. It's entirely possible to disagree with an example without committing a straw man fallacy. I'm not pushing some anti-global warming agenda or anything. It was a poor analogy that grossly over-simplified the situation.
Did you even read my post? I disagreed with the example, precisely because of the point it illustrates. The logical answer to his example was option 1. However, this is not a logical option when you're looking at global warming, for the reasons I described earlier. The consequences are just too high. In my humble opinion, the only real answer to global warming will be alternative energy sources and more efficient uses of our energy. However, in the analogy this is not a reasonable option. Hence, my assertion that it's a poor analogy.
An analogy is useful for a discussion when it simplifies a subject by removing difficult or confusing details. However, it is not useful when it removes pertinent considerations (ie the consequences of shutting down a global industrial economy or the usefulness of alternative energy sources).
In a discussion it is important that opinions are pertinent to the topic at hand. However it is also important that opinions are factually and logically sound. If you have to temporarily derail the discussion to ensure the latter, then so be it.
The problem with your analogy is that it's a gross over-simplification of the problem.
With option 1, unplugging a washing machine is slightly easier than simply unplugging a global industrial economy. And what would happen if you could just turn it all off? With the washing machine, the worst thing that happens is you can't do your laundry for a few days. With a global industrial economy, the world would be launched into a economic depression like never seen before. Millions would die of poverty, disease, and malnutrition.
Option two sounds like a pretty bad choice when your looking at a basement that will be full in a matter of days. When your looking at a basement that will be full in 100 years, it's a bit more practical. If you're actively working to create better washing machines, then it looks even more practical (especially considering the possible consequences of choosing option 1).
Choosing option 3 is still retarded.
People have shown a few concepts of using rail guns to launch objects into space. However, they require massive amounts of electricity and, unless stretched out over several miles, the force applied due to acceleration is severe enough that it would likely destroy anything useful.
Yeah, cause they did such a shitty job with Oblivion huh? And spare me that "it won't really be a true sequel" crap. If nothing else it'll be better than those half-ass spin-offs. I'll take a sequel from Bethesda over nothing any day, because that's exactly what we were getting before Bethesda bought the license.
I'm no fan of the major news outlets but this sounds like foolishness if for no other reason than the fact that the concept of "what's fair" is entirely subjective, if not in theory then at least in practice. If we aren't getting the whole story from standard media outlets then there will always be a market for someone who will give us the rest of the story. Just because that someone might not be a 24 hour news network shouldn't be a reason to regulate what people can and can't say.
Furthermore, a measure like this would only relegate the regulated mediums to a less relevant role as consumers and journalists would migrate towards the internet, or other uncontrolled mediums, where people can report things as they see them rather than how the current powers that be see them.
I don't think that that lag is as long as you think it is. Most large scale retailers, like Best Buy and Walmart, have very sophisticated inventory systems in place. Millions and millions of dollars have been put into these systems to make sure that they can react as quickly as possible to market demands. Also, this is a time of year when retailers are trying to reduce inventory after the holiday glut. We're not going to be seeing any mountains of PS3's, like we did with the 360 in December, even if the supplies and demand are there. At any one point there will probably be a couple hundred thousand PS3's drifting through the retail chain. This may sound like a lot, but even at the analysts prediction of 4.5 million by the end of March, that's only a 4% margin of error.
What's more, the expectation that console manufacturers state units sold by retailers is ridiculous. As I stated before, the manufacturers have no control over the retail chain and they have no access to these numbers other than through third parties. It would be ridiculous for them to use monthly estimates (and they are estimates) from third party groups, like NPD, rather than their own internal numbers, which are up to the minute and exact.
While the difference between shipped and sold is apparently crucial immediately after a launch for all the fanboys wanting to push their system, in the big picture it is practically meaningless.
I'm amazed at how people still don't understand the concept of "shipped" units and how it pertains to sold. The vast majority of units sold will be sold through retailers using something called just in time inventory. They monitor how much of a product they have and how fast it is being sold and and use that to calculate when they will need to order more of a product and how much of it to order. If consoles are sitting on shelves then retailers aren't ordering any more from manufacturers. There is a small amount of lag there, but over the long term the method is plenty accurate (notice how nobody is comparing shipped PS2 units to sold PS2 units even though there are probably ten times more PS2's than PS3's sitting on shelves). The margin of error is negligible.
For console manufacturers shipped is sold. Since they have no control over the retail chain, their most accurate measurement of how consoles are selling is how many they are selling to retailers. This endless discussion over shipped vs sold is just plain ignorant. It's a perfectly acceptable method of tracking your inventory.