they were willing to pay only a $0.60 premium for privacy
Keep in mind that this number is related to the total cost. If this scales linearly, it would indicate a "privacy premium" of 4% (.60 / 15.00). The cynical side of me envisions some PHB calculating the maximum they can get from selling customer data, and whether this exceeds 4%. But far be it for me to question capitalism on Slashdot...
false competition between a local cable company and a local phone company.
For added fun, in some places these two services are owned by the same company. I live in such a place, and since it's a rural area, this company has a nice monopoly in a bunch of towns in and around my county.
The EU is a bigger market than the USA, and one that would survive quite happily without you
How is your statement significant when the converse is true, too? The US could survive without the EU.
Further, the general case of a statement like this is pretty ridiculous. Saying a large country (or collection of countries) with lots of inhabitants and natural resources could "survive" without some other country is not really saying much. Unless, of course, you're trying to start political flamewars.
So, about the statistics that show Wii owners buy less games. Obviously this is a rhetorical question at this point; time is needed to see if it's true. However, even if Wii owners do less games on average, that doesn't necessarily validate the "casual gamers" argument. There could be other reasons.
As for your claim that Nintendo has a great reputation, this is also very speculative. Are you referencing a poll on peoples' opinion of game companies?
Also, Square isn't owned by Sony (thus, not first-party).
How dense are you? Broadcasters used to be required to dedicate portions of airtime to services useful to the public (unbiased news, etc). It's only been through the lobbying, lies, and general asshattery of your beloved corporations that such responsibilities have been eroded. Disregarding history does not make you right.
Third party developers will run back to Sony since they don't have to compete with Nintendo
So are you saying Sony doesn't develop any games in-house? Because that's completely wrong. Sony's had over 10 years to grow their development teams (and buy other ones), and they've certainly done that. A cursory glance over their franchise list proves this point handily. So while you are correct that running from a Nintendo platform will free you from "competing" with Nintendo, it also means that you'll end up competing with the parent company of the platform you choose to run to.
the people who own a PS3 are going to buy more games per console.
Care to cite a source, or are you just assuming "PS3 costs more, thus rich people will buy it"? If it's the latter, that's a pretty tenuous argument, at best.
Yup, you are 100% correct: if any trace of "religion" exists in a society, people are being deluded by it. Why? Because religion is evil, no matter what. It is not a neutral tool like other concepts, but a force that only has the power to enslave peoples' minds.
This argument is bullshit because it is unverifiable. It is unverifiable because many PC game sales are never figured into sales numbers. What I'm referring to here, of course, are things like shareware and other distribution methods that bypass Wal-Mart/Gamestop/etc. Indie game developers (think PopCap) are selling tons of games for tons of money, yet these numbers are not accounted for. So even your oversimplified "consoles are bigger" argument is BS.
Further, your comparison itself is flawed. You lump together all consoles into one category, which is very logically flawed. When a game is developed for a "console", this means a specific console. For a game developer to take advantage of your mythical "bigger market" that consoles offer, the game would have to be ported to all consoles, which would cost much more than developing for Windows.
Claim 1: a communication process that represents, in the mind of a reader, the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long time and becomes bitter towards society and humankind.
Claim 2: a communication process according to claim 1, wherein said character subsequently finds moral redemption through the kindness of another.
Claim 3: a communication process according to claims 1 and 2, wherein said character changes his name during the story.
The DS can NEVER play GTA even if it had the horsepower.
I assume this is why you think the DS is "not superior". However the word "superior" is extremely subjective, and you give no qualifiers to this effect. While you are perhaps correct regarding "computing power", you are completely wrong in, say, "battery life".
Also, if I upgraded the DS's "horsepower" to a 4 GHz processor, a gig of RAM, a 1080p screen, and a DVD attachment, it still couldn't "play GTA"? Wow, I must really not understand computers very well.
Personally, I feel the icon is still valid. Mostly because we still allow patents on things that don't actually cost anything to manufacture, such as software and "business methods".
The issue is that neither Sony nor MS has figured out how to make a consistent profit in the video games business.
Wait, what? I must've missed all the press releases, news stories, Slashdot postings, etc. where the Playstation division is losing money, because I've never seen anything of the sort. The only time I see "Sony is losing money" news is when it's some third party saying it.
Also, Sony executives and PR people are masters of FUD, who spin incredible tales of priceless hardware that will not only deliver amazing gaming experience, but will make your breakfast and shine your shoes. Remember the claim that the PS2's graphics engine could render Toy Story in real time?
Since when are the big players the backbone of Open Source?
To answer this question, it's useful to look at the history of the term "open source". One of the main reasons this term was coined was because people like Eric Raymond disliked the "social movement" aspects of Free Software/GNU/etc. Thus, a term was needed that was idealogically neutral. In other words, suitable for corporations.
The answer to your question, then, is "big players were the entire reason behind the creation of the term 'open source'".
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer to call it "the scientific method", but I won't stop you from flaming.
they were willing to pay only a $0.60 premium for privacy
Keep in mind that this number is related to the total cost. If this scales linearly, it would indicate a "privacy premium" of 4% (.60 / 15.00). The cynical side of me envisions some PHB calculating the maximum they can get from selling customer data, and whether this exceeds 4%. But far be it for me to question capitalism on Slashdot...
false competition between a local cable company and a local phone company.
For added fun, in some places these two services are owned by the same company. I live in such a place, and since it's a rural area, this company has a nice monopoly in a bunch of towns in and around my county.
It sounds a tad like CCP may be the first games company to threaten its own playerbase with legal action.
Blizzard beat CCP by a long shot when they sued the developers of bnetd. There are probably other examples as well.
The EU is a bigger market than the USA, and one that would survive quite happily without you
How is your statement significant when the converse is true, too? The US could survive without the EU.
Further, the general case of a statement like this is pretty ridiculous. Saying a large country (or collection of countries) with lots of inhabitants and natural resources could "survive" without some other country is not really saying much. Unless, of course, you're trying to start political flamewars.
You are correct. However you fail to note that Nintendo has been making video games for nearly thirty years; Sony for less than half of that.
So, about the statistics that show Wii owners buy less games. Obviously this is a rhetorical question at this point; time is needed to see if it's true. However, even if Wii owners do less games on average, that doesn't necessarily validate the "casual gamers" argument. There could be other reasons.
As for your claim that Nintendo has a great reputation, this is also very speculative. Are you referencing a poll on peoples' opinion of game companies?
Also, Square isn't owned by Sony (thus, not first-party).
How dense are you? Broadcasters used to be required to dedicate portions of airtime to services useful to the public (unbiased news, etc). It's only been through the lobbying, lies, and general asshattery of your beloved corporations that such responsibilities have been eroded. Disregarding history does not make you right.
Third party developers will run back to Sony since they don't have to compete with Nintendo
So are you saying Sony doesn't develop any games in-house? Because that's completely wrong. Sony's had over 10 years to grow their development teams (and buy other ones), and they've certainly done that. A cursory glance over their franchise list proves this point handily. So while you are correct that running from a Nintendo platform will free you from "competing" with Nintendo, it also means that you'll end up competing with the parent company of the platform you choose to run to.
the people who own a PS3 are going to buy more games per console.
Care to cite a source, or are you just assuming "PS3 costs more, thus rich people will buy it"? If it's the latter, that's a pretty tenuous argument, at best.
Yup, you are 100% correct: if any trace of "religion" exists in a society, people are being deluded by it. Why? Because religion is evil, no matter what. It is not a neutral tool like other concepts, but a force that only has the power to enslave peoples' minds.
This Public Service Announcement brought to you by the Allied Atheist Alliance
PROTIP: The airwaves belong to the People, at least in the US. Any claims otherwise is an attempt to validate your sick anarcho-corporatist delusions.
No. Open Source is about appealing to amoral corporations. Free Software is about Freedom.
This argument is bullshit because it is unverifiable. It is unverifiable because many PC game sales are never figured into sales numbers. What I'm referring to here, of course, are things like shareware and other distribution methods that bypass Wal-Mart/Gamestop/etc. Indie game developers (think PopCap) are selling tons of games for tons of money, yet these numbers are not accounted for. So even your oversimplified "consoles are bigger" argument is BS.
Further, your comparison itself is flawed. You lump together all consoles into one category, which is very logically flawed. When a game is developed for a "console", this means a specific console. For a game developer to take advantage of your mythical "bigger market" that consoles offer, the game would have to be ported to all consoles, which would cost much more than developing for Windows.
major webcomic
Haha, good one.
So you're trying to use a "homebrew" solution at a major beer company? Isn't that like dividing by zero or something?
(note to morons: this is a joke)
Let's follow this logic further: paper costs money, and books are made out of paper. Therefore, people should be able to patent literary devices. For example (FTA):
This is a pretty good troll: I almost wrote a serious reply. Good job.
Will Slashdot follow as well?
If you look in the Slashdot archives, there are still tons of stories and comments about DeCSS. So I'm guessing the answer is "no".
The DS design itself is NOT superior.
Why?
The DS can NEVER play GTA even if it had the horsepower.
I assume this is why you think the DS is "not superior". However the word "superior" is extremely subjective, and you give no qualifiers to this effect. While you are perhaps correct regarding "computing power", you are completely wrong in, say, "battery life".
Also, if I upgraded the DS's "horsepower" to a 4 GHz processor, a gig of RAM, a 1080p screen, and a DVD attachment, it still couldn't "play GTA"? Wow, I must really not understand computers very well.
Ever tried browsing on a 32mb PC?
It's not that bad.
The DS does NOT attempt to be cutting edge,
According to you.
The PSP tries and fails, the DS doesn't try and succeeds.
So PSP:DS::your post:mine?
This is news to me. I was pretty sure you could only buy new games for the GBA, PSP or DS, none of which are 8-bit nor have been around that long.
Personally, I feel the icon is still valid. Mostly because we still allow patents on things that don't actually cost anything to manufacture, such as software and "business methods".
The issue is that neither Sony nor MS has figured out how to make a consistent profit in the video games business.
Wait, what? I must've missed all the press releases, news stories, Slashdot postings, etc. where the Playstation division is losing money, because I've never seen anything of the sort. The only time I see "Sony is losing money" news is when it's some third party saying it.
Also, Sony executives and PR people are masters of FUD, who spin incredible tales of priceless hardware that will not only deliver amazing gaming experience, but will make your breakfast and shine your shoes. Remember the claim that the PS2's graphics engine could render Toy Story in real time?
Since when are the big players the backbone of Open Source?
To answer this question, it's useful to look at the history of the term "open source". One of the main reasons this term was coined was because people like Eric Raymond disliked the "social movement" aspects of Free Software/GNU/etc. Thus, a term was needed that was idealogically neutral. In other words, suitable for corporations.
The answer to your question, then, is "big players were the entire reason behind the creation of the term 'open source'".
Er, I just thought it was funny that the OS is "modern" yet couldn't see the ports.