That means, on average, the game sold 2000 copies every day of the last month.
Is that a reasonable number?
On the minecraft site, the number of copies sold in the last 24 hours is constantly shown. As of this post that number is 4486. So it is clear that 2000/day is well within the realm of possibility.
This isn't even a particularly massive number for a successful indie game. World of Goo was on sale last year (a year after it was originally released, I might add), and made 57,000 sales in a single week. (Due to the nature of that sale, about 17,000 basically got the game for free, so a more accurate number is around 40,000 sales over that period.)
So no- you really don't need a conspiracy theory to explain these numbers.
Make these classes tough so that no one graduates without knowing how to deconstruct an argument.
What will that accomplish? All the conspiracy theorists end up being high school dropouts? They'll have to learn to use doublethink to be able to understand critical thinking and logic, and completely ignore it when regarding the object of their paranoia? It sounds a lot like what we already have.
Borderlands does this. Gaining experience while holding a weapon gives you experience in that weapon. Leveling up on a weapon grants the player things like accuracy, damage, and reload bonuses.
The Hunter class can put skill points toward reducing sway when scoped in.
Blizzard is basically trying to replicate all of the major features of a service like Steam, all in one go- and no, WoW expertise will only translate to the development slightly, if at all, since the Battle.net team is completely separate from the WoW team. It's not as if they just reassign all of their programmers (which likely don't even specialize in the kind of things a battle.net programmer would have to do), and put WoW expansions and updates on the back burner.
While there are undoubtedly other factors at play, I believe you are grossly overestimating the effects of those factors. Development time for a new service is more than sufficient a reason for a delay.
If I recall correctly, they were talking about Battle.net 2.0 features in a "we're going to have it but it's not implemented yet" way at this year's BlizzCon. That was three months ago. Considering the fact that is Blizzard we're talking about, a four or five month development time for anything is fast.
If they decided to ditch running the beta on Battle.net 2.0, and start it today, it would still take another five-ish months before you would see the game in stores, simply because the beta is expected to take that long. There wouldn't really be any reason to ship it without Battle.net 2.0, as it would almost certainly be completed before the beta is completed.
On top of that- they consider Battle.net 2.0 to be an integral part of the StarCraft 2 experience, so StarCraft 2 isn't done until Battle.net 2.0 is done, and Blizzard (notoriously) doesn't ship their games until they're "done".
Blizzard has already stated openly that the delay of SC2 (to mid 2010) is because they misjudged the time it would take to develop Battle.net 2.0. They consider a functioning Battle.net 2.0 to be a prerequisite for the beta. There is no reason to believe that it has to do with market entry timing.
It's a widely-held social taboo. Incest has been a no-no since before anyone knew anything about a "gene pool" and before it was widely-known that it led to increased rates of deformities. It's not a big deal in some cultures, but in our Western, historically Judeau-Christian culture, there are strong social rules against it. It's more of a religious thing than anything else.
While I don't deny that there are likely actual biological reasons for people actually not preferring mating with family, the actual reasons for the laws have nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with history.
Since the dawn of time... what? Any person with a basic knowledge of world cultures throughout history knows that, while common, the "family" as you describe it has not been anything like a "fundamental" unit.
And, as some of my sibling posters mention, even granting that, just because it has has been the case, does not mean that it should be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, two of the things he intends to do with that money are to hire a website developer and an artist =p
The developer was busy traveling to the US visiting Bungie and Valve.
The game is sold for 10 euro a copy.
600,000 / 10 = 60,000 copies sold in one month.
1 month = 30 days
60,000 / 30 = 2000 copies/day
That means, on average, the game sold 2000 copies every day of the last month.
Is that a reasonable number?
On the minecraft site, the number of copies sold in the last 24 hours is constantly shown. As of this post that number is 4486. So it is clear that 2000/day is well within the realm of possibility.
This isn't even a particularly massive number for a successful indie game. World of Goo was on sale last year (a year after it was originally released, I might add), and made 57,000 sales in a single week. (Due to the nature of that sale, about 17,000 basically got the game for free, so a more accurate number is around 40,000 sales over that period.)
So no- you really don't need a conspiracy theory to explain these numbers.
Statistics aren't supposed to apply to individuals, but to the whole group.
Little-known fact: parent company and sister company are not actually the ones doing the developing.
I'm pretty sure that point is still inside the sun, so it would still be heliocentric.
They probably read a paper on other medical applications of plasma jets, and thought, "hey, this could apply to my field".
A common error: the acquisition was the other way around- Activision was bought by the company that already owned Blizzard.
Twilight Princess was a ported GameCube game, if that helps explain anything.
Make these classes tough so that no one graduates without knowing how to deconstruct an argument.
What will that accomplish? All the conspiracy theorists end up being high school dropouts? They'll have to learn to use doublethink to be able to understand critical thinking and logic, and completely ignore it when regarding the object of their paranoia? It sounds a lot like what we already have.
The most practical way to get an EMP is with a nuclear weapon. If your robots need shielding from EMP, you have bigger things to worry about.
Well, if you RTFA....
(He has a girlfriend)
The Hunter class can put skill points toward reducing sway when scoped in.
Mod parent up- this is the correct description of moral relativism.
Screw that, I'll just move to Africa.
Spore had barely been announced when flOw was released.
Very possibly still Hell on Earth.
Blizzard is basically trying to replicate all of the major features of a service like Steam, all in one go- and no, WoW expertise will only translate to the development slightly, if at all, since the Battle.net team is completely separate from the WoW team. It's not as if they just reassign all of their programmers (which likely don't even specialize in the kind of things a battle.net programmer would have to do), and put WoW expansions and updates on the back burner.
While there are undoubtedly other factors at play, I believe you are grossly overestimating the effects of those factors. Development time for a new service is more than sufficient a reason for a delay.
If I recall correctly, they were talking about Battle.net 2.0 features in a "we're going to have it but it's not implemented yet" way at this year's BlizzCon. That was three months ago. Considering the fact that is Blizzard we're talking about, a four or five month development time for anything is fast.
Your reply seems to imply that their great market position automatically gives them the ability to poof complex software into existence.
If they decided to ditch running the beta on Battle.net 2.0, and start it today, it would still take another five-ish months before you would see the game in stores, simply because the beta is expected to take that long. There wouldn't really be any reason to ship it without Battle.net 2.0, as it would almost certainly be completed before the beta is completed.
On top of that- they consider Battle.net 2.0 to be an integral part of the StarCraft 2 experience, so StarCraft 2 isn't done until Battle.net 2.0 is done, and Blizzard (notoriously) doesn't ship their games until they're "done".
Blizzard has already stated openly that the delay of SC2 (to mid 2010) is because they misjudged the time it would take to develop Battle.net 2.0. They consider a functioning Battle.net 2.0 to be a prerequisite for the beta. There is no reason to believe that it has to do with market entry timing.
Or the option to be placed on a public list of generous members.
While I don't deny that there are likely actual biological reasons for people actually not preferring mating with family, the actual reasons for the laws have nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with history.
And, as some of my sibling posters mention, even granting that, just because it has has been the case, does not mean that it should be the case.
Completely ignoring the fact that this isn't the actual reason why marrying your sister isn't legal.