Am I missing something? The point of completely free software is that it is completely free. Whether you pay for something else or not is irrelevant. The point is that you aren't paying for the thing that is free.
Another way to look at it is like this. It's like riding a bicycle, for which you do not pay gas (let's assume you want to exercise anyway, so the cost of food is irrelevant), on a road, for which you likely pay taxes. The point is that you save on gas.
Perhaps you are objecting to the fact that Microsoft Windows is not usually free?
Or are you simply stringing random comparisons together? Such as, what's the point of mustard on Mount Kilimanjaro? Or, what's the point of gravel on a rye bread sandwich?;)
I think that assigning limits to the destructability of a game environment is essential to any narrative or story script. Allowing everything to be destroyed by the player allows to much probability that the player will work "around" the story. There are design decisions that can be made to compensate (cliff walls, extreme drop-offs, futuristic force fields), but these are difficult to implement and restrictive to the story (can't have a force field in an historical setting).
On the other hand, I yearn for the day that I can lay waste to everything in a battlefield. IMHO, it should look like a battlefield once the match is over. Give me splintering wood, craters, collapsing buildings, exploding vehicles, dense smoke, flying glass, and persistent chunks of dirt and I will be happy.
It doesn't matter. The point is: currency values mean very little unless you trade them or are measuring inflation. Any more analysis is a discussion of macro-economic theory and world money supply. A topic best left to the economists.
It does matter, and it doesn't take an economist to notice it. Just ask any business that does export between the two countries. In the US, factory outlet stores spring up along the border like dandelions when the US dollar falls, and die just as quickly when the US dollar rises.
Similarly, Canadian export businesses that sell and ship primarily to US customers (of which there are many) tend to see a sharp drop in business when the Canadian dollar rises. The drop can be significant enough to put an end to low-margin businesses, especially if they don't have deep enough pockets.
Your point may be that this has little effect on the overall economy, which may be true (and I agree, is a topic for economists), but I believe it is foolish to say that there is no effect whatsoever.
Make no mistake: this rating may well be deserved. But this rating also means that the game has been censored.
I'm not sure that I agree. Rating a game doesn't imply any sort of enforceable regulation at this point. Thus, censorship doesn't necessarily occur on an official level.
However, as you also implied, rating the game as M or AO has an impact on the game's market performance. This is not the ESRB's fault, but it is a real consequence of the rating. Perhaps the ESRB needs to be sensitive of that, and perhaps also the game maker needs to realize that such a rating has a specific sales impact, and therefore they should design their product accordingly.
No one is forcing people not to make AO games. But there is no civil right to be able to produce whatever product you want and expect that it should benefit from full market exposure. If they want to make AO games, let them, just as long as they know they are doing it as a labor of love.
That's funny, but you've missed the parent's point. He is saying that due to the interaction, video/computer games are less likely to be considered "influential" because of the reduced suspension of disbelief.
I'm not sure I agree, however. I think that any lack thereof is made up for in the other immersive aspects of the game. Of course, I am not a British study.
Dave, you are right on the money. The problem with trusting any data, be it from the White House or from anyone refuting their claims, is that an agenda is usually at work. If someone is trying to prove a point, they will tend to utilize data that supports their view and discard data that does not.
Of course, in and statistical or empirical analysis, this is very normal, and often necessary in order to draw conclusions in the first place. Sometimes you have to throw out data simply because it doesn't fit, and that doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. But it is very difficult to find someone presenting a view or theory who does not have a specific position themselves, a position which influences which conclusion they are likely to draw.
I tried to be polite, but now you are pissing me off.
I DID choose to buy Vista. Part of my decision to purchase this PC, rather than one that had XP pre-installed, was that I wanted Vista BECAUSE IT WAS VISTA!
Honestly, shut the hell up and quit telling me what I did or did not intend, or what I do or do not think. All of your bigoted statements make false assumptions that you cannot possibly back up since you pulled them out of your ass!
Woah, woah. That's a lot of assumptions, all grossly incorrect.
Are you a developer who runs Vista to write and test software?
No.
Would you recommend Vista to people because it might reduce the number of people running XP and mean you don't need to test on XP as much?
Let's pretend that I am a "developer who runs Vista to write and test software." Regardless of my occupation, I consider it disrespectful when you put words into my mouth. First, I would never recommend a product that I didn't think stood on its own merits. Second, I can think of very few circumstances where XP would cease to be a platform I would need to test for within the next five years, regardless of how many people I personally encouraged to adopt Vista.
Your comment is a leading question designed to prove your point that Vista is crap and I am a shill. I have a hard time understanding where such vilification comes from that you would attempt to discredit me, and my opinion, without any sound rationale.
Or do you honestly think Vista is better than XP and that's why people should upgrade? Cause if that's the case I'm gunna have to suggest that you're in a freakishly small minority.
In fact, I am a developer, although not for Vista specifically. As a professional in my field, I believe I can discern whether or not a product I am using is "good" or not. To be fair, I did not upgrade, I bought a new PC with Vista pre-installed. I also will not be upgrading my XP machine to Vista. However, I am very satisfied with Vista as a product in and of itself. It performs well all of the tasks that I require of it.
Would I recommend Vista to others? It depends on the individual and their requirements. In general, I believe that operating systems, and most software tools, should be evaluated without respect to partisanship. In this case, I do not care whether or not Microsoft made Vista. It is a fine product in most respects, although it is not without its flaws. I believe it will also continue to get better.
Should people shy away from it? No. If a new computer comes with Vista, keep it. It does its job, and does it well.
Should people upgrade? Probably not, unless they require specific features found only in Vista. For the average user, there isn't enough value over and above XP. However, as Vista gains marketshare, and as Vista-only products are developed, that will change.
In any case, there is a learning curve with Vista, but I do not believe that should stop people from adopting the product. If that were the case, I would never recommend Linux, ever. As for the increased hardware requirements, this is not unusual, and the same rationale that has always applied to Windows 1.0, 2.0, 286, 386, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, 2000, and XP apply here. As for the problems that Vista seems to have, this is normal for a fresh product. This will undoubtedly improve as the product matures. Maybe this is a reason to hold off adopting Vista for now, but there are many benefits of Vista that may account for its drawbacks, depending on the willingness of the customer to put up with a few rough edges.
I am trying to present a balanced point of view that looks as Vista in a realistic, pragmatic light. I'm not promoting Vista exclusively over other vendors' products. There is a place for Linux, Mac OS, and even other operating systems as well, depending on the customer's requirements. I'm not married to Microsoft. But neither do I think Vista is crap.
...everyone on earth who isn't a Microsoft fan boy or shill.
Not.
I am not anti-Vista - in fact, I am happily running Vista right now, a few feet away from my Linux box and Mac box (and believe it or not, there have not been any fisticuffs so far in my den). But, as you should correctly assume from my varied choices of OS, I do not worship Microsoft.
Frankly, I think a spread of $217 (45% increase) puts the PS3 in a completely different category. Therefore, I believe the PS3 will sell less because it will have fewer consumers looking for a game system at that price point.
However, I could be wrong. Maybe the majority of consumers in the market for a movie-playing, next-gen, HD game system can afford either system.
Your statement is only true if the consumer's price point is higher than the highest-priced product. Often the price point is exactly the same as the lowest-priced product, since the consumer's requirements are such that they actually want to pay less, but the lower-priced product does not exist. Thus, the only price they are willing to pay belongs to the product that costs them the least. Thus, value isn't even a factor, since the higher-priced products are not considered.
Value is only a factor when two more more products are considered and then compared. In this instance, the consumer is likely (IMHO) barely willing to pay what the cheaper Xbox 360 is being offered at, and so the PS3 isn't even considered. Now, if we're talking about gamers who have saved up to buy the next big thing and have a grand to blow, they may consider the PS3. Then, and only then, they will compare the value of the two products.
Allow me to clarify. Consumers are not looking primarily for good value. Of course, there are exceptions, but I believe this is the rule. And of the majority of consumers, many will look for good value, but it will not be their primary requirement.
Really, your statement agrees with mine, since you are talking about price. Price point is not the same as value.
Let me illustrate with an example. If the average consumer is shopping for a video card, he/she will first determine what kind of price range to shop in. The key, as I stated, is that it must meet their minimum requirements. In other words, they may decide that they need an SLI- or Crossfire-capable card as a minimum requirement. Then, the consumer looks at the available cards and, assuming no other requirements are there, will choose the lowest-price product. Actually, they will probably choose somewhere between the lowest price and their maximum price. At that point, if two products are the same price, value is compared (number of features per dollar equals value, or "This one does 30.7 fps on BF2142 with 4xAA, but that one does 39.2 fps"). And again, if there is a range of product choices between the lowest price and the consumer's maximum price, feature set will also come into play ("I can buy this basic one for $200, but I can afford up to $300 and there is one for $299 that includes a TV tuner"). This is really a variant of value, however.
In the case of the PS3, it is often simply a matter of price. The average consumer looks at the need, which is a game system, and determines what their requirements are. Good games? Wii - check. Xbox 360 - check. PS3 - check. Which one do you buy? Wii.
Good games AND ability to play hi-def movies? Wii - nope. Xbox 360 - check. PS3 - check. Which one do you buy? Xbox 360.
The only time value comes into play is if the price point for the consumer is $1000. Then they can consider all systems equally, and then value comes into play. Then, I would agree, the PS3 has less value than other systems.
But, getting back to your statement, I would say that the average consumer has a lower price point than what the PS3 is being offered at, or their requirements are already being met by lower-priced products. Thus, value isn't even a factor yet.
Even though what you said has truth in it, the issue not that consumers don't know what they want (or are whiny, or lie).
The issue is that consumers know they don't want to spend money. I can't think of very many people who would refuse a PS3 if it cost $20. I don't think features has anything to do with it, except that consumers aren't looking for features or even good value, they are looking for a low priced item that meets their minimum requirements (however high or low those requirements may be).
However, dollar for dollar, people are more likely to buy a product with more features. If the PS3 were sitting next to the PS2 and they were identically priced, the consumer is more likely to buy the PS3. As a rule (and there are always exceptions), people are spec chasers. But there is a limit to that, and that gets back to the price point of whatever the consumer's minimum requirement is.
I suppose you were being intentionally simplistic, but I think you're missing an important point. To quote the summary:
Perhaps it is ironic that the two top mods of 2006 are both for the Battlefield 2 platform, which has been abandoned by its developer and is notoriously buggy and difficult to mod.
This is not to say that HL:2 was a bad game - far from it. And there were many fine mods for it, and for the Source Engine in general. But as one poster commented above, certain mods "fix everything that is wrong with BF2." There's an idea at the core of BF2 (the game, not the crappy engine) that grabs many people in a certain way. Not only is the game addictive, despite its faults, but it opens your eyes to new possibilities for gameplay and scenarios that you had always wanted to see materialize.
Something like "This is awesome! Although, I'd love to see it as a scenario-based game with a complex and believable storyline," [Point of Existence] or "I love this game! The only thing that is missing is realistic ballistics and British accents!" [Project Reality]
You might be right, but no matter how cheap it becomes to do this in your home, it will always be cheaper to do it on a larger scale.
It may only cost me $0.50 to print a photo on my inkjet printer, but it costs $0.16 to have it done at Walmart. Sure, with one photo, $0.34 is not much of a sacrifice, but apply that over 230 vacation photos for my wife's scrapbooking project...
If you could bring the cost down close enough to mass production, you might have a case. However, then I must come back with the concept of assembly, where you will reasonably only be able to print parts rather than entire complex objects (such a device can only manufacture simple, self-supporting shapes). You have to then assemble them into the whole object that you desire to possess.
Basically, it's like having an IKEA manufacturing plant on your desk.;)
And yet you seem very against the idea on a personal level.
To quote a previous comment from you:
I hope and expect the on-line desktop to be as successful as Java-station (or whatever it was called).
You seem to be arguing two things: 1) Even though Google can host your email safer than you, you still prefer to maintain that control since you can justify blaming yourself if something goes wrong, and 2) You hope, for some reason, that Web apps fail miserably.
I may be misunderstanding you.
From my perspective, there is room for both. People who want to can run their own servers, and those that prefer to have the work handled by others can do so as well. Those that host their own can blame themselves when they lose their own data, and those that farm out the hosting can blame their provider.
I hope and expect the on-line desktop to be as successful as Java-station (or whatever it was called).
The thing of it is that Web apps are already more successful as the "Net machines" of yore.
The reason they didn't take off are wide and varied, but Web apps have overcome many of those weaknesses, the largest of which is that everyone already has the software installed to make reasonable use of a Web app. So, you have a cross-platform application that requires zero installation on most machines, and not even new hardware. Thin client-friendly, too, although in reference to above, I would say that the market probably will not demand that.
Well, I was with you until you started gushing over Linux. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux too, but I yearn for the day that people don't end a comment about Microsoft with, "Why don't you just run Linux? It's so great!" That may be true, but this is Slashdot - we know that already!
I agree that there is a difference between Yahoo! News and Google News, but I don't agree that it is as disparate as apples and oranges.
IMHO, Apples and oranges would be comparing Google News to Wired Magazine in print. You read them both, but that's where the similarity ends. In this case, we have two major search engines displaying headlines to news stories and providing links to content. They are plenty similar to Joe Public who just looks at the front page to see what's up in the world today. It doesn't matter whose content it is - in the end, I don't think the general public really cares.
I believe the issue is brand association. The bigger the brand, the more likely people are to assume that it writes its own news, makes its own electronics, develops its own games, etc. Perhaps you and I are savvy enough to be aware of where the buck stops, but we aren't Joe Public. To that person, reality is not the same as perception.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I missing something? The point of completely free software is that it is completely free. Whether you pay for something else or not is irrelevant. The point is that you aren't paying for the thing that is free.
Another way to look at it is like this. It's like riding a bicycle, for which you do not pay gas (let's assume you want to exercise anyway, so the cost of food is irrelevant), on a road, for which you likely pay taxes. The point is that you save on gas.
Perhaps you are objecting to the fact that Microsoft Windows is not usually free?
Or are you simply stringing random comparisons together? Such as, what's the point of mustard on Mount Kilimanjaro? Or, what's the point of gravel on a rye bread sandwich? ;)
With no fewer than six links in the summary, which one actually points to the photos being referenced?
I'd click them all, but I only have time to write this indignant comment.
I think that assigning limits to the destructability of a game environment is essential to any narrative or story script. Allowing everything to be destroyed by the player allows to much probability that the player will work "around" the story. There are design decisions that can be made to compensate (cliff walls, extreme drop-offs, futuristic force fields), but these are difficult to implement and restrictive to the story (can't have a force field in an historical setting).
On the other hand, I yearn for the day that I can lay waste to everything in a battlefield. IMHO, it should look like a battlefield once the match is over. Give me splintering wood, craters, collapsing buildings, exploding vehicles, dense smoke, flying glass, and persistent chunks of dirt and I will be happy.
It does matter, and it doesn't take an economist to notice it. Just ask any business that does export between the two countries. In the US, factory outlet stores spring up along the border like dandelions when the US dollar falls, and die just as quickly when the US dollar rises.
Similarly, Canadian export businesses that sell and ship primarily to US customers (of which there are many) tend to see a sharp drop in business when the Canadian dollar rises. The drop can be significant enough to put an end to low-margin businesses, especially if they don't have deep enough pockets.
Your point may be that this has little effect on the overall economy, which may be true (and I agree, is a topic for economists), but I believe it is foolish to say that there is no effect whatsoever.
I'm not sure that I agree. Rating a game doesn't imply any sort of enforceable regulation at this point. Thus, censorship doesn't necessarily occur on an official level.
However, as you also implied, rating the game as M or AO has an impact on the game's market performance. This is not the ESRB's fault, but it is a real consequence of the rating. Perhaps the ESRB needs to be sensitive of that, and perhaps also the game maker needs to realize that such a rating has a specific sales impact, and therefore they should design their product accordingly.
No one is forcing people not to make AO games. But there is no civil right to be able to produce whatever product you want and expect that it should benefit from full market exposure. If they want to make AO games, let them, just as long as they know they are doing it as a labor of love.
That's funny, but you've missed the parent's point. He is saying that due to the interaction, video/computer games are less likely to be considered "influential" because of the reduced suspension of disbelief.
I'm not sure I agree, however. I think that any lack thereof is made up for in the other immersive aspects of the game. Of course, I am not a British study.
Dave, you are right on the money. The problem with trusting any data, be it from the White House or from anyone refuting their claims, is that an agenda is usually at work. If someone is trying to prove a point, they will tend to utilize data that supports their view and discard data that does not.
Of course, in and statistical or empirical analysis, this is very normal, and often necessary in order to draw conclusions in the first place. Sometimes you have to throw out data simply because it doesn't fit, and that doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. But it is very difficult to find someone presenting a view or theory who does not have a specific position themselves, a position which influences which conclusion they are likely to draw.
Yes, well, you are welcome. :)
Thank YOU for summing up my entire blather in four words.
Now I feel so much better about getting sucked into another pointless argument. ;)
I tried to be polite, but now you are pissing me off.
I DID choose to buy Vista. Part of my decision to purchase this PC, rather than one that had XP pre-installed, was that I wanted Vista BECAUSE IT WAS VISTA!
Honestly, shut the hell up and quit telling me what I did or did not intend, or what I do or do not think. All of your bigoted statements make false assumptions that you cannot possibly back up since you pulled them out of your ass!
Woah, woah. That's a lot of assumptions, all grossly incorrect.
No.
Let's pretend that I am a "developer who runs Vista to write and test software." Regardless of my occupation, I consider it disrespectful when you put words into my mouth. First, I would never recommend a product that I didn't think stood on its own merits. Second, I can think of very few circumstances where XP would cease to be a platform I would need to test for within the next five years, regardless of how many people I personally encouraged to adopt Vista.
Your comment is a leading question designed to prove your point that Vista is crap and I am a shill. I have a hard time understanding where such vilification comes from that you would attempt to discredit me, and my opinion, without any sound rationale.
In fact, I am a developer, although not for Vista specifically. As a professional in my field, I believe I can discern whether or not a product I am using is "good" or not. To be fair, I did not upgrade, I bought a new PC with Vista pre-installed. I also will not be upgrading my XP machine to Vista. However, I am very satisfied with Vista as a product in and of itself. It performs well all of the tasks that I require of it.
Would I recommend Vista to others? It depends on the individual and their requirements. In general, I believe that operating systems, and most software tools, should be evaluated without respect to partisanship. In this case, I do not care whether or not Microsoft made Vista. It is a fine product in most respects, although it is not without its flaws. I believe it will also continue to get better.
Should people shy away from it? No. If a new computer comes with Vista, keep it. It does its job, and does it well.
Should people upgrade? Probably not, unless they require specific features found only in Vista. For the average user, there isn't enough value over and above XP. However, as Vista gains marketshare, and as Vista-only products are developed, that will change.
In any case, there is a learning curve with Vista, but I do not believe that should stop people from adopting the product. If that were the case, I would never recommend Linux, ever. As for the increased hardware requirements, this is not unusual, and the same rationale that has always applied to Windows 1.0, 2.0, 286, 386, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, 2000, and XP apply here. As for the problems that Vista seems to have, this is normal for a fresh product. This will undoubtedly improve as the product matures. Maybe this is a reason to hold off adopting Vista for now, but there are many benefits of Vista that may account for its drawbacks, depending on the willingness of the customer to put up with a few rough edges.
I am trying to present a balanced point of view that looks as Vista in a realistic, pragmatic light. I'm not promoting Vista exclusively over other vendors' products. There is a place for Linux, Mac OS, and even other operating systems as well, depending on the customer's requirements. I'm not married to Microsoft. But neither do I think Vista is crap.
Not.
I am not anti-Vista - in fact, I am happily running Vista right now, a few feet away from my Linux box and Mac box (and believe it or not, there have not been any fisticuffs so far in my den). But, as you should correctly assume from my varied choices of OS, I do not worship Microsoft.
I agree, if someone has the cash to buy the most expensive item, then value comes into play. But that's a big "if."
I have been trying to postulate that the average consumer is not in the position that you are.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_ id=5303663
_ id=5303668
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product
Xbox 360 bundle (2 controllers, 2 games, 1 case) = $479
PS3 bundle (2 controllers, 2 games, 1 movie) = $696
Frankly, I think a spread of $217 (45% increase) puts the PS3 in a completely different category. Therefore, I believe the PS3 will sell less because it will have fewer consumers looking for a game system at that price point.
However, I could be wrong. Maybe the majority of consumers in the market for a movie-playing, next-gen, HD game system can afford either system.
Your statement is only true if the consumer's price point is higher than the highest-priced product. Often the price point is exactly the same as the lowest-priced product, since the consumer's requirements are such that they actually want to pay less, but the lower-priced product does not exist. Thus, the only price they are willing to pay belongs to the product that costs them the least. Thus, value isn't even a factor, since the higher-priced products are not considered.
Value is only a factor when two more more products are considered and then compared. In this instance, the consumer is likely (IMHO) barely willing to pay what the cheaper Xbox 360 is being offered at, and so the PS3 isn't even considered. Now, if we're talking about gamers who have saved up to buy the next big thing and have a grand to blow, they may consider the PS3. Then, and only then, they will compare the value of the two products.
I'm certain we are debating semantics now.
Allow me to clarify. Consumers are not looking primarily for good value. Of course, there are exceptions, but I believe this is the rule. And of the majority of consumers, many will look for good value, but it will not be their primary requirement.
Really, your statement agrees with mine, since you are talking about price. Price point is not the same as value.
Let me illustrate with an example. If the average consumer is shopping for a video card, he/she will first determine what kind of price range to shop in. The key, as I stated, is that it must meet their minimum requirements. In other words, they may decide that they need an SLI- or Crossfire-capable card as a minimum requirement. Then, the consumer looks at the available cards and, assuming no other requirements are there, will choose the lowest-price product. Actually, they will probably choose somewhere between the lowest price and their maximum price. At that point, if two products are the same price, value is compared (number of features per dollar equals value, or "This one does 30.7 fps on BF2142 with 4xAA, but that one does 39.2 fps"). And again, if there is a range of product choices between the lowest price and the consumer's maximum price, feature set will also come into play ("I can buy this basic one for $200, but I can afford up to $300 and there is one for $299 that includes a TV tuner"). This is really a variant of value, however.
In the case of the PS3, it is often simply a matter of price. The average consumer looks at the need, which is a game system, and determines what their requirements are. Good games? Wii - check. Xbox 360 - check. PS3 - check. Which one do you buy? Wii.
Good games AND ability to play hi-def movies? Wii - nope. Xbox 360 - check. PS3 - check. Which one do you buy? Xbox 360.
The only time value comes into play is if the price point for the consumer is $1000. Then they can consider all systems equally, and then value comes into play. Then, I would agree, the PS3 has less value than other systems.
But, getting back to your statement, I would say that the average consumer has a lower price point than what the PS3 is being offered at, or their requirements are already being met by lower-priced products. Thus, value isn't even a factor yet.
Even though what you said has truth in it, the issue not that consumers don't know what they want (or are whiny, or lie).
The issue is that consumers know they don't want to spend money. I can't think of very many people who would refuse a PS3 if it cost $20. I don't think features has anything to do with it, except that consumers aren't looking for features or even good value, they are looking for a low priced item that meets their minimum requirements (however high or low those requirements may be).
However, dollar for dollar, people are more likely to buy a product with more features. If the PS3 were sitting next to the PS2 and they were identically priced, the consumer is more likely to buy the PS3. As a rule (and there are always exceptions), people are spec chasers. But there is a limit to that, and that gets back to the price point of whatever the consumer's minimum requirement is.
I suppose you were being intentionally simplistic, but I think you're missing an important point. To quote the summary:
This is not to say that HL:2 was a bad game - far from it. And there were many fine mods for it, and for the Source Engine in general. But as one poster commented above, certain mods "fix everything that is wrong with BF2." There's an idea at the core of BF2 (the game, not the crappy engine) that grabs many people in a certain way. Not only is the game addictive, despite its faults, but it opens your eyes to new possibilities for gameplay and scenarios that you had always wanted to see materialize.
Something like "This is awesome! Although, I'd love to see it as a scenario-based game with a complex and believable storyline," [Point of Existence] or "I love this game! The only thing that is missing is realistic ballistics and British accents!" [Project Reality]
For the time being. From InformationWeek.com:
See here for more info.
You might be right, but no matter how cheap it becomes to do this in your home, it will always be cheaper to do it on a larger scale.
;)
It may only cost me $0.50 to print a photo on my inkjet printer, but it costs $0.16 to have it done at Walmart. Sure, with one photo, $0.34 is not much of a sacrifice, but apply that over 230 vacation photos for my wife's scrapbooking project...
If you could bring the cost down close enough to mass production, you might have a case. However, then I must come back with the concept of assembly, where you will reasonably only be able to print parts rather than entire complex objects (such a device can only manufacture simple, self-supporting shapes). You have to then assemble them into the whole object that you desire to possess.
Basically, it's like having an IKEA manufacturing plant on your desk.
I'd also add X-Men 2, but that one is pretty close.
Oblig.: "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"
Of course, the Star Trek series of films is a different can of worms.
And yet you seem very against the idea on a personal level.
To quote a previous comment from you:
You seem to be arguing two things: 1) Even though Google can host your email safer than you, you still prefer to maintain that control since you can justify blaming yourself if something goes wrong, and 2) You hope, for some reason, that Web apps fail miserably.
I may be misunderstanding you.
From my perspective, there is room for both. People who want to can run their own servers, and those that prefer to have the work handled by others can do so as well. Those that host their own can blame themselves when they lose their own data, and those that farm out the hosting can blame their provider.
The thing of it is that Web apps are already more successful as the "Net machines" of yore.
The reason they didn't take off are wide and varied, but Web apps have overcome many of those weaknesses, the largest of which is that everyone already has the software installed to make reasonable use of a Web app. So, you have a cross-platform application that requires zero installation on most machines, and not even new hardware. Thin client-friendly, too, although in reference to above, I would say that the market probably will not demand that.
Well, I was with you until you started gushing over Linux. Don't get me wrong, I like Linux too, but I yearn for the day that people don't end a comment about Microsoft with, "Why don't you just run Linux? It's so great!" That may be true, but this is Slashdot - we know that already!
While not exactly like what you are describing, the service that comes to my mind when I read your suggestion is Experts Exchange.
I agree that there is a difference between Yahoo! News and Google News, but I don't agree that it is as disparate as apples and oranges.
IMHO, Apples and oranges would be comparing Google News to Wired Magazine in print. You read them both, but that's where the similarity ends. In this case, we have two major search engines displaying headlines to news stories and providing links to content. They are plenty similar to Joe Public who just looks at the front page to see what's up in the world today. It doesn't matter whose content it is - in the end, I don't think the general public really cares.
I believe the issue is brand association. The bigger the brand, the more likely people are to assume that it writes its own news, makes its own electronics, develops its own games, etc. Perhaps you and I are savvy enough to be aware of where the buck stops, but we aren't Joe Public. To that person, reality is not the same as perception.