Oh please! Has everyone including you forgotten that when valve as an experiment lowered the price of L4D to $2 their PROFITS on that game went up by 1700%?
OK, I'm gonna call BS on that right there. Considering that the marketing budget for L4D was $10 million, and L4D sold 2.5 million copies, at $2 per sale, they couldn't have even covered marketing let alone actually producing the game. Additionally, it counters what valve themselves had said. The cheapest it's ever been on steam was $6.80 not the $2 you claim -- 2 years after initial release, and the numbers weren't all that great. Additionally, 3 million copies were sold at retail, and an additional 3 million were sold for the 360. Total for the entire franchise was 11 million, leaving 5 million for the super bargain basement price deal PLUS L4D2 and DLCs. Even if not a single person bought any DLC or L4D2, it is mathematically impossible for your $6.80 sale to have even gotten close to the revenues made from retail.
Additionally, the only hit google has for L4D $2 profit, is YOU on another thread, so not only is this BS, but BS that you personally started in another thread. Good job, troll elsewhere.
I hate to say it Matt, but that has been tried, and every few years a company will try and they always get burned. The vast majority of people who pirate would pirate a game if it was $60 or $6. The only way they would not pirate it is if it magically appeared on their computer for free.
There are some pirates who would switch to paying if the game was priced at $40 instead of $60, but not even remotely close enough to cover the loss of 33% of the honest people.
Yes, that's the reason I haven't bought Mass Effect 3 yet. I refuse to install Origin on any of my computers. My son is doing the same. Shame, because we are both Mass Effect fans.
Nope, no released version of flash player supports WebM (Latest is version 11, released Nov 2011). Even if one was released today, how long would it be before that version was available on most platforms, and then how long before it was pervasive?
You may lose one tool, but cinematography will adapt. There are tons of people who complained about how adding sound to movies would ruin things, and then later adding color, and then going digital. None of those things ruined movies. Things adapted. New techniques were created. The same things will happen with 3d.
I was disappointed they didn't mention Alternate Reality. It was definitely ground break breaking technology in that game and it had so much potential if the series wasn't killed off.
I already bought one, although if it had an app store, I would buy another one immediately. I wish it also had Amazon Prime, and Hulu support, but that's obviously out of the question.
Lol, yes. Just take their laptop/desktop that set to run 1920x1080 and set it to run at 1027x768 and tell them it's ok, there's really no perceivable difference and watch them start crying.
People who say there is no difference typically are comparing their 720p set to the cheapest 1080i (notice the i) set they can find. I think most people would have no problem picking out a 720p vs 1080p screen sitting side by side -- given they are of similar quality.
Well I complained, but to be fair, it was more about the 2nd Gen not being able to play 1080p encoded.m4vs than it was about outputting in 1080p. I don't like to have to have a different encoded video for each device. I'd prefer to have one single version - 1080p with 7.1 DTS-HD, and let each device play it as best it can. The 2nd Gen would choke on most 1080p videos, and those it wouldn't were lower-bit rate than I'd prefer. It also took a long time to "buffer" enough to start playing, and the fast forward/skip was painfully slow (fast forward at 1.1x was about all you'd get while maintaining any picture any more and the bar would move with no picture at all). The skip, where you hit the down button, and you get pictures of the movie for each chapter taking like 15-30 seconds was annoying as hell.
Well except for people like me... I take the train home from work. I'm watching a movie on my iPhone, and it's all over.. all except for the last 15-20 minutes of it. So I get off the train, put on my headphones so I can listen to music from my iPhone/Pandora while walking to my car. When I get to my car, I take off my head phones half way through a song I like, plug in my iPhone to my car stereo, and listen to it on my way home through my car stereo (Kenwood KDC-BY948HD btw). When I get home, I pull into the driveway. Half way through another song, I unplug my iPhone, hit the airplay button and switch the output to my Pioneer VSX-1121 receiver, and now that song picks up exactly where it was only now it's playing in my house. I make make dinner, then sit down in the living room to eat it. I hit the video button, select the movie I was watching on the train, hit airplay, and select "Living Room Apple TV", the receiver stops playing music and the TV starts playing the last 15-20 minutes of the movie I was watching on the train in 7.2 surround sound. If/when that movie is over, I pick another one using the Apple TV remote to stream one directly from my PC in the office.
Could I do that with a laptop/another vendors tablet? Perhaps, I could come up with some bastardization of hardware/software combo that would come close, but nothing I've ever seen comes even close to the simplicity and ease of use, nor one that has a half way decent UI. The Apple TV UI is the best I've seen for a DNLA type player, and I've looked at quite a few.
Actually, since the continents of North America and South America as a combined group is called the Americas, an "American" would be anyone from those continents, not just the US.
The concept of loans is not difficult. All mortgages are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a truth-in-lending sheet given to an applicant, and in my state, it's required that it be given 24 hours before the actual agreement can be signed. Even after that, you have 5 days (I've heard 7, but I think it's 5, maybe 5 business days?) to back out of it. I've read every page of every contract I've ever signed, usually twice.
Hardly. If the standard bandwidth for the first 1/4th of the month allows you to download 3GB, but after that point you're throttled to 1/10th the standard speed, you can only d/l an additional ~0.9GB. No amount of waiting will grant you d/ling 4GB in a month. And it's not like the discussion is merely about granting a "fairer", higher priority to other users who have used less bandwidth because that would at least hypothetically grant you the possibility of d/ling even up to ~12GB/month if there's few enough other users sharing the bandwidth. Throttling, after all, is a different beast than simply QoS or other prioritizing.
Well, not exactly. Your bandwidth has never changed. You receive a packet at the same speed you always did. So your bandwidth is always the same. However, your throughput has been reduces as the packets are transmitted to you at a slower rate, but at the same speed. In slashdot-ese, it's like a highway. The cars can always travel at 55 MPH (bandwidth), but they only allow cars to enter the highway at a slower rate (throughput). It is technically, unlimited bandwidth (within the law/physical law). They aren't doing anything to artificially limit it.
I agree, if FF would only use 400MB of RAM, that'd be great, but quite often, it's sucking down 2.5GB of RAM on my office machine that only has 4GB. It also has this problem where it's freezing every 10-15 seconds for a second or two which is extremely annoying. So much that some in my office have dropped it in favor of Chrome recently.
Let's also add in the problem where Firefox's autoupdate code also fails miserably, requiring many to uninstall, download a new version for the web, and manually install.
If chrome had firebug, I'd switch in a heartbeat as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, didn't recognize it by it's dutch name.
2 - TomTom and Shell, and shell is just a subsidiary of a british company. Did you really want to compare large companies to the US?
Oh please! Has everyone including you forgotten that when valve as an experiment lowered the price of L4D to $2 their PROFITS on that game went up by 1700%?
OK, I'm gonna call BS on that right there. Considering that the marketing budget for L4D was $10 million, and L4D sold 2.5 million copies, at $2 per sale, they couldn't have even covered marketing let alone actually producing the game. Additionally, it counters what valve themselves had said. The cheapest it's ever been on steam was $6.80 not the $2 you claim -- 2 years after initial release, and the numbers weren't all that great. Additionally, 3 million copies were sold at retail, and an additional 3 million were sold for the 360. Total for the entire franchise was 11 million, leaving 5 million for the super bargain basement price deal PLUS L4D2 and DLCs. Even if not a single person bought any DLC or L4D2, it is mathematically impossible for your $6.80 sale to have even gotten close to the revenues made from retail.
http://store.steampowered.com/news/2552/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_4_Dead
http://www.l4d.com/blog/
Additionally, the only hit google has for L4D $2 profit, is YOU on another thread, so not only is this BS, but BS that you personally started in another thread. Good job, troll elsewhere.
I hate to say it Matt, but that has been tried, and every few years a company will try and they always get burned. The vast majority of people who pirate would pirate a game if it was $60 or $6. The only way they would not pirate it is if it magically appeared on their computer for free.
There are some pirates who would switch to paying if the game was priced at $40 instead of $60, but not even remotely close enough to cover the loss of 33% of the honest people.
I suppose you also sneak into theaters since you can't really watch the movie first to see if you are going to like it?
There are previews, and reviews of both all over the internets.
Yes, that's the reason I haven't bought Mass Effect 3 yet. I refuse to install Origin on any of my computers. My son is doing the same. Shame, because we are both Mass Effect fans.
Skype has NO solutions for making HD (1080p) calls using WebM at all. None, as in not a single one at all.
Nope, no released version of flash player supports WebM (Latest is version 11, released Nov 2011). Even if one was released today, how long would it be before that version was available on most platforms, and then how long before it was pervasive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/release-notes-flash-player-11.html
You may lose one tool, but cinematography will adapt. There are tons of people who complained about how adding sound to movies would ruin things, and then later adding color, and then going digital. None of those things ruined movies. Things adapted. New techniques were created. The same things will happen with 3d.
I was disappointed they didn't mention Alternate Reality. It was definitely ground break breaking technology in that game and it had so much potential if the series wasn't killed off.
Yes, it plays from the USB port that's on any computer on my network, or my wireless router.
I already bought one, although if it had an app store, I would buy another one immediately. I wish it also had Amazon Prime, and Hulu support, but that's obviously out of the question.
That was supposed to be 1024x768, although since that's a 4:3 resolution, 1280x720 would be a better choice if their video card supports it.
Lol, yes. Just take their laptop/desktop that set to run 1920x1080 and set it to run at 1027x768 and tell them it's ok, there's really no perceivable difference and watch them start crying.
People who say there is no difference typically are comparing their 720p set to the cheapest 1080i (notice the i) set they can find. I think most people would have no problem picking out a 720p vs 1080p screen sitting side by side -- given they are of similar quality.
Well I complained, but to be fair, it was more about the 2nd Gen not being able to play 1080p encoded .m4vs than it was about outputting in 1080p. I don't like to have to have a different encoded video for each device. I'd prefer to have one single version - 1080p with 7.1 DTS-HD, and let each device play it as best it can. The 2nd Gen would choke on most 1080p videos, and those it wouldn't were lower-bit rate than I'd prefer. It also took a long time to "buffer" enough to start playing, and the fast forward/skip was painfully slow (fast forward at 1.1x was about all you'd get while maintaining any picture any more and the bar would move with no picture at all). The skip, where you hit the down button, and you get pictures of the movie for each chapter taking like 15-30 seconds was annoying as hell.
Disclaimer: I have a 3rd Gen on pre-order.
Yes, it's on the back of any PC on your network.
Well except for people like me... I take the train home from work. I'm watching a movie on my iPhone, and it's all over.. all except for the last 15-20 minutes of it. So I get off the train, put on my headphones so I can listen to music from my iPhone/Pandora while walking to my car. When I get to my car, I take off my head phones half way through a song I like, plug in my iPhone to my car stereo, and listen to it on my way home through my car stereo (Kenwood KDC-BY948HD btw). When I get home, I pull into the driveway. Half way through another song, I unplug my iPhone, hit the airplay button and switch the output to my Pioneer VSX-1121 receiver, and now that song picks up exactly where it was only now it's playing in my house. I make make dinner, then sit down in the living room to eat it. I hit the video button, select the movie I was watching on the train, hit airplay, and select "Living Room Apple TV", the receiver stops playing music and the TV starts playing the last 15-20 minutes of the movie I was watching on the train in 7.2 surround sound. If/when that movie is over, I pick another one using the Apple TV remote to stream one directly from my PC in the office.
Could I do that with a laptop/another vendors tablet? Perhaps, I could come up with some bastardization of hardware/software combo that would come close, but nothing I've ever seen comes even close to the simplicity and ease of use, nor one that has a half way decent UI. The Apple TV UI is the best I've seen for a DNLA type player, and I've looked at quite a few.
That was pretty good until you used Apple as an example, because, well... They got sued.
Actually, since the continents of North America and South America as a combined group is called the Americas, an "American" would be anyone from those continents, not just the US.
The concept of loans is not difficult. All mortgages are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a truth-in-lending sheet given to an applicant, and in my state, it's required that it be given 24 hours before the actual agreement can be signed. Even after that, you have 5 days (I've heard 7, but I think it's 5, maybe 5 business days?) to back out of it. I've read every page of every contract I've ever signed, usually twice.
Hardly. If the standard bandwidth for the first 1/4th of the month allows you to download 3GB, but after that point you're throttled to 1/10th the standard speed, you can only d/l an additional ~0.9GB. No amount of waiting will grant you d/ling 4GB in a month. And it's not like the discussion is merely about granting a "fairer", higher priority to other users who have used less bandwidth because that would at least hypothetically grant you the possibility of d/ling even up to ~12GB/month if there's few enough other users sharing the bandwidth. Throttling, after all, is a different beast than simply QoS or other prioritizing.
Well, not exactly. Your bandwidth has never changed. You receive a packet at the same speed you always did. So your bandwidth is always the same. However, your throughput has been reduces as the packets are transmitted to you at a slower rate, but at the same speed. In slashdot-ese, it's like a highway. The cars can always travel at 55 MPH (bandwidth), but they only allow cars to enter the highway at a slower rate (throughput). It is technically, unlimited bandwidth (within the law/physical law). They aren't doing anything to artificially limit it.
I agree, if FF would only use 400MB of RAM, that'd be great, but quite often, it's sucking down 2.5GB of RAM on my office machine that only has 4GB. It also has this problem where it's freezing every 10-15 seconds for a second or two which is extremely annoying. So much that some in my office have dropped it in favor of Chrome recently.
Let's also add in the problem where Firefox's autoupdate code also fails miserably, requiring many to uninstall, download a new version for the web, and manually install.
If chrome had firebug, I'd switch in a heartbeat as well.
If by small percentage, you mean 98%, then yes, it's a small percentage.
We who? Because the second paragraph has nothing to do with copyrights.