Huh? You really think people buy cars (at ages under 30) with the intention of driving them for the rest of their lives?
Pretty much, yeah. I know several people, myself included (and since this was the only form of data given for the question I asked above, it's good enough for an answer to yours) who will buy a car with the intention of running it into the ground. Not with the idea of trading it in after a few years.
The store is taking on risk by purchasing used games for resale. The item won't move off the shelf and get purchased as fast as a new title. It might not turn out to be sellable. Employees have to spend time buying these from customers, inspecting them, pricing them, repackaging/preparing them to be resold, and reselling them. Shelf space in a store is expensive, and the store still needs to make overhead and have a healthy profit.
I'm sorry, but that's entirely bullshit. And it still doesn't justify the obscenely low prices places like GameStop give for used games.
Yes, Microsoft was a monopoly. Stop playing stupid, you knew this to be true.
Remember, Monopoly doesn't mean ONLY ONE, it means you control a very dominating marketshare. You cannot deny that Windows does this.
you'll note that their OS "monopoly" only exists because the government protects and enforces the copyright of their software.
Absolute horseshit. Unless you subscribe to the idea that Joe Schmo should be able to sell a copy of Windows without actually paying Microsoft, which I find completely ridiculous.
C) What if you change systems, buy a second new system, or these systems fail as often as the 360 (hope not)
While I doubt the accuracy of this story as well (or maybe it was just a feeler put out there to see how people would react to such information), I would hope that the games would be tied to an account, much like your XBLA purchases are. Otherwise the idea is purely asinine (it's asinine anyways, but more so).
That, and the availability of downloadable games. Between my GameFly subscription (which usually only brings me older games anyway) and stuff on XBLA, I don't really buy any new games.
There's a HUGE difference between taking someone's idea and running with it (it's partly how we got Minecraft from Infirmer), and taking someone's idea, slapping a new coat of paint on it, and calling it a day. The former should be encouraged, as most innovation happens in incremental steps, while people who do the latter should be demonized and shamed.
And most are likely to go with the one by the people who (understandably) feel cheated.
I highly doubt that. I think most people are going to go with the company they already know and are invested in (I'm fairly certain that most of their games can use a common currency thingy, where your money from FarmVille can go into their other games), Zynga.
That is 100% Congress's fault. Blame them, not Obama. Obama signed the executive order shutting down Guantanamo his first day in office. Congress blocked the transfer of prisoners to the mainland US, and refused to fund any shutdown of the prison there. And despite whatever you may think, yes, it does take quite a bit of money to shut down a large base.
Remember the shitstorm that happened when he was going to bring some of them to the US for trial?
everything he did, Bush would have done the same
Absolutely false. There's also the Credit Card reform act, there was reformation of student loans. There has been huge strides done in education funding. There was the repeal of DADT. There's also the Justice Department no longer defending DOMA.
The only way your statement can be considered true is if you constrain it to a few tiny examples, and ignore everything else.
That's a pretty poor idea, unless they're purely drone-based. Combining an aircraft carrier with a sub would mean that it'd be too small to properly carry a good amount of aircraft, and too big to actually do what submarines are supposed to be doing: Stealthy reconnaissance and strategic positioning while being unseen.
And absolutely nothing says you have to be purely one or the other. The best systems in the world, as determined by what works for the majority of the population, are a mix of both.
No. I do not believe this for a second. Monopolies, and just as bad but far more common duopolies and oligopolies, can easily be formed on their own, especially in industries/markets with high barriers to entry, and especially when the company(ies) in question do not have high scruples. Microsoft became a monopoly without anything you mentioned, unless you feel that Joe Schmo should be able to sell a copy of Windows without actually paying Microsoft, which I find to be completely ridiculous.
If you don't like a product DO NOT BUY IT, if you don't like a company "DO NOT BUY FROM THEM"
Ok. And how's that going for those that don't buy gasoline? How about those that didn't take risky mortgages?
Face it, regulation is needed simply because no one or no company exists in a vacuum. I'm sure there were several fishermen in Louisiana who didn't like BP. How did "DON'T BUY FROM THEM!" protect them from the oil spill?
Yes, this is important. Remember, anything that any "Activist Judges" (read: Judges who's rulings I disagree with) isn't actually Constitutional. So Abortion is not Constitutional, neither is interracial marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? You really think people buy cars (at ages under 30) with the intention of driving them for the rest of their lives?
Pretty much, yeah. I know several people, myself included (and since this was the only form of data given for the question I asked above, it's good enough for an answer to yours) who will buy a car with the intention of running it into the ground. Not with the idea of trading it in after a few years.
The store is taking on risk by purchasing used games for resale. The item won't move off the shelf and get purchased as fast as a new title. It might not turn out to be sellable. Employees have to spend time buying these from customers, inspecting them, pricing them, repackaging/preparing them to be resold, and reselling them.
Shelf space in a store is expensive, and the store still needs to make overhead and have a healthy profit.
I'm sorry, but that's entirely bullshit. And it still doesn't justify the obscenely low prices places like GameStop give for used games.
Those are anecdotes. Not data.
Wow, that is incredibly retarded.
If it's so true, then you should be able to produce numbers.
Besides, cars are vastly different than games.
Yes, Microsoft was a monopoly. Stop playing stupid, you knew this to be true.
Remember, Monopoly doesn't mean ONLY ONE, it means you control a very dominating marketshare. You cannot deny that Windows does this.
you'll note that their OS "monopoly" only exists because the government protects and enforces the copyright of their software.
Absolute horseshit. Unless you subscribe to the idea that Joe Schmo should be able to sell a copy of Windows without actually paying Microsoft, which I find completely ridiculous.
C) What if you change systems, buy a second new system, or these systems fail as often as the 360 (hope not)
While I doubt the accuracy of this story as well (or maybe it was just a feeler put out there to see how people would react to such information), I would hope that the games would be tied to an account, much like your XBLA purchases are. Otherwise the idea is purely asinine (it's asinine anyways, but more so).
I would like to see numbers on how true this is. I don't think a lot of people buy games with the intent of trading it in later.
That, and the availability of downloadable games. Between my GameFly subscription (which usually only brings me older games anyway) and stuff on XBLA, I don't really buy any new games.
And in the society you seem to prefer, those who are rewarded are those who can lie, cheat, and steal the best.
There's a HUGE difference between taking someone's idea and running with it (it's partly how we got Minecraft from Infirmer), and taking someone's idea, slapping a new coat of paint on it, and calling it a day. The former should be encouraged, as most innovation happens in incremental steps, while people who do the latter should be demonized and shamed.
And most are likely to go with the one by the people who (understandably) feel cheated.
I highly doubt that. I think most people are going to go with the company they already know and are invested in (I'm fairly certain that most of their games can use a common currency thingy, where your money from FarmVille can go into their other games), Zynga.
Buyer's remorse.
Unless you can give a citation for Microsoft paying Xerox for access to that technology, like Apple did, then that line is full of shit.
Guantanamo is still open.
That is 100% Congress's fault. Blame them, not Obama. Obama signed the executive order shutting down Guantanamo his first day in office. Congress blocked the transfer of prisoners to the mainland US, and refused to fund any shutdown of the prison there. And despite whatever you may think, yes, it does take quite a bit of money to shut down a large base.
Remember the shitstorm that happened when he was going to bring some of them to the US for trial?
everything he did, Bush would have done the same
Absolutely false. There's also the Credit Card reform act, there was reformation of student loans. There has been huge strides done in education funding. There was the repeal of DADT. There's also the Justice Department no longer defending DOMA.
The only way your statement can be considered true is if you constrain it to a few tiny examples, and ignore everything else.
No, it speaks quite well, actually.
Well, partially because those that pushed that idea, including Reagan, did absolutely nothing to try and cut back on spending.
That's a pretty poor idea, unless they're purely drone-based. Combining an aircraft carrier with a sub would mean that it'd be too small to properly carry a good amount of aircraft, and too big to actually do what submarines are supposed to be doing: Stealthy reconnaissance and strategic positioning while being unseen.
Bullshit. The media talks about Ron Paul all the time, mainly because people like you keep bitching that he's not getting coverage.
They haven't been talking about him recently because he did extremely shitty in South Carolina, and isn't projected to do well at all in Florida.
Which is sad. Imagine what could be done if NASA was a significant part of the budget.
And absolutely nothing says you have to be purely one or the other. The best systems in the world, as determined by what works for the majority of the population, are a mix of both.
No. I do not believe this for a second. Monopolies, and just as bad but far more common duopolies and oligopolies, can easily be formed on their own, especially in industries/markets with high barriers to entry, and especially when the company(ies) in question do not have high scruples. Microsoft became a monopoly without anything you mentioned, unless you feel that Joe Schmo should be able to sell a copy of Windows without actually paying Microsoft, which I find to be completely ridiculous.
If you don't like a product DO NOT BUY IT, if you don't like a company "DO NOT BUY FROM THEM"
Ok. And how's that going for those that don't buy gasoline? How about those that didn't take risky mortgages?
Face it, regulation is needed simply because no one or no company exists in a vacuum. I'm sure there were several fishermen in Louisiana who didn't like BP. How did "DON'T BUY FROM THEM!" protect them from the oil spill?
Yes, this is important. Remember, anything that any "Activist Judges" (read: Judges who's rulings I disagree with) isn't actually Constitutional. So Abortion is not Constitutional, neither is interracial marriage.
Well... here is a dumb response: "Part of what makes it perfect is it's ability to be amended."