Suppa7 wrote on Mar 4, 2013, 14:15:
The problem is that there are too many stupid fucks throwing money at these shitty scams like microtransactions. Less then 10% of gamers spend money on microtransactions. So the most stupid 10% end up fucking up gaming even more for the intelligent. The worst is fucking call of duty morons signing up for COD elite. Or console fags paying for xbox live. It started a long time ago with MMO's like Ultima online and Everquest and slowly moved to shit like horse armor and DLC. With finally F2P, P2P and microtransactions all in the same fucking game.

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 4, 2013, 10:13:

Verno wrote on Mar 4, 2013, 09:13:
If you don't see any value in a social mechanism for staying connected then *shrug*. People seem to think Facebook and your real life social circles are mutually exclusive and I find them to be highly complementary.

I guess I just don't see FB as social. To me social is face to face communication with phone calls as a secondary method. I mean I communicate with coworkers via email everyday, and yet we still have miscommunications sometimes. So, imagine how hard it is to communicate more complicated emotional topics via texting, wall posts, and emails when you only do it occasionally. Maybe I'm an idiot or emotionally stunted, but I just don't get it.

Verno wrote on Mar 4, 2013, 09:20:
I don't know, I went from a Samsung AMOLED to an LCD in the Nexus 4 and it's pretty much been a visual upgrade in every way except contrast ratio. In direct sunlight it's a bit annoying but that rarely happens so *shrug*.

Sepharo wrote on Mar 3, 2013, 22:28:
I don't see why it has to be the next best thing or the thing on the way out.

It is what you make of it. It's kept me in contact with friends and family for the past 8 years. I'd prefer they use G+ but they don't. I'm not a big fan of talking on the phone, email and letters feel too formal, if I want to share or chat with my social network I do it through a service designed for that. Planning events, study groups, donations, whatever... It's very easy and convenient to do there.

I get together in person with my close friends all the time, visit relatives and others across the country when I'm able, social networks are just an addition and enhancement of that.

Buncha stodgy old people and/or asocials in here.

Creston wrote on Mar 2, 2013, 19:57:

Beamer wrote on Mar 2, 2013, 14:28:
While it's possible to have a division lose money on paper, it is impossible to have an entire publicly held organization do so. Simply put, EA cannot cook the books without someone going to jail, or more likely, mysteriously dying before going to jail like with Enron and Worldcom.

They are not "cooking the books." These are completely legal loopholes that they are exploiting. I am not saying EA is like Enron and is literally stealing money. They are simply reporting things in a legally acceptable way so that they do not appear to be making a profit.

The idea that corporations can't do this anymore would make every CPA in the country laugh. It sure my brother-in-law laugh when I asked him about it, and he's in charge of his accounting firm.

Creston

Dev wrote on Mar 2, 2013, 14:35:
I agree with your overall point, but a minor nitpick, the music industry also does hollywood type accounting.

Quboid wrote on Mar 2, 2013, 10:38:
That does demonstrate a problem: just because the AK (I'm assuming fully-automatic) was illegal didn't stop him from getting one. I believe it does decrease the number and stricter gun control would make getting this power even more difficult but it won't remove fully-automatic weapons entirely, never mind whatever semi-automatics get banned.

TurdFergasun wrote on Mar 1, 2013, 16:35:

Cutter wrote on Mar 1, 2013, 10:51:
Not really, Blue. It's not like she or we don't have a choice. I've walked from jobs and told my employers to go fuck themselves for a lot less. Not like she wouldn't find work in a heartbeat anywhere else, or they'd even cancel the Big Bang. She should have told them to 'Suck it Trebek!'

So being strong armed by your employer for having an opinion and the actor/actress capitulating is the actor/actress' fault and not corporate bullshit? really?

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 1, 2013, 13:56:

I am not for outright bans because we're protected under the 2nd amendment with the right to bare arms and that right is not to be infringed upon.

Creston wrote on Mar 1, 2013, 11:52:

The NPD research would never be used by Nate Silver, because it has WAY too many mysteries in it to ever be considered useful data.

I thought about that when I wrote it, but if there really was a massive influx of buyers in the non-core segment, NPD would have used it. After all, they're trying to make it look impressive. The fact that they focus so exclusively on the core segment tells me that that the non-core segment had a lot fewer buyers in it. But okay, hell, double the number then. That's still not a terribly impressive amount.

Yeah, I forgot to type the at launch part. Undoubtedly more people will buy it over its lifespan, but taken at face value, there's not a lot of interest for consoles at launch, which could massively hinder its adoption rate and the amount of games they will have available. And again, that's merely saying they are trying to hype the numbers with their misleading title, not me saying there is actually a micron of worth in this "survey."

No, the reason this survey is worthless is because there are too many ambiguities in it. Data can only be used if it's accurate, and there is no accuracy in this data. By including people starting at age 9, they are creating a unknown % of people who can SAY that they intend to buy the console, but in fact are in no way in control over said decision. How many people in their 6322 are between the ages of 9 and 16, and thus likely don't have that kind of money lying around? Unknown. Ergo, Latin, this research is flawed.

Also, by allowing gamers to label themselves "core", without giving any kind of definition of what said title means in the context of their survey, their use of "29% of CORE GAMERS say they will buy the console at launch" becomes meaningless noise / hype.

Like I said, there's little value to be had in the whole thing. And you keep bleating "NATE SILVER!!!" as if that somehow validates every single survey ever taken. Email Nate Silver and ask him if he'd use baseball data in which all we have are number of hits and number of at-bats for an entire team, and we have a self-proclaimed number of "power hitters", and to take that data and extrapolate really ANY kind of meaning from it. If you're lucky, he might reply with "lol."

Core Gamers: Very engaged across all systems, especially consoles. Higher use of Xbox 360 and PS3 than all other segments. Most time spent gaming overall (15 hrs/wk). High likelihood to acquire/purchase games. While digital game purchasing is average, most likely to purchase microtransactions/ additional content.

Digital Gamers: Engaged in a variety of gaming, from PC to mobile, console to portable, online and offline. Their focus is on digital acquisition. Heaviest game acquirers of all segments. Also highest number of digital games and apps acquired. More so than others, they like the immediate access that digital provides.

Mobile Gamers: Segment is defined mainly by use of mobile devices (phones and other) for gaming. Particular emphasis on i-devices. Time spent gaming on mobile devices is almost half of total gaming time. Highest percentage of Free Digital games though paid digital acquisition is on par with the average gamer.

Family + Kid: Segment with a high incidence of “kid system” use – e.g., Leapfrog Leapster, etc. Both game acquisition and number of games personally purchased are below average and $’s spent on digital games is lower than total gamers.

Avid PC Gamers: Heavy PC gaming focus, especially online. PC/casual game play driven by females/age 35+; Non-casual game play driven by males/under age 35. Below average for physical and paid digital game acquisitions and average for free digital acquisitions, but they do purchase/acquire games, both digital and physical, as well as microtransactions.

Light PC Gamers: Also focused on PC gaming, but not nearly to the extent as Avid PC Gamers. Their primary, and for the most part only, genre preference is casual games (card, puzzle, word, etc.) The vast majority prefer free games. Low purchase likelihood overall, regardless of content type.

Bodolza wrote on Mar 1, 2013, 12:52:
I've known a few struggling actors. The entertainment industry doesn't work that way. She's middle age by TV standards. When BBT goes off the air, she might never see another major TV role again. She's also making over $7 mill a year. That's a lot of incentive to toe the line.

Creston wrote on Mar 1, 2013, 11:17:
The NPD thing sounds really interesting, but it's statistical noise hidden behind a flashy title.

29% of 887 self-qualified "core" gamers will buy a console. Out of a polled group of 6322.

So if you ignore the "core gamer" bullshit, they're saying that 257 people out of 6322 said they would buy a new console. I'm sure those are numbers that make Sony and Microsoft very excited.

I also like how their polled group started at age 9. So how many of these 6322 said they would buy a new console, when in fact said decision lies with the people who actually have money, ie the parents?

This is completely worthless research. Thanks, NPD!

Creston

Jivaro wrote on Mar 1, 2013, 11:05:

Verno wrote on Mar 1, 2013, 10:29:
Those NPD numbers seem like pure horseshit. The sweet spot is $299 for core gamers and that's usually at least 2 years after launch.

Yep. I mean how valid is a survey when you let the participants define themselves? They found a bunch of people who consider themselves "core" gamers? What does that even mean? I have a dozen friends that would say they are "core" gamers that don't own a PC for gaming and use their console as little as once a week. But hey, they game and have been doing so for a long time so "core" right? Give me a break. A subjective and silly title used as the basis for a survey that is supposed to actually be taken seriously by anyone. I don't think so.

The retailers have numbers from previous release years that can be cross referenced with various factors like launch window, unemployment rate, competitor releases, marketing expenditures, etc. Because most of them track purchases by individual customers they could even define statistically what a "core" gamer is and use hard numbers to base a prediction off of. Gamestop could do that easily using the ProMember database. I would find those types of predictions much more interesting and much more likely to be at least in spitting distance of the real life results. I would assume that anyone who actually has a financial interest in these types of predictions would find them far more interesting as well.