Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Fang

Real Name Fang   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname Fang
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Homepage None given.
Signed On Jul 19, 2000, 18:39
Total Comments 1080 (Pro)
User ID 6315
User comment history
< Newer [ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ] Older >

News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
8. Re: Yahoo Music May 12, 2005, 14:56 Fang
Why buy and have a right to posess and control something when you can endlessly pay to license it under someone else's terms.

Like I said, for $5 a month, I would view it as a subscription to satellite radio, not licensing the individual music.

Also, there is a price point where you will pay to "license it forever". Which would you rather do, pay $1 to buy the track, or pay $0.005 per year for as long as you want to listen to the song? 100 years * $0.005 = $0.50 total cost, nevermind the depreciated cost. Just an example to show you that everyone has a price.

And I'm saying that $5 a month is approaching my price point, for the number of songs I would want vs long term cost.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
1. Yahoo Music May 12, 2005, 10:57 Fang
Hrmm, I never thought I would rent music either (just didn't sound appealing) but at $5 a month, that sure sounds tempting. You can think of it like having satellite radio for music, except with more control over your song list.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
7. Re: Real ID May 11, 2005, 17:24 Fang
100% of every single voter's vote in the country, vs. 100% of 100 representatives' vote. Hrrmm, you tell me which is more plausible.

What's really amazing is that you had all 100 of them present, instead of at least one on travel.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Consolidation
7. Re: No subject May 9, 2005, 14:05 Fang
He's not arguing for parental guidance, or how this game will be bad for the children. He's saying that this game is in poor taste.

Is it okay to wonder if its possible to cross a line in taste? Is there any argument for self-constraint?

He's just stating his opinion that Rockstar Games has crossed that line. If the majority of the people out there agree with him, then they just won't buy the game.

This should not be taken as an endorsement from me on either side of the issue, I'm just trying to help clarify the discussion for those that seem to be missing the point.

This comment was edited on May 9, 14:07.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Out of the Blue
35. Re: No subject May 6, 2005, 23:46 Fang
Who's presenting evolution as atheistic? The texts I've read on it haven't. I can make an arguement for it being atheistic, but I can also make one against it. The problem is that ID doesn't do that -- it perverts science and refutes basic scientific underpinnings of hypothesis and proof.

I think we probably have a different understanding of what constitutes ID. I'm defining theistic evolution to be the crux of this ID argument. And then the question becomes do things happen solely because of random accidents are is there a higher power behind things? That becomes a philosophical question. If a guy suddenly has his cancered cured, was it random chance that a particular piece of cosmic radiation happened to come in and wipe out offending cells, or was there divine providence behind it? You can make an argument in either direction of the "cause", but the science behind it (ie this is how radiation will kill a cancerous set of cells) is there for us to know. In the same way, evolution can be there for us to know, but the crux of the argument is whether or not its being pushed that its all random chance and there is no God, or if there is a divine providence behind it.

I think to advance science, we need to let go of the athiestic argument that its all random chance when this concept really just goes to one's philosophy.

Uh, but the Big Bang theory isn't accepted by most of these people. It's contrary to a literal interpretation of the Bible and thus could not have occurred. This is what we're up against -- not against reasonable people who see that evolution does not exclude the existence of God.

Actually, all the old-earth creationists accept the Big Bang theory, its the young-earth ones who don't (and have a serious problem understanding the whole space-time concept).

Also, its precisely this attitude that prevents the scientific community from realizing that this is an opportunity for helping the public come to grips with this concept that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create. They don't want to let go of it as their argument against God, when all that does is serve their philosophy, not their science.
This comment was edited on May 6, 23:52.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Out of the Blue
31. Re: No subject May 6, 2005, 21:29 Fang
I'm speachless at this article. There are so many arugments and thoughts that i'd love to say to these bible bashing creationists but i just would not be able to form correctly due to intense anger.

Maybe your anger is not allowing you to think clearly. Just keep that in mind. When your emotions run that high, its possible that its effecting your ability to judge properly.

I think that the science community is missing a golden opportunity here due to being afraid of the big, bad, scary Christians.

Sure, you have the scientifically-challenged creationists (especially of the young-earth bent), and I understand that its the science community's fear that these ID'ers are these scientifically challenged creationists in sheep clothing. But are they plugging their ears and missing an opportunity to advance science?

While yes, there are young-earth creationists out there that don't understand what "scientific theory" is, but the intelligent design debate is different.

It seems to me that the ID'ers aren't debating whether or not evolution is true, but whether or not evolution must be presented strictly as atheistic. Instead they are saying that agnostic evolution should be presented, as in, science does not say whether or not there is a God or if he/she used evolution to create life (hence the question of intelligent design). Instead of the letting atheists continue to use evolution as a hammer to say there is no God and He had no hand in creating us. In the end, science is not able to answer questions about God.

In the same way that the Big Bang theory has been accepted, but still leaves open the question about its cause, so too can evolution be accepted among the Christians. But like Malakai, too many are blinded by their own righteous indignation to see the opportunity to get Christians to accept evolution.

And before you write a long rebuttal trying to debate the existance of God, that's my point. This debate doesn't belong in science.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > On ASE Bugs
5. Re: YAHOOOooooOO!? May 5, 2005, 16:39 Fang
Hey fellow CE clanmate.

I still use this program a great deal. A few issues have cropped up recently with it, but its nothing that I can't work around.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
1. Firefox Development Annoyances Apr 20, 2005, 18:06 Fang
I only counted 3 items on that top eleven list of Firefox Browser Annoyances that I would actually considered browser annoyances. The rest are complaints on how the product is released, bundled, named, etc.

Maybe overall package annoyances, but not really annoyances with the browser.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > GameStop Buys Electronics Boutique
32. Re: No subject Apr 18, 2005, 16:04 Fang
It's never good when there is less competition in the marketplace. Initially companies like lower prices to show that people's fears of higher prices are unfounded but after an initial grace period there is less price competition and in the long run consolidations like this are always detrimental to the consumer.

It's never a good idea to use absolutes like "never" when discussing economics.

There are actually plenty of times when less competition is good for the marketplace. If a reduction in competition allows the remaining competition to increase their production (ie. produce goods at a lower price, for a historical example, the farm industry in the US, which also freed more workers to produce other goods).

The original claim was that there is no such thing as too much competition. That's not exactly true.

Of course, whether or not this holds for this particular case isn't addressed. However, others have pointed out that this isn't cornering the marketplace in buying and selling new games. The competition is still fierce with BestBuy, Walmart and Target (for B&M operations, nm about the online ones). Buying and selling used games is another story, the consumer was already in a bad situation, and this reduction probably won't make it any worse.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > GameStop Buys Electronics Boutique
29. Re: No subject Apr 18, 2005, 15:20 Fang
What's wrong with giving blood? It's important to donate. See your local Red Cross for more information.

Plus, you usually get a free cookie.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Out of the Blue
18. Re: No subject Apr 18, 2005, 03:02 Fang
No comment...

Okay okay, here's a comment. Maybe while likable, as was Temple of Doom (though not by me, but by others), I wouldn't characterize T3 as a great movie, like the other 2 in it's series. The same could be said for Temple of Doom.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Out of the Blue
16. Re: No subject Apr 18, 2005, 01:31 Fang
That listing is for action and adventure. Note that Terminator 3 is on the list, along with Spy Kids 2.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Evening Consolidation
5. Re: Half Life 2 Xbox Apr 13, 2005, 08:46 Fang
You know the Xbox has a mouse/keyboard converter, so you don't have to use a pad.

Personally, I never buy a console game at $50. Wait a few months and they always drop to $20. You just have to resist the marketing for awhile.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Evening Consolidation
3. Re: Half Life 2 Xbox Apr 13, 2005, 03:17 Fang
Do it, Bucky, you know you want to.

Also, its a great way to get non-gaming friends into gaming.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
3. Re: No AO demand? Apr 11, 2005, 17:49 Fang
They really should match the two rating systems. This will help the public understand that R rated games are not meant for children. Calling them M rated games, just confuses the politicians.

While the ESRB may complain that its a different medium, thus requiring different names for the rating catogory, I think they are just more concerned with protecting their turf, instead of trying to serve the public the best.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > HL2 DM Maps & Aftermath Details Soon
21. Re: No subject Apr 9, 2005, 23:08 Fang
They still make debit only cards? You just can't get a debit credit card?

Or are you refusing to get a debit card that has the Mastercard symbol on it out of principle because you like limiting your options?

Sorry, I'm just seeking some clarification.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > HL2 DM Maps & Aftermath Details Soon
7. Re: Episodic Content Apr 9, 2005, 00:53 Fang
Right, and if you pay 1/10 of the cost of a normal game ($5), you lost what?

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Evening Consolidation
5. Re: Price Increases Apr 8, 2005, 17:57 Fang
You are thinking of how things were back in the computer shareware days. You're just describing the standard shareware purchase plan, albeit with smaller purchases.

We're talking about consoles. The audience is marketedly different.

Plus, there were plenty of shareware computer games that were flops, just as there are plenty of computer game flops today. The problem has to do with the execution, not with the pricing business plan.

And execution has a lot to do with marketing and ease of delivery. It's something that Xbox Live can be used to make happen successfully, and is actually something that Microsoft has mentioned that they were thinking about trying to do.

So the question is can an episodic pricing plan work for a delivery system like Xbox Live, with the marketing strength of Microsoft? Saying that it didn't work for shareware developers in their garage 10-15 years ago may not be that relevant.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Evening Consolidation
3. Re: Price Increases Apr 8, 2005, 16:18 Fang
I'm not happy that games will become more expensive for consoles, but quite frankly, I fail to see how we can avoid it. It will lead to me simply buying fewer games.

But that's precisely the point, raise the price, lower your sales and lower your total revenue.

Here's a potential example of the supply and demand curve: Let's say you need to bring in $3.5 million to break even on your game. Let's say you will sell 50,000 units at the $59.99 price point. And let's say that 200,000 people will buy your game if it is priced at $29.99.

Your last game, you needed $3 million brought in from retail sales to break even. And you sold 65,000 at $49.99 to bring in $3.25 million. But higher development costs for your next game makes you think you need to raise your prices.

So what do you do? Raise your price point to $59.99 and bring in $3 million in sales and declare bankruptcy? Or drop your price point to $29.99 and bring in $6 million in sales and take a Hawaiian vacation?

This is just a simple example, and other details need to be taken into account for a full analysis (such as cost per item sold), but the main point is that its a poor business decision to just assume you need to raise your prices without doing a market analysis on your demand curve.

The bad thing is, they are ALREADY making shorter games simply because it takes so long to make content right now. And the price hasn't dropped.

What I'm saying is make even SHORTER games. Short enough so you can lower the price, increase your sales, and bring in more money. This will work especially if you are targetting an adult audience who doesn't have time or patience to play through a long $50 game. Have them buy 4 $20 games they will actually get through, instead of one that they will never finish. It's a win-win situation.

In fact, I wonder how many adult players would be willing to pay $5 for a 1-2 hour episodic level. I bet it would be a lot, especially if you write a compelling story so that your audience just HAS to see what happens in the next episode.

In fact, IIRC, in the early 90s, the price point for Super Famicom and Sega Genesis games were higher than today's prices too

Even if they were at $50, inflation makes them cost more. Besides, in the late 70's the price point for movies was above $40. Once the studios learned the proper supply and demand curve for DVD/VHS sales and priced them under $20, they are raking in the money.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Evening Consolidation
1. Price Increases Apr 7, 2005, 22:38 Fang
I wouldn't be surprised if the market resists price increases for games. Movie studios are not talking about DVD price increases, and I'm sure they still have a plan to increase their revenue. It's all about the supply and demand curve. My guess is that the optimum revenue generation price point is actually lower than where it currently is at. I think studios should consider making shorter and lower priced games, and try to increase the number of games the market will purchase.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
1080 Comments. 54 pages. Viewing page 34.
< Newer [ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ] Older >


Blue's News logo