Return To Krondor Download
Trimble Bracegirdle
the early 90's .
The sequel RETURN TO KRONDOR a Windows game from around 1997 is less good
but
still OK & liked.
AND impossible to find any place ...I have been checking a particular
Torrent file for over 2 years in case it came back to life ..no luck there
but I have found this recent addition
with healthy downloading activity.
Watch out tho its 2 CD's are in daa format which you will need to be able to
use.
http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3957848/Return_to_Krondor.3957848.TPB.torrent
YES ! I know we don't approve of Pirating, but this can not be brought any
place and
must be totally Abandonware.
Its a near Classic must have for those with an interest in the original
Total Classic.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse(your sooo Bad !)
John Lewis
<no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>BETRAYAL AT KRONDOR is / was a muched loved & well reviewed DOS RPG from
>the early 90's .
>The sequel RETURN TO KRONDOR a Windows game from around 1997 is less good
>but
>still OK & liked.
>AND impossible to find any place ...I have been checking a particular
>Torrent file for over 2 years in case it came back to life ..no luck there
>but I have found this recent addition
>with healthy downloading activity.
>Watch out tho its 2 CD's are in daa format which you will need to be able to
>use.
>
>http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3957848/Return_to_Krondor.3957848.TPB.torrent
>
>YES ! I know we don't approve of Pirating, but this can not be brought any
>place and
>must be totally Abandonware.
Return to Krondor. On Ebay. 5 listings as of this moment. Two claiming
to be "new" copies.
Good try at the "abandonware" argument. Better luck next time.
Oh, I'll consider selling my (legally-purchased) copy of the game to
you for $75 plus shipping :-) :-)
John Lewis
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
Well said John - better to wait at the mercies of someone's crappy used copy
to line their pockets with & quite possibly pay more than you would pay for
the game now in a bargain bin (if it was available)...than do the _right_
thing & grab the game off file sharing & *share* a classic for a month or
two yourself. Because let's face it, no one if making money off of it any
longer (certainly not the original developers!), except opportunists like
you, or fucking ebay. Better luck with a reality check argument next time.
Pfft! ;-p
--
Nostromo
Gabriele Neukam
> AND impossible to find any place ...
really?
Gabriele Neukam
--
Often those who most loudly proclaim their freedom to choose in some
fields are the most retentive about 'correcting' others' choices in
other fields.
(Brian Brunner in alt.games.diablo2)
John Lewis
>Thus spake john...@verizon.net (John Lewis), Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:52:06 GMT,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>Return to Krondor. On Ebay. 5 listings as of this moment. Two claiming
>>to be "new" copies.
>>
>>Good try at the "abandonware" argument. Better luck next time.
>>
>>Oh, I'll consider selling my (legally-purchased) copy of the game to
>>you for $75 plus shipping :-) :-)
>
>Well said John - better to wait at the mercies of someone's crappy used copy
>to line their pockets with & quite possibly pay more than you would pay for
>the game now in a bargain bin (if it was available)...than do the _right_
>thing & grab the game off file sharing & *share* a classic for a month or
>two yourself. Because let's face it, no one if making money off of it any
>longer (certainly not the original developers!), except opportunists like
>you,
The price I quoted was a joke. And Trimble is in the UK, which would
make shipping from the US somewhat expensive. The Ebay listings were
going for ~ $15 when last I looked.
Seems as if you bend piracy rules to suit yourself. I personally do
without computer games that I might like to play if they are not
legally available.
> or fucking ebay.
Your unnecessary use of coarse words in your posting betrays your
guilty conscience.
>Better luck with a reality check argument next time.
John Lewis
>Pfft! ;-p
>
>--
>Nostromo
Mary
news:fuvfcn$200$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> On this special day, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
>
> > AND impossible to find any place ...
>
> really?
>
>
http://www.gemando.de/Rueckkehr-nach-Krondor-PC-_detail_400_73_SESS-98c8832d6662c8391ce7ef30d422fdbd.html
Isn't 1.99 EU only about $3.11 U.S. ($3.16 Can.$ for me) so practically
free. Shipping cost would be more than the game.
Also, you would need to understand German.
Mary
CoinSpin
Funny thing... First thing I did was go to Amazon.com, then enter
"return to krondor" in the search, and it came back with 22 sellers in
the amazon marketplace... Ranged from about $19 US and up - one of the
sites mentioned was gogamer.com, which would have been my next search.
Several of copies showed as new, quite a few used in the $11 range.
Even though it's 13 years old, it has not officially been deemed
"abandonware" yet, while other newer titles have dropped into that realm
years ago... Probably has to do with so many different companies being
involved (it was released right at the height of several mergers
involving the developing companies).
CoinSpin
Trimble
quid.
The US Ebay ones are not that bad Re: postage anyway.
Does not seem to have much of a collectors high value tho.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
now)
Trimble Bracegirdle
John Lewis
wrote:
You might like to consider not cell-phone texting for a while. Your
mastery of typing and using full english words might improve. At least
you might be able to run a spell-checker. Also, you do seem to have a
problem with line-wrap in your postings.
Ta-ta....
John Lewis
>
YuoLin
"John Lewis" <john...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4812b33e...@news.verizon.net...
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:23:24 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
> <no-...@never.spam> wrote:
>
>>BETRAYAL AT KRONDOR is / was a muched loved & well reviewed DOS RPG from
>>the early 90's .
>>The sequel RETURN TO KRONDOR a Windows game from around 1997 is less good
>>but
>>still OK & liked.
>>AND impossible to find any place ...I have been checking a particular
>>Torrent file for over 2 years in case it came back to life ..no luck there
>>but I have found this recent addition
>>with healthy downloading activity.
>>Watch out tho its 2 CD's are in daa format which you will need to be able
>>to
>>use.
>>
>>http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3957848/Return_to_Krondor.3957848.TPB.torrent
>>
>>YES ! I know we don't approve of Pirating, but this can not be brought
>>any
>>place and
>>must be totally Abandonware.
>
> Return to Krondor. On Ebay. 5 listings as of this moment. Two claiming
> to be "new" copies.
>
> Good try at the "abandonware" argument. Better luck next time.
I'm sure the creative people behind the game would be devastated if they
thought people had access to their work and were enjoying it without needing
to jump through hoops to find a legal copy, the payment for which will never
directly or indirectly be funneled to said creative people.
By the way, when you sell a used copy of a game to someone else, or buy one
from someone else, you deprive the publisher of more revenue than the
average pirate does by downloading a copy of a game that they are very
unlikely ever to have bought.
But most anti piracy types aren't bright enough to understand that - they
only know right and wrong by what is defined by law.
I never sell nor buy used copies of games - if I want a game I buy it
retail, to support the developers.
I consider anybody who actively pursues secondary market PC games while
actively decrying piracy to be ill-thought out about the whole issue. But
there will never be a shortage of people who think only what they're told to
think, and who take every opportunity to feel sanctimonious.
YuoLin
"Zaghadka" <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t8b7145o5gnak83ab...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:10:13 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Trimble
> wrote:
>
>>Your right are you not (Blush) ...it is on Ebay UK ..one copy for around 8
>>quid.
>>The US Ebay ones are not that bad Re: postage anyway.
>>Does not seem to have much of a collectors high value tho.
>
> than
> copying it off a torrent. That is: it sucks either way.
>
> We're all conditioned to believe that if we're paying money, it's somehow
> more
> legit. I don't think it is.
If the average IQ of the human species was say 15 points higher, your ideas
(which are absolutely correct) might find some traction.
As it is, it is simply too subtle and difficult to comprehend, compared to
thinking what one is told to think and receiving the bright shiny reward of
feeling morally superior.
John Lewis
At full retail price?? Or when on sale ??
You don't happen to be our old nemesis "pc games" in disguise ?
>
>I consider anybody who actively pursues secondary market PC games while
>actively decrying piracy to be ill-thought out about the whole issue. But
>there will never be a shortage of people who think only what they're told to
>think, and who take every opportunity to feel sanctimonious.
>
>
Hmm... Have you ever bought a used car? Or any other used capital
item --- like a used house? Or anything else used? You have deprived
the car manufacturer, house builder, etc. of their revenue/profit. If
any of these scenarios is true in your case or likely to be in the
future, then consistency of thought does not seem to be one of your
strong point........
You do also realize that Return to Krondor is out-of-print?
Incidentally, I originally bought Return to Krondor when it was new,
thus already rewarding the sundry people on the game's food-chain.
You do also know that any out-of-print games available on Steam are
highly likely to have been bulk-purchased by Valve (probably for a
piddling sum) from the publisher or a rights-acquiring 3rd-party and
that most of the actual game developers are long gone? Like CGW
bulk-purchased Deux Ex GOTY and Thief 2 full games to put on their
January 2004 magazine DVD. You no doubt would consider it a sin
that I actually bought this copy to get those games for "free".
Your argument is as full of holes as a colander.
John Lewis
Trimble Bracegirdle
Cell-Mobil-Phone-thing
& hardly ever used one ...but I will try giving them up to see if my
Eng.-Lang.-written-ability improves...thankyou Johnny L. for your time in
assisting little limited me in my sad attempts to communicate with the other
bits of Humanity or whatever.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
Trimble Bracegirdle
this
Returning To Krondor place ????
NOWHERE that's where (apparently ?)
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:05:38 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, John Lewis
>wrote:
>
>>> or fucking ebay.
>>
>>Your unnecessary use of coarse words in your posting betrays your
>>guilty conscience.
>
>LOL. Good guess, Kreskin!
>
>*I* would guess that it means that he is *pissed off* at your
>"holier-than-thou" attitude, Mr. "eBay is bettter than piracy."
Tx Zag, but I wasn't going to dignify that last-refuge-of-the-incompetent
argument. I also no longer enter into arguments with fools who use terms
like 'pirate', when it is clear to me after watching all Pirates of the
Caribbean movies that I am no such thing, as much as I would like to be that
cool :).
>Fact: People making money reselling on eBay take bread from the mouths of
>developers and publishers as surely as bootlegging.
>
>I figured that out after several years of getting old games off eBay. After a
>year or two, I don't think it really matters *how* you get them: The publisher
>doesn't see a dime. The devteam *certainly* doesn't see a dime. The eBay
>sellers are "fly-by-night" at best, possibly fencing stolen goods for all I
>know.
>
>Within that important first year of sales, resellers are *absolutely* damaging
>developers. In the first two or three years, they're hurting publishers.
>
>That's because no "legitimate" party sees a dime.
>
>By law, "first sale" is an concept that applies to *book* selling and physical
>property, but it is questionable if it applies to transferring *licenses*. If a
>company says in the EULA, "No Transference," then such a seller is not only
>damaging developers, he is breaking the law. I don't know of any EULA's which
>do this, yet, but I'm sure it is on the horizon.
>
>From a simple standpoint of ethics, if you are an eBay seller, all you are
>doing is getting unwarranted "relief" on your initial purchase price. I can see
>how that's attractive, and don't begrudge it, but I can't see it as ethically
>superior when it hurts the people who made the game by denying them a retail
>purchase.
>
>In the case of console games, entire shops are run on that particular loophole,
>and they are, IMHO, severely harming the industry.
>
>So the eBay buyer/seller is in no position of ethical superiority to put down
>another. If you do it, John, I don't have a problem with it after the first
>year, but it is *never* fair or supportive of the industry.
>
>It stinks as much as petty copyright infringement.
This whole topic is a Pandora's box of misinformation & ignorance. On the
one hand we have the clueless holier-than-thou Lewis types who actually
believe that file sharing hurts the industry & raises prices LOL! Oh no,
couldn't possibly be the gouging publishers, middlemen & other parasitic
life forms doing everything to squeeze an unearned dollar out of the
product, no way! OTOH, you've got ppl who have actually bothered to study
the damage these cartels (both movie, music, games & any other IP mediums)
have caused to thinking human beings & society everywhere. And we only have
IP 'laws' because they bought the judges long ago so they could set
precedents which were both unconstitutional & immoral.
>Likewise, I have no problem with people copying "abandonware," so long as it
>legitimately does no harm. If the industry re-releases a title (such as
>Nintendo's re-release of much of its back-catalog on the Wii), then it is no
>longer "abandoned." Nintendo agressively stops such trade, and I agree with
>that policy, so long as there are plans to further exploit the IP.
All IP (& that term should be scrubbed in any case as it is a misnomer & a
clear sign of what's wrong with the whole fucked up process & surrounding
laws) needs to be completely overhauled. Movie producers/stakeholders make
90+% of their profit in the first 6 weeks at the box office; A-list music
stars are lucky to see $1-2 (5%) off of each CD sale for less than a year -
imagine what the B-list & smaller musos as (not) getting! Games devs, from
what I've read, make or break their profits in the first 3 months (Christmas
period a bit longer for A-titles). Anything & everything after that is
simply capitalistic greed gone even greedier. It actually deflates &
undermines the true value of ideas & creativity - just take a look at the
movie, music & games industries overall in the past 10-20 years & prove me
wrong...pls.
With your Nintendo example, if the original developer re-publishes, they're
only doing it to gouge as a bundle or due to an upcoming sequel & it's just
as reprehensible as some other leech doing it. There should be a limited
period during which a creator of 'IP' should be able to profit from it. If
it becomes wildly popular years down the track & everyone starts using it in
some retro run-on, well, tough titties.
You would find the entire landscape of theses industries changing very
quickly if the window of profit was short & the profits were capped
artificially even on top of that. If you can't create art _primarily_ for
the love of it, then you have no place doing it or calling yourself an
artiste, ptoooiii! While we're at it, we need to abolish advertising &
marketing in this world - it's just become another means of subterfuge,
misinformation & lies designed to get the CONsumer sheep buying shit they
don't really need nor want (among its other sins). Oh Brave New World...
</rant>
>In the case of utterly profitless IP like Krondor, a little infringement and
>excitement might *raise* the value of the IP, and cause a sale to a publisher,
>and even a sequel.
>
>The only problem is that the law denies such behavior, and I'm getting a bit
>too old for vigilantism. In theory, it helps the Krondor IP.
If there ever is a sequel or spin-offs, yes, & that's all it should do.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
>I consider anybody who actively pursues secondary market PC games while
>actively decrying piracy to be ill-thought out about the whole issue. But
>there will never be a shortage of people who think only what they're told to
>think, and who take every opportunity to feel sanctimonious.
Amen! Add to that the cheapskates who intentionally never buy at full tag
price & only trawl bargain bins, feeling all smart & justified in their own
ignorance that they are doing probably more damage to the industry than file
sharers. Hey, at least I don't take from nor give a cent to anyone who
didn't deserve it if I try-b4-I-buy, whereas used & bargain buyers ARE
creating a secondary grey market which takes profits directly from the
creators.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:56:47 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, YuoLin wrote:
>>I consider anybody who actively pursues secondary market PC games while
>>actively decrying piracy to be ill-thought out about the whole issue. But
>>there will never be a shortage of people who think only what they're told to
>>think, and who take every opportunity to feel sanctimonious.
>
>Amen.
LOL! I must learn to read ahead b4 I post for fear I'll start looking like a
plagiarist! ;)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>Hmm... Have you ever bought a used car? Or any other used capital
>item --- like a used house? Or anything else used? You have deprived
>the car manufacturer, house builder, etc. of their revenue/profit. If
>any of these scenarios is true in your case or likely to be in the
>future, then consistency of thought does not seem to be one of your
>strong point........
Stop being obtuse & defending the undefendable Lewis. He was obviously
talking about cheapskates who *primarily* buy used over new...you know, like
yourself :-p.
>Your argument is as full of holes as a colander.
You need to find some better metaphors John - the ones yer using are boring
& sophomoric at best.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Put up your hand kids if you know the single digit figure which equals the
percentage of ebay sellers who are legit? :)
--
Nostromo
YuoLin
>>I never sell nor buy used copies of games - if I want a game I buy it
>>retail, to support the developers.
>
> At full retail price?? Or when on sale ??
I try to buy directly from the developer so there are as few middle men as
possible. That is often not possible so I will buy retail - and the price I
pay at retail has nothing to do with how much the publisher gets. They get
wholesale price regardless of what the retailer sells it for. But no, I
don't wait for sales. If I want a game I buy it regardless of the price (a
good game is a good bargain in any case as far as I'm concerned).
> You don't happen to be our old nemesis "pc games" in disguise ?
Nope.
>>I consider anybody who actively pursues secondary market PC games while
>>actively decrying piracy to be ill-thought out about the whole issue. But
>>there will never be a shortage of people who think only what they're told
>>to
>>think, and who take every opportunity to feel sanctimonious.
>
> Hmm... Have you ever bought a used car? Or any other used capital
> item --- like a used house? Or anything else used? You have deprived
> the car manufacturer, house builder, etc. of their revenue/profit. If
> any of these scenarios is true in your case or likely to be in the
> future, then consistency of thought does not seem to be one of your
> strong point........
I apply the same principles to books - I do not buy a book used if I want to
support the author.
As for cars, it is very simple from manufacturer's standpoint: when they
sell a car, they expect it to be used for X thousand miles, and then they
expect that it will have to be replaced. The actual owner or owners over
those X thousand miles is irrelevant, and secondary market exchanges do
nothing to reduce new car sales. At most, the secondary market extends the
lifetime of cars, so they are replaced slightly slower than they would be if
they could not be transfered.
That does not apply for software or books, which can be re-used ad infinitum
with the only bottleneck being the fact that no two people can use the item
at the same time. The product does not lose value with use, and as such
there is no incentive to buy new. Combine that with the fact that selling a
used game does not incentivize someone to purchase a new one, (being done
with the game incentivizes them slightly, but selling it has no additional
effect,) and you have a perfect storm of secondary market cannibalization of
primary market.
In a very real and direct sense, every dollar a used game sells for is AT
LEAST a dollar less that is paid into the developer/publisher/retailer
system. The fact that someone was willing to go to the hassle of an ebay
purchase for a game is strong evidence that they would have purchased retail
if used were not an option. The ones for whom the price difference would
have kept them from buying, are made up for by the others who would have
paid more at retail.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:49:08 +1000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Nostromo
>wrote:
>
>>With your Nintendo example, if the original developer re-publishes, they're
>>only doing it to gouge as a bundle or due to an upcoming sequel & it's just
>>as reprehensible as some other leech doing it. There should be a limited
>>period during which a creator of 'IP' should be able to profit from it. If
>>it becomes wildly popular years down the track & everyone starts using it in
>>some retro run-on, well, tough titties.
>
>Possibly. But they have re-released much of their vintage catalogue (and
>Sega's) for download on Wii Virtual Console, and the emulator software is
>solid. They've fully embraced emulation, and I appreciate it.
>
>If you turn the Wii remote sideways, it's an NES controller. You can get a
>Classic Controller for SNES and N64 titles, etc. It's a well thought out plan,
>not simply a ploy to promote their current games.
>
>For instance, no one's releasing a new version of Kid Icarus...
>
>http://wii.ign.com/articles/770/770591p1.html
>
>I see this as a win for classic gamers.
In that scenario I agree, they're actually bringing large numbers of bundled
games to their fans, many years after their retail cycle has finished & they
are no longer readily available to the public, essentially providing a
consolidation service for those who don't have the means or inclination to
hunt for the titles via file sharing or other means. Supply & demand -
anyone can sell anything in a Capitalist society they want.
What I object to is them preventing others from _sharing_ it, when they
clearly make no effort to provide their own titles because, hey, they're NOT
PROFITABLE! So, if & when their popularity surges again (for whatever
reason), let's dust them off & gouge the crap our own fan base because we
can, ad infinitum...? Doesn't wash with me to be honest, but I do appreciate
the multi-faceted layers, grey areas & thin lines here ;).
--
Nostromo
John Lewis
>Thus spake john...@verizon.net (John Lewis), Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:41:57 GMT,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>Hmm... Have you ever bought a used car? Or any other used capital
>>item --- like a used house? Or anything else used? You have deprived
>>the car manufacturer, house builder, etc. of their revenue/profit. If
>>any of these scenarios is true in your case or likely to be in the
>>future, then consistency of thought does not seem to be one of your
>>strong point........
>
>Stop being obtuse & defending the undefendable Lewis. He was obviously
>talking about cheapskates who *primarily* buy used over new...you know, like
>yourself :-p.
>
Actually,. it is over 2 years since I bought a used game.. Far better
proposition these days is taking advantage of retail and on-line
sales, especially if not mentally compelled to join the release-day
lemmings.
As for the illegal torrents that you use a torrent of words to
defend, I don't even have the required software on any of my machines.
John Lewis.
John Lewis
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:41:57 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, John Lewis
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Hmm... Have you ever bought a used car? Or any other used capital
>>item --- like a used house? Or anything else used?
>
>LOL. That is hard property. It does not involve a license transfer. Thus you
>are comparing apples and oranges.
>
>Your house and your car are YOURS.
>
>With a piece of software, the media is yours, but whether you have to right to
>sell it is a question of the license. Without that license transfer, you are
>legitimately selling copyrighted materials (First Sale), but without the rights
>to *use* them. Most licenses today allow this transfer, so you are legal.
>
>But we've adopted the "First Sale" doctrine of books to software, without
>recognition that it doesn't work as neatly because of the licensure issue.
>Applying antiquated law to a market with different properties can have
>unintended consequences. In this case, it absolutely harms the market.
>
>The business models are all built on a licensure basis, so the profit is
>demonstrably damaged when someone sells and transfers a game on eBay. This is
>why software manufacturers are moving to close down license transfer.
>
>This is an "inconvenient truth" regarding the resale of games. You can live
>with the consequence, and claim that resale is your right, but you *can't*
>claim that behavior isn't causing problems for developers and publishers as
>grave as casual bootlegging.
>
>>You have deprived
>>the car manufacturer, house builder, etc. of their revenue/profit.
>
>No. I still have to pay someone to maintain that stuff, as does anyone I sell
>it to. It's part of the business model. I still have to buy parts from someone,
>and might even take the car to the dealer. There is all sorts of profit to be
>made in the transferrence of durable goods that simply does not exist in the
>resale of games.
>
>Remember that book publishers fought "First Sale" tooth and nail at the turn of
>the 20th century. They were defeated because their product was cheap to
>produce. We are in the same fight with software now. The problem being that a
>good deal more money goes into the production of a piece of software as it does
>in the case of a book. It's a different story.
>
>There is a case for denying "First Sale" when the product is so much more
>expensive to produce, and the lawful use of it is tied to a license. Computer
>games are effectively an instanced sale, like a movie ticket, not a durable
>sale, like a house.
>
>"First Sale" was codified in 1976, before these issues cropped up. Software
>licensing was developed, in part, to get around the "problem." The law is
>outdated, and any publisher will tell you so.
>
>> If
>>any of these scenarios is true in your case or likely to be in the
>>future, then consistency of thought does not seem to be one of your
>>strong point........
>>
>>You do also realize that Return to Krondor is out-of-print?
>>Incidentally, I originally bought Return to Krondor when it was new,
>>thus already rewarding the sundry people on the game's food-chain.
>>
>>You do also know that any out-of-print games available on Steam are
>>highly likely to have been bulk-purchased by Valve (probably for a
>>piddling sum) from the publisher or a rights-acquiring 3rd-party and
>>that most of the actual game developers are long gone? Like CGW
>>bulk-purchased Deux Ex GOTY and Thief 2 full games to put on their
>>January 2004 magazine DVD. You no doubt would consider it a sin
>>that I actually bought this copy to get those games for "free".
>>
>>Your argument is as full of holes as a colander.
>>
>No. His argument is sound. You just don't like the smell of your own
>you-know-what.
>
>No one is saying that resale is "wrong," they are saying it has grave
>consequences which you blithely ignore.
>
>They are saying that it is hypocritical to talk up resale as something virtuous
>and copyright infringement as a grave injustice in the same post.
>
>Both do harm.
>
>Either behavior causes serious problems in the business model, and there are no
>holes in that assessment.
>
>--
>Zag
>
>
>"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550
>
>"Their Means Justify Our Means" ~Hillary Clinton, c. 2008
Better let Gamestop know of your strong opinions. They had record
profits last quarter and iirc around 70% of that bonanza came from
used-game sales. Hopefully, you never do any business with any
company that indulges in used-game sales. Otherwise, who is the kettle
calling the pot black ?
John Lewis
Gabriele Neukam
> Also, you would need to understand German.
This is probably the main issue. I would like to know whether they
offer the game in English, too, but their website is currently under
work which prevents me from getting any information on this topic.
Gabriele Neukam
--
ignorance can be fixed. stupidity is life-long.
(jshdude in alt.comp.anti-virus)
Mary
news:fv2436$ibv$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> On this special day, Mary wrote:
>
> > Also, you would need to understand German.
>
> This is probably the main issue. I would like to know whether they
> offer the game in English, too, but their website is currently under
> work which prevents me from getting any information on this topic.
Gabriele - Do you mean this site which you posted here the other day ::
The above site is not under work.
Mary
WDS
> Fact: People making money reselling on eBay take bread from the mouths of
> developers and publishers as surely as bootlegging.
And public libraries are the SPAWN OF SATAN when it comes to authors,
eh?
Anestis
> Gabriele - Do you mean this site which you posted here the other day ::
>
> http://www.gemando.de/Rueckkehr-nach-Krondor-PC-_detail_400_73_SESS-98c8832d6662c8391ce7ef30d422fdbd.html
>
> The above site is not under work.
I just ordered, and will report here if there is an option for English
during installation :)
--
Anestis
Gabriele Neukam
> The above site is not under work.
Gemando isn't the publisher, it is only *one* vendor. The real
publisher of this bargain edition is Dice Multimedia, based in the
Netherlands, and their page "dice.nl" is under construction. I have no
idea for how long, but the sentence "All content is © 2004" doesn't
really look like anything is happening soon.
Gabriele Neukam
--
> Is there such a thing as a Honeymoon period in a new newsgroup?
(Roger Hunt in uk.comp.vintage)
In a want it now instantly straight away world - no :-)
(Krustov in ucv)
Anestis
> http://www.gemando.de/Rueckkehr-nach-Krondor-PC-_detail_400_73_SESS-98c8832d6662c8391ce7ef30d422fdbd.html
>
> Isn't 1.99 EU only about $3.11 U.S. ($3.16 Can.$ for me) so practically
> free. Shipping cost would be more than the game.
> Also, you would need to understand German.
The site is working. Got the game in the meantime. It's German only
(on 2 CDs without handbook)
--
Anestis
rpgs rock dvds
> BETRAYAL AT KRONDOR is / was a muched loved & well reviewed DOS RPG from
> the early 90's .
> The sequel RETURN TO KRONDOR a Windows game from around 1997 is less good
> but
> still OK & liked.
> AND impossible to find any place ...I have been checking a particular
> Torrent file for over 2 years in case it came back to life ..no luck there
> but I have found this recent addition
> with healthy downloading activity.
> Watch out tho its 2 CD's are in daa format which you will need to be able to
> use.
>
> http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/3957848/Return_to_Krondor.3957848.TP...
>
> YES ! I know we don't approve of Pirating, but this can not be brought any
> place and
> must be totally Abandonware.
> Its a near Classic must have for those with an interest in the original
> Total Classic.
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
Forgive me for being incredibly late to contribute to this thread (and
also for not ploughing thru the 31 messages in this thread either),
but ebay item 130220437988 is the same one I bought a few weeks ago
from the same seller - it's brand new, sealed and all shiny and new
inside. I am from UK and paid a fair bit on shipping, but I think
it's the closest (but not perfect) way of getting the game fairly and
honestly.
All the best from Robert.
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:30:03 GMT, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
<snip>
>Furthermore, healthy second-hand market is good for the quality of
>games because it is an incentive for the developers to make good and
>lasting games which people want to keep for a long time,
There's a problem with this theory;
It's exactly the same "incentive" that car makers have to making a
solid, non-rusting car that people will keep for years - if the old one
works fine, there's no incentive to buy a new one.
>instead of
>selling it off after finishing it one time during a weekend. The
>longer the gamers want to keep their originals, the less there will be
>second-hand copies available.
Don't the "sell off after one run through" crowd do that regardless of
the quality of the game (online gaming notwithstanding?)
<snip>
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Ross Ridge
>Furthermore, healthy second-hand market is good for the quality of
>games because it is an incentive for the developers to make good and
>lasting games which people want to keep for a long time,
Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>There's a problem with this theory;
>It's exactly the same "incentive" that car makers have to making a
>solid, non-rusting car that people will keep for years - if the old one
>works fine, there's no incentive to buy a new one.
Except that it doesn't actually work that way. Consumers aren't
irrational, at least not in aggregate, and make car purchases based on the
total cost of owning a car. That includes factors like maintainance and
resale value, so car manufactures do have an incentive to make reliable
and long lasting cars. That's why you see them touting the resale value
of their cars.
Similarily gamers that sell their games after playing them are also
making their purchases based on what they expect to be able to sell the
game for. While it's not a big as factor as in the car market, where
most cars eventually get traded in or sold as used, if these gamers
couldn't sell their used games then they'd spend less money on games.
Since overall gamers would be getting less value for their money, the
total amount spent on new games would probably go down, not up.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
Bob Loblaw
> basis
> of it having the right number of cup holders, its color and style, and/or
> the
> radio and navigation system that comes with it.
>
> Or, if it's a particularly "thoughtful" buyer, whether or not they "trust"
> the
> brand.
>
> But I can assure you that no car dealer is advertising "Low, low TCO!" in
> their
> newspaper and TV adverts. ;^)
>
> I agreed with the rest of your post, BTW.
>
Styling is probably the biggest factor why a lot of car buyers are making
emotional decisions. A good looking car is desirable and reliability is
often overlooked. If everybody was completely rational and analytical, Alfa
Romeo would be out of business.
For some people, cars are a way of expressing their personnality. For
others, they are just a means of transportation.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:17:12 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Ross Ridge
>wrote:
>
>>Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>>>There's a problem with this theory;
>>>It's exactly the same "incentive" that car makers have to making a
>>>solid, non-rusting car that people will keep for years - if the old one
>>>works fine, there's no incentive to buy a new one.
>>
>>Except that it doesn't actually work that way. Consumers aren't
>>irrational, at least not in aggregate, and make car purchases based on the
>>total cost of owning a car.
>[snip]
>
>That's you and me, by my count. Anyone else care to join us?
>
>Though I admire your faith in humanity, most people purchase cars on the basis
>of it having the right number of cup holders, its color and style, and/or the
>radio and navigation system that comes with it.
>
>Or, if it's a particularly "thoughtful" buyer, whether or not they "trust" the
>brand.
>
>But I can assure you that no car dealer is advertising "Low, low TCO!" in their
>newspaper and TV adverts. ;^)
>
>I agreed with the rest of your post, BTW.
Which bit lol? This sub-thread is a great example in sophistry & mental
masturbation, starting with riku's post. Just admit it like a man if you
like your shiny boxes or are a tightarse. Me, I try many games & buy a few,
at least the ones I believe worthy of wasting my money on, so I probably
contribute more to the overall developer's bottom dollars than you bargain
trawlers who sell their games off inside a week to recoup 50%+ of their
spend. I've never bothered, except for very old games at garage sakes just
to get rid of clutter, probably for a dollar or two each at most.
Comparing something as intangible as game code to the car market is just a
wank btw. Again it turns out that file sharing (aka 'piracy' by the
ignorant, sheepy masses) does more for game exposure, advertising & sales
than buying & reselling by the cheap few. Someone should do a *real* study,
outside of the 'cry poor me' multi-millionaires who's profits are down by a
few percent last year from a gazillion dollars...couldn't possibly have
anything to do with their shit games that everybody tried first & didn't
waste their hard-earned cash on & deservedly so. Pfft.
--
Nostromo
CoinSpin
In the end, this conversation is really a study in pointless
comparison... Cars are capital investments, software is not (unless it
is very high end stuff like CAD workstations). If you want to compare
cars and PCs, then you are closer to comparing similar types of
products. And, as pointed out above, style is important to some in both
cars and PCs. Some want the top of the line, racing stripes, or want to
trick out their PC to match their personality - just look at the massive
increase in modding lately. And some just want a "Ford Fiesta" PC that
will get them through their minimal PC requirements, with no real care
what the thing looks like.
So many people jump to the comparisons between used cars and used
software, but there is really no viable comparison. Even just the
financial logistics of comparing the 2 is ridiculous - you don't spend
3-5 years (on average) paying for a single game, the game wasn't
designed to have a long lifetime with provisions for repair and
upgrading later in the life of the game, and it wasn't released with the
absolute certainty that it would be resold later. If you wanted to
compare the software to, oh say the stereo in your car, or the rims on
the car, then you'd be a little closer. The software is pretty much
just an amenity compared to the PC, not capital equipment, and it's
meant to be bought and kept (if it's worthy of continued interest) or
discarded for the next program. It's disposable, and priced accordingly.
That being said, the one similarity between the 2 markets is this: you
have to make the new product bigger/better/faster/shinier to get
consumers to want to buy new, rather than search for something used. If
you haven't made any improvements on an automobile, why would a consumer
ever buy a new one, when a used one is pretty much just as good, but
cheaper - taking into account the existing wear and tear, of course.
Likewise, why would a gamer buy a new game that doesn't do anything new
or different than what's already out there? So I guess that's the
"styling" side of gaming, you have to make something sexy enough to
entice buyers. Otherwise, they'll go find a bargain bin or used game
somewhere else, and pay a fraction of the price.
CoinSpin
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>
>Comparing something as intangible as game code to the car market is just a
>wank btw. Again it turns out that file sharing (aka 'piracy' by the
>ignorant, sheepy masses) does more for game exposure, advertising & sales
>than buying & reselling by the cheap few. Someone should do a *real* study,
>outside of the 'cry poor me' multi-millionaires who's profits are down by a
>few percent last year from a gazillion dollars...couldn't possibly have
>anything to do with their shit games that everybody tried first & didn't
>waste their hard-earned cash on & deservedly so. Pfft.
The only thing I want to add is that the rich development managers you're
referencing here generally have somewhat less affluent employees whose
fortunes *are* arguably tied to software sales. If you'll forgive the
extension of the car analogy, I'm not worried as much about the product in
the showroom as I am about the guy who has to weld parts and turn the
wrench. The promotional benefit of piracy doesn't directly benefit the
coders, playtesters or 3D modellers who are really responsible for the
games that you and I do enjoy.
-KKC, who tried to cook hush puppies and failed.
--
-- "Arabs are the new Asians, at least in media. Stereotypes gave way to
deeper roles over 40 years of assimilation into western culture. Bruce Lee
kicks ass, Jackie Chan gets laughs, B.D. Wong is a top. Arabs have | kendrick
had Klinger and Monk. Clearly, they have some catching up to do." | @io.com
Ross Ridge
>Except that it doesn't actually work that way. Consumers aren't
>irrational, at least not in aggregate, and make car purchases based on the
>total cost of owning a car.
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>Though I admire your faith in humanity, most people purchase cars on the basis
>of it having the right number of cup holders, its color and style, and/or the
>radio and navigation system that comes with it.
Actually, it's the one of the basic principles of economics that any
theory that assumes people are acting irrationally is probably wrong.
Sure, people buy cars based on the amount of cup holders, but that's
because they think that increases the value of a car. It may not be the
biggest factor in most people minds, but the expected resale or trade
in price also affects the value of a car. Given how highly competive
the car industry is these days, they can't ingore this.
>But I can assure you that no car dealer is advertising "Low, low TCO!" in their
>newspaper and TV adverts. ;^)
I've seen adds for luxury vehicles that emphasied their number one
position for resale value. Adds touting the reliabity of cars are
very common.
Ross Ridge
>In the end, this conversation is really a study in pointless
>comparison... Cars are capital investments, software is not (unless it
>is very high end stuff like CAD workstations).
No, a car is not a capital investment for most people. To be an
investment it would need to a return on investment, and a car purchased
for personal use is just an expense. Unless you buy a pickup truck for
a landscaping or other business, it doesn't provide the owner with any
income and won't appreciate in value.
The effect used cars and used software have on their respective industry
really isn't that fundamentally different. People trade in their
old cars to buy new cars, and people who sell games use that money to
buy new games. Ultimately, I think the system works to the benefit to
everyone involved. More cars and more games are sold because more people
can afford them. It's like two people pooling their money together to
buy a car or a game they probably wouldn't have bought otherwise.
CoinSpin
> CoinSpin <coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In the end, this conversation is really a study in pointless
>> comparison... Cars are capital investments, software is not (unless it
>> is very high end stuff like CAD workstations).
>>
>
> No, a car is not a capital investment for most people. To be an
> investment it would need to a return on investment, and a car purchased
> for personal use is just an expense. Unless you buy a pickup truck for
> a landscaping or other business, it doesn't provide the owner with any
> income and won't appreciate in value.
>
Sorry, my bad... Should have said capital "purchase" there. Semantics
can be hell.
> The effect used cars and used software have on their respective industry
> really isn't that fundamentally different. People trade in their
> old cars to buy new cars, and people who sell games use that money to
> buy new games. Ultimately, I think the system works to the benefit to
> everyone involved. More cars and more games are sold because more people
> can afford them. It's like two people pooling their money together to
> buy a car or a game they probably wouldn't have bought otherwise.
>
Valid point. But the point I am trying to make is that the automobile
purchase is several orders of magnitude larger than a game, and has far
more use and value to the customer over a longer period of time.
They're just not anywhere near the same as far as scope and effect on
the customer.
If people want to make comparisons, compare to something closer to the
price point, customer impact, and projected life span of the product.
Maybe movies or something along those lines. As it is, an automobile is
intended to be a tool that is used daily, is designed and built for
longevity measured in years, is priced such that it's considered a major
purchase, and is often times vital and irreplaceable in the impact to
the owner's life. A computer game is intended to be a slight
distraction for a few hours. It's another case of apples and oranges.
CoinSpin
Nostromo
> In article <rmch249dgka7l5i9v...@4ax.com>,
> Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>> Comparing something as intangible as game code to the car market is just a
>> wank btw. Again it turns out that file sharing (aka 'piracy' by the
>> ignorant, sheepy masses) does more for game exposure, advertising & sales
>> than buying & reselling by the cheap few. Someone should do a *real* study,
>> outside of the 'cry poor me' multi-millionaires who's profits are down by a
>> few percent last year from a gazillion dollars...couldn't possibly have
>> anything to do with their shit games that everybody tried first & didn't
>> waste their hard-earned cash on & deservedly so. Pfft.
>
> The only thing I want to add is that the rich development managers you're
> referencing here generally have somewhat less affluent employees whose
> fortunes *are* arguably tied to software sales. If you'll forgive the
> extension of the car analogy, I'm not worried as much about the product in
> the showroom as I am about the guy who has to weld parts and turn the
> wrench. The promotional benefit of piracy doesn't directly benefit the
> coders, playtesters or 3D modellers who are really responsible for the
> games that you and I do enjoy.
More sales equates to more profitability (presumably, but not always),
which equates to better salaries & job security for ground troops. Like
movies which realise most of their profits for the producers within the
first 6 weeks at the box office, games probably have a 2-3 mth primary
profitability period. Everything else after that is gouging &
merchandising sell-through by middle-men & profiteers who deserve less
than a zero share of those profits imo.
File sharing is one of the best tools to weed out the chaff from the
wheat - in terms of user reviews, even if you don't want to d/l it
yourself, at least you know someone with no vested interest is likely to
be less biased than someone who paid top dollar for it. Anything else
you hear is just FUD-factor & pay-for-everything gronks who try to make
themselves feel superior to others because they're wasting half their
money on shit product lol, pure & simple. :)
> -KKC, who tried to cook hush puppies and failed.
--
Nostromo...who is still just as amused as he is annoyed by KKC's sig OCD
Ross Ridge
>Actually, it's the one of the basic principles of economics that any
>theory that assumes people are acting irrationally is probably wrong.
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>Not quite, Ross.
Yes, quite. Just because people value things like cup holders and
coolness doesn't mean they're being irrational. Nor does it mean that
don't also value more concrete things like the potential resale value
of a car either.
>Either they've lost their minds, or we can assume they know what they're doing.
>I'll assume that they know what they're doing.
The problem is that you're assuming that consumers are crazy and don't
know what they're doing.
Nostromo
Domini:
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 07:25:09 +1000, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>
>First this:
>
>>Just admit it like a man if you
>>like your shiny boxes or are a tightarse.
>
>and then this:
>
>>Again it turns out that file sharing (aka 'piracy' by the
>>ignorant, sheepy masses) does more for game exposure, advertising & sales
>>than buying & reselling by the cheap few. Someone should do a *real* study,
>>outside of the 'cry poor me' multi-millionaires who's profits are down by a
>>few percent last year from a gazillion dollars...couldn't possibly have
>>anything to do with their shit games that everybody tried first & didn't
>>waste their hard-earned cash on & deservedly so. Pfft.
>
>Why can't you admit you pirate games just because you are a tight-arse
>who doesn't want to pay a dime for his games? Why would a pirate shell
>out $50 for a game he likes if he can get exactly the same game for
>free? Be a man and admit you just like to get stuff free, even if it
>was illegal.
I'll tell you what, you don't pretend like you know me & I won't pretend
like I don't know your momma, mkay?
<snip rest of assssssinine drivel unread>
--
Nostromo
Ross Ridge
>Actually, it's the one of the basic principles of economics that any
>theory that assumes people are acting irrationally is probably wrong.
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>Not quite, Ross.
Ross Ridge wrote:
>Yes, quite.
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>No. I say, "Not quite," in that you fundamentally misunderstood why the science
>of economics forbids any *assumption* that markets are irrational.
There's no such absolute rule in economics. You proved that yourself
by coming up with an ecomomic model that assumes that consumers are
irrational. Many economists would disagree with you for that reason
alone, but not all.
Anyways, this has gone way off topic for this newsgroup. As token effort
to get this back on topic, I'll mention the fact that RPGs seem to one
of the least likely genres to be resold. Using the EBGames stores in
my area as an example you find very few used RPGs on the shelves, and
they tend to be the most expensive. I think this shows that riku might
be on to something, as RPGs do offer more "play value" than most other
kinds of games.
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>Anyways, this has gone way off topic for this newsgroup. As token effort
>to get this back on topic, I'll mention the fact that RPGs seem to one
>of the least likely genres to be resold. Using the EBGames stores in
>my area as an example you find very few used RPGs on the shelves, and
>they tend to be the most expensive. I think this shows that riku might
>be on to something, as RPGs do offer more "play value" than most other
>kinds of games.
Do we know reliably that the games represented on the shelf accurately
reflect what's being traded in? Also, if you look only at new games it's
not as if the proportion of RPGs is any higher. Any RPG's publication
numbers are a small fraction of any other sports or action title. I don't
think RPGs are traded in any less frequently, but that the number of games
that could be traded are already comparably fewer than for any other one
genre. Of course, that's a generalization and we can expect the occasional
crossover, blockbuster title to be an exception.
-KKC, who doesn't trade in his games for fear of missing out.
Ross Ridge
>Anyways, this has gone way off topic for this newsgroup. As token effort
>to get this back on topic, I'll mention the fact that RPGs seem to one
>of the least likely genres to be resold. Using the EBGames stores in
>my area as an example you find very few used RPGs on the shelves, and
>they tend to be the most expensive. I think this shows that riku might
>be on to something, as RPGs do offer more "play value" than most other
>kinds of games.
Kendrick Kerwin Chua <kend...@nospam.io> wrote:
>Do we know reliably that the games represented on the shelf accurately
>reflect what's being traded in?
Not really, the only thing we can be confident about is that demand for
used RPGs is bigger than than the supply, as reflected in the higher
prices. They could be restocking the shelves throughout the day with
used RPGs as they come in only to be sold soon after, but I don't think
that's likely.
> Also, if you look only at new games it's not as if the proportion of
>RPGs is any higher.
Counting PlayStation 2 RPGs, there's about twice as many new RPGs as
there are used RPGs and that's despite the fact that there's twice as
much shelve space for used games and the fact that releases of new PS2
games is drying up. There's even a greater ratio of new PC RPGs to used
PC RPGs, but there's hardly any used PC games of any sort for sale.
>I don't think RPGs are traded in any less frequently, but that the number
>of games that could be traded are already comparably fewer than for any
>other one genre. Of course, that's a generalization and we can expect
>the occasional crossover, blockbuster title to be an exception.
I think you're underestimating the size of the RPG market and
overestimating the size of the other genres. Blockbuster games like
Madden and GTA are as much exceptions as The Elder Scrolls and Final
Fantasy. Sure the sports and action game markets are bigger, but not
in 100:1 ratio that I see on the shelves for used games.
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>I don't think RPGs are traded in any less frequently, but that the number
>>of games that could be traded are already comparably fewer than for any
>>other one genre. Of course, that's a generalization and we can expect
>>the occasional crossover, blockbuster title to be an exception.
>
>I think you're underestimating the size of the RPG market and
>overestimating the size of the other genres. Blockbuster games like
>Madden and GTA are as much exceptions as The Elder Scrolls and Final
>Fantasy. Sure the sports and action game markets are bigger, but not
>in 100:1 ratio that I see on the shelves for used games.
I'd really like the RPG market to be bigger, but if you believe that
monthly sales charts are any kind of indicator then RPGs account for ten
percent at most. Parents and young children make up the bulk of sales, and
I imagine for the majority of trade-ins as well. This past April, there
was only one RPG in the top ten and it was a Pokemon game (albeit a nice
roguelike.) Last year in May, there were two RPGs in the top ten... and
they were both Pokemon games. Except for Grand Theft Auto IV (which takes
the number 1 spot on the April chart) there really aren't any overly hyped
non-RPG titles that would throw off the statistics otherwise. Just a
couple of links from the Google search I just performed:
http://www.vgchartz.com/news/news.php?id=1144
http://www.productwiki.com/video-games/article/us-video-game-sales-for-may-2007.html
And obviously, the NPD stats only reflect new sales and not used sales.
Does anybody know if there's a reliable source for numerical info on
trade-ins? I'm honestly curious now to see if any of the assumptions we've
been making hold up.
To the other point? I think pricing of used RPGs reflects scarcity more
than demand. It's not as if there are gamers having a fist fight over the
last copy of Unlimited Saga. :)
-KKC, watching news about Fable 2.
Ross Ridge
>... Sure the sports and action game markets are bigger, but not
>in 100:1 ratio that I see on the shelves for used games.
Kendrick Kerwin Chua <kend...@nospam.io> wrote:
>I'd really like the RPG market to be bigger, but if you believe that
>monthly sales charts are any kind of indicator then RPGs account for ten
>percent at most.
Sure, and that market share is reflected in the titles on new game
shelves, but not the used game shelves.
> Parents and young children make up the bulk of sales, and
>I imagine for the majority of trade-ins as well.
Uh, no, not according to the Enterainment Software Association:
http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp
- The average game player is 35 years old and has been playing
games for 12 years.
- The average age of the most frequent game buyer is 40 years
old. In 2008, 96 percent of computer game buyers and 86 percent
of console game buyers were over the age of 18.
>And obviously, the NPD stats only reflect new sales and not used sales.
>Does anybody know if there's a reliable source for numerical info on
>trade-ins? I'm honestly curious now to see if any of the assumptions we've
>been making hold up.
Hmm... maybe looking at Ebay, but there's tons of new and miscategorized
stuff listed there. Other than Gamestop's own data, I don't think your
going to find anything reliable.
>To the other point? I think pricing of used RPGs reflects scarcity more
>than demand. It's not as if there are gamers having a fist fight over the
>last copy of Unlimited Saga. :)
No, but remember how much used copies of Disagea and Final Fantasy:
Tactics were selling after they went out print? I'm not sure if there
are any other games that ever went back into print because of demand.
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>To the other point? I think pricing of used RPGs reflects scarcity more
>>than demand. It's not as if there are gamers having a fist fight over the
>>last copy of Unlimited Saga. :)
>
>No, but remember how much used copies of Disagea and Final Fantasy:
>Tactics were selling after they went out print? I'm not sure if there
>are any other games that ever went back into print because of demand.
The other Square PS1 classics stuff comes to mind. Rhapsody and Persona 2
were reprinted as well, although you get the feeling that maybe in some of
these cases the demand was artificially inflated by speculation and
hoarders. I wish that the console game licensing structure were more like
the PC model, where reprints and reissues would be the norm rather than
the exception.
-KKC, who must own four copies of Morrowind due to all the different
releases.
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>> Parents and young children make up the bulk of sales, and
>>I imagine for the majority of trade-ins as well.
>
>Uh, no, not according to the Enterainment Software Association:
>
> http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp
>
> - The average game player is 35 years old and has been playing
> games for 12 years.
>
> - The average age of the most frequent game buyer is 40 years
> old. In 2008, 96 percent of computer game buyers and 86 percent
> of console game buyers were over the age of 18.
I was thinking about this point you make here just now. Obviously there's
a high level of statistical truth in both the demographic information you
cite and the sales information I cite. That means that based on the
numbers, we have a whole world of 35-year-olds playing Pokemon and
licensed Disney games. :)
Obviously that's not true. If the average gamer is indeed an adult, he may
have a longer attention span and might therefore be playing something from
a few months ago (or a few years ago) rather than the latest new thing one
would beg for from the shopping cart seat. There's also the problem of
people buying games they don't play, and buying games for which they are
not the intended primary user. The only way the numbers add up is if
nobody is getting a fully representative sample. How in the world does a
game company predict what makes money?
This is making my head hurt, so I'll close by saying that I defy all the
statistics and research having just bought a second copy of Pocket
Kingdom. You know, in the unlikely event that I meet another N-gage owner.
:)
-KKC, who wonders if Mythbusters could translate into a game or not.
MJB
"Kendrick Kerwin Chua" <kend...@nospam.io> wrote in message
news:cr-dnaqdJa6o4bbV...@giganews.com...
>
> I was thinking about this point you make here just now. Obviously there's
> a high level of statistical truth in both the demographic information you
> cite and the sales information I cite. That means that based on the
> numbers, we have a whole world of 35-year-olds playing Pokemon and
> licensed Disney games. :)
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
>
> Obviously that's not true. If the average gamer is indeed an adult, he may
> have a longer attention span and might therefore be playing something from
> a few months ago (or a few years ago)
That's sort of ironic. I'm going to turn fifty this year. I am taking a
break from installing and updating Oblivion and the Shivering Isles
expansion - which I bought upon release at full retail. But when Shivering
Isles promptly crashed my system so I uninstalled the game and haven't
played oblivion since. But - after however much time has passed since
initial purchase- I'm hoping the current patches make the game more stable
and I'm trying it again.
>rather than the latest new thing one
> would beg for from the shopping cart seat. There's also the problem of
> people buying games they don't play
Yup - I don't even know WHY I bother to buy new games anymore. I have no
time to play them - the only reason I'm installing Oblivion right now is
I've been sick with the flu for days and I can't work because of it. And as
soon as I heal-up I might as well un-install the whole damn thing.
>, and buying games for which they are
> not the intended primary user. The only way the numbers add up is if
> nobody is getting a fully representative sample. How in the world does a
> game company predict what makes money?
I've always found that designing games you want to play is a good place for
a designer to start.
>
> This is making my head hurt, so I'll close by saying that I defy all the
> statistics and research having just bought a second copy of Pocket
> Kingdom. You know, in the unlikely event that I meet another N-gage owner.
> :)
N-gauge? Isn't that the smallest train size that model-railroaders use?
>
> -KKC, who wonders if Mythbusters could translate into a game or not.
Nah - they deal in actual physics. Not ragdoll physics.
--
MJB
Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
CoinSpin
> In article <g0fiq8$lho$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
> Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Parents and young children make up the bulk of sales, and
>>> I imagine for the majority of trade-ins as well.
>>>
>> Uh, no, not according to the Enterainment Software Association:
>>
>> http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp
>>
>> - The average game player is 35 years old and has been playing
>> games for 12 years.
>>
>> - The average age of the most frequent game buyer is 40 years
>> old. In 2008, 96 percent of computer game buyers and 86 percent
>> of console game buyers were over the age of 18.
>>
>
> I was thinking about this point you make here just now. Obviously there's
> a high level of statistical truth in both the demographic information you
> cite and the sales information I cite. That means that based on the
> numbers, we have a whole world of 35-year-olds playing Pokemon and
> licensed Disney games. :)
>
The problem is, they are not true statistics, they are averages...
Think about the most frequent game buyer, for example. If you have 1000
people in this "study" and 500 of the buyers are 15 and the other 500
are 65, guess what? The average is 40. These types of "statistics"
actually shed zero light on the true dynamic of a pool of people. If
they wanted to actually be helpful, they might show a scatter chart or
histogram or other graphical representation of how many surveyed fell
into various age ranges, rather than just one blanket average.
> Obviously that's not true. If the average gamer is indeed an adult, he may
> have a longer attention span and might therefore be playing something from
> a few months ago (or a few years ago) rather than the latest new thing one
> would beg for from the shopping cart seat. There's also the problem of
> people buying games they don't play, and buying games for which they are
> not the intended primary user. The only way the numbers add up is if
> nobody is getting a fully representative sample. How in the world does a
> game company predict what makes money?
>
Game companies? They typically base future expectations on what has
already sold well. Which is why we see so many "me too" products, and
sequel after sequel of some basic platforms. Occasionally, there is a
breakout original concept, but usually it's just a mish-mash of what's
already been done, repackaged and reformulated into something different
in an attempt to appeal to new interests.
> This is making my head hurt, so I'll close by saying that I defy all the
> statistics and research having just bought a second copy of Pocket
> Kingdom. You know, in the unlikely event that I meet another N-gage owner.
> :)
>
> -KKC, who wonders if Mythbusters could translate into a game or not.
>
Hmmm... Methinks poor "Buster" would bear the brunt of that particular
product, if it ever saw the light of day.
CoinSpin
Ross Ridge
>a high level of statistical truth in both the demographic information you
>cite and the sales information I cite. That means that based on the
>numbers, we have a whole world of 35-year-olds playing Pokemon and
>licensed Disney games. :)
Well, I bought one of the GameBoy Advance Pokemon games. It's actually
not a half bad RPG.
>Obviously that's not true. If the average gamer is indeed an adult, he may
>have a longer attention span and might therefore be playing something from
>a few months ago (or a few years ago) rather than the latest new thing one
>would beg for from the shopping cart seat. There's also the problem of
>people buying games they don't play, and buying games for which they are
>not the intended primary user. The only way the numbers add up is if
>nobody is getting a fully representative sample.
The top 10 sales for a given month aren't representive. Here's the
NPD top 10 video games for all of 2007:
1. Halo 3 (Xbox 360, Microsoft) - 4.82 million
2. Wii Play w/remote (Wii, Nintendo) - 4.12 million
3. Call of Duty 4 (Xbox 360, Activision) - 3.04 million
4. Guitar Hero III: Legends Of Rock w/guitar (PlayStation 2, Neversoft/Budcat/Activision) 2.72 million
5. Super Mario Galaxy (Wii, Nintendo) - 2.52 million
6. Pokemon Diamond (DS, Nintendo) - 2.48 million
7. Madden NFL 08 (PS2, Electronic Arts) - 1.90 million
8. Guitar Hero II w/guitar (PS2, Activision) - 1.89 million
9. Assassin's Creed (Xbox 360, Ubisoft) - 1.87 million
10. Mario Party 8 (Wii, Nintendo) - 1.82 million
Here's the top 10 PC games of 2007:
1. World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade - (Vivendi) - 2.25 million
2. World of Warcraft - (Vivendi) - 914K
3. The Sims 2 - (Electronic Arts) - 534K
4. The Sims 2 Seasons Expansion Pack - (Electronic Arts) - 433K
5. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - (Activision) - 383K
6. Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars - (Electronic Arts) - 350K
7. MS Age of Empires III - (Microsoft) - 313K
8. Sim City 4 - (Electronic Arts) - 294K
9. MS Flight Simulator X - (Microsoft) - 280K
10.The Sims 2: Bon Voyage Expansion Pack - (Electronic Arts) - 272K
There's only one "kiddie" game on either list, Pokemon Diamond. On the
other hand, even the top 10 numbers for the entire year might not be
representive of the whole market. From the looks of things, the top 10
video games only count for quarter of the video games sold in 2007.
>How in the world does a game company predict what makes money?
Heh. Well, they can pay for the full set of research that NPD publishes.
They list all the games sold, do things like break down the numbers by
genre and are resprentive of the market as a whole. Well, at least in
theory. The bigger publishers probably mainly use their own sales data.
Hmm... that may explain Electronic Arts' MMORPG strategy.
Kyle Haight
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>You can't write an equation to model it. Therefore the *basis* of economics,
>which has yet to be proven, is that markets behave rationally. The assumption
>is that they follow a "natural law."
I know I'm going to regret jumping into the middle of this, but I don't
think economics assumes that people act rationally. It may assume that
people take actions they think will satisfy their desires, but that
isn't the same thing because desires may be irrational, and people are
often mistaken about what effects will follow from what causes.
I view economics as the science that studies the production of wealth
under the division of labor. Even if one were to stipulate that wealth
production requires rational action, that wouldn't mean that irrational
behavior invalidated economics. It would only mean that people who
acted irrationally were making themselves less productive than they
could have been.
>This is 200-year-old Enlightenment thinking *you* brought up to refute my
>somewhat glib claim that people are frequently chowderheads.
I can agree that people are frequently chowderheads; I've got ample
experience with that myself. On the other hand, it is also the case that
behavior that is often identified as irrational actually is rational once
understood, i.e. the rationality of an action is not always self-evident.
>I *value* the irrational: emotions and the gut instinct. I don't discard it as
>"crazy." Do you?
I think you're blurring necessary distinctions. I, for example, don't
value the irrational, because I take it to mean the wilful rejection of
reason. But I value things like emotions and intuition -- which I would
characterize as non-rational, not irrational -- in appropriate contexts,
>Humanity did *something* before science and "reason," you know. ;^)
Lived in caves and died before the age of 30?
--
Kyle Haight
CoinSpin
*snip*
> A whole lot of things happened between the *cavemen* and the advent of
> scientific, "reason"-based inquiry, which has spent the past two centuries
> debunking old wives' tales.
>
> Wow. So far off topic. Can't even think what this has to do with RPG
Maybe it's the universe asking someone to write a Neandrathal or
Cro-Magnon period RPG?
CoinSpin
Kyle Haight
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>Yes, I said that the basis of economics is that *markets* behave rationally,
>not "people." The science of economics knows damned well that *people* don't
>always behave rationally.
I'm not even sure that markets are the kind of thing to which a concept
like "rational" could be applied. Rationality is a particular manner
of using one's consciousness, and markets aren't conscious. Saying they
are, or even could be, seems like a metaphor at best and a category
error at worst.
A free market is simply an aggregation of the productive and trading
activities of individual people.
>That's why we have "market corrections," like the one the U.S. is currently
>undergoing. Irrational exuberance about the housing market has lead to a
>"bubble," which has lead to an inevitable "collapse," as irrational behaviors
>such as overvaluing property and lending money to high-risk clients are
>unsustainable.
One might also view the housing market as individual people reacting
rationally to perceived yet perverse incentives like artificially low
interest rates, government bailouts of losses from bad lending, perverse
reward structures in the mortage lending market, pressure to extend
credit to poor risks stemming from the Community Lending Act, and so
on. When people are acting inside a context of incentives that are not
themselves rationally grounded, it's difficult to figure out where the
blame should be directed. Who is worse, the person who makes a bad
decision or the person who set up the system to reward people who make
bad decisions?
>To me, "irrational" simply means "outside the scope of reason. Not reason."
>That is how I am using it. The emotions are definitely irrational, no matter
>what value we place on them.
The problem I have with this is that it leads to describing things like
digestion as irrational. It is outside the scope of reason, after all.
Several dictionaries I've checked define "irrational" as some variation
of "not in accordance with reason", which implies that it applies to
cases where reason would dictate one position and that position is
being rejected. There's a difference between those cases and cases
in which reason simply does not take a position and thus one cannot
be out of accord with it. That's what I describe as "non-rational".
>>Lived in caves and died before the age of 30?
>
>LOL.
Well, it was a joke.
>Antiquity and the middle ages happened without appeal to modern reason or
>natural law. There is considerable history beyond the cavemen prior to
>scientific inquiry.
I'm not clear on what you mean by "modern reason". Since you think it
didn't exist in antiquity I infer that it is distinct from, say,
the rules of logic as laid out by Aristotle.
>The modern concept of "reason" and the sciences were codified by Enlightenment
>philosophers. They are little over two centuries old.
I'd trace the modern concept of science back to Galileo, as one of the
earliest exponents of what we today would describe as the scientific
method. That was in the early 1600's if memory serves, which would
make science closer to 400 years old than 200.
>Without such "reason," the medievals invented trade, guilds, banking, etc.
>Mathematics and logic were invented methodologies long before they were
>treated scientifically. Euclid invented planar geometry without the
>scientific method.
I think you are defining reason much more narrowly than I do.
>A whole lot of things happened between the *cavemen* and the advent of
>scientific, "reason"-based inquiry, which has spent the past two centuries
>debunking old wives' tales.
I would date the advent of reason-based inquiry to ancient Greece.
And even prior to that, people reasoned -- just without any form of
methodological self-awareness.
>Wow. So far off topic. Can't even think what this has to do with RPG.
Going for the record!
Hmm. ObCRPG: Why is it that CRPG economics is almost always half-assed
or totally absent? Based on how much things cost in stores, it seems
like the monsters living in the dungeons are far wealthier than the
typical people living in the towns. What's up with that?
About the only instance of a single-player RPG I can think of that
touched on this sort of thing was Fable. At least it had merchants
who offered different amounts of money for items, and who paid less
for things they already had a lot of. You could actually make money
in the game by arbitrage.
--
Kyle Haight
Kyle Haight
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>>Maybe it's the universe asking someone to write a Neandrathal or
>>Cro-Magnon period RPG?
>
Ok, monster dead. Look, treasure! Ugh, *another* club. This suck.
--
Kyle Haight
CoinSpin
But I had my +3 Loincloth of Warding on! How is this possible???
Bah, I knew I spent too much time learning that useless "Walk Erect"
skill... Although the ladies seem to like it... Hmmmm
CoinSpin
Kyle Haight
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>>I'm not even sure that markets are the kind of thing to which a concept
>>like "rational" could be applied.
>
In my opinion this simply means that many economists misunderstand the
nature of their own field of study.
>There is no one on Wall Street that doesn't listen carefully to the Fed. One
>could wish the American economy wasn't based in a centralized banking system,
>but at the end of the day, it still *would* be.
The American economy had a free banking system in the past. Central
banking was introduced in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve.
I see no fundamental reason why the political ratchet can turn only one
way. (In fact, to say that central banking in the United States started
in 1913 is a bit of a simplification, as it ignores the First and Second
Banks of the United States. Andrew Jackson's successful fight to get
rid of the Second Bank of the United States indicates that it is possible
to get rid of centralized banking with sufficient political will.)
>Dammit Spock, they're called emotions! ;^)
I know what they are. I have and enjoy them. They're valuable. Fun,
even. B-) I don't consider them irrational, but explaining why would
take us further afield than even I'm willing to go, so I'll drop the
point here.
>>I'm not clear on what you mean by "modern reason".
>
>Okay. Read some John Locke and Rousseau and/or take a few philosophy courses.
I have read some Locke, specifically his _Essay Concerning Human
Understanding_. I've also read work by Hobbes, Hume, Berkeley, Rousseau,
Descartes and other philosophers of the period. I'm also familiar with
the major ancient Greek philosophers -- the big three as well as some of
the pre-Socratics. I actually spent about a year and a half in graduate
school in philosophy, before I decided that all things considered I'd
rather have some actual money to spend on food, clothing and shelter.
I'm not ignorant of the field.
>The word itself has many other meanings, which is why I specified "*modern*
>reason."
The multiple meanings of the word are exactly why I asked you to clarify
what you meant by it. We've done a lot of fencing over the meaning of
words in this discussion, and I thought it would be prudent to ask you
what you meant instead of simply assuming I knew.
>To my understanding, [Galileo's] was an inchoate and seminal science. It
>is no more *modern* science than Chaucer is modern English.
If you don't like Galileo, how about Newton? He published the
_Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica_, containing his statement
and proof of his laws of motion, in 1687. If this isn't one of the
major landmarks in the development of science and scientific method I
don't know what would be. That was 321 years ago. Ok, not 400, but
way more than 200.
>To me, it's a bit like claiming the internal combustion engine is
>400-years-old because alchemists knew how to "combust" things during
>the Renaissance.
A better analogy would be the steam engine. There was a very primitive
steam-engine-like thing in ancient Greece, but it was considered a toy
with no practical value. It took Thomas Newcomen and (especially) James
Watt to create what we would recognize as a modern steam engine.
>Probably because they are written by escapists who would rather not study
>economics because it is *so very dull*.
If you say so. I actually find economics kind of interesting. I read
the bulk of Ludwig von Mises _Human Action_ back when I was in high
school and I've got over a dozen books on economics sitting on my
bookshelf right now. In fact, I was reading a 1990 study on central
banking problems from the American Institute for Economic Research
just the other night.
>Oh God! "Arbitrage the RPG." We have a new definition of *boring* for
>generations to come! ;^)
Oh, I don't know. Some economists define their science in terms of
the allocation of scarce resources to multiple ends, and that kind of
resource management has been a central gameplay dynamic in a number of
very successful games, including Sid Meier's Civilization and its
numerous sequels.
--
Kyle Haight
Ross Ridge
>Hmm. ObCRPG: Why is it that CRPG economics is almost always half-assed
>or totally absent? Based on how much things cost in stores, it seems
>like the monsters living in the dungeons are far wealthier than the
>typical people living in the towns. What's up with that?
Well, I think it's a bit like why tombs and sunken ships are always
filled with gold, those are the ones that treasure hunters go after.
Dungeons are for the most part are presented as being cut off from
the economy. A place where wealth has been lost or carried off to,
not where it's being created.
My problem with most fantasy worlds is that general the whole
social-econonic system doesn't make much sense. They take a late medieval
society add magic and monsters and get... a late medieval society.
Computer games tend to be even worse, set in little toy demi-worlds
that only make sense as an abstract representation of a real world.
Unfortunately, because they're not presented in an abstract manner on
screen, you end up thinking that the entire civilized world is really
supposed to consist of a handful towns and villages and a couple of farms.
>About the only instance of a single-player RPG I can think of that
>touched on this sort of thing was Fable. At least it had merchants
>who offered different amounts of money for items, and who paid less
>for things they already had a lot of. You could actually make money
>in the game by arbitrage.
Hmm... I can't think of any other RPGs off hand that you can make money
through arbitrage, but there are other games that have merchants that
vary their price based on how much you've already sold them.
Xocyll
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:
>riku <ri...@none.invalid.com> writes:
>>Furthermore, healthy second-hand market is good for the quality of
>>games because it is an incentive for the developers to make good and
>>lasting games which people want to keep for a long time,
>
>Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>>There's a problem with this theory;
>>It's exactly the same "incentive" that car makers have to making a
>>solid, non-rusting car that people will keep for years - if the old one
>>works fine, there's no incentive to buy a new one.
>
>Except that it doesn't actually work that way. Consumers aren't
>irrational, at least not in aggregate, and make car purchases based on the
>total cost of owning a car. That includes factors like maintainance and
>resale value, so car manufactures do have an incentive to make reliable
>and long lasting cars. That's why you see them touting the resale value
>of their cars.
Everyone seems to have missed one key point to my statement;
non-rusting.
What car maker, other than Delorean, ever made a car that wasn't
deliberately designed to rust away and FORCE the consumer to buy another
one?
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>>Except that it doesn't actually work that way. Consumers aren't
>>irrational, at least not in aggregate, and make car purchases based on the
>>total cost of owning a car. That includes factors like maintainance and
>>resale value, so car manufactures do have an incentive to make reliable
>>and long lasting cars. That's why you see them touting the resale value
>>of their cars.
>
>Everyone seems to have missed one key point to my statement;
>non-rusting.
>
>What car maker, other than Delorean, ever made a car that wasn't
>deliberately designed to rust away and FORCE the consumer to buy another
>one?
The Eureka kit cars we had down under in the 80s were all fibreglass :).
Petrol-heads used to take a 600kg 2-seater go-cart shell & replace the VW
engine they came with, with a 12A rotary which had twice as much power.
Crazy bastards. This was of course before ppl realised that a
well-under-a-ton (mis)guided missile with no crumple zone (rather a soft
tissue 'shred factor') was just a 'little bit' dangerous, even for the
biggest yahoos. :)
--
Nostromo
Kyle Haight
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>The key word being "development." Newton is not the *mature* method of today.
>He's seminal. I am talking about the mature methodology and practice.
I'd go further and say that Newton's _Principia_ and _Opticks_ (the
latter published in 1704) still stand today as two of the greatest works
in experimental physics, period. They are, in my judgement, examples of
mature scientific methodology. (In some respects, Newton grasped important
elements of scientific method that modern scientists either misunderstand
or outright ignore, such as his famous statement that he "frames no
hypotheses." There are things contemporary scientists could stand to
rediscover from Newton.)
>Oh God, here comes the inevitable wiki link. I feel so weak... ;^)
That's OK. I used Wikipedia to track down the publication dates of
Newton's works. While I don't consider it reliable for anything even
remotely controversial, it's useful for those sorts of minor factual
queries.
>Do you follow? These new scientists rejected "natural philosophy" as a
>non-science, picking a few maverick geniuses as scientific authorities to
>satisfy the authority based university system, and became "natural scientists."
>Those were the first actual "scientists."
I interpret the history somewhat differently. The early scientists, like
Galileo, Kepler and Newton were applying scientific methodology, but because
they were among the first to do so in a self-aware manner the nature of
what they were doing had not been explicitly identified as a new discipline.
It was treated as falling inside the broader field of "natural philosophy".
Later, the difference between "the kind of thing that Galileo and Newton
did" and "the kind of thing that Descartes was doing" was identified, and
physics was broken out into a separate discipline.
So the question becomes whether you mark the start of science as the
point where people started *doing* science or the point where, on the
basis of what people were doing, science was identified as a distinct
field. I date it from the former, you seem to date it from the latter.
Fine.
>[Newton] did as much to hold back science as he did to promote it, IMHO.
I'll just say that I flatly disagree with this assessment, and leave it
at that.
>Newton would not have called himself a "scientist." He was a "philosopher."
Whether Newton called himself a scientist or not, what he was doing in
his _Principia_ and _Optics_ was science.
--
Kyle Haight
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Sat, 17 May 2008 11:34:41 -0400,
At least you had loads of empty space outside the major cities down
under where the gearheads could take their toys to speed.
There were loads of different kits around in North America in the 70s an
onward, many of which were designed to bolt onto a VW Beetle or
SuperBeetle.
Still, kit makers aren't car producers, and the VW underbody would still
rust.
Kyle Haight
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>I think it was science too, BTW. I never doubted it. You keep missing that I'm
>making a (perhaps artificial) distinction between *all* science and *modern*
>science.
I think we're at the point where we each understand what the other is
trying to say. I consider the distinction you're making artificial, and
I don't see much utility to it, which is why I don't use it myself. But
my goal in this discussion was to understand where you were coming from,
not to convince you to see things my way, so I think we can wrap up this
topic now.
>I'd love to hear how you think we can summon the political will to dial back
>the central banking system. It was something I had passed over in our prior
>discusssion. Are you a supporter of Ron Paul's plan? Do you think we should
>return to the gold standard? How would it affect the U.S. geopolitical stance?
>How would it affect the petrodollar?
I don't know the details of Ron Paul's proposal, so I can't say whether
it would be good or not. I'm not a Ronulan, but my reasons for that are
a bit complicated and I don't particularly want to go into them here for
fear of launching a political flamewar.
In broad outline, I would advocate a return to some form of gold standard.
Exactly how that would work, and how we would manage the transition,
are details I leave to professionally trained economists and political
scientists. Such a move would have a substantial impact on government
policy, for obvious reasons -- it would remove the government's ability
to finance deficit spending by inflating the currency.
I'm well aware that my view here is in the minority. If that's going
to change, it will start by educating people about the problems that
fiat currency causes and the ways that gold-backed currency prevents
those problems. The current collapse of the dollar is an opportunity for
such education. I don't expect any policy fruit for quite some time,
though; the current political trends in the United States are towards
expansion of government power, not towards limitation.
>I don't have good answers to those questions, and I solicit your opinion,
>and any source material you think a layperson who reads the WSJ, Financial
>Times, and Crain's would understand.
A brief article on the topic is Alan Greenspan's 1966 article "Gold
And Economic Freedom", which can be found in a number of places on the
web with a quick googling.
Chapter 19 of George Reisman's _Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics_
covers the gold standard, and chapter 20 deals with the outlines of
a political program. There's a free browsable PDF of the book at
his website, capitalism.net.
I've also got a study, _Gold and Liberty_ by Richard Salsman, in my
reading stack, but I haven't read it yet so can't speak to whether
it's any good.
--
Kyle Haight
Kyle Haight
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>It's very hard to move it back. Each and every step will take monumental
>political will, and unprecedented public awareness that does not exist at this
>time.
>
>I agree that it would be good for the country, I just have no idea how to pass
>through Scylla and Charybdis, as it were.
People act on the basis of what they think is moral and practical.
The political/economic system moved to central banking because it was
considered both practical and moral to do so. If we want to move away
from it, we have to change people's understanding of its morality and
practicality.
>Luckily, it isn't my job or responsibility to get us there. I simply don't
>trust the pols, though.
I trust the political class to do what it thinks is in its interest.
(This is often at odds with what would be in the interests of the citizens
they nominally serve -- one of the key insights of public choice theory.)
I've heard it said that politicians will wear their fingers to the bone
testing the direction the wind is blowing, so they can follow it. This
suggests that effective political change comes not from changing the
politicians, but from changing the wind.
--
Kyle Haight
Gerry Quinn
zagh...@hotmail.com says...
> You can date the *beginnings* of scientific methodology to the middle ages if
> you like, but much of it would be considered a sorry joke to any scientist of
> today.
I date them to Aristotle.
> Newton, though rightly revered, is considered a sorry joke to modern
> scientists. Even his "physics" have been supplanted.
Not really. Most dynamical calculations require no relativistic
corrections.
> Newton, amongst other things, was also an alchemist and proposed "the ether."
> He was a dilettante at worst, a genius at best. Modern science spent *a
> century* getting over his *worst* ideas, which were given false authority
> because of his success in physics and mathematics.
To which ideas do you refer? I don't think anyone but alchemists had
trouble getting over Newton's alchemy, and his theory about the
composition of the ether doesn't seem to have excited much interest.
Classical ether theories were superseded only a century ago, when
Einstein showed that the ether could not usefully be ascribed a state of
motion.
> Newton would not have called himself a "scientist." He was a "philosopher."
> That's why his work is titled the _Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
> Mathematica_. His work was "natural philosophy" in his time.
Nevertheless he was a scientist according to the current meaning of the
word.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
Xoc...@kingston.net says...
> Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading
> Everyone seems to have missed one key point to my statement;
> non-rusting.
>
> What car maker, other than Delorean, ever made a car that wasn't
> deliberately designed to rust away and FORCE the consumer to buy another
> one?
Presumably any car or other object containing steel could be described
as "designed to rust away and force the owner to replace it". That does
not seem a very meaningful description in most cases.
Adding extra rust protection or that will extend the life of the steel
framework beyond that of other components is likely to be a waste of
money.
Which cars were designed to rust _prematurely_? Only those could be
considered valid targets of your accusation.
- Gerry Quinn
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:31:23 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Gerry Quinn
>wrote:
>
>>> Newton would not have called himself a "scientist." He was a "philosopher."
>>> That's why his work is titled the _Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
>>> Mathematica_. His work was "natural philosophy" in his time.
>>
>>Nevertheless he was a scientist according to the current meaning of the
>>word.
>
>Not really. That's my point. I simply disagree with the rosy picture of Newton
>that was deliberately and carefully painted by the "natural sciences" movement.
>
>Y'all are accepting this superb PR job as a *fact*. Check your facts.
>
>IMHO, Newton's methods were seminal and inchoate. He was adopted as the closest
>thing to what natural scientists *wanted* to do. A lot of his stuff reads like
>superstitious nonsense, even the /principia/.
>
>Nobody writes up science as a narrative now. Newton *did*. He wrote it as a
>philosophical discourse.
>
>Newton's greatest contribution was to calculus, not science. He was a gifted
>mathematician, but Leibniz joined him in that discovery, so he's hardly
>irreplaceable.
>
>Leibniz was even accused of *plagiarism* for his brilliance, in service of the
>*myth* of Sir Isaac.
>
>So I toss Newton in the bin of science's early and miserable past, alongside
>the myth of "Occam's Razor" and the whole of the British Empire.
>
>To my view, *nothing* is simple, and anything mathematical is a model, not
>truth. *We* invented math. It isn't "God's language," and it isn't how the
>universe is planned. There is no *truth* to be found in math, just *useful*
>descriptions that may or may not be true. AFAIC, there is no "God particle" and
>there is no "unifying theory."
Wow! Bad day at the ranch there cowboy? ;-p
Even though I may agree with most of the diatribe, we're now mixing
existentialism with 'hard' science, not that there really is such a thing
anymore - more 'science' is subscribed to as an article of faith one way or
another & most modern physics is just mathematical models with little or no
direct evidence/observation. So perhaps Newton was a better or at least more
honest scientist than most these days, as much as I don't like him nor would
defend him on many points myself.
>We are just slightly off the mark, as usual.
>
>There is no doubt that we have discovered how to destroy the entire planet,
>however. Mankind should tread lightly. I shudder to think what *might* happen
>when the LHC goes on-line in France and Switzerland. I can't stop them.
>
>That is my opinion on the matter. I don't care much for argument about it. I've
>studied well, and I can come to no other conclusion:
There was a great BBC mini-series with just such a scenario a few years ago
- anyone remember the name perhaps?
>We are *still* a bunch of bumblers, fumbling in the dark. This has not changed
>in the last 200 years, and it will not change for millenia to come.
You should my wife first thing in the morning lol! >8^D
--
Nostromo
Gerry Quinn
zagh...@hotmail.com says...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:31:23 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Gerry Quinn
> wrote:
>
> >> That's why his work is titled the _Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
> >> Mathematica_. His work was "natural philosophy" in his time.
> >
> >Nevertheless he was a scientist according to the current meaning of the
> >word.
>
> that was deliberately and carefully painted by the "natural sciences" movement.
>
> Y'all are accepting this superb PR job as a *fact*. Check your facts.
I alluded to some facts, e.g. his dynamics and theory of gravity. Those
were big advances in physics. Where are your facts?
> IMHO, Newton's methods were seminal and inchoate. He was adopted as the closest
> thing to what natural scientists *wanted* to do. A lot of his stuff reads like
> superstitious nonsense, even the /principia/.
The results are more important than the methods. If people want to
redefine science as being about method rather than results, they are
cargo-cultists, and Newton was the real scientist, not them.
> Nobody writes up science as a narrative now. Newton *did*. He wrote it as a
> philosophical discourse.
>
> Newton's greatest contribution was to calculus, not science. He was a gifted
> mathematician, but Leibniz joined him in that discovery, so he's hardly
> irreplaceable.
His main contribution was to science; you've said it yourself - Leibniz
independently invented the calculus, but nobody else came up with
Newtonian dynamics and the understanding of gravity that followed from
it.
> To my view, *nothing* is simple, and anything mathematical is a model, not
> truth. *We* invented math. It isn't "God's language," and it isn't how the
> universe is planned. There is no *truth* to be found in math, just *useful*
> descriptions that may or may not be true. AFAIC, there is no "God particle" and
> there is no "unifying theory."
Logically there must be a unifying theory, because if A and B are any
two observables, a chain of interactions connects them - if only via the
observer - and any two interacting objects must obviously partake in
some sense of the same substance.
As for mathematics, it is a collection of sets of strings which can be
placed in one to one correspondence with mathematical models of
observables; its utility is that we have learned techniques to easily
derive new strings that are logically equivalent to old ones, and these
new strings can then describe predictions of models.
> There is no doubt that we have discovered how to destroy the entire planet,
> however. Mankind should tread lightly. I shudder to think what *might* happen
> when the LHC goes on-line in France and Switzerland. I can't stop them.
I don't think there's much risk, to be honest, although it's true that
for the (now abandoned) SSC at least, not quite all possible
catastrophic results were ruled out by astrophysical observations.
Then again, one possible solution to the question of "where are the
aliens" is that the laws of physics contain a trap, and any race capable
of developing interstellar communication is capable also of walking up
to this trap and falling in.
> That is my opinion on the matter. I don't care much for argument about it. I've
> studied well, and I can come to no other conclusion:
>
> We are *still* a bunch of bumblers, fumbling in the dark. This has not changed
> in the last 200 years, and it will not change for millenia to come.
On that we can agree.
- Gerry Quinn