The Downsides to Digital Distribution 371
The gaming industry's ongoing shift from physical media to direct downloads has made buying new titles much more convenient, and in some cases cheaper. However, as this article in The Escapist notes, there are downsides as well, such as an increased dependence on console makers and the inability to sell your used games. Quoting:
"Microsoft and Sony might end up charging publishers an arm and a leg to enable game downloads, especially as they gain more and more control over distribution. Think about it: What if, 10 years from now, 50 percent of software sales for Microsoft's latest console come through Xbox Live? Or, in an even scarier scenario for consumers, what if there is no physical media drive at all, and everything goes through Xbox Live? Sony's marriage to the Blu-ray format ensures its continued support of game discs, but Microsoft has no such restrictions. They could cut console production costs and take control over the entire supply chain in one fell swoop. There would be zero room for publishers to negotiate anything in such a de facto monopoly. The perfect comparison is Wal-Mart. As the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart is able to demand pretty much whatever it wants of suppliers because it grants access to such large numbers of consumers."
Ditch physical media... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
and simultaneously abandon all customers without high speed internet access.
Who can't get satellite Internet?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who wants to pay $100+/mo for crappy speeds with spotty service and a 56kbps upload speed? I don't think you'll find too many people willing to shell out that kind of cash.
What I could see is a one-time USB dongle or something that is shipped to you, which you authenticate over your internet connection, then download to your machine.
After that, you just store the thumb drive somewhere, in case your machine dies, and there you go.
Re:Ditch physical media... (Score:4, Funny)
Who can't get satellite Internet?
North Korea. They're so poor and backwards, even electromagnetic waves don't propagate properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Who doesn't have high speed internet access and is also interested in console gaming?
Re: (Score:2)
Who doesn't have high speed internet access and is also interested in console gaming?
Kids whose parents live in the country, for one.
Re: (Score:2)
People living in a situation where they don't have control over their internet connection?
For example, someone living with their parents, or in shared accomodation.
Re: (Score:2)
Millions of people in the United States. Not everyone lives in a major city, you know...
lollercaust. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nerds complaining about the world they created.
I know you are somewhat trolling, but the more I read /. the more it seems that everyone on here is rejecting technology than embracing it.
There is a fear of digital distribution and cloud networks overall (even though I would support systems without DRM and ways to backup and encrypt own data).
I think there is this pervasive fear that the world is leaving the tech geeks behind and none of them want to play along with where the world is going.
Its like trying to
Re: (Score:2)
the more it seems that everyone on here is rejecting technology than embracing it.
We embrace plenty of technology. We also see how that technology can blow up in our face, so we choose not to just go ahead and rub our faces all over it like it was some kind of raw sewage container.
Re: (Score:2)
It is like Homer Simpson once said - "Ah alcohol. The solution to and cause of all our problems."
Re: (Score:2)
Technology != panacea. Often it creates as many problems (if not more) than it solves.
Well here is the problem...
For every computer nerd who speaks out against a bad technology idea, there are 10 who are going to smile and go along with it for the PHB's money.
Those NSA data collection and DRM schemes aren't building themeselves. People like you and me are giving up their morals and are helping build them.
I personally do not think cloud computer or digital distribution is the problem with these systems but r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The authors seem to have forgotten something... (Score:3, Informative)
Or, in an even scarier scenario for consumers, what if there is no physical media drive at all, and everything goes through Xbox Live? Sony's marriage to the Blu-ray format ensures its continued support of game discs, but Microsoft has no such restrictions.
That "something" being the handheld market. Sony is going to do pretty much exactly as this describes with the PSP (despite their "marriage" to UMD), so there's no need to make hypothetical arguments; we can simply see what happens there in a few years.
need license from consoles for physical media too (Score:3, Insightful)
2015 is..... (Score:5, Funny)
I declare: 2015 will be the year of the Linux video game console!
With games like networked FreeCiv, custom content versions based on the open source Quake II engine, and Snake who needs the evil, proprietary XBox Live?
On the other hand... for anybody who didn't realize that Microsoft *invested* $4-8 Billion on the original Xbox to claim the $40-80 Billion "home entertainment market" in the future... shame on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your declarations are false!
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I wouldn't say I'm eager to give up the ability to sell my games when I'm done with them, but if your prices come down to make up for that loss of value, then we can probably reach a deal.
As a bit of an aside, the fact that game publishers/developers argue against selling used games has always seemed silly to me. I'm willing to bet that the majority of money that people get from selling old games gets put towards buying new games. The person who couldn't sell their old game wouldn't have as much mo
And if all three are annoying (Score:2)
If Xbox3 is too annoying, people will just buy the PS4 or Wii2.
And if all three are annoying, what video game platform will people buy to connect to the SDTV in the other room?
Personally, I'm fine with digital download replacing media. It is better for the environment and more efficient.
Is downloading more efficient even in areas that are too far from the nearest DSLAM and not served by a cable TV company?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I'm fine with digital download replacing media. It is better for the environment and more efficient. I would expect the system to (a) let me sell my key to another person, and (b) let me re-download the data if I need to.
(a) will never happen. With any of the console manufacturers, unless Gamestop decides to make a console, then maybe. (b) might if you're lucky, but think how many hours you will waste re-downloading games when your Xbox720 inevitably breaks.
Another thing that digital downloads
Steam too (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who bought two copies of Portal (one standalone, then as part of the Orange Box) and got pissed at the Steam for not letting me give one of the copies away, I sympathize with this. I've already decided that I won't buy stuff on Steam any more unless (like for Portal 2 and HL Episode 3) there's no other source.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Steam keeps a record of your purchase history, so your extra copy is not "lost". Valve will likely eventually extend the "gift games you already own" feature to any games you own two copies off in the future. Right now it's limited to HL2 and EP1 as part of the Orange Box package, and L4d as part of the L4D 4-pack package.
I will admit I'm puzzled as to why they haven't already extended the feature.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you know what the word "or" means?
Rob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
^^ Reading comprehension fail
And this differs how? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're already at the mercy of the holder of the key for signing games. Unless they want their release restricted to homebrew / modchipped consoles, there would be no difference.
There is a fourth platform (Score:2)
Unless they want their release restricted to homebrew / modchipped consoles, there would be no difference.
Every PC running Windows is a potential "homebrew / modchipped console". All it needs is a VGA cable to an HDTV or a $40 adapter to an SDTV [sewelldirect.com].
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the console manufacturers cannot dictate anything but the quality and content of the game through the licensing process. They could dictate everything else including retail price if they had control of the only means of distribution, however.
Rob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the console manufacturers cannot dictate anything but the quality and content of the game through the licensing process.
Console manufacturers can dictate what kind of office your business uses. They can dictate the platform on which your company publishes your first title: it has to be the PC. Source: Nintendo [warioworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
True for Discs as Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't game companies still need approval from Microsoft to distribute games in physical media? If so, how would moving to a downloads change that? You still need the same approval you did before.
Tendency toward monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course people can say Marxist theory is insane, but the predominant economic theory is that everything is fine, markets correct themselves and all of that nonsense. So what is really more off-the-wall, the Marxists or the Panglossian head-in-the-sand economists of today who say everything is fine? This is from someone who has seen the US economy stagnating since 2000 (other than some slight growth in the mid-decade with the real estate bubble, which is currently popping).
Power tends toward monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly. This was pointed out by Marx in the 19th century, and expanded upon by Lenin
Ah, pointed out by leading thinkers who advocated & implemented the government having a monopoly over EVERYTHING.
Power tends to acquire more power. Better capitalistic power which tends to self-limit by still leaving people choices*, than governmental power which tends to literally kill the competition.
(* - You don't HAVE to buy at Wal-Mart. You CAN get internet access from other sourc
Re:Tendency toward monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the Marxist/Capitalist debate is (IMO, of course) that both are more or less correct in assessing the weakness of the other system, but each overvalues its own strengths and refuses to acknowledge their own weaknesses.
Advocates of each system essentially base their support on two assertions:
The problem is in the second assertion, not the first.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always thought that the trouble with both systems is that they rely on altruistic people being in charge, but provide pathways for sociopaths to take the reigns and steer the ship into an iceburg. This is why Plato's Republic calls for Philosopher King's instead of natural born royalty or corruptible elected officials. Only when the leaders can prevent individuals from gaining too much power will either system work fine.
Trouble is with Capitalism, though, that taking as much power as possible is t
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. Markets do correct themselves.
But the time constants in the Market's reaction is measured in years, decades, centuries and even millenia. Even something as stable as the feudal system that lasted 1000 years eventually collapsed under its own inefficiency.
Second, when the market corrects itself it is not going to compensate the people who have been hurt. It will find new
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen a couple of people stating that Marxism was no better than Capitalism. I guess they are missing the point. The point is not to system which is better than Capitalism but to understand its weakness.
I often say that Capitalism sucks despite we have nothing better. Understanding why a system is bad is the first step to develop a new one. I hope the US of A will understand that Capitalism sucks. Because they have some of the best economist in the world. And we need them to build something better.
Re: (Score:2)
I often say that Capitalism sucks despite we have nothing better. Understanding why a system is bad is the first step to develop a new one. I hope the US of A will understand that Capitalism sucks.
My thoughts on it:
The biggest problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't scale to the levels we're pushing it to (not unlike government).
Capitalism works quite well on a microcosmic scale, where "customer goodwill" is good for more than just "will they tell their friends". As the area of effect gets bigger, the customers become faceless masses who are entirely disposable.
Monopoly == Goverment Intervention (Score:2)
Capitalism only tends toward Monopoly because of Government intervention. Patents and Copyrights encourage Monopolies to form, remove those restrictions and a Monopoly is impossible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...and then to revert to competition.
Take games consoles. Once upon a time there were several players, which were whittled down to Nintendo and Sega. Nintendo dominates, but Sega is still effective to prevent monopoly. Sony enters. Sony becomes dominant. Nintendo all but falls out. Sega falls out. Microsoft enters. Microsoft removes Sony's dominance. Nintendo re-enters. Sony is now in last place.
The dominant firm has changed hands with every product cycle, and ev
Never (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, like that will ever happen...
If they overdo it... (Score:2)
...the game console in question will suffer from lack of attractiveness.
There is still the PC, with no such restrictions - anyone can program for it without paying huge license fees.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still the PC, with no such restrictions
PCs lack lockout-chip restrictions, but in practice, they do have a screen size restriction. There are three kinds of monitors used to play video games: HDTVs, SDTVs, and small PC monitors.
HDTVs: These can display signals from a PC's VGA or DVI port, but not all of a publisher's audience has one yet. A study [engadgethd.com] found that two-thirds of living rooms still had CRT SDTVs.
SDTVs: Unlike video game consoles, the PC platform does not have SDTV output as a standard feature. There is a PC-to-TV adapter [sewelldirect.com], but it's s
PC screens are getting bigger... (Score:2)
These days, my favorite IT mailorder shop (alternate.de) has a large selection of 22" models, typically in 16:10 screen format with 1680x1050 pixels resolution. The cheaper models are around 150 euros, and I guess most people who buy a new screen get something this size.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a PC-to-TV adapter
"a" adapter? As if there has only been one model and mfgr of VGA to TV adapter since VGA became popular circa 1990?
Alternatively, I can't remember the last video card I owned that didn't have video out... Although I'm certain that cards like that do exist.
I have PCs in my living room and rec room running mythtv, and the real problem is input devices. I can get a rechargeable RF wireless mouse that looks like a space aliens marital aid with a ten foot range assuming I unplug my wireless LAN and one hour b
Could have disastrous results (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about companies like EA who rush timelines and overwork their employees already! Now all of a sudden they're presented with a situation where the digital media can be altered at any point by patches and upgrades, and they aren't limited to a "gold" copy of the game. Now, granted, many current games with CD's release patches to improve the flaws in the game, but imagine when all of a sudden greedy companies are given a license to release unfinished games? I could see a world where no one purchases new games for several months, just because it was released unpatched.
digital distribution can be ok... (Score:5, Interesting)
Digital distribution is fine, as long as these guarantees are in place:
1) I can transfer my rights to the game to some 3rd party (ie, selling it on the 'used game market')
2) I can play the game without it needing to 'phone home' (so I can play it offline, and I can play it even if the activation servers go away).
3) I can play my game on any other device (eg, my wii breaks down and I buy a new one-- i should be able to play all my purchased games on the new one).
4) If the next generation console is backwards-compatible, I can transfer all my old games onto it and play them there (again, hopefully this would work even if the old activation servers no longer exist).
wrap it all up in drm if you want, but it needs to walk and talk like physical media, including all the freedoms (rights) i have now with my physical media.
meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism has a tendency towards monopoly. This was pointed out by Marx in the 19th century, and expanded upon by Lenin 95 years ago [marxists.org]. T
I have a broader theory than that. Things tend towards shit over time. The longer the period of time, the greater the likelihood all will be shit. Finally that shit hits the fan, people get mad enough to do something about it, and they put together something that isn't shit; it might even be quite good. But then they relax and time goes on and things start going to shit again.
Capitalism sucks. Marx and his buddies saw that, tried to come up with a better idea. It turned to shit. Capitalism has had a few reversals thanks to the threat of socialism/communism but now that the threat has gone away, things are sliding to shit again.
Microsoft products suck. But some hippies and computer scientists tried coming up with a better idea and Microsoft said "Oh, shit." So they were able to actually reverse the shittification process of the 9x series and came up with Win2k. Brilliant. But then the slide towards shit resumed. Some people liked XP, some people hated it, but everyone hated Vista. W7, a reversal or a further slide down the shit chute? Only time will tell.
So, to somehow get back on topic. Company makes a game machine. It's great. Company gets greedier and graspy and ends up alienating customers, turning to shit. Eventually people won't want to use their shitty products anymore and they go away. Atari exists only as a brand name used by another company. Sega is a shadow of its former self. Nintendo remains but people argue as to whether they've declined or are stronger than ever. Certainly they don't dominate the market as they did in the NES/SNES era. Sony came onto the scene out of nowhere with the PSX, reigned supreme with the PS2, and became an also-ran with the PS3.
It's hard to say what the future will hold but I do think the console makers are lusting after digital distro. The only question is whether the market would bite. I thought Circuit City's Div-X would have been more popular than it was and was pleased when it failed. Will customers make the right choice here?
Microsoft cannot afford to shun retail (Score:3, Insightful)
The visibility of their product is what sells it, not just the cheaper price point than Sony's offering or their "household name" factor.
To most people, "Microsoft" is what you call Word/Outlook/Excel. "My Microsoft is broken," they'll tell you, then go off to drink a coffee with a name more complicated than "Word."
If Microsoft wishes to retain credibility as a console manufacturer, they either need to do some colossally big marketing of the idea of independence from physical media or they run the risk of falling behind on game sales - the bread and butter of the console gaming market.
Plus, come Christmas time, what is Grandma Mildred going to buy for the kids? A plastic card that they can use via the XBox's digital distribution system tied to mom and dad's credit card which the children or the parents would have to redeem for the nebulous concept of "Points" that the children can then decide how to distribute between the various XBLA offerings? Hell no, she's going to buy them "Wii Carnival Games" or some random racing or sports game for the PS3.
This is not to say that it's impossible to escape from the concept of retail software, only that they need to come up with an effective marketing tool to get people to start thinking of gaming as something that happens on the Internet, not in the home on the box plugged into the TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's a good thing, if prices fall. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never been impressed with the concept of selling used games. I respect and think that that the right to do so is important, but given how incredibly crappy the return on one's investment is I've never even considered selling a game. Today's used video games are yesterday's baseball cards. I remember the exact same predatory purchasing behavior going on at my local mall in the 1980s. If it could happen without tarnishing our right to resell a game, I'd be more than happy to see this 'business' model fall apart.
Due to the above, I think people shouldn't focus so much on the used game sales and instead consider the net benefit that *might* be had if the physical distribution model went away altogether. First off, no more disc-based DRM schemes. Secondly, buying direct has the *possibility* of driving down prices. Obviously, if Sony, MS, et al decided en masse to keep game prices high they could do so, but they would at least have more flexibility by not being beholden to the retailers. If there's one lesson to be learned from the last several hundred years of product distribution, it's that there's always a better deal to be had by skipping the middleman.
If the publishers did decide to engage in price-fixing, there is a strong argument that could be brought against such behavior. Let's say that a game today sells for $50. Now, tomorrow the physical distribution model evaporates, we're all buying direct, and the publishers refuse to take advantage of the opportunity to undercut one another to gain a competitive advantage. This is obviously not free-market behavior, and the only question that would need to be asked is, "How can you claim to sell something for the same price as you did yesterday, when the distributor and retailer markup is gone?"
The answer to that question, of course, would depend on how strong the gaming publisher lobby is...
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing the resale of your license for a digital-only game would provide a stop-gap against price fixing.
Even if there is only one 'first party', they would still need to compete with the used market, which would regulate prices.
Now, if we could only convince them to let us re-sell those games...
Re: (Score:2)
I hate replaying to my own posts...
Although an interesting side effect is in play:
the used market would have a limited supply of used games
the first party would have an infinite supply.
never saw that scenario in economics class...
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably instructive to look at which software publishers DO currently allow resale of their licenses. Mainly, it seems to be those selling expensive, niche software who need to convince a portion of their buyers that a portion of their investment can be recouped when it's time to upgrade or if the product doesn't work out. Unfortunately, a $50 or $60 game doesn't have nearly the psychological effect on its purchaser as a $2000 CAD package. Further, given that most games end up in the hands of peopl
Reselling the "entertainment experience"? (Score:2)
If you pay for cable TV, or going to a movie at the theater, you pay for the experience. Then you are done. You can't sell that experience as "used". What's so different about a game?
So, the only quibble about not being able to resell a game is whether it was overpriced to begin with. If so, don't buy it, just as you wouldn't buy a movie ticket to a movie that you heard sucks...
Simple solution (Score:2)
Its amazing to me how people correctly identify and even moan about artificial functional limitations like DRM or vendor lock-in, yet go right ahead and buy the products that implement it anyway.
The manufacturers will only continue to make such abusive products for exactly as long as people positively reinforce them by spending their hard-earned cash on them.
I vow to never buy an Iphone, a Kindle, an XBox, Windows 7 or any other product that artificially limits their owner in order to enforce vendor-lockin
Re: (Score:2)
I vow to never buy an Iphone, a Kindle, an XBox, Windows 7 or any other product that artificially limits their owner in order to enforce vendor-lockin or DRM. I do my homework before any big purchase. Its often really not that hard to find alternatives that do just as good a job but dont implement mechanisms that screw you over.
I'll give you the iphone, Kindle, and Windows 7.. but what did you find as an alternative to the Xbox? all of the consoles do the same thing, and the PC is not an alternative.
A single console does not a monopoly make. (Score:2)
I take issue with this quote: "...but Microsoft has no such restrictions. They could cut console production costs and take control over the entire supply chain in one fell swoop. There would be zero room for publishers to negotiate anything in such a de facto monopoly. The perfect comparison is Wal-Mart. As the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart is able to demand pretty much whatever it wants of suppliers because it grants access to such large numbers of consumers."
It is quite true that Wal-Mart takes cont
Please Wait (Score:2)
Downloading Game:
|====--------------- 21% /|
ETA: 6 hours 27 minutes
Not me (Score:2)
I don't know how other people feel, but for me, there's no way I'll be buying the next full size game via a digital download (think Fallout 4), unless it is MUCH, MUCH cheaper. There are too many risks to me:
- What if my HD dies?
- What if the game was not so great and I want to resell it when I'm done.
- I can't swap and share with friends.
- what if it won't transfer to the Xbox720 (or whatever).
- What if my account is banned for legit or non-legit reasons?
Since I now take on these risks by buying a digital-
Re:But with WalMart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But with WalMart (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably - they've figured out that underpricing everyone out of the market will keep them unfathomably rich. If they raised them that would open the door to a new competitor rising up and spoiling the currently perfect scenario.
It's like in those old sword fighting movies when the hero is disarmed and the villain just for shits and giggles tosses him back a sword - and he inevitably regrets it. Wal-mart isn't stupid enough to keep tossing competitors back a sword by lowering their prices. They've found something that works and seem to be sticking with it.
Re:But with WalMart (Score:4, Funny)
Wal-mart isn't stupid enough to keep tossing competitors back a sword by lowering their prices. They've found something that works and seem to be sticking with it.
Didn't you mean raising?
This comment is worded exactly as intended. Any application of lame "Fixed that for you" jokes will be "dealt with".
Irony bleeds.
Re:But with WalMart (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how monopolies work. If Wal-Mart had an *actual* monopoly, they *could* raise their prices because no one else would be there to undercut them.
In your analogy, it would be like the villain throwing a dead hero back his sword.
However, while Wal-Mart isn't a monopoly per se, it does have some monopolistic attributes which, while probably not illegal, are at least a bit concerning from the consumer's point of view. Wal-Mart is sufficiently large to make demands of suppliers, such as the movies and CDs are (or at least, were, I haven't looked into it recently) edited from their original versions and were no labeled as such. If you're opposed to RFID (personally, I'm not terribly concerned by them, but some are), Wal-Mart is instrumental in getting them into products. Similar happened with the bar code. Wal-Mart demanded all products have a bar code, and thus they became standard everywhere.
Finally, they bully their suppliers to such an extent that they often have to provide products at a price lower than they can afford or not be carried at all. While this generally means lower prices for the consumer, it forces manufacturers to cut costs and cut corners, often by lowering the quality of their products and shipping jobs overseas (e.g., to China). To me, this is the worst thing Wal-Mart does, and is the most invisible. We get products cheaper today by sending our jobs overseas, which sends wealth from the US to China, not to bolster the US economy, but to bolster Wal-Mart's profits. I'm not against profits at all, but there comes a point where someone's right to seek profit causes too much damage to the rest of us to be allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when people claimed Kmart had a monopoly (1970s-80s).
Where's that monopoly now?
Point - No monopoly lasts forever, because there's always someone new willing to knock you off. Kmart was knocked-off its pedestal by Walmart, and eventually I'm sure someone new will knock Walmart off. Perhaps circa 2020, the WM managers will get careless, raise prices, and along will come Target or Kresge or somebody else to be the new retail leader.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>And until then- you suffer from the effects of the current monopolist.
Riiiiight because there are no other places for us to shop then Walmart (cough - Target, Kmart, Meiers, Sears, Boscovs, ...). Pu-leeze if you're going to make an argument, don't make it so easy to refute. There is simply no justification for having government (a far, far worse evil than walmart) to interfere and try to break-up the company.
You need to watch this Penn & Teller video (yes all 25 minutes):
http://www.youtu [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many 'monopolistic attributes' die. Wal-Mart demanded music companies stop selling to iTunes, and they were ignored. Wal-Mart fills their store with cheap junk, so people switch to Target. Wal-Mart demands lower prices and the cheaper products end up with higher return rates and product failures, which also lead to increased legal and insurance costs.
Many manufacturers choose not to sell their products through Wal-mart while many others have their own oligopolies that Wal-Mart has to contend with, such a
Re: (Score:2)
I just bought Edy's ice cream for 2 dollars. Other stores sell it for 3 when on sale. I also bought Budget tv dinners for 89 cents. Other stores sell them for 1 dollar. Walmart's cheaper.
Re:But with WalMart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally do not want any of these companies telling me what I can or can't buy.
Wal-Mart is not telling you what you can buy. They are telling you what you can buy from them, and what they sell clearly represents what the majority of their customers want.
Wal-Mart (and companies like them) are in no way preventing you from getting your hard core rap or "alturnative" music (which, due to their customer base they wouldn't carry anyway) from some other source. That Wal-Mart does not sell oscilloscopes, does that mean they are discriminating against buding electrical engineers? Of course n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but as a consumer Wal Mart's monopoly is a good thing for me.
Wal-Mart's monopoly is a good thing if you are only interested in cheap imported garbage that breaks down within a year. If you are interested in something better then you'll have to go elsewhere. Hopefully the "elsewhere" didn't close it's doors trying to compete with your friendly slave-labor (from the factory in China to the poor bastard here at home making min wage with no health benefits) depot.....
Re:But with WalMart (Score:5, Insightful)
With Wal Mart prices are LOWER. Maybe not for companies, but as a consumer Wal Mart's monopoly is a good thing for me.
That is a dangerously short-sighted view. Wal-Mart under charges, creating a false, diminished sense of monetary value of products. Consequently, either the product quality suffers, or the conditions under which the product is manufactured suffer (e.g., factory farms, slave labor).
Re: (Score:2)
Consequently, either the product quality suffers and the conditions under which the product is manufactured suffer (e.g., factory farms, slave labor).
Fixed that for you :)
Re:But with WalMart (Score:5, Insightful)
Consequently, both the product quality suffers and the conditions under which the product is manufactured suffer (e.g., factory farms, slave labor).
Fixed that for you :)
Fixed that for you :)
Re:But with WalMart (Score:4, Funny)
STFU.
Fixed that for you :)
Fixed that for you :)
Fixed that for you :)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever. I'm not worried about it. Yes American and European factories are moving to China/India. BUT when the oil drought happens, and a barrel rises to $300 or more, those same factories will move back home in order to reduce shipping costs. It's inevitable that as fuel goes up, factories will have to be moved close to their market.
Eventually, probably within my lifetime, I expect all the "made in China" labels to revert back to "made in Rednecktown, USA" labels, just like the good ol' days. ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
With trips going twice, even three times a month for a family, I am avoiding spending up to $600 a month just by shopping there. I'm sorry, but $600 a month is more value to me (and just about everyone else) than feeling good that I didn't indirectly support some sweat shop.
Gee, how enlightened. Just think how much more money you could save if you just got some slaves yourself then and took out the middle man.
But me, its not even about the sweatshops. I won't shop there because more often than not the 'walm
Anti-Walmart Classist Buffoonery (Score:2, Flamebait)
I'm sorry, but $600 a month is more value to me (and just about everyone else) than feeling good that I didn't indirectly support some sweat shop.
Don't feel bad about this. The anti-Walmart classist buffonery stems from childless water-buying yuppies and hipsters who don't really give a damn about -- what's the screed? "slave labor in China?" right -- they only care about re-creating the nurturing womb-like environs of their tweedy ivy-covered university towns, where the anemic vegetarian goths who ran t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You get what you pay for (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So the [prducts] I buy from Wal-Mart are some how different and less quality than the same items that I would buy from any other retail or grocery store but probably pay more for?
Mu. The products you buy from Wal-Mart are "less quality" than similar items from the same manufacturers [fastcompany.com] that you buy at other retail outlets and pay more for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you don't mind substandard crap that will break or has been censored for you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should consider "Wal-Mart is able to demand pretty much whatever it wants of suppliers" a little more. Wal-Mart demands what IT wants of suppliers, not what the consumer may need or want.
Specifically, Wal-Mart writes the specs on items, such as computers, lawnmowers, etc, that they want to buy. Often times, the specs are lower quality than the supplier might wish to offer. Briggs & Stratton suffers from this. Briggs builds some very high quality engines, but Wal-Mart doesn't want to pay for that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you comparison shopped lately? I buy from Wal-Mart less and less because I've noticed something lately: they're not so cheap anymore on a lot of stuff. Shop around. You may be surprised what you find.
Outrageous in what way? (Score:4, Insightful)
x box live already charges outrageous amounts for games that came out 10+ years ago.
Some might claim that Disney charges outrageous amounts for films that came out 70 years ago. What makes you think the prices for rereleases on Xbox Live Marketplace and Wii Shop Channel are outrageous?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Game developers are getting hurt badly by the game resale market and it is changing the kinds of games we make. Maybe digital distribution will give us the business model to make a wider variety of games again.
The "kinds of games you make" are shitty. That's why they get resold back within a week. Make something with some replay value instead of trying to deny us our fair use rights, or shut the fuck up and go bankrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily, the Nintendo, MS and Sony could simply decide to generate a new industry standard that goes out of it's way to screw the consumer. Plenty of industries have been doing this for generations.