Pretty sure the GP meant businesses == companies. Other businesses have survived, some have not. hence, the buggy-whip market had to substantially adjust expectations when the automobile came around.
"I don't know why anyone would buy a used game when they can buy a brand new one for $5 more"
because it's the exact same game. For $5 less. Unless they're getting more value for that $5, they see no reason to spend $5 more.
"I also don't know why they would turn around and sell it a couple weeks later for half of what they paid for it."
Because they're done with it. They've played it through and there's no replay value, or they've played enough to realize they don't want to play it anymore. Why wouldn't you opt for half your money back that you could put toward another game. Either you'd enjoy it more, or could repeat the process. If he doesn't want to play it any more, then it has zero value to him on the shelf, but a value of 50% of retail if he trades it in.
The "why's" are based on simple math. Now, you might not do it, because you have a different criteria for placing value on things. But the industry evidence points to the process above being the norm.
So, when people started selling cars, before completing the first sale the industry made sure that there was a system of used car dealers is place to handle the expected used car market? No, the used car market appeared to fill a need, to facilitate the transfer of value while value was still present. New car dealers will buy used cars, and maybe sell them, but there are used car dealers who do nothing but used cars. no money to the manufacturer, but they fill a marketplace need.
"Perhaps they should set themselves up that way"
They have. Gamestop is the equivalent to the Used Car Dealer. The use of the car as a downpayment on another car is equivalent to what Gamestop's doing here: trade in your old ___, we give you some credit toward the purchase of a __. the credit is less than what we'll resell for so we can make a profit despite the overhead. Oh, and your credit can be applied toward either a new ___ or a used ___." You missed that part of the car analogy. While the ability to trade in a car can put money toward a new car, it often goes toward a slightly newer used car.
If there is a problem with the car/home analogy, it's not in trying to compare items of different magnitude in value. It's in how they lose value. Physical goods lose value through both wear and time, whereas video games only lose value with time. That car loses thousands in value the minute you drive it off the lot, because it's lost its 'virgin' state. Physical condition and quality can no longer be absolutely guaranteed. Not so with a game. The game has almost zero loss of value over the first few weeks/months. Hence, the resale market for new releases is skewed.
let me point you to Angry Birds, Zombies vs Aliens, and many of the early, top-selling Wii games. You make a fun game, price it right, people will buy it and play. If you can't make a high cost game and recoup your costs, too bad. You played and lost. such is business, maybe next time you'll do a better cost-benefit analysis.
"But it's irrelevant."
how on earth is it irrelevant? It doesn't matter if I'm buying a $10 watch at Walmart. If it has resale _value_, that is something that will and should affect the initial 'price that the market will bear' for the good.
Things have value. Houses have value in the fact that they are still good for their intended purpose after many years of use. When you move, you sell them instead of abandoning them because they still have value, and you can trade on that value. The 'price the market will bear' for your house is based on it's value to the market.
A used car has value in proportion to its features and how much useful life it still has. It wears down over the years, and by the time mileage reaches 100k it has significantly less value than it did at 20k. But value has not reached zero, hence I can find someone to buy it for a few thousand dollars because to them, it has value worth paying for.
If publishers are insisting that people throw away the value left in the good that they would normally resell, then the prices better come down to reflect that loss of value in the product.
Cars and houses have high prices because of the value present in the resale market. The fact that there is Value left in the items is the cause, the prices are not. The used game market being what it is shows that there is still value in used games, just as there is in used books, electronics, cars, houses, etc.
because of this tidbit in the Bloomberg article:
"Using what is called steganography, Cunningham said, a programmer can embed malicious computer code that infects computers, opens ports, steals data or gains access to networks when photos, videos or other files are downloaded."
Now, THAT's news. So, now, instead of malware writers using steganography to hide commands or payload data accessed by normal executable malware code, we have steganographic malware that autoexecutes just by being downloaded! I'll get started on the GIMP payload filter...
" they should invent, and pay for the development of their own internet "
why? it's not patented. RFC's aren't private knowledge. if they currently are part of the internet, they likely have most or all of the hardware they need.
what about Opera?
*goes back to sit in the corner*
some people like to play. others like to tinker. for many tinkering is play. but for many more it is not. I could build my own PC based DVR. we pay for a Dish-NotATivo. my wife wouldn't tolerate the glitches, the growing pains, the tweaking.
'It just works' is highly valuable to many people. Worth paying for. Especially worth giving up for capabilities they won't use anyway, as they spend their free time not tinkering.
It's not wrong to want a walled garden if it gives you what you want. Those wanting a walled garden shouldn't feel guilty about shifting the market away from open gardens. maybe open gardens get more expensive as the market realizes that most people are happy with walled gardens now that they can be easily created. so it goes.
next time make sure you type with more vocal inflection.
hmm... if I find an old copy of a CD with the rootkit on it, and it installs today after the law takes hold... what does the letter of the law say for that case? (sure, the intent might be to punish 'creation', but I wouldn't be surprised to see this slip through some poorly worded section...)
whole house fans were fairly common maybe up to the 1960's. we have one, and used to run it regularly to pull air through those poor airflow rooms when the temp started to drop in the evening. could avoid AC well into June most years.
the argument is it's too expensive to make the higher composite risk (liklihood and severity) areas more storm proof, such as burying lines. Not paying dividends in this case would have meant investing in infrastructure maintenance and improvement. Maybe some people could have kept the lights on because that. now, the whole thing is meaningless without equivalent costs to compare. (i.e., complaining about a million in contracted banker bonuses relative to a billion in the bailout, etc.)
What would the non-dividend improvements have actually bought us if spent responsibly on infrastructure? Oh, and part of the 'you don't have any competitors for the infrastructure' agreement is that they will maintain the infrastructure, and invest in upkeep and improvement. hence the neglect charge.
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
