Just how much value does trading used games at Gamestop have over other avenues? Gamestop's entire business model relies on the trade of used games at rock-bottom prices so that they can then sell them at about a 500% (or higher) profit. Of course they sit on old stock for a while, but even at their fire-sale pricing for really ancient stuff they'd typically be breaking even.

The biggest problem is not that Gamestop offers the ability to trade used games for (credit towards) new games; The problem is that Gamestop offers incentives to trade new releases back as soon as possible, and then - crucially - turns around and immediately offers them for sale while undercutting the new releases, which does indeed hurt developers. While Halo 3 did phenomenally well when it launched, I personally saw many used copies available at a local EB Games on the shelf right next to the new copies on launch day. This is like making a home release of a movie available while it's still in theatrical release - It undercuts profits at a critical time.

I've said it before, but what needs to happen is to regulate when used copies are available on store shelves. Used games in themselves aren't evil, nor is the ability to trade back to the store early on. However, the way Gamestop and similar companies operate by making used copies available for sale immediately and advertising them alongside new (especially considering that a used game is, in theory, no different than a new game at this early stage) is the major driving force behind anti-used game tactics that publishers and developers are beginning to make use of.

If Gamestop wants its business model to continue without alienating developers like it has been, and without having to fight anti-used tactics like have been deployed recently, they need to step up to the plate and offer some kind of compromise on street dates where the "premiere" of a game is off-limits for used sale. Otherwise, the push for single-use digital distribution and locked-down hard-copies will only continue at an ever-increasing pace.

Just what we need, more market fragmentation! It's not like iOS, Android, BlackBerry OS / QNX, Bada, Windows Phone, and the plethora of Java-powered phones out there is enough.

Let's not forget the main reason why WebOS failed - Lack of platform support. Very few apps available, with little developer interest because they're already splitting their focus primarily between iOS and Android, which is already a huge drain. By comparison, even BB OS and Windows Phone have tiny developer followings and very small market penetration.

TL;DR, a Mozilla phone is a terrible idea, at least in theory. We'll have to see when they ship how they do, but I doubt they'll be able to make a dent in an already-saturated market with developer focus already split at least two or three different ways. It's hard to even imagine Mozilla on the radar for devs and consumers alike.

Sure, but just as a friendly reminder, Elections Canada has moved the polling station to a deserted highway high up in the Yukon.

I am the 5%.

Not to Ubisoft, though. I don't know the last time I bought an Ubisoft title. Quite frankly, none of their games are all that interesting, and I'm not taking my chances with their DRM, either. I've got all of this generation's consoles, but really, if you're going to fuck with one platform, you kind of fucked with me regardless. Real smooth, Ubisoft.

Anyway, I kind of knew that Ubisoft's DRM scheme was all for the purpose of pushing to console-only development. I guess they'll save money by removing a platform from their development cycles (the way consoles are now, optimizing for them to get what we have now graphically isn't an easy task) and they won't have to worry about piracy anymore - Except they probably aren't actually losing an appreciable number of sales to piracy to begin with anyway.

So basically, someone out there thought that a site like this was actually a legitimate way to shield from any kind of tracking?

And the fact that that someone was wrong is surprising?

They make their points very clear in the linked statement: The service is not intended to provide anonymity or shelter from legal repurcussions; They are there to provide a workaround for those who are being censored, to provide a way of bypassing "Great Firewalls", or simply to prevent your ISP or wireless network from seeing your HTTP requests. There is no expectation of privacy, and nor should there be. The same expectations are true of Tor and other "anonymity" initiatives (though Tor is inherently less open to tracking due to the way packets flow through the Tor network (that is to say, it's very decentralized)).

Sure, services like HMA partially obfuscate the trail, but they aren't bound by any agreement to guarantee your privacy, don't claim to, and ultimately will not.

Perhaps, but they've been here for over a decade now I think, and the level of service has been similar all throughout. I don't quite understand what they're even doing here if they aren't going to expand their network.

Forget Rogers in Newfoundland. Their coverage is in exactly two places - Most parts of St. John's, and I believe some of Clarenville or Gander. Bell's network, on the other hand, is comprehensive here, and the other mobile providers here use Bell's towers (Fido excepted, because Rogers owns Fido).

In that case, say hello to TrueCrypt hidden volumes.

Pfft. Just working harder doesn't suddenly make things any easier. Take a look at the war on terrorism: It'll never truly 'end', no matter how hard anyone tries. Terrorism is an idea, and ideas exist as long as people are around to have them. Frankly, I think Lulzsec/Anon's antisec movement is similar in scope, particularly since there are participants from everywhere in the world, not just in the UK and US.

Over a decade ago, when our cell phones were still rocking monochrome displays and just then getting into WAP browsing? Yeah. That's a great comparison, actually, and points out where the concept would have begun in the 'modern' era. Remember, that was about the extent of what our technology of the era could bring to bear without HUGE cost, which incidentally I imagine will be a very present issue with the Wii u's main controller.

Operating costs are irrelevant; They exist for any other transaction in the business. As for buying the used game back, they don't do that with real currency, just store credit.

I should note that with the Halo 3 example, I was offered a used copy of the game on launch day when I was going to pick it up.

True, but EB/Gamestop have huge incentives to bring new games back for trade value. When The Godfather was released, there actually was a promotion that if you could beat the game within a certain period of time (I think it was either a few days or a week), you'd trade it back in and it was 'free'. Nowadays, they have their "Most Wanted" lists, with new releases fetching the biggest bounties, and new releases tend to have a "trade 3 and it's free" promotion as well. In other words, EB/Gamestop have put HUGE amounts of effort into making people part with new releases in order to get other games, in a rather turnstile fashion. If you've ever been into an EB or Gamestop, you'll probably notice that there actually are a surprising number of new releases with used stickers on.

It's true that on day 0, there shouldn't be many used copies, but I have witnessed it, in particular with Halo 3. Within less than a week's time, used copies lined the shelves for $5 less than new.

I don't believe that it's fair for a product to have to compete with itself on the same shelves that it's on. Recently used copies are very likely to not have any damage or defects, and EB/Gamestop warrant them as working for a certain period of time, anyway, so there isn't any incentive to pay the extra to buy a full retail copy. This is part of the reason why multiplayer is becoming such a huge cornerstone of game development - Multiplayer communities generally mean that people who play online will continue to do so, rather than trading the game in. It's also why EA and others have been bundling one-use DLC with their games, and why it could very well be possible that in order to combat both piracy and used game sales, one-use (or limited-use) serial keys for console games might be in our future. With that in mind, it would be a LOT better to come to an agreement with publishers over street dates rather than having the bottom taken out from under the entire used game industry in the name of anti-piracy (which is exactly how it would be spun).

Per-sale of used game, it is pure profit. I never said there wasn't any risk in taking on the inventory, but then again, most games they take in will go for about $5-10 or so worth of store credit, ensuring that no raw currency leaves the door one way or another.

No, but that argument is also flawed; DVD (or Blu-ray, I'll refer to both as DVD for random, arbitrary reasons) sales aren't the sole revenue generator for a film that had a theatrical release, and you seldom see used DVD's on the same shelves as new ones, to boot. In fact, most retailers that DO sell DVD's don't bother stocking used DVD's.