They might be as popular as a thing you use to "enhance" your game controller could possibly be. However there is still quite a gap between the number of things you could sell in "early December" and any later date. The delay in shipment appears to be the production/delivery delay, at least judging from the e-mails.

GoDaddy "lost" 0.04% of their business according to slashdot (20K domains out of 50M), let's see if it goes bankrupt any time soon, shall we?

I doubt. Ocean Marketing looks like this one guy shop. Whoever is selling the overpriced plastic controller strap-on will just sack the guy, raging nerds will pat themselves on the back and congratulate the plastic thingie sellers on being wise, the strap-on will be sold out for months.

Instead of having to find a way to liquidate a whole order of plastic strapons that has not made it in time for Christmas the clients are now taking backorders.

So where exactly does re-seller profit come from? From what I know your numbers are completely off base. GameStop does not re-sell game with 0 margin. They will buy a game for $30 only if they can turn it around and sell for $50. So we have somebody who wants a game for $30 and somebody who is fine with $50. A developer would have discounted to $50 first, got $50 sale, then discounted to $30 - got $30 sale, total $80 vs $60 he is getting now. The actual profit is even more because somebody who buys a $60 game on the release date with intention to re-sell it for $30 might not be comfortable with waiting several months till discounts will reach $30 and is likely to spend $60 or wait much less for a smaller discount, say $50.

There are failures in every business but when the failures increase the business has to adapt or perish.

These are obviously only two possible scenarios, right? People don't ever buy games if they cannot sell them later, right? Valve's Steam, Microsoft's Live, Sony's PSN and Apple iTunes are just fake businesses to launder drug money, correct?

The point I countered was "the industry is doing fine". I don't count bankrupcies and studio closures as "doing fine". Glad to see you finally realized that developers can take a bite of resellers profits though.

So you believe there is a market of people who only wish to buy used games for the sole reason of them being used similarly to the used underwear market alleged to exist in Japan? You might be right but the current theory in the industry is that people buy used games to save money. If secondary market did not exist then publishers could offer games at the same price points through gradual discounting.

BS. Most of the companies that existed before 2000 have not survived or barely exist now (like Interplay with a dozen people left), both publishers and developers. Here is a fine read for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_video_game_companies

Not really. This logic hinges on the assumption that used game resellers make some nice profit. I'll direct you to the GameStop (GME) balance sheet for the actual data that back up this assumption pretty well.

Skyrim has not sold 10M units. They shipped 10M units and sold about 3M from what I read. They are never going to sell 10M at $60 (for once it's already discounted so even if they manage to move 7M more units it's not going to be at $60). But this is besides the point - nobody said that good games do not bring cash. They just don't bring as much as they used to and they need to bring more because the "bad" games now make more losses than they used to.

It always has been a problem but, say, 10 years ago a game would cost only 1-5M to develop and had to sell 20-100K copies to break even. A publisher would see many games selling close to break even point from either side and quite a few turning in some 100-1000% ROI. Wanting more than this would be pure greed. Nowadays (the last gen really) a game costs 10-100M and has to sell 300K-3M to break even. A publisher sees many games do not ever reach this point and incurring some heavy losses, the total profitability is nowhere near what it used to be the previous generation. So today publishers and developers are paying attention to the income sources other than "the first sale".

The original complaint had dozens of points including bluray, games and even "I've lost my data" among others. Sony moved to dismiss and the judge tossed all of them out except for this, PSN-based one, as the only semi-reasonable. Plaintiffs filed a new complaint based just on the PSN entitlement, Sony moved to dismiss again again and the judge agreed again. This is all based on what I read in the groklaw's reports http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110218181557455

Same (no mention of "Other OS") on the US boxes. Most people outraged by this appear so oblivious that it makes me wonder if they have been really affected by this.

PS3 games I have do not say anything like this anywhere on the packaging except of 3D games that state the required firmware version. Now, it's not an issue with PS3 in particular but many other game consoles have region locks and every particular game disk won't run on millions of consoles from other regions. If somebody had been able to make a case that games are advertised to work on every hardware unit under a generic name like "Dreamcast","Wii", "PlayStation 2", "Xbox 360" etc then not only Sony but Nintendo, Sega and Microsoft would be liable for every one of them has made region-locked console systems.

You might be right here, but there are other people in third world countries who are already affected: http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=food+prices+rise+riots

Some people have more, some have less days off pet week. Days off existed long before unions and even the US of A.

Harper's dictionary says this word is from 1638, you might be a little bit confused about its origin.

So if he is a retail clerk working on weekends he has to thank unions for that?
Or if he is a doctor working Monday and Wednesday and yachting on weekends he has to thank unions for that?
What for exactly?

If Verizon has been losing money by employing these 45K union "workers" then the Labor has won just because they have not been all fired and kept the jobs where they add negative value ( i.e. steal) to the Big Business' bottom line.