|
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - The Demon Lord
26
« on: December 18, 2015, 10:38:42 pm »
SR71
Skyhawk
Saab Griffen
deHavilland Mosquito
x-15 speed record 7274kph giggity
Oh Herro!
27
« on: December 08, 2015, 12:16:31 pm »
You have to admit - there is a significant segment of the Muslim population who aren't doing themselves any favors - I'm not talking about the Extremists, I'm talking about the moderateMuslims who aren't calling their extrimist fellows out on their BS, that aren't reporting them to the Police, that are standing by whilst people are getting killed in their name.
Sure Trumps policy is draconian, stupid and isn't actually going to effect any change, and is likely to have significant negative side effects (not just internationally but within the states, reinforcing an Us vs Them mentality)
But without the assistance of the moderate Islamic population, what other options are they left with?
28
« on: November 25, 2015, 05:33:15 pm »
I know the difference, but the only way that I would know of only one price was if there was only one price (or you execute your customers after they purchase, but that isn't a sustainable Business model  )
Or you hand out special glasses that replace the price for only you. Hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. But yes I think you understood what I was getting at. Not against executing customers, after all you already have their money. They are no longer of use to you now 
Okay - I'll admit - that made me chuckle - but if you kill them, how are you going to sell them DLC? With a universal digital distribution - all the other factors that would drive price (excluding company greed) are mitigated. There is no Economies of Scale, No increased cost due to the haulage costs.
Got some non-anecdotal evidence for that? Otherwise it's just your opinion based on what you believe is the case.
Things are rarely as simple as they appear, and to think they are isn't particularly insightful.
Asking why is a great way to learn. Even if it doesn't give you an answer, it might give you more questions. Jumping to a conclusion that we should all pay the same for goods with very little (or no) evidence is not the way to spark intelligent conversation.
Sure - I host websites at work, some even have downloads on them - there is no appreciable increase or decrease in cost to the company if someone from NZ access the site or someone outside of NZ. If there was a significant increase in the international bandwidth costs (so we became wildly popular overseas) then the cost associated with increasing our international Data limit would be distributed equally. The only possible reason for charging more could be if you implemented some form of local (regional) caching for faster downloads - in which case the increase cost would be a premium service which one should be able to opt in or out of.
29
« on: November 25, 2015, 03:05:16 pm »
To me - that is Arse-about-face.
Decide if you want to change first, then start making alternatives then determine if those alternatives are good enough to justify change.
People are change adverse. If you do a survey asking for change, most people will vote against change.
That's effectively what you are proposing.
1) Let's Change!
2) No!
3) Ok!
4) Repeat from Step 1
Then so be it - Democracy in action. Relephant link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
30
« on: November 25, 2015, 03:03:11 pm »
Before the Road show, before the Designs, Before ANYTHING - there should have been a referendum about whether NZ wanted to change - if the response was more than 50% no, then we stop - and save a good chunk of that $26 Mill, if more than 50% was yes they would be interested in Change - THEN we proceed with all the circus that the flag debacle has been.
That turns it from a question about changing the flag into a question about spending money, where peoples answers will depend on their frugality.
For example, a lot of people would answer these two questions differently;
Should we have a referendum to change the flag?
The total cost of this will be $20
or
Should we have a referendum to change the flag?
The total cost of this will be $20 billion.
Absolutely - Cost/benefit analysis. There are sweet FA benefits from changing the flag (you are still going to be that island off the coast of Australia that is good at Rugby) and so the cost for me to consider it a worthwhile endeavor would have to be equally low. Assume we change the flag, and spend $26 mil + the actual cost of new Flags/insignia/stuff - what is the overall benefit to NZ as a whole and to me as a Tax Payer? I don't see a Benefit. I do however see other things that have been put on the backburner or cancelled which I see greater benefit than this fascicle exercise.
31
« on: November 25, 2015, 02:59:29 pm »
Sure I'd be happy - because only one price would be published, which is the one price everyone would be paying.
I didn't say that everyone would be paying the same price. I said you would only know of one price. Big difference.
Damn straight I perceive it as a rip-off if someone else is getting it cheaper - I'm happy to pay for a Companies profit - you develop a game, your per-unit cost should cover the costs to develop that game, costs for future developments and a good percentage markup for Profit. I'm okay with that. If you tell me that when you factor in the number of units you expect to sell and to meet all of those requirements, its going to be $80 - I'll open my Wallet and cough up my $80.
Now, my acceptance of that $80 is based on the above premise, that this is the amount based on the number of Units you expect to sell. If you then turn around and in another country put the cost at $20 (to cover the above) - then that means you are attempting to extort $60 out of me - without giving me anything to justify the increased cost.
Trade pricing is different - that is done on the basis of Economies of Scale - I'll probably spend maybe $200 a year at Mitre 10, I'm happy paying full price for that. If I was in trade and spending $1-2K a week at Mitre 10, I'd be expecting some form of discount, based on the volume of sales that I represent.
Wait you understand how Economies of Scale affects trade prices, but you can't see that there may be other factors driving the price difference?
Trade pricing is the same exact same scenario. We don't know why the price is different in games, so we have to exclude that from the trade price scenario (Economies of Scale). When we do that we have someone getting the same item cheaper than someone else.
I know the difference, but the only way that I would know of only one price was if there was only one price (or you execute your customers after they purchase, but that isn't a sustainable Business model ) With a universal digital distribution - all the other factors that would drive price (excluding company greed) are mitigated. There is no Economies of Scale, No increased cost due to the haulage costs.
32
« on: November 25, 2015, 02:10:38 pm »
No, the current referendum is asking us to select our preferred alternative - not whether or not we want change.
Before the Road show, before the Designs, Before ANYTHING - there should have been a referendum about whether NZ wanted to change - if the response was more than 50% no, then we stop - and save a good chunk of that $26 Mill, if more than 50% was yes they would be interested in Change - THEN we proceed with all the circus that the flag debacle has been.
There is only ONE referendum. The ultimate goal is to determine whether NZ wants a new flag.
How do you know you don't want a change if you don't know the options for change?
It's the exact same thing as deciding your hole in the ground is the best, without even popping your head up out of the hole to see other holes.
You might think your current hole is pretty good, but other people are quite interested in seeing the other holes in the paddock before choosing a hole they want to sit in.
To me - that is Arse-about-face. Decide if you want to change first, then start making alternatives then determine if those alternatives are good enough to justify change.
33
« on: November 25, 2015, 02:00:52 pm »
1: it wasn't a change that anyone wanted (polling before it was announced I think from memory was 70% against changing the flag)
The entire referendum is to determine EXACTLY THIS. What better way to draw a useful conclusion that doing an OFFICIAL "country wide poll".
To say that no-one wanted it before the referendum has actually taken place, is just plain stupid.
No, the current referendum is asking us to select our preferred alternative - not whether or not we want change. Before the Road show, before the Designs, Before ANYTHING - there should have been a referendum about whether NZ wanted to change - if the response was more than 50% no, then we stop - and save a good chunk of that $26 Mill, if more than 50% was yes they would be interested in Change - THEN we proceed with all the circus that the flag debacle has been.
34
« on: November 25, 2015, 01:57:14 pm »
And its reasonable that I will want to minimize my expenditure to a level that is acceptable to me - I'm not a charity either and so I object to paying a rip-off price, solely to subsidise others to enjoy the same content.
Your first sentence holds merit. The rest, not so much. Classic case of FOMO.
Would it make you happy if they didn't publish any prices except for the one you are paying?
You only perceive it to be a rip-off because you see someone else getting it cheaper.
If you don't want to pay the sticker price for a game, then don't. Simple as that. minimize my expenditure to a level that is acceptable to me. Do exactly that, by not purchasing the game.
Next thing you'll be running to Mitre 10, and demanding trade prices because "that other guy got trade prices". It's not how shit works.
Sure I'd be happy - because only one price would be published, which is the one price everyone would be paying. Damn straight I perceive it as a rip-off if someone else is getting it cheaper - I'm happy to pay for a Companies profit - you develop a game, your per-unit cost should cover the costs to develop that game, costs for future developments and a good percentage markup for Profit. I'm okay with that. If you tell me that when you factor in the number of units you expect to sell and to meet all of those requirements, its going to be $80 - I'll open my Wallet and cough up my $80. Now, my acceptance of that $80 is based on the above premise, that this is the amount based on the number of Units you expect to sell. If you then turn around and in another country put the cost at $20 (to cover the above) - then that means you are attempting to extort $60 out of me - without giving me anything to justify the increased cost. Trade pricing is different - that is done on the basis of Economies of Scale - I'll probably spend maybe $200 a year at Mitre 10, I'm happy paying full price for that. If I was in trade and spending $1-2K a week at Mitre 10, I'd be expecting some form of discount, based on the volume of sales that I represent.
35
« on: November 25, 2015, 12:58:18 pm »
So, what you are saying in your scenario, is that I am financing the Development of a game so that other people can play it for cheap?
Exactly.
I'm not saying it's fair, I don't like regional pricing either.
But it's why we have regional pricing, and it's reasonable that a company will want to maximize it's return in each region, after all they're there to make money.
And its reasonable that I will want to minimize my expenditure to a level that is acceptable to me - I'm not a charity either and so I object to paying a rip-off price, solely to subsidise others to enjoy the same content.
36
« on: November 25, 2015, 12:05:05 pm »
If the game developers make enough profit off a $20 sale in Poverty-stan for it to be viable to sell at $20 (for a given number of units), then they can make the same profit by selling it in NZ at $20.
It's not viable to only sell at $20 in Poverty-stan, that market is not enough to pay for the development of the game.
That is why they also have to sell in in NZ for $80.
Digital media is not a physical good, you don't get profit per sale, because, unlike physical good, there is no cost per sale.
The cost is the development of the game, the revenue is to total of all sales worldwide, and the profit makes the difference.
It's ironic that you reference the legacy of the physical media age as a factor, where in fact, you are the one treating a digital product as a physical one.
So, what you are saying in your scenario, is that I am financing the Development of a game so that other people can play it for cheap? Am I going to be rewarded in game for bankrolling it (ie additional content and/or features)? Because if not, then no thank you - Either Poverty-stan can pay the full price or go without (as you keep reminding us, its not a necessity)
37
« on: November 25, 2015, 09:32:14 am »
The point of regional pricing is because in some regions, people are willing and able to pay more then people in other regions, due to things like average wealth. i.e in NZ, we are generally more wealthy then people in Kyrgyzstan. So you can't charge people in Kyrgyzstan the same price that you would charge people in NZ for a game (i.e $80), because no one in Kyrgyzstan would be able to buy it.
Vice versa, if you changed people in NZ for games at the price you charge a Kyrgyz (let say $20), then you no going to make as much money.
There will be a sweet spot for every region where a distributor will get the best return for a particular price. It's fully within their right to set that price, they are a business, not a charity. They're there to make a profit.
You are not entitled to their product for a certain price, digital media is not a life necessity, it's entertainment. You don't need it, you just want it.
It might not be fair, deal with it. There are ways to work around it.
Haveing legalisation like Lias suggested which sets the price on digital media is extremely anti-competitive, and a restriction of freedom on how business are allowed to operate. It would also be terrible for our economy.
Respectfully - Bullshit. If the people of poverty-stan can't afford to buy it at $80, then they can't afford to buy it. Period. If the game developers make enough profit off a $20 sale in Poverty-stan for it to be viable to sell at $20 (for a given number of units), then they can make the same profit by selling it in NZ at $20. This is a legacy of the physical media age where there was a significant barrier to people going to poverty-stan and getting the discount price, now with the internet, that barrier has been removed, yet businesses are still clinging onto distribution models that artificially inflate the price solely to increase their profit.
38
« on: November 25, 2015, 09:25:36 am »
I don't get why people are getting so hung up about the money.
The government spends much larger sums on other things and nobody cares. But then we have a democratic referendum, and people say it's a waste of money? You would rather John Key just picked a flag and not let anyone else have a say? That would have been much cheaper.
And it's not wasted, the money gets pay directly back into the NZ economy, Employee wages, NZ post etc
1: it wasn't a change that anyone wanted (polling before it was announced I think from memory was 70% against changing the flag) 2: its a lot of money for a bunch of 'consultants' to ponce around the country, having a nice holiday on my tax Dollar. 3: If you are going to raise the Democratic aspect - then why ignore the pre-flag polling showing that no one wanted a change, further more why did they not do an initial and much cheaper referendum with 2 options 'Should we change the flag Y/N' 4: It's my money they are wasting - Cunts.
39
« on: November 25, 2015, 09:20:49 am »
I'm totally with him on the digital side. It blows my mind that physical media is cheaper than digital in NZ, but unless I'm mistaken he's brought physical consumer goods into his argument and it's simply not the same thing.
Example lazy quote:
"I don't really see why we shouldn't extend the pricing requirements to physical goods, I they sell it anywhere in the world at Cost X, the price in NZ should only ever be Cost X + shipping to NZ."
Well the + Shipping to NZ should account for the cost to market that you are raising.
40
« on: November 25, 2015, 08:51:32 am »
^You're in my cool book.
If you don't understand the way goods are priced here you need to look up both "economies of scale" and "distance to market". Both of which pose difficulties to New Zealand businesses.
If you try to price gouge anything, anything the next guy in line will take your market share. People are too savvy now, and they're price checking globally, just like us when we buy games.
I think you are missing Lias' point - he is referring to digital media where there is almost zero cost in terms of Distance to Market (econmies of Scale really only applies to digital media if the servers can't handle the load - a la the slashdot effect) pricing differences based on ease of delivery to various regions I have no problem with - but again, that doesn't apply to Digital Media.
41
« on: November 23, 2015, 03:27:27 pm »
Including the current flag as an option on the first alongside the other 5 so you know what options are available should give you a damn good idea on how many want or do not want it changed.
That would introduce a bias against changing the flag.
Which is precisely why it should be included - 1 referendum as opposed to 2.
42
« on: November 22, 2015, 08:09:38 pm »
My main complaint is that currently anything I buy that has GST, also has consumer protection (enforced by the Govt) Buying overseas did mean no GST, but also no Protection for the consumer - that was a trade off I was happy with.
Now I see the Govt having their cake and eating it too.
43
« on: November 20, 2015, 03:24:33 pm »
If the Govt is going to charge GST - I wonder if one could make legal challenge that international purchases should be covered by the CGA (if the NZ Govt is going to charge me Tax on it, then they better be covering me as well)
44
« on: November 18, 2015, 08:59:49 pm »
OMFG JUST, SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
STOP. FUCKING. TALKING. SO. MUCH.
FUCK.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.
u alrite m8?
45
« on: November 18, 2015, 12:25:32 pm »
I'm listening to some Black Metal.
That's EDM right?
Totally - I got my Glow Sticks out and everything
46
« on: November 13, 2015, 03:45:48 pm »
I'm listening to some Black Metal.
You should listen to some too.
What is your opinion of grunge?
and post grunge.
I am still partial to Nirvana every now and then, but most Grunge isn't my cup of tea - I are all about the Metals.
47
« on: November 13, 2015, 03:02:56 pm »
I'm listening to some Black Metal.
You should listen to some too.
48
« on: November 13, 2015, 08:56:24 am »
?
49
« on: November 08, 2015, 11:26:37 am »
Today is Christmas. There will be a magic show at zero nine thirty. Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few Marines. God has a hard-on for Marines, because we kill everything we see.
One of the many great quotes from that movie.
I love A: Full Metal Jacket and B: R Lee Ermey in general
Do you Suck Dick? SIR NO SIR! Bullshit! I bet you could suck a golfball through a garden hose.
50
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:14:59 pm »
He truly believes that what he can offer as president is best for his country. I wouldn't call him evil so much as he is ignorant, horribly misguided and blatantly stupid. His perspective is horribly warped so his opinion follows suit.
If we knew him as someone who is normally a little more level headed and is intentionally behaving the way that he does, then you could probably get away with calling him evil.
Now, the guy who intentionally sky rocketed fees for the toxoplasmosis drugs after purchasing the drug company, he is evil.
This. Not Evil, just American.
|
|
|
