![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | |
Posted By: protexts <protexts@cs.com> | Date: 4/19/02 5:38 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget (PCDestroyer) Blah, blah, blah, OK, finally your point --> : SO... in conclusion... Microsoft knows this... Microsoft did not put an
: Said "bait" does not work if there is an alternative which others
: Tell me... how many people with Macs and PCs would have bought a Halo copy
You are just restating your old, tired argument. Again, this idea of market defined by the PC/Mac user held hostage by Microsoft is flat out ridiculous. It's YOUR fantasy -- probably a projection of YOUR circumstances so that it makes sense to YOU. And don't you think that, from a word of mouth advertising perspective that, in order to boost the sales of the PC version (which should bring in more than chump change), you would want the PC version to come out while the buzz is just dying out about Halo, so that Joe down the street, when he wanders into the local mall goes, "yesssss!" and coughs up some money. Well, that's possibily too bad for Microsoft, because Bungie is possibily still working on the PC version of it. : That is the point being made... that point is correct as far as can be
As seen by who? You? Your buddy? and regardless of the "release date" for Halo on
Says who? It certainly doesn't follow that its true from your argument. Because I and others like me... would not have
It's back to your personal circumstances. This is what's called a weak inductive argument, generalizing from a small sample of PCDestroyer and pals to a very large population (a market in this case). Note: I don't want you to have to read this 2x like you did last time, so I better give you a gloss on what induction is. Induction is a reasoning process where you make some observations about some phenomenon and make a conclusion about that phenomenon based on the pattern in the observations. For example, if you notice a lot of wasps around your house over a period of several days, you might come to the inductive conclusion that there is a wasp nest around your house somewhere, even though you cannot see the actual wasp nest. This would be a relatively strong inductive conclusion (but not a proof by any means). A weak inductive conclusion would be, for example, to see only ONE WASP on only one day and conclude based on that that there was a wasp nest around your house. I believe you are doing the same thing. Just substitute your observations of the people interested in Halo for the "observations of the wasps", and your market of Xbox consumers as the "nest." : END OF STORY... : Reply all you want... I've stated my point and used examples of your own
They weren't conjectures; they were statements. That word is reserved for what you're doing, conjecturing... wildly I might add. At anyrate, you misunderstood. My statement was too telegraphic. That Microsoft wants to milk every dollar out of Xbox does not mean they sat down at a table with a list of names such as PCDestroyer and whatshisname69 to see how they could milk your personal dollar from you. No, that list is under their radar screen. They are interested in markets. Big things. Large groups of people who collectively represent large amount of money to be made. What milking every dollar means is to do things like obtain the rights to Halo, sell Halo at a high price, take out advertisement space, hype it up, get it to the people who review it, flaunt it, in general pimp the game so they can maximize their investment.
|
|
Replies: |
Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh! | Miguel Chavez | 4/17/02 11:19 a.m. |
Yeah... Kinda | Mr. Zarquon | 4/17/02 11:56 a.m. |
Geez... why the negative spin? | ferrex | 4/17/02 1:03 p.m. |
Because, I am. | Mr. Zarquon | 4/17/02 1:10 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | Kanen Faud'r | 4/17/02 1:26 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | PCDestroyer | 4/17/02 2:32 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | Mark Levin | 4/17/02 3:07 p.m. |
Carmack... | Miguel Chavez | 4/17/02 3:22 p.m. |
Re: Carmack... | ferrex | 4/17/02 7:08 p.m. |
Re: Carmack... | Mr. Zarquon | 4/17/02 9:31 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | PCDestroyer | 4/17/02 3:45 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | ferrex | 4/17/02 7:02 p.m. |
Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 9:57 a.m. |
Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG | protexts | 4/18/02 4:46 a.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 10:11 a.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is off | protexts | 4/18/02 2:11 p.m. |
Make a 1AC! | 123456789 | 4/19/02 11:47 a.m. |
Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | kiro69 | 4/18/02 11:19 a.m. |
Re: Speak for yourself there, parnter... | Lophan | 4/18/02 12:09 p.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | protexts | 4/18/02 2:30 p.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:37 p.m. |
The place where your whole argument falls down... | Louis Wu | 4/18/02 4:54 p.m. |
Re: The place where your whole argument falls down | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 5:04 p.m. |
Ack. | Louis Wu | 4/18/02 5:16 p.m. |
Re: Ack. | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 5:45 p.m. |
Re: Ack. | protexts | 4/18/02 9:34 p.m. |
Re: Ack. | kiro69 | 4/19/02 10:36 a.m. |
Re: Ack. | Louis Wu | 4/19/02 10:54 a.m. |
Re: Ack. | protexts | 4/19/02 10:01 p.m. |
As I said before, I agree. | 123456789 | 4/19/02 5:36 p.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | protexts | 4/19/02 5:38 a.m. |
Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:26 p.m. |
awesome reply, pcd *NM* | kiro69 | 4/18/02 10:43 a.m. |
Re: Quick note... | Lophan | 4/18/02 12:38 p.m. |
Re: Quick note... | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:40 p.m. |
Re: Quick note... | Warbow | 4/18/02 4:42 p.m. |
Re: Quick note... | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:57 p.m. |
Re: Let's look at this a little closer... | Lophan | 4/19/02 12:24 a.m. |
Re: Let's look at this a little closer... | PCDestroyer | 4/19/02 10:24 a.m. |
Re: Let's look at this a little closer... | vector40 | 4/19/02 9:03 p.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | Lophan | 4/20/02 12:13 a.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | vector40 | 4/20/02 1:12 a.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | PCDestroyer | 4/21/02 6:27 p.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | protexts | 4/20/02 5:15 a.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | vector40 | 4/20/02 4:09 p.m. |
Re: Then again, theoretically... | PCDestroyer | 4/21/02 6:24 p.m. |
Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 3:24 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | Aida-kun | 4/22/02 5:15 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 9:56 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 2:45 p.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 9:49 a.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 3:05 p.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 8:34 p.m. |
Re: Implementation and Stealing | kiro69 | 4/23/02 10:35 a.m. |
I agree | 123456789 | 4/17/02 3:19 p.m. |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |