|
| T O P I C | |
|
The Internet would rock if it was all machines and no humans.
January 20th 2002, 23:18 CET by Morn --------------------------------------
|
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The Internet would rock if it was all machines and no humans.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
Gunpoint Bandwith and servers cost money but they don't cost the amount of money GSI is trying to make out of it. A LOT of sites can support themselves by half as aggressive tactics as GSI's. And don't tell me they need to pay their writers because everyone knows that there are enough writers who are willing to do it for free or just for the opportunity they're getting to run a site. People who are really a game's fanboi will be quite willing to run a fansite for free. That's how GSI did it in the past, so why couldn't they do it now? Oh great, so you've got some insight into GSI's finances then? Could you provide a link or email me the spreadsheet? I'd like to see it for myself ... I assume you aren't just talking out of your ass. That's how GSI -did- it in the past ... when they realized that wasn't going to work forever, they changed their gameplan. And hey look, GSI lives while gaming networks crumble and die all around them. Eris Yes, this in theory is true, but he was talking about them charging for files that are freely distributed *UNLESS* someone tries charging for them. (Pressing to CD, charging for downloading, they are not too dissimilar.) But they aren't charging for the files. Use their servers for free if you want. You have to register, but that's hardly costing you anything ... |
|
#34 Eris As for charging for the files...You are paying to use their servers, and thier bandwidth, which I might add, you are still free to use at no cost if you wish. > Yes, this in theory is true, but he was talking about them charging for files that are freely distributed *UNLESS* someone tries charging for them. (Pressing to CD, charging for downloading, they are not too dissimilar.) Am I wrong, or are they not charging for a vertical service. Not only do you get to download the file, but you supposedly get a higher priority, and better download speed. If they were locking up otherwise exclusive downloads behind a pay server only, with no other options, then I would be concerned, but as far as I know, you are paying for a premuim service, and not the file, which incidently, they also host for free on servers available to the general public. -I was going to buy an Xbox, but one day my PC fell over, so I left it that way. |
|
#30 crash a website not linking to other sites is like a big supermarket not offering to foot the bill to pave the road and the parking lot for its competition. discuss. Dude, the internet started as a place for FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. It doesn't suit GSI that they're making money out of something everybody else is doing for free. Writing about Unreal and all those other games does not cost GSI any money, so why should they be making a profit out of it? If they should, then id, Valve, Epic and who not could ask big time money from GSI for making profit out of writing about THEIR games. And I don't want to hear anything about 'money lovin' Americans' ('they're not thieves and cons, they're just honest people making some money out of what they do' - bleh!) ------------------------- "Does anyone here speak l33t?" |
|
#32 Gunp01nt Bandwith and servers cost money but they don't cost the amount of money GSI is trying to make out of it. A LOT of sites can support themselves by half as aggressive tactics as GSI's. You must know something that hundreds of other webmasters don't, because other webmasters every day are going under for one reason: they can't afford the bandwidth. And don't tell me they need to pay their writers because everyone knows that there are enough writers who are willing to do it for free or just for the opportunity they're getting to run a site. People who are really a game's fanboi will be quite willing to run a fansite for free. That's how GSI did it in the past, so why couldn't they do it now? There are people who will do these things because they love them (that's how I started out). Then, once the company begins to make money, they expect to be paid for being one of the people who got them to that point. It's fair, isn't it? You provide something to a company that gets them money, you expect to get some of that money in return. And there may be enough writers willing to do something for free, but that hardly means they should. I can't begin to tell you how many people I had to turn away in my days at GameSpy because as enthusiastic as they were, they couldn't find proper grammar and syntax if it bit them in the ass. |
|
HoseWater Am I wrong, or are they not charging for a vertical service. Not only do you get to download the file, but you supposedly get a higher priority, and better download speed. If they were locking up otherwise exclusive downloads behind a pay server only, with no other options, then I would be concerned, but as far as I know, you are paying for a premuim service, and not the file, which incidently, they also host for free on servers available to the general public. That's exactly right. You can get the files for free if you want, but you can pay for the premium service which means no waiting in line, better download speed, etc. Gunpoint Writing about Unreal and all those other games does not cost GSI any money, so why should they be making a profit out of it? If they should, then id, Valve, Epic and who not could ask big time money from GSI for making profit out of writing about THEIR games. Bandwidth isn't free. Sure, writing articles doesn't cost them anything but 100,000 people reading it -does-. |
|
To address morn's concerns, I agree, what they are doing is not in the best interest of their customers. Smart customers, will come here, get the scoop, and be sure to add another link to their favorites list. Over time, that could be very costly, but I am sure a GSI bigwig would clue in and correct the situation before it became a life or death issue. I doubt they are willing to sacrifice themselves over a dispute with PU. -I was going to buy an Xbox, but one day my PC fell over, so I left it that way. |
|
You know why the Dutch aren't major world players? Because they're all fucking stupid. |
|
#43 Gunp01nt Writing about Unreal and all those other games does not cost GSI any money, so why should they be making a profit out of it? Huh? A writer spends time reviewing a game; that writer needs to be compensated somehow, whether its a free copy of the game or payment for the review. GameSpy does not get all their content for free; like every company, they must pay for the things their employees (or writers) provide them in order for everyone to make money. |
|
#43 Gunp01nt #30 crash a website not linking to other sites is like a big supermarket not offering to foot the bill to pave the road and the parking lot for its competition. discuss. Dude, the internet started as a place for FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. It doesn't suit GSI that they're making money out of something everybody else is doing for free. Writing about Unreal and all those other games does not cost GSI any money, so why should they be making a profit out of it? If they should, then id, Valve, Epic and who not could ask big time money from GSI for making profit out of writing about THEIR games. And I don't want to hear anything about 'money lovin' Americans' ('they're not thieves and cons, they're just honest people making some money out of what they do' - bleh!) ------------------------- "Does anyone here speak l33t?" If game companies did not like what GSI was doing, they could crush them in an instant. They could easily toss up thier own sites with amazing amounts of exclusive content at the drop of a pin. As it stands, game companies, and publishers are just taking advantage of a free ride, can't say I blame them. -I was going to buy an Xbox, but one day my PC fell over, so I left it that way. |
|
Whisp: Convinced me, you're hired! cool. when do i start, and how much does it pay? Morn: crash, does GameSpy have to pay money for its links to other sites? Geez, that must suck. yes, actually, they do, unless none of the people working for GSI are getting paid. but gosh, y'know, i do believe that there are many GSI people that do indeed get paid. and remember, you busted out the analogy first. :) I'm just saying that I think it is pretty short-sighted to not link to other sites with content your readers may be interested in for political reasons only. it's not your job to decide what the politics of your readers are. it's your job to provide your readers with the content you can give them. if they want to read the other site, there are plentiful search engines for that sort of thing, and they can go read the other site if they wish. note carefully that GSI is not telling their readers, "You may not read this." GSI is saying, "We're not going to encourage people to read this on our dime and our time." Gunp01nt: Dude, the internet started as a place for FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. too bad it isn't that way any more. adapt or die. It doesn't suit GSI that they're making money out of something everybody else is doing for free. i'm laughing so hard at this statement i can't form a coherent reply. |
|
#17 DarkReaper There's nothing wrong with making money, until it overrides your original goal, which in this case was to be the best place for gamers to go. You know, the original goal for any company is to make money. Durex's not in the business because they're on a world-wide crusade against STDs and babies in general. They're in it because they can turn a cent into a dollar. --- This is, of course, silly, PU doesn't have to link anything. For all I care, they could just have a blank page as an index. Come to think of it, I hope they get one. Yes, it's counter-productive. So? That means they'll go down sooner or later. Which is what people seem to want. And re: "GSI is a bunch of cry-babies". What else is new? This does in no way imply that listening in on a site dir back-pedalling isn't any fun. It's juicy, gimme more. Caryn, you used to work there, who's sleeping with whom, and when, and in what kind of super-hero outfits? --- scandahoovian chicks, get them while they're hot! |
|
Here's a thought. Webmasters are shutting down their sites left, right and center because they can't afford the bandwidth costs. Everyone agree? Yes? Good. So why doesn't GameSpy link its competitors to death? :) |
|
HoseWater: If game companies did not like what GSI was doing, they could crush them in an instant. They could easily toss up thier own sites with amazing amounts of exclusive content at the drop of a pin. yep, and they wouldn't even have to include the word "A D V E R T I S E M E N T" across the top like they do with the fake interviews and stuff in magazines. and i'm sure you'd trust that info to be accurate and as unbiased as possible, eh? |
|
#51 mgns Caryn, you used to work there, who's sleeping with whom, and when, and in what kind of super-hero outfits? I'm really not at liberty to discuss the existence or non-existence of any superhero fetishes. |
|
Oh, and I think FilePlanet Personal Server is too expensive. no opinion on this one. i don't/won't use it. :) |
|
#53 crash HoseWater: If game companies did not like what GSI was doing, they could crush them in an instant. They could easily toss up thier own sites with amazing amounts of exclusive content at the drop of a pin. yep, and they wouldn't even have to include the word "A D V E R T I S E M E N T" across the top like they do with the fake interviews and stuff in magazines. and i'm sure you'd trust that info to be accurate and as unbiased as possible, eh? No shit eh? Fake interviews? developers are supplying both the questions and answers to some of that juicy content? Interesting. As for trusting them as accurate and unbiased, well, not completely, I would treat internal reviews as marketing fluff, but the screenshots, development updates, screensavers, wallpapers and movies, I could take at face value. I still know how usenet works if I need an unmoderated forum to bitch in. :) -I was going to buy an Xbox, but one day my PC fell over, so I left it that way. |
|
I used to have a Personal Server, but after a couple of months of not downloading more than something like ~50 MB a month from it, I cancelled the account. I have registered GameSpy Arcade though. See how much I "hate" GSI? :) |
|
Any comments on #52? Seriously. People are saying "bandwidth is expensive!" and "we're not sending users to our competitors!" at the same time. What's up with that, really? |
|
#57 Morn I used to have a Personal Server, but after a couple of months of not downloading more than something like ~50 MB a month from it, I cancelled the account. I have registered GameSpy Arcade though. See how much I "hate" GSI? :) Heh, I registered quakespy, which I believe was a lifetime deal, I plan to open it in twenty years so I can start a bitchfest when it does not work. :) -I was going to buy an Xbox, but one day my PC fell over, so I left it that way. |
|
#58 Morn Any comments on #52? Seriously. People are saying "bandwidth is expensive!" and "we're not sending users to our competitors!" at the same time. What's up with that, really? Heh, well, I suppose it could cause problems, they probably have the money to outlast in a bandwidth fight. I wonder if anyone has used the tactic in the past, to kill a competitor? I'll have to do a google search. -I was going to buy an Xbox, but one day my PC fell over, so I left it that way. |
|
#50 crash I'm just saying that I think it is pretty short-sighted to not link to other sites with content your readers may be interested in for political reasons only. it's not your job to decide what the politics of your readers are. it's your job to provide your readers with the content you can give them. if they want to read the other site, there are plentiful search engines for that sort of thing, and they can go read the other site if they wish. There seems to be two distinct perceptions of what the web is here: the web as information exchange above all else (the category I see Morn and others in, but correct me if I'm off-base), and the web as a place of business. The web has morphed from being a totally free exchange of information to one in which the free exchange of information has been almost completely supplanted by business use, whether that's "pay me and I'll give you content" or "I'm going to choose not to provide links to competitor content". When you think about it, it's kind of a weird change, and that's probably where all the argument comes from. When you walk into a furniture store, you don't expect to see the owner giving you flyers with directions to his competitors, do you? No, and we would think that's a pretty stupid move. And we don't ever think to ourselves, "man, I remember when furniture used to be FREE!" Because it never was (in this little limited analogy). Maybe we're just not used to the way the web is changing. I think that people simply have to accept that a business is going to do what it thinks is best for itself, and if that means either charging for content and forgoing what the web used to stand for (free exchange of information) or not linking to content it feels is in competition with its business goals, then that's naturally going to happen. To balk at it or be incensed about it is fairly naive. No one is stopping the independent content provider from stepping in and providing free content, AND you can always use the company's own capitalistic intentions against them: don't visit, and encourage everyone you can not to visit, and they'll go away. Both business and free exchange of info can co-exist on the web assuming that businesses can get around the issue of growth = enormous expenses far beyond what it would mean in the real world. |
|
HoseWater: No shit eh? Fake interviews? developers are supplying both the questions and answers to some of that juicy content? Interesting. generally speaking (generally), fluff "interviews" like those are done by marketing and the lead producer getting together and coming up with questions, then the questions are run through the team, then mktg/producer get together and massage the answers they get. then it runs as an ad. Morn: Seriously. People are saying "bandwidth is expensive!" and "we're not sending users to our competitors!" at the same time. What's up with that, really? if a reader loads your page, it costs you a bit money, and makes you a bit of money--but the cost:income ratio is very very high. the more pages they load on your site at one time, however, the more money it makes you, disproportionate to how much it costs you. this lowers the cost:income ratio dramatically, and after a certain point (depending on the size of your pages, how big your audience is, what kind of metrics you're using, how much you charge for ads, how much you pay your backend folks, etc etc etc), you begin to make money on every additional page turned. it's in your best interests to turn "X" number of pages per visitor, because that's how you make money. rarely, rarely, rarely does "X" = "1". |
|
That's exactly right. You can get the files for free if you want, but you can pay for the premium service which means no waiting in line, better download speed, etc. > Yes, and no. Every demo or file i've tried to download from fileplanet lately (probably around 3-4) *REQUIRES* that you have a personal vault. I'd be fine with w 5k/s... okay, I wouldn't, but i'd deal :) |
|
Caryn Law #44 There are people who will do these things because they love them (that's how I started out). Then, once the company begins to make money, they expect to be paid for being one of the people who got them to that point. It's fair, isn't it? You provide something to a company that gets them money, you expect to get some of that money in return. Keep in mind that I have no idea what the whole GSI vs. PU or BU or whatever deal is. But from what I've gleaned here, it seems to me that 'the community' is part of what built GSI's Unreal presence on the web. In other words, did the emphasized above. This whole intarweb thing isn't something that sprang out of companies foreheads like Athena. There's a lot of knee-jerk responses here along the lines of "they're a company, they're entitled to/should focus on money" and "whiney little bitches need to shut up." And I'm sure those responses are very satisfying to make and feel really groovy and righteous. But there's a moral dimension to these things that is not automatically covered by the facts of economical reality. "Who ever said there's anything wrong with a company wanting profits" sounds nifty, but consider also who ever said there's anything right. If you want to play capitalism as a zero on the moral scale, be consistent. |
|
that would be a bit of money, above. i thought i could be like The Cool Kids and not preview before i posted. oh well. |
|
Cliff: But there's a moral dimension to these things that is not automatically covered by the facts of economical reality. it's a business. morals and ethics are optional, unless required by law. i understand the desire for happiness and joy, but that's not the way it is. yes, money changes everything--most times, irrevocably. oblah dee, oblah dah. |
|
#64 Cliff Caryn Law #44 There are people who will do these things because they love them (that's how I started out). Then, once the company begins to make money, they expect to be paid for being one of the people who got them to that point. It's fair, isn't it? You provide something to a company that gets them money, you expect to get some of that money in return. Keep in mind that I have no idea what the whole GSI vs. PU or BU or whatever deal is. But from what I've gleaned here, it seems to me that 'the community' is part of what built GSI's Unreal presence on the web. In other words, did the emphasized above. This whole intarweb thing isn't something that sprang out of companies foreheads like Athena. There's a lot of knee-jerk responses here along the lines of "they're a company, they're entitled to/should focus on money" and "whiney little bitches need to shut up." And I'm sure those responses are very satisfying to make and feel really groovy and righteous. But there's a moral dimension to these things that is not automatically covered by the facts of economical reality. "Who ever said there's anything wrong with a company wanting profits" sounds nifty, but consider also who ever said there's anything right. If you want to play capitalism as a zero on the moral scale, be consistent. It was fun to say, they are a business, let them do what they want. What I did not say, is that if they fall on their own sword, the better not come crying to me about it. The customer was screaming, and they were not listening. They will get what they give in the end. I think it is pretty hard to get around that little detail. -I was going to buy an Xbox, but one day my PC fell over, so I left it that way. |
|
crash, I don't know where you're getting that from, but that's not how banner ads work these days, and they never have. In fact, today, the more pages a single visitor loads, the worse is the cost:income ratio, since every loaded page costs you money, but not every displayed banner ad gives you money (and even if it did, a single banner view wouldn't suddenly give you more money because the user loaded more pages). Banner ads only worked when everybody was happily paying CPM rates that were higher than the money needed to pay the traffic for the 1000 page requests required to display 1000 banner ads. Now that the majority of banner ads are CPC or CPL, returning visitors generating many page requests are bad. |
|
Morn #58 Any comments on #52? Seriously. People are saying "bandwidth is expensive!" and "we're not sending users to our competitors!" at the same time. What's up with that, really? I think there's a lot of conflicted design and content out there. At one point, everybody was designing for advertising. So, you break up every article into twenty snippets, so you can throw more banners at your users. And you build networks of sites and link between them, creating a sort of trap users have to go to trouble to crawl out of. Etc. Now that the advertising rates are...what are they now? crap? total shit?...that design philosophy doesn't make the sense it used to, or used to appear to. But it's ingrained now. |
|
Caryn, that was a well written post, but I think there is still a small mistake with your furniture store analogy. A furniture store makes money by selling furniture. Web sites (at least repeatedly claim to) make money simply by people visiting them. If furniture stores made money simply by people visiting them, yes, I believe they'd be even better off if they started sending customers/visitors to each other. |
|
Of course the truth, if there is one, is that people are not making money simply by people visiting them anymore (see my discussion with crash). But if that is the case, see #52. |
|
#68 Morn crash, I don't know where you're getting that from, but that's not how banner ads work these days, and they never have. In fact, today, the more pages a single visitor loads, the worse is the cost:income ratio, since every loaded page costs you money, but not every displayed banner ad gives you money (and even if it did, a single banner view wouldn't suddenly give you more money because the user loaded more pages). Banner ads only worked when everybody was happily paying CPM rates that were higher than the money needed to pay the traffic for the 1000 page requests required to display 1000 banner ads. Now that the majority of banner ads are CPC or CPL, returning visitors generating many page requests are bad. That's true, I remember a comment at a site that is offering premium content as well as free, and they said quite explicitly, that they need to manage hits. Too many would kill them. I think it was arstechnica where I read that. -I was going to buy an Xbox, but one day my PC fell over, so I left it that way. |
|
Morn: Now that the majority of banner ads are CPC or CPL, returning visitors generating many page requests are bad. if you're basing your ad sales on pure head-count, i agree. most sites, however, don't work that way any more. or, to put that another way--have you noticed any really stupid "god i'd never buy that crap anyway" ads on the sites you visit lately? or are they all pretty much stuff you'd be in the market for if you were going to buy something? that's not a coincidence. |
|
#64 Cliff "Who ever said there's anything wrong with a company wanting profits" sounds nifty, but consider also who ever said there's anything right. If you want to play capitalism as a zero on the moral scale, be consistent. Hence my statement that a company doesn't always have to choose to be pure evil or sweetness and light -- my point was that often the first reaction that people have to large and easy-to-hate companies is "they only care about money". There's usually no thought as to what might have been behind a decision that a company makes. Every decision a company makes must be weighed against many things, and the financial ramifications are always going to be number 1 or very close to it. I agree that the community issue you raised is a sticky one in particular for GameSpy because they did indeed start out because of a community. But companies grow and change just like people do. As the community grows and demands more of a company like GameSpy, GameSpy is forced to grow and change or die. One of those changes might be to make decisions that keep it around longer, which means making decisions that put money in its pockets. No one at GameSpy sits around wringing their hands like Mr. Burns and wondering how they can screw over the community today. But no one there is also sitting around hugging each other and spending every waking moment insuring that the community has free warm blankets and teddy bears. What they do is say, "we want to provide a service that both visitors and the gaming community will enjoy. How do we do that and stay in business so that next year they can continue to enjoy the service?" And if you don't think they're thinking about the community at all, you're wrong -- the gaming community factors into their business decisions as well, because it's part of what made them who they are and they know that. |
|
#70 Morn Caryn, that was a well written post, but I think there is still a small mistake with your furniture store analogy. A furniture store makes money by selling furniture. Web sites (at least repeatedly claim to) make money simply by people visiting them. If furniture stores made money simply by people visiting them, yes, I believe they'd be even better off if they started sending customers/visitors to each other. Yeah, I knew my analogy wasn't perfect -- I should have said so. And that's actually part of the problem: we don't have a good model for business in the real world that we can use. We just don't have a good analogy. |
|
crash #66 But there's a moral dimension to these things that is not automatically covered by the facts of economical reality. it's a business. morals and ethics are optional, unless required by law. Exactly. So when someone says "Company X is doing something morally abhorrent!" the fact that Company X is doing whatever it is for financial reasons is not a counter-argument. You can counter that it is not morally abhorrent, or you can argue that morals are not relevant; but simply stating that Company X is a business in and of itself brings nothing to that discussion. |
|
crash #66 But there's a moral dimension to these things that is not automatically covered by the facts of economical reality. it's a business. morals and ethics are optional, unless required by law. Precisely my point. So when someone says "Company X is doing something morally abhorrent!" the fact that Company X is doing whatever it is for financial reasons is not a counter-argument. You can counter that it is not morally abhorrent, or you can argue that morals are not relevant; but simply stating that Company X is a business in and of itself brings nothing to the moral discussion. |
|
#58 Morn Any comments on #52? Seriously. People are saying "bandwidth is expensive!" and "we're not sending users to our competitors!" at the same time. What's up with that, really? That's what slashdot is for. |
|
Morn #71 Of course the truth, if there is one, is that people are not making money simply by people visiting them anymore (see my discussion with crash). But if that is the case, see #52. So what about my #69? |
|
Cliff: You can counter that it is not morally abhorrent, or you can argue that morals are not relevant; but simply stating that Company X is a business in and of itself brings nothing to the moral discussion. generally speaking, "Company X is a business" and "Morals are not relevant" are functionally equivalent. |
|
"Too many would kill them. I think it was arstechnica where I read that." Arstechnica's bandwidth costs for their forums must be huge. |
|
crash #80 You can counter that it is not morally abhorrent, or you can argue that morals are not relevant; but simply stating that Company X is a business in and of itself brings nothing to the moral discussion. generally speaking, "Company X is a business" and "Morals are not relevant" are functionally equivalent. But note I stated arguing that morals are not relevant. I.e. A: Company X is doing something morally abhorrent! B: Morals are irrelevant. A: Really? How is that? B: (...) Also note that stating "Company X is a business" is no explanation or support for the thesis that morals are irrelevant. Clearly, morals are irrelevant to business -- that's not at issue. "It's moral because it's legal" doesn't hold much water. |
|
Sorry, space aliens appear to have abducted my brain's language centers. |
|
Well, I agree with #69. I remember that a few years back everybody was trying to simply get as many page views as possible. Splitting up content into multiple pages was a popular tactic of course. I wish people wouldn't have problems with sending their visitors to other sites. I suppose they'd have to let go of the idea of making money through sheer number of visitors alone. I believe instead they should think about selling services, and simply trying to be the best instead of pretending the competition doesn't actually exist. And yes, I firmly believe that this would not only be good for the users, but also for the companies involved. click |
|
Cliff: ...simply stating that Company X is a business in and of itself brings nothing to the moral discussion. Clearly, morals are irrelevant to business -- that's not at issue. color me confused. if morals are irrelevant to business, and it's not an issue, why bother discussing it? |
|
As an admin and staff member of Beyond Unreal, I would like to stress this is not a tactic to gain attention. As some of you know, the recent history of GSI and the members of BU have not been a good one. BU doesn't need GSI's blessing or use "questionable" tactics to become one of the best Unreal sites on the net. Our priority is the community (as silly as that may sound, it is the truth). GSI has their goals and we have ours. They need to find methods to increase profit and sometimes, a new system will upset a majority of their fans (change is often rejected). However, gaming sites are and always will be symbiotic in nature. Since I've worked at Planet Unreal, it has been the policy to post news from PU hosted sites, above others. But when outside material is received and deemed newsworthy, it is posted. I've rejected many news submissions and even received emails asking why. However, not once was it considered acceptable to say we won't "support" a certain site because they are a separate business. Now, with that said, I do not know what material was submitted to PU. And redef is the site director and has every right to reject submitted material. But he has made this a personal, not a business thing. As I said, all sites, in one way or another, rely on each other to draw in more hits. More hits potentially increase the percentage of ads being clicked (yeah, laugh...:)). Once BU launches, we will post material that many people will want to read. If PU wishes to block all newsworthy material posted at BU or their hosted sites, then fine. People will come to us any way. PU won't lose any money by linking news sourced from outside GSI. But to block newsworthy submissions, just because of a gripe, will only help the competition. We can assure PU, that BU will never tell their hosted sites or the BU staff they cannot link news from PU. It's smart business. But again, GSI is a business and they can run it the any way they please. Yet the root of this situation is not about money, but about personal feelings. And personal feelings should not prohibit the possibility to increase profits by increasing the member/visitor base. We will continue to support the Unreal community, at BU and PU. After all, gamers love options:). |
|
Three very salient points are being ignored in this discussion: 1. Lars Ulrich is the best fucking drummer EVER. 2. Which site has more interviews with Cliffy B.? 3. QUAEK III BECUASE UT IS FOR FAGOTS!!!!1 |
|
Morn: I believe instead they should think about selling services, and simply trying to be the best instead of pretending the competition doesn't actually exist. i agree with this, believe it or not. :) |
|
four, Matthew: 4. What does this have to do with Shadowbane? |
|
Caryn Law #75 #70 Morn A furniture store makes money by selling furniture. Web sites (at least repeatedly claim to) make money simply by people visiting them. If furniture stores made money simply by people visiting them, yes, I believe they'd be even better off if they started sending customers/visitors to each other. Yeah, I knew my analogy wasn't perfect -- I should have said so. And that's actually part of the problem: we don't have a good model for business in the real world that we can use. We just don't have a good analogy. Well, by way of contributing to the bad analogies list, here's one I'm sure has been bandied about before: public parks. Public parks run on taxpayer money. And following a campaign of tax-dollar-saving privatization, they are no longer as public; perhaps they charge an entrance fee (or a 'skip the entrance line' fee). And it's more expensive than it was as a government run operation. And it's smellier. And the employees are all underpaid and overworked. Plus it turns out that the company running it has allowed a chemical subisidiary to use the lake as a dumping ground and now, all the local kids have cancer. And and and... Well, maybe I took that a bit far. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: The Internet would rock if it was all machines and no humans.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|