Last edited by sergeriver (2008-05-08 04:25:27)
Hmmmm......Reciprocity wrote:
and a $100m Iron Man opening. We have plenty of disposable income, we just don't wanna spend it on something as disposable as gasoline.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Wow, those soaring gas prices and the horrid mortgage industry [and the great international food shortage] must really be hitting big time. I'm speechless.NEW YORK: Take-Two Interactive Software Inc scored over $500 million in global sales of criminal action game "Grand Theft Auto 4" in its first week, marking what it called one of the most lucrative entertainment events in history. [...]
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New … 019494.cms
Exactly. Even if those figures were for the US only, rather than the whole world, only about 3% of people have bought the game (rather than the actual 0.17% of people who actually bought it globally).sergeriver wrote:
Those figures are worldwide. But even if they were from the US alone, you can't measure the economy of a whole country based on 10 million guys spending 50 bucks on a videogame. There are 290 million people that didn't buy the game.
But isn't that what most statisticians do ? They take a certain part of the group they are looking at, take sample stats, and then make conclusions on the bigger picture.sergeriver wrote:
Those figures are worldwide. But even if they were from the US alone, you can't measure the economy of a whole country based on 10 million guys spending 50 bucks on a videogame. There are 290 million people that didn't buy the game.
I bought Crysis, Bioshock, Orabge Box, I even changed the car and bought another LCD TV...Argentina must be doing great.B.Schuss wrote:
But isn't that what most statisticians do ? They take a certain part of the group they are looking at, take sample stats, and then make conclusions on the bigger picture.sergeriver wrote:
Those figures are worldwide. But even if they were from the US alone, you can't measure the economy of a whole country based on 10 million guys spending 50 bucks on a videogame. There are 290 million people that didn't buy the game.
Now, I don't know if video games sales are a valid indicator, but if things like groceries are, why not video games ?
You know, just theoretically speaking...
Because those stats are global, yet (in this thread) are being used to demonstrate local economics. Very wrong.B.Schuss wrote:
But isn't that what most statisticians do ? They take a certain part of the group they are looking at, take sample stats, and then make conclusions on the bigger picture.sergeriver wrote:
Those figures are worldwide. But even if they were from the US alone, you can't measure the economy of a whole country based on 10 million guys spending 50 bucks on a videogame. There are 290 million people that didn't buy the game.
Now, I don't know if video games sales are a valid indicator, but if things like groceries are, why not video games ?
You know, just theoretically speaking...
well, ok then, how about we take only domestic US sales of video games as an indicator for how well or bad the economy is doing. Would you say that is feasible ?Bertster7 wrote:
Because those stats are global, yet (in this thread) are being used to demonstrate local economics. Very wrong.B.Schuss wrote:
But isn't that what most statisticians do ? They take a certain part of the group they are looking at, take sample stats, and then make conclusions on the bigger picture.sergeriver wrote:
Those figures are worldwide. But even if they were from the US alone, you can't measure the economy of a whole country based on 10 million guys spending 50 bucks on a videogame. There are 290 million people that didn't buy the game.
Now, I don't know if video games sales are a valid indicator, but if things like groceries are, why not video games ?
You know, just theoretically speaking...
It's a bit limited....B.Schuss wrote:
well, ok then, how about we take only domestic US sales of video games as an indicator for how well or bad the economy is doing. Would you say that is feasible ?Bertster7 wrote:
Because those stats are global, yet (in this thread) are being used to demonstrate local economics. Very wrong.B.Schuss wrote:
But isn't that what most statisticians do ? They take a certain part of the group they are looking at, take sample stats, and then make conclusions on the bigger picture.
Now, I don't know if video games sales are a valid indicator, but if things like groceries are, why not video games ?
You know, just theoretically speaking...
Or is the product just too special for that ( you know, as opposed to groceries, or gas ) ?
Americans drive more and further (Especially truckers and the shipping industry.) 20% of our total fuel consumption is just getting food from one side of the country to the other. Our population isnt piled up sitting on each other (yet). We also lack any type of real mass transit.B.Schuss wrote:
come on. we have had that before. Gas prices in the US are laughably low compared to most of the western world.Kmarion wrote:
GTA is a bargain.. at least we can pretend like we can afford to drive.
what kind of car do you drive, btw ?
Makes sense.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
When this game was released they asked economists why the game is selling so well when the economy isn't so good. They said it's because the economy isn't so good. Rather than dropping $50-60 (and usually more) on a single night's entertainment, they are buying something that can provide substantially longer entertainment value.
Shouldn't we be doing that now with a Democratic majority in Congress? mmkay. When are we going to take the blinders of party loyalty off?Turquoise wrote:
Just wait... We'll see conservatives bellyaching about the economy if Obama gets the presidency.
It's politics. Bitch and moan when the other party has the power.
I hear what you are saying, but the economy is going to effect teenagers and the unemployeed welfare stay at home playing PS3 while collecting welfare ilk last.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Wow, those soaring gas prices and the horrid mortgage industry [and the great international food shortage] must really be hitting big time. I'm speechless.NEW YORK: Take-Two Interactive Software Inc scored over $500 million in global sales of criminal action game "Grand Theft Auto 4" in its first week, marking what it called one of the most lucrative entertainment events in history. [...]
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New … 019494.cms
You can't really do that though. Many of these people may have had their console before the economy really started to go sour. Unless there was a specific item that had to be purchased along with the game, just to be able to play it, then this isn't something you can really compare. That's like saying the computer I have now, and have had for over a year now should be figured into the economic impact for R6V2 that I just purchased a few weeks ago?d4rkst4r wrote:
Every single one of you is missing a point. The OP is right, it's not the fact that they all bought a $70 game, but in order to play that game they needed to buy a $500 system, plus other games etc. etc.
Those punk-ass kids let John Carmack buy sweet vehicles and give the computer industry more excuses to advance technology. People should be more responsible with their 'throw-away' cash if they want to whine about things like gas prices.ATG wrote:
Punk ass kids buying video games will save the economy.
Sure.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-05-08 15:30:54)
50-60 on one night? Seems quite cheap...how much do drinks cost over there?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
When this game was released they asked economists why the game is selling so well when the economy isn't so good. They said it's because the economy isn't so good. Rather than dropping $50-60 (and usually more) on a single night's entertainment, they are buying something that can provide substantially longer entertainment value.
You are supposed to down a couple bottles of nyquil before you go out. Budget man Budget.Pubic wrote:
50-60 on one night? Seems quite cheap...how much do drinks cost over there?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
When this game was released they asked economists why the game is selling so well when the economy isn't so good. They said it's because the economy isn't so good. Rather than dropping $50-60 (and usually more) on a single night's entertainment, they are buying something that can provide substantially longer entertainment value.
No thanks, my cheap student days (codeine + raro + cheap vodka) are long gone!Kmarion wrote:
You are supposed to down a couple bottles of nyquil before you go out. Budget man Budget.
Iron Man did $98.5 million DOMESTICALLYBertster7 wrote:
Hmmmm......Reciprocity wrote:
and a $100m Iron Man opening. We have plenty of disposable income, we just don't wanna spend it on something as disposable as gasoline.
So global sales figures demonstrate that the US economy isn't in a mess?
How do you come to that conclusion?
I bitch about the economy regardless of who's in power, although admittedly, Clinton and the Republican Congress worked well together.Kmarion wrote:
Shouldn't we be doing that now with a Democratic majority in Congress? mmkay. When are we going to take the blinders of party loyalty off?Turquoise wrote:
Just wait... We'll see conservatives bellyaching about the economy if Obama gets the presidency.
It's politics. Bitch and moan when the other party has the power.
Well then you are one of the few that get it here. We tend to have the need to place a single face on our problems. It's easier to vilify an individual rather than three entire branches of government. Even the presidency itself is made up of groups of cabinet members and staff. The urge to dumb down politics in not constructive.Turquoise wrote:
I bitch about the economy regardless of who's in power, although admittedly, Clinton and the Republican Congress worked well together.Kmarion wrote:
Shouldn't we be doing that now with a Democratic majority in Congress? mmkay. When are we going to take the blinders of party loyalty off?Turquoise wrote:
Just wait... We'll see conservatives bellyaching about the economy if Obama gets the presidency.
It's politics. Bitch and moan when the other party has the power.
For me, it's not about party. For most people it is though. Since most people fixate on the president and falsely assume he has total control over the economy, you won't see the conservatives bitching until Obama gets the presidency (if he does).