It starts this weekend; I'm going. I may not play WoW anymore but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a good SC2 tournament live, or a chance to play more Diablo 3.
Expect me to post some daily reflections and/or a big lump post at the end if my hotel's internet buckles under the strain of a million nerds.
Showing posts with label nerd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nerd. Show all posts
20111018
20100420
20100204
Gaming Theory
Pet Project Idea: Social Study through gaming.
The concept is to create a fairly decent game along standard archetypes. The better quality of the game, the better. The game should be designed, coded, tested, refined, and completed as would be standard for any game of its kind.
The twist is this: there will be a clearly labeled "WIN THE GAME" button on the screen at all times during play. Before the game starts, there will be a clear statement of intentions. Clicking the "WIN THE GAME" button will win the game instantly. It will also record the time spent playing before the button was pressed. This information will be gathered on a website for public display.
I think this would be a very interesting social experiment, particularly in gathering information about the habits and mentality of gamers.
The concept is to create a fairly decent game along standard archetypes. The better quality of the game, the better. The game should be designed, coded, tested, refined, and completed as would be standard for any game of its kind.
The twist is this: there will be a clearly labeled "WIN THE GAME" button on the screen at all times during play. Before the game starts, there will be a clear statement of intentions. Clicking the "WIN THE GAME" button will win the game instantly. It will also record the time spent playing before the button was pressed. This information will be gathered on a website for public display.
I think this would be a very interesting social experiment, particularly in gathering information about the habits and mentality of gamers.
20090108
Brave New World
I don't see the point in a technological future where tutorials crash and critical updates blue screen a computer.
I can see it now.
PICARD: Data, report on the anomaly.
DATA: I'm sorry captain, but our sensors have experience a critical error. A ticket has automatically been opened with FedSoft and they will be responding in the next 24 hours.
PICARD: A critical error? What was the cause?
DATA: The precise cause is unknown sir, but it appears that our sensor software was attempting to self-update when the error occurred.
RIKER: Captain! The anomaly appears to be growing, we're being sucked in!
PICARD: Full reverse!
CRUSHER: The engines aren't responding sir!
PICARD: Explain ensign!
CRUSHER: They were automatically shutdown thirty minutes ago by FedSoft Warpcheck. I can't override without rebooting the entire system.
PICARD: How long will that take?
CRUSHER: It claims 5 minutes, but in practice it always takes 15.
PICARD: And before we are absorbed into the anomaly?
DATA: Judging by our acceleration and the growing size of the anomaly, 12 minutes an 42 seconds.
WORF: Perhaps a controlled torpedo spread could contain the anomaly, buying us time.
PICARD: Make it so Mr. Worf, and I want those warp engines rebooted and online in 10 minutes, no more.
WORF: Captain, the torpedo systems haven't been fire since our last update and are asking if we would like to reconfigure them now.
PICARD: Ignore it.
WORF: Captain, it is giving a warning that firing without reconfiguring may yield suboptimal results-
RIKER: Just fire the damn torpedos.
WORF: I am entering in my account name and password to confirm now.
PICARD: Pray that this works.
WORF: My password has expired, I must choose a new password before I can continue.
PICARD: Could this get any worse?
DATA: Judging from past events it seem highly-
PICARD: That was a rhetorical question Data.
WORF: I have successfully changed my password, firing torpedoes now.
The Enterprise rocks violently. A random console explodes sending its operator flying across the bridge.
PICARD: Report!
RIKER: The torpedoes detonated before being fired!
WORF: Todsah! The configuration of the torpedoes reset when I changed my password!
DATA: Captain, shields are failing. We are being absorbed into the anomaly.
PICARD: Status on the engines?
CRUSHER: There was an error on shutdown, FedSoft is running a mandatory check before bringing them online.
PICARD: ALL HANDS ABANDON SHIP! REPEAT, ALL HANDS ABANDON-
The Enterprise is absorbed into the anomaly.
Q: Can I offer you an enterprise level solution with omnipresent help support?
I can see it now.
PICARD: Data, report on the anomaly.
DATA: I'm sorry captain, but our sensors have experience a critical error. A ticket has automatically been opened with FedSoft and they will be responding in the next 24 hours.
PICARD: A critical error? What was the cause?
DATA: The precise cause is unknown sir, but it appears that our sensor software was attempting to self-update when the error occurred.
RIKER: Captain! The anomaly appears to be growing, we're being sucked in!
PICARD: Full reverse!
CRUSHER: The engines aren't responding sir!
PICARD: Explain ensign!
CRUSHER: They were automatically shutdown thirty minutes ago by FedSoft Warpcheck. I can't override without rebooting the entire system.
PICARD: How long will that take?
CRUSHER: It claims 5 minutes, but in practice it always takes 15.
PICARD: And before we are absorbed into the anomaly?
DATA: Judging by our acceleration and the growing size of the anomaly, 12 minutes an 42 seconds.
WORF: Perhaps a controlled torpedo spread could contain the anomaly, buying us time.
PICARD: Make it so Mr. Worf, and I want those warp engines rebooted and online in 10 minutes, no more.
WORF: Captain, the torpedo systems haven't been fire since our last update and are asking if we would like to reconfigure them now.
PICARD: Ignore it.
WORF: Captain, it is giving a warning that firing without reconfiguring may yield suboptimal results-
RIKER: Just fire the damn torpedos.
WORF: I am entering in my account name and password to confirm now.
PICARD: Pray that this works.
WORF: My password has expired, I must choose a new password before I can continue.
PICARD: Could this get any worse?
DATA: Judging from past events it seem highly-
PICARD: That was a rhetorical question Data.
WORF: I have successfully changed my password, firing torpedoes now.
The Enterprise rocks violently. A random console explodes sending its operator flying across the bridge.
PICARD: Report!
RIKER: The torpedoes detonated before being fired!
WORF: Todsah! The configuration of the torpedoes reset when I changed my password!
DATA: Captain, shields are failing. We are being absorbed into the anomaly.
PICARD: Status on the engines?
CRUSHER: There was an error on shutdown, FedSoft is running a mandatory check before bringing them online.
PICARD: ALL HANDS ABANDON SHIP! REPEAT, ALL HANDS ABANDON-
The Enterprise is absorbed into the anomaly.
Q: Can I offer you an enterprise level solution with omnipresent help support?
20090106
20080316
20080204
20080128
Repeating 9s
So, I've once again run headlong into more nerdy math stuff.
First, I'd like to address my dear brother's comment on my previous post on the subject of 1 = .999....
I'll readily admit that my solution to this issue is equal parts philosophical as it is mathematical, and I think that's where we're coming into conflict.
Allow me to represent my argument a different way.
9.999... = 9/1 + 9/10 + ... + 9/(10^n)
0.999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + ... + 9/(10^n+1)
When we plug infinity into n, we have 10^infinity versus 10^infinity+1. In my mind, and maybe I'm being childish, there's a difference between infinity and infinity+1. If there's a proof to the contrary, then me and my philosophical meanderings are washed up.
That said, I have encountered a 1=.999... proof that I can't easily counter. That is the a/(1-r) proof. See: Geometric Progression.
0.999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + ...
0.999... = E ar^k (a = 9/10, r = 1/10, |r|<1)
0.999... = a/(1-r)
0.999... = (9/10)/(1-(1/10))
0.999... = (9/10)/(9/10)
0.999... = 1
So, either I'm a complete hack, or E ar^k (where |r|<1) != a/(1-r) is wrong. In fact, it's possible to represent the 9.999... - .999... in similar notation and blow my infinity versus infinity+1 argument out of the water. So, as any credible thinker should, I make my last stand and give my opponents a chance for a coup de grace.
Looking further into it, there is a step where we have limit (n->infinity) (ar^(n+1))/(1-r). Anyone who remembers their limits knows that this evaluates to zero as r<1. Desperate for an "out", I pose the following question.
Is ar^(n+1) zero or simply infinitesimally small to the point that we really can't keep track of it any longer and in 99.999...% of situations it doesn't matter? If it's the former, and mind you I would like a "because [explanation]" following any "It's zero", then my mental exercises have done little but given me a good, if futile, stretch. If it's the latter, then I would contend we've found the hole in another argument for 1 = .999...
Thus we end my grasping at straws.
First, I'd like to address my dear brother's comment on my previous post on the subject of 1 = .999....
"This is because trailing the end of 9.999... is an additional 0 (due to multiplying by 10), while trailing the end of 0.999... is a 9."
Except that the number 0.999 repeating doesn't *have* an end for the zero to go on. Pick any 9 you want, but there's always a 9 after it, not a zero. It's like the proof of limits in calculus, where you prove it by showing that no one can specify a place where the function will suddenly deviate from its course towards your limit. 0.999 repeating is the same thing, except that it's by definition of what repeating is.
Your argument against the rule of nines is similarly ridiculous because, again, THERE IS NO EDGE FOR SOMETHING TO TRAIL ON. Infinity doesn't "end". That's why it's infinity, that's why infinities have to be dealt with completely differently than normal numbers. Just because .111 repeating is too long of a number for us to divide by brute force doesn't mean we have to resort to remainders to say that it's equal to 1/9. I'm pretty sure it's provable that 1.0 divided by 9.0 will be .111 repeating. You want to say that somewhere along the line you'll suddenly get a different correct answer when you do the division, 10/9 = 1 with 1 remaining. Obviously, it won't, as division is a function and will give the same answer when given the same input, and in this case the input for each small division in the long chain is the same as the output. 1/9 will divide into .111 repeating And that's what .111 repeating MEANS: 1/9. There IS NO TRAILING EDGE. IT GOES ON FOREVER.
There is no trailing edge. There is no trailing edge. There is *no* trailing edge. Are you saying there's some number which is at the top of infinity, which you can then put another number on top of? No, you can't do that, because infinity has no top. In the same way, repeating numbers HAVE NO TRAILING EDGE. -- To have an edge, an end, is to not be infinite --
I'll readily admit that my solution to this issue is equal parts philosophical as it is mathematical, and I think that's where we're coming into conflict.
Allow me to represent my argument a different way.
9.999... = 9/1 + 9/10 + ... + 9/(10^n)
0.999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + ... + 9/(10^n+1)
When we plug infinity into n, we have 10^infinity versus 10^infinity+1. In my mind, and maybe I'm being childish, there's a difference between infinity and infinity+1. If there's a proof to the contrary, then me and my philosophical meanderings are washed up.
That said, I have encountered a 1=.999... proof that I can't easily counter. That is the a/(1-r) proof. See: Geometric Progression.
0.999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + ...
0.999... = E ar^k (a = 9/10, r = 1/10, |r|<1)
0.999... = a/(1-r)
0.999... = (9/10)/(1-(1/10))
0.999... = (9/10)/(9/10)
0.999... = 1
So, either I'm a complete hack, or E ar^k (where |r|<1) != a/(1-r) is wrong. In fact, it's possible to represent the 9.999... - .999... in similar notation and blow my infinity versus infinity+1 argument out of the water. So, as any credible thinker should, I make my last stand and give my opponents a chance for a coup de grace.
Looking further into it, there is a step where we have limit (n->infinity) (ar^(n+1))/(1-r). Anyone who remembers their limits knows that this evaluates to zero as r<1. Desperate for an "out", I pose the following question.
Is ar^(n+1) zero or simply infinitesimally small to the point that we really can't keep track of it any longer and in 99.999...% of situations it doesn't matter? If it's the former, and mind you I would like a "because [explanation]" following any "It's zero", then my mental exercises have done little but given me a good, if futile, stretch. If it's the latter, then I would contend we've found the hole in another argument for 1 = .999...
Thus we end my grasping at straws.
20080123
Viewing Comprehension
Scientific minds are stereotyped as having difficulty understanding subjective subjects such as art. So, leave it to the internet to provide an art gallery for geeks.
My only warning are, it really doesn't help explain art so much to geeks as it does to satirize it, and I believe there's one semi-offensive picture in the bunch.
Enjoy
My only warning are, it really doesn't help explain art so much to geeks as it does to satirize it, and I believe there's one semi-offensive picture in the bunch.
Enjoy
20080104
20071204
1 ≈ .9999999999999...
For anyone who is familiar with math headaches, this is one of the major migraines. You can easily find all manner of argument over the internet as to the matter. I am not going to claim that in one short blog entry I can once and for all close the matter, but I can at least refute one argument.
Specifically, the following argument.
It seems pretty conclusive, but there is a subtle mistake that is made at 5, specifically in the subtraction on the right hand of the equation. It should read as follows.
5) 9N ≈ 9
or
5) 9N = 8.9999999...9991
This is because trailing the end of 9.999... is an additional 0 (due to multiplying by 10), while trailing the end of 0.999... is a 9. That single digit difference is what unravels the issue. Either it must be admitted that step 5 is only an inaccurate approximation made because we are too lazy to actually travel down the path of infinity to find the "last" digit, or we have to account for the difference and display the equation appropriately.
And in case you were wondering, .8999...9991 / 9 = 0.999...
Another common argument is the table of nines.
Again, this is slightly disingenuous but in a slightly different fashion. Rather than ignoring the relationship of two separate infinites, this one ignores a fundamental concept learned in grade school. Specifically, the concept of remainders.
Trailing the edge of 0.111... isn't a pure 1, it's a 1 R(1/9). Evaluating the remainder is what gives us our next decimal place in infinity, but it will also, always have it's own remainder of 1/9. This remainder is unrepresentable in machine terms/thinking without evaluating it, hence infinity and the erroneous concept that 1 / 9 "ends" in a simple 1.
It is this remainder that, when multiplying 0.111... by 9, evaluates to 0.000...0001 and ticks the value over from 0.999... to 1.
Q.E.D. I am a nerd, thanks Dad.
Specifically, the following argument.
The precise mathematical proof consists of assuming first a number N which is defined by:
1) N = 0.999999999...
If we now multiply both sides of the equation by 10, we obtain:
2) 10N = 9.999999999...
Now substracting N from each side of the equation, we obtain:
3) 10N - N = 9.999999999... - N
4) = 9.999999999... - 0.999999999...
5) 9N = 9
or
6) N = 1 = 0.999999999...
It seems pretty conclusive, but there is a subtle mistake that is made at 5, specifically in the subtraction on the right hand of the equation. It should read as follows.
5) 9N ≈ 9
or
5) 9N = 8.9999999...9991
This is because trailing the end of 9.999... is an additional 0 (due to multiplying by 10), while trailing the end of 0.999... is a 9. That single digit difference is what unravels the issue. Either it must be admitted that step 5 is only an inaccurate approximation made because we are too lazy to actually travel down the path of infinity to find the "last" digit, or we have to account for the difference and display the equation appropriately.
And in case you were wondering, .8999...9991 / 9 = 0.999...
Another common argument is the table of nines.
1 / 9 = 0.111...
2 / 9 = 0.222...
3 / 9 = 0.333...
...
8 / 9 = 0.888...
9 / 9 = 1 = 0.999... = 0.111 * 9 = 1 / 9 * 9
Again, this is slightly disingenuous but in a slightly different fashion. Rather than ignoring the relationship of two separate infinites, this one ignores a fundamental concept learned in grade school. Specifically, the concept of remainders.
Trailing the edge of 0.111... isn't a pure 1, it's a 1 R(1/9). Evaluating the remainder is what gives us our next decimal place in infinity, but it will also, always have it's own remainder of 1/9. This remainder is unrepresentable in machine terms/thinking without evaluating it, hence infinity and the erroneous concept that 1 / 9 "ends" in a simple 1.
It is this remainder that, when multiplying 0.111... by 9, evaluates to 0.000...0001 and ticks the value over from 0.999... to 1.
Q.E.D. I am a nerd, thanks Dad.
20071203
20071120
A Nerd Power is Rising!
Playing World of Warcraft is nerdy enough as it is. However, I can now claim Mr. T and William Shatner among my peers.
20071112
Ruth
I was contemplating my incoming niece, for whom this post is named, when I chanced upon the word "ruthless". Now, obviously, if one can be ruthless one must also be able to be ruthful. I investigated.
Apparently, ruthless is actually a conjugation of "rue". Thus someone who does not rue, does no ruing, and has rued, rues and will rue nothing, is not a ruer but is ruthless (and not rueless). However, a practicing ruer can be said to be either rueful or ruthful, have ruefulness or ruthfulness, and speak ruefully or ruthfully.
This is your nerdy grammar lesson for the day.
Apparently, ruthless is actually a conjugation of "rue". Thus someone who does not rue, does no ruing, and has rued, rues and will rue nothing, is not a ruer but is ruthless (and not rueless). However, a practicing ruer can be said to be either rueful or ruthful, have ruefulness or ruthfulness, and speak ruefully or ruthfully.
This is your nerdy grammar lesson for the day.
20070327
Cracking!
Our dear chaps Wallace and Gromit are apparently spearheading a push for invention in Great Britain.
Were I a native, I'd suggest a new form of transportation. A hamsterball you would ride on top of powered by a robotic hamster fueled by giant sunflower seeds. I'd call it the Hamsportation 1200 LX, featuring Sunflower SEED AI.
Were I a native, I'd suggest a new form of transportation. A hamsterball you would ride on top of powered by a robotic hamster fueled by giant sunflower seeds. I'd call it the Hamsportation 1200 LX, featuring Sunflower SEED AI.
Instantly Improved Vision
I have glasses now. It's nice being able to sit on the couch and be able to read the tiny text in my video games. It's also nice being able to read road signs before the point of no return.
It'll take time to get used to having glasses. I don't need to wear them all the time, but just the idea that I am now in the subcategory of nerd with the attribute "wears glasses" is weird.
Anime Glasses Cliches:
1. Pushing glasses up to the bridge of the nose while expounding some insight or intellectual tidbit or otherwise showing mental supiriority.
2. Glasses completely sheen with light indicating a menacing, silent anger and vengeful machinations.
3. A quick flash of light crosses glasses just before an attempt to do something incredibly epic, incredibly overblown, or incredibly likely to be followed up by a swift kick to the nuts by a hot female.
4. Spirals for lenses portraying the "Coke bottle" varietry of eyewear.
It'll take time to get used to having glasses. I don't need to wear them all the time, but just the idea that I am now in the subcategory of nerd with the attribute "wears glasses" is weird.
Anime Glasses Cliches:
1. Pushing glasses up to the bridge of the nose while expounding some insight or intellectual tidbit or otherwise showing mental supiriority.
2. Glasses completely sheen with light indicating a menacing, silent anger and vengeful machinations.
3. A quick flash of light crosses glasses just before an attempt to do something incredibly epic, incredibly overblown, or incredibly likely to be followed up by a swift kick to the nuts by a hot female.
4. Spirals for lenses portraying the "Coke bottle" varietry of eyewear.
20070221
BOFH
That acronym stands for "Bastard Operator From Hell".
The following links are much funnier if you are A) a nerd and B) have a fairly decent concept of UNIX and its administration. However, these are not necessary.
Also note that I am gullible, and at first believed these things. That was until the "accidents" started.
The first link is the early work, the second link is to the current site of the BOFH.
Archive
More Recent
Enjoy.
The following links are much funnier if you are A) a nerd and B) have a fairly decent concept of UNIX and its administration. However, these are not necessary.
Also note that I am gullible, and at first believed these things. That was until the "accidents" started.
The first link is the early work, the second link is to the current site of the BOFH.
Archive
More Recent
Enjoy.
20070102
FAQ Grammar Paradox
One of the foundational lessons is grammar is that of a/an. When does that mysterious little n jump out of the woodwork and grip itself steadfastly on the right side of that a? As most of the internet will not be able to tell you, it is whenever the first letter of the following word is a vowel or vowel sound (e.g an eon or an hour).
Example: That is an operating system, an OS if you will.
However, you will notice something that sentence assumes, namely the pronounciation of acronyms. Some people would read OS aloud as "operating system", some would read it as "Oh-Es" and others just "Aus". This leads to the following confusing sentence.
Example: I wrote a FAQ on the Legend of Zelda.
Nothing wrong with this sentence, save for potential eternal wrangling over proper grammar. Now, I am no expert grammarian but my instincts here lead be to believe there is a problem. A problem coming from the acronym "FAQ".
Some people will say aloud "Frequently Asked Questions" but those are very few because of the great mouthful that is, so most will default to either "Fak" or "Ef-Ay-Kyew". Therein is the problem.
"Fak" is a distinct consonant, while "Ef-Ay-Kyew" sports a vowel sound at the beginning. This creates a very real and confusing dichotomy between whether we should use a or an.
Anyone who prefers "Fak" is going to read that sentence and be perfectly content and happy, barring a complete failure at basic grammar and spelling. However, people who prefer "Ef-Ay-Kyew" will twitch when they reach "a FAQ" because as far as they can tell the author screwed up in the attempted sentence.
What results is an impossible situation wherein any perfectionist writer aware of the problem will be forced to refer to all such acronyms in the definitive or else risk going insane.
The problem consonants are as follows:
F - Ef
H - Aych
L - El
M - Em
N - En
S - Es
X - Ex
Many acronyms starting with this letters will cause great issues for writers. Thankfully a large number lend themselves almost fully to one pronouciation or another (MADD would very rarely be pronounced "Em-Ay-Dee-Dee" while NAACP would almost never be pronounced "Naspa" or "Nakp") or are large organizations requiring definitives.
As it stands, FAQ is probably the worst and singularly common case of an acronym commonly used by the public which exemplifies this problem.
Now that I've ruined the word for all you grammatical perfectionists out there (I know I've sent some of you into seizures), I can rest for the day satisfied with a job well done, if overly verbose.
Example: That is an operating system, an OS if you will.
However, you will notice something that sentence assumes, namely the pronounciation of acronyms. Some people would read OS aloud as "operating system", some would read it as "Oh-Es" and others just "Aus". This leads to the following confusing sentence.
Example: I wrote a FAQ on the Legend of Zelda.
Nothing wrong with this sentence, save for potential eternal wrangling over proper grammar. Now, I am no expert grammarian but my instincts here lead be to believe there is a problem. A problem coming from the acronym "FAQ".
Some people will say aloud "Frequently Asked Questions" but those are very few because of the great mouthful that is, so most will default to either "Fak" or "Ef-Ay-Kyew". Therein is the problem.
"Fak" is a distinct consonant, while "Ef-Ay-Kyew" sports a vowel sound at the beginning. This creates a very real and confusing dichotomy between whether we should use a or an.
Anyone who prefers "Fak" is going to read that sentence and be perfectly content and happy, barring a complete failure at basic grammar and spelling. However, people who prefer "Ef-Ay-Kyew" will twitch when they reach "a FAQ" because as far as they can tell the author screwed up in the attempted sentence.
What results is an impossible situation wherein any perfectionist writer aware of the problem will be forced to refer to all such acronyms in the definitive or else risk going insane.
The problem consonants are as follows:
F - Ef
H - Aych
L - El
M - Em
N - En
S - Es
X - Ex
Many acronyms starting with this letters will cause great issues for writers. Thankfully a large number lend themselves almost fully to one pronouciation or another (MADD would very rarely be pronounced "Em-Ay-Dee-Dee" while NAACP would almost never be pronounced "Naspa" or "Nakp") or are large organizations requiring definitives.
As it stands, FAQ is probably the worst and singularly common case of an acronym commonly used by the public which exemplifies this problem.
Now that I've ruined the word for all you grammatical perfectionists out there (I know I've sent some of you into seizures), I can rest for the day satisfied with a job well done, if overly verbose.
20061031
Maths
During my lunch break and other moments of rest at work today, I attempted to reengage a sagging and otherwise zombie like mind with some math. Math that many of you will find rather boring as it pertains to video game systems. These were posted in response to other inquiring minds in a revelant topic at slashdot.
There are two major entries here. One on the profitability of Nintendo versus Sony Computer Entertainment, and another on market share in the new generation (set to really get underway in November with the launches of the Wii and the PlayStation 3).
Enjoy, or ignore.
----------
Going to the actual Nintendo website and looking up their profits through each report from 2001 to 2005 I give you Nintendo's profits.
2005: $816,973,000
2004: $316,134,000
2003: $640,640,000
2002: $800,338,000
2001: $726,339,000
This is pure profit. Sales were often in excess of 4 billion dollars. 2004 is lower in profit due to costs incurred in the development of the DS.
None of this is assumption, this is straight numbers taken from Nintendo's fiscal reports free availible at:
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/annual_report.jsp [nintendo.com]
Going to Sony Computer Entertainment Inc(SCEI)'s page, I could only immediately find the numbers for 2005 and 2004 in yen.
2005: 35.5 billion Yen ($302,333,504 by today's conversion rates)
2004: 57.1 billion Yen ($485,916,092 by today's conversion rates)
SCEI made more than Nintendo in 2004, but Nintendo did far, far better than SCEI in 2005.
There's a point to be made that some income and expenditure for both companies during this period would come from the GBA, DS and PSP. However, I think my original point remains that Nintendo remains competitive even with the low market share of the Gamecube. In fact, in that two year period Nintendo soundly beats SCEI.
Quite simply, Nintendo was more profitable than SCEI this past generation despite the incredible market share the PS2 had.
----------
Japanese Allotment: 80k
American Allotment: 400k
Population of Japan: 127.42 million
Previous Japanese Market Volume: 30.31 million (Dreamcast + Gamecube + PS2 in Japan)
Number of PS3s per person: 1 per 1593
Number of PS3s per gamer: 1 per 379
Potential Market Share at Launch: 0.26% (Allotment / Previous Volume)
Population of America: 300.00 million
Previous American Market Volume: 70.8 million (Xbox + Gamecube + PS2)
Number of PS3s per person: 1 per 750
Number of PS3s per gamer: 1 per 177
Potential Market Share at Launch: 0.56%
Combined Potential Market Share: 0.47% (480k) [5.66% relative Market Share]
Current 360 Market Share: 5.93% (6 million) [70.07% relative Market Share]
Potential Wii Launch Market Share: 1.98% (2 million) [23.59% relative Market Share]
Projected March 07 Market Share: 5.93% (6 million) [27.28% relative Market Share]
360 March 07 Market Share: 9.89% (10 million) [45.46% relative Market Share]
Wii March 07 Market Share: 5.93% (6 million) [27.28% relative Market Share]
Addendum:
I used the official company goals/projections. Unofficially Nintendo may have 6 million availible by January, and Sony may fall short of 6 million in March. It seemed unobjective to factor such things in.
6 million for Nintendo is not bad at all, seeing as how the Xbox 360 has been out for almost a year now and has only recently crossed the 6 million mark. The rate at which they produce new consoles in their projections is quite steady and reasonable.
What concerns me are the PS3 forecasts. If taken in two month segments, Sony is practically calling for their production to double or triple itself twice over (.5 + 1.5 + 4.5 ~ 6). Given their continuing supply problems, I'm not certain of how reasonable their 6 million March 07 projection is. If they can manage to succeed in that goal it will be a good thing for them, but I remain skeptical.
There are two major entries here. One on the profitability of Nintendo versus Sony Computer Entertainment, and another on market share in the new generation (set to really get underway in November with the launches of the Wii and the PlayStation 3).
Enjoy, or ignore.
----------
Going to the actual Nintendo website and looking up their profits through each report from 2001 to 2005 I give you Nintendo's profits.
2005: $816,973,000
2004: $316,134,000
2003: $640,640,000
2002: $800,338,000
2001: $726,339,000
This is pure profit. Sales were often in excess of 4 billion dollars. 2004 is lower in profit due to costs incurred in the development of the DS.
None of this is assumption, this is straight numbers taken from Nintendo's fiscal reports free availible at:
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/annual_report.jsp [nintendo.com]
Going to Sony Computer Entertainment Inc(SCEI)'s page, I could only immediately find the numbers for 2005 and 2004 in yen.
2005: 35.5 billion Yen ($302,333,504 by today's conversion rates)
2004: 57.1 billion Yen ($485,916,092 by today's conversion rates)
SCEI made more than Nintendo in 2004, but Nintendo did far, far better than SCEI in 2005.
There's a point to be made that some income and expenditure for both companies during this period would come from the GBA, DS and PSP. However, I think my original point remains that Nintendo remains competitive even with the low market share of the Gamecube. In fact, in that two year period Nintendo soundly beats SCEI.
Quite simply, Nintendo was more profitable than SCEI this past generation despite the incredible market share the PS2 had.
----------
Japanese Allotment: 80k
American Allotment: 400k
Population of Japan: 127.42 million
Previous Japanese Market Volume: 30.31 million (Dreamcast + Gamecube + PS2 in Japan)
Number of PS3s per person: 1 per 1593
Number of PS3s per gamer: 1 per 379
Potential Market Share at Launch: 0.26% (Allotment / Previous Volume)
Population of America: 300.00 million
Previous American Market Volume: 70.8 million (Xbox + Gamecube + PS2)
Number of PS3s per person: 1 per 750
Number of PS3s per gamer: 1 per 177
Potential Market Share at Launch: 0.56%
Combined Potential Market Share: 0.47% (480k) [5.66% relative Market Share]
Current 360 Market Share: 5.93% (6 million) [70.07% relative Market Share]
Potential Wii Launch Market Share: 1.98% (2 million) [23.59% relative Market Share]
Projected March 07 Market Share: 5.93% (6 million) [27.28% relative Market Share]
360 March 07 Market Share: 9.89% (10 million) [45.46% relative Market Share]
Wii March 07 Market Share: 5.93% (6 million) [27.28% relative Market Share]
Addendum:
I used the official company goals/projections. Unofficially Nintendo may have 6 million availible by January, and Sony may fall short of 6 million in March. It seemed unobjective to factor such things in.
6 million for Nintendo is not bad at all, seeing as how the Xbox 360 has been out for almost a year now and has only recently crossed the 6 million mark. The rate at which they produce new consoles in their projections is quite steady and reasonable.
What concerns me are the PS3 forecasts. If taken in two month segments, Sony is practically calling for their production to double or triple itself twice over (.5 + 1.5 + 4.5 ~ 6). Given their continuing supply problems, I'm not certain of how reasonable their 6 million March 07 projection is. If they can manage to succeed in that goal it will be a good thing for them, but I remain skeptical.
20051108
I'm a geek.
And I just became completely obsessed with geeky T-shirts.
Maybe I'm selling out to the corperate machine, maybe I'm proving that people like myself who claim to be different from everyone else are all really the same, or maybe I'm just a geek. In any case, I now really want to expand my geeky T-Shirt collection beyond one neato Zelda Shirt, a special Metroid Prime 2 preorder shirt, a super Excitebike shirt (one of 500 in the world mind you) and one pixelized Atari shirt (which needs to be hand cleaned of pen stains).
In any case, partly for my own purposes, partly to help people who might want to buy me christmas presents (although I would probably nudge most of the people who read this blog to save their money), but mostly to show everyone here just how geeky I am.
Let the linking begin.
NOTE: These have been edited slightly. I made an addition, but mostly I grouped them into categories for the sake of priority. Some of these are harder to come by than others, and as such I'm taking a few matters into my own hands and grabbing what I can find of the rare ones.
Easy as Pie:
BODY-HTML
SQL Query
GAME OVER
+20 Shirt of Smiting
RPG - Choose Wisely
Life
The Code
It's True
Emergency Exit
I'm on Fire!
Jesus Saves
Ressurect Now?
CTRL-ALT-DEL
Not Found
Uncommon:
Rehab
Classically Trained
Rare/Ultra Difficult to Find:
Olde School (Kevin Found! Check!)
Eat Me!
Home Schooled
Lotsa fun eh?
For anyone wondering, including myself, M or L works for size.
That's a lot to try and get, costing in total something on the order of $200 in total. Unfortunately, I must first acquire new shoes, and perhaps a new backpack, before I can think of purchasing any.
Sadness I know.
Maybe I'm selling out to the corperate machine, maybe I'm proving that people like myself who claim to be different from everyone else are all really the same, or maybe I'm just a geek. In any case, I now really want to expand my geeky T-Shirt collection beyond one neato Zelda Shirt, a special Metroid Prime 2 preorder shirt, a super Excitebike shirt (one of 500 in the world mind you) and one pixelized Atari shirt (which needs to be hand cleaned of pen stains).
In any case, partly for my own purposes, partly to help people who might want to buy me christmas presents (although I would probably nudge most of the people who read this blog to save their money), but mostly to show everyone here just how geeky I am.
Let the linking begin.
NOTE: These have been edited slightly. I made an addition, but mostly I grouped them into categories for the sake of priority. Some of these are harder to come by than others, and as such I'm taking a few matters into my own hands and grabbing what I can find of the rare ones.
Easy as Pie:
BODY-HTML
SQL Query
GAME OVER
+20 Shirt of Smiting
RPG - Choose Wisely
Life
The Code
It's True
Emergency Exit
I'm on Fire!
Jesus Saves
Ressurect Now?
CTRL-ALT-DEL
Not Found
Uncommon:
Rehab
Classically Trained
Rare/Ultra Difficult to Find:
Olde School (Kevin Found! Check!)
Eat Me!
Home Schooled
Lotsa fun eh?
For anyone wondering, including myself, M or L works for size.
That's a lot to try and get, costing in total something on the order of $200 in total. Unfortunately, I must first acquire new shoes, and perhaps a new backpack, before I can think of purchasing any.
Sadness I know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
