Xbox 360 Vs PS3

[typicallistener]

eat my shit

[DudeEMETIB]

Originally Posted by Diglass

Yes, Ok Computer had more sales (agreeing with Dude). BUT I'm pretty sure I said they made more money off this album than any other album, because they recorded it and produced it themselves under their own label.

Which means they received all of the proceeds from the album instead of the Label giving them a small percentage of the album like what happened with Ok Computer.

I can't find any info on exactly how much money they earned from In Rainbows as opposed to the rest of their albums.

The best I found is that within the period that they were giving away the album online, they made more money off it than they made in total from the sales of Hail to the Thief..but that also is just not a very good selling album of theirs...so that doesn't mean much to me.

I still, would think, they made more money off OK Computer...but you may be right.

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by Diglass

Yes, Ok Computer had more sales (agreeing with Dude). BUT I'm pretty sure I said they made more money off this album than any other album, because they recorded it and produced it themselves under their own label.

Which means they received all of the proceeds from the album instead of the Label giving them a small percentage of the album like what happened with Ok Computer.

Sorry if I repeated any of what DUDeETIB had said previously.

they actually refused to share any of the statistics of how much money they made off that album during the give away, which lasted only 3 months. They only said that the majority of people paid SOMETHING, most people think it was under a dollar for each copy. It wasn't until they released a physical retail copy that they made money off of it. overall the "free" giveaway was nothing more than an experiment/publicity stunt

[DudeEMETIB]

Originally Posted by Rufio

they actually refused to share any of the statistics of how much money they made off that album during the give away, which lasted only 3 months. They only said that the majority of people paid SOMETHING, most people think it was under a dollar for each copy. It wasn't until they released a physical retail copy that they made money off of it. overall the "free" giveaway was nothing more than an experiment/publicity stunt

No they definitely made money during the give away. But to say that they made more money than they did with any other album...is a claim I've yet to see substantiated. I can't say they made more/less money before/after the give away...but money was definitely made.

Also, I believe I remember seeing that 1/3 of the downloads went unpaid, and that on average it was about $5 per download for the other 2/3. I believe it was something like $6 million that they made during the give away. I'm not sure how much they made from physical sales.

[Rufio]

Originally Posted by DudeEMETIB

No they definitely made money during the give away. But to say that they made more money than they did with any other album...is a claim I've yet to see substantiated. I can't say they made more/less money before/after the give away...but money was definitely made.

Also, I believe I remember seeing that 1/3 of the downloads went unpaid, and that on average it was about $5 per download for the other 2/3. I believe it was something like $6 million that they made during the give away. I'm not sure how much they made from physical sales.

By publicity stunt i meant it was a way of getting the word out since they no longer had a label to promote their album. magazines, news channels, all talked about the album being "free" it gathered a huge amount of publicity for three months, then they released the retail copy and made most of the money back from that. Proposing that a pay what you want system for selling music is ridiculous.

[DudeEMETIB]

Originally Posted by Rufio

By publicity stunt i meant it was a way of getting the word out since they no longer had a label to promote their album. magazines, news channels, all talked about the album being "free" it gathered a huge amount of publicity for three months, then they released the retail copy and made most of the money back from that. Proposing that a pay what you want system for selling music is ridiculous.

Yeah, I think they'd have better luck with a "let's make CDs $5 and not $20" system.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Diglass

Just for info, thieves suck, but Radiohead released their last album by themselves and gave it away for FREE to their fans on their website and let their fans decide what they wanted to donate (similar to what Katg do). Radiohead actually made more money doing it this way than they had off any other album they've ever released.

So please use any other semi popular band as a reference to your point, but
Radiohead is not the best example.

1) I used it as an example because the person I was responding to used it as an example. I don't know dick about Radiohead.

2) Sales have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my point. It's about intellectual property, not sales. If a band wants to take actions to hinder sales, that's their right. My problem with pirating is not that people get music for free; it is that people who wish to NOT give it away for free CAN'T. It doesn't matter if an artist is financially misguided; under no circumstances does a consumer ever have the right to seize an artist's work from them.

I would think that point would be exceedingly obvious, but internet culture has so warped this discussion that somehow people think pirating is okay if sales aren't affected.

Originally Posted by DudeEMETIB

Anyway...I see your point...but still...you don't have to be such a hard ass on people. Especially so unannounced...if it were a thread on the topic of pirating than sure...but just seems unnecessarily rude to hop in and say "you're a thief" it would be like me hopping into a Christian chatroom and saying "LOL GOD ISN'T REAL" (Which I've done....damn.)

But you're still not seeing it as a big deal. See, you're talking about how you can't afford many albums. I'm in that same boat. But instead of just taking what I can't have, I go without until I can buy it. I love games and I love music and I can never buy as much as I want to of either. If you think freely admitting to and defending stealing from people who create those things isn't rude but me objecting to it when it is mentioned is, then I don't care to adhere to your social standards.

[hellbent]

i have all 3 systems. xbox has the best friend system but i refuse to pay for xbl. i buy most of my games for ps3 because of this, but this may change because of their new premium thing.
i think most people on katg have 360s however...

also, pc games ftw!