Sure. There's no one source, or even one right answer with business philosophy and economics. A good starting place is just to browse Amazon and pick up a couple of books on business: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstr...

For me personally, my economics understandings have come out of a marketing post graduate degree, and working for a business publication that has given me access to managing directors and financial professionals. Almost all the businesses I talk to are still around, so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they know what they're on about.

Edit: After your edit, I realise you were talking to Wariowoods. Oops. Still though, I recommend reading up on business philosophy. It's not nearly as dry as it sounds - it's actaully amazing (and yet so, so simple) how all this works.

Yeah sorry, I'm on the iPhone and I can't seem to get it to quote. I retrospect I should've done @wariowoods but oh well.

Actually, I'm glad you posted so at least we all know you really do know what you're talking about.

...going around in circles again... this one should be brief.

For some reason, my statements are taken to be much more judgmental of the buying practices of others than intended. I do criticize the position that our purchases shouldn't be taken seriously. I do not, however, expect everyone's particular conclusions to match mine. In other words, there are perfectly rational reasons to support Sony even above its competitors, if you do like where they are taking the industry. My point is only that one must take that level of criticism seriously, rather than the mere horse-race or uncritical purchasing of all the latest tech, just because eg. 3D TVs are being pushed on all fronts by the industry leaders.

You're criticising consumers for keeping companies alive. If you can't see the basic fallacy in that, then you should consider taking a few economics classes.

For me personally, my economics understandings have come out of a marketing post graduate degree, and working for a business publication that has given me access to managing directors and financial professionals.

Here's the problem, once again. I don't like getting into the battle of putting our backgrounds against one another, but you're attempting to speak from place of expertise, yet you only have it from one angle. I respect your background, but it's like that of someone who has interned with a political strategist or polling agency who then feels he can adjudicate on policy. Ie., you understand the business world from the perspective of the companies themselves, but we're talking about the responsibility of the consumer, and just as you cannot map personal ethics onto businesses — a point you're fond of making, even when it's already been made by both of us — you also under no circumstances can map the ethics of the businessman onto the choices of the consumer. Those are completely divergent sets of ethics; the former tells you nothing about the latter.

My background is from the other angle: my graduate degrees are in education policy and philosophy, with the latter focusing on political philosophy. My work primarily deals with the intersection of education policy and technology; ie., taking seriously the effects (both good and bad) of tech on education, and deciding which technologies should be supported by universities or which are self-defeating in the long run.

We're not having the same conversation because you won't have a conversation on the topic from any perspective other than that of the businesses themselves. I'm saying that all the expertise in the world from that standpoint means nothing to our questions: where gaming should be going, whether it has improved or taken steps backwards in recent years, and to what extent particular companies are causing gaming to shift in this or that direction. That's the conversation one must have. The conversation you want to have does no one any good when selecting products to buy.

For the record, you were totally criticising people for their buying practices and basically asking people to conform to your ways. I don't have time to quote every instance, but seriously, read your last post (#337) and you'll see it.

Hey, I'm totally willing to have that conversation, yet you keep ignoring me. And again, you keep talking as if there's a serious problem here, yet you've provided zero evidence to back that up. I believe gaming has taken steps forward, providing many different people ways to enjoy games. And last I checked, Game sales have been higher than ever before. I think they must be doing something right.

You also seem to be talking as if everyone just buys technology for the sake of it. From my experience, that is most definitely not the case - not everyone buys every new piece of tech, just as not everyone buys every new car or every new Madden game. I think, I don't have any evidence on this so feel free to prove me wrong, but I think it's actually just a small but lucrative minority that buys into every new technology that comes out. Again, you're fighting an uphill battle asking those people to change. Maybe I'm just lucky, but everyone I've ever associated with generally buys new tech because it has something that greatly appeals to them, and they put in some honest thought before buying them.

Have you guys seen this?

http://www.psu.com/Sony-unveils-new-PS-Vita-trailer--a012214-...

Cool, it gets a messaging system!

Something the 3DS desperately needs. What's the hold up? D:

I don't think that was about must have video games. Since, y'know, that is what the 3DS actually needs.

As if we needed more here is yet another reason to buy the PSVita!

Source: http://www.siliconera.com/2011/06/23/ignition-intends-to-have...

Yeah, Dragon Crown looks boss (horrible proportions aside).

Man, I know right? And they made that Amazon look overly overtly sexually suggestive. Anyway, Dragon's Crown is going to be a major beautiful move over the classic 'Dragon's Lair'.
Here is a link to some great 'Dragon's Crown' content.
http://nerdreactor.com/2011/06/14/e3-utv-ignition-the-art-of-...

I was actually referring to the Sorceress' overly large breasts. There's big, and then there's too big, and she crossed that line about 6 cup-sizes ago. And their tiny heads...shudders.

I read your comment and then I watched the video three posts above. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous character designs I've ever seen.

Er, upon watching the trailer, I don't think Dragon's Crown is gonna make me buy the Vita day one. Those character designs are truly awful, and is it just me, or does the camera look way too zoomed in to the action to be comfortable?

Meh, I'll stick with my 3DS for now. Also, those graphics don't look like anything that's not possible on the 3DS or Wii even. I came in expecting something even more amazing that Muramassa, but it looks basically the same as Muramassa did on the Wii, just on a 3D playing field. The only thing compelling me is the online features of this game.

ROFL! Actually I've always liked caricatures with tiny heads and stylized bodies which is exactly part of the reason that this game appeals to along with the fact that I'm one who enjoys things like stylized Historical Fantasy RPG's such as Half Minute Hero, Radiant Historia, Grand Knights History and the legendary PSP game Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone! But yes, the sorceress and amazon are like so totally extranified in their designs that it's beyond ridiculous.

BTW here is another must buy for the PSVita 'Gravity Daze'.

This image is to big to post here so please click on it: http://storage.siliconera.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/20...

Yeah, Gravity Daze looks cool. Here's a good video of it:

Wow, Gravity Daze is so intriguing!

That's easily the best thing I've seen for VIta and reminds me that the color brown used in video games isn't inherently evil.

That trailer makes me think that Gravity Daze is kind of like Peter Pan except that the protaganist is a female.

I'm still not sold on Gravity Daze though. I'm much more set to buy ModNation Racers and Dragon's Crown.