Will Xbox Gold be Set Free? Doubt It.

This post today on Gizmodo, It’s Time for Xbox Live Gold to Be Free by Brian Barrett:

Why would I go to the club that has a cover charge when there are three right next door—each almost exactly identical—that'll let me in for free? Xbox 360 might offer great streaming, but it's also got a hell of a moat.
Yes, your Xbox Live Gold membership includes online gaming. And Microsoft is totally within its rights to charge for that; it's an added value experience unique to its ecosystem...
But the calculus has changed. Microsoft is so focused on making the Xbox the beating heart of your home theater, it's even convinced Comcast to stream its on-demand offerings through it. You can watch ESPN live, 24 hours a day, without ever signing out of your Xbox Live account. And when SmartGlass arrives later this year, you're going to route every piece of content you own through your Xbox.
All of which is wonderful. It's a beautiful future, and one that's never going to happen if Microsoft keeps a velvet rope up around all those wonderful services. It's frustrating enough to pay once for things that used to be free. Xbox Live Gold makes you pay twice.
So let's try this, Microsoft: Forget subsidizing a cheaper Xbox with a more expensive Xbox Live plan. Go ahead and charge a monthly fee for online gaming. Do it in Xbox Live points or yuan or mustard green bushels for all I care. But leave the services your customers are already paying good money for—and that every other set-top box serves up for them free—out of it.

A noble sentiment but not likely to happen. Looking at Microsoft's annual shareholder report tells the story.

In 2010, out of $62.4 billion in revenue, Microsoft took in $6.2 billion from their Entertainment and Devices Division, which includes the Xbox and Xbox gold. That same year, it was estimated that Xbox Gold subscriptions pulled in over $1 billion for Microsoft, or 1.6% of their overall revenue.

Sounds small in comparison to the total, but that Xbox Gold revenue matters a lot: operating and R&D costs to keep it running are relatively low compared to Microsoft's other divisions, I would guess. Also, revenue in the Entertainment and Devices Division grew by 40% between 2010 and 2011, much faster than any of Microsoft's other four divisions.

Don't expect Microsoft to kill the goose now that it's started laying golden eggs. Roku can try to compete with its cheaper offerings, but the Xbox still has a relatively slicker interface and better multimedia integration, so I don't think Microsoft is under much pressure.

Microsoft is also starting to offer Gold subscriptions at retail outlets rather than just online. All signs suggest that Xbox Gold is almost certain to stay a paid service.

Intrade and hedging your bets in life

The prediction market Intrade is a neat contribution to economics as well as everyday living. It offers odds on a variety of important world events occurring, and allows users to buy or sell "shares" in the occurrence of events (take a look at the site for details of how it functions).

If you're interested in knowing what the chance of some upcoming event is, go to Intrade and you can see what the market rates the odds as. It's better than listening to pundits because on Intrade, people are putting money where their collective mouths are.

The recall election of Governor Scott Walker is going on in Wisconsin as I type this. Ballots are yet to be counted and Intrade currently prices his chance of victory at 93.6%. I'm ignorant about the political climate in Wisconsin, but even so I can quickly see that it would be an extremely strange event for Walker to lose this recall.

There are more subtle benefits to be gained from Intrade besides just information. Mainstream economic models of consumer behavior predict that people want to equalize consumption across time; a stable income with minimal variance is most desirable. Another nice aspect of Intrade (although I suspect rarely taken advantage of) is smoothing consumption over time.

For people who are deeply concerned about the outcome of political events, this should be a great service.

For example: if you expect that a loss for Walker will cause fiscal crisis and collapse of civilization, you should bet against the possibility that he wins, so you'll have enough shotgun shells and canned beans to survive the oncoming apocalypse. If instead you think that Walker winning another term will bring about a neo-fascist corporate state and crush middle-class living standards, you should bet heavily that he wins so you can bribe your way out of the country. Either way, the option is there!

Realistically, few people likely think that the outcome of political contests will have such divergent results. If money was used to match political rhetoric, Intrade would have even more money and traffic flowing through than it does now (hopefully enough to keep the site open, unlike some past attempts at prediction markets).

Diablo III and the Newsvendor Model

How does a long-awaited sequel, which became the fastest selling PC game of all time, still end up with a 2-star rating on Amazon? Probably because so many people were excited to play it and then couldn't, due to Blizzard's "always online" anti-piracy strategy combined with shaky server support.

Diablo III has made tons of money, but still turned into a PR nightmare for its parent company. From an economic perspective, however, these two things are not necessarily in opposition.

The newsvendor (or 'newsboy') problem, popular in the operations management literature, gives some insight into this apparent contradiction. It models a retailer who doesn't know exactly how much demand there will be for his/her product in the next period, and has to decide on inventory levels now. The vendor knows quantity demanded will be pulled from some statistical distribution, and wants to maximize expected profits.

This situation isn't too different from a video game company trying to decide how much to invest in server capacity. Blizzard doesn't know exactly how many people will buy the game on its release date, although they probably have some estimate (based on pre-purchases or past sales totals for their games, for example). They ideally want to have just enough server capacity to let everyone play, and no more. Given uncertainty, however, that goal is hard to accomplish.

The newsvendor model would advise a firm to purchase the average quantity demanded, assuming the costs of over- and under-purchase are exactly equal. For Diablo III, costs aren't exactly equal: once someone has bought, they won't be able to return the game if servers are overloaded -- at worst, maybe they tell friends not to buy it. But, if Blizzard over-purchases in server capacity, they're stuck with those costs.

In this case, over-purchase costs are higher than under-purchase costs, so it's rational for Blizzard to buy less than the average expected demand for their server capacity... Much to the chagrin of their loyal fans.

Consumers have a right to be annoyed, but these opening-day server issues shouldn't be much of a surprise. Counter-intuitively, if everyone could play without any interruptions at all, that outcome would probably be even more inefficient, at least from Blizzard's perspective.

Fuzzy Economics and Legal Fees

The New York Times has published several articles in the last two months targeting the American Bar Association. In October, Clifford Winston questioned the need for bar exams and professional licensing. Last week, David Segal wrote "For Law Schools, a Price to Play the A.B.A.’s Way" which blames the ABA's control over law school accreditation for overly high legal fees.In that article, he writes

...The lack of affordable law school options, scholars say, helps explain why so many Americans don’t hire lawyers.

“People like to say there are too many lawyers,” says Prof. Andrew Morriss of the University of Alabama School of Law. “There are too many lawyers who charge $300 an hour. There aren’t too many lawyers who will handle a divorce at a reasonable rate, or handle a bankruptcy at a reasonable rate. But there is no way to be that lawyer and service $150,000 worth of debt.”

This helps explain a paradox: the United States churns out roughly 45,000 lawyers a year, but survey after survey finds enormous unmet need for legal services, particularly in low- and middle-income communities...

This reasoning doesn't make sense to me. It may be true that lawyers are driven to make more money in order to pay off student loans. But, high fees are not the only way to make lots of cash; there is also the low-cost, high-volume strategy (think Walmart). If so much unmet demand for legal services exists, it could be more profitable to charge a lower hourly rate and just work faster or put a little less effort into each case. This wouldn't be practical if the supply of lawyers is artificially restricted, but given the 45,000 new lawyers every year as well as reportedly high numbers of unemployed or idle lawyers, a shortage seems to be unlikely.

Even if the ABA does drive up the cost of law school tuition, that alone can't explain why legal fees are so high. I'd hypothesize that clients pay lawyers a premium wage in order to ensure a high level of effort. As it is hard to monitor an attorney's effort directly, better wages are used as an incentive to keep on the job instead of slacking. In the economics literature, this is referred to as an efficiency wage; the concept has been used to explain why wages remain rigid during periods of high unemployment. That seems to apply quite easily to the legal industry.

I'm sympathetic to the argument for lowering entry barriers to practicing law, but there are other factors at work too which cause lawyer wages to be high. Otherwise, competition in the legal industry would have already driven down prices and serviced the unmet needs in low- and middle-income communities.

How to Gain Twitter-Fame for Penny Stock Advice, with no Skill, Knowledge (or Profits) Required.

Along with upcoming rappers, Bieber fans, and ad-bots there’s a rash of penny stock advice to be found on Twitter. At first I dismissed it as one of many eccentricities of the platform, but after seeing a few dozen assorted “penny stock” accounts I started to wonder. What could explain these accounts peddling advice on securities that most investors wouldn’t line a litter-box with?

So-called "penny stocks" may range in cost from a few dollars to a fraction of a cent. For example, instead of buying one share of IBM at $164.68, it would be possible to instead purchase 4,450 shares of Double Eagle Gold Holdings (DEGH) at $.037 per share (amusingly, both stocks are currently near their respective peak historical values). DEGH had been running at an average price of about $.003 for most of the last year. If an investor had a crystal ball and could foresee this recent ten-fold run up in price, there would have been a lot of money to be made; therein lies the temptation of penny stocks.

Of course, anyone who actually had that crystal ball and put it to use in the market would be far too rich to bother with running a Twitter account. So why are there hundreds of penny stock tweeters out there? To explain, here is a theory of how ANYONE can appear blessed with penny stock clairvoyance.


The Five-Step Guide to Achieving Twitter-fame with Penny Stock Advice:

Step 1: Pick out 100 penny stocks at random, and buy $10 worth in each of them for a total cost of $1,000 plus brokerage fees (or, if you’re cheap, just consistently follow the prices of 100 penny stocks).

Step 2: Wait. As is normal for inexpensive and highly volatile stocks, the price of some will go up dramatically and others down equally dramatically.

Step 3: Ignore the stocks that go down. Out of the 100, by random chance you’re almost assured to see one go up every now and then. Get on Twitter and brag about how well your picks in the stocks that went up are going.

Step 4: Construct self-promotional statistics to describe how well an investor could have done if they had known exactly when these volatile stocks would move up and down, then tweet about anyone can generate “POTENTIAL 237% PROFITS!!!” based on your expert advice.

Step 5: Bask in fame and adulation. If you are lucky, people will buy a subscription to your newsletter. Or, if they follow your advice, it will drive up the price of penny stocks you own. Then sell off the penny stocks that went up due to your “wisdom” and leave your followers to eat the losses as the stock shifts back down. 


I can’t verify that every penny stock tweeter uses this self-serving strategy. However, it’s the only way I can think of making money off penny stocks, so I’d guess that a large ratio of those Twitter accounts have something like this in mind.

In the time it took me to write the above, DEGH – which I noticed as a result of a penny stock tweet – has dropped 35%. IBM, on the other hand, changed 0.30% in that hour. In a nutshell, this is why investing in penny stocks is probably not a good idea: you get all the risk of stock market speculation without much stake in any real value (or else why is the stock so cheap?). Markets tend to be efficient and integrate available information into stock prices, so when a stock costs a fraction of a cent, it’s probably because many people rate its investment value somewhere near a lottery ticket.

The DEGH rollercoaster, courtesy of Google Finance. Notice the peak, then sudden drop at the end.

To make matters even worse, even if you successfully buy low and sell high with penny stocks – a difficult proposition, given how quickly the values change – you’ll be eaten alive in brokerage fees. For the example above, even if one used a discount brokerage like Scottrade, the cost of each purchase would be a $7 flat fee – making a $1,000 investment cost a total of $1,700. It would take a crystal ball, extraordinary luck, or loads of self-serving information delivered to a mass audience in order to generate enough returns to cover that cost. When you see someone giving investment advice on Twitter, mentally ask which of those three categories you think they fall into.



Note: for entertainment purposes only. I’m not dispensing investment advice; the stocks named were solely for example purposes, not as endorsement. If you’re reading this and run a penny stock service I’m sure you’re the exception to the above, and love children, flowers, kittens and your advisees all equally and would never pull such a scam on them. I’m just writing about your competition. But I would awfully like to peak at your crystal ball sometime when you get a chance.

You Only Live 22 Times -- Death of the James Bond Legacy

As a male American born in the last 50 years, I can say with confidence that the mythical figure of James Bond has influenced my upbringing and views on action movies. The Bond series has grossed $1.6 billion in the box office, making it the #3 most successful movie series of all time. The early movies turned Sean Connery into a legend, and built up the "action-movie cred" for the following Bonds. Through the Cold War and beyond, James Bond resonated with a culture that glorified adventure and perceived itself in a global struggle against evil. However, the times seem to be turning against iconic 007.