You forgot to add any hard drives. Also keep in mind that you would need extremely high quality video which does not carry small file sizes; we'll touch on this again in a moment.
A 10 terabyte hard drive only costs like $1,000...
Show me a moving company that will charge you $1000 to move the amount of stuff that Nats has by land from Indy to Seattle, and I'll show you a moving company that's not in business for very long.
You've once again completely missed the point. The point was that
the marginal cost of moving an additional box back to wherever it's stored is close to nothing.
It doesn't matter whether you assume the base cost of the truck/driver is $1,000, $5,000, or $10,000. The fact is, the marginal cost of an extra box is going to be like $50. If you're already going to hire a truck (the fixed cost is sunk), then the cost of putting an extra box of equipment in there is relatively costless.
Which budget do you think Nationals comes out of? It's sure as heck not Nintendo's.
My whole point is that Nintendo should care more about security at their second most profitable franchise's annual flagship event.
I'm already resigned to the fact that this isn't going to happen anytime soon. I'm just trying to point out that what is being done is not necessarily what
should be done.
Everyone feels differently about what amount of security is necessary. Some people alarm their house, some people do not. Some people pay more for police surveillance of their neighborhood, and some people do not. What amount of security is "necessary" is obviously subjective, but to me (and many other players), the security of players should be enough of a priority for TPCi such that this is brought up before Nintendo.
Of course, it'll only take one major event (kidnapping, etc.) for Nintendo to instantly drop $50,000 to buy state of the art equipment for surveillance. As always, it's easier to justify the cost post facto.
If I were a thief, no it wouldn't. 8 cameras could never have a coverage map wide enough in a hall that size, with the detail required to identify a single person out of 1600, to stop me stealing something.
Then you'd either be a really cunning thief or a really dumb thief.
Read what I've posted before. I just want coverage for the league area and waiting areas. Even if we could just get 8 cameras for the league area, it'd be better than what we currently have, which is absolutely nothing. Something beats absolutely nothing.
Unless one has clearly identifying hair (or some other blatantly obvious feature), all it would take is a ball cap to foil it - take what you want, walk out, go change clothes.
This logic is very flawed. Just because
some people can still get away with their crimes when cameras are installed, it doesn't mean that
all people will. By a continuation of your logic, your local supermarket/department store/shopping mall shouldn't install security cameras because unless a criminal has a defining feature, they can just take what they want, walk out, and go change clothes. I hope you see the problem with the logic here.
This entire thing would be a moot point if people would just take some responsibility and watch their stuff.
No-one would get mugged if everyone stayed home. No home invasions would happen if everyone installed metal gates on their windows and doors. There's another problem with the logic of your statement. The "if people would just..." argument falls flat on its face, as TPCi also makes no effort to inform people to take more care of their belongings. (There was not a single sign at Nationals last year asking people to be more vigilant. There was only a sign stating that TPCi doesn't take responsibility for lost/stolen items.)
Sometimes despite the vigilance of a person guarding their stuff, a thief will be more cunning than the victim and still find a way to steal from their target. Installing security cameras acts as a deterrent.
In the 1980s, fake security cameras each with an NYPD sticker were installed in a dangerous New York City street. They cameras weren't actually recording anything, but because potential criminals thought they were being watched, the crime rate on that block dropped down to only 2 reported incidents in the next year. One was a domestic abuse incident which the camera would not have prevented. The second was a mugging. Nonetheless, the fact that about 20 (I forgot the original number, as it wasn't a very memorable number) crimes turned into 2 crimes just because there was a fake camera shows that cameras do have the effect of deterrence. (
The caveat here is that because there were only cameras for that one street, potential criminals may have moved to other streets where there weren't cameras.)
