CMODS are used for more than just speed changes. 32 of my 52 quads, all of them validated by USB, none of them DQ'd, are C450.

Even with the inclusion of 0.5x modifiers, that still doesn't guarantee that the speed would be in an appropriate range. This wasn't so prevalent of a problem before the inclusion of Marvelous play, because perrfects weren't nearly as a difficult to get, but if I'm trying to FMC something, the last thing I want to worry about is reading a speed outside of my comfort zone.

 Secondly, if the score is disqualified anyways, why would you mention that speed changes/gimmicks/etc, would no longer be useful? I mean... the score is DQ'd. You'd have to play it with the change/gimmick anyways, and while it may make it easier to learn a said stop and go gimmicks (not like people aren't doing this in Stepmanina anyway to learn songs like Pluto and Chaos), how would that help you with a slowdown that last 15-30 seconds of the song (Still in My Heart MOMO Mix, Innocence of Silence, Tino's White Horse, Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Love this Feelin', etc etc etc)?

I agree completely, 100%, with the first paragraph in the previous post.

 Football, btw, only changed its scoring output to appease more fans. Playbooks and training regimens were designed specifically to produce higher scoring games. Applying this to DDR and you get a game that doesn't need Eye-Toys and Wii-Remote integration: it needs a larger music selection, better designed charts (the new 10 CHALLENGE aren't cutting it -- as in they aren't designed well --- as in are these charts even properly tested before they are released?, and the new 7s-8s are quite questionable) and an online system that promotes more competition. 

I was wondering why everyone was so keen AAAing with greats being an issue? IIDX employs the system just fine. One can only assume that they modeled it off of that system.  I mean.. at the end of the day, its the differences in the MA that determine who is the better timer, no?

 If a player gets 16p and 1g vs a player who get 33p and 0g (presumably , both players getting no NCs and hitting all of the freezes), I would think any "hardcore" player would agree that the player getting 16p and 1g is the better timer. Technically speaking, if you equated these scores to the scoring engine for EX used in onis and nonstops, the victor is quite apparent. Why exactly should the grading not reflect this? I think a better question is: what's wrong with the current grading now, as it does an adequate job in reflecting this? How would changing it back handle this scenario appropiately?

I believe the terminology -- uninformed -- is the term that you are looking for. Thank you for the information :) I stand corrected.

And to answer your first question: yes it would. To your second assertion: being uninformed does lead to a uninformed argument. I wanted to hear it directly from you :)

 Thanks for the conversation :) I'm sure we will be having more of them in the near future.

That's incorrect, btw, moose: to the distributing company, the arcade operator is its customer, not the player, unless the player is buying a machine from them. To the arcade operator, the player is the customer, as they are paying for an allocated time on the machine. Those components in that relationship are not interchangable. Its not an instance of a "middle man", its an instance of two seperate transactions from two entirely different businesses.

Now, to get back on track...  what are we debating here anyways? I mean.. let's be real with the facts. Betson has not provided evidence showing that their company practices good business habits in the distribution of Dance Dance Revolution gaming. I don't think that fact can be disputed amongst us. The simple fact that we are discussing the "presumably" poor buying habits of a consumer in regards to researching such facts such as the reputation of the seller, etc further asserts notion, would not agree? The simple fact that this thread exist asserts this notion.

 So umm.. I got a bit lost in the entirety of all this. I think we can all agree that if a seller is selling a broken product, regardless of how ignorant the consumer is, then that is a bad business practice. To me, what it really sounds like is that you are trying to provide some measure of justification on the seller's viewpoint by arguing that its the consumer's ignorance towards the transaction that is to blame, hence my example with groceries, something that is far more simplistic and down to earth.

 Now, I concur with your points detailing the ignorance of the consumer, and that the consumer indirectly shoulders some responsibility, via being remotely informed. "SOME" being the key word, and the only reason I bring that point to light is because of the nature of the investment, and the fact that said operator is a BUSINESS owner. Being an economist, I completely understand that a seller has an incentive to continually sell broken products if consumers continually buy them. Its simply what they have determined as the more rational choice. However, this does not negate the fact that it is a bad business practice. This fact is excerbated by the fact that creation/distribution of such games is monopolistic. I believe you are intelligent enough to know that its these kinds of facts that you are selectively ignoring in your argumentation.

On par with the operator's standpoint, however.. where else can they go to? It wouldn't matter how much research they come up with, if x distributor is the only distributor with y game that my clientele demands, what I am going to do? Tell my customers no? You are in a lose/lose position, no matter how informed you are.

Scenario a is that you don't get the game, hold out for a different distribution company/private seller to offer them, and risk upsetting your customers.

Scenario b is that you purchase the machine, and profits are now being chipped away, and you are falling in the red of the inital investment because of the egregious maintenence costs.

Scenario c is that you purchase the machine, and you don't maintenance it, and DEFEINATELY upset your customers and lose business. 

What would you propose, if you were in that situation? How would being more informed help you do something about that?

 Oh, and by the way, I'm not a bag boy.

I think that asking the arcade owners to get that involved is asking for too much, unfortunately. Most arcade owners would simply leave it however it comes by default.

 Agreed on that notion. An in-game option where the players could decide would be far more effective.

So... wait... let me get this right: the brunt of the responsibility for ensuring the given quality of a product relies more heavily on the CUSTOMER than the SUPPLIER of that product, right?

Wow.. for the record, you REALLY need to take an economics or a business course. 

So basically, let me break this down in grocery terms:

Its OUR CUSTOMER's responsibility to ensure that the milk that they are purchasing isn't out of date instead of OUR STORE's responsibility to ensure that the milk that is being sold is IN DATE.

Its OUR CUSTOMER's responsibilty to ensure that the produce that they are purchasing is fresh instead of it being OUR STORE's responsibility to ensure that the product is fresh when we stock it.

Its OUR CUSTOMER's responsbility to ensure that their meat is not contaminated in anyways instead of it being OUR STORE's responsbility to ensure that our meat rooms are clean and sanitary, and that those person's handling the meat are trained responsibly and practice good sanitation habits.

Yeah. Right. 

Pros to Marvelous Timing 

Me being a former IIDX player, I can appreciate the simple fact that I now have something far more LONG term to work for than something getting a AAA. As those of you who are familiar with IIDX are aware, your score isn't perfected when you see AAA show up on the screen. Your score is perfected when you see all "Just Greats", which from my understanding (although, please keep in mind that this information is 2 years old) there have only been 4 charts done for that ever (2 of those charts belonged to the same song: 5.1.1)

 In our previous mixes, once you obtained the perfect score, that was it: you had no real incentive to play the song again side for nostalgia, practice, or redoing for documentation. The inclusion of Marvelous timing now has the potency to bring a far longer lasting replay value to the game. Songs such as 1998, etc, that appeared in Extreme that were amongst the easiest to AAA (and hence, probably one of the rarest song picks ever amongst high calibur players), I now have a reason to go play again for something other than just wanting to hear it. I can now go play it (and 350+ others) for scoring. Its because of this, and this simple fact alone, that I feel the inclusion of Marvelous timing was one of the best decisions Konami has ever made in regards to its AC market. It gives seasoned and dedicated players a reason to keep playing, and provides a new competitive edge for tournament play, which is pratically a necessity for growth in ANY field.

Cons to Marvelous Timing

Like the other players mentioned, syncing for DDR makes the existing Marvelous window a bit too problematic: songs have to be dead on -- there, now, more than ever, is no need for any added nuances with incorrect syncing (and I'm not refering songs such as Xepher.. even songs such as Can Be Real, Stars, Konoko, Centaur, etc are not synced correctly). Either that concern would have to be addressed (which is almost impossible, considering player's invididual preferences to syncing), or loosen the window by something miniscule, such as 2 milliseconds.

Also, it was mentioned that emphasizing too specifically on timing would deter the game's appeal to a more casual clientele. I'll also admit that its sometimes very frustrating, as Marvelous play PROMOTES a subconscious effort to score well, and sometimes.. I just want to focus on playing and not so specifically on timing. Solution? Seperate modes in the game mode: one for Marvelous play, one for without. That, or, you could implement the option in the system menu to give the option to turn marvelous timing on/off, and leave it up to the arcade management (who would be a far better judge of his clientele's needs than anyone else -- or one would hope, in these days) to decide which is best. You would be tailor making your product to suit the needs and desires of a greater clientele, which is ALWAYS a plus in generating more sales. Some players who are just as good as I am simply don't like the marvelous timing: they enjoyed seeing simply perfects and leaving marvelous to course only. You providing that option in-game would keep those players satisified while satisfying the other side of the spectrum who want a more difficult timing scale to keep their interests piqued.