People hate to hear this, a truth, on balance Sony makes better consoles. Oh, if you want to say what a better deal Xbox Gamepass might be or that PC and Xbox can play those games... yup, they don't need to sell consoles. But, when you talk about consumer wanting a console then the way MS has gone about this generation is FUBAR.
This is not a statement about quality, but I think I watched 75% of Ep 1 and stopped. It wasn't bad, I just din';t fee the need to watch more - it never grabbed me.
It is not the price. It not the hardware. It just that for a broad swath of consumers the idea is out there that VR came > Failed > and is now over.
It was assumed, six years ago, that more games would be VR or VR compatible. It was assumed the conspet of games in VR was figured out. However, most games that were created had no business being played in VR. What they market got weer VR games which were clunky, hard to control, and not actually game - they were experiences.
I was rather surprised that Sony was going to put out a 2nd headset while the market for VR was so poor. This is the wrong time to push VR because nobody respectable with them; the other big name in VR is Meta. Meta is a laughing stock. The game VR water-well was poisoned for the bad games, but then Meta squatted over the water-well for a dump.
I respect Sony for trying, but this was the wrong time. Their VR2 headset will not catch on; few games will be worth the entry cost of the hardware.
The solution to have all copyrights ito have a limit. I think the current US system is as broken as is our corporate tax laws.
It should just be 50 years from first publication not matter how long the author lives. So lets take and example. Tolkien publishes The Hobbit in 1937. So Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin Oakenshield would have been open TO ANYONE by 1987. Tell me how that is bad? Explain it to me like I'm a child? And, lest use the example of Sherlock Holmes as teh contrast.
So how has Sherlock Holmes been damaged by being out of copyright? Did the BBC show Sherlock just not boost because of the US tv production of Elementary (2012–2019) or Robert Downey Jr.'s movies - no I think not. Anyone can make a Wizard of Oz, Hercules, or Natty Bumppo book, movie, comic or stage production.
Exclusives copyright beyond 50 years is not useful nor does it promotes the arts! Because the truth has been around forever : it is not the idea that matters. It is the execution fully in a medum. Disney, Marvel, Random House, Robert Ludlum, and Robert B. Parker lose nothing by others using their characters/property...unless Disney, Marvel, Random House, Robert Ludlum, and Robert B. Parker or their estates cannot produce good content with them. In fact, wouldn't the Justice League be better off if the idiots at DC has less control?
The truth is the corporations should not own these character, nor should the authors or the heirs after 50 years. It's just too rats scrapping over a dead baby in back alley...there is no good side or fair side.
What really hurt the film is they went for the 120 FPS frame rate and pushed 3D. You can believe me on not on this issue, but there truly is a good reason that we SHARE the processing of watching a film between projector and our own brain. If you look up a YouTube channel called Folding Ideas he will explain what is going wrong and why the film looks so flat.
One you get from teh technical distractions the movie sufferer from not being all that interesting. Its an okay film, not terrible, but not great. Story wise the big problems is the movie does not stress it own conceit with the right science. Why would teh older assassin be freaked out by a genetic twin who is 20 or 30 years younger? It would like being shocking that someone analogous to your own kid existing, but there is no existential dread of a clone that was raised by other parents and does not share you timeline or memories. Turned the other way why woudl the younger clone dad who looks like his older clone from decades before causes existential dread.
The writer of the script might have had and idea, but in the rewrites they 'lost the thread' of why a clone would be scary and under what circumstances. There is a way to make some dread out of this, but is not about a clone. Its about "can you beat yourself at you best"; but again it would to be YOU, not a clone raised -like- you. The dread occurs from a scenario like, you boss sayings step through teh "time portals" and kill the first person you see. Then the time portal dropping you 30 years in the future and who you see if your older self. That movie was called "Looper"(2012); it stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis when he still sort of cared about acting.
Every movie has SFX these days, so even if you take that out of the math - there are hundred of SFX movies out each year.
Let that just that sink in, teh sheer amount fo SFX heavy movies taht come out in any given year. What James Wan is saying is 'out of another 100 movies, Aquaman deserved the nod but not those other movies?' Was Aquaman better than Rampage, A Wrinkle In Time, Upgrade, Isle of Dogs, Annihilation, Pacific Rim: Uprising, A Quiet Place, Deadpool 2, Mission: Impossible Fallout...or a hundred other movies?
I think saying, "Awh, I wish we woudl have been chooses" would have be the better tone. Because it ain't a give that one of teh other on that list of ten falling off woudl have put Aquamen on that list. Being humble is teh best move unless YOU KNOW you hit teh home run...James Wan made a solid hit and got on base...he should take pride in that.
Iterative console are very likely a dead concept. Which is not to say MS won't try some nonsenses to try to separate itself from teh pack. This whole generation we have seen that XBOX struggle because the management STILL does not know how to keep things simple.
- ONE SYSTEM! - ONE PRICE! - UNDER $400!
And, no, Phil Spencer hasn't learned anything from the mistakes of Don Mattrick! Phil was in a position to say, "No dudes Xbox One X cannot be $500...it won't work, Sony will cream us again", but he didn't he committed nearly the same mistake. Now they seems to be saying, multiple console next time, multiple SKUs, no parity in performance....WHY?
- For developers it means and even wider game between "those that have the low performances models" and "those with the high performance".
- For publishers, it means trying to advertise and explain why "this version looking like this" and "that version looks like that."
- For, consumers it makes they stand in the store wondering, "Do I buy the shitty console of XB?"; "Wait! there are 'versions' of what my kid want for Christmas?!"
I can only imagine what meetings must be like at XBOX; sessions where people try over & over again to explain to software gurus and computer hardware wonks why screwing around with consoles leads to selling less consoles - simplicity is why people BUY THEM. The people behind XBox 360 had the right idea and they just shouted those people away trying to "fix" how console work.
Good! Infinite Warfare sucked in multiplayer, and I'm glad sales were low.
If nothing else positive comes out of the return to World War 2, I hope it kills the BLOPs and Modern Warfare series. MW started off very well, but MW 3 sucked. BLOPs started off edgy, but then its 3rd game sucked too.
2013 Call of Duty: Ghosts --------------------> Poor 2014 Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare -----> Good 2015 Call of Duty: Black Ops III-------------> Terrible 2016 Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare----------> Abysmal
I think Activiosn needs to get mean, they need to stop giving chances to Infinaty Ward and Treyache chances with CoD. Neither studios is up to what that series need anymore.
MonkeyKing1969's comments