Anyways, that's how I treat Enterprise - as a non-canonical spinoff. Makes it much easier to accept all these anachronisms they keep introducing.
This sounds like a good way to buy into the series. Unfortunately, deciding it's a parallel universe doesn't help me to ignore the hackneyed writing. Considering the number of Trek fans out there, and assuming there are some in the movie/television industry, why can't they bring in some GOOD writers?
Whatever bad things might be said about Voyager, and to a slightly lesser extent DS9, at least they tried to take things into different directions at times. For all its faults, Voyager was a starfleet vessel with no contact with starfleet (until near the end) and a non-starfleet crew - at least an interesting concept that was only ruined by the apparent insistence on letting that ship get by too easily, IMO. DS9 showed that the Federation isn't pure goodness and light (for example, by showing starfleeters at their worst while in a "real" war as opposed to capital ships throwing broadsides at each other) and brought religion into the mix.
What fresh ideas has Enterprise given us? I haven't noticed any myself (a temporal "cold war" just seems dumb, especially the way they've handled it). Good Lord, they even made the first officer VULCAN - the antithesis of originality. Enterprise, to me, is Rick Berman trying to do ST:TNG again - and not the good episodes...more like the first season of TNG which was filled with rip-offs from the original series.
Ah well, I shouldnt be saying anything at all since I'm not watching it anymore (the last three episodes before they started reruns again finally convinced me they had nothing original). I'll take a look at Enterprise again in two years or so, assuming it's still on, and see if it's managed to become interesting. That method worked for me on DS9.
"DVR" (I'll use PVR from here on out) isn't going anywhere. It may change its public form (there may eventually be no "TiVo" or "ReplayTV") but Dish Network has done quite well selling their PVRs and DirecTV subscribers have bought quite a few PVR units (most with the TiVo brand).
Personally, I have two of the older Replay units (and I'll just pray that they keep up the service for us), and despite isolated problems I have to say that my experience with them has been extremely positive. If I lose the service, it will rush me toward picking up a couple of the [relatively cheap at $199] older Dish PVR systems and wait for HD recording capability to be introduced before picking up an even newer one.
In this house, at least, PVR capability is sticking around, even if I eventually have to roll my own. I simply can't do without it anymore.
Actually, Panasonic has their own interesting hard drive/DVD-R/RAM recording product. It doesn't seem to have the same guide capabilities, but the fact that it can record to both DVD and the hard drive makes it quite an interesting product. You can check out the specs here.
You're right that there is no consumer content available at that resolution. I was only pointing out that the format is indeed in use. It's also worth nothing that there are people [riding the obsessively bleeding edge] out there who are "line doubling" (scaling is of course a better term) 1080i sources to 1080p for viewing on their ridiculously expensive home theater systems.
I'll say it again because so many seem to be out of the loop on this: 1280x720 (progressive) is HDTV. Often, home theater people even prefer viewing their 1080i signals at 720p for the more film-like picture.
1) "True" HDTV is any resolution 1280x720p (progressive) or above, *including* 1920x1080i (interlaced).
2) Most OTA signals aren't reaching the full 1920x1080i, often settling for 1440x1080i (still considered HD).
3) Considering the number of scaling options this device is providing, $400 is a VERY reasonable price - much cheaper than the scalers the high-end home theater people are using to provide the output of similar resolutions.
Having just purchased one of the cheapest HDTVs possible, you're just dead wrong. I paid $700 for a 27" direct-view HDTV (a Samsung) and I will still have to buy an HDTV tumor that will run me between $300 (for a PC HDTV tuner card) and $800 (for one of the nicer HDTV set-top boxes with satellite HDTV capability and all the outputs including DVI). If I had gone with something like the Viewsonic deal, I would have paid $300 less for the display and with a $500 set-top box I would have only been $100 over the cost of my (again, cheap) HDTV.
At the VERY least, this box gives you the ability to connect your Xbox or Gamecube to your monitor and get the true 480p signals (for most Xbox games and many Gamecube games), and I'm sure there are gamers out there who would like to get that capability for $400 instead of spending $700 or more on an HDTV.
Now, all that being said, if you just want to use your computer monitor to watch HDTV, I recommend checking out the myHD card which you can put right into your current box (assuming it's over 400MHz) and start watching HDTV right off the bat. That card is running at $300 (as low as $250). Note that the following isn't an ad for this particular retailer (you can google and see if there are more - it's the cheapest I've found), but you can find this card at Digital Connection. It even has S-video and composite inputs with scaling to several resolutions allowing you to connect other sources. Frankly, it's a much better deal than the Viewsonic.
Actually, 1080p/24fps is the resolution that new digital masters of both new and older movies are using. For DVD, that master is then being downconverted into 480p MPEG2 video (for a while, and maybe even now but I don't look as close now, you could find the words "from high-definition digital master" on some DVDs). Take a look at this D-VHS site to see some movies that have been released at 1080i on D-VHS tapes - these movies are produced from 1080p masters, mainly because going directly from film to an interlaced format is unwise.
If that were true, then nobody playing Half Life or any of its variations would ever buy another online game which doesn't seem to be true. Heck, they'll even buy other FPS games, not to mention games like Warcraft, C&C, etc.
I would also note that console gamers tend to look even more for the "next big thing" than PC gamers because they don't have all the mods available to change significantly the games they already own.
In short, you're over-thinking the comment of ONE person and extending it to some sort of thesis that applies to every online console gamer.
Amen. And that's the kind of thing that console owners are unlikely to forgive, as opposed to PC owners who are used to doing it on their own. With Xbox Live, it's just about the perfect way of getting console owners online: Plug it in, fill out the initial subscription form, and from then on all you do is select "Xbox Live" from the menu of your game, enter your password (or go without a password if you really want simplicity) and find a game...or find your friends and get them into a game.
Console owners want plug and play. They don't want to be hunting down IP addresses or remembering different handles for different games. I know that I sure don't.
You'd be right except that games with Xbox Live support are automatically going to sell more units than games without it. With over 350,000 kits already sold, that's at least 300,000 (discounting multiple kits in households with one Xbox and multiple subscribers) Xbox owners that are going to think seriously about buying any game with "Xbox Live Enabled" on the cover, in addition to the people without XBL who would think about buying the game anyway.
Somehow I doubt that, outside of MMOGs, Microsoft plans to make money on Xbox Live by itself. The goal is to parlay the appeal of that service into more games sold at $50 a pop.
Only two of the games mentioned in that post are ports from PC. That's number one.
Number two, PC gaming is weak relative to the power of console gaming in terms of market saturation and market potential. There are SO many disadvantages to gaming on the PC that they simply outweigh the advantage of your beloved mouse/keyboard controls. Different OS versions, monthly video driver updates, varying video driver tweaks, varying game settings in order to fine-tune performance.
Number three, your mouse/keyboard are indeed "superior" (in quotes because I consider them more unrealistic than superior) for FPSs and for strategy games with complex user interfaces. For anything else, a console controller is either just fine (with little QA/fine tuning during development) to brilliant (with good QA and fine tuning during development).
Hey, if you're satisfied with what you're playing, more power to you. But if you think that gaming online via console is inherently inferior to gaming online via PC, you're deluding yourself.
He said "one of" which you quoted in your post. Microsoft is saying they've sold 350,000+ Xbox Live kits. That is indeed comparable to the number of active subscribers to Everquest which is one of the examples YOU cite.
Oh yes, and if you're going to start ranting about evidence, you would do well to provide your own instead of asking trollish rhetorical questions.
The thing here is that it's not about the development costs being higher (they're not, and in fact Microsoft will help developers if they have trouble integrating the XBL features). Neither is it about maintaining servers for games like UC or, in EA's case, Battlefield 1942.
In the case of EA it's about control of the consumer (for example, EA can advertise their own games on their own servers exclusively if they choose) and getting dollars from that consumer. At some point, I expect EA to announce a monthly or yearly fee to play their games online, or at least to use their matchmaking services like they do with Madden on the PC.
In short, here are the problems EA has with Xbox Live:
a) It is the only way to play seamlessly online with the Xbox (XBConnect, Gamespy Tunnel, etc. aren't "seamless" and require separate PC software)
b) Because Xbox Live users are already paying for XBL which provides matchmaking services, those customers are very unlikely to pay $5-6 a month to EA just so that they can get the same features for Madden, NBA Live, Battlefield 1942, etc.
The bad guys (for Xbox owners, anyway) here are at EA, not at Microsoft. Odd, but true.
Never mind. I thought the "edit" function when you look at your most recent posts was a way to take off the automatic +1 bonus on a particular bonus. In any case, my comment about Visicalc was taken directly from my memory having been a computer nerd since my Vic-20.:)
And Tecmo is Team Ninja's publisher, yet that development team still has no plans to do any PS2 or Gamecube games. Square's decision to stick with PS2 has zero to do with EA and everything to do with the PS2's superior market penetration.
The reason EA isn't "content with the Live service" is that they know their own service wouldn't offer anything worthy of paying extra for over and above the cost of Xbox Live. How much extra functionality do PS2 Madden players get over Xbox NFL 2k3 players?
If EA thinks that they're going to make truckloads of money by charging extra for their matchmaking services on the PS2 (which is the only logical reason not to do Xbox Live games besides the fact that dial-up is unavailable on XBL), more power to them. I think they're probably wrong, but they're welcome to try.
The fact that Xbox Live has outsold the PS2 network adaptor (the latter of which is being sold at a slightly lower price) seems to be ignored by the MS detractors. It's even more incredible since the PS2 device offers both broadband AND dial-up access which would seem to make it even more appealing to the masses.
Of course, what it comes down to is the games. Sony has two games that have really sold their device which are SOCOM (broadband only) and EQ Online Adventures (a retread of a games that's getting pretty old and is still in fact available on the PC with a lot more features). Microsoft, on the other hand, has more variety in their online lineup (from FPSs to 2D fighters) and offers a more consistent experience across all their games.
Nintendo, of course, only has one game (PSO) and has STILL not even announced any more. They're barely worth mentioning in the online area.
Criticizing Microsoft in terms of Xbox Live is just foolish. It's a better, more successful product than its competitors, and losing two developers (who gives a damn about EIDOS, anyway?) isn't going to kill it.
Oh yeah, and why is everyone ignoring the subtext of EA's decision not to develop for XBL? Specifically, it seems that they want to provide their own service that they can charge users for on their own, and the real reason they don't want to support Xbox Live is that they know people who are already spending $5/month on XBL aren't going to pay extra just so that they can get a matchmaking service for Madden 2004. After all, Microsoft has provisions in Xbox Live to allow developers to charge extra for online play if they desire but EA knows that what they would offer isn't enough to warrant extra fees.
Some of you folks have picked the wrong bad guys here. In this particular case, it's [perhaps surprisingly] not Microsoft. Rather, it's EA who wants to rake in more money than what they get from selling the game.
I've gone a little long here, but it's worth noting that Sony is planning their own Xbox Live-like online service that could launch as early as this coming holiday season. It remains to be seen if they're going to charge monthly/yearly fees for it and which developers will get involved. It will be interesting to see if (and which) developers choose a system where they don't have to deal with putting up servers and keeping track of online users, versus one where they do all the work themselves and possibly charge extra for it (since they clearly can on the PS2).
I guess that would be a good idea if everyone who held a copyright was a big company that manages to skate on the rest of their taxes and could thus be assumed to have the ability to afford yet another tax on their income. Of course, they aren't.
I, for one, would be quite resentful of a system that reduced the value of my creation(s) based on that kind of system and I think most individual copyright holders would feel the same. So, since corporations have legal rights very similar to private individuals, the law would have to apply equally and it would be just another penalty for individual creativity.
Solving the "copyright problem" is very, very simple and we all know it: Limit copyright duration to a very reasonable 20 years and have done with it. Profiting from a creation for 20 years is more than adequate, and such a term would encourage creative output on the part of individuals AND corporations. That number may look short, but really any longer term primarily benefits behemoth corporations (see Disney) and encourages them to stagnate and get testy with consumers who don't want to pay for the same piece of work over and over again until they're dead.
Of course, it certainly won't change like that in my lifetime given the power that "big business" (ouch) exerts over our national legislature but I can dare to dream (and support the right lobbying/public interest groups - i.e., these peoples).
Actually, *organized* piracy is indeed still a problem for the video game industry, though not as much in this country. China, for example, has a thriving industry in piracy of video games, as do other countries.
Breaking copy protection, while it's often not an easy exercise, only has to be done once for distribution so that's clearly not the reason [console] video game piracy isn't as common right now. Here are a couple of good reasons that consumer piracy isn't quite as rampant (it still exists) and both are related to the adoption of DVDs:
1. The larger the game, the bigger the hassle in transferring it over the net. While it's relatively easy to download a 650-800MB.iso file for a Playstation or Dreamcast games, downloading a DVD's worth of info (assuming the game actually utilizes the space) is much more difficult.
2. Consumers are currently lagging behind the console storage medium. It's a very rare computer these days that is sold without a CD burner (and a DVD-ROM for that matter) but DVD burning is still in the process of being adopted (format wars - DVD-R/+R/-RW/+RW/-RAM - don't help) in the mainstream, and you still can't get one for $27.
3. The third reason is only applicable to Nintendo, but it's still worth noting that using uncommon formats (cartridge and mini-DVD) still prevents a lot of the "casual" piracy.
Personally, I hope that console video game copy protection keeps getting tougher. I can count the number of times I've had to replace a CD or DVD video game (stored properly) because of media failure on one hand and still have fingers left over, so I'm not a big fan of the back-up copy "excuse."
While I'm realistic enough to recognize the video game prices won't be going down (US$50, pre-tax, new release), I can certainly envision them going up if piracy becomes as rampant on the new consoles as they were on the Playstation and Dreamcast. It won't affect games like GTA which will get their sales anyway, but I certainly don't relish the idea of spending $70 or more for another game that might not be as well known just because others are breaking the law.
I saw Daredevil yesterday, and the LXG trailer was there. I'm a little put off by the "X". Last I checked, Extraordinary started with an "E".
You're right, and for comic people the "X" thing has definitely been overdone. However, had they used the "E" it would have been "LEG." I don't think that's much of an improvement.:)
There is a market for that. But the way to make big money on a movie is to frame the trailer in a way that gets the most sheep into the theater. Comic geeks are already going to be interested, thus they're not the people who need marketing aimed at them.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like a good way to buy into the series. Unfortunately, deciding it's a parallel universe doesn't help me to ignore the hackneyed writing. Considering the number of Trek fans out there, and assuming there are some in the movie/television industry, why can't they bring in some GOOD writers?
Whatever bad things might be said about Voyager, and to a slightly lesser extent DS9, at least they tried to take things into different directions at times. For all its faults, Voyager was a starfleet vessel with no contact with starfleet (until near the end) and a non-starfleet crew - at least an interesting concept that was only ruined by the apparent insistence on letting that ship get by too easily, IMO. DS9 showed that the Federation isn't pure goodness and light (for example, by showing starfleeters at their worst while in a "real" war as opposed to capital ships throwing broadsides at each other) and brought religion into the mix.
What fresh ideas has Enterprise given us? I haven't noticed any myself (a temporal "cold war" just seems dumb, especially the way they've handled it). Good Lord, they even made the first officer VULCAN - the antithesis of originality. Enterprise, to me, is Rick Berman trying to do ST:TNG again - and not the good episodes...more like the first season of TNG which was filled with rip-offs from the original series.
Ah well, I shouldnt be saying anything at all since I'm not watching it anymore (the last three episodes before they started reruns again finally convinced me they had nothing original). I'll take a look at Enterprise again in two years or so, assuming it's still on, and see if it's managed to become interesting. That method worked for me on DS9.
Personally, I have two of the older Replay units (and I'll just pray that they keep up the service for us), and despite isolated problems I have to say that my experience with them has been extremely positive. If I lose the service, it will rush me toward picking up a couple of the [relatively cheap at $199] older Dish PVR systems and wait for HD recording capability to be introduced before picking up an even newer one.
In this house, at least, PVR capability is sticking around, even if I eventually have to roll my own. I simply can't do without it anymore.
Actually, Panasonic has their own interesting hard drive/DVD-R/RAM recording product. It doesn't seem to have the same guide capabilities, but the fact that it can record to both DVD and the hard drive makes it quite an interesting product. You can check out the specs here.
You're right that there is no consumer content available at that resolution. I was only pointing out that the format is indeed in use. It's also worth nothing that there are people [riding the obsessively bleeding edge] out there who are "line doubling" (scaling is of course a better term) 1080i sources to 1080p for viewing on their ridiculously expensive home theater systems.
I'll say it again because so many seem to be out of the loop on this: 1280x720 (progressive) is HDTV. Often, home theater people even prefer viewing their 1080i signals at 720p for the more film-like picture.
2) Most OTA signals aren't reaching the full 1920x1080i, often settling for 1440x1080i (still considered HD).
3) Considering the number of scaling options this device is providing, $400 is a VERY reasonable price - much cheaper than the scalers the high-end home theater people are using to provide the output of similar resolutions.
"tumor" in the first paragraph above is a Freudian slip that even slipped past two previews. ;)
At the VERY least, this box gives you the ability to connect your Xbox or Gamecube to your monitor and get the true 480p signals (for most Xbox games and many Gamecube games), and I'm sure there are gamers out there who would like to get that capability for $400 instead of spending $700 or more on an HDTV.
Now, all that being said, if you just want to use your computer monitor to watch HDTV, I recommend checking out the myHD card which you can put right into your current box (assuming it's over 400MHz) and start watching HDTV right off the bat. That card is running at $300 (as low as $250). Note that the following isn't an ad for this particular retailer (you can google and see if there are more - it's the cheapest I've found), but you can find this card at Digital Connection. It even has S-video and composite inputs with scaling to several resolutions allowing you to connect other sources. Frankly, it's a much better deal than the Viewsonic.
Actually, 1080p/24fps is the resolution that new digital masters of both new and older movies are using. For DVD, that master is then being downconverted into 480p MPEG2 video (for a while, and maybe even now but I don't look as close now, you could find the words "from high-definition digital master" on some DVDs). Take a look at this D-VHS site to see some movies that have been released at 1080i on D-VHS tapes - these movies are produced from 1080p masters, mainly because going directly from film to an interlaced format is unwise.
I would also note that console gamers tend to look even more for the "next big thing" than PC gamers because they don't have all the mods available to change significantly the games they already own.
In short, you're over-thinking the comment of ONE person and extending it to some sort of thesis that applies to every online console gamer.
Console owners want plug and play. They don't want to be hunting down IP addresses or remembering different handles for different games. I know that I sure don't.
Somehow I doubt that, outside of MMOGs, Microsoft plans to make money on Xbox Live by itself. The goal is to parlay the appeal of that service into more games sold at $50 a pop.
Number two, PC gaming is weak relative to the power of console gaming in terms of market saturation and market potential. There are SO many disadvantages to gaming on the PC that they simply outweigh the advantage of your beloved mouse/keyboard controls. Different OS versions, monthly video driver updates, varying video driver tweaks, varying game settings in order to fine-tune performance.
Number three, your mouse/keyboard are indeed "superior" (in quotes because I consider them more unrealistic than superior) for FPSs and for strategy games with complex user interfaces. For anything else, a console controller is either just fine (with little QA/fine tuning during development) to brilliant (with good QA and fine tuning during development).
Hey, if you're satisfied with what you're playing, more power to you. But if you think that gaming online via console is inherently inferior to gaming online via PC, you're deluding yourself.
He said "one of" which you quoted in your post. Microsoft is saying they've sold 350,000+ Xbox Live kits. That is indeed comparable to the number of active subscribers to Everquest which is one of the examples YOU cite.
Oh yes, and if you're going to start ranting about evidence, you would do well to provide your own instead of asking trollish rhetorical questions.
In the case of EA it's about control of the consumer (for example, EA can advertise their own games on their own servers exclusively if they choose) and getting dollars from that consumer. At some point, I expect EA to announce a monthly or yearly fee to play their games online, or at least to use their matchmaking services like they do with Madden on the PC.
In short, here are the problems EA has with Xbox Live:
a) It is the only way to play seamlessly online with the Xbox (XBConnect, Gamespy Tunnel, etc. aren't "seamless" and require separate PC software)
b) Because Xbox Live users are already paying for XBL which provides matchmaking services, those customers are very unlikely to pay $5-6 a month to EA just so that they can get the same features for Madden, NBA Live, Battlefield 1942, etc.
The bad guys (for Xbox owners, anyway) here are at EA, not at Microsoft. Odd, but true.
Never mind. I thought the "edit" function when you look at your most recent posts was a way to take off the automatic +1 bonus on a particular bonus. In any case, my comment about Visicalc was taken directly from my memory having been a computer nerd since my Vic-20. :)
Actually, I didn't read the link, so I'll apologize for that. I neither need nor want karma, so I'll reset that message back to 1.
The first use of the expression "killer app" that I recall was in reference to Visicalc on the Apple II.
The reason EA isn't "content with the Live service" is that they know their own service wouldn't offer anything worthy of paying extra for over and above the cost of Xbox Live. How much extra functionality do PS2 Madden players get over Xbox NFL 2k3 players?
If EA thinks that they're going to make truckloads of money by charging extra for their matchmaking services on the PS2 (which is the only logical reason not to do Xbox Live games besides the fact that dial-up is unavailable on XBL), more power to them. I think they're probably wrong, but they're welcome to try.
Of course, what it comes down to is the games. Sony has two games that have really sold their device which are SOCOM (broadband only) and EQ Online Adventures (a retread of a games that's getting pretty old and is still in fact available on the PC with a lot more features). Microsoft, on the other hand, has more variety in their online lineup (from FPSs to 2D fighters) and offers a more consistent experience across all their games.
Nintendo, of course, only has one game (PSO) and has STILL not even announced any more. They're barely worth mentioning in the online area.
Criticizing Microsoft in terms of Xbox Live is just foolish. It's a better, more successful product than its competitors, and losing two developers (who gives a damn about EIDOS, anyway?) isn't going to kill it.
Oh yeah, and why is everyone ignoring the subtext of EA's decision not to develop for XBL? Specifically, it seems that they want to provide their own service that they can charge users for on their own, and the real reason they don't want to support Xbox Live is that they know people who are already spending $5/month on XBL aren't going to pay extra just so that they can get a matchmaking service for Madden 2004. After all, Microsoft has provisions in Xbox Live to allow developers to charge extra for online play if they desire but EA knows that what they would offer isn't enough to warrant extra fees.
Some of you folks have picked the wrong bad guys here. In this particular case, it's [perhaps surprisingly] not Microsoft. Rather, it's EA who wants to rake in more money than what they get from selling the game.
I've gone a little long here, but it's worth noting that Sony is planning their own Xbox Live-like online service that could launch as early as this coming holiday season. It remains to be seen if they're going to charge monthly/yearly fees for it and which developers will get involved. It will be interesting to see if (and which) developers choose a system where they don't have to deal with putting up servers and keeping track of online users, versus one where they do all the work themselves and possibly charge extra for it (since they clearly can on the PS2).
I, for one, would be quite resentful of a system that reduced the value of my creation(s) based on that kind of system and I think most individual copyright holders would feel the same. So, since corporations have legal rights very similar to private individuals, the law would have to apply equally and it would be just another penalty for individual creativity.
Solving the "copyright problem" is very, very simple and we all know it: Limit copyright duration to a very reasonable 20 years and have done with it. Profiting from a creation for 20 years is more than adequate, and such a term would encourage creative output on the part of individuals AND corporations. That number may look short, but really any longer term primarily benefits behemoth corporations (see Disney) and encourages them to stagnate and get testy with consumers who don't want to pay for the same piece of work over and over again until they're dead.
Of course, it certainly won't change like that in my lifetime given the power that "big business" (ouch) exerts over our national legislature but I can dare to dream (and support the right lobbying/public interest groups - i.e., these peoples).
Breaking copy protection, while it's often not an easy exercise, only has to be done once for distribution so that's clearly not the reason [console] video game piracy isn't as common right now. Here are a couple of good reasons that consumer piracy isn't quite as rampant (it still exists) and both are related to the adoption of DVDs:
1. The larger the game, the bigger the hassle in transferring it over the net. While it's relatively easy to download a 650-800MB .iso file for a Playstation or Dreamcast games, downloading a DVD's worth of info (assuming the game actually utilizes the space) is much more difficult.
2. Consumers are currently lagging behind the console storage medium. It's a very rare computer these days that is sold without a CD burner (and a DVD-ROM for that matter) but DVD burning is still in the process of being adopted (format wars - DVD-R/+R/-RW/+RW/-RAM - don't help) in the mainstream, and you still can't get one for $27.
3. The third reason is only applicable to Nintendo, but it's still worth noting that using uncommon formats (cartridge and mini-DVD) still prevents a lot of the "casual" piracy.
Personally, I hope that console video game copy protection keeps getting tougher. I can count the number of times I've had to replace a CD or DVD video game (stored properly) because of media failure on one hand and still have fingers left over, so I'm not a big fan of the back-up copy "excuse."
While I'm realistic enough to recognize the video game prices won't be going down (US$50, pre-tax, new release), I can certainly envision them going up if piracy becomes as rampant on the new consoles as they were on the Playstation and Dreamcast. It won't affect games like GTA which will get their sales anyway, but I certainly don't relish the idea of spending $70 or more for another game that might not be as well known just because others are breaking the law.
The point would seem obvious: Nerds like numbers, and gaming nerds love FPS/FPS stats.
You're right, and for comic people the "X" thing has definitely been overdone. However, had they used the "E" it would have been "LEG." I don't think that's much of an improvement. :)
There is a market for that. But the way to make big money on a movie is to frame the trailer in a way that gets the most sheep into the theater. Comic geeks are already going to be interested, thus they're not the people who need marketing aimed at them.