But this is exactly what the average PC-gamer does.
Considering that PC gamers -especially hardcore gamers- make up a negligable portion of the marketplace, I don't think any of the console companies much care what they think.
The focus of the market has long since moved from hardcore gamers to mass market gamers, even in the PC market. The fact that the Sims and Myst are the two best selling PC games proves this.
The Sims - a non-hardcore game - has sold about 4 million copies. That's less than 10% of the install base of the PS2, if I recall the numbers correctly (and I may not, but regardless it's still small in comparison). Quake III (for the PC) hadn't even sold a million copies last time I checked.
Sure, if you are saying that MS is going to have problems selling the Xbox to hardcore PC gamers because it's specs will start looking less and less powerful, I'd agree with you. I just don't think that is the market they, or any of the console companies, are going after.
At release, the XBox looked attractive to PC-gamers (XBox' primary audience), it looks a bit outdated today and in half a year it will be hopelessly outdated compared to any PC-gaming system. Even after 2 years, the PS2 doesn't look outdated.
This logic doesn't hold up, unless you are just blindly comparing specs (where it's hard to compare the PS2 to the others, as it's a different system), as opposed to actually looking at the results. The best Xbox games I've seen look nicer in terms of graphics than any of the PS2 games I own or have played.
However, there are no games for the Xbox that makes me _want_ to buy one. Which is what will ultimately kill the console - even if I could get a Xbox for free, I can't think of a single game I'd buy that is exclusive to the system. Halo is okay, but it's no GTA3. If they can't get more marquee title games, they are dead in the water.
People say this all the time, they also say the opposite. I can tell you one thing, I can get much better-looking, faster moving and more detailed 3D graphics out of my PC than ANY game I have seen for the PS2.
However - my PC/video card/512 mb of ram combo cost way more than my PS2, WAY MORE, so it's not really a fair comparison.
PCs and consoles are JUST DIFFERENT. A top of the line PC is generally going to be more powerful, and give you better-looking graphics but it's a totally different way of playing games. It doesn't make it more fun, just a different kind of fun.
People buy arcade controllers that cost way more than that just so they can have the controls they are used from the arcades in Street Fighter.
People used to buy lightguns, before we got to PC to have controllers shaped like guns, even though each console usually had only one or two lightgun games.
If it's a good film, it should say something about society
Watch the first sequence, the one with the primordial men, again and see if it doesn't say something about society. Pay close attention to the shot that is the transition between the past and the future.
Say you don't like the movie, that's fine, but I think it's difficult to make a case that the filmmakers had nothing to say about society.
Surprising! OUTSTANDING movie. It was, though, definitely a 'sleeper' hit, it had a relatively small (36m) budget, but did $120m+ in the US alone. Frankly, it's a little too highbrow to have been a 'big, big' hit, but it was very well done.
I'm not a big sci-fi fan, but I still didn't like Gattaca. The film was not very well acted, boring and had some plot leaps that irked me when I saw it... Now it's been so long, I can't even really recall much of the movie, which doesn't say much for it, either.
arg...it was the begining of the entire saga, not a stand alone movie.....saying episode I was a bad movie is about a brilient as the folks who complained about the ending of Felloship of the rings.
I find this arguement, which is on/. so much, really silly. Of course it is a stand alone movie. If you go see it in a theater by its self, it is standing alone. If someone pays $8+ to see it, not the other SW films, so it needs to be a fun piece of entertainment on it's own merits, or that person will feel like they wasted their money.
Sure, the events in the movie inform the other films, but the movie can be appreciated (or not) on it's own merits.
The most accurate indicator would be what percentage of the viewing population saw the movie. That would even account for people like me who will go see the movie more than once.
How would you figure that out though, assuming that many people do see a movie more than once and given that ticket sales are anonymous?
Also, note that the industry probably doesn't care what percentage saw it as much as they care how many tickets sold. A movie that 1,000,000 people see once would not look as good in their eyes as a movie 500,000 people saw 4 times each.
Why is Jaws a suprise? It was a _huge_ movie that launched Spielberg's career, spawned several sequels, countless imitators and, along with SW, started the whole "event movie" trend.
The first half of Spiderman is a redundant piece of shit to anyone who read the comic
So you think they should limit the movie's audience to only those who read the comic? Sounds like a good business strategy.
I mean, LOTR was pretty redundant, if you look at it that way. And something tells me I already know what's gonna happen in the next two in the series as well...
I'm probably coming off as a jerk but sometimes I wonder if a few of these movie reviews are just for the purpose of making his entertainment expenses legal tax deductions.
Who is the 'he' you are referring to? Taco? He wrote the review of Star Wars, but Daryl Carpenter wrote this review.
It's a movie. It's supposed to be entertaining. The first three films had quite a bit of action and adventure - that's a big part of why they were popular.
Well, it just wasn't very dramatic. Star Wars was about saving a princess from terrible danger and blowing up a doomsday weapon to save a planet.
Phantom Menace was about... a trade dispute?
I mean, I know that the trade dispute let Palpatine gain power, which leads to all the events in the other movies, but still... It wasn't that gripping.
Cute. Since I took Bio 1001 about 8-9 years ago, I really don't know what the wording he used was, to be quite honest.
Since the dictionary.com definition of "antibacterial" is "Destroying or inhibiting the growth of bacteria", I'd say that most, if not all soaps fit the bill - killing bacteria or slowing their growth - even if they don't have an specific antibiotic additive. Perhaps the mildest soaps wouldn't be able to kill bacteria, or make it difficult for them to grow.
If you really want to correct people's wording, you should also mention that the parent to my post uses the word "finace" instead of "fiancee". Of course, depending on his relationship, I guess that could be accurate.
Well, yes, but the poster did say "Why would anyone want to buy a PS1?", not a "Why would anyone want to buy a PS2?" A DC and a PS1 cost about the same; a PS2 with linux is 8 times the price of either.
My Bio 1001 professor told me that ALL soap is antibacterialogical. The use of the term in bold type on the packaging is just marketing. It acts no different than regular soap - there are no "antibiotics" in them, as we commonly use the term.
I have no clue if he was right, but I always figured he knew more about the topic than me...
Slashdot Mirror
I bet at least one person has had an embarassing incident over this...
So? All that means is that they should have developed a better system.
But this is exactly what the average PC-gamer does.
Considering that PC gamers -especially hardcore gamers- make up a negligable portion of the marketplace, I don't think any of the console companies much care what they think.
The focus of the market has long since moved from hardcore gamers to mass market gamers, even in the PC market. The fact that the Sims and Myst are the two best selling PC games proves this.
The Sims - a non-hardcore game - has sold about 4 million copies. That's less than 10% of the install base of the PS2, if I recall the numbers correctly (and I may not, but regardless it's still small in comparison). Quake III (for the PC) hadn't even sold a million copies last time I checked.
Sure, if you are saying that MS is going to have problems selling the Xbox to hardcore PC gamers because it's specs will start looking less and less powerful, I'd agree with you. I just don't think that is the market they, or any of the console companies, are going after.
At release, the XBox looked attractive to PC-gamers (XBox' primary audience), it looks a bit outdated today and in half a year it will be hopelessly outdated compared to any PC-gaming system. Even after 2 years, the PS2 doesn't look outdated.
This logic doesn't hold up, unless you are just blindly comparing specs (where it's hard to compare the PS2 to the others, as it's a different system), as opposed to actually looking at the results. The best Xbox games I've seen look nicer in terms of graphics than any of the PS2 games I own or have played.
However, there are no games for the Xbox that makes me _want_ to buy one. Which is what will ultimately kill the console - even if I could get a Xbox for free, I can't think of a single game I'd buy that is exclusive to the system. Halo is okay, but it's no GTA3. If they can't get more marquee title games, they are dead in the water.
The Sims is niche.
Niche? It's sold over 4 million copies. It's the biggest PC game of all time... Bigger than Myst.
That must be a pretty large niche.
People say this all the time, they also say the opposite. I can tell you one thing, I can get much better-looking, faster moving and more detailed 3D graphics out of my PC than ANY game I have seen for the PS2.
However - my PC/video card/512 mb of ram combo cost way more than my PS2, WAY MORE, so it's not really a fair comparison.
PCs and consoles are JUST DIFFERENT. A top of the line PC is generally going to be more powerful, and give you better-looking graphics but it's a totally different way of playing games. It doesn't make it more fun, just a different kind of fun.
People buy arcade controllers that cost way more than that just so they can have the controls they are used from the arcades in Street Fighter.
People used to buy lightguns, before we got to PC to have controllers shaped like guns, even though each console usually had only one or two lightgun games.
If it's a good film, it should say something about society
Watch the first sequence, the one with the primordial men, again and see if it doesn't say something about society. Pay close attention to the shot that is the transition between the past and the future.
Say you don't like the movie, that's fine, but I think it's difficult to make a case that the filmmakers had nothing to say about society.
Surprising! OUTSTANDING movie. It was, though, definitely a 'sleeper' hit, it had a relatively small (36m) budget, but did $120m+ in the US alone. Frankly, it's a little too highbrow to have been a 'big, big' hit, but it was very well done.
$120 million? Huh? Box Office Guru says it did $12 million:
Gattaca total gross: $12,352,135
Your numbers are a little off, my friend.
I'm not a big sci-fi fan, but I still didn't like Gattaca. The film was not very well acted, boring and had some plot leaps that irked me when I saw it... Now it's been so long, I can't even really recall much of the movie, which doesn't say much for it, either.
I'd imagine the profit on Halo and other MS games is higher though. I'd also imagine that the ratio of Halo discs sold to Xboxes sold is pretty close.
Still, I'm sure they are losing quite a lot money.
If they buy an X-Box, why should they buy a PC?
The internet. Writing papers. Etc. Access to a computer is pretty much a necessity for young people these days.
arg...it was the begining of the entire saga, not a stand alone movie.....saying episode I was a bad movie is about a brilient as the folks who complained about the ending of Felloship of the rings.
/. so much, really silly. Of course it is a stand alone movie. If you go see it in a theater by its self, it is standing alone. If someone pays $8+ to see it, not the other SW films, so it needs to be a fun piece of entertainment on it's own merits, or that person will feel like they wasted their money.
I find this arguement, which is on
Sure, the events in the movie inform the other films, but the movie can be appreciated (or not) on it's own merits.
The most accurate indicator would be what percentage of the viewing population saw the movie. That would even account for people like me who will go see the movie more than once.
How would you figure that out though, assuming that many people do see a movie more than once and given that ticket sales are anonymous?
Also, note that the industry probably doesn't care what percentage saw it as much as they care how many tickets sold. A movie that 1,000,000 people see once would not look as good in their eyes as a movie 500,000 people saw 4 times each.
Why is Jaws a suprise? It was a _huge_ movie that launched Spielberg's career, spawned several sequels, countless imitators and, along with SW, started the whole "event movie" trend.
The first half of Spiderman is a redundant piece of shit to anyone who read the comic
So you think they should limit the movie's audience to only those who read the comic? Sounds like a good business strategy.
I mean, LOTR was pretty redundant, if you look at it that way. And something tells me I already know what's gonna happen in the next two in the series as well...
There is this place called Blockbuster- maybe you've heard of it...?
I'm probably coming off as a jerk but sometimes I wonder if a few of these movie reviews are just for the purpose of making his entertainment expenses legal tax deductions.
Who is the 'he' you are referring to? Taco? He wrote the review of Star Wars, but Daryl Carpenter wrote this review.
It's a movie. It's supposed to be entertaining. The first three films had quite a bit of action and adventure - that's a big part of why they were popular.
Well, it just wasn't very dramatic. Star Wars was about saving a princess from terrible danger and blowing up a doomsday weapon to save a planet.
Phantom Menace was about... a trade dispute?
I mean, I know that the trade dispute let Palpatine gain power, which leads to all the events in the other movies, but still... It wasn't that gripping.
Cute. Since I took Bio 1001 about 8-9 years ago, I really don't know what the wording he used was, to be quite honest.
Since the dictionary.com definition of "antibacterial" is "Destroying or inhibiting the growth of bacteria", I'd say that most, if not all soaps fit the bill - killing bacteria or slowing their growth - even if they don't have an specific antibiotic additive. Perhaps the mildest soaps wouldn't be able to kill bacteria, or make it difficult for them to grow.
If you really want to correct people's wording, you should also mention that the parent to my post uses the word "finace" instead of "fiancee". Of course, depending on his relationship, I guess that could be accurate.
I know no one that has done this.
Well, yes, but the poster did say "Why would anyone want to buy a PS1?", not a "Why would anyone want to buy a PS2?" A DC and a PS1 cost about the same; a PS2 with linux is 8 times the price of either.
My Bio 1001 professor told me that ALL soap is antibacterialogical. The use of the term in bold type on the packaging is just marketing. It acts no different than regular soap - there are no "antibiotics" in them, as we commonly use the term.
I have no clue if he was right, but I always figured he knew more about the topic than me...
Keep OS 9 installed. It's not like Steve Jobs is going to go to your house while you are asleep and install OS X on your computer against your will.