LaughingMan

This isn't as easy as you think.

Microsoft was not going to finance the movie. They were expecting two studios to do it. Two studios because in this day and age movies are an extremely risky financial proposition and in Hollywood these days the perception and meme being pushed by studio execs this year is that talent costs have become too high, and they're playing hardball right back.

Jim Carrey has had two enormous features shut down, along with Ben Stiller - arguably two of the most bankable stars around. Tom Cruise - even before public nutbaggery displays - had to agree to concessions to get MI3 made.

For Universal, King Kong did not perform where expectations led it to, and on that one they gave Jackson free reign. And despite that cute public Hobbit image, Jackson is as nasty and downright dirty when it comes to looking after himself and his backend. I don't mean this as an insult.

Understandably in Hollywood, having Blokamp come aboard as director was a really bad choice. First time feature director getting their hands on a budget that large must've made the two studios balk, especially as Jackson couldn't get an A list director to do it. For all those rumors of Ridley Scott, let's face it - Halo wouldn't exist without Alien and Aliens (more so Aliens from an aesthetic point of view).

Funny to think, however, that seeing Aliens as a kid in theaters led to me working in films today. That was so long ago and I feel old. I wonder if I would've had the same epiphany being 12 years old, never having seen Aliens, and playing Halo and devoted myself to games.

Ever since Blokamp was announced I have been expecting this news. Risky, bold choice - but directors like him always have problems first time directing actors, and if major studios are going to shut down movies with the biggest stars around due to escalating costs, you can rest assured they'll do the same on a $200 million action picture with a first time director. This is a direct salvo to companies like Microsoft - don't bring us your IP and expect to gain so enormously from our financial risk.

Now let's see if MS have the balls to finance it themselves.

Given that they're about to take an enormous loss on these machines, I don't think they're looking down us. I think Kutagari is given to insane pontifications, sure. Fact is, however, Sony are going to take a massive loss on production of these machines, and all told they are, given what individual elements cost in the market, a good value. An Xbox 360 with equivalent hardware addons to the premium PS3 will probably end up costing more.

The real question is whether or not consumers want Blu-Ray, which is what Sony are staking this on ultimately. And I think, period, that the majority of people don't. Right after college I worked in a video store and man were people pissed as VHS got phased out - this may not reflect data but in my personal on the ground experience it was rough and now people are settled. That's a huge chunk of the population who are not going to bother upgrading to HDTV for a long time. Likewise, friends who come over say they cannot tell the difference between HDTV and SD when I flip from Lost in 4:3 blocky ugliness to the HDTV version. There are far more people who lust for Metal Gear Solid 4 alone than Blu-Ray. Does Blu-Ray offer any advantage to gamers? Given the inclusion of hard drives in all PS3s, doesn't Blu-Ray mean that processing power can be lifted from decompressing assets?

Even given the ranting about the premium PS3 - everyone always wants the best but ultimately how many gamers out there have a HDTV set with HDMI? Seriously? 10 million? I doubt it.

I think in terms of dry facts the PS3 is an incredibly powerful piece of home entertainment with exceptional tech for its price. Whether or not people badly want or need one, however, is something they haven't thought about. It's too soon. Check back a year after launch and let's see where we're at. I predict the PS3 owns Japan followed by the Wii (which will launch on a tide of goodwill but once in many hands won't impress as much as it could)... In the US perhaps the 360 ends up dominating that market, closely folllowed by the Wii. Sony take it in the shorts on the PS3 in US and Europe. Everything changes.

For all of those annoyed about my constant harping on about Microsoft's unbelievably stupid moves launching the 360, I'd like to say that I intend to focus on Sony's insanity next.

At that price all I can think of is Neo Geo and 3DO. I'm leaving this presentation thinking that I want to play MGS4 badly, but I don't really want a PS3.

One thing Nintendo is doing more right than PS3: it's marketing the motion sensing controller in the right way, and developing games for a broader audience accordingly.

I swear if Nintendo were to launch at $200 they'd win this one.

Bryan -

What are you talking about? Jobs keeps winning that battle, and continually states that prices at the iTMS are what they should be... I.E. what the market wants them to be. Again, Apple are fine with this as it attracts customers, and drives sales of iPods which is great revenue. The problem for the record industry is that they aren't making any money off the iTMS and they don't get any of that iPod revenue.

All I'm saying in effect is that in the next 5 years Xbox Live becoming a success for delivering online content like the iTMS... Fat chance. Thus, Ballmer's reasssurance to stockholders that everything's fine with 360, we're going to turn it into an online store... Is b.s. Maybe next generation they'll be able to do it. But right now, I can't see anyone buying a 360 just to be able to download themes and a horse skin for $2.50

1) Attach rate on the Xbox 360: could this have anything to do with the bundles people were forced to buy to actually get one, in many cases minimum 2 game bundles?

2) Sales in Japan.

3) Revenue from online content. Did you know that the iTMS's profit margins are razor thin? Seriously. Even the most successful by an enormous margin online content delivery store is barely turning a profit. This is the future, yes, but it is not going to happen in the 360s generation with harddrives that small. Apple uses the iTMS to drive hardware sales of the iPod. In other words, having an online store should only deliver at a profit to Microsoft if people are buying the box to have access to the store. Not because it's an extra somewhat useful feature.

I want a game in which I play as Xenu and hunt down and place Scientologists in electronic mountain-traps. Including such awesome weapons as the glycol and alcohol needle injector, and the Thetan bombarder, which can fire up to 5 thetans in charge mode at a nearby man-animal. The OT VII boss would be Tom Cruise.

p.s. this entry needs an mp3 of Rush's "Tom Sawyer"

This is b.s. ripoff of the invaders shoes done by the French artist, which furthermore allow you to tag the street with Invaders everywhere you walk.

http://www.coolhunting.com/archives/2004/12/space_invaders_2.php

Jon -

The attach rate for the original Xbox was not that high comparatively. The attach rate for the 360 was oddly very high.

I wonder if it had anything to do with people being forced to buy bundles to actually get their hands on one?

Jon -

The attach rate for the original Xbox was not that high comparatively. The attach rate for the 360 was oddly very high.

I wonder if it had anything to do with people being forced to buy bundles to actually get their hands on one?