121–130 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's really hard to outdo any previous movie they release This is exactly it. Each epic battle scene is so over the top it's almost impossible to come up with something even more epic and over the top. Too bad they don't realize a good story doesn't need that. I thought the older James Bond movies had it figured out.
They occasionally deliver. The second Captain America movie was a fairly good spy thriller, IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They own a piece of The Pokemon Company and a piece of one of the companies that owns a piece of The Pokemon Company. No one really seems to know if that amounts to a controlling interest or not. But empirically, it seems unlikely an independent Pokemon Company wouldn't put out Pokemon games for non-Nintendo platforms.
Well, Pokemon Go is a non-Nintendo platform, so it could go either way (maybe Nintendo did it to increase the value of the franchise, maybe the Pokemon Company didn't do it more to avoid diluting it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those 2 aren't really successful franchises.
Splatoon is the 6th best selling Wii U title so far, and seems likely to overtake most of the ones above it, which are between 6 months to 2.5 years older. It represents 5% of all Wii U games sold to date, and has reportedly sold faster in Japan than anything since Wii Sports (2006). Sounds quite successful to me, though of course it's still only a bit over a year old so who knows if it'll last.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or if the movies fail as stand-alones (like Ultron). Ultron was the seventh highest grossing film in history ($1.4b gross; budget of $316 million) and the second highest grossing Marvel movie (after The Avengers). I'd love a failure like that.
I'm not saying it failed as a movie, but that it failed as a stand-alone movie. Imho, that's the kind of thing that would cause fatigue - too many interconnected pictures coming out that are too tangled together so viewers have no idea what they're watching unless they've perfectly kept up.
And there's lots of jumping on points coming up, with Dr Strange, Spider-Man Homecoming, Black Panther and Captain Marvel having mostly characters new to MCU and seemingly being relatively disconnected. Thor: Ragnarok might qualify as well depending on how they do it. Ant-Man and The Wasp might too - there's not much of the back story you need to catch up on.
Marvel has a large enough stable of characters to keep on churning out new standalone movies for a very long time. Though they'll need to start dipping into less well known characters, their ensemble movies and TV series will presumably let them test characters.. Then give the top performers sequels...
If they manage to get back control over e.g. X-Men and Fantastic Four too, they'll have characters to draw on for the next couple of decades at current rates...
At which point they can start all over.
There's a common fallacy that happens frequently when Silicon Valley technologists start talking about Nintendo, and that is the idea that "their hardware can never compete with the ubiquity of mobile platforms, they should just become a software company and port their games to iOS and Android!" The success of Pokémon Go, and this new Mario game as well, is showing that Nintendo is taking a different strategy: they'r…
There's a common fallacy that happens frequently when Silicon Valley technologists start talking about Nintendo, and that is the idea that "their hardware can never compete with the ubiquity of mobile platforms, they should just become a software company and port their games to iOS and Android!" The success of Pokémon Go, and this new Mario game as well, is showing that Nintendo is taking a different strategy: they'r…
I'm not convinced that they are going to make more money that way. Time will tell, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're still making playing cards. And it took them 18 years (1956-1974) of experiments with new ventures (including a cab company, and love hotels, and assorted toy ranges) before they started selling video games. Another 5 or so before they got successful. Donkey Kong came out in 1981 and finally made them lots of money from it. So ~25 years from they realised the playing card business didn't have room for further…
Are people buying the cards, though? How much of the business is dedicated to the cards? I'd reckon it could fall into an ocean and much of the world wouldn't notice. I don't call that success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure Canabalt was the first real runner on ios.
First endless runner anywhere! Invented the genre.
I think Canabalt is like Doom or Super Mario Brothers--it was the first really polished implemention of its genre that showed its full potential and led to an explosion of other games, but it didn't invent the core concept.
There's a common fallacy that happens frequently when Silicon Valley technologists start talking about Nintendo, and that is the idea that "their hardware can never compete with the ubiquity of mobile platforms, they should just become a software company and port their games to iOS and Android!" The success of Pokémon Go, and this new Mario game as well, is showing that Nintendo is taking a different strategy: they'r…
It's a bit early to tell if the mobile Mario game will be successful. Remember the last real successful non-free mobile game was Angry Birds. Pokemon GO and this new game are entirely different because one is free-to-play and the other is not.