Vita version will be coming in 12 months time like the first one did hahah.

Fun seeing people use the good old "dont care didn't want it anyway" like saying it makes anything better.

If you're going to climb up the side of that high horse, go the whole hog, proclaim that everyone of your fan base didn't want it because you universally have high standards, and ride that horse off in to the sunset.

The best part is with all their talk about how phil spencer is going to change things, the fans themselves are exactly the same. They don't question issue like this instead saying oh its no big deal. Instead of calling Phil up or messagging him on Twitter.

"Hey Phil, why aren't we getting AMS2?"

"Hey Phil, why do I have to pay for IE?"

"Hey Phil, where are my indie games, I didn't buy a 500$ consoles to play AAA exclusives."

"Hey Phil, why do I need the Kinect?"

Nothin's gonna "change" if the fans don't.

:o

MS this gen much like Sony (last gen) is being looked at under a Microscope by people on the fense about owning a new console. Higher resolution for multiplats seem to be getting the better press.

No one is "discounting the game because it's not CoD quality". You established the correlation between the two by claiming it's a "major title" akin to CoD and that MS needs to "hide it" somehow. A notion that is laughable on multiple levels. One, it's not a major title in any way. Your comment about not discounting the game goes both ways. At the same time it's pointless to balloon the game up into something it's not. Two, MS didn't "hide" anything about CoD. Third, how does canceling the game hide it? What do you think generates more talk, ASM2 potentially running at a slightly lower resolution on Xbone, or ASM2 not running on Xbone at all?

Thanks for stating the resolution of those other games. It's strange though, I'm looking on my box art for DR3 and it doesn't say 720p anywhere. When you and your buddies were crowding around game cases at Target looking for resolutions, did they have them on the cases except CoD? Since MS hid it and all. Also, IW confirmed the games resolution 3 weeks before launch.

I am sure MS doesn't like bad press. I think most companies just adore bad press though. But again, what would generate more bad press? A 720p ASM2, or no ASM2 at all? The logic just doesn't make sense.

I love Doom!


OT: Oh well. It doesn't look like a huge loss to me!

In theory yes.  In practice, usually not.  

I don't even think this is even covered in that article really, but the fun well known secret about movie studios is they all lie about their production budgets.

Making the 400-450M Total budget actually probably pretty low.

Spiderman 3 for example was at one time the most expensive movie of all time, and what was admitted wasn't even close to what industry insiders said it cost... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9914883

Spiderman 3 was the most expensive, but if you take a 350 Budget + 150 Marketing campaign, that's around 500 right there... and I'm not even sure this guy was talking about everything that has to do with the movie.

Additionally, keep in mind,  the above link was counting Marvel's cut for the first 3 Spdiermen movies.  Though there are plenty of other cuts that aren't accoutned for in the production budget because well... they can't.

For example points...  The big stars look overpaid with the big numbers they get upfront, but what people don't realize is they get even more overpaid by getting a percentage of the gate.

from the link above, they suggest that the actors, directors Producers etc share is about 25%.  (and that's a low amount!)  Heck they tend to even get a cut of the DVD sales.

They say share of the profits, but they likely mean gross revenue share as actors are generally not dumb enough to except anything but revenue numbers as studios will play with the "Profits".  (For example, Return of the Jedi with all of it's liscensings and rereleases has never made a profit according to Lucasfilms.)

So going back to the article... looking at what we know,  the 827 Sony and Marvel share is looking more like $372.2 Million.  (Probably a bit more since these guys would of gotten less points in Spiderman 1 then they would have 2 &3. which i want to say were negotiated together.)

Take out marvel's share, and add the Advertising budget of the first 3 Spiderman movies.  (100 for one to 150M for 3,  2 presumibly in the middle.)

and it becomes clear pretty quick how fast the numbers add up even with the understated exec budgets.   

That argument fails because they invested in a Wii U version. X1 has generally done a better job at moving 3rd party software.

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-one/games/the-amazing-spider-man-2/112336 it got postponed this guy got bad info who cares those this game looks terrible 

I've looked at some walkthrough gameplay of this title and quite frankly it looks awful.

I'm not sure what went wrong along the way when making the X1 version. But maybe they aren't making a serious effort to get this on X1 because of the poor quality.

If Activision cancels more noteworthy games, then I'll be worried.