By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Bitterness in the Wii fandom?

Ail on 19 January 2010
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Who would have bet a 600 million$ movie shot entirely in 3D using state of the art technology would have been that successfull, especially when the huge majority of the showings are in 3D and people have been reluctant to wear glasses in a theater ?"

1. Where does it say the majority of showings are in 3D?

2. How does that counter my points?

75% of Avatar US revenue comes from 3D or Imax showing ( which are more expensive but people are choosing to pay higher ticket price to see it in 3D...

The movie industry isnt that different from the gaming industry by the way, despite it's higher number of revenue streams it's not an industry of high profits and for every Avatar there is a 100 million$ movie loosing money....

You're saying focus less on technology and make supposedly safer games for business.

Avatar success blows that out of the water. You have to take risks and even the casual public at large can embrass the latest technology and graphics...

What do you think the developer or publisher coming out of watching Avatar wants to work on ? Another PS2 clone ? I don't think so...

 

The movie industry is drastically different than the video-game industry because a movie can generate massive revenue from its box-office, follow that up with massive revenue from DVD sales, get decent money from pay-per-view and specialty channels, and then get a steady stream of residual income from regular play on television. Because of all these revenue streams, very few movies lose significant money today regardless of whether they "Flop" in theatres.

Edit: Not to forget the additional revenue movie studios generate from selling the licensing rights to all kinds of merchandise, and books/videogames, which can add up to hundreds of millions of dollars for a big budget movie.

massive revenue maybe, massive profit ?

 

Here are the top 3 studios by marketshare :

Paramount first 2 quarter of 2008 ( 86 million$ profit) : http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2008/0004857899&EDATE=

Sony pictures 2008 ( 300 million profit on 7.3 billion revenue) :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment

Disney studio last quarter (lost money): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/business/media/13disney.html



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
rajendra82 on 20 January 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
The Wii is not a small theater in NY or LA. That metaphor is a total lie.

You totally missed the metaphor.  The metaphor was to say that the Wii is like a smaller town with a couple of metroplexes.  It gets a lot of the typical movies, but it won't get the art house stuff.  There are a lot of these smaller towns around.  The HD twins are the NY or LA, with both mass market and art house theatres.  They get everything, because that's where the concentration of the art house appreciative audience is.  Overall there are likely fewer art house loving people there than the smaller towns combined, because there are likely a small number of art house movie loving folks in each small town, and they add up to more audience than the crowd in NY and LA.  But they are never going to get the art house movies.  It is how the movie industry gets the best bang for their buck.



GuyDuke on 20 January 2010

I really don't get happy to see some stupid Carnival Games selling more than 3 million while Dead Space is totally ignored by the mass market.

What I can tell you is that the way Nintendo worked those past 3 years is a little bit selfish. They should have done more advertising for third party titles, treasures like Muramasa, Dead Space...



GuyDuke on 20 January 2010

Nintendo will wake up someday. When one of their main games will fail drastically and Sony will begin to overtake the Wii, they will wake up.



milkyjoe on 20 January 2010

Just to put this stupid argument to bed...

Say every future third party release for PS3 and Wii switched console, so all the scheduled Wii third party games were now on PS3, and all scheduled PS3 third party games were now on Wii...

As the PS3 fans in this thread are saying that the third party efforts are fine, and have just been ignored, you'd obviously be happy with that trade off?

Didn't think so...



VGChartz

Around the Network
BladeOfGod on 20 January 2010

^^no, because of the downgraded graphics, no online and the fact PS3 doesn't have motion controller which would make most of wii games unplayable



Dv8thwonder on 20 January 2010

This feels like a joke thread taken a little too seriously.



Things that need to die in 2016: Defeatist attitudes of Nintendo fans

HappySqurriel on 20 January 2010
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Who would have bet a 600 million$ movie shot entirely in 3D using state of the art technology would have been that successfull, especially when the huge majority of the showings are in 3D and people have been reluctant to wear glasses in a theater ?"

1. Where does it say the majority of showings are in 3D?

2. How does that counter my points?

75% of Avatar US revenue comes from 3D or Imax showing ( which are more expensive but people are choosing to pay higher ticket price to see it in 3D...

The movie industry isnt that different from the gaming industry by the way, despite it's higher number of revenue streams it's not an industry of high profits and for every Avatar there is a 100 million$ movie loosing money....

You're saying focus less on technology and make supposedly safer games for business.

Avatar success blows that out of the water. You have to take risks and even the casual public at large can embrass the latest technology and graphics...

What do you think the developer or publisher coming out of watching Avatar wants to work on ? Another PS2 clone ? I don't think so...

 

The movie industry is drastically different than the video-game industry because a movie can generate massive revenue from its box-office, follow that up with massive revenue from DVD sales, get decent money from pay-per-view and specialty channels, and then get a steady stream of residual income from regular play on television. Because of all these revenue streams, very few movies lose significant money today regardless of whether they "Flop" in theatres.

Edit: Not to forget the additional revenue movie studios generate from selling the licensing rights to all kinds of merchandise, and books/videogames, which can add up to hundreds of millions of dollars for a big budget movie.

massive revenue maybe, massive profit ?

 

Here are the top 3 studios by marketshare :

Paramount first 2 quarter of 2008 ( 86 million$ profit) : http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2008/0004857899&EDATE=

Sony pictures 2008 ( 300 million profit on 7.3 billion revenue) :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment

Disney studio last quarter (lost money): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/business/media/13disney.html

In what way did you demonstrate that anything I said was wrong?

My point would be made clearer if I had included the statement "The movies that do lose significant money generally lose hundreds of millions of dollars though"

 



Ail on 20 January 2010
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Who would have bet a 600 million$ movie shot entirely in 3D using state of the art technology would have been that successfull, especially when the huge majority of the showings are in 3D and people have been reluctant to wear glasses in a theater ?"

1. Where does it say the majority of showings are in 3D?

2. How does that counter my points?

75% of Avatar US revenue comes from 3D or Imax showing ( which are more expensive but people are choosing to pay higher ticket price to see it in 3D...

The movie industry isnt that different from the gaming industry by the way, despite it's higher number of revenue streams it's not an industry of high profits and for every Avatar there is a 100 million$ movie loosing money....

You're saying focus less on technology and make supposedly safer games for business.

Avatar success blows that out of the water. You have to take risks and even the casual public at large can embrass the latest technology and graphics...

What do you think the developer or publisher coming out of watching Avatar wants to work on ? Another PS2 clone ? I don't think so...

 

The movie industry is drastically different than the video-game industry because a movie can generate massive revenue from its box-office, follow that up with massive revenue from DVD sales, get decent money from pay-per-view and specialty channels, and then get a steady stream of residual income from regular play on television. Because of all these revenue streams, very few movies lose significant money today regardless of whether they "Flop" in theatres.

Edit: Not to forget the additional revenue movie studios generate from selling the licensing rights to all kinds of merchandise, and books/videogames, which can add up to hundreds of millions of dollars for a big budget movie.

massive revenue maybe, massive profit ?

 

Here are the top 3 studios by marketshare :

Paramount first 2 quarter of 2008 ( 86 million$ profit) : http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2008/0004857899&EDATE=

Sony pictures 2008 ( 300 million profit on 7.3 billion revenue) :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment

Disney studio last quarter (lost money): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/business/media/13disney.html

In what way did you demonstrate that anything I said was wrong?

My point would be made clearer if I had included the statement "The movies that do lose significant money generally lose hundreds of millions of dollars though"

 

 

You made is sound like investing huge amount of money was a safe bet and very rarely would movie studio loose money on any movie, seeing their financial statement shows this is hardly the case..



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

GuyDuke on 20 January 2010
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
HappySqurriel said:
Ail said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"Who would have bet a 600 million$ movie shot entirely in 3D using state of the art technology would have been that successfull, especially when the huge majority of the showings are in 3D and people have been reluctant to wear glasses in a theater ?"

1. Where does it say the majority of showings are in 3D?

2. How does that counter my points?

75% of Avatar US revenue comes from 3D or Imax showing ( which are more expensive but people are choosing to pay higher ticket price to see it in 3D...

The movie industry isnt that different from the gaming industry by the way, despite it's higher number of revenue streams it's not an industry of high profits and for every Avatar there is a 100 million$ movie loosing money....

You're saying focus less on technology and make supposedly safer games for business.

Avatar success blows that out of the water. You have to take risks and even the casual public at large can embrass the latest technology and graphics...

What do you think the developer or publisher coming out of watching Avatar wants to work on ? Another PS2 clone ? I don't think so...

 

The movie industry is drastically different than the video-game industry because a movie can generate massive revenue from its box-office, follow that up with massive revenue from DVD sales, get decent money from pay-per-view and specialty channels, and then get a steady stream of residual income from regular play on television. Because of all these revenue streams, very few movies lose significant money today regardless of whether they "Flop" in theatres.

Edit: Not to forget the additional revenue movie studios generate from selling the licensing rights to all kinds of merchandise, and books/videogames, which can add up to hundreds of millions of dollars for a big budget movie.

massive revenue maybe, massive profit ?

 

Here are the top 3 studios by marketshare :

Paramount first 2 quarter of 2008 ( 86 million$ profit) : http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2008/0004857899&EDATE=

Sony pictures 2008 ( 300 million profit on 7.3 billion revenue) :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment

Disney studio last quarter (lost money): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/business/media/13disney.html

In what way did you demonstrate that anything I said was wrong?

My point would be made clearer if I had included the statement "The movies that do lose significant money generally lose hundreds of millions of dollars though"

 

 

You made is sound like investing huge amount of money was a safe bet and very rarely would movie studio loose money on any movie, seeing their financial statement shows this is hardly the case..

What's the relevance of the point? Does this is related to the topic?