The problem is what I've been saying all along: cost.
The system is launching in the United States at $250 with $40-$50 games. Devoted fanboys aside, most people are not going to pay that for a handheld device when they've already got shiny iPhones and Android devices.
The Tick - Patrick Warburton or no sale.
After the Fox series, Warburton is the only actor I can ever imagine playing The Tick.
Dude, it's not just that. What you wrote shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about the internet and video games as a whole. I'm not a big fan of people who try to discuss things they don't comprehend, which is pretty clearly the case here. And if you've got a star (somehow) and more people are going to see your comment? You're damn right I'm going to call you out on it.
Maybe it's not stupidity. Maybe it was ignorance. I'm not sure that's an improvement.
Maybe it's not stupidity. Maybe it was ignorance. I'm not sure that's an improvement.
Netflix is up to ONE THIRD of US internet traffic during peak usage hours.
I'm going to put this bluntly: you're a fucking idiot.
I'm going to put this bluntly: you're a fucking idiot.
You'd think Harmonix would have learned the first time...
...except for the fact that it was ACTIVISION that killed the market by flooding it with Guitar Hero games, merchandise and spin-offs, sure.
Go ahead. Take a look at the games and products released after Rock Band 2. In 2010, there were five Guitar Hero console titles, and that's not including any of the portable/mobile ones or DJ Hero.
Harmonix took things much more slowly, and continue to now.
...except for the fact that it was ACTIVISION that killed the market by flooding it with Guitar Hero games, merchandise and spin-offs, sure.
Go ahead. Take a look at the games and products released after Rock Band 2. In 2010, there were five Guitar Hero console titles, and that's not including any of the portable/mobile ones or DJ Hero.
Harmonix took things much more slowly, and continue to now.
Since I can't respond to most of the comments you guys have left here because they're too short...
Why is he wrong? Where's the quality here? We've got opinions from people who haven't even played the final game telling us not to buy it, and Fahey's entire premise - "don't buy this game because there are other games coming out too" is ridiculous at best. What are we supposed to gain from half-assed opinions like that?
A more important question: what's the point of a feature that is the exact opposite of the site's (old?) philosophy on reviews?
If you look at the comments here, they're overwhelmingly negative. I'd really like to see a response from the editors defending the gut check feature that ISN'T one line and condescending.
Why is he wrong? Where's the quality here? We've got opinions from people who haven't even played the final game telling us not to buy it, and Fahey's entire premise - "don't buy this game because there are other games coming out too" is ridiculous at best. What are we supposed to gain from half-assed opinions like that?
A more important question: what's the point of a feature that is the exact opposite of the site's (old?) philosophy on reviews?
If you look at the comments here, they're overwhelmingly negative. I'd really like to see a response from the editors defending the gut check feature that ISN'T one line and condescending.
Agreed.
I've started coming to Kotaku less and less often, and comment on even rarer occasions. The site's quality has been in freefall for at least the past year, and this is a nice, concise version of why.
Fuck articles - run one sentence headlines!
Why do our own research when we can just cite Joystiq as a source?
Forget about that unique review style - let's just run a headline and a giant "NO" banner instead!
I want to stick around. I really like some of the individual writers, like Totillo and Owen. But the more I see "content" like this, the less inclined I am to keep visiting.
I've started coming to Kotaku less and less often, and comment on even rarer occasions. The site's quality has been in freefall for at least the past year, and this is a nice, concise version of why.
Fuck articles - run one sentence headlines!
Why do our own research when we can just cite Joystiq as a source?
Forget about that unique review style - let's just run a headline and a giant "NO" banner instead!
I want to stick around. I really like some of the individual writers, like Totillo and Owen. But the more I see "content" like this, the less inclined I am to keep visiting.
The thing is, that's not the question. The fucking headline is "Should You Buy Kirby". Not "Should You Buy Kirby NOW". Your piece doesn't do enough to support the idea that, for whatever reason, you're not answering the same question the other two writers are.
Almost everyone else is saying "yes", and the reasons for saying "no" here don't ring true with me.
I'm not sure where you live or when you checked, but I'm seeing it for $50.
The only copies that are selling for more than that are third-party sellers.
The only copies that are selling for more than that are third-party sellers.
Though knowing activision they won't let it work quite like that.
Activision doesn't give up on their hardware as quickly as you'd think. Even though both DJ Hero and Tony Hawk: Ride bombed (what else do you call it when the bundles show up at Big Lots marked down to $20?), DJ Hero 2 and Tony Hawk: Shred came out the year after, and used the same hardware.
Unless this game is a complete failure, Activision will probably find another use for the hardware.
Activision doesn't give up on their hardware as quickly as you'd think. Even though both DJ Hero and Tony Hawk: Ride bombed (what else do you call it when the bundles show up at Big Lots marked down to $20?), DJ Hero 2 and Tony Hawk: Shred came out the year after, and used the same hardware.
Unless this game is a complete failure, Activision will probably find another use for the hardware.
Exactly. Those skins were actually worth unlocking because they did affect gameplay.
Even the Amazing Bag-Man. :)
Even the Amazing Bag-Man. :)
3.) Buying the movie for exclusive content is not exactly dumb, especially since you can return the movie back and get your money back, especially at Walmart.
And if you use the code before you do this, there's a very strong argument that your actions were fraud, immoral, or both.
And if you use the code before you do this, there's a very strong argument that your actions were fraud, immoral, or both.
Wikipedia says Subway is in 98 other countries. If you've got internet access and enough entitlement issues to make comments like that, you've probably got a Subway in your country.
I doubt they'll be selling anything. If they had any interest in being in that business, I'm sure Netflix would have started selling DVDs a long time ago.
A negative of the renaming and separation is that the Qwikster.com and Netflix.com websites will not be integrated. So if you subscribe to both services, and if you need to change your credit card or email address, you would need to do it in two places. Similarly, if you rate or review a movie on Qwikster, it doesn’t show up on Netflix, and vice-versa.
So, ratings will be split across two sites, and this is assuming the streaming Netflix site even lets you search for and rate things that aren't currently available on streaming. And there won't be an easy way to tell if something is on-disc, streaming, or both.
Guess I'm not bothering with Quikster.
So, ratings will be split across two sites, and this is assuming the streaming Netflix site even lets you search for and rate things that aren't currently available on streaming. And there won't be an easy way to tell if something is on-disc, streaming, or both.
Guess I'm not bothering with Quikster.
Then the 60% rate increase, and the fracturing of it's streaming/DVD services. Now this. Someone at Netflix is seriously wondering what's the best way to a quick self-destruction.
I'm going to be a little blunt, but you're an idiot if you think Netflix is doing this willingly.
The reason for all of the recent changes is simple: the studios have realized how much money Netflix makes, and they want more for the content. A lot more. Starz wanted $300 million per year, before they walked out of negotiations, and existing deals with pay-per-view, premium channels, and basic channels mean that Netflix won't be getting many new movies the way things are now.
They're doing what they can to add content - they had a big deal with Paramount recently - but the greed of the studios is going to kill Netflix. Probably sooner rather than later.
I'm going to be a little blunt, but you're an idiot if you think Netflix is doing this willingly.
The reason for all of the recent changes is simple: the studios have realized how much money Netflix makes, and they want more for the content. A lot more. Starz wanted $300 million per year, before they walked out of negotiations, and existing deals with pay-per-view, premium channels, and basic channels mean that Netflix won't be getting many new movies the way things are now.
They're doing what they can to add content - they had a big deal with Paramount recently - but the greed of the studios is going to kill Netflix. Probably sooner rather than later.
It is?
Sold.
Kirby's always been my favorite ever since Kirby's Adventure for the NES. This just makes it even sweeter.
Sold.
Kirby's always been my favorite ever since Kirby's Adventure for the NES. This just makes it even sweeter.
If that's true, then this is basically the equivalent of a preorder early unlock code. And I'm okay with that.
Problem solved!
