Same way he and the rest of Epic talked shit about the Unreal fanbase to go deepthroat Microsoft.
kotaku.com
www.videogameschronicle.com
www.videogameschronicle.com
www.ft.com
www.videogameschronicle.com
Within that story -
If Sony truly cared like they did with a certain Part 2, they would be copyright claiming those videos right now or whatever gets uploaded.
Considering the article that someone posted recently about Microsoft losing money on Xboxes, I do have to wonder exactly what Sony's business model is with the PSVR. Are they losing money on the hardware but making up for it with peripherals and games? Hard to believe considering how niche VR remains.
Consoles are usually sold at a loss. Game sales and subscriptions are where they make up that money most of the time. Then of course console sales towards the mid/end of the console's life where production is much cheaper also helps.
Yes, that's why I find the existence of the PSVR baffling. It is, essentially, a peripheral. And yet, it basically functions as a console. So it doesn't really have its own peripherals as far as I know, subscriptions seem irrelevant to it, and they don't have that many VR games in the library. So how the heck is Sony making money off this thing? Is it actually profitable on its own?
In fairness, I'd imagine there are people who buy Gamepass subscriptions a year at a time. Also, while I don't know how most people use their consoles these days, my relatives in the US used theirs as a multimedia device. They'd buy movies on it, watch Netflix on it, even listen to Spotify. Perhaps these services are a more significant revenue stream than we think.
I don't know what the profit margin on PSVR is so there is no way to tell, but if it's like the first VR they did it will get some of its power from the PS5 itself. The Oculus Quest has been a very successful VR system because of it's independence from wires or high end PC's. So I would imagine there is an audience for VR the same way the Wii had an audience. While it might not be a sit down and play all the time system, it's still a fun cool toy to break out with friends or when you just want a different type of experience. We'll have to see how it shakes out. At least Sony is TRYING something different on top of also making great games, which is more than you can say for Xbox since they've done nothing since that stupid fucking Kinect failed.
I've said this before, but as much as I bash on MS it isn't because I want them to suck (though i think it's funny). I bash on them because I want MS to be good, to be a strong competitor in the gaming market, because competition is what pushes everyone to be better. And when one company is so far and away the other people in the field, then they get greedy and complacent and that means they start to suck. I need Microsoft to get their fucking act together so that Sony stays on that grind to be the best. If Microsoft fails, Sony becomes King and no longer has to try.
Both Battlefont games made the money, despite the backlash to loot boxes. Fallen Order EA considered a success. I feel what you mean though.
The thing about this one is that even the trailer from a few weeks ago looked really good. Unlike Halo or Netflix Resident Evil, where I had a feeling they were gonna be bad from the get-go, this series look like they are actually trying.
That's how they get you. The Trailer is always the best parts. Don't be fooled! Run for you lives! ARRRGGHHHH!
Trailers are shown at sixty bullshots per second.
How is that a 1991 Van Damme action movie did the source material of Double Dragon better than the Double Dragon Movie (1994)?
Because Van Damme is the best action hero we've ever had or ever will have.
As far as action stars from Western society, we got Scott Adkins, Michael J. White, and Mark Dacascos. Adkins was even a protege under Van Damme.
I met him on a flight once and we talked about Spawn. He's a very cool dude. Not Van Damme though lol.
