backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on May 31 at 2:27 PM


Even the summer's hottest blockbusters, like "Star Trek", pictured here, couldn't save the movie industry from being outdone by the video game industry, according to a recent market research study.  (Source: Wired.com)

The study found that while consoles, such as the top-selling Nintendo Wii, continue to dominate sales, digital downloads, such as App store iPhone games, are growing in popularity.  (Source: Nintendo/Apple App Store)
The movie industry has more to worry about from video games than piracy

The movie industry, like the music industry, has complained of alleged rampant piracy hurting its sales.  While there may or may not be truth in such gripes, perhaps the movie industry should worry more about video games and less about piracy; according to a recent study more people now play video games than go to the movies.

According to a research study titled "Entertainment Trends In America", authored by market research group NPD, even the summers hottest blockbusters like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Terminator: Salvation, and Star Trek have been unable to outdo the appeal of video games.  In the last six months, it found that 63 percent of Americans played video games, while only 53 percent went out to see a movie in the same time frame.

Analysts cited new gaming venues, such as games on social networks and digital downloads (such as cell phone games), as factors in the expansion of video games' audience.  Between December 2008 and February 2009, surveyed Americans spent, on average, $38 per month on "all types of gaming content".  NPD analyst Russ Crupnick says that the majority of video game revenue still lay with physical sales for consoles or the computer, but that "digital downloads and other delivery and game-play formats are also rising in popularity."

Over the past 12 months, 31 percent bought a console or portable video game, up 7 percentage points from the previous year.  The survey's numbers also indicated that "traditional gamers" are increasingly embracing varied venues.  Among the gamers, over 31 percent played a game on a gaming website, 12 percent played a game on social networking website, 19 percent played a game preloaded on their mobile phone, and 11 percent downloaded a game to their mobile phone.

Movies did score one minor victory -- only 12 percent of people said they planned on buying a new video game in the next 12 months, while 13 percent said they would see a movie in this same time period (though this may mean little, as both video games and movie tickets are often impulse buys).

While video games may be surpassing the venerable medium of cinema in terms of popularity, the NPD says they still are far from as popular as music.  Over 94 percent of the people surveyed reported they listened to music in the same time period. 

NPD analyst Anita Frazier summarizes the results, stating, "Video games account for one-third of the average monthly consumer spending in the U.S. for core entertainment content, including music, video, games.  While a portion of that share stems from the premium price of console games, we’re also seeing an overall increase in the number of people participating in gaming year-over-year."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I have to say it
By AlexWade on 5/25/2009 9:32:55 AM , Rating: 5
Won't see X-Men Origins, it looked like a movie Fox made just to make money and not to be good.

Won't see Terminator Salvation, it looked like a movie WB made just to make money and not to be good.

However, I did see Star Trek. And it was the best movie I've seen since Dark Knight last year. I'm not a fan of Star Trek, but I really enjoyed that movie. The problem with movies is far too many are not like Star Trek. Far too many want to overwhelm you with special effects, sex, cursing, violence, or all of those. I care more about the plot and story than anything else and I'm not alone. Those other stuff will work for a week or two, but having a good story works forever. Star Trek had a good story. It was plaintively clear that those other two mega-expensive movies do not.

Of course video games are going to be more popular. I much rather spend $60 for a game that I know will be fun than $10 for a movie ticket for a movie I know will be terrible. A really good game I will play for years. I'm still playing Transport Tycoon which I bought in 1994. A game 15 years old is still fun. I'm not stupid, games have longer lasting value than a terrible movie. Piracy, while a problem, does not cause Hollywood to be incompetent. If the X-Men movie had a really good story, then the unfinished leak would have driven people to see the movie even more so to see the finished version. Piracy does not cause stupidity.




RE: I have to say it
By KentState on 5/25/2009 11:04:15 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with you. Star Trek was a really good movie, but even spending $20 for the gf and myself to watch it seemed excessive. The "home theater" experience is so much better these days. We went last night and had a people talking the entire time, everyone is texting on their phones, can't pause to take a restroom break, snacks are crazy expensive, and so on.

On the the flip side, we have played RB2 and DDR many times for just a $60 investment each. I can use the PS3 to watch movies at the same visual and audio quality of the theater.


RE: I have to say it
By Finnkc on 5/25/2009 12:34:56 PM , Rating: 5
yep no kidding ... I don't go to the movies anymore for those reasons as well. 4 dollars for a bottle of water? Some punk texting on his phone for half the movie. Last time I went someone put their feet up on the back of the seat beside me ... gee thanks bud I want to smell your feet for the next 120 minutes. No respect.

I will stick with my plasma screen and leather couch. If I have to wait a few months for it to come out on blue ray then so be it.

Lots of games to play until then :)


RE: I have to say it
By Oregonian2 on 5/25/2009 2:32:05 PM , Rating: 1
Yup, that's why some studios are going gangbusters toward 3D movies. They get dramatically more dollars per screen and they provide something that home seats don't provide (and yes, we've a 58" Plasma at home and like it very much too).

Only if they can eventually learn how to do the 3D properly, been variable and sometimes not so good (talking about the technical problems in 3D to make it work well). Probably the best one done so far in terms of 3D "done right" (without regard to the movie itself) is Coraline 3D, albeit a niche product.


RE: I have to say it
By callmeroy on 5/26/2009 8:22:59 AM , Rating: 1
Two of my brothers and I did something very rare -- we all got together and decided to go out, just us guys. Unless you are close to your family and you really ever go out with some of them you probably can't relate to why we just wanted to see a movie in the theater. Normally, however I tend to agree -- I'm selective of the movies I go to see because the cost is crazy, so I often wait for DVD releases.

Anyway Sunday night we also saw Star Trek (it was a toss up between that and Terminator) -- I am not a huge Trek fan at all, aside from the movies -- I only ever saw the TV show here and there when someone else had it on.

Trek was awesome, very entertaining film.

Some movies are worth seeing on the big screen -- because I don't care how great your home system is -- unless its an ACTUAL movie theater (like what the rich and famous have in their mansions..lol)....even your 7.1 surround sound and 65" HDTV screen doesn't fully compare, yes...even in blue ray.

i've been lucky as far as rude folks and jerks in movies lately...everyone has actually been pretty good with the cell phone thing and keeping talking down.

But I also remember some horrid movie going experiences were the theater manager actually had to escort a whole family out -- they were highly obnoxious and rude.


RE: I have to say it
By callmeroy on 5/26/2009 8:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
forgot to add..to anyone who may by chance glance at this thread --- if you are one of those rude folks in a theater or you know someone who is like that.....WHY? just why? I was always curious about that --- clearly there are cheaper ways to prove to the world you are a jackass with no manners whatsoever than to pay $8.50 a ticket to do so....


RE: I have to say it
By mydogfarted on 5/26/2009 10:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
The Megaplex we go to, I've seen people rolling in strollers to 11pm shows that I purposely picked to avoid the high school jerks texting and talking throughout the movie.

I have a child. I can appreciate that a baby sitter is expensive and hard to find a good one. But seriously, what kind of jerk brings their infant to a loud movie?


RE: I have to say it
By jimbojimbo on 5/28/2009 2:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what kind of jerk brings their infant to a loud movie?
The kind that want you to hear their baby crying instead of you enjoying the movie. Of course. That's why I avoid the theaters. It's either I wait until it's out on BluRay or I go to the theater and commit hommicide.


RE: I have to say it
By Moishe on 5/26/2009 1:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
I watch a ton of movies, and I agree that the large screen experience is unmatched at home, but very, very few movies promise anything worth seeing in that location. You don't need a great screen for crappy movies or comedies.

I have a nice HT setup (120", BluRay, etc) and between the movies and the video games, there are very few movies I am willing to go see in the theater. I did see Star Trek and Wolverine, and I plan to see Terminator Salvation though. Not only are they 'up my alley', but they are full of effects that show well in a multiplex.

A decent surround sound system and TV will do the job. The price of the entrance for one movie in the theater is so ridiculous that I have actually saved money by building my own home theater and buying the equipment to go into it.


RE: I have to say it
By stmok on 5/25/2009 11:08:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Far too many want to overwhelm you with special effects, sex, cursing, violence, or all of those. I care more about the plot and story than anything else and I'm not alone.


I feel the same way.

Its easier to load a movie up with lots of CGI. Things move so fast, that you are visually bombarded. => "WTF just happened?"

I'm at the point where I've become very selective about the movies I watch.


RE: I have to say it
By FaceMaster on 5/25/2009 11:13:12 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Won't see X-Men Origins, it looked like a movie Fox made just to make money and not to be good.

Won't see Terminator Salvation, it looked like a movie WB made just to make money and not to be good.

However, I did see Star Trek. And it was the best movie I've seen since Dark Knight last year.


You know what, my parents think that every film made after the 1980's is evil. They think they're all just violence and gore... or too dull. I try to convince them otherwise, but they just won't have it. They walk into the room to see the (ONLY) sex scene in the Matrix, the interrogation scene in V for Vendetta or the bit the the Pencil in the Dark Knight and think that the world's going down hill. They won't even watch the Fight Club because it's 'obviously just a load of people hurting each other'. My cousins won't watch the Dark Knight because the Daily Mail says it's one of the nastiest videos ever.

I do a test on videos occasionally. I flick through it and try to build up a picture of what it's going to be like in my head. I'm always completely wrong after I watch it properly.

Same with most things in life. I'd say that you can't judge a book by its cover and that everything's worth a chance. I find it convenient that the one film you've watched was great and that the others you have instantly dismissed. Sure, the Wolverine film hasn't had such a good reception from critics... but the Terminator film ISN'T EVEN OUT YET. Please, don't become like my parents. The reason that older people become uncool is because they don't give new things a chance. I try to show Half Life 2 to people and they end up going 'Oh that wall doesn't look very realistic.' It's almost as if they're trying to justify their assumptions that new things are bad.

Yes, there are more factors than just age, but I'm saying this to try and help, not to offend you.

And yes, the new Star Trek film is fantastic. It's imaginative, full of different environments and has an utterly ridiculous storyline, much like the old Doctor Who films my parents love so much (But not the new ones. Oh, no. They're too 'violent and depressing').


RE: I have to say it
By amanojaku on 5/25/2009 11:30:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but the Terminator film ISN'T EVEN OUT YET.
It's been out in the U.S. since this past Friday 21st. Considering your mum jokes and your parents' love of Dr. Who I'd guess you're in the UK, which won't see the film until June 3. Or Australia, when it's released the following day.

quote:
And yes, the new Star Trek film is fantastic. It's imaginative, full of different environments and has an utterly ridiculous storyline, much like the old Doctor Who films my parents love so much (But not the new ones. Oh, no. They're too 'violent and depressing').
IMHO, I thought Star Trek was good, but not fantastic. It benefited from a simpler plot than the Stupid Insurrection and Nemesis films, but it had some juvenile moments. Something you might not appreciate once you're 30+.


RE: I have to say it
By FaceMaster on 5/26/2009 6:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
You mean the way that Captain Kirk managed to get into countless fights, and managed to lose pretty much all of them? (Even Spock kicked his ass!)

quote:
it had some juvenile moments. Something you might not appreciate once you're 30+.


My head explodes when I try to understand that concept of me not enjoying a film when I'm older because it has juvenile moments but I'll only be able to appreciate those bits when I get older...

Splat.


RE: I have to say it
By Ramshambo on 5/26/2009 9:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
Spock is a Vulcan. Vulcans are stronger then humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(Star_Trek)#Ot...


RE: I have to say it
By Daphault on 5/26/2009 4:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
Half


RE: I have to say it
By Moishe on 5/26/2009 1:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
I liked Star Trek, despite the time travel story arc, which pretty much always annoys me. The only thing that really bothered me was the Uhura+Spock kissing moments because it's out of character AND it was gratuitous.


RE: I have to say it
By Alexstarfire on 5/25/2009 6:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
WHAT, the new Doctor Who is awesome. They need to smoke to weed to mellow themselves out.

Just make them some special brownies. :D


RE: I have to say it
By A5un on 5/25/2009 2:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
I group Star Trek together with the other two you mentioned. Unfortunately, I've seen all three, and they're not that different. Granted, Star Trek is a much better movie.


RE: I have to say it
By codeThug on 5/26/2009 3:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
If star trek was the best of the bunch, that's a problem. I just got back from seeing it. Frankly my expectations were higher.

The warmed over heavily modified "Wrath of Khan" STYLE script is getting old. And please Hollywood moguls, would you get rid of that annoying Pyew Pyew Pyew star wars blaster sound. Not to mention all of the sound effects in the vacuum of space. It makes me think Lucas did the freakin' screen play.

Oh, and while I'm at it, the sound track blows . Same old boring music score.


RE: I have to say it
By KCjoker on 5/25/2009 8:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
I saw X-Men Origins and I think it's the best X-Men movie they've made. Star Trek was better though. I haven't seen Terminator Salvation yet so I can't comment on it.


RE: I have to say it
By ralith on 5/26/2009 9:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
X-Men Origins was good. Had some 2nd rate blue screening at the end. And I still don't understand why Gambit attacked Wolverine when Wolverine and Sabretooth were fighting in New Orleans. But for the most part the plot held together.

Star Trek was a different story. The screen work was awesome (acting, special effects, etc), but the plot had a big gaping hole. The bad guy arrives in the PAST knowing what the problem is and has the SOLUTION to the problem sitting in his docking bay. So what does he do? Goes off on every major civilization in the alpha quadrant. Yeah that's the smart thing to do! Why the devil didn't he just fix the problem? I would've even been able to overlook this if they'd just gave me a weak explaination, but I got nothing. You all will have to let me know if I missed the explaination.


RE: I have to say it
By ralith on 5/26/2009 9:51:48 AM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention I still think Star Trek is the best movie so far the summer.


RE: I have to say it
By FITCamaro on 5/26/2009 11:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
Haven't seen Origins yet.

Star Trek was a good action movie but a bad Star Trek movie.

Terminator was awesome. But then I've always wanted to see more from the post-Judgement Day world. Other than cheesily using the catch phrases from the first 2 movies where they didn't really have to, it was a great movie. Not Dark Knight great but still great. Especially the one part near the end where people in the theater erupted in cheers. ;)


RE: I have to say it
By rdeegvainl on 5/27/2009 7:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
oddly enough, the two movies you mentioned by name that you would not see, both have video games.


No brainer
By amanojaku on 5/25/2009 9:56:09 AM , Rating: 5
The content industries are always looking for a scapegoat, when the wound is largely self-inflicted. Let's look at the economics of entertainment. I went to see Star Trek this Friday and it cost me:

1) $12 for entry (this is NYC)
2) $.50 for purchasing my ticket at the in-theater kiosk instead of the line
3) $5 for a large bottle of water
4) $5 for a large popcorn (which looks like yesteryear's small)
5) $2.50 for a box of candy

A grand total of $25, which is incidentally the cost of the DVD or some video games that you can own FOREVER.

It's the experience, stupid, right? Well, many of us have large screens, even in cramped NYC, so that's one advantage movie theaters are loosing. Then there's the movie itself; most SUCK. I'm not going to pay nearly $30 for crap. When a video game is released I can see it and maybe even play it before purchase. The same isn't true for a movie, and the games last a LOT longer, so there's the potential for more bang for your buck. Finally, the theaters themselves are crowded, noisy, dirty, the popcorn sucks, and you have to suffer through 15-20 minutes of crappy previews. Oh, and there's no expandable content for movies like there are for video games, and developers might actually listen to me in the forums. Take that, MPAA and RIAA!!!

Lastly, there's the social effect of video games. Many people who play games on mobile devices like the iPhone tend to be self-absorbed, but I've seen complete strangers talk to each other about the games they saw each other play. Online games like WoW allow players to meet other people and engage in helpful activities. I was shocked the first time a complete stranger buffed me; I've been passing it along ever since. Finally, video games are generally playable at your leisure, as opposed to the sometimes inconvenient schedules and locations of a theater; games are less stressful. We need to switch to a direct HD Internet distribution for movies and cut off the aging concept of the theater.




RE: No brainer
By stmok on 5/25/2009 11:16:16 AM , Rating: 2
Two of the best things about games over movies is that:

(1) You have the choice to decide what happens, not someone else.
(With movies, you're there for the ride. So if they kill off a character you like, there's nothing you can do about it.)

and

(2) You can explore "what if?" scenarios.
(Something you can never do with movies.)


RE: No brainer
By FITCamaro on 5/26/2009 12:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
Could you please tell me of this method you speak of in video games to alter the story line that the games programmers have programmed in?

While certainly yes, some games give more freedom than others, the vast majority have single set story lines in which you are just a character having to fight or find your way through to the next cutscene/plot point.


RE: No brainer
By Flunk on 5/25/2009 12:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
I smuggle in my own food so you could argue that but I guess you also have to factor in that people normally go to a movie with at least one other person so you have your $24 right there.


RE: No brainer
By Alexstarfire on 5/25/2009 6:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
I go to a theatre at a mall so no need to smuggle anything in. I just walk in with my food and drink i brought from my house. Still, $10 a person just to watch a movie once isn't exactly money well spent most of the time. It's not every day you're spending money to watch a LOTR quality movie at the theatre.


RE: No brainer
By FITCamaro on 5/26/2009 12:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree on it being the same at home. I don't have a wall sized screen or a many thousand watt, 9.1 or whatever surround sound that theaters do. While certainly some do, the vast majority don't. Watching a movie at home will never be the same as going to the theater unless you're the uber rich.

Point. I love going to the movies. If nothing else its an opportunity to get out of the house. About the only thing I wish they'd change about theaters is to install cell phone blocking technology in the ceilings so people can't sit there texting or get phone calls. Don't like it, don't go to the f*cking movies.


RE: No brainer
By jimbojimbo on 5/28/2009 2:36:45 PM , Rating: 3
Go to the park if you want to get out. No wonder the US is so g-damn obese.


Don't see why it matters...
By rs1 on 5/25/2009 9:53:14 PM , Rating: 4
Unless somebody is making the assertion that people who play video games do not go to the movies (or the converse, that people who go to movies don't play video games), then it doesn't matter at all which group is bigger. And the assertion that people either do games or movies but never both is just ridiculous, so this entire "study" is little more than nonsense. It's just not an either-or situation. Movies and video games don't compete directly with each other, and I'm sure the vast majority of people enjoy both. I know I certainly do.

The number of people playing video games doesn't mean anything when compared directly against the number of people going to the movies, and any study that would try to make such a comparison is flawed to its core.




RE: Don't see why it matters...
By jharper12 on 5/26/2009 11:08:24 AM , Rating: 2
Ever taken economics? It's all about limited resources and opportunity cost. If one person has $40/wk to spend, and they have a greater propensity to game than watch a movie, then those resources are more likely to be allocated to gaming. Sure, if we all had unlimited resources, this wouldn't really matter, but the fact is that if more people game, then more people are likely going to spend their limited resources on gaming than on going to the movies.

Why do you think drugs and prostitution haven't been legalized? It's not some major moral issue, which is pretty much all you hear about, but instead a major threat to traditionally established means of entertainment. In many ways legalizing these forms of entertainment could be considered the moral choice; however, what is more likely to command your wallet? A front row seat at a NBA game, or a hot naked chick ready to go? Which is exactly why these things won't be legalized any time soon... although I still love you capitalism :D.


RE: Don't see why it matters...
By rs1 on 5/26/2009 1:23:51 PM , Rating: 4
If that logic holds, then why not have reports about how increasing cell phone usage is killing the movie industry? Or car ownership? Or anything else? People are spending money on those things, so therefore they must be spending less money on movie tickets, no? That seems to be what you're saying, anyways.

I still don't buy it, however. The cost of both movie tickets and video games is low enough that you don't need "unlimited resources" to enjoy both. And since anyone with more than a meager amount of disposable income has the ability to afford both, and because movies and game do not compete directly against each other, the argument that dollars spent on one equates to dollar taken away from the other still doesn't seem valid.


RE: Don't see why it matters...
By jharper12 on 5/26/2009 11:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
Are you an idiot? My last cell phone contract was $217/mo, now I pay $168/mo, and I have more minutes, 5gb of data I didn't used to have, TV, radio, GPS, unlimited texting, and BIS, all things I didn't have with my last contract (5 lines). I can buy a brand new Ford Focus for $11,588, I just bought a car with 71k miles on it as a present for a friend because cars are THAT cheap. I'm talking about relative expense and opportunity cost. You're talking about the degree of elasticity. These are very different concepts.

Generally people in the US market will spend money on cell phones and cars, but they do choose the kind of cell phone company and car they want. Same thing with entertainment. We can entertain ourselves any way we choose within out means. I have an entertainment budget (since you sound more like the kind of person that wonders how to spell "budget" I'll explain) which is $700 per month. That means I will spend up to $700 per month to entertain myself. Sometimes I fly to Vegas, sometimes I buy games, I occasionally will go to see a movie. But as movie prices have raised relative to games with regards to entertainment value I am now less likely to spend my scarce resources on the movie. Why? Because I can buy a great used game for $5 to $25, and get dozens of hours of entertainment out of it, instead of two hours for a $8 movie. If you're going to make purchasing comparisons, you're going to have to keep it in the same category. You'll note that games and movies are both forms of entertainment... thus why this article/survey has merit. Now, if you race your car for fun, or play games on your cell phone... granted it's a stretch, but then you can start to call it entertainment.

Anywho, just so you know who I am, undergrad Georgia Tech, Economics and Industrial Engineering, MBA @ Tech, Masters...Quantitative and Computational Finance, and a Chartered Financial Analyst. If you'd like to keep arguing about simple economic concepts with me... I'm game. (pun intended ;)

By the by, this, "The cost of both movie tickets and video games is low enough that you don't need "unlimited resources" to enjoy both." Is just a silly comment. Every single purchase has an opportunity cost. When I buy a $0.52 QuickTrip fountain drink, I'm choosing to not spend that money on anything else. I make a great salary, and trust me, I still feel constrained in my purchasing decisions. If you really understood finance you wouldn't take the $8 extra so lightly. I've maintained a portfolio return of 11.29% over the last decade, which means $8 saved now could be $1682 50 years from now. Considering American's have lost $11 trillion in wealth over the past couple of years I can tell you they aren't taking that $8 lightly... by the by, games and movies both serve the same purpose, entertainment... so how is it that they don't directly compete against each other?

You should know that there is some merit to your argument. Micro-luxuries have taken off since this recession took hold. Spending $5 on coffee has taken the place of spending $50 on new clothes. Although, both movies and games could be considered micro-luxuries, and again, since they are in the same entertainment category, they would likely both be equally positively affected.


RE: Don't see why it matters...
By rdeegvainl on 5/27/2009 7:54:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Are you an idiot? My last cell phone contract was $217/mo, now I pay $168/mo, blah blah blah

Nobody cares that you are rich...

quote:
Anywho, just so you know who I am, blah, blah blah

Nobody cares who you are...

quote:
If you really understood finance you wouldn't take the $8 extra so lightly. I've maintained a portfolio return of blah blah blah

Nobody cares about your e-peen... The end.


RE: Don't see why it matters...
By jharper12 on 5/28/2009 12:17:02 AM , Rating: 1
Holy crap, you're both idiots!!!

$168/mo for five lines you worthless jack@**. That's $33.60 per line... what do you pay per month for a cell phone? Probably a lot more than $33.60/mo...(oh wait, your parents probably pay your bills) The cheapest plans around (in the US at least) are Sprint SERO plans at $30/mo, so how does this make me rich? What are you? 12 years old?!?! Clearly you've never had to negotiate a cell phone contract... again, I reiterate, you are an idiot. Also I bought that car with 71k miles on it for $1,900... you see I learned how to negotiate since my parents didn't have the time and money to wipe my @**...

"Nobody cares who you are..." What a ridiculous comment. Of course nobody cares who I am, but when it comes to a discussion your credibility does matter. Based on your first comment, I'm guessing you have absolutely no credibility.

"Nobody care about your e-peen..." Okay, so you are 12 years old... since when does fiscal responsibility relate to penis size?!?! If you're intimated by a little math, then quit bugging me, and study up for algebra... you'll probably get to it in three years or so, around the 10th grade.

By the by, the pricing stuff was to explain that the first guy was clueless about the fact that prices have dropped like a rock over the past two years... just as clueless are you are when it comes to personal finance.

My GOD, no wonder we are in a financial crisis... you two are clueless about money and economics. Here's who I really am, I'm 25 years old with all of those degrees and certifications, but I grew up in a trailer park. I've worked since I was 13, and worked full time since I was 17. I know the value of money... clearly you two do not. I'm not rich, I'm frugal as &#*$, and I've got plenty of savings because I do consider whether I want to spend $10 on a used game or $9 at the theater. I also don't bash people with valid points, and I actually respond with a thorough and thought out argument... you just choose to be lazy. It's easy to beat the lazy, they don't really put up a fight. Try arguing with my economic or financial points if you really want to discredit me... if you're a lazy wimp then just stick with "Nobody cares...". That's a real thorough and thought out argument... no wait, that's the other thing, the kind of argument people use when they don't understand the material, and just can't keep up. Who knows... it could be too hard for you to keep up... from a quick google search it looks like you used to spend your teen summers gaming. I was in the real world busting my butt to pay the bills.

By the by, the rest of your comments seem perfectly intelligent and normal... why would you harass me for forming a perfectly accurate counter argument? Is the other guy your brother or something? He asserted a number of points that were highly inaccurate with regards to economic and financial certainties... I let him know this, and I'm being harassed because?


RE: Don't see why it matters...
By jimbojimbo on 5/28/2009 2:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
then why not have reports about how increasing cell phone usage is killing the movie industry?
Where do you think they're using their cell phones? Why do you think I don't go to theaters any more.


Games v. Movies
By Fnoob on 5/25/2009 12:19:31 PM , Rating: 5
Two hours of escapism versus 8+ - it's a no brainer.

Not to mention with games, it's like a movie that you are directly involved with - as opposed to being simply a passive observer. A game is far more engrossing... must... finish... game.... must know how story ends.

That said, games these days are getting pathetically short for an ever increasing amount of money. Remember games taking MONTHS to finish? Ultima anyone?

Star Trek was truly badass however. Well worth the $6.50. Prolly going to catch it again soon - or purchase on BR if available ever (My cereal box says 'in theaters only')...




RE: Games v. Movies
By DM0407 on 5/25/2009 1:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
Going to the movies used to cost $5. What happened?

Lower the price by half and increase your audience by 4x.


RE: Games v. Movies
By HostileEffect on 5/25/2009 3:42:39 PM , Rating: 3
Most movies now are garbage. System Shock 2 still offers a great story to those who have never played it. Graphics are no problem as the game has many mod updates.
The original C&C and system shock are free for the public to download and its hard to beat free.

Modding, Half-life 2's mod selection holds a value far greater than most movies.

Very few DVD/Blu-rays are worth the money. Heros, The Matrix, etc, assuming one has a 720P-1080P display, computer displays included.


all wrong
By codeThug on 5/25/2009 9:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
You guys complaining about the movies need to change your venue. I got tired of getting ripped off at the usual theaters. Here's the way to do it: http://www.drafthouse.com/main/franchise/

Seats with tables, beer, pizza, wings, you name it. It's the only way to do it. Most "Draft Houses" in Austin are sold out for good movies for this reason.




RE: all wrong
By HoundRogerson on 5/26/2009 12:00:30 AM , Rating: 2
You did notice that your Drafthouses are only in Texas and Virginia, right?

As good an idea as they are (and they are an awesome idea), I'm not gonna blow however many hundreds of dollars on a plane ticket to go see a movie at one of those theaters.

If someone opened one of those in Northern Illinois, say around the Park Ridge area, THEN I'll be there with bells on, cuz a dinner and a show sounds really good to me.


RE: all wrong
By codeThug on 5/26/2009 3:03:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If someone opened one of those in Northern Illinois, say around the Park Ridge area, THEN I'll be there with bells on, cuz a dinner and a show sounds really good to me.

That's more or less what I was getting at. Maybe if ticket sales continue to drop, more and more Drafthouses or the like might come on line. The Alamo Drafthouses in Tx do show first rate movies. The screen size isn't as big, and the sound system might not be quite as good, it's all good enough.

And then there is that pitcher of Guinness in font of you that makes it all worth while...


RE: all wrong
By Darkk on 5/26/2009 12:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, used to be a Cafe Cinema near me before they went belly up years ago due to the movies they showed. Mostly second-rate movies but the atomsphere was very cool and food and beer was good. Just I guess the folks wanted to see first rate movies instead.

Pity.


RE: all wrong
By Fnoob on 5/26/2009 9:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
In Athens, Ga - the GA Theatre used to do this, not sure if they still do... they didn't show especially current films, but there was something about being able to rewatch "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" or "Dazed and Confused" where you had a full bar, could smoke bowls - even cigarettes!


no innovation
By Danger D on 5/26/2009 9:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
The home theater will continue to improve, while the regular theater just has very few options for improving your experience. The main “innovation” I’ve seen lately is the rise in 3D movies, which is essentially the same experience it was 30 years ago.

We’re about 1/3 of the way through the slow death of the theater experience. They’re not going to lower prices because they’re no longer trying to grow their audience. They’re just trying to cash in while there’s still cash to be made.




RE: no innovation
By Oregonian2 on 5/26/2009 10:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
They had digital 3D 30 years ago? In the 50's they at least had linear-polarizers with true full-color 3D. Movies made in 3D then were mostly "quick as fast as I can" crud (except for a few, like perhaps Dial M for Murder (Hitchcock). In the 30 year ago era (or even a little further) they were mostly doing anaglyphs where the mechanism was as poor as the movies. And like the previous ones the 3D was being used as a gimmick rather than like using "color" -- to enhance the reality. Anaglyphs are the lowest form of stereoscopic 3d (be it red/cyan or the new european purple/yellow version). But that's not "3D" just as someone's home-made super-8 video is not "movie theater" either.

In recent times the Real-D (most popular that I can tell of the three currently battling) has each image in full color and at about 80Hz for each eye (160Hz total) -- and uses circularly polarized glasses (which eliminates the head tilt problem with the 50's version).

But it's a lot more than that -- there are technical problems with stereoscopic 3d, especially when the viewer can be in a lot of locations within the theatre (it does matter where one sits -- the 3D will be different).

I've been heavy into stereoscopic 3D photography for nearly 30 years. I got "dinged" a point for perhaps saying this (above), but the stereoscopic 3D community currently has Coraline 3D as the one currently most well done (talking about the 3D, not necessarily the movie which I'd put at about a '3' on a scale of 1~5). Due to the way Coraline was made, they had ultimate control on camera separation (which is varied) and they had a consultant who knew what he was doing (and he was paid attention to). That consultant has commented about his work some in a mailing list I'm in.

In properly made 3D movies, nothing is stuck out at the audience, one hardly notices the 3D after watching for a while (other than us stereoscopic 3D folk) and there is no eye strain (the hard thing to do right).

You are right in that the movie theaters are in competition for money with other entertainment methods and that they're trying to get as much profit as they can. Been that way for at least a century I think.


RE: no innovation
By Oregonian2 on 5/31/2009 2:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - Reviews coming out in the stereoscopic 3D crowd has "Up" as having been done well stereoscopically!


too expensive
By PascalT on 5/25/2009 3:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't go to the movies anymore if it's not on weekdays. Then I get to use 2-for-1 vouchers I get from AirMiles rewards. Otherwise it's just too expensive... With the subway and food usually involved it costs us around $45 to see a movie.




RE: too expensive
By Oregonian2 on 5/26/2009 10:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
Where we go, it's about $5 for the noon entry except for 3D movies where I think they charge $8 (but one gets a new pair of glasses which I take home).


It's not rocket science
By xxsk8er101xx on 5/26/2009 7:42:32 AM , Rating: 2
Playing video games is cheaper. For the price of going to the movies (Ticket, popcorn, drink) you can play two months of world of warcraft. Which one are you getting your bang for your buck? It's obvious.

For the cost of popcorn alone you can get netflix for a month and rent unlimited movies. You can even stream movies strait to your laptop or TV.

Maybe the music and movie industry should consider the cost of their crap? Just a thought.




RE: It's not rocket science
By Oregonian2 on 5/27/2009 6:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
Might point out that the netflix material you speak of comes from that very same "movie industry" that had already had nearly all of that material on the big screens previously (Netflix provides "used" material in a way).


Depends On Who And Where You Ask
By mindless1 on 5/25/2009 4:13:31 PM , Rating: 1
Anyone know where they did their polling? It seems unrealistically high in favor of gaming, especially considering that most people who game aren't spending a cent, let alone $38 a month, they're playing stuff like web sudoku or Windows Solitaire.

I'd venture a guess that they deliberately sought a population through a venue related to gaming.

Since some games are free, since they didn't limit it to one type like console gaming, it also seems inappropriate that they only contrast going out to a movie theater instead of including watching TV at home.

People DO pay for their CATV, satellite, or endure commercials which generate profit for the networks when watching, so it should be counted similarly as playing a video game at home.




By Alexstarfire on 5/25/2009 6:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because no one plays the Wii, 360, PC, or PS3 at all.


Very happy to see this...
By jharper12 on 5/26/2009 10:53:59 AM , Rating: 3
I started gaming on our IBM PC Jr. when I was 3 years old... played King's Quest with my brother and dad. We were the odd balls back then, but we always knew that one day gaming would be more popular than going to the movies. I mean, it just makes economic sense as far as I'm concerned. I went to see Star Trek, because I heard it was awesome, but overall I'm going to wait until a movie is available on Netflix. Even a brand new game at $60 offers, generally, at least 20 hours worth of entertainment... for as many people as in your household. That's $3/hr... which is the same as one person going to a matinee film showing. Bring the whole family, and gaming is 3-5 times cheaper :D. That doesn't even include games like Oblivion... 100+ hours of fun :D. I know this isn't an apples to apples comparison, films just offer a different kind of fun verses games... I think the real point here is that movies in the cinema have just become expensive with regards to opportunity cost. Yeah, I could go see that movie with a friend for $12, but that's also how much it would cost to buy the DVD in 6-12 months. More of us are simply content to wait these days, because we can always play the latest game for cheaper, and watch the latest Netflix movies while waiting on the DVD release for the new movies. Either offer us more than a chair and a screen, or charge us less... then we'll come back to you :D.




And in other news:
By Ozziedogg on 5/25/2009 5:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
... survey reveals that oxygen is useful to stay alive.




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki