I wonder if he knows about US....

[Captain Fabulous]

53 minutes ago, Crysis said:

 

I read an article recently (I'll like it if I can find it) that showed that the average, as in NOT top-10 mobile game STILL brings in anywhere from 15-20X the revenue of the top selling console games AND almost all of the top 10 PC games -COMBINED-.

 

I don't enjoy most mobile games.  I don't play most mobile games.  But they sure do seem to dominate the gaming industry now.

The P2W mechanic really seems to appeal to people with a ton of disposable income who enjoy being "the best" in games so they can curbstomp everyone else. There's definitely a pathology at work here. It's not unheard of for some of these people to literally spends thousands every single month. I might be able to understand it if the "game" was an actual game. But they're not. They're repetitive collection activities designed to offer little to no advancement unless you spend money, lots of it, preying upon frustration and horrible RNG mechanics to keep the money flowing.

[Ruin Mage]

2 hours ago, MyriVerse said:

Black Widow, Shang-Chi, Eternals, Doctor Strange are Marvel's D-list characters. Loki might be a C-lister, as are Falcon, Captain/Ms. Marvel, Winter Soldier, Moon Knight, Wanda, Vizh, Hawkeye, and Shulkie.

 

Phase 5 seems a lot worse.

Well, they can't keep (feasibly/realistically) doing "A/B List" characters for movies. That'd get boring.

Phase 4/5 are getting rocky cause of fatigue and other factors (directors, stories, etc) - though, who knows, maybe they'll slam it out of the park in Phase 6 xd

[Zect]

1 hour ago, Captain Fabulous said:

The P2W mechanic really seems to appeal to people with a ton of disposable income who enjoy being "the best" in games so they can curbstomp everyone else. There's definitely a pathology at work here. It's not unheard of for some of these people to literally spends thousands every single month. I might be able to understand it if the "game" was an actual game. But they're not. They're repetitive collection activities designed to offer little to no advancement unless you spend money, lots of it, preying upon frustration and horrible RNG mechanics to keep the money flowing.

 

It appeals even to people without much disposable income, because P2W games use decades of intensive research into human psychology, manipulation, and addiction in order to coerce their players into continually forking over money.

 

You're right that there is a pathology, however, personal wealth and personal goals in-game are not a factor because the techniques used rely on weaknesses in human nature that we all have. If I inject heroin into your veins daily for a month, you will be addicted regardless of your moral virtue or character, and this is the same thing.

 

Here is the best explanation (YouTube link) of the unethical techniques involved in these games I could find on short notice, often straight from the mouths of the soulless execs behind them, and backed up by testimonials from current, recovering and former addicts that reveal how they do not fit your stereotype of "people with a ton of disposable income who enjoy being "the best" in games so they can curbstomp everyone". Warning: large amounts of profanity and coarse language.

[Captain Fabulous]

 

 

1 hour ago, Zect said:

 

It appeals even to people without much disposable income, because P2W games use decades of intensive research into human psychology, manipulation, and addiction in order to coerce their players into continually forking over money.

 

You're right that there is a pathology, however, personal wealth and personal goals in-game are not a factor because the techniques used rely on weaknesses in human nature that we all have. If I inject heroin into your veins daily for a month, you will be addicted regardless of your moral virtue or character, and this is the same thing.

 

Here is the best explanation (YouTube link) of the unethical techniques involved in these games I could find on short notice, often straight from the mouths of the soulless execs behind them, and backed up by testimonials from current, recovering and former addicts that reveal how they do not fit your stereotype of "people with a ton of disposable income who enjoy being "the best" in games so they can curbstomp everyone". Warning: large amounts of profanity and coarse language.

Addiction is most definitely a disease, and I'm sure there are people bankrupting themselves in P2W games, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to think everyone that spends obscene amount of money in P2W games are addicts, at least in the strict sense. I'm not disagreeing with anything that's been said, but I don't think they are the norm. So while genuine addiction is most definitely a pathology they exploit (the thrill of games of chance), the majority of these high-spenders seem to be of a different pathology -- in that they feel powerless or diminished in their regular lives and have found that spending all their money in these games allows them to feel superior to others who either don't have that kind of money to spend or choose to spend their money more wisely. Or people who are intensely competitive and will do whatever is necessary to win, no matter what the cost. It's a different kind of pathology driven by different motivations, but still a pathology nonetheless.

[Scarlet Shocker]

I guess Loki is burdened with glorious purpose to save the MCU at some ill-defined point in the future then

[seebs]

On 3/30/2023 at 5:24 AM, SteelRat70 said:

I remember reading a quote from Steven Spielberg that he expected superhero obsession in film and TV to go the same way that westerns did in the 60s and I believe we're starting to see that now, largely (imo) due to the political messages that are regularly the central focus of superhero media, especially coming from Disney.

Ahh, yeah, for the days when comics weren't political, like the introduction of Captain America, or the X-men comics series.

 

There was a whole plot line in Superman quite a few years back which was entirely about him stopping a war by putting the generals together in a room and telling them to fight or stop fighting. He also threatened and intimidated the munitions manufacturer who'd been pushing for the war to exist in the first place.

 

Seriously, the notion that the political messages are somehow new, or a change, is itself a political message that has been promoted entirely and exclusively by the people who are opposed to the political messages which have been central throughout the entire history of superhero comics. You should know better.

[Steyrharquebus]

On 3/31/2023 at 9:24 AM, SteelRat70 said:

 

In the last couple of years, there has been a definite shift in narrative in terms of roles and message.  It is no longer deemed acceptable to have a white, male, straight protagonist, unless that character is portrayed as a bit of a failure / joke / doofus or is someway helped out / propped up / corrected / made mostly obsolete by someone female, ethnically or sexually diverse.  Better still the white male character would likely be the villain (see Eternals as one of many examples).

Whilst in terms of the cinematic representations of Marvel heroes, X-Men have been unsullied by this approach, largely because most of those films were made more than 5 years ago, but even Logan has a tinge of that self same approach as well.

There have even been statements by Disney that what they're doing is entirely intentional, and yet what amazes me is that you can't see this and see it as a "yeah it's fine, it's always been like that".  No.  It.  Hasn't.

Honestly that level of  blindness is not going to be cured by any number of yellow insps.

If you find yourself overly senstive and/or receptive to portayals of adult mediocrity, then that sounds like a skill issue on your part. Do better. Or don't - it seems like less is more in this instance. If you are concerned that you're being made obsolete by fictional stories that attempt to represent the world as it actually is and always has been (diverse and better for it) then, I promise you, you already are obsolete.

 

That you think a white protagonist accepting help from capable women, PoC or LGBT+ people "sullies" superhero fiction makes it abundantly clear the lens through which you view those people in real life. Your opinion is an ill-fitting lid trying to hide a much more insidious, trash rhetoric. This take is shameful, you should be ashamed and great creators like Jack Kirby, Dwayne McDuffie and Stan Lee would have disliked you immensely.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Steyrharquebus

[Trike]

On 3/30/2023 at 9:29 AM, SteelRat70 said:

Up to a point that's true.  It's far more gratuitous since Disneys take over than before it and Disney do it at every opportunity regardless of whether it has any relevance to the story or not.

Captain America is punching Hitler in the face in his very first appearance in 1941. One of Superman’s first foes in 1938 is an abusive husband that he slaps around. Soon after he takes on a mayor who won’t approve of proper drivers licensing, which is getting people killed. He then goes after capitalists and greedy landlords, which have created slums that foster gangs… as “woke” a message as one will ever find, and this from young guys writing superhero stories in the late 1930s. Superman is, quite literally, a social justice warrior, and always has been.

 

In the 1960s The X-Men were literally conceived as a diverse group, but it didn’t go far enough, so the 1975 reboot doubled down on the multicultural, multinational, all-inclusive aspect, becoming a monster hit that’s still going strong. The multiple instances of billion-dollar box office earnings of MCU films show how ridiculous the “go woke go broke” conservative talking point is.

 

Social consciousness has been baked into the genre from the jump — most of these characters created, it should be noted, by Jewish writers and artists.

[seebs]

The concept of "heroes" implies engaging with the question of why we need them. It really has always been there.

[GM Impervium]

On 3/31/2023 at 5:41 PM, MyriVerse said:

Black Widow, Shang-Chi, Eternals, Doctor Strange are Marvel's D-list characters. Loki might be a C-lister, as are Falcon, Captain/Ms. Marvel, Winter Soldier, Moon Knight, Wanda, Vizh, Hawkeye, and Shulkie.

 

Phase 5 seems a lot worse.

 

So, back before Iron Man came out, the ENTIRE Avengers roster was consider C-and D-tier. That's why Marvel still had the movie rights to them: Fox, Sony and Universal DIDN'T WANT THEM.

That's right, Marvel couldn't sell the movie rights to Captain America, because no one was interested. Funny how hindsight works out.

Marvel is probably hoping to do the same things with their other properties: bring them into the limelight and get them popular, but unfortunately, superhero fatigue is a thing.

***

On more of a thread-wide note, let's can it with the identity politics.

[Scarlet Shocker]

Impervium makes a good point. All the "best" Marvel properties had been sold off already... but then nobody actually realised Blade was a Marvel movie.

 

 

I'd argue that nobody knows much about Superheroes other than Batman, Superman and Spiderman - or at least they didn't until the 21st century.

 

I'm not sure Daredevil was better known than Iron Man or Hulk...

 

but Marvel was desperate to sell the rights because it kept the House of Ideas alive ... ultimately we all win, however tortuous that journey was (which makes it intersting in itself.)

 

Superhero fatigue is not a thing. MCU fatigue is very much a thing.

 

James Bond has been going for 50 years on the silver screen because the Broccoli family (partly due to financial constraints) don't release a constant stream of movies. Sometimes you have to wait 6 years for something mediocre... but people still go. Because it's Bond, James Bond.

 

Marvel have a policy of releasing 2 blockbusters a year with average content. So of course there's not just fatigue but disappointment. We had a decade of amazing content in the MCU from Iron Man in 2008... and then it was like the wedding cake of Endgame had a big steaming turd where the bride and groom should be. So disappointing despite being thebiggest grosing movie in history.

 

So that's what causes the fatigue... promise unrealised. But I've read Marvel comics in 6 decades. I see no reason to stop now.

[biostem]

I wonder if, in general, Marvel is against the idea of funding and promoting a game where players could create their own unique characters;  It seems to me that they're much more interested in monetizing their existing characters/IPs.  On top of that, the MMO market just isn't what it was before.  Frankly, an MMO where you start off as an Avengers or X-Men recruit, then could progress to a full member, eventually participating in quelling global threats would be amazing, but then they couldn't sell Captain America skin #531 for the thousandth time.

[Scarlet Shocker]

Part of me feels dirty

 

 

[Lazarillo]

1 hour ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

Superhero fatigue is not a thing. MCU fatigue is very much a thing.

I mean, people seem just as tired of DC movies these days (then again, I got "fatigued" of Marvel/superhero movies like 10 years ago anyway, so this is mostly an outside-looking-in perspective).

[Captain Fabulous]

One thing that no one has mentioned is that some characters simply aren't all that interesting, and work far better on a team than they do a solo project. If you look at the X-Men, very very few of them would be a compelling character on their own. It's the team interdynamics that makes them work. The collective sharing of "we are different" that binds them together and makes them interesting as a whole. But on their own? Pretty dull.

So while Marvel has been really good at taking B and C-listers and making them popular, it's only because these characters are actually pretty well fleshed out with a wealth of background material to draw from. As you get further down the list this becomes less and less so, and they struggle to find a way to make uninteresting characters interesting. I think this is what people are seeing and labeling as "fatigue". And this will all change once the X-Men and Fantastic Four are finally introduced into the MCU.

[Techwright]

6 hours ago, Captain Fabulous said:

And this will all change once the X-Men and Fantastic Four are finally introduced into the MCU.

Agreed, although with Phase Five scheduling stated, it's going to be a long wait, and that's assuming they're in Phase Six.

[MyriVerse]

On 3/31/2023 at 6:55 PM, Shadeknight said:

Well, they can't keep (feasibly/realistically) doing "A/B List" characters for movies. That'd get boring.

Phase 4/5 are getting rocky cause of fatigue and other factors (directors, stories, etc) - though, who knows, maybe they'll slam it out of the park in Phase 6 xd

Nah. It doesn't get boring. And the current record is the C/D list characters start at boring, and work their way down.

 

It's absolutely not fatigue. The characters and plots are simply not delivering. Even the people that want to be in the theatres are not being entertained because these characters and their plots have a n inferior design. There is a reason these characters are C/D list.

 

I'm almost kind of fine with this fact, but Marvel Entertainment needs to be willing to accept this as an innate loss. Or recast the A list characters.

Edited April 3, 2023 by MyriVerse

[Scarlet Shocker]

5 hours ago, Techwright said:

Agreed, although with Phase Five scheduling stated, it's going to be a long wait, and that's assuming they're in Phase Six.

 

I do find Marvel's reticence in bringing the Fantastic Four back to the big screen somewhat puzzling. The original superteam's previous efforts are long since gone (and forgotten) so there's no real hangup in bringing back, provided they give it a good story. That I think is the biggest crux. How do they introduce them to the MCU without some stupid time-travel bollocks. But also it gives them a chance to bring one of their best villains back in the form of Victor von Doom

[twozerofoxtrot]

On 3/30/2023 at 7:50 PM, Xiddo said:

Sadly he's not on Twitter anymore so can't send him the link 😢 

 

 

 

[Xiddo]

1 hour ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

 

I do find Marvel's reticence in bringing the Fantastic Four back to the big screen somewhat puzzling. How do they introduce them to the MCU without some stupid time-travel bollocks. But also it gives them a chance to bring one of their best villains back in the form of Victor von Doom

 

I thought they lost the rights or something? And, sadly, timey-wimey seems to be the MCU's FOTM at the mo. My kingdom for a Marvel film where the main villain isnt killed but just incarcerated. They're running out quick at this rate. The lack of Ultron (Spader is a dream) for example is a massive loss.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Xiddo

[Ruin Mage]

Marvel didn't have the rights to Fantastic Four for the longest time.

Fun fact: They don't have the rights to Namor, so they can't do a solo Namor movie.
(Not that they would, but still a fun fact)

[Captain Fabulous]

They only got the rights to FF and X-Men back recently, after they bought Fox Studios. Since we've seen both Mr. Fantastic and Professor X in Multiverse of Madness, and Deadpool 3 has Wolverine in it the belief is they're using the multiverse subtheme as a way of bringing them in to the MCU. They're using the current phase to to expand the multiverse concept, likely for this purpose.

 

[Techwright]

On 4/3/2023 at 5:26 AM, Scarlet Shocker said:

 

I do find Marvel's reticence in bringing the Fantastic Four back to the big screen somewhat puzzling. The original superteam's previous efforts are long since gone (and forgotten) so there's no real hangup in bringing back, provided they give it a good story. That I think is the biggest crux. How do they introduce them to the MCU without some stupid time-travel bollocks. But also it gives them a chance to bring one of their best villains back in the form of Victor von Doom

 

I've seen a rumor, perhaps just a fan theory (and forgive me, I've only seen about 2/3rds of Phase 4, so I may have missed something), that Stark Tower, aka Avengers Tower, will be sold and turned into Fantastic Four's headquarters.  With the introduction of a single version of Reed Richards to the MCU whetting the interest, perhaps the tactic they might take is for the tower to be sold (background news story) then gradually converted throughout Phase 5 and or 6.  The tactic might build anticipation while Phase 6 plays out.  Of course, this means we'd only get an origin story as a flashback, but I'm fine with that, in fact, I'd be fine if they handled it in similar fashion to the Tom Holland Spiderman, and just discussed the origin, rather than show it.

[Scarlet Shocker]

7 hours ago, Techwright said:

 

I've seen a rumor, perhaps just a fan theory (and forgive me, I've only seen about 2/3rds of Phase 4, so I may have missed something), that Stark Tower, aka Avengers Tower, will be sold and turned into Fantastic Four's headquarters.  With the introduction of a single version of Reed Richards to the MCU whetting the interest, perhaps the tactic they might take is for the tower to be sold (background news story) then gradually converted throughout Phase 5 and or 6.  The tactic might build anticipation while Phase 6 plays out.  Of course, this means we'd only get an origin story as a flashback, but I'm fine with that, in fact, I'd be fine if they handled it in similar fashion to the Tom Holland Spiderman, and just discussed the origin, rather than show it.

 

I remember some time back, I think before the close of phase 2 Marvel promised no more Origin stories - and they've been pretty good with that since. So to an extent that ties in with what you've said here.

[Judasace]

On 3/30/2023 at 6:50 AM, Xiddo said:

 

Comics and superhero media have always had political messages. It isn't new and it isn't just Disney.

 

 

Saying that is like saying "People have always eaten sugar" There's a difference between moderation and sensible use of something, and gluttony to the point of killing yourself. And the comics industry has already pretty much killed itself -look at the sales of Manga vs US comics - and the entertainment industry pretty much did the same.

 

The New Warriors from the 90s and the proposed reboot with Snowflake and Safespace both had left leaning political messages. One of them was a decent series, one of them got laughed off the publication schedule. When you take things to extremes, things collapse.