MUBI bringing World cinema to PS3

Unless they are mislead by the title.

Banjo wrote:Unless they are mislead by the title.

Beat me to it

Drunken_Master wrote:

rudderless wrote:

cooldawn wrote:Hmmm...considering the majority of PS3 owners are chavs this isn't going to end well.

I'm not sure if that's a joke, but I don't think that's the case. I think a large portion of the PS3 audience are maybe mature (ie 25 and over) gamers who don't necessarily play as much as us enthusiasts, but want a premium product that they can use to play games, watch Blu-Rays and download stuff with. It's the console you get if you've got a subscription to T3 magazine and you use that and FHM as your first sources of gaming information.

I'm sorry, but anyone who uses FHM as a source of gaming information isn't going to be someone who'll watch The Passion of Joan of Arc on his PS3.

No, I was merely decrying the suggestion that the PS3 is a console for chavs. I'm not sure if my definition of the word differs from others, but I think the people cooldawn's talking about have enough disposable income to avoid 'proper' chavdom.

Above and beyond that audience there's undoubtedly a sizeable adult audience who'll relish this kind of content from their premium hi-def home entertainment system that they probably never deign to term a 'console'.

He's making a reference to that time Eighthours argued that certain games only sell better on PS3 because all owners of the console shop in JD Sports.

pyxl-8 wrote:He's making a reference to that time Eighthours argued that certain games only sell better on PS3 because all owners of the console shop in JD Sports.

I think that was a glib generalisation rather than a genuine statement. It's based on the observation that FIFA and Need For Speed et al tend to do better on PS3 than 360, the suggestion being that the 360 audience is perhaps slightly more receptive to new and interesting IP (albeit Eighthours' argument now is that said audience is also more fickle).

Oh, yeah, I know. It's just funny to take it out of context to play up the (mis?)conception that he hates PS3 owners.

It's a running joke in the sales threads.

Fair enough. He owns a PS3 now though, so he'd have to hate himself!

rudderless wrote:

pyxl-8 wrote:He's making a reference to that time Eighthours argued that certain games only sell better on PS3 because all owners of the console shop in JD Sports.

I think that was a glib generalisation rather than a genuine statement. It's based on the observation that FIFA and Need For Speed et al tend to do better on PS3 than 360, the suggestion being that the 360 audience is perhaps slightly more receptive to new and interesting IP (albeit Eighthours' argument now is that said audience is also more fickle).

I think games like Flower, Heavy Rain, Demon's Souls and the Pixel Junk series dispell that outlandish claim. All of those have sold much better than people would have thought.

You're a chav.

Dual wrote:You're a chav.

Indeed I am

Is this free?

Deception wrote:Is this free?

Yes the application itself is free, but you have to pay for the films. Or get an annual subscription.

suzzopher wrote:

Deception wrote:Is this free?

Yes the application itself is free, but you have to pay for the films. Or get an annual subscription.

i can be f uck ed noW

/Chav

Are they HD? Do they have 5.1? This is a deal breaker for me. I will only pay for HD content these days.

CrystalGipsy wrote:Are they HD? Do they have 5.1? This is a deal breaker for me. I will only pay for HD content these days.

I see Alan Wake is in your gamertag, that would suggest otherwise

CrystalGipsy wrote:Are they HD? Do they have 5.1? This is a deal breaker for me. I will only pay for HD content these days.

Some probably will, but I reckon many of the indie and older films won't simply because they wouldn't have had the budget. SD and 2 channel audio doesn't automatically make it a bad film.

Knoyleo wrote:

CrystalGipsy wrote:Are they HD? Do they have 5.1? This is a deal breaker for me. I will only pay for HD content these days.

Some probably will, but I reckon many of the indie and older films won't simply because they wouldn't have had the budget. SD and 2 channel audio doesn't automatically make it a bad film.

True. But as Sony's own service does not have 5.1 due to the restrictions of the machine for mp4 files I was wondering what they will do with this.

Oh and Suzz very funny and quick to respond.

suzzopher wrote:

CrystalGipsy wrote:Are they HD? Do they have 5.1? This is a deal breaker for me. I will only pay for HD content these days.

I see Alan Wake is in your gamertag, that would suggest otherwise

rudderless wrote:

pyxl-8 wrote:He's making a reference to that time Eighthours argued that certain games only sell better on PS3 because all owners of the console shop in JD Sports.

I think that was a glib generalisation rather than a genuine statement. It's based on the observation that FIFA and Need For Speed et al tend to do better on PS3 than 360, the suggestion being that the 360 audience is perhaps slightly more receptive to new and interesting IP (albeit Eighthours' argument now is that said audience is also more fickle).

I was only joking...although I don't agree with 'fickle' either.

Knoyleo wrote:

CrystalGipsy wrote:Are they HD? Do they have 5.1? This is a deal breaker for me. I will only pay for HD content these days.

Some probably will, but I reckon many of the indie and older films won't simply because they wouldn't have had the budget. SD and 2 channel audio doesn't automatically make it a bad film.

Agreed. A lot of great films from indie companies don't have the resources but still have the talent.

CrystalGipsy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

CrystalGipsy wrote:Are they HD? Do they have 5.1? This is a deal breaker for me. I will only pay for HD content these days.

Some probably will, but I reckon many of the indie and older films won't simply because they wouldn't have had the budget. SD and 2 channel audio doesn't automatically make it a bad film.

True. But as Sony's own service does not have 5.1 due to the restrictions of the machine for mp4 files...

What? How so? Seriously, that's news to me (the technical reasons, not that films can be < 5.1).