Nintendo is on a serious roll.

The company's latest console, the Switch, is a major hit. The two biggest games for Switch are massively popular entries in the long-running "Super Mario" and "Legend of Zelda" franchises.

And the future looks as big — or maybe even bigger— for the Japanese gaming giant. How does a new Pokémon game for the Nintendo Switch sound to you? That's just the beginning.

SEE ALSO: The legendary creator of 'Super Mario' explains why he tries not to hire gamers to work at Nintendo

1. Everything old is new again.

In 2017, Nintendo rereleased "Mario Kart 8" on the Switch. The game previously arrived on the Wii U, the console that Nintendo sunset in favor of the Switch.

In 2018, Nintendo plans to rerelease "Bayonetta 2," another game that launched exclusively on the Wii U. The game even comes with a copy of the first "Bayonetta." This is part of Nintendo's ongoing strategy to bring back the best games from the Wii U era — games the company views as underplayed because of how few people bought a Wii U.

"Given the install base of Wii U, there was some fantastic content that consumers did not get to play," Nintendo of America's president, Reggie Fils-Aimé, told Vice last year. "So that creates certainly a business opportunity."

Beyond "Bayonetta" and "Bayonetta 2," it seems likely we'll see some of the Wii U's other best stuff head to the Switch. Games like "Super Smash Bros." and "Super Mario Maker" come to mind immediately, though there are opportunities to bring over other great stuff (like "Super Mario 3D World" and "Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker").

2. Nintendo's online service is finally going to light up.

The Nintendo Switch Online service is scheduled to launch in 2018 at a price of $20 a year. For that price, you'll get instant access to a classic game library and the ability to play games online.

You read that correctly: Nintendo is going to gate access to online gameplay.

After this service launches, you'll need to fork over a subscription fee to play online games on the Nintendo Switch. For the $20 price of entry, though, you'll also gain access to a library of classic games. The only three games announced thus far are "Super Mario Bros. 3," "Dr. Mario," and "Balloon Fight," which are all classic Nintendo Entertainment System games. 

It's unclear when the service will actually launch; Nintendo has given its service a release window only of "2018." 

It's also unclear whether Nintendo will have a separate Virtual Console-like service, as it has in the past — such a service has traditionally offered a paid library of à la carte classic games. That could very well also be coming in 2018.

3. A "core" Pokémon game is being made for Nintendo's Switch, and it could arrive as early as 2018.

A new entry in the "Pokémon" series is coming to the Switch, and it's not a spin-off. We're talking about a "core RPG Pokémon title," according to Tsunekazu Ishihara, the president of The Pokémon Company.

That's a huge deal. Main-series "Pokémon" games have only ever come to Nintendo's handheld game consoles. But with the Switch, Nintendo's main game console is also its main handheld console. And that means there's only one place for Pokémon to go: the Switch!

In fairness, the game may not arrive in 2018. 

When the project was announced, it was said to be "more than a year out." That was back in June 2017, so it's possible this game isn't anywhere close to completion. That said, it was also unlikely that Nintendo would launch major "Super Mario" and "Legend of Zelda" games in the same year, but that was exactly what Nintendo did in 2017.

• The total number of movie tickets sold in 2017 was 1.239 billion.
• That's the lowest total since 1992.
• Many are choosing to stay home and watch streaming content.

The numbers don't lie. No one went to the movies in 2017. 

Sure, you probably went to see "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," "Wonder Woman," or maybe a Marvel movie, but the ticket totals are in and that's the true barometer of the state of the exhibition business. And it's not a pretty picture. 

The total number of tickets sold at the domestic box office in 2017 was 1.239 billion, according to Box Office Mojo. That's a 5.8% drop compared to 2016. But it's also the lowest total since 1992 (1.173 billion).

The domestic box office gross barely crossed the $11 billion mark this year with $11.065 billion (thanks to December releases "The Last Jedi" and "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle"). That doesn't look like a major drop, as it's just 3% lower than the all-time best domestic mark hit last year ($11.377 billion), but that figure gets a lot of help from bloated ticket prices — not just for regular 2D movies (last year the average hovered just under $9), but also the expensive price to see movies on IMAX, RealD, and MX4D screens.

If you look at just the butts in the seats, the movie business needs a revamp. 

"Studios are lagging behind for the very simple reason that they are relying on retreads and reboots, and most of those aren't being well received," Jeff Bock, senior analyst for Exhibitor Relations, told Business Insider.

The top 10 domestic grossers of 2017 were all just that. And there were plenty released this year that underperformed as well ("Alien: Covenant," "Transformers: The Last Knight," "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales" — though all three of these titles did much better overseas). Now pile on top of that titles that were supposed to launch new franchises for years to come but ended up being DOA ("The Mummy," "Power Rangers"), and you have a lot of releases in the multiplex this year that were full of empty seats. 

So instead of going to the movies, audiences stayed home and watched what was on streaming services. 

"Audiences are continuing to flock to streaming in droves for challenging content and that doesn't look to change in 2018, or the near future," Bock said. "The studios are up against the wall, and the next few years they'll have to produce a plethora of quality films to win back favor with audiences."

Or they could do what's been common in Hollywood for 100-plus years: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

With Disney's announcement last summer that it will soon launch its own streaming service, more studios could do the same.

We may truly be at the moment where the moviegoing experience drastically changes forever.

SEE ALSO: The 25 worst movies of 2017, according to critics

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Jay-Z and Beyoncé spend their $1.16 billion

• "Jeopardy" contestant Nick Spicher lost out on $3,200 after saying "gangster" instead of "gangsta," in an answer referencing Coolio's 1995 rap hit, "Gangsta's Paradise."
• The "Jeopardy" judges initially gave him points for the answer before taking the money back after reviewing his pronunciation.

A "Jeopardy" contestant lost thousands on Monday after mispronouncing the name of Coolio's 1995 rap hit, "Gangsta's Paradise."

On the show, host Alex Trebek read the following clue from a category in which contestants must combine well-known works of music and literature: "A song by Coolio from 'Dangerous Minds' goes back in time to become a 1667 John Milton classic."

Contestant Nick Spicher correctly identified the substance of the answer by responding, "What is Gangster's Paradise Lost," and took the lead with $11,200.

Moments later, however, Trebek interrupted the game to say that the judges had reviewed Spicher's answer, and decided that it couldn't count.

"You said 'Gangster's' instead of 'Gangsta's' on that song by Coolio," Trebek said. "We take $3,200 away from you so you are now in second place."

"Jeopardy" later wrote a blog post explaining the difference between "gangsta" and "gangster."

"Although Nick's response of 'Gangster's Paradise Lost' was initially accepted, the hard R sound caught the ear of one member of the onstage team, who immediately followed up with a quick check," the blog post reads. "It turns out that 'gangsta' and 'gangster' are both listed separately in the Oxford English Dictionary, each with its own unique definition."

Spicher would nonetheless go on to win the game. 

SEE ALSO: Here are all the confirmed original shows coming to Netflix in 2018

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We asked the host of HQ Trivia 12 questions to see how much he knows about game shows

• Disney buying parts of 21st Century Fox is evidence of the company doubling down on streaming video.
• Its upcoming streaming services are just Disney doing what Disney does best.
• Watch the price of Disney move in real time on Markets Insider.

It's now old news that Disney is buying 21st Century Fox's entertainment assets, pending regulatory approval.

What is less clear, is whether the acquisition will be enough to save Disney from the ever-further reaching Netflix and the impact of video streaming services. For Steven Cahall at RBC Captial Markets, it is the perfect move.

"Searching our feelings, we already feel the narrative of Disney changing with investors turning away from the dark side (ESPN) and towards the good within (content, DTC)," Cahall and his team wrote on Wednesday.

ESPN is still is a huge cash cow for Disney, but for Cahall, it represents Disney's old way of doing business. ESPN relies on cable companies paying a huge premium for its content relative to other channels. As more consumers cut the cord in favor of streaming video services, ESPN has become a growing problem for its parent company.

The Fox acquisition then, is Disney embracing the streaming video trend. 

Disney is an expert at monetizing its content, as evidenced by its parks and massive merchandising efforts around its popular franchises. Think about how many Star Wars toys you saw this holiday season. Disney's move to the streaming world is Disney doing what it does best, contextualized for today's streaming media environment.

As Disney starts its own over the top video platforms, as it said it will do with a sports service in 2018 and a TV and movie service in 2019, expanding the breadth of its offerings makes it a better Netflix competitor. It's not just trying to capture a bigger portion of its old cable business, Disney is trying to re-organize itself in the new streaming era.

The reframing doesn't change Cahall's rating of the company. In fact, Cahall chose Disney as a top pick before the acquisition and said his conviction is even stronger now.

"It is defensive to ecosystem challenges, a major beneficiary of tax reform and has an evolving narrative around content/DTC with the FOXA deal," Cahall said. "It's a worldclass content company and deserving of a premium to the market."

Cahall has a price target of $135 for Disney, about 20% higher than where the stock is currently trading.

Millennials did a terrible job picking stocks last year, read about which ones were their favorites here.

SEE ALSO: Millennials did a terrible job picking stocks in 2017

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what bitcoin futures could mean for the price of bitcoin

• Netflix has officially announced that it's making a sequel to its Will Smith movie "Bright."
• A fantasy-action film with a reported budget of $90 million, "Bright" premiered on Netflix on December 22.
• Netflix said in a release that "Bright" was the "highest viewed Netflix film ever on the service in its first week."
• The film's director, David Ayer, will write and direct the sequel, while its stars Will Smith and Joel Edgerton are expected to return.

Netflix has ordered a sequel to its Will Smith-led original movie, "Bright," the company confirmed Wednesday.

A fantasy-action film starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton as Los Angeles cops in a world where humans, orcs, and elves coexist, "Bright" was made for a reported budget of over $90 million.

Netflix said in a release that "Bright" had been the "highest viewed Netflix film ever on the service in its first week of release." The film has also been critically panned: It sits at a 28% "Rotten" rating on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

The film's director, David Ayer ("Suicide Squad"), will write and direct the film's sequel, while its stars Will Smith and Joel Edgerton are expected to return. The original film was written by Max Landis ("American Ultra").

"Bright" represents the company's strongest push yet into the world of big-budget films — an effort that will see the company release 80 original movies in 2018.

Watch a video announcing the sequel below:

SEE ALSO: Netflix's content boss listed 5 big upcoming Netflix originals you should be excited for

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Behind the scenes with Shepard Smith — the Fox News star who's not afraid to take on Trump

• Spotify in December confidentially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for its initial public offering, the news website Axios reports.
• Companies can file quietly to gauge interest from investors before deciding to publicize their IPO plans.
• Spotify was slapped with a $1.6 billion lawsuit earlier this week accusing it of streaming thousands of songs without compensating the publisher.

Spotify has confidentially filed for its initial public offering, Dan Primack of the news website Axios reported on Wednesday.

The music-streaming service based in Stockholm filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission at the end of December, the report said. It is aiming to list in the first quarter, Axios said.

By filing in private, companies can test how interested investors are in buying their stock before going public with their intentions. This used to be available only to companies with less than $1 billion in revenue under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act. Last June, the SEC under Jay Clayton, the chairman appointed by President Donald Trump, expanded the privilege to all companies.

On Tuesday, Wixen Music Publishing hit Spotify with a $1.6 billion lawsuit accusing it of streaming thousands of songs without compensation. Spotify agreed in May to pay over $43 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing it of failing to pay royalties.

Spotify declined to comment.

SEE ALSO: Spotify hit with $1.6 billion copyright lawsuit

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How the sale of Qdoba will impact Chipotle's future

• The Golden Globes are on Sunday night.
• The competition was tough this year, particularly in the film categories, which means there were a lot of snubs.
• After a breakthrough year for female directors, none were nominated in the best director category. 

Unfortunately some of the year's most notable movies, shows, performances, and directors were snubbed by the Golden Globes this year.

The Golden Globes ceremony will air Sunday at 8 p.m. EST on NBC, with Seth Meyers hosting.

Not everyone can get a nomination, so there were still quite a few disappointing snubs this year.

NBC's innovative comedy "The Good Place" is going places no other network comedy has before, but isn't recognized at all. "Logan," one of the best and most critically acclaimed films of the year, didn't manage to get any nominations despite powerful performances and an excellent screenplay.

"Get Out" got several nominations including best motion picture (in the comedy category), but Jordan Peele didn't get nominated for the award the movie deserves most: best screenplay. The romantic comedy "The Big Sick" was a fresh take on the genre and was expected to get several nominations, but didn't get any. 

And zero women were nominated in the best director category, despite some of the year's best movies being directed by women including Greta Gerwig ("Lady Bird"), Patty Jenkins ("Wonder Woman"), and Dee Rees ("Mudbound").

Here are all the snubs for the 2018 Golden Globes:

SEE ALSO: Here are all the nominees for the 2018 Golden Globes

Best motion picture, drama

"Mudbound"

"The Florida Project"

The 75th Golden Globe Awards are happening Sunday on NBC. Forgot who the nominees are? It's a good time to catch up.

Guillermo del Toro's unique love story "The Shape of Water" led everyone with seven nominations. Steven Spielberg's "The Post" and "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" each nabbed six. On the TV side, HBO's hit "Big Little Lies" picked up six nominations.

The Globes ceremony will air at 8 p.m. EST on NBC, with Seth Meyers hosting.

Here are the nominees:

Best motion picture, drama

"Call Me by Your Name"
"Dunkirk"
"The Post"
"The Shape of Water"
"Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

Best motion picture, comedy or musical

“The Disaster Artist"
"Get Out"
"The Greatest Showman"
"I, Tonya"
"Lady Bird"

Best director

Guillermo del Toro, "The Shape of Water"
Martin McDonagh, "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"
Christopher Nolan, "Dunkirk"
Ridley Scott, "All The Money in the World"
Steven Spielberg, "The Post"

Best TV series, drama

"The Crown"
"Game of Thrones"
"The Handmaid's Tale"
"Stranger Things"
"This is Us"

Best TV series, comedy

"Black-ish"
"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"
"Master of None"
"SMILF"
"Will & Grace"

Best actor in a motion picture, drama

Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me by Your Name”
Daniel Day-Lewis, “Phantom Thread”
Tom Hanks, “The Post”
Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour”
Denzel Washington, “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”

Best actor in a motion picture, comedy or musical

Steve Carell, “Battle of the Sexes”
Ansel Elgort, “Baby Driver”
James Franco, “The Disaster Artist”
Hugh Jackman, “The Greatest Showman”
Daniel Kaluuya, “Get Out”

Best actress in a motion picture, drama

Jessica Chastain, “Molly’s Game”
Sally Hawkins, “The Shape of Water”
Frances McDormand, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Meryl Streep, “The Post”
Michelle Williams, “All the Money in the World”

Best actress in a motion picture, comedy or musical

Judi Dench, “Victoria & Abdul”
Margot Robbie, “I, Tonya”
Saoirse Ronan, “Lady Bird”
Emma Stone, “Battle of the Sexes”
Helen Mirren, “The Leisure Seeker”

Best actor in a TV series, drama

Sterling K. Brown, “This is Us”
Freddie Highmore, “The Good Doctor”
Bob Odenkirk, “Better Call Saul”
Liev Schreiber, “Ray Donovan”
Jason Bateman, “Ozark”

Best actor in a TV series, comedy

Anthony Anderson, “Black-ish”
Aziz Ansari, “Master of None”
Kevin Bacon, “I Love Dick”
William H. Macy, “Shameless”
Eric McCormack, “Will and Grace”

Best actress in a TV series, drama

Caitriona Balfe, “Outlander”
Claire Foy, “The Crown”
Maggie Gyllenhaal, “The Deuce”
Katherine Langford, “13 Reasons Why”
Elisabeth Moss, “The Handmaid’s Tale”

Best actress in a TV series, comedy

Pamela Adlon, “Better Things”
Alison Brie, “Glow”
Issa Rae, “Insecure”
Rachel Brosnahan, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”
Frankie Shaw, “SMILF”

Best supporting actor in a motion picture

Willem Dafoe, “The Florida Project”
Armie Hammer, “Call Me by Your Name”
Richard Jenkins, “The Shape of Water”
Christopher Plummer, “All the Money in the World”
Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

Best supporting actress in a motion picture

Mary J. Blige, “Mudbound”
Hong Chau, “Downsizing”
Allison Janney, “I, Tonya”
Laurie Metcalf, “Lady Bird”
Octavia Spencer, “The Shape of Water”

Best TV movie or mini-series

“Big Little Lies”
“Fargo”
“Feud: Bette and Joan”
“The Sinner”
“Top of the Lake: China Girl”

Best actor in a TV miniseries or movie

Robert De Niro, “The Wizard of Lies”
Jude Law, “The Young Pope”
Kyle MacLachlan, “Twin Peaks”
Ewan McGregor, “Fargo”
Geoffrey Rush, “Genius”

Best actress in a TV miniseries or movie

Jessica Biel, “The Sinner”
Nicole Kidman, “Big Little Lies”
Jessica Lange, “Feud: Bette and Joan”
Susan Sarandon, “Feud: Bette and Joan”
Reese Witherspoon, “Big Little Lies”

Best supporting actor in TV miniseries or TV movie

Alfred Molina, “Feud”
Alexander Skarsgard, “Big Little Lies”
David Thewlis, “Fargo”
David Harbour, “Stranger Things”
Christian Slater, “Mr. Robot”

Best supporting actress in TV miniseries or movie

Laura Dern, “Big Little Lies”
Ann Dowd, “The Handmaid’s Tale”
Chrissy Metz, “This is Us”
Michelle Pfeiffer, “The Wizard of Lies”
Shailene Woodley, “Big Little Lies”

Best animated film

“The Boss Baby”
“The Breadwinner”
“Ferdinand”
“Coco”
“Loving Vincent”

Best original score

“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
“The Shape of Water”
“Phantom Thread”
“The Post”
“Dunkirk”

Best screenplay, motion picture

“The Shape of Water”
“Lady Bird”
“The Post”
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
“Molly’s Game”

Best foreign language film

“A Fantastic Woman”
“First They Killed My Father”
“In the Fade”
“Loveless”
“The Square”

Best original song

"Remember Me," Coco

"This Is Me," The Greatest Showman

"Home," Ferdinand

"Mighty River," Mudbound
"The Star," The Star

SEE ALSO: The 10 biggest box office bombs of 2017

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Legislation is being introduced to close a legal loophole that prevents workplace sexual-harassment stories from going public

• Actress-turned-director Quinn Shephard was 20 when she made her debut feature film "Blame" in 2015.
• The movie went on to win the best actress prize at the 2017 Tribeca Film Festival and later found theatrical distribution.
• Shephard had to cash in her college fund to self-finance the movie after her sole investor disappeared a week into shooting.

“It’s a really crazy story!”

That’s how 22-year-old actress-turned-director Quinn Shephard began when she sat down at a coffee shop in Manhattan’s East Village to talk with Business Insider about her feature directing debut, “Blame” (opening Friday in theaters and On Demand).

Shephard has acted professionally since she was five years old, and has the personality and looks that could easily get her on an upcoming series made by The CW, but these days she's more interested in music rights and color correction. That’s because for the last two years, she has dedicated her life to making a feature-length movie that’s been developing in her mind since she was 15.

A storyteller since birth

Growing up in Metuchen, New Jersey, Shephard’s teenage years were filled with telling stories. When she was 12 she hand wrote a 300-page novel. It’s currently in a binder somewhere in the basement of her parents’ house. Also around that time, she began to make short films after taking a filmmaking class at school. Then at 15, after reading “The Crucible,” she decided she would do a feature-length modern retelling of Arthur Miller’s classic play.

“I’ve always loved writing,” Shephard said. “This movie is me making something that I really wanted to do since I was a teenager.”

Shephard’s script for “Blame” went through numerous phases in the years before shooting began, but the basic story was always there — a girl (played by Shephard) is fixated on her high school drama teacher, and that leads a jealous classmate to concoct a witch hunt-like investigation to reveal the alleged taboo relationship.

To get the script from an unmakable 130 pages to a point where she was able to cast “The Mindy Project” star Chris Messina in the teacher role, and Nadia Alexander (USA series “The Sinner”) as the jealous classmate (Melissa), Shephard honed her storytelling technique by writing more feature scripts. She also made short films, including “Till Dark” in 2015, about a boy’s obsession with his childhood friend.

“Till Dark” was an exciting moment in the process for Shephard. Many of the crew on the short would make “Blame” with her the summer of that year. There was finally a light at the end of the tunnel.

Looking back, Shephard said making “Till Dark” was a great calling card to land Messina and other key crew members, but in getting ready for the rigors of feature filmmaking, “it doesn’t prepare you at all” she said.

When everything that could go wrong, does

Shephard produced “Blame” with her mother, Laurie. The only career experience they had making movies was their time on set as actresses — Laurie's main highlight was being on a few episodes of “Days of Our Lives” in 1993; Quinn has been in numerous TV series and movies since she was five, her biggest being a regular on CBS’ “Hostages” in 2013.

Despite their efforts to land an experienced producer to come on the movie, it never materialized. This left the Shephards to learn on the fly what producers do behind the scenes.

“Everything that possibly could go wrong did go wrong,” Shephard said, recalling her mom constantly reading the book “Producer to Producer: A Step-By-Step Guide to Low-Budget Independent Film Producing” for guidance.

“That was her go-to,” Shephard said. “It was that level of inexperience on how to produce.”

Then the movie was hit with what all producers fear the most — its sole investor suddenly disappeared.

It happened the first week of shooting “Blame.” With cast and crew flown to Metuchen, where the movie would be shot, a wire transfer of money that was promised to the Shephards never appeared.

“It was literally, ‘Wire transfer coming on Tuesday,’ and never heard from him again,” Shephard said (she would not give the investor’s name, only saying he was a filmmaker that she and her family had known for a long time).

“We never got an explanation, he just ghosted one day,” Shephard continued. “I never heard from him again.”

Shephard then had to make a vital decision: pull the plug or continue on with the movie.

“We felt we couldn’t turn back,” she said. “This was something we had spent so many years trying to get off the ground, if we had to bail on it when we were right there it would have been the most heartbreaking thing.”

Shephard decided to cash in her college fund and take the money she had from being on “Hostages” to self-finance her movie.

“I felt, I would rather be totally broke than have a broken spirit,” said Shephard, who would not give a specific budget for “Blame,” only saying it is under $250,000.

Finishing the movie at any cost

The money got Shephard through the 19-day shoot — which was mostly shot in her old high school in Metuchen — but it pretty much left no funds for post production.

So Shephard edited the movie herself.

Thanks to discounts and in-kind support from a post-production house in Montreal, and the kindness of a few crew members, Shephard took two trips to Montreal to edit, score, and do other post-production elements (sound mix and color correction).

For her first trip, Shephard stayed in the studio of composer Pierre-Philippe Côté as they created the score. She then lived with his aunt while editing at the post-production house. On the second trip, she stayed in the basement of Sylvain Brassard, her sound mixer.

“The second trip I couldn’t afford a plane ticket so I took the Megabus to Montreal,” Shephard said. “I did this thing at any cost.”

The post-production hustle paid off. When Shephard began to show the movie around people were shocked by its look, which to someone who doesn’t know the backstory looks like it was made for the high six-figures to $1 million.

“Blame” got its world premiere at the 2017 Tribeca Film Festival, where Alexander won the best actress award for the Melissa role. Soon after the festival, Samuel Goldwyn Films bought the North American rights to the movie.

Telling teen stories with adult topics

Alexander told Business Insider she believed it was the comfort of being directed by someone the same age as her that led to her acclaimed performance.

“It gives you your own unique power that you wouldn’t necessarily get on a set with a 45-year-old director and producers running around,” Alexander said of working with a peer. “Making Melissa a lot more crass with the boys was my suggestion to Quinn, so I had a comfort to come forward and say to her, ‘I want to do this with the character.’”

Actress Sarah Mezzanotte, who plays Melissa’s friend Sophie, said she could feel the movie’s authenticity right from the pages she read for her audition.

“I knew immediately that it was written by a young female,” she said. “You can tell when something isn’t written authentically. I could tell this was by someone who understands what it’s like to be a young woman struggling with identity and fitting in.”

Shephard is now preparing to tell her stories on a larger scale.

Following Tribeca, she landed an agent at WME and plans to cut down her acting considerably to focus on writing and directing. She said she’s close to landing a feature directing project at a studio as well as a TV project.

“‘Blame’ is a proof of concept,” Shephard said. “It has shown that there's a place for me to do my genre, which is teens dealing with adult topics. Giving three-dimensional plotlines to young women in a way that I don't think is represented right now. Many of my favorite shows and movies are these complex stories about middle-aged men. I think it's time to tell complex stories focused on teenage girls.” 

Shephard is at that moment in a career when being in the same room with movie stars, and taking meetings with executives, can lead to getting too caught up in the glossy side of Hollywood. But she said she’s stayed grounded. She only recently created an Instagram account, and it was because she wanted to better connect with teens who are searching for inspiration.

“I've gotten emails from girls who are 15, 16 years old, who said they read about me and now have signed up for a filmmaking course or started working on a script with their friends,” Shephard said. “They said, ‘I didn't think there was any point for me trying to do this at this age because I thought I would have to go to college or film school.’ It's important that we have young women in the media. I’m not trying to say I'm a role model, but it's important if you have an opportunity to reach young women you make them see that they can be businesswomen and run the show. So if my story makes them feel that in any way then it was worth it.” 

SEE ALSO: Movie attendance his a 25-year low in the US in 2017, as viewers "flock to streaming in droves"

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Meet Scott Rogowsky — the host of the hot new mobile game show HQ Trivia

• On Tuesday, Microsoft announced it had discontinued the USB adapter for the Kinect sensor, a pioneering motion-sensing accessory line for the Xbox 360 and Xbox One that sold almost 30 million units in its lifetime.
• Microsoft had discontinued the Kinect sensor itself in the Fall of 2017.
• The Kinect was a huge bet for Microsoft, but it didn't pay off — the technology wasn't quite reliable enough, the games weren't as good as they could be, and the novelty wore off.
• The death of the Kinect has been a long time coming, with Microsoft removing the Kinect port from its most recent model of Xbox One consoles.

On Tuesday, Polygon reported that Microsoft had killed the USB adapter for the ahead-of-its-time motion sensor for the Xbox 360 and Xbox One. That adapter let the Kinect work with the modern Xbox One S and Xbox One X models, as well as Windows PCs. Microsoft had officially discontinued manufacture of the Kinect sensor itself in the Fall of 2017. 

Back in 2015, we took a deep look at the history of the Kinect and its downfall. The story below was originally published on September 8th, 2015, now updated to reflect current facts.

When the Kinect for Xbox 360 was first demonstrated in June 2009, it looked like the future of technology.

By tracking your body with an advanced infrared camera, sensors, and a microphone, the $150 Kinect accessory let you control games and media using just your body and voice.

But then, after Microsoft sold about 29 million of them for the Xbox 360 and Xbox One, it just kind of faded away. 

Even Microsoft appears to have given up on it — the Xbox One originally required Kinect to function, but Microsoft dropped that requirement last year.

There are only a handful of Kinect games available for the Xbox One. And the current-model Xbox One S, and the forthcoming Xbox One X, no longer have the correct port to directly plug in a Kinect — you need an optional $40 adapter. 

What happened?

It looked like the future

The goal of Kinect was to broaden the Xbox 360 console's appeal beyond who you would typically think of as "gamers." Instead of playing games with intimidating and complicated controllers, you just had to move.

The Xbox 360 had been selling well since its 2005 introduction, but now needed something to set itself apart, as the Sony PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii were providing stiff competition.

The Kinect was intended to be a shot in the arm, extending the Xbox 360's appeal and providing a new platform for games and content that could take it into the future. Microsoft Corporate Vice President Shane Kim once claimed that the Kinect would mean that the Xbox 360 could stay on the market through 2015.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer even tellingly referred to the Kinect as a "new Xbox" in one presentation.

At first, everything looked like it was going according to plan.

The Kinect launched with tons of fanfare — and a $500 million marketing budget — November 4, 2010, with the tagline "You Are the Controller." Oprah Winfrey even gave away Xbox 360s and Kinects on an episode of her show.

You could either buy it separately for $150 or with an Xbox 360 in bundles starting at $299. The Xbox 360 interface itself was given a revamp to be more Kinect-friendly.

The press, especially the non-gaming mainstream media, ate it up and gave the Kinect glowing reviews. And within 60 days, Microsoft sold 8 million Kinects, earning it the Guinness World Record of "fastest-selling consumer device."

Developers started to line up to make games for the device, too, with 17 available at launch, including "Kinect Adventures," a Microsoft-made game that came packaged with the Kinect sensor.

Most of those games were panned by reviewers: "Critics are complaining about a lack of solid launch titles for the new control system; only 'Dance Central' seems to have anything to recommend it," said a Metacritic roundup of launch titles at the time.

But people realized it was new technology, and they were willing to give it time. Even when people noticed that you needed a lot of space to make good use of the Kinect sensor, nobody seemed to mind moving their furniture.

At least, not at first.

Problem #1: Not enough great games

A slow but steady trickle of Kinect games came out over the following months, but a lot of them fell into the "family entertainment" or "fitness trainer" veins, far from the core gamer demographic that made up most of the Xbox 360-owning audience.

Worse, a lot of the titles got poor reviews, alienating those many who bought an Xbox 360 just to play Kinect games.

Microsoft convinced a lot of larger publishers of marquee franchise games to integrate Kinect features into their gameplay, but they were largely gimmicky — I'll never forget the time my friend got a red card in "FIFA 15" soccer for the Xbox 360 because the Kinect's microphone caught him swearing.

We asked a former Xbox insider familiar with the development of the Kinect why it was so hard to find any good games that did cool things with the sensor.

The simple answer is that the best of the best developers simply weren't interested because they had invested so much in making their existing, lucrative, big-budget franchises work frighteningly well with a traditional controller.

"'Halo' doesn’t need Kinect — it has an incredibly precise and detailed control set, and further, can’t give a Kinect user an unfair advantage over non-Kinect owners," the former Xbox insider says.

In other words, even if top-tier developers thought it was cool, they weren't going to blow the time and budget to make it work with their existing games.

Plus, you didn't need a Kinect to play those games, so many players likely didn't even know there was any integration in those games at all.

At the same time, circa the early 2010s, those developers who were best suited to creating really new, innovative games for non-gaming crowds were starting to shift their efforts toward the iPhone and Android platforms, where there was cash and a rapidly growing audience to be found, the insider says.

Problem #2: "85% magic, 15% frustrating"

The Kinect also introduced voice commands and a gesture interface to the Xbox 360 itself. You could pause a movie with your voice, or log in to your account on the console by standing in front of the camera.

But as cool as that all sounded, the Kinect was still a new technology, and there were some glitches with those cool new interface tricks.

"It does do magic, but only 85% correctly. When you encounter the 15%, it’s frustrating," the former Xbox insider said.

Serious gamers care about precise movements, like landing a perfect Super Combo in "Street Fighter IV" or nailing a headshot in "Call of Duty." Similarly, if you have voice controls for a movie, it had better work the first time, or else you're just shouting "pause" at your TV over and over.

In both cases, it wasn't quite the totally accurate experience that people wanted.

"It’s essentially a less precise replacement for a lot of things which, once the novelty wears off, is not valued by the market. So it’s real value is for new experiences impossible before without it. There isn’t enough interest or investment in those," the ex-insider says.

Problem #3: It required a lot of space.

Worse, the longer people used Kinect, the more they found places and situations where it just fell short and didn't work as well as it should have.

In my apartment, playing a Kinect game requires moving furniture around to give the sensor the field of view that it needs to work well. It's a big problem for lots of gamers, since you need 6 to 10 feet between you and the sensor.

Try playing that in a dorm room or small apartment.

"I'd be surprised if even 20% of rooms with Xboxes 'work well' for the really new/fun experiences," the former Xbox insider says.

Meanwhile, you can sit on a couch in a room of any size and play a more traditional video game.

A second push with the Xbox One

Despite these pros, Kinect adoption was fairly strong, at least partially because Microsoft was pushing it as part of those bundles with the wildly popular Xbox 360 console.

But not every Xbox 360 owner took the plunge: In January 2012, Microsoft announced that it had sold 18 million Kinects versus 66 million total Xbox 360 consoles.

A year after later, in February 2013, Microsoft Xbox community relations head Larry Hryb announced on Twitter that the company had sold 24 million Kinects for 76-million-plus Xbox 360 consoles, which suggests — but doesn't prove — that most of them were sold bundled with the console.

Microsoft wasn't ready to give up on the Kinect just yet, though.

When the Xbox One was first introduced in November 2013, Microsoft made the shocking announcement that the new console would come with and require a new version of the Kinect sensor. That meant the Xbox One would cost $499 versus the competing Sony PlayStation 4's $399 price tag.

In exchange for the $100 premium over the competition, Microsoft promised that the new system would provide an unprecedented user experience, including immersive games and television shows that you could actually interact with. Plus, it shipped with Bing-powered search and the Internet Explorer browser preinstalled.

For Microsoft, it was all part of its long-time ambition to place a computer in the living room. With the Kinect, Microsoft thought it had made a user-friendly multimedia hub with a natural interface that anybody could use for both games and media.

The Xbox One's core gamer demographic hated the idea. When the Xbox One hit the market in November 2013, it was quickly outsold by the cheaper PlayStation 4 for months after its launch. At one point, the PlayStation 4 outsold the Xbox One at a factor of 3 to 1. That early lead means PlayStation 4 still dominates the Xbox One in sales.

Microsoft refused to relent and doubled down on its message that the Kinect was the future.

That message was undercut by the fact that the Xbox One only launched with one game that needed the Kinect: The incredibly, poorly reviewed "Fighter Within," with a 23% average on review aggregation site Metacritic.

Furthermore, the actual Kinect for Xbox One sensor itself turned out to only be a minor improvement on the first, with some new, but still gimmicky, integrations with the interface. For instance, you could take a screenshot in a game by asking the Kinect, nicely, to do so.

The final retreat

In April 2014, the flagship "Kinect Sports Rivals" came out for the Xbox One. Published by Microsoft, it was going to be a big, if belated, showcase for what the new Kinect could do. It was a big bet for the company, with a team of 150 working on the title.

Instead, it ended up wildly underselling, ultimately getting written off as a massive loss that led to layoffs at developer studio Rare, according to reports at the time.

In May 2014, Microsoft finally relented on its insistence on the Kinect sensor and announced that it would sell a version of the Xbox One console without it for $399 — recently marked down again to $349. You can still buy a Kinect bundled with the Xbox One system for $499 or by itself for $150.

The move has significantly helped Xbox One's sales, and the gap between it and the leading Sony PlayStation 4 is getting smaller by the quarter.

But it meant that the estimated 5 million Xbox One owners who had bought their console before the Kinect unbundling were stuck with an accessory they didn't necessarily want in the first place. Meanwhile, only a handful of games support Kinect for Xbox One at all, and of those only a few received decent reviews.

And with the novelty gone after the first generation of Kinect for Xbox 360, even the most optimistic Xbox fans were out of patience with the device.

"Microsoft has only itself to blame for Kinect's failure," said a headline on Microsoft news site Neowin in May 2014.

The gloves were off.

The article's author noted that no new big flagship games had been announced for the Kinect for Xbox One — not even from Microsoft itself. That remained true for the rest of the lifetime of the Kinect.

In addition, Microsoft actually closed the TV studio it had opened to provide interactive TV content with Kinect in October 2014. In 2016, with the release of the Xbox One S, Microsoft removed the built-in Kinect port, requiring users to use an external USB adapter. That adapter was, in turn, officially discontinued at the end of 2017.

In other words, it really seems like Kinect had been swept under a rug, even before the official discontinuation.

Not game over

There's an interesting coda here: The Kinect has found a strange second life outside gaming.

Its nifty motion-tracking tech has a ton of other applications. In 2010, Adafruit CEO Limor Fried released a set of unofficial drivers to make the Kinect for Xbox 360 work with Windows — which allegedly annoyed Microsoft at first, but they came around and released an official version down the line.

From there, artists and robotics hobbyists started working the Kinect into all kinds of projects, Fried tells Business Insider.

This bizarre "PomPom Mirror" art piece uses a Kinect to match your motion, for example:

Elements of the Kinect made it into Windows itself: Windows Hello, the facial recognition system built into select Windows 10 PCs, uses similar infrared-tracking technology as the Kinect to work.

In short, with 23 million Kinects sold for the Xbox 360, and at least 5 million Xbox Ones sold that included the sensor, it's a little funny, and a little sad, that Microsoft couldn't make it work as the future of gaming.

But at least it's getting good use somewhere.

And when the Microsoft HoloLens, its futuristic wearable computer, comes out with a consumer version down the line, it's going to face a lot of the same problems with finding a niche. Notably, Kinect's product lead, Alex Kipman, is also responsible for the HoloLens.

But where Kinect led with gaming, Microsoft is being careful to reaffirm that the HoloLens has lots of commercial applications for business users, even as it shows off holographic "Minecraft" demos. 

Microsoft has become wary of trying to appease hardcore gamers alone, it seems.

SEE ALSO: Microsoft's cunning plan to save the Xbox from Apple

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The head of Xbox says this one product is 'critical' to the future of gaming

• The jackpot for Wednesday's Powerball drawing is up to $460 million.
• Though that's a pretty big prize, working through the math of how lotteries work suggests that buying a ticket is not a great investment.
• The low probability of winning and the risk of splitting the prize in a big, highly covered game mean you'd probably lose money.

The Powerball jackpot for Wednesday evening's drawing is up to $460 million.

That is a pretty big chunk of money. However, taking a closer look at the underlying math of the lottery shows that it's probably a bad idea to buy a ticket.

Consider the expected value

When trying to evaluate the outcome of a risky, probabilistic event like the lottery, one of the first things to look at is expected value.

The expected value of a randomly decided process is found by taking all the possible outcomes of the process, multiplying each outcome by its probability, and adding all those numbers. This gives us a long-run average value for our random process.

Expected value is helpful for assessing gambling outcomes. If my expected value for playing the game, based on the cost of playing and the probabilities of winning different prizes, is positive, then, in the long run, the game will make me money. If the expected value is negative, then this game is a net loser for me.

Lotteries are a great example of this kind of probabilistic process. In Powerball, for each $2 ticket you buy, you choose five numbers from 1 to 69 (represented by white balls in the drawing) and one from 1 to 26 (the red "powerball"). Prizes are based on how many of the player's chosen numbers match those drawn.

Match all five numbers on the white balls and the one on the red powerball, and you win the jackpot. After that, smaller prizes are given out for matching some subset of the numbers.

The Powerball website helpfully provide a list of the odds and prizes for those possible outcomes. We can use those probabilities and prize sizes to evaluate the expected value of a $2 ticket.

Take each prize, subtract the price of our ticket, multiply the net return by the probability of winning, and add all those values to get our expected value.

We end up with a negative expected value of -$0.11. That already suggests it doesn't make sense to buy a ticket, but considering other aspects of the lottery makes things even worse.

Annuity versus lump sum

Looking at just the headline prize is a vast oversimplification.

First, the $460 million jackpot is paid out as an annuity, meaning that rather than getting the whole amount all at once, it's spread out in smaller — but still multimillion-dollar — annual payments over 30 years.

If you choose instead to take the entire cash prize at one time, you get much less money up front: The cash payout value at the time of writing is $291 million.

If we take the lump sum, then, we end up seeing that the expected value of a ticket drops further below zero, to -$0.69, suggesting that a ticket for the lump sum is also a bad deal.

The question of whether to take the annuity or the cash is somewhat nuanced. The Powerball website says the annuity option's payments increase by 5% each year, presumably keeping up with or exceeding inflation.

On the other hand, the state is investing the cash somewhat conservatively, in a mix of US government and agency securities. It's quite possible, though risky, to get a larger return on the cash sum if it's invested wisely.

Further, having more money today is frequently better than taking in money over a long period, since a larger investment today will accumulate compound interest more quickly than smaller investments made over time. This is referred to as the time value of money.

Taxes make things much worse

In addition to comparing the annuity with the lump sum, there's also the big caveat of taxes. While state income taxes vary, it's possible that combined state, federal, and — in some jurisdictions — local taxes could take as much as half of the money.

Factoring this in, if we're taking home only half of our potential prizes, our expected-value calculations move deeper into negative territory, making our Powerball investment an increasingly bad idea.

Here's what we get from taking the annuity, after factoring in our estimated 50% in taxes. The expected value drops to -$0.89.

The tax hit to the lump-sum prize is just as damaging.

Even if you win, you might split the prize

Another problem is the possibility of multiple jackpot winners.

Bigger pots, especially those that draw significant media coverage, tend to bring in more lottery-ticket customers. And more people buying tickets means a greater chance that two or more will choose the magic numbers, leading to the prize being split equally among all winners.

It should be clear that this would be devastating to the expected value of a ticket. Calculating expected values factoring in the possibility of multiple winners is tricky, since this depends on the number of tickets sold, which we won't know until after the drawing.

However, we saw the effect of cutting the jackpot in half when considering the effect of taxes. Considering the possibility of needing to do that again, buying a ticket is almost certainly a losing proposition if there's a good chance we'd need to split the pot.

One thing we can calculate fairly easily is the probability of multiple winners based on the number of tickets sold.

The number of jackpot winners in a lottery is a textbook example of a binomial distribution, a formula from basic probability theory. If we repeat some probabilistic process some number of times, and each repetition has some fixed probability of "success" as opposed to "failure," the binomial distribution tells us how likely we are to have a particular number of successes.

In our case, the process is filling out a lottery ticket, the number of repetitions is the number of tickets sold, and the probability of success is the 1-in-292,201,338 chance of getting a jackpot-winning ticket. Using the binomial distribution, we can find the probability of splitting the jackpot based on the number of tickets sold.

It's worth noting that the binomial model for the number of winners has an extra assumption: that lottery players are choosing their numbers at random. Of course, not every player will do this, and it's possible some numbers are chosen more frequently than others. If one of these more popular numbers is drawn on Saturday night, the odds of splitting the jackpot will be slightly higher. Still, the above graph gives us at least a good idea of the chances of a split jackpot.

Most Powerball drawings don't have too much of a risk of multiple winners — the average drawing in 2017 has sold about 22 million tickets, according to our analysis of records from LottoReport.com, leaving only about a 0.3% chance of a split pot.

The risk of splitting prizes leads to a conundrum: Ever bigger jackpots, which should lead to a better expected value of a ticket, could have the unintended consequence of bringing in too many new players, increasing the odds of a split jackpot and damaging the value of a ticket.

To anyone still playing the lottery despite all this, good luck!

SEE ALSO: 21 lottery winners who blew it all

DON'T MISS: If you can solve one of these 6 major math problems, you could win a $1 million prize

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We tested an economic theory by trying to buy people's Powerball tickets for much more than they paid

• YouTube users have posted multiple copies of a controversial video YouTube star Logan Paul deleted on Monday.
• Two copies of the video, which includes images of the body of a suicide victim Paul encountered in Japan, were featured in the trending section of YouTube before they were removed a short time later.
• The incident highlights YouTube's struggle to monitor its service.

A controversial video from a YouTube star that showed the body of a suicide victim has found new life on the streaming video site — highlighting yet again the Google-owned company's struggle to police its service.

YouTuber Logan Paul apologized for and deleted the video, which depicts him coming across a body in a so-called suicide forest in Japan, on Monday. But by Wednesday, multiple copies of the video, which was originally posted late last month, were available on YouTube and had already garnered millions of views. Indeed, on Wednesday morning one copy was ranked second in YouTube's trending videos section, and another ranked 20th.

Those videos later disappeared from the trending section. But before they did, YouTuber Pia Muehlenbeck posted screenshots showing their ranking in the site's top-trending charts:

YouTube is removing some of the complete and partial copies of Paul's video when it determines they violate its guidelines, a company representative said in a statement. But the company isn't planning to remove all such videos.

"Videos containing parts of the original content without the graphic footage may remain up if they do not violate our guidelines," the representative said. "We are not removing these videos because many of them offer commentary and discussion on the original video."

Some of the copies of Logan's video include information about suicide prevention, a move that may have been designed to skirt YouTube's rules for posting graphic content.

On Tuesday, YouTube said Paul's video violated its policies and the company issued a "strike" against his page. But the fact that the video was uploaded again by other users and reached featured spots in a prominent section of the site echoes other problems the company has had maintaining control over what gets posted to and is promoted on its service.

In the immediate aftermath of the mass shooting in Las Vegas in October, for example, YouTube highlighted fake news clips about the incident in its search results. In response, the company rushed out a change to its search algorithm that was designed to prevent it from promoting fake news stories by pushing up results from established media outlets and users.

But the Paul video illustrates another weakness in YouTube's systems. Users can copy a controversial video, upload it, and game the site's search engine to reach the top of its list of trending videos, even if the video is in violation of YouTube's standards.

SEE ALSO: Logan Paul apologizes for filming a suicide victim

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The differences that matter between Splenda, Equal, Sweet’N Low, and sugar

• "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" took the gaming world by storm in 2017, with over 26 million copies sold.
• The game was only available on PC for much of its existence; as of December 12, it is available on the Xbox One as well.
• With nearly 70 million PlayStation 4 consoles and a wildly popular new Nintendo console in the Switch, owners want to know when "PUBG" is coming to their consoles.
• The answer: It may be awhile.

"PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" — "PUBG" as it's known — is a wildly popular video game that dominated the conversation about games in 2017.

It launched exclusively on PC back in March 2017, a $30 game available through the popular Steam digital storefront, and more recently on the Xbox One. Nearly 30 million people have already spent $30 for "PUBG" — yet, you can't play the biggest game of 2017 on a PlayStation 4, nor can you play it on Nintendo's wildly popular Switch console. 

Eventually, you may be able to do just that — the matter of when is still up in the air.

"It’s going to be an exclusive title on Xbox One for some time," PUBG Corp. CEO Chang Han Kim told Inven Global in a recent interview. "The final goal," he said, "would be to launch the title on every platform."

A spokesperson for PUBG Corp. wouldn't even offer up that much when we asked for the official statement. "The team is focusing on the game’s PC and Xbox Game Preview versions, and has nothing further to share at this time," we were told via email.

The truth, of course, is more complicated.

With over 70 million PlayStation 4 consoles sold and an expected 14 million Nintendo Switch consoles sold by March, there's plenty of good reason to bring "PUBG" as many places as possible. But "PUBG" has an exclusivity agreement with Microsoft that keeps the game locked to the Xbox One for an unknown amount of time. It could be a year, or three months, or something completely different! All we know is there's some form of agreement.

The game's creative director, Brendan "PlayerUnknown" Greene, told us in June 2017 that the decision to go with Microsoft was a measure of the Xbox One "Game Preview" program, a version of Steam's Early Access program that allows the public to buy and play unfinished games. 

"It allows us essentially to do Early Access on a console," Greene told us. 

There is no equivalent game on Sony's PlayStation 4, same with Nintendo's Switch (the one exception on PlayStation 4 being "Fortnite"). Since the game's launch for Xbox One on December 12, "PUBG" has received several major updates — but it still has a long way to go before it's considered "complete." The game feels incomplete, with seams showing everywhere. There is no projected "launch" window for the game's 1.0 version on Xbox One, and without that, it's hard to guess when the game could arrive on the PS4 and Switch. 

"We definitely do have plans for other platforms," Kim told us in an interview in June 2017. "But no details have been finalized yet." 

It took the game's development studio, PUBG Corp., all of 2017 to get the game's PC version to 1.0. It's entirely possible that the Xbox One version will take the same amount of time, to say nothing of versions on other consoles, but we just don't know. But given how the game is available on PC and Xbox One right now, Kim mentioning "other platforms" — platforms being plural — the PlayStation 4 and Switch are obvious choices.

It's easy to understand why "PUBG" caught on: It's a crazy game that's different every time you play it. You're one of 100 people parachuting to a massive island that's been deserted, but only after it was heavily furnished with weapons, ammunition, energy drinks, and medical packs. As time counts down, early scrounging turns to tense skirmishes with one or many players. Will you be the last one standing?

"PUBG" arrived as an "Early Access" game on PC, meaning it wasn't fully complete. Audiences took to the game anyway, embracing its janky nature as key to its charm. For now, that experience is exclusive to PC and Xbox One owners, but "PUBG" will eventually come to other platforms. 

SEE ALSO: A ton of great games came out this year — these are the 10 best

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: These popular devices keep a recording of everything you ask them — here's how to find it and delete it

• On Tuesday, NBC announced that Hoda Kotb would permanently replace Matt Lauer as coanchor of "Today."
• According to a Page Six report, Kotb's salary is about $18 million less than Lauer's was.
• Kotb told People she wouldn't be making "Matt Lauer money."

On Tuesday, NBC announced that Hoda Kotb would join coanchor Savannah Guthrie as the permanent replacement for Matt Lauer on the "Today" show. But her salary won't compare to his.

"I’m not making Matt Lauer money," Kotb told People. "Not even close.”

Kotb, who has been with the network since 1998, had been filling in for Lauer since he was fired from NBC in November for "inappropriate sexual behavior." Kotb has also cohosted the fourth hour of "Today" with Kathie Lee Gifford since 2008, and will continue to do so moving forward,according to NBC.

Page Six reports (citing "NBC sources") that Kotb will make the same as Guthrie: $7 million per year. At the time of his firing, Lauer was making $25 million a year. The salary difference brings to mind the substantial gender wage gap in the United States.

But Kotb doesn't seem too bothered by the disparity.

 “I think the whole money thing for me, I’ve always been sort of — I know it sounds ridiculous that I’m going to say this, but I really have done jobs I liked for the job I liked because I never wanted to be happy every other Friday on pay day," she told People. "Like, I didn’t want that to be the happy day."

SEE ALSO: NBC has some serious explaining to do

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: It's been 25 years since the band Hanson was formed — here's what they're up to now

• PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel is looking to develop a conservative cable-news outlet to rival Fox News, BuzzFeed News reports.
• Thiel had been working on the project with Fox News founder Roger Ailes before Ailes died in May, but has since moved forward with the project, according to the report.
• Thiel, who sits on Facebook's board, is a known adversary to outlets such as Gawker Media. Thiel funded a lawsuit which ultimately bankrupted Gawker in 2016.

Tech billionaire Peter Thiel has been in touch with the influential Mercer family about launching a new conservative cable network, BuzzFeed News reports.

Thiel, a Facebook board member who made his fortune at PayPal, is known to be President Donald Trump's biggest ally in Silicon Valley. And the Mercer family — Rebekah Mercer and her hedge-fund managing father Bob — are extremely powerful donors in the Republican Party.

Revelations about the news network came to light Wednesday in excerpts from a new book by journalist Michael Wolff called "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House." Wolff revealed that Thiel had previously looked into creating the network with Fox News founder Roger Ailes, who died in May last year.

But Thiel kept pursuing the idea after Ailes's death, according to BuzzFeed.

Thiel is known to take an adversarial stance toward some media companies. In 2016, it was revealed that Thiel bankrolled lawsuits against the popular blogging outlet Gawker Media, including one filed by former wrestling star Hulk Hogan, which ultimately bankrupted the company.

Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, was awarded $140 million in damages in March 2016 stemming from a Gawker news article published in 2012 that included footage of him having sex.

SEE ALSO: Peter Thiel's Founders Fund made a bet on bitcoin that's now worth hundreds of millions of dollars

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why your iPhone's battery life gets shorter over time

• In public appearances, Prince William is nearly always seen holding Prince George's hand, while Kate looks after Princess Charlotte.
• An expert on parenting told the Daily Mail she thinks it's to prepare George to become king.
• Business Insider put her theory to experts on royals to see what they had to say.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are some of the most down-to-earth royals — yet in some ways, they appear firmly traditional.

Ever wondered why in photos Prince William is always holding George's hand, while Kate holds Princess Charlotte? Jasmine Peters, an expert on relationships, thinks it's all part of preparing George to become king.

"Fathers are typically responsible for the disciplinary actions, redirection, protection, and provision of the family," she told the Daily Mail.

"It is not uncommon to see a father with his son to set the foundation of what his role and responsibilities will be in life with a family," she said. "It is often believed that it takes a man to raise a boy to be a man. If you look at the pictures it clearly reflects this common belief."

Describing the duke and duchess as "instinctive" parents, Peters continued: "Yes, it could reflect that Kate and William are traditional, but it also reflects the importance of the bond created between father and son and mother and daughter that they both treasure and hold dearly as responsible and loving parents."

"Children often equate their worth to the parent that looks like them," she added.

To test Peters' theory, Business Insider spoke to two royal commentators.

"Every parent raises their child in his or her way," Robert Jobson, an expert on royals who wrote the best-seller "Diana: Closely Guarded Secret," told Business Insider. "It usually comes down to the relationship between the individual child and parent as to who takes the lead in a particular relationship. But in William and George's case, it may be different."

Jobson added: "William, after all, is the only person — apart from the queen and Prince Charles — on the planet who knows what it's like to be the direct heir in line to the British throne, and only he knows what is expected of him. Therefore, perhaps it makes sense he takes the lead in that particular relationship when in public."

As you delve back into the photo archive, you can see a pattern emerging.

William was also the parent to take George to his first day at the Thomas's Battersea co-ed prep school, which costs £6,000 ($8,100) a term, in London in September.

William Hanson, a British manners and etiquette coach who often comments on royal protocol, told Business Insider: "Whether the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have knowingly chosen to look after their children in public in this way is unknown, but it is certainly a nice, subtle nod to the lineage and line of succession that is key to the British royal family."

SEE ALSO: These adorable photos show Prince George on his first day at the £18,000-a-year prep school where the most important rule is to 'be kind'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: It's been 25 years since the band Hanson was formed — here's what they're up to now

In popular music, negative reviews can often mean nothing to the everyday listener, who will flock to albums that critics have condemned.

To track this disparity, Metacritic provided Business Insider with data about which albums (since the year 2000) have most divided critics and regular listeners, looking at titles with high user scores and low critical averages.

The resulting list includes lesser works from the likes of Michael Jackson and 2Pac, as well as commercially successful but critically maligned acts like Matchbox 20 and Enya. 

Check out Metacritic's 37 albums that people love but critics hate, ranked by an increasing divergence of critic and user scores:

SEE ALSO: The 50 best-selling albums of all time

37. The Cult — "Beyond Good & Evil" (2001)

Critic score: 60/100

User score: 9/10

Difference: 30%

What critics said: "A study in stretching the limits of silliness, cliche and old-school rock'n'roll unreconstruction." — Mojo

36. Unified Theory — "Unified Theory" (2000)

Critic score:58/100

User score: 8.8/10

Difference: 30%

What critics said: "Like far too many bands whose members bring strong musical pedigrees to the project, Unified Theory's sum is less than its parts." — Wall of Sound

35. Tenacious D — "The Pick of Destiny OST" (2006)

Critic score:52/100

User score: 8.2/10

Difference: 30%

What critics said: "The only person this record would ever appeal to is the man who made it — Jack Black." — NME

• Nintendo's newest console is its fastest-selling of all-time, besting even the Nintendo Wii.
• The console has sold nearly 5 million units in the United States alone since launching in March.
• Nintendo had to revise its estimates upward for first year sales targets, from 10 to 14 million.

Nintendo's got an explosively popular console on its hands with the Nintendo Switch. 

It's so popular, in fact, that it's become the Japanese game company's fastest-selling game console ever in the United States — the largest market for Nintendo products. It's even surpassed the wildly popular Nintendo Wii console, which previously held the record.

More than just setting a new record for Nintendo, the speed at which the Switch is selling makes it the fastest-selling console ever in the United States. That's due in large part to a pair of heavy-hitter games from Nintendo released in the same year as the Switch: "Super Mario Odyssey" and "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild."

They're not just popular games — they're ubiquitous games if you're a Switch owner. Over 50% of all Switch owners own both games, and nearly two-thirds have already bought "Super Mario Odyssey." Another 50% own "Mario Kart 8 Deluxe" — that's three games that sold nearly 3 million copies apiece in the console's first 10 months of sales.

To be clear, these are absurdly high numbers, and they're especially impressive considering that the Switch only went on sale in March 2017. These are the kind of huge sales numbers that are pushing the Switch to best its predecessor's lifetime sales in its first year; Nintendo even had to revise its previous forecast for first year sales upward by 4 million units. (The only console to sell faster was Sony's PlayStation 4, which reached nearly 20 million units sold worldwide in its first year.)

And it sounds like momentum may only beget more momentum in this case, with a strong 2018 planned for the Switch. 

Nintendo has major games starring Kirby and Yoshi planned for the coming year, as well as a variety of major third-party games, and the console's online service is scheduled to go live in 2018. It's entirely possible — likely, even! — that there's far more we don't know about just yet, so we'll have to wait and see how the year plays out.

For now, though, Nintendo's doing better than it has in years — and that's directly due to the massive success of the Nintendo Switch console.

SEE ALSO: Nintendo is at the top of its game — here's what to expect in 2018

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Nintendo is dominating like the old days

On Sunday night, the biggest stars in TV and movies unite for the silliest and most thrilling awards show of the season: the Golden Globes. 

2017 was a great year for both film and television, so the competition is fierce. It's hard to know who to root for, and a little difficult to predict, especially because the Golden Globes has a history of being unpredictable, with some quirky choices in nominees and winners. 

In movies, Guillermo del Toro's creature love story "The Shape of Water" led everyone with seven nominations this year. Steven Spielberg's "The Post" and "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" each have six.

In television, the frontrunners are Hulu's "The Handmaid's Tale" in the drama category, Amazon's "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" for comedy, and HBO's "Big Little Lies" for miniseries. But that doesn't mean they're the only shows that will win: the Golden Globes is a mixed bag every year, so anything could happen — such as Freddie Highmore winning best actor for "The Good Doctor," one of the worst reviewed new shows of 2017.

Here's who we think will be winners (and who should win) at the 2018 Golden Globes:

Best Motion Picture, Drama

"Call Me by Your Name"

"Dunkirk"

"The Post"

"The Shape of Water"

"Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

Who will win: "The Post"

You can't underplay the fact that this award is being handed out by the Hollywood Foreign Press. Journalists love movies about journalists. Spielberg's movie has a good chance to take home the top prize of the night.

Who should win: "Dunkirk"

There honestly was no better made movie this year. Everything about Christopher Nolan's latest movie is incredible. Hopefully the voters haven't forgotten about its greatness (it did open in the summer).

Who could surprise us: "The Shape of Water"

It has the most nominations of any movie. That could lead to a surprise by the end of the night.

Best Director

Guillermo del Toro, "The Shape of Water"

Martin McDonagh, "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"

Christopher Nolan, "Dunkirk"

Ridley Scott, "All The Money in the World"

Steven Spielberg, "The Post"

Who will win: Steven Spielberg, "The Post"

This prize usually coincides with the movie that ends up with the big prize of the night, so Spielberg will likely get it. 

Who should win: Christopher Nolan, "Dunkirk"

Are you starting to see a theme here? "Dunkirk" is one of the movies Nolan will be remembered for. 

Who could surprise us: Ridley Scott, "All the Money in the World"

Scott has been working the press since his shocking decision to replace Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer. That could lead to a surprise win.

Best Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama

Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me by Your Name”

Daniel Day-Lewis, “Phantom Thread”

Tom Hanks, “The Post”

Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour”

Denzel Washington, “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”

Who will win: Gary Oldman, "Darkest Hour"

Oldman delivers a performance that just screams, "Give me all the awards!" 

Who should win: Gary Oldman

In a career filled with amazing performances, this is certainly one of his best.

Who could surprise us: Daniel Day-Lewis, "Phantom Thread"

It's supposedly his final acting performance. That could have hooked voters to give him a fond farewell. 

• Meryl Streep said in an interview with The New York Times that Dustin Hoffman slapping her in the filming of 1979's "Kramer vs. Kramer" was "overstepping."
• Hoffman has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women since November. 
• In 1979, Streep told Time that Hoffman groped her breast in her audition for "Kramer vs. Kramer."

In the wake of numerous sexual misconduct allegations against Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep discussed with The New York Times an incident between her and Hoffman in the filming of 1979's "Kramer vs. Kramer," when Hoffman slapped her on the face without warning.

In a joint interview with Tom Hanks, promoting their new film "The Post," Streep told the Times that Hoffman's slap in the first scene of the Oscar-winning film "Kramer vs. Kramer" was "overstepping." 

"This is tricky because when you're an actor, you're in a scene, you have to feel free," Streep said. "I'm sure that I have inadvertently hurt people in physical scenes. But there's a certain amount of forgiveness in that.

"But this was my first movie, and it was my first take in my first movie, and he just slapped me," she continued. "And you see it in the movie. It was overstepping."

Streep added that such behavior is "being corrected in this moment" because "people won't accept it anymore."

In a Time article from 1979 that resurfaced in November, following the allegations against Hoffman, Streep said Hoffman groped her breast in the audition for her role in "Kramer vs. Kramer."

Multiple women have accused Hoffman of sexual misconduct since early November, including two women who accused the actor of sexual assault. 

Hoffman's lawyer described the sexual assault allegations published by Variety in December as "defamatory falsehoods." 

Read the Times interview here.

SEE ALSO: All the women who have accused Dustin Hoffman of sexual misconduct

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Legislation is being introduced to close a legal loophole that prevents workplace sexual-harassment stories from going public