What you have heard
In order to protect our little flowers from the dangers of knowing what other people’s body parts look like, Britain will take the bold and welcome step of banning all porn from the internet! They are going to do this by first having ISPs filter porn websites, and then by pushing for search engine giants like Google, Bing, and Yahoo to filter out any porn related searches, especially any relating to violence and sex. This is a great day for decency, morality, and more importantly, the children.
Except
First and foremost I think the British government needs to understand that the last time someone used Yahoo as a search engine the number one hit song was by Kris Kross.
Now I’m not going to use this blog to argue the morality of pornography, but I’ll take the opportunity to look at this from a nerd’s perspective (as this is a nerd blog!) and I’ve got some questions. Most obviously, what the hell are you thinking? ISP filters will involve a black list, which means the ISPs now have to keep track of all the porn sites on the internet. There are already commercial products that do that, and they claim to block about 2.5 million sites. This sounds good, except the conservative estimate for porn sites on the internet is ten times that, or 25.4 million, and more aggressive estimates put it around 84 million*. Plus the 13,000 new porn sites added every day might be an issue. Add to that the fact that you have a $14 BILLION a year industry that is going to be working on technology to circumvent this black list; an easy task seeing it’s already readily available for free.
TOR (the onion router) is software that sends your packet requests through several other computers, which then retrieve the information and send it back to you encrypted (this is a HUGE oversimplification of how TOR works, but good enough for this article). Any child who really wanted to view porn could use TOR to work around the ISP filter; they would never be asking the ISP to connect them to a site on the black list. Porn in no way becomes less accessible to people who shouldn’t have it but are motivated to find it, it just becomes less convenient for people who have the right to have it.
That leads to search string filtering, and all I can say to that is “wow”. I’m not even going to go into the technical complications here. I’m not even going to talk about how search strings work. Instead, I’m just going to Google “rape”. The first 3 hits are the Wikipedia page, Google news on the topic, and the dictionary.com definition in order. Google knows I spend most of my idle time on the internet reading case law with a focus on the Supreme Court, so the next 20 or so results are a split between things like Kennedy v. Louisiana, Coker v. Georgia, and the local contact numbers for women's clinics in my area. It’s good to know that under this law the woman who types “I’ve just been violently raped, I need help” into her search engine, instead of getting the numbers to those groups, will instead have her search query blocked. For the children.
So what’s the deal?
This is child worship at its worst; the simple mention of the words “for the children” make us think that examining the logic of a solution or whether there is even a problem are irrelevant. There have been hundreds of hours of legislative debate on this subject, but at no point was Google or Microsoft invited to talk about things like how the internet works. At no time were there requests for studies on whether children use the internet to access porn, and if they do, whether they do it via web pages. This is theatre of law, which has become far more important than the law itself.
*4% of the 100 top sites on the internet are porn. 4% of all web sites is around 25.4 million. However, a random sampling of 100,000 sites not in the top 100 done in 2011 showed 13% of them as porn, which would put the total number of porn sites around 85 million.
Saturday 22 June 2013
Monday 17 June 2013
In Perspective - Special E3 (2013) edition
Sony
What you’ve heard
Sony wins E3! It doesn’t even have anything to do with games, it’s the fact that they respect the gamer. While Microsoft was off telling us how they are going to spy on us, control our games, not let us resell, and not let us play used games, Sony told us what we wanted to hear; that they respect us as gamers and are not going to do that crap. Sony understands! They have promised us that we will own our disc games and they are never going to do anything to restrict our ability to play them. That’s all we needed to hear!
Except
Sony? You know you’re talking about SONY right? Look don’t get me wrong, they were the clear favourite of E3 and they said exactly what they needed to capitalize on how poorly Microsoft has given the message of the “always on” Xbox One, but … SONY. They got a standing ovation for saying the PlayStation 4 doesn’t have any hard stop on playing used games, which is great until you remember that neither does the PS3, which is why all Sony games have online passes PREVENTING YOU FROM PLAYING USED COPIES OF THEM. And although they said they would discontinue that practice in the future, they hadn't said that when the ovation happened. This is the company that told us we could install any operating system we wanted on the PS3, and then changed their mind a year after release with an update they forced on everyone, breaking a lot of people’s PS3s in the process. This is the company that spent millions of dollars putting someone in jail because he restored that feature. This is the company that installed root kits (for the non-computer people, the absolute worst type of virus) on our computers to spy on us and see if we stole music. I could go on and on. Sony has been given a lot of opportunities to do right by the customer in the past and at every point they have chosen to screw them instead. They are a world leader in DRM investment and implementation, the driving force behind DHCP (a DRM technology for TVs) and were the first big gaming company to change their EULA so that you can’t sue them as a class action … after a hack leaked the user information of over 40 million people and resulted in 37 days of down time. Not to mention by the end of E3 they had already said they lied about two of the things they got applause for; the $399 PS4 is not necessarily the “base” model and 3rd party publishers can lock used games out of the PS4 if they want to. Oh and you now have to pay $5 a month to play games online. Oh and we said “disc games”, you totally can’t trade any digital games you buy and they have DRM locking them to your system. Champions of gamers' rights, Sony is not.
So what’s the deal?
Microsoft REALLY blew it, to the point where gamers heard what they wanted to hear and ignored the reality; Microsoft and Sony both don’t give a danm about gamers. That’s not how corporations work; they are there to make money doing whatever it takes, and in a world where 7 million people bought Skyrim (the most successful game sales wise in a long time that’s isn’t Call of Duty) while Wii Fit sold 40 million between it’s 2 skus, that has very little to do with appealing to the “core” gamer. Microsoft was very in your face about this from day one; it is very clear the Xbox One is being built for non-gamers, while Sony is doing a much better job of hiding this fact.
Microsoft (take two)
It’s OVER. The next generation war has been decided and Microsoft is out of the picture. No one is going to want an overpriced hunk of junk that can’t even play used games. No one wants a 24 hour check in. Why even bother putting this system out, it’s already lost.
Except
Microsoft stock is up 2% after E3, because what gamers saw and what investors saw was very, very different. While gamers are upset Microsoft is changing all the rules and are convinced it doesn’t have what it takes to compete with Sony for the core gamer (which may even be true), what investors saw was Microsoft positioning to compete with Apple, Google, and Steam in the only market that is going to matter in 3 years; content distribution. Imagine a world where games don’t cost $60, they cost $40 at most. A world where by waiting a few months you can pick the game up for half price, and maybe even 75% off on special sales. A world where if you really hate a video game after playing it you can return it for a refund. This is the all-digital world of Steam, and it’s fantastic. What if Microsoft had shared this vision with you, then tried to explain that it can only happen in a world where you can’t resell your used game (or buy used games) but it was worth giving that up. I think we would have been a bit more forgiving, seeing as tens of millions of people buy Steam's non-tradeable games right freaking now.
So what’s the deal
Instead of talking about this brave new world, they opened the conversation by screaming YOU BITCHES CAN’T SELL YOUR GAMES ANY MORE, SUCK IT and for this they deserve the backlash they are getting. Bottom line however, digital is the future and Microsoft has a digital strategy that works. We as gamers don’t like it much with good reason, but that’s mostly because everyone hates change and the change in this case is the core gaming no longer being the focus of a games company. Microsoft knows this, and isn't concerned. E3 doesn't really have an impact on the overall success of a system - and even if it does and Sony is the first to sell out, this isn't about the first million sales or even the first 10 million sales. In 8 years, it's going to be about who was the first to 40 million sales (The Xbox 360 hit 10 million sales before the PS3 hit 5 million, but today they are neck and neck at about 70 million each), and who is able to deliver more product to the installed base while keeping as much of the profit as possible. Microsoft has shown investors how it's going to do this; interactive TV, digital distribution, and true innovation. Sony showed them the 15 year old disc based model they hope is going to do them another 10 years.
Nintendo
The Wii U has NOTHING. Sure, we say a incredible line up of games, but nothing until late 2013 and most of them were games without a release date coming next year at best. What are they thinking! There is NO reason to buy a Wii U right now, and that’s not changing any time soon up to and including the critical holiday season. This is just stupid! How could they not have their own games ready by now, they have had 4+ years to develop them. Nintendo is DOOOOOOMED.
Except
No, that’s pretty much accurate. Except the last part. Look, the media just doesn’t GET Nintendo, and it’s easy to show why.
So what’s the deal?
Bioshock: Infinite was one of the best games ever made, with ground breaking advancements in first person game play, some of the best graphics we have seen to date anywhere, a orchestrated score on par with anything you seen on the big screen (and some licensed music to boot), advancement in AI, and a truly epic and gripping story. It was a true pinnacle of both art and gameplay and as video games go, its doesn’t really get much better. It wasn’t cheap though, with its estimated cost to market being around $150 million including promotion. Still, it paid off; only 2 months in and before any sales, DLC, or price drops it had sold 3 million copies across its 3 SKUs (PC, Xbox, PS3). Wow, big success right? Meanwhile, Animal Crossing: New Leaf is a Nintendo game that cost less than $10 million to make, features graphics out of the GameCube era and mostly 16 bit music, and gameplay consists of walking around town collecting bugs and rocks. Sometimes you go fishing. It sold 4 million copes on its opening weekend in Japan alone (before it’s North America release) and is responsible for anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 3DS sales. The NA release has 200,000 pre-orders. This is not a rare thing for Nintendo. New Super Mario Brothers Wii sold 27 million and Mario Kart Wii sold 37 million despite being the exact same game everyone who bought them already owns. Nintendo simply has, and always has had, a license to print money as they need it. In fact, for global sales numbers going back to NES days, the first 15 slots are owned by Nintendo and number 11 is freaking Nintendogs (which outsold titles like GTA on the PS2 and any single call of duty Sku.) This allows them a bigger liberty when making triple A games; they can deal with a few months or even a few years of failure and slow starts, funded by the fact that they can release the Wii Fit board at $100 and sell 40 million of them, with a total development cost less than what EA spends on most trailers. I think they are going to be A-OK.
What you’ve heard
Sony wins E3! It doesn’t even have anything to do with games, it’s the fact that they respect the gamer. While Microsoft was off telling us how they are going to spy on us, control our games, not let us resell, and not let us play used games, Sony told us what we wanted to hear; that they respect us as gamers and are not going to do that crap. Sony understands! They have promised us that we will own our disc games and they are never going to do anything to restrict our ability to play them. That’s all we needed to hear!
Except
Sony? You know you’re talking about SONY right? Look don’t get me wrong, they were the clear favourite of E3 and they said exactly what they needed to capitalize on how poorly Microsoft has given the message of the “always on” Xbox One, but … SONY. They got a standing ovation for saying the PlayStation 4 doesn’t have any hard stop on playing used games, which is great until you remember that neither does the PS3, which is why all Sony games have online passes PREVENTING YOU FROM PLAYING USED COPIES OF THEM. And although they said they would discontinue that practice in the future, they hadn't said that when the ovation happened. This is the company that told us we could install any operating system we wanted on the PS3, and then changed their mind a year after release with an update they forced on everyone, breaking a lot of people’s PS3s in the process. This is the company that spent millions of dollars putting someone in jail because he restored that feature. This is the company that installed root kits (for the non-computer people, the absolute worst type of virus) on our computers to spy on us and see if we stole music. I could go on and on. Sony has been given a lot of opportunities to do right by the customer in the past and at every point they have chosen to screw them instead. They are a world leader in DRM investment and implementation, the driving force behind DHCP (a DRM technology for TVs) and were the first big gaming company to change their EULA so that you can’t sue them as a class action … after a hack leaked the user information of over 40 million people and resulted in 37 days of down time. Not to mention by the end of E3 they had already said they lied about two of the things they got applause for; the $399 PS4 is not necessarily the “base” model and 3rd party publishers can lock used games out of the PS4 if they want to. Oh and you now have to pay $5 a month to play games online. Oh and we said “disc games”, you totally can’t trade any digital games you buy and they have DRM locking them to your system. Champions of gamers' rights, Sony is not.
So what’s the deal?
Microsoft REALLY blew it, to the point where gamers heard what they wanted to hear and ignored the reality; Microsoft and Sony both don’t give a danm about gamers. That’s not how corporations work; they are there to make money doing whatever it takes, and in a world where 7 million people bought Skyrim (the most successful game sales wise in a long time that’s isn’t Call of Duty) while Wii Fit sold 40 million between it’s 2 skus, that has very little to do with appealing to the “core” gamer. Microsoft was very in your face about this from day one; it is very clear the Xbox One is being built for non-gamers, while Sony is doing a much better job of hiding this fact.
Microsoft (take two)
It’s OVER. The next generation war has been decided and Microsoft is out of the picture. No one is going to want an overpriced hunk of junk that can’t even play used games. No one wants a 24 hour check in. Why even bother putting this system out, it’s already lost.
Except
Microsoft stock is up 2% after E3, because what gamers saw and what investors saw was very, very different. While gamers are upset Microsoft is changing all the rules and are convinced it doesn’t have what it takes to compete with Sony for the core gamer (which may even be true), what investors saw was Microsoft positioning to compete with Apple, Google, and Steam in the only market that is going to matter in 3 years; content distribution. Imagine a world where games don’t cost $60, they cost $40 at most. A world where by waiting a few months you can pick the game up for half price, and maybe even 75% off on special sales. A world where if you really hate a video game after playing it you can return it for a refund. This is the all-digital world of Steam, and it’s fantastic. What if Microsoft had shared this vision with you, then tried to explain that it can only happen in a world where you can’t resell your used game (or buy used games) but it was worth giving that up. I think we would have been a bit more forgiving, seeing as tens of millions of people buy Steam's non-tradeable games right freaking now.
So what’s the deal
Instead of talking about this brave new world, they opened the conversation by screaming YOU BITCHES CAN’T SELL YOUR GAMES ANY MORE, SUCK IT and for this they deserve the backlash they are getting. Bottom line however, digital is the future and Microsoft has a digital strategy that works. We as gamers don’t like it much with good reason, but that’s mostly because everyone hates change and the change in this case is the core gaming no longer being the focus of a games company. Microsoft knows this, and isn't concerned. E3 doesn't really have an impact on the overall success of a system - and even if it does and Sony is the first to sell out, this isn't about the first million sales or even the first 10 million sales. In 8 years, it's going to be about who was the first to 40 million sales (The Xbox 360 hit 10 million sales before the PS3 hit 5 million, but today they are neck and neck at about 70 million each), and who is able to deliver more product to the installed base while keeping as much of the profit as possible. Microsoft has shown investors how it's going to do this; interactive TV, digital distribution, and true innovation. Sony showed them the 15 year old disc based model they hope is going to do them another 10 years.
Nintendo
The Wii U has NOTHING. Sure, we say a incredible line up of games, but nothing until late 2013 and most of them were games without a release date coming next year at best. What are they thinking! There is NO reason to buy a Wii U right now, and that’s not changing any time soon up to and including the critical holiday season. This is just stupid! How could they not have their own games ready by now, they have had 4+ years to develop them. Nintendo is DOOOOOOMED.
Except
No, that’s pretty much accurate. Except the last part. Look, the media just doesn’t GET Nintendo, and it’s easy to show why.
So what’s the deal?
Bioshock: Infinite was one of the best games ever made, with ground breaking advancements in first person game play, some of the best graphics we have seen to date anywhere, a orchestrated score on par with anything you seen on the big screen (and some licensed music to boot), advancement in AI, and a truly epic and gripping story. It was a true pinnacle of both art and gameplay and as video games go, its doesn’t really get much better. It wasn’t cheap though, with its estimated cost to market being around $150 million including promotion. Still, it paid off; only 2 months in and before any sales, DLC, or price drops it had sold 3 million copies across its 3 SKUs (PC, Xbox, PS3). Wow, big success right? Meanwhile, Animal Crossing: New Leaf is a Nintendo game that cost less than $10 million to make, features graphics out of the GameCube era and mostly 16 bit music, and gameplay consists of walking around town collecting bugs and rocks. Sometimes you go fishing. It sold 4 million copes on its opening weekend in Japan alone (before it’s North America release) and is responsible for anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 3DS sales. The NA release has 200,000 pre-orders. This is not a rare thing for Nintendo. New Super Mario Brothers Wii sold 27 million and Mario Kart Wii sold 37 million despite being the exact same game everyone who bought them already owns. Nintendo simply has, and always has had, a license to print money as they need it. In fact, for global sales numbers going back to NES days, the first 15 slots are owned by Nintendo and number 11 is freaking Nintendogs (which outsold titles like GTA on the PS2 and any single call of duty Sku.) This allows them a bigger liberty when making triple A games; they can deal with a few months or even a few years of failure and slow starts, funded by the fact that they can release the Wii Fit board at $100 and sell 40 million of them, with a total development cost less than what EA spends on most trailers. I think they are going to be A-OK.
Saturday 8 June 2013
In Perspective- Saints Row 4 ban
What you've heard
Saints Row 4 is an abomination! First, there is a space mission where you take “alien drugs” to enhance your performance. This isn’t optional; you can’t progress in the game unless you give into drug use! Pretend drugs made by aliens, but drugs none the less!. Worse, the game has an alien weapon where you launch people into the air by ramming it up their backside. Sure, both are extremely tongue in check and clearly over the top comedy, but we can’t stand for sexual references or drug use of any kind in video games! Australia has already banned this game, and we should follow suit!
Except
Saints Row is an open world game where the story involves nothing more than various reasons to go around shooting people in the face. There are side missions and distractions that take this to the point of “A Clockwork Orange” style ultra-violence. You can drive tanks around blowing up city blocks for kicks, gaining rewards based on how much damage you do and how quickly you murder the law enforcement officers sent to stop you. There is a racing game where you score points for running over civilians (bonus points for setting them on fire!). Your main method of travel around town is carjacking. In short, it’s one of the most violent experiences you will ever come across, and it never even tries to justify this violence. You’re not fighting a war, you’re not saving the princess; you are most probably the bad guy or at best the anti-hero (you have some level of choice in your character's actions), using violence to get whatever you want. Saints Row is not at all unique in this. One of the main criticisms of Saints Row among the gaming community is that it is a shameless clone of Grand Theft Auto (which you might notice is a game named after a felony). In games like “Dungeon Keeper” you even play at the villain with no plot beyond "find the most horrid and amusing ways to kill the heroes sent to bring you to justice". Yet no one suggests banning these games, and the over the top level of violence isn’t a factor in the outrage to Saints Row.
So what’s the deal?
The fact that we have evolved a society where sex is more shocking and has a harsher social stigma then violence or even murder is nothing new, and it has lead to apathy and acceptance of arbitrary morality. Something is morally objectionable not because of an inherent right or wrongness, but because of outcry from the right people, and because we hear that outcry often enough in the right places. Ironically, Saints Row speaks to this in one of its own mini-games. In Professor Genki's super ethical reality climax, you take part in a blood sport that has you killing people in plush animal costumes for the amusement of others ... but you can’t shoot the pandas because that would be unethical. In doing so it briefly shows its true colors as a brilliant satire.
Saints Row 4 is an abomination! First, there is a space mission where you take “alien drugs” to enhance your performance. This isn’t optional; you can’t progress in the game unless you give into drug use! Pretend drugs made by aliens, but drugs none the less!. Worse, the game has an alien weapon where you launch people into the air by ramming it up their backside. Sure, both are extremely tongue in check and clearly over the top comedy, but we can’t stand for sexual references or drug use of any kind in video games! Australia has already banned this game, and we should follow suit!
Except
Saints Row is an open world game where the story involves nothing more than various reasons to go around shooting people in the face. There are side missions and distractions that take this to the point of “A Clockwork Orange” style ultra-violence. You can drive tanks around blowing up city blocks for kicks, gaining rewards based on how much damage you do and how quickly you murder the law enforcement officers sent to stop you. There is a racing game where you score points for running over civilians (bonus points for setting them on fire!). Your main method of travel around town is carjacking. In short, it’s one of the most violent experiences you will ever come across, and it never even tries to justify this violence. You’re not fighting a war, you’re not saving the princess; you are most probably the bad guy or at best the anti-hero (you have some level of choice in your character's actions), using violence to get whatever you want. Saints Row is not at all unique in this. One of the main criticisms of Saints Row among the gaming community is that it is a shameless clone of Grand Theft Auto (which you might notice is a game named after a felony). In games like “Dungeon Keeper” you even play at the villain with no plot beyond "find the most horrid and amusing ways to kill the heroes sent to bring you to justice". Yet no one suggests banning these games, and the over the top level of violence isn’t a factor in the outrage to Saints Row.
So what’s the deal?
The fact that we have evolved a society where sex is more shocking and has a harsher social stigma then violence or even murder is nothing new, and it has lead to apathy and acceptance of arbitrary morality. Something is morally objectionable not because of an inherent right or wrongness, but because of outcry from the right people, and because we hear that outcry often enough in the right places. Ironically, Saints Row speaks to this in one of its own mini-games. In Professor Genki's super ethical reality climax, you take part in a blood sport that has you killing people in plush animal costumes for the amusement of others ... but you can’t shoot the pandas because that would be unethical. In doing so it briefly shows its true colors as a brilliant satire.
Wednesday 5 June 2013
E3 2013 Predictions
As busy as I am, I can't help but take some time to talk about E3 and what I see coming down the pipe! Here are my top predictions for things not already leaked and speculated by hundreds of other sources.
Nintendo is going to steal the show by not being there
I’ve already covered Nintendo’s decision to pass on E3 this year as being far from shocking, but now that we’ve had a chance to see their “plain B” I’m very excited. Rather than have a few playable stations at the show to share with the media, Nintendo is shipping out hundreds of preview Wii U games to Best Buy while doing a Nintendo direct to talk about them. E3 might be nerd Christmas, but you don’t have to go too far from the hardcore of hardcore before you find gamers who don’t even know E3 is this weekend. That all changes when the weekend I can check a game website for news becomes the weekend I can go play the next Zelda game at Best Buy months before it's released. By simple numbers, more people will be plugged in and aware of what Nintendo is doing then Microsoft or Sony.
Someone special is going to be on stage with Microsoft
Microsoft has something Sony and Nintendo can never match; a boatload of money. With a lacklustre reception to the Xbox One reveal from gamers, it’s pretty much a sure thing that they are going to double down at E3 and just toss money at the problem. Let’s be honest; having Steven Spielberg on board for a halo series was only big enough for an off mention at the reveal, and Xbox execs have been seen a whole lot of places they shouldn’t be lately. Add that to rumours that MS is looking to restructure to give Xbox more resources and money, I think we are going to see a true shocker of a partnership at E3. I’m talking steam on Xbox, big screen movies on Xbox before they are in theatres or a Naughty Dogs Xbox exclusive shocker.
Sony “focus on games” will be exactly the opposite of that
From tweeting “slow news day” the day of the One reveal to saying that the PS4 is different than the Xbox in that it plays games, Sony has come out of the gates swinging. Now at E3 they will have a chance to show off core games for core gamers ... and will absolutely not do that. I’m not down on Sony; I’m just sceptical they have the ability to keep a large number of games secret in today’s leak saturated world. Xbox has teased 11 exclusive games, and a week before the event I could tell you what 6 of them are and what studios are developing 3 of the remaining 5. The two I have no idea about are new IPs from Microsoft studies, making it easy for them to keep them under wraps. For Sony I’ve got nothing. Naughty Dogs just made last of us, Forsa 4 is a PS3 exclusive, Square isn’t doing anything exclusive, and pretty much everyone else “Sony friendly” has checked in at this point. Sony’s E3 is going to show off some gimmicky crap and a new Kill Zone and Infamous, then a bunch of games you can play on your PC or Xbox.
Microsoft is going to tank a franchise (most likely Halo)
To the bold goes the spoils! You have to understand something about “install base”. There are about 60 million Xbox 360s out there, meaning if you make an Xbox 360 game 60 million people can buy it, and a percentage will buy it. If you cross platform it with the PS3, then 120 million people can buy it. Best case a new console is going to sell around 5 million in its first year so that’s only 5 million who can buy your game and about the same percentage that will. The sales you can count on if you put out a game exclusive to your new system are pretty horrible, so the risk vs. reward becomes picking a game that people will want to play enough that they buy your new system without picking a game where loss of sales opportunity will tank the franchise. Sony is clearly not willing to do this with all its big name games already announced on PS3 (one exclusively) but going in line with the “just toss money at the problem” stance I think MS is going to take look for at least one big game skipping the 360. I see this most likely being Halo 5 or Fable 3 (or both).
It’s interesting to note that Nintendo never has this problem and it’s been key to their ability to move system in the past after slow starts (game cube, 3DS). If Nintendo puts out a game system in January, the last first party game ever that will play on the old hardware came out in December, every time.
People will still believe Peter Molyneux for some reason
Fable 3 is going to change gaming forever. Nah, it's going to change the world. Every chose you make in the game will have a drastic effect on not just the living, breathing, connected system that is Fable 3 but will impact the decisions of world leaders and the UN. The moral dilemmas you encounter in the game will be so core to the human experience that the game will serve to end every major world conflict kind of like Bill and Ted do with their music. As ridiculous as this sounds, it's not even close to the bullshit that is actually going to come out of Molyneux's mouth at E3. And we'll believe him. Again. And it will all be a crap. Again. And Fable 3 will be a great but largely forgettable game that never comes into it's stride. Again.
Nintendo is going to steal the show by not being there
I’ve already covered Nintendo’s decision to pass on E3 this year as being far from shocking, but now that we’ve had a chance to see their “plain B” I’m very excited. Rather than have a few playable stations at the show to share with the media, Nintendo is shipping out hundreds of preview Wii U games to Best Buy while doing a Nintendo direct to talk about them. E3 might be nerd Christmas, but you don’t have to go too far from the hardcore of hardcore before you find gamers who don’t even know E3 is this weekend. That all changes when the weekend I can check a game website for news becomes the weekend I can go play the next Zelda game at Best Buy months before it's released. By simple numbers, more people will be plugged in and aware of what Nintendo is doing then Microsoft or Sony.
Someone special is going to be on stage with Microsoft
Microsoft has something Sony and Nintendo can never match; a boatload of money. With a lacklustre reception to the Xbox One reveal from gamers, it’s pretty much a sure thing that they are going to double down at E3 and just toss money at the problem. Let’s be honest; having Steven Spielberg on board for a halo series was only big enough for an off mention at the reveal, and Xbox execs have been seen a whole lot of places they shouldn’t be lately. Add that to rumours that MS is looking to restructure to give Xbox more resources and money, I think we are going to see a true shocker of a partnership at E3. I’m talking steam on Xbox, big screen movies on Xbox before they are in theatres or a Naughty Dogs Xbox exclusive shocker.
Sony “focus on games” will be exactly the opposite of that
From tweeting “slow news day” the day of the One reveal to saying that the PS4 is different than the Xbox in that it plays games, Sony has come out of the gates swinging. Now at E3 they will have a chance to show off core games for core gamers ... and will absolutely not do that. I’m not down on Sony; I’m just sceptical they have the ability to keep a large number of games secret in today’s leak saturated world. Xbox has teased 11 exclusive games, and a week before the event I could tell you what 6 of them are and what studios are developing 3 of the remaining 5. The two I have no idea about are new IPs from Microsoft studies, making it easy for them to keep them under wraps. For Sony I’ve got nothing. Naughty Dogs just made last of us, Forsa 4 is a PS3 exclusive, Square isn’t doing anything exclusive, and pretty much everyone else “Sony friendly” has checked in at this point. Sony’s E3 is going to show off some gimmicky crap and a new Kill Zone and Infamous, then a bunch of games you can play on your PC or Xbox.
Microsoft is going to tank a franchise (most likely Halo)
To the bold goes the spoils! You have to understand something about “install base”. There are about 60 million Xbox 360s out there, meaning if you make an Xbox 360 game 60 million people can buy it, and a percentage will buy it. If you cross platform it with the PS3, then 120 million people can buy it. Best case a new console is going to sell around 5 million in its first year so that’s only 5 million who can buy your game and about the same percentage that will. The sales you can count on if you put out a game exclusive to your new system are pretty horrible, so the risk vs. reward becomes picking a game that people will want to play enough that they buy your new system without picking a game where loss of sales opportunity will tank the franchise. Sony is clearly not willing to do this with all its big name games already announced on PS3 (one exclusively) but going in line with the “just toss money at the problem” stance I think MS is going to take look for at least one big game skipping the 360. I see this most likely being Halo 5 or Fable 3 (or both).
It’s interesting to note that Nintendo never has this problem and it’s been key to their ability to move system in the past after slow starts (game cube, 3DS). If Nintendo puts out a game system in January, the last first party game ever that will play on the old hardware came out in December, every time.
People will still believe Peter Molyneux for some reason
Fable 3 is going to change gaming forever. Nah, it's going to change the world. Every chose you make in the game will have a drastic effect on not just the living, breathing, connected system that is Fable 3 but will impact the decisions of world leaders and the UN. The moral dilemmas you encounter in the game will be so core to the human experience that the game will serve to end every major world conflict kind of like Bill and Ted do with their music. As ridiculous as this sounds, it's not even close to the bullshit that is actually going to come out of Molyneux's mouth at E3. And we'll believe him. Again. And it will all be a crap. Again. And Fable 3 will be a great but largely forgettable game that never comes into it's stride. Again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)