My Completely Erroneous Opinion: Best Final Fantasy Game

Hey everyone, Head Pirate here.  I hope you enjoyed “We Should Stop”.  I've been working on smaller, more periodical type articles and it’s been going over well, so here is another to share with you.  Should the positive response continue into the New Year, I hope to put together a release schedule of 2 to 3 small themed pieces a week)

I spend a lot of my time debunking popular opinion in “against the flow” or fact checking it in “In Perspective” but in My Complete Erroneous Opinion it’s time to look at what I think; the opinions I hold that are not simply different or unpopular, but are flat out wrong.

The Best Final Fantasy game

Every time a new Final Fantasy game comes out, everyone talks about the glory that is Final Fantasy 7.  But I don’t think it’s the best Final Fantasy game ever made; it’s not even in my top 5!  So below are 5 games in the series that, in my completely erroneous opinion, are better than Final Fantasy 7

Number 5: Final Fantasy Adventure

Long before Pokémon, at a time when I still though Game & Watch was the cutting edge of portable entertainment, this GameBoy classic offered limitless hours of adventure, monster catching, and is the first GameBoy game I can remember that bothered with a story.  It somehow took what was lovable about the original NES classic and gave it infinite replay value, back in a time where that wasn’t really a thing.  After 23 years and countless games, this is still one of the most memorable and enjoyable Final Fantasy games I have ever played, and that’s good enough to land it in my number 5 spot.

Number 4: Final Fantasy: 13-2

I don’t understand why this game gets so much hate.  It was a huge improvement over FF13 and added the exploration, open world, side quests, and switched to a non-liner format; everything the fans were asking for.  The visuals were ahead of the times, the soundtrack was varied, memorable, and appropriate*, and game play was improved in every possible way.  It was also very true to what makes Final Fantasy what it is … but these points are better covered in my number 3 entry, a game which in itself defines the series and perfectly captures its uniqueness.

Number 3: Final Fantasy X2

No I’m serious.  Look, Final Fantasy is more than just a great RPG, and it does a lot to define itself as something different then Dragon Quest, Shin Megami Tensei, Tales, or any of the dozen or so similar series.  Final Fantasy games have a clearly identifiable theme; a coming of age or end of innocence story revolving around crystals and a chosen one.  Equally important is the way the story is told; focusing on the importance of connections between people and the different roles everyone plays in how the events unfold.  It’s a world where not everyone gets to be the hero, and some of the main characters might need to make the ultimate sacrifice before the end.  The games often shifts the characters you are playing to force you to see another side to the same conflict, or to experience an unforeseen consequence to your actions.  Final Fantasy can also be defined by a strange balance between the critical and the absurd; one moment you’re fighting the Lord of Chaos in an almost futile attempt to prolong the end of the days, the next your singing in an opera or betting on Chocobo races in the middle of a floating city.  If you could quantify what makes a game “Final Fantasy” then X2 is without question the most “”Final Fantasy” game every made.  It focuses exclusively on the things that make Final Fantasy what it is.  This game in itself is the unforeseen consequence and the change in perspective from X, which is why it’s the first true sequel in the franchise.  It was an experiment in stretching that core experience of storytelling over two games so even the mechanics could shift to aid the change in paradigm.  For all the questionable ways this changed the gameplay and mood of the first game, I think it worked perfectly in doing exactly that.

Also, dresses!

Number 2: Final Fantasy 14 online:  A Realm Reborn

The vocal monitory of gamers are known for hating at lot of thing, but perhaps none have a higher hate to lack of merit ratio then the online play being added to traditionally single player experience.  No matter how often the publishers try to explain how budget based on sale potential and human resources work, they continue to belief the only way to add multi-player is by taking something away from the single player.  The cardinal sin of online play is when a single player franchise decides it wants to build an MMO, an offence Final Fantasy has imposed on its fans not once, but 3 times with FF11, 14, and “A realm reborn”.

FF11 was underwhelming, but came at a time when MMOs were all the rage and we were more willing to forgive.  Besides, we had just come off the X and X2 high, so it’s not like we had gone a long time without a great Final Fantasy game to play.  14, on the other hand, was given to us not only after the poorly received 13, but at a point where MMO saturation had reached a critical mass; every MMO other than WoW was falling, we had gotten Star Wars: The Old Republic instead of Knights of the Old Republic 3, and we just found out Elder Scroll Online would get to us before the next single player game in the series.  Worse, the game itself suffered for a serious case of the suck; content without context and activity without any fun.  In a surprising move for a publisher (less surprising for a Japanese publisher to be honest) Square acknowledged the game was garbage and invited everyone to keep playing it for free until they made a new one.  2 years later we got “A realm reborn” and it delivered.

With a theme and characters that focused on a perfect mix of the serious, the cute, and the absurd, it feels just like a Final Fantasy game should.  The single player focused plot-line does a great job of giving you the heroic feeling missing from most MMOs as well as something to do when you were alone, while cut scenes and character interaction build real connections between the player and the world around him (although you have to suspend disbelieve a bit and not question how these characters had the same deeply personal relationship with everyone else in your party).  Beyond that it’s just a great MMO that constantly motivates you to play and rewards you for doing so.  For that, FF14RR deserves praise on every level; it’s a great single player Finial Fantasy game, it’s a great MMO, and its’ the first time a game has given us both without completely messing up one or the other.

Number 1: Bravely Default

Are you honestly going to argue that because a game doesn't have the words “Final Fantasy” in the title, we should ignore its crystal focused adventure where you use X-Potions and Ethers while casting Fira or Esuna and switching jobs?  I don’t think so.  Bravely Default is more a Final Fantasy game than half the numbered sequels, and flawlessly strikes the balance between what we expect from a modern video game and what our nostalgia demands of the series.  Add to that an incredibly strong end of innocence story, fantastic characters you can’t help but care about, and a half naked fairy that follows you around FOR NO GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER and you have, without question, the best Final Fantasy game ever made.

Although I like to encourage intelligent and thoughtful discussion with most of my blog posts, in this case feel free to flame me about how wrong I am in the comments below!  I already know that.  Or tell me about your opinions that are way out there.

* Gas ‘em up with the greens and let him go Stand back, stand clear as he puts on a show So cute yet fierce, is he from hell? I cannot tell, yet I don’t even want to know So you wanna be a trailblazer? Kickin’ dirt like a hell raiser? Take the reins, but don’t react slow It’s time to feel the force of the chocobo

So you think you can ride this chocobo? Got Chocobucks? You better put them on this chocobo! Saddle up, if you think you can ride in this rodeo Are we in hell? I don’t know… to the dirt, let’s roll! You’re loco if you think you’re gonna hide this chocobo Everybody’s gonna wanna ride your chocobo It’s choco-loco style in a choco-rodeo Gonna ride him straight through hell in this chocobo rodeo! Yeah, let’s ride!

We Should Stop: Calling Steam DRM

(Hey everyone following me on IGN.  First, I just wanted to say thank you.  I also wanted to apologize for not being as active over here as I would have liked.  Some real life stuff got in the way, but I’m hoping that I’ll be back when a vengeance and frequent updates very soon.  This is the first in a new series I’m going to be running every week or two.  My monthly “against the flow” will also return within the next few days)

In We Should Stop, The Head Pirate looks the things we all say and do as gamers, and picks apart the things we all do but really shouldn't be doing.

Nothing New

The only thing new about DRM (which stands for digital rights management) is the “D”.  All video games, whether they come on a cartage, a CD, or you download them from the internet, are software and software ownership has always been an inherently tricky thing.  When I (read: My Parents) paid $40 for Super Mario Brothers for the NES it sure looked like I was “buying” something.  I had a physical copy that came in a nice box and I could trade it, resell it, or do anything I wanted with it.  However, unlike my 10-speed BMX bike or my sweet racing car bed, there was something different about my NES cartridge. I didn’t understand it at the time but it was very easy for me to make a copy of the software on the cartridge.  Because of this, when Nintendo sold it to me they needed to be clear they were not transferring ownership of the code itself and that I was simply licensing the software for my own personal use.  I was expressly forbidden from reproducing it for profit.  Simply asking nicely (and having me agree to a mostly non-binding EULA) wasn’t the only tool Nintendo had to keep people from re-selling games however; there was a small chip in the NES that would detect unlicensed or duplicated games and prevent them from running. This is how, way back in 1983, “Rights Management”  for video games was born; a physical system that managed the end users right to use the software on NES cartridges, as well as developer’s rights to publish games on the system.

While copying a NES cartage was “easy” the cost of bootleg cartridges and the hardware needed was prohibitive enough that it wasn't much of a problem.  That changed significantly when games on the PC started to get popular.  Anyone could easily make a copy of a computer game and distribute it on a floppy disk or CD.  While the cost of a single copy had gone down, the cost of mass production was still expensive enough to keep large scale pirating limited to organized groups.  Then the internet changed everything; now anyone with the time and bandwidth could mass distribute a game with minimal effort.  Something needed to be done, but what?

Thief prevention good, rights reductions bad

I’ve never met anyone who complains about how unreasonable it was for a store to expect you to make your way over to the checkout and pay for something.  Sure, they could just use the honor system and we could toss money on the floor, but we understand that there are some bad people in the world and this minor step is justified by the retailer trying to protect their investment.  This should be just as true for digital video games, and to me is the biggest area where we all get DRM wrong.  DRM is not theft prevention.  Thief prevention is the idea that you need to take some minor step to prove you've paid for a product at the store, and we all agree it’s pretty reasonable (or at the very least do it every day without much fuss).  In the 90s and early 2000s most games had some form of copy protection that required you to use a code wheel or a CD key to verify you had a legal copy.  This isn't DRM because it’s not managing your rights to the software but simply checking to see if you bought it.

DRM, as we know it today, started with Sony Music.  Beyond trying to stop people from selling illegal copies, they didn't like the idea of someone buying a CD, ripping it to a computer, and leaving the original in the car.  They saw a real potential for lost income.  In the past, if you had two children who both liked the same artists, you needed to get them each a CD.  Game developers loved this line of thinking and set about including software that would limit the number of times a game could be installed, would require an online check, or any number of annoyances to not just ensure the person playing the game had paid for it, but that the digital rights in the EULA were being followed to the letter*.  This is the DRM we all know and hate, and with good reason.  Instead of trying to prevent some people from stealing, companies had started to assume we were all stealing and they needed to limit our rights in order to mitigate the damage we could do with our ill-gotten products.  At its peak we saw games like "Spore" which only offered a single install for any reason.  Change your video card, format your PC, or even suffer a hardware melt down and you’re out of luck.  You need to go buy a new copy.

Failure to launch

Any time Steam makes its way into a conversation about DRM, the fault is always directed at the launcher.  Without it installed you can’t play your Steam games.  This looks a lot like DRM:  even though an offline mode is offered, you have to be online and install every game first before you can use them without being connected to the internet.  But Steam is a digital store front, and being online to buy the game is a requirement.  It’s like going up to the counter and paying for your product in a brick and mortar shop and is simply a method of thief prevention.  If you need to install the game again, you have to be online again in the same way you need to show a receipt in a physical store.  There is no attempt by Steam to limit the number of computers the game is installed on, no activation limit, or anything of the sort.  My steam account has active copies of games I only bought once on 7 PCs right now, and I can play them “offline” on all 7 at the same time.  Although I’m not doing anything illegal (they are all my PCs and I don’t use them at the same time) this is exactly the type of things DRM exists to prevent.  While there are games on Steam that require an online connection, or use 3rd party DRM, Steam itself is not the reason.

So why dose Steam have a launcher at all, and why is it required?  Turns out it isn't.  Valve offers a DLL to developers that helps them to a number of things, mostly related to updating games and adding supports for the Valve servers and Steam Workshop.  It’s an investment on their part; they know an old game is more likely to sell if it is updated to include modern resolutions and supports a game pad, they make more money the more copies that sell, but they know must developers are not going to spend the time and money into coming up with the code themselves.  Games that require this code require the launcher**.  Games that don’t utilize this code or other online features don’t require the launcher to run.

The final Word

DRM is a very horrible thing, and we all are right to oppose it.  We also need to be mindful of the message we send in opposition.  While it’s reasonable for us to reject any reduction in the rights we have when buying software, it’s also reasonable for the companies we are buying from to do what they can to prevent theft.  Steam is a digital distribution service that does what it can to keep people from stealing games, but does nothing to manage digital rights.  It’s not perfect, but it’s the best of two imperfect worlds.  By opposing it we are telling the music and gaming industry they are right; we are all thieves, and we want to be able to steal things.  We should stop doing that.

*And more so.  For the last 10 years EULA have been used increasingly to challenge or force users to forfeit long held rights like the “first sale doctrine” in the US with overwhelming success.  While most of the blame is with the music and motion picture industry, game companies are more than happy to take advantage of the latest legal wins.

**They require steam_api.dll to be loaded.  Although this is possible to do without the launcher present, for the sake of the average user this is a fair statement.

The Resolution Wars - We all lose.

It seems we can't go longer then 24 hours without a new article asking if a new game is 1080p or not, and what that means for the game or the system it's on. And when a game is 1080p, we talk about frame rate, up-scaling vs. native, and whatever other numbers we can think of.  But why?  Is it really important?  Do more pixels make a better game?  I tried to examine this trend in the gaming industry as objectively as possible, without making it about the consoles themselves.  This is what I found.

Smoke and Mirrors

What’s the name of the regulating body that tests a game when it claims to be “1080p, 60FPS”?  What’s the agreed upon standard for how much of the game needs to be at the resolution and frame rate?  What’s to prevent someone from saying a game is 1080p/60 because a pre-rendered cut scene is in the game at that resolution, or because at one point there are two 1920x1080 frames drawn 1/60th of a second apart even if it never happens again?  Nothing at all, obviously.  As with any unregulated marketing buzzword, the more we tell publishers that saying a game is 1080p is more important than any aspect of a game itself, the more we are going to encourage some shady marketing.  Sony is already facing a law suit (which recently got the green-light to proceed as a class action) over the use of ” temporal reprojection”, a tactic to make a game look like it’s producing a solid 1080p image when it’s really not.  A lawsuit that they will almost certainly win by simply arguing what I said above; 1080p is a meaningless claim they are under no obligation to deliver on.   Diablo’s console port takes this creative resolution labeling to the next level as the game was built from the ground up to be able to claim 1080p/60 without ever having to draw 1920x1080 pixels 60 times a second .  Instead, the game renders the camera control image at 1080p/60 independent of the actual game play.  This allows the game to effectively drop frames without slowing down.  It also prioritizes drawing the pixels closer to the players focus (the character) and will sometimes fail to refresh the sides of the screen without dropping frames completely.  I’m not calling Blizzard out as being deceptive for this and these tricks are used fairly infrequently in the final build of the game, but it’s clear they devoted a significant amount of time, money, and tech wizardry to ensuring the 1080p claim above any other priority.  And was it worth it?  The answer looks to be a definitive no.

We live in a world of day one patches, which sometimes gives us a window into the game that could have been.  For Diablo, both a 900p and a 1080p version of the game that were available to the media and review sites for almost a month before the day one patch upped the resolution (I’m deliberately ignoring the fact they were on different consoles because that’s not what this is about).  The 1080p version saw game play frame rates drop as low as 40PS and notable visual hiccups, while the 900p version ran a flawless 60FPS.  Upon release, a patch brought both versions to 1080p and significantly reduced the frame rate problems at that resolution ... but didn't eliminate them.  From an objective, numbers to numbers  standpoint The 900p game simply ran better. So why aren't we playing that?  Why didn't the day one patch LOWER the resolution of the flawed 1080p version to the flawless 900p restitution, instead of focusing on fixing as much as possible at the higher resolution?  Microsoft and Sony knew that would never cut it.  They need to listen to the players, and the players didn't want the game in a lower resolution simply because it was better. We want the game it in the resolution that we've made our holy grail.  And why wouldn't we?  The 1080p experience is visually superior to 900p , and that’s a good thing.  Unfortunately for that argument, almost every site that had access to both the 900p and 1080p game say there is no noticeable difference in visuals, with a few even saying the 900p game lookedbetter because of the way the tech wizardry I mentioned earlier interacted with dense particle effects and busy fights.  Some did their best to point out subtle differences that justified the focus on resolution, but no one talked of dramatic, earth shattering differences.  This shouldn't surprise us however; we known that for years.

Meaningless Numbers

1080p is shorthand for “One thousand and eighty lines of resolution, scanned progressively”, and based off that alone we already have a problem.  Progressive refers to the way a television creates an image by drawing every line when it refreshes, as opposed to “interlacing” which only draws half the lines every refresh.  It’s almost meaningless in discussing next gen console resolution as DX 11 and the Xbox One don’t support interlaced output (the PS4 has a 1080i option, but it simply exports the image at 720p). What we are really talking about is 1920x1080 resolution, which seems a lot less "next gen" and important given that's the resolution 90% of our PC monitors have been in the for the last 5 years.  Yet we'll continue to say 1080p even though the "p" is meaningless and we are all more familiar with just the numeric resolution, because the buzzword is far more important than the reality. It's an attempt to make this number seem like a magic sweet spot where things are either 1080p or horrible.  To the shock of absolutely no one, all the evidence we have says otherwise.

The most popular study on the benefits of higher resolution  is this handy chart compiled and sponsored by the manufactures of high resolution TVs, a group that would have no reason whatsoever to mislead you.

Even they show restraint, noting that it would be difficult to see the difference between 720p and 1080p (let alone 900p and 1080p) if you are further than 7 feet away from your TV, or its smaller than 50 inches.  Blind tests of this theory are almost impossible to find, with PC Magazine and Consumer Reports being the only two major media publications I could find that put people in a room with unlabeled TVs at difference resolutions and asked them to pick which one looked better.  In both cases, the result was statically insignificant*, with only 56% and 54% of the group correctly identifying the 1080p TV as having a higher resolution.  Blind test of screen shots on blogs are more common (I’ve even run one myself) and time and time again they give us the same message; the results are no better than guessing.  More importantly, when a control is added (some people are given screenshots that are in fact identical) the number of people who report a difference vs. the number of people who don’t doesn't change**.  In a phrase I never thought I would hear myself saying,  it looks like web comments might give us all the insight when need into why this is happening.  On gaming sites, where the comments are generally defending why the console they bought is better than the one they didn't, the vast majority says they can easily see a difference. On TV websites where the comments are generally defending the low cost TV someone bought instead of a higher priced alternative, the vast majority say they can’t see any difference at all.  The bottom line is that for most people in most situations the difference between 720p and 1080p is at best negligible and most likely simply confirmation bias.  This isn't to say there is no difference.  Right now my face is a few inches from my monitor and I’m sure I would notice if someone set my resolution to 800x600 while I wasn't looking.  However the numbers tell us that in any given conversation the guy who is telling you the difference is obvious is much more likely to be doing so based on bias then fact.  As damning as it looks, this isn't even the finial nail in the resolution coffin.

1080p is a measure of graphical density, not graphical fidelity.  I could use 2,073,600 pixels (1920x1080) to draw a stick figure, but few people would say it was as visually pleasing or artistically sound as a 921,600 pixel (1280x720) image of the Mona Lisa.  In video games, the developer gets to make this choice based on what they think is important.  You could make a simply looking game run fantastic on any hardware, or a great looking game by lowering the resolution or frame rate. For high end, AAA games where we demand photo-realism a developers can still “dumb down” the fidelity in subtle ways to hit 1080p/60 rather than focusing on making games that actually look better and push the limits of the hardware.  This should be obvious to anyone who’s ever used a computer.  Games run at the same resolution as you desktop, and you pick the frame rate by playing around with graphical option.   The Wii U has a wide range of 1080p/60 games despite being vastly inferior to the Xbox One or PS4 from a raw power perspective, so even people who game exclusively on console should understand this point.  Yet gaming sites are constantly reporting the resolution of minimalist games like The Binding of Isaac of Spelunky without any context or explanation when not only would these games look identical at lower resolution (due to using low resolution textures) but are so visually simple they could achieve 60FPS on a 386SX-66***.   In doing so they are spending a clear message; we don’t care about HOW games look.  We just care about the number of pixels.  I don’t see how this can possibly end well for us.

The final word

In 2016, Nintendo will release a console that reproduces 8-bit Nintendo games in 4k resolution at 240 frames a second, and will declare itself the winner on the console wars.  Next year, Sony will redesign the PS4 game package to include “1080P” in 800 point, Rockwell Extra Bold font at the top, with the games title in superscript.  At E3 2015 Microsoft will show off “Halo EXTREME”, a re-skinned port of the original “Quake” running at 4k with the tag line “It’s got more pixels then Kill Zone, shut up and buy it”.  Soon trailers will just be voice over against a black background, while frame rate charts and pixel counts are shown in place of game play.  This is the world we seem to be creating, a world where being able to say the graphics from console you bought or the game you developed are objectively bigger than others is far more important than how anything actually looks.  We need to take a step back, and stop reporting on games to appeal to the vocal minority that cares about what system a game is on more than the game itself., because that's all this is about.  The Wii, the most successful console of all time, didn't even have component output because it played all games in 420p (a resolution you might remember from 1970 VCRs).  Not once in all the years it co-existed beside the 360 and PS3 do I remember a single article highlighting 720p resolution as a feature, a benefit, or a reason that a game was “better” on a different console.  We still had flame wars back then, but we compared the features of the Xbox 360 with the features of the PS3, talked about the value of 1st and 3rd party exclusives, and generally focused on how to improve game-play overall by trying to prove our system had the better games (and better ways to play them).  I never thought I would look back at this as the "good old days", but a spade's a spade.  Back then, the gamer community was unified in a message that we needed more innovation, more investment in studios and better online play.  In return, we got franchises like Uncharted, Gear of War, and Kill Zone, as MS and Sony both spend millions investing in the studios they thought would put them ahead.  Today we get 1080p ports of games you can get for $1.99 on Steam.

We are sending the wrong message, and we need to stop.  We need to go tell developers we don’t want games that are 1080p if that resolution comes at too high a price, and we the compromise in Diablo should be a rally cry.  We want games that are fantastic to play, have great frame rates, and look beautiful.  Is that means a lower resolution, that’s fine.  All games start to look better as the console generation gets older anyways, and winning the "resolution war" will be a shallow and shot lived victory regardless.  But for now, I guess I'll go back to playing a game made deliberately worse to make Fanboys happy.  This would make me sad but ... hey ... it’s Diablo  It’s still freaking awesome.

*The number of people who correctly identify 1080p as being higher resolution is no higher than what we should expect if we used a random method, like drawing from a hat.

**Only 20% of people will report they see no difference between the two images, even when there is actually no difference between the images.  In other words, 80% of people will report there is a difference when there isn’t one.  This is called conformation bias, the human tendency to report any “result” over reporting no result.

***Citation needed

Against the Flow: July

At the end of the month I like to take a look at what the industry is talking about and see where I'm going against the flow.  These are opinion that seem to be prevalent in the industry with both fans and insiders, but I just can't seem to get my head around, important questions that are not being asked, or opinions that seem to run counter to what everyone else is saying.  This month, I'm going to skip how I disagree with pretty much everything anyone is saying about DOTA and leave that to two articles I plan on posting later this month.  As for the rest of the "big news" ...

I don’t understand why we care about “PlayStation Now”

I've already posted a break down of the pricing and will be recapping that and the marketing Sony is doing later this month, but on a much simpler level I don’t understand why any “gamer” cares in the slightest about the service.  It’s a streaming service, and as such, requires a constant internet connection to use.  If I remember anything from the months that followed E3 2013, it’s that no gamer alive would EVER use a service that required an constant online connection, regardless of the benefits it offered.  This became the defining ideology of the PlayStation nation and nothing short of a battle cry; anyone who would put up with an always online requirement to play games was an idiot, and any company that would ask gamers to do that was worse than Hitler.  They are hundreds of thousands of comments on 10s of thousands of websites archiving this universal belief … but now being online 24/7 is all honky-dory?  What happened to the “what if my internet is down” arguments?  With PSNow an outage not only means you can’t play but you lose the money you paid for the timed rental.  What happened to the arguments about internet quality?  Without fast internet, PSNow is a horrible service, and when we were talking about an online check it sounded like everyone's internet was so slow and unreliable it would be impossible to send a few megabytes every month or so without major headaches.  Yes it’s clear that what Microsoft was doing with aggressive DRM was different (and subjectively much more “evil”) then a service with a technical requirement to be online all the time … but the arguments, if valid to one, are valid to both.  Unless everyone, including top tier media sites, was just making up objections to make something look worse than it was and feed the console wars to drive up clicks …but that would never happen.  In fact, the gaming community should find so little value in this service that I’ll even take it a step further …

I don’t understand why “PlayStation Now” is being offered on PlayStation.

With the exception of Colin, who would respond to Sony forcing you kill you first born child to continue using PlayStation products with an article about how wonderful it was that Sony was doing its part to deal with overcrowding, there is not a lot of positive being said about this service.  And that’s sad … because not only is it great, it’s great in the “big f’ing” deal kind of way, and might just be the most significant thing to happen in the gaming industry in years.  The next time I tell my non-gamer friends about a game like “The Last Of Us”, that has universal appeal well beyond its strength as a game, they’ll have an option to try it out without having to invest $300 in a new system.  With PlayStation Now, they can just steam it to a tablet or Web TV.  PlayStation Now isn’t only going to make Sony a lot of money on its own, but it’s a window to show the non-gamer how much gaming has evolved, and how the media can be enjoyed by anyone.  It’s going to solidify in the minds of millions the idea that Sony PlayStation is where they should go to become “new gamers”, a strategy that worked out rather well when Nintendo tried it with the Wii.  Microsoft has no counter; they tried to do the same thing by making the Xbox One the “living room device” and offering TV functionality and original programing, but failed miserably.  PSNow is not only going to be a huge win for Sony, it’s going to beat Microsoft at their own game … or at least it would have.  Instead, by releasing on PS3 and PS4 before showing in to the non-gaming world, the perception of an overpriced service that’s WORSE than just buying games is going to be so prominent in media that by the time it gets in the hands of the generally population it will already be a bust.

For 80% of the population, trying the one game a year you’re going to be interested in on PSNow is a much better option than investing in hardware, but Sony asked the other 20% to test it out for them.  Not learning the lession they so brutliy taught Microsoft just last year (most non-gamers still think the Xbox One requires an online connection even to this day), Sony is going to be stuck with the label the internet gives PSNow in it's infancy, and it's not looking good.  Objectively, a low cost alternative to console ownership for the people who are only going to play a few games a year is a very nice thing, and the internet can’t have nice things.  Especially when they are subscription services.  On that note …

I think EA’s subscription service is fantastic (even without games)

When EA announced they would be offering a $5 a month or $30 a year service on the Xbox one that would come with $10 off all games and DLC from EA, up to 7 days “early access” to EA video games (without having to pay for them) and a small collection of free games, it was met with cautious optimism.  Given the internet’s relationship with EA (voted worth company in the world 2 years in a row) cautious optimism is pretty darn good.  The uncertainty everyone seems to come back to is what games will be included and how will they work (will they expire and only be playable for limited periods of time).  To that I counter … Who cares?  Just doing some simply math, a $30 a year service pays for itself as soon as you buy $300 worth of EA games given the discount. That might seem like a lot, it’s a perfectly reasonable amount to someone who is so into gaming that a few top tier games at $30 a year might not be worth it.  More importantly, up to 7 days to try out FULL RETAIL COPIES of new games before they are released with progress carrying over to the game if you buy it has so much value add, it could be the whole service and I would still pick it up day one.  Games, like movies, are all about being the first to experience them … and you already know that, internet.  When Sony said PS4 owners would get to play the BETA of Destiny a few days early it was the death of Xbox One, and any time a games offered a “limited edition” that came with a day or two of early access for $20 or so, it sells out.  This isn't a new thing.  We want early access, it’s important and news worth every time it’s offered, and we are willing to pay crazy amounts of money for it in the rare cases it’s offered.

EA needs to re brand this service “EA early access” and call the other two features a bonus.  Maybe then we'll be able to see how fantastic it really is (and maybe Sony will let us decide for ourselves if we want it)

Did I miss anything?  What did YOU notice this month that everyone else seemed to miss?  Let me know in the comments!

E3 2104 Recap - How did everyone do?

I hope you had a chance to read my reactions to the press conferences as they were happening.  With E3 over and a chance to reflect, I’m ready to give my opinions of how everyone did in a more thoughtful manner.  No letter grades and no winners, just a rundown of what happened and what it means, as objective as possible.  I've presented each in the order in which they appeared.

Microsoft – Hurdling the lowered bar

As the self proclaimed avatar of objectivity, I don’t think it’s possible to “Win” E3.  It’s just too subjective to be meaningful, with every vender at the show having a very different job to do and strategy to do it.  But man, can you lose E3, and that’s exactly what MS did last year.  They delivered a core message of “screw you, you’ll buy what we sell you and like it”, and it overshadowed everything else they tried to do.   The game line up last year was one of the best we’ve ever seen ... but not one single person cared.  The only thing that mattered was the baffling decision to doubled down on unpopular strategies and policies while coming out with a price point inflated by technology that they didn't effectively sell us on.  As such, coming into this E3, the good news for Microsoft was the only thing they needed to do to have a relatively (compared to last year) good press conference was not shoot themselves in the head, and to have a GREAT press conference they just needed to avoid shooting themselves anywhere at all.  Mission Accomplished ... but was it really a victory?

Without Question, Phil showed more class they we have seen at E3 in ages.  He started the show off right; first thanking Nintendo and Sony for being awesome, and moving on to thanking Fanboys for complaining and making the Xbox better.  Then he was done talking.  He said the conference was going to be “all about games” and he delivered.  Clip after clip after clip came at us at a frantic pace, with a good mix of exclusive content, first showings, and announcements.  It was a great show and apart from a poor showing of Fable legends I enjoyed all 90 minutes of it, and wanted more.  In the end, I was excited for gaming after seeing call outs to developer’s and presenters favorites games regardless of platform, and seeing the end of the made up “console wars” in Phil's opening statements.  I was also excited for some big name games, with assassin’s creed getting a fantastic showing and dragon age getting a fantastic trailer.  I was excited for Microsoft, how seem to have found the right man to lead Xbox division, and are doing everything they can to gain back the loyalty and momentum they lost last year.  One thing I wasn't any more excited for, however, was the Xbox One.

It’s not that Microsoft didn't do a great job of showing me exclusive games that I’m going to want to play ... they did that.  It’s not like they did a bad job of showcasing reasons to play multi-platform games on their console ... they did that too.  They even showed a game that, if I didn't already own a Xbox One, I would happily buy one for in the Master Chief edition.  They did a great job selling what was on stage, but it all came at a cost.  The strategy of showing nothing but games wasn't a brilliant show of tactics, it was a simple necessity.  2 years ago Microsoft was talking about a revolutionary new “living room device” that played games almost as an afterthought.  It would connect our world, allow us to share games with friends, pave the way to a new digital marketplace, and use the “magic of the cloud” in ways that would push gaming into a new realm.  It was a vision I was very excited about.  Last year at E3 they failed to sell us on that vision, and this year they retreated from it all together and for every bit of excitement Microsoft built around gaming, I lost just as much excitement about the future of gaming I was promised by a company that now seems content to fall back to the past.  The net change was zero.  I’m excited about the Xbox for new reasons, but not any more so.  They didn't bring anything with a “wow” factor big enough to make me forget about all the awesome things that have fallen to the wayside.

In the end, however, I think Microsoft can be happy with what they accomplished.  In only 12 short months they have effectively recovered what they spent the last 3 years destroying; the trust of gamers.   But that’s all they had time for ... we’ll have to wait to see if they are able to do anything now that the audience is willing to listen to again, and as such it’s hard to give a final option.  The Xbox One, as it stands, is only as good as it’s next show.

Sony – 322

Oh to live in a world where I didn’t need to explain the obscure DOTA reference.  In a Starlader Match that was completely meaningless due to the two teams current placements in the standings, Solo from team RoX.KIS bet $322 against his own team and deliberately lost the game to zRage.  It’s the perfect analogy for what I saw from Sony at E3 for two reasons.  A warning to fanboys ... you are going to want to stay until the end on this one, because the start isn’t going to be pretty.

First, Solo was obviously no expert at fixing games and the way in which he lost was absurdly overt.   He drafted Hero’s that had already been countered, banned Hero’s no one played, and set up the lanes in a way that wouldn’t even cut it in a Pub.  I felt the same watching Sony’s press conference, where every decision seemed not only bad, but deliberately, comically bad.  They didn’t bother to replace Jack Trenton, a strong and respected presenter, and instead gave stage time to various VPs.  Not only was this devastating to the pacing, but some of them were just bad at speaking.   I feel some key messages about PSN, SonyTV, and Sony Now were lost to poor presenting.  They spent a huge chuck of time showing us the same content from Hard Line that we had seen a few hours ago at EA.  They showed a destiny trailer that made the game look worse than trailers we had seen before, then invited us all to an alpha which was horrible and cost the game a lot of hype it had going into the show.  They spent 5 minutes promoting someone’s graphic novel.  They showed a trailer for a movie.  But worst of all, Sony felt the need to insult me, and millions of other gamers, for no good reason.  You see, like around 50 million people, I own gaming hardware from Sony , MS and Nintendo (about 2 million of that are people who own Xbox Ones and PS4).  Where Microsoft gave me credit for loving games and shared my support for Sony and Nintendo in the opening minutes of their show, Sony though it would be better to tell me and my 50 million friends that we were idiots, and that anyone who had non-Sony hardware had been lied to, duped, and forced to buy things they didn't want.  At times It felt like a political rally where the candidate had run out of good things to say about himself and was just making sure we hated the other guy.  Sony also went over time at 106 minutes, even though they only spent about 60 minutes talking about games, and only had my genuine interest for about 30.

The floor showing was also a mess, although a much more enjoyable one.  They had on showcase an incredible selection of Indie games that, while extremely fun to play, did nothing to combat the growing concern that Sony is putting Indie ahead of AAA games.  In fact, it seemed Sony was oblivious to this (or any other) concern among gamers and answered any questions with canned deflections or shots about how MS and Nintendo don’t support indie.  They showed us Morpheus, which was an absolutely fantastic demonstration of why VR technology is not even close to ready.  But the most baffling part was how well the few AAA titles they did have looked and played, with Hard Line being a clear showstopper.  Why wasn’t there more?  Why not OWN the floor by having more big name games playable and devote more of your space to the titles people couldn't get enough of.  Time and time again the answer to “where is this game” or “can you tell us more about this” was “You have to wait for TGS”.  You know ... the smaller show that gets less air time.

All and all, Sony at E3 this year had only one message to deliver; that there was a WAR going on between the consoles, and that they we going to WIN.  The PS4 was the best console because numbers (sales, specs, price) said so, and everything else, even ... no, ESPECIALLY ... games wasn't important.  A message made far less powerful by the fact that Microsoft bowed out of that war with a message of peace just a few hours earlier, and the only other “combatant” wasn't even there.

For all the passion I put into the words above, it’s important to note that the SECOND way in which the 322 analogy is perfect is far more important; the game didn't matter.  Where the above might seem like 730 words worth of hating on Sony and PS4, you might want to read again.  There is nothing I say up there that amounts to anything more than “Sony had a bad show”.  But they didn't change any policies.  They didn't fumble the message of PS Now to the point where excitement faded.  They launched a new product (PSTV) in NA and EU, and it’s going to sell like hotcakes.  Even the annoying “you’ll see it at TGS” was the right call; the Xbox One is launching in Japan this year, with 40 strong Japanese developers behind it.  Out-showing MS at E3 wouldn't have been a huge deal, but out-showing them in Tokyo would be devastating.  Going into E3, the PS4 was a fantastic console that was selling great and had a lot of compelling reasons to buy it.  And while E3 2014 might not have added a single new reason to buy one ... it really didn't need to.  The hype and momentum is built on a solid foundation of a great product at a great price, and it’s not going away anytime soon.

I just hope Kazuo Hirai bet more than $322 against himself, he could really use the money.

Nintendo – An absurdly cute, insanely polite middle finger to everyone

If you read my blog, or even my comments, you know I fancy myself the champion of objectivity.  Writing about Nintendo this year has put that mantle to the test as I’m forced to separate how much I loved everything Nintendo said this year (my subjective opinion) with how well they used the stage that is E3 to move product and strengthen their position in the market (the objective facts).   While MS didn't really have a core message outside of “our gaming system plays games” and Sony fumbled to deliver any message at all, Nintendo spent 50 minutes delivering a message with razor precision; a clear invitation for hard-core gamers, the gaming media, and even 3rd party developers to pucker up kiss their ass.  Standing in stark contrast to MS’s commitment to change based on gamer feedback, Nintendo told everyone they were NEVER going to change, because everyone is wrong.  Games are all about fun, and if you don’t like that, they want nothing to do with you.

Introducing games with interviews from developers against backdrops like a yarn store or an aquarium was a subtle but deliberate choice.  Nintendo put the people making games front and center and gave them a chance to not just talk about what they were building, but why.  They wanted you to understand that Nintendo games are made by passionate people with vision, and that they were never going to ask them to stop being different.  That Mr. Iawata and the shareholders (with the exception of Seth Fisher) are more than happy to burn millions of dollars, cut their salaries even further, and be the number 3 player in a field of 3 until the end of time if that’s what it takes to give these artists a canvas.  Nintendo is making game for Nintendo, and they hope you like them.  But if you don’t … that’s your problem.

The most depressing thing is that it worked, if only for the people who tried it.  The energy on the floor at Nintendo’s booth was like walking into another world, and felt more like an amusement park then a media showing.  There was nowhere at E3 people were as unified.  No one cared about exclusives, release dates, resolution or hype … everyone was having a blast playing games.  But for how clear it was that there was no system at E3 people wanted to spend more time with then the Wii U, it was just as clear that message wasn't going to leave E3 and get to the consumers.  Where Sony and MS gave the media dozens of talking points, from AAA titles to new and exciting ways they are going to push the barriers of gaming, Nintendo only message was that the games are awesome, and people are going to love playing them.  And as much as they nailed that … it’s nothing to write home about, literally.  “The games are great, you kinda have to play them to understand” isn't an article most editors are going to be happy with, and this year for Nintendo … there isn't a lot more to say.

So hats off to you Nintendo.  Not only do you have the best games, you have the best message.  You stuck to your guns and have shown what makes you unique and precious to the industry.  You went 50 minutes without showing me a single game I won't be buying, and only one that’s not going to be a day one pick up.  But for all your efforts, I’m not sure you sold any Wii Us.  Mario Kart 8 will have a huge impact on sales, and so will Smash, but that’s got nothing to do with E3.  You didn't translate the NFC figure message to English very well in showing us why we need digital “high score cards” and you didn't leverage your exclusive Skylanders deal to make people feel like bad parents if the Wii U wasn't the system they buy trapforce on.  If anything, the only message you gave to people who weren't already interesting in Wii U was that it’s not going away, and you’re still committed to it.  Hopefully that will be enough.

The Final Word

E3 came and went with very little fanfare.  Sony seemed content to ride the hype of last year’s conference, while Microsoft delivered the message they should have delivered back then and did nothing but catch up.  Only Nintendo seemed to move things forward with a strong sales pitch, but one that is only going to convince Nintendo fans to gamble $300 on the Wii U, without doing much to get gamers to gamble $300 on Nintendo.  In that way, E3 2014 can best be summed up in the answer Sony gave time and again to question about where the games and news we were all most interested in was ....

You’re going to have to wait for Tokyo.

E3 - Nintendo Direct

No real predictions here ... I just expect a very Nintendo showing of Nintendo things.  The ND is too short to talk about NFC, so I think this will just be a showing of games.  Let see what we get

12:01 – Looks like they are starting with Smash, because obviously

12:02 – Everytime I see this game it looks better and better

12:03 – I really like the idea of playing a Mii in the game, this is a fantastic option

12:04 – Wow, that’s an impressive amount of custimztion, with 3 “classes” and over 20 movies to chose from when making a Mii fighter

12:05 – Reminding us that the 3DS game is almost out reminds me how horrible an idea it is to put this one on handheld first.  I think it will hurt the overall appeal of the gamel; 3DS should have been a companion app released on the same date, with its own standalone content being much less of a focus.

12:06 – That said, the 3DS games looks fantastic and I’m almost sure to pick it up

12:08 – Oh Reggie, the only person on the Nintendo team I really don’t like.

12:08 – Amiibo ... “Nintendo: we suck at naming things!”

12:09 – Skylanders and Infinity have exclusive Nintendo contact tied to NFC Nintendo figures.  That’s the biggest news of E3 by a huge margin.  Wow.

12:10 – They are Japanese arcade cards for the Wii U.  That’s a fantastic idea ... in Japan.  Harder sell in here in NA seeing we don’t already do that.

12:11 – Luigi gonna EAT YOUR SOUL

12:12 – Reggie pulling the nostalgia strings ... right in the feels ....!

12:13 – Yarn!  Only Nintendo could get me excited by showing me real life yarn

12:14 – Yoshi’s Woolly world, a distinctly Yoshi game using yarn as a mechanic backdrop.  Looks absolutely breathtaking.

12:15 – The game play is showing off ways to use yarn “eggs” to explore and open up new areas, looks fantastic

12:16 – Two player co-op, to be honest I think that’s a necessity on a home console at this point from Nintendo.  Good to see that it’s there

12:17 – Can I say that Yarn Yoshi on Wii U looks about 10 times better then Sack Boy on PS4 without sounding like a fanboy?  No?  Ok, I won’t mention it then

12:18 – OMG, Captain Toad mini game from Mario U 3D is getting a standalone game on Wii U.  My wife is going to freak out.  Absolutely fantastic way to leverage a formula that just ended up working better than anyone expected

12:19 – Did they just do a robot chicken type animation to make fun of the Mario Universe Plot?  What am I watching!  That was like ... completely out of nowhere.

12:20 – Zelda is so self-aware.  Hearing him talk about what makes Zelda great and the mistakes they have made is bang on.  Few game developers are as honest

12:21 – First shot of Zelda Wii U, looks great but too soon to call.  He’s talking about a truly open world Zelda.  Risky.

12:22 – The grass is moving and the world seems alive.  A monster just showed up and the animation is outstanding.  Interesting art style ... like Windwaker on steroids.  I think it’s going to be polarizing.

12:23 – Pokemon remakes, we knew this was coming and we knew they had to show it.  It looks like pokemon.

12:24 – Another Robot Chicken, then into bayoneta 2.  Nintendo’s lost guardian!  Looks like it’s still a thing, and visually looks great. Oh wow, it’s being packaged with remake for the first game with Nintendo them skins.  You had my interest, now you have my attention

12:27 – Hyrule Warriors ... I’m not a fan of Destiny Warriors, but I’m still interested in seeing what this game has to offer.  I think it’s a formula that could benefit a lot from the game pad.

12:28 – Spilt screen with one player using the game pad and the other using the TV!  Why can’t you do that on Mario Kart 8.  WHY!

12:30 – Wow, everything they are showing is Q4.  What a great year this is going to be.

12:30 – Showing a gamepad focused Kurby game called Rainbow Curse for 2015.  Looks pretty meh to be honest

12:31 – Showing a trailer for a mech based RPG.  Kinda blowing my mind.  I think it’s Xenoblade

12:32 – Graphically this looks better then should be possible.  I’m afraid it might be CG, but if not, the Wii continues to shock me.

12:33 – Xenoblade Chronicle X – yeah, I kinda want that

12:33 – A Mario creator where you can make custom Mario NES levels.

12:34 – OH!  Looks like you can change between New Super Mario brothers graphics on the fly

12:34 – This really isn’t my type of thing, but I can see a lot of interest in this, and I’m sure I’ll end up owning it thanks to my wife.

12:35 – Talking about “Split toon”, which looks like a paint based FPS

12:36 – It looks very interesting and very Nintendo, but it’s entering a crowded market and needs to have a budget price I think.

12:40 – Sure, this game looks neat.  But not 4 minutes neat.  It’s also not what you should have ended on.  Does anyone feel a JUST ONE MORE THING coming on????

12:41 – Not sure we need a recap of a 40 minute event.

12:42 – ONE MORE THING!

12:43 – What am I watching?  Is this a cartoon?

12:44 – Link and Pip fighting in an anime

12:45 – Oh ... just a new fighter in smash.  Sure, whatever.

12:46 – Oh snap, Maymato has the last word, but just to tell us to keep watching.

All and all this was an very strong Nintendo Direct.  Everything they showed was fanatics, coming soon, and presented well.  I don’t think they showed enough, and I think the new Zeldia is going to be a bit polarizing, but I’m personally very excited to own a Wii U right now.

E3 - Sony Main Stage

Going into the Sony Press conference, I have to say me expectations are … Mah.  I mean, I don’t expect a bad press conference, but I also don’t expect anything that’s going to be overly exciting.  Sony is going to show one or two big exclusives, and they are going to spend a lot more time on non-gaming.  We’re going to see PlayStation now in the forefront, and more Vita news then we should.  I also expect a more arrogant main stage; don’t expect Sony to be thanking Nintendo and Microsoft or the haters, and do look forward to a lot of talk about just how great the PlayStation is doing.  As a fun drinking game, take a shot every time they say “1080P”.  I’m most interesting in seeing how much 3rd party they have on the stage, given the amount of them MS gave to them.

9:00 – Sony starting late, to the shock of absolutely no one

9:03 – The opening theatrics have exactly the amount of blue I was expecting.  It’s going to be interesting to see who walks on stage first, and I think it will be a big part in setting the tone

9:04 – Looking like Destany is the first thing on stage, and that’s not shocking; this game is huge and is giving a full 4 days of beta to Sony before anyone else.  That might not sound like a big deal, but is really is; people who are interesting in things like beta really don’t like to wait.

9:06 – Nothing against Sony as it’s not there thing, but this trailer is horrible.  I’m LESS excited about the game after seeing that, and the house reacted much the same … no clapping, just puzzled looks.  The last trailer we saw was breath taking, this was lack luster.

9:08 – Speaking of House, it looks like that who we are going with.  To be honest, I would have like to see a Dev or just a paid promoter, but not a bad choice.

9:10 – They mirror the message of Microsoft, we want to be the best place to play, but say they know what “best mean”, talking to higher resolution.  Looks like I was spot on with the arrogance comment.

9:10 – Destiny Alpha starting today.  That’s great news.  Also a new Sku, a white PS4 with Destiny included.  Looks nice.

9:11 – Showing an exclusive now.  I would expect Order 1886

9:12 – What might as well be a space marine walking through a dark hallway.  Looks CG to be honest, much nicer then the game play we saw on PS4 last month.  Either that’s Sony up to old tricks, or a fantastic preview of what’s to come, because visuals are incredible.

9:14 – DON’T SHOW QUICK TIME ACTIONS IN YOUR GAME PLAY REVEALS.  NEVER.  JUST DON’T DO IT

9:16 – The game play looks genearic and almost lacking in interaction.  I don’t think this is representive of the final product, but instead a result of trying to show gameplay before this game is really ready for it.  Still very excited about this game, but want to know what I saw was produced on PS4.

9:17 – A visual trailer for new game called “entwined”.  This seems to be something Sony is able to do exceptionally well, finding new and breathtaking games with fantastic visuals early in the console life cycle.  I really like what I’m seeing here, although I’m sure it’s no more complex then Flower.

9:19 – Entwined released today at $9.99.

9:19 – The mention of the PS3 release of Entwined makes me realized that Microsoft didn’t even mention the 360 once.

9:20 – Looks like my drinking game should have been “breathtaking performance” rather than simply 1080p.

9:21 – Single player DLC for second Sun, looks like its stand alone.  Sure … more Infamous is not a bad thing

9:22 – LB3P!  The first game on PS4 my wife is going to care about.

9:22 – Visually, this in only a small upgrade from the previous entries.  Not what I would have expected.  I wonder if this is a port and on PS3 as well.

9:24 – Sony is having tech problem, to the surprise of exactly no one

9:25 – Far more charming then the spark trailer, but the multiplayer looks more frustrating than anything else.  I think this would have shown better with one person playing it.

9:26 – I like it, but again, the multiplayer is getting in the way and this has gone on too long.  I want to hear about creation tools and what platforms this is on.  Can I use my vita to make things while playing them on my PS4?

9:28 – No mention of what system it’s on, so I’ll just assume PS4 and that it will look better at release.

9:29 – Ah, that’s why it looks old, fully compatible with the old game levels, so they are just upgraded visuals.  Still, that’s a trade I’m more than happy to make.  That makes the game SO much more valuable to people who don’t have other in the series.

9:30 – From Software is showing a game as a reveal.  There was no direct mention of it being exclusive, but I think we are still in the “all these are on PlayStation only or first” part of the show.  This is big news, but JUST a tad to ninth to call a real “wow” moment.

9:31 – CG trailer, looks fantastic.  Captures the darkness and horror you would expect from From Software.  Defiantly creating a lot of hype.

9:33 – Far Cry 4 on stage, I wonder if Sony will get anything exclusive or if this is just a showing.

9:34 – Not able to get confirmation on Blood born exclusivity.  Given Sony’s relationship with From Software, my gut says it is.

9:35 – Far Cry 4 looks like Far Cry 3+.  Please don’t in any way think I mean that as a bad thing.  FC3 was outstanding and needs refinement, not reinvention.

9:36 – Haha completely unrealistic vehicle hijack that was just awesome

9:37 – Looks like you’ll have the ability to jump and parachute, that’s a welcome addition.

9:39 – They seem to be cycling though VPs.  I really don’t like that.  I would rather have one voice to get used to, or cycle though developers.

9:40 – Exclusive mode for PS4 where you can invite friends without the game to play Co-op with you.  I see no value in that, but A for effort.  I can see that having value to a lot of other people though, and to families.

9:41 – Very odd zombie game being shown.  Looks like they are going for a feel that combines Dead Raising and Dead Island, which is like going for a feel that combines hot and cold.

9:42 – Wow, that’s Dead Island 2?  I don’t think that’s the tone is a step in the right direction for the series.  Again, not Sony’s fault, and good on them for getting the showing

9:43 – Beta and character level exclusive to Sony.  Seems Sony thinks there is a TON of value in beta access first, while MS thinks think is a TON of value in getting DLC first.  I think they are both wrong, but Sony is less wrong.

9:45 – Hardline.  Yeah I just saw like 15 minutes of this a few hours ago.  It looks great, but you don’t need to show it again.

9:45 – Exclusive NFC figures for infinity.  Why even bring that up at E3?  It’s a big deal, and a great score given how valuable a partner Disney is, but no one in the room cares.

9:46 – Sony is having more tech issues

9:47 – Paradox exclusives for PS4.  I’m a big paradox fan, but I’m not sure what they can offer a console.  This looks like a Magika game.  Sure, I can get into that.  Of all the games they make, it’s likely going to work best on the big screen

9:49 – Haha, my wife joked about Sony re-making a double fine game this morning.  I laughed, and laughed and laughed.  Great score for Sony, and a great for us as gamers.

9:51 – A bunch of Indie timed exclusives.  It’s not showing as well as the @ID montage, but there are some very established teams in the bunch.  I think this will not get the credit it deserves.

9:53 – I’m not digging the letter thing.  The pace seems much slower, and it seems like there is less content then there is

9:54 – Another exclusive called Let It Die, from GungHO.  I’ll reserve judgment until I see it; it looks good, but GungHO is generally goes for the pay to win FTP model.  Mind you, they do it better than anyone else, and I enjoy a lot of their games.

9:56 – Another psychedelic non-game game from Giant Squad.  Very impressive look, and I like the undersea theme.  Timed exclusive.

9:58 – Another timed exclusive indie game

9:59 – Looks interesting enough, but not exactly drawing me in.  Looking like a simplistic space shoot / exploration game called No Man's Sky

10:00 – 2/3 of the way in, no big first party or 3rd party exclusives, but some good news for Sony on things we already knew about getting better.  I’m not disappointed, but I really hope the next 30 minutes has more AAA

10:03 – Back to House.  I have a feeling we are done with games for a while

10:04 – DRINK

10:04 – Needless shot at Microsoft.  As someone who hate the console wars, this has really turned me off Sony this generation

10:04 – Project Morpheus.  This deserves no stage time.  Thankfully it didn’t get any.  You can’t show of VR on a stage.

10:05 – Pleasant surprise as we are back to games already, with Layden on stage.  If anyone can bring a big shocker I think it’s him.

10:07 – Shut up and show us what you’re here to show us.

10:08 – Oh … PSN news.  Guess we are not back to gaming after all.

10:08 – Meaningless stats ftw!

10:09 – PS4 direct uploads to YouTube.  Neat!

10:09 – Umm … he’s telling me I’ll be able to interact with people while watching games on twitch.  I can already do that.  It’s kinda what twitch is.

10:10 – I don’t really get the core message being delivered here, and the presenter is very weak.  PSN can do networky things and that’s good?  Yes, I knew that.  You don’t need to waste E3 time with that message.

10:11 – Did he just take a shot at the Gold Pay wall?  Someone should tell him that’s a bit out of date

10:12 – “Free to play means FREE TO PLAY” follow immediately by a montage with the words “Some features available at a cost”.  Ha.

10:13 – Why is loadout in a montage!  That deserves its own stage time.  That game is fantastic and it’s coming to PS4 is big news.

10:14 – Moving on to PlayStation Now.  A great service, coming at the end of the month.  I’m interested to see they talk pricing.

10:15 – Passing the buck on pricing.  Currently, there is a 1 day, 7 day, and 30 day rental option, starting at $4.99 for one day, with a month in the $20 range.  Hopefully not talking about it is because they hope to bring that down by the time the service is live

10:16 – On to Vita.  I feel a bundle coming on!  A commitment to keep PSV as a “key pillar” to Sony

10:17 – PSTV in US and UK!  Fantastic news!  I think this is the best news from E3 this far.

10:18 – $99 price point, fantastic

10:19 – haha, PSTV uses memory stick.  How horrible.  Honestly, that’s just shameful.  Holding back the system and gamers to force the use of a failed preparatory item.  Just have a freaking HD.

10:20 – It’s all about the games isn’t it?  Which is why we haven’t talked about any for 20 minutes!

10:20 – Mortal Kombat X.  Great game, shows well.

10:24 – More non-gaming.  Original content on PS4 from Sony pictures.  Powers is a great frontrunner for the service, but again, I don’t know why this is getting stage time.

10:28 – We are still talking about Powers.  Sony has paid 10s of thousands of dollars to advertise this guy’s graphic novel, and I don’t think they are getting value for that money.

10:29 – “well get to watch the first episode for free” … wait what?  I don’t get them ALL for free?  I thought this was a value add to the PS4.   Ah, ok, I get it with PSN+.  Sure, good enough.

10:30 – ratchet and clank movie coming to theaters … they have official run out of PlayStation items to talk about I guess.

10:31 – Re-master of Ratchet and clank, re-master of TLOU.  Why’s the trailer have spoilers?  You don’t want to sell this game to new people?  Looks great … but I mean, it looked great on PS3.  I guess it looks … greater-er?  I’m very happy to see this title, but I don’t think it adds much value to the PS4, more like the PS4 add value to TLOU.

10:35 – MGS5.  Fantastic trailer, I’m sad it got leaked, this would have been a great way to end the show if we didn’t all see it yesterday.

10:40 – GTAV coming to PS4 in fall!  Great to be the ones to announcement this!  Plus the ability to move from both PS3 and Xbox 360 to PS4 is great.  If MS doesn’t mirror that, it’s a big miss for them.

10:42 – New Batman, been talked and hyped for almost a month now.  Good to finally see it on stage, but not as big as GTAV.  Not sure why they didn’t end on that.

10:43 – Sony is over time.

10:44 – Who is voicing batman?

10:45 – exclusive modes for batman on PS4.  No shock there

10:46 – One last thing!

10:46 – Uncharted.  Sure.  That’s awesome.  But … we knew this was a thing.  This isn’t a show stopper.  It’s also CG.

Well, that was absolutely mediocre.  I wasn’t impressed at any point, and I was board a few times.  All and all, I still don’t see a lot of gaming coming to PS4 that are exciting, although credit for scoring early beta’s and exclusive content for some truly high profile releases.  The presenters were bad, and the overall theme was very hard to place.  It seemed almost haphazard, like they went in thinking they didn’t need to do anything to keep the hype going, and I just don’t agree with that.  The PSTV and GTAV moments were the best of show, and I’m sure that’s not the way they wanted things to play out.