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.
Monday, 27 May 2013
In Perspective - Xbox one
What you've heard
It didn't show any games. It will require an always on internet connection (again). It doesn't let you share games with your friends. It won’t play used games unless you pay money for a code. You won’t be able to use its basic functions unless you use motion controls. No more family membership discounts. You can’t play it in the dark. It’s going to cost $700. It’s the prime suspect in the Jimmy Hoffa disappearance. Think of a bad thing - that thing applies to the Xbox One.
Except
Pretty much every “story” that ran this week about the Xbox One was either confirmed false already or baseless speculation based on what Microsoft didn't explicitly state in the press conference. They never mentioned that it wouldn't require the blood of a newborn to turn on, so let's run a story with the headline “will you need to sacrifice a baby to turn your Xbox on?” As we haven’t seemed to learn the lesson that any news article where the headline is a question can be answered with "no", wild rumors are being picked up and repeated at every level.
Here’s what we do know; it will not require an internet connection to play single player games. That WAS said in the after-show, but it didn't stop media outlets from saying it wasn’t mentioned in the conference itself so it must be the worst case. We also know the Xbox needs to “check in” with the server from time to time and that if it doesn't some features will be turned off, but we don’t know what these features are or what the time to time number is. More on that when we get to used games.
We know every game needs to be installed on the hard drive, but Microsoft has said this will NOT prevent you from taking games to a friend’s house and playing them there. A cloud service will allow you to access all your games from that Xbox. This seems to strongly imply that yes, the system is going to need to be online to install a game to the hard drive and play it for the first time; that's an online activation, so without an internet connection you won’t be able to install games. Except that it doesn’t. Microsoft has required an online activation for all its products from a time before most people knew what dial up is. This is why they have phone centers that allow you to do the activation offline. If the Xbox requires this type of step, I can’t see any reason they wouldn’t allow activation by phone.
We know the system can play used games. We know there is going to be a check to make sure the same game isn’t installed on two systems. This is where the rumour starts that the system needs to check in to ensure your games are not being shared or it will shut them off. I have two comments here; first, we have no info other than Microsoft saying they are going to tell us later. Any numbers, like once a day, are completely made up. Second; that’s completely reasonable! Look, I hate DRM, but only if it’s unreasonable. Making me input long keys (and keep a physical copy around if I want to reinstall), always on DRM, making me give me personal information to activate ... that’s what I’m opposed to. I’m absolutely not opposed to people makings sure I’m not stealing their product if they can do it in a way that doesn’t bother me! A periodic check fits this bill, provided it’s in the area of 24 hours, or on start up.
We know it’s not going to require you to use motion controls. They said the reason they didn’t change the controller at all was because some people just like using a simple controller and that will always be an option.
We know the price will be “at or below the previous generation”. Using creative accounting, that gives them up to around a $500 price tag; that seems reasonable based on the hardware I’ve seen.
We know it’s going to have a ton of games. MS Studios is building 7 to 14 exclusives alone for year 1, and pretty much every game coming out in Q4 that is cross platform is on the Xbox One and PS4. By contrast, the Xbox 360 launched with 14 games total.
So what’s the deal
There are a lot of arguments for old news. TV and newspapers had something that the internet can’t; investment. You had to take the time to buy the paper or turn on the show, meaning you tried to get as much out of that investment as possible. If you didn’t like the content, you would find something else. Nowadays all we do is scan headlines while reading the aggregate server and the game has changed. There is no such thing as a good article, just a good headline that might generate a click, and most of what people know is going off the headline alone. It’s no surprise that after an announcement like this the media is all over every possible negative, even if it’s not really all that possible. Outrage and controversy drives clicks, and no one is holding you accountable when you get it wrong.
It didn't show any games. It will require an always on internet connection (again). It doesn't let you share games with your friends. It won’t play used games unless you pay money for a code. You won’t be able to use its basic functions unless you use motion controls. No more family membership discounts. You can’t play it in the dark. It’s going to cost $700. It’s the prime suspect in the Jimmy Hoffa disappearance. Think of a bad thing - that thing applies to the Xbox One.
Except
Pretty much every “story” that ran this week about the Xbox One was either confirmed false already or baseless speculation based on what Microsoft didn't explicitly state in the press conference. They never mentioned that it wouldn't require the blood of a newborn to turn on, so let's run a story with the headline “will you need to sacrifice a baby to turn your Xbox on?” As we haven’t seemed to learn the lesson that any news article where the headline is a question can be answered with "no", wild rumors are being picked up and repeated at every level.
Here’s what we do know; it will not require an internet connection to play single player games. That WAS said in the after-show, but it didn't stop media outlets from saying it wasn’t mentioned in the conference itself so it must be the worst case. We also know the Xbox needs to “check in” with the server from time to time and that if it doesn't some features will be turned off, but we don’t know what these features are or what the time to time number is. More on that when we get to used games.
We know every game needs to be installed on the hard drive, but Microsoft has said this will NOT prevent you from taking games to a friend’s house and playing them there. A cloud service will allow you to access all your games from that Xbox. This seems to strongly imply that yes, the system is going to need to be online to install a game to the hard drive and play it for the first time; that's an online activation, so without an internet connection you won’t be able to install games. Except that it doesn’t. Microsoft has required an online activation for all its products from a time before most people knew what dial up is. This is why they have phone centers that allow you to do the activation offline. If the Xbox requires this type of step, I can’t see any reason they wouldn’t allow activation by phone.
We know the system can play used games. We know there is going to be a check to make sure the same game isn’t installed on two systems. This is where the rumour starts that the system needs to check in to ensure your games are not being shared or it will shut them off. I have two comments here; first, we have no info other than Microsoft saying they are going to tell us later. Any numbers, like once a day, are completely made up. Second; that’s completely reasonable! Look, I hate DRM, but only if it’s unreasonable. Making me input long keys (and keep a physical copy around if I want to reinstall), always on DRM, making me give me personal information to activate ... that’s what I’m opposed to. I’m absolutely not opposed to people makings sure I’m not stealing their product if they can do it in a way that doesn’t bother me! A periodic check fits this bill, provided it’s in the area of 24 hours, or on start up.
We know it’s not going to require you to use motion controls. They said the reason they didn’t change the controller at all was because some people just like using a simple controller and that will always be an option.
We know the price will be “at or below the previous generation”. Using creative accounting, that gives them up to around a $500 price tag; that seems reasonable based on the hardware I’ve seen.
We know it’s going to have a ton of games. MS Studios is building 7 to 14 exclusives alone for year 1, and pretty much every game coming out in Q4 that is cross platform is on the Xbox One and PS4. By contrast, the Xbox 360 launched with 14 games total.
So what’s the deal
There are a lot of arguments for old news. TV and newspapers had something that the internet can’t; investment. You had to take the time to buy the paper or turn on the show, meaning you tried to get as much out of that investment as possible. If you didn’t like the content, you would find something else. Nowadays all we do is scan headlines while reading the aggregate server and the game has changed. There is no such thing as a good article, just a good headline that might generate a click, and most of what people know is going off the headline alone. It’s no surprise that after an announcement like this the media is all over every possible negative, even if it’s not really all that possible. Outrage and controversy drives clicks, and no one is holding you accountable when you get it wrong.
Friday, 24 May 2013
Should be Playing - King’s Bounty
As gamers go, I have a dark and dirty secret, something I need to keep hidden when around the rest of the gaming world for fear I may be misunderstood and shunned. And although I live with this every single day, rare are the times it’s worth it to admit to anyone this horrible truth. I do so now only because of my commitment to providing historical context when I write about a game; so out with it. I liked the Sega Genesis more than the Super Nintendo. I’m not saying there was anything wrong with the Super Nintendo, the most holy of gaming holies, but only that Sega’s system had of a lot more support for J-RPG and mature games, which I’ve always been most interested in. I hold Shining Force, Sword of Vermilion and Phantasy Star 2 in much higher esteem than Mario or even Ogre Battle, and although I owned both (and plenty of games for each) it’s always the Genesis I spent long nights as a child grinding away with. And one of my fondest memories comes from the marathon sessions trying to beat King’s Bounty.
In King’s Bounty you are the commander of an army, which you build by buying units from lairs or strongholds, and then use the armies to do battle on a small hex field. You have powers and spells that you can use as the commander to turn the tide, and from time to time the units you are facing have their own commander with the same abilities. You are limited in how big your army is by both what is available to be bought and your resources to buy them. If this sounds familiar it’s because one of the most popular gaming series of the last 10 years, Heroes of Might and Magic, is nothing more than a shameless rip off of this system with some (horrible) 4x game play added. But not really; in fact Heroes of Might and Magic and King’s Bounty were both made by Jon Van Caneghem at New World Computing who were using the “Might and Magic” name to boost appeal and sales, as both King’s Bounty and Might and Magic were owned by 3DO. Unifying them under a single brand just made sense. That is until 3DO was shut down and sold the rights to Might and Magic to Ubisoft, leaving King’s Bounty an orphaned IP that got picked up in 2008 by Katauri Interactive, who released King’s Bounty: The Legend.
King’s Bounty focuses on the RPG aspects of army management, which skills to learn and what items to equip, like a traditional turn based RPG. Without the 4x elements of Heroes, combat is far more tactical with strong risk vs. rewards elements built in. Where the obvious solution in Heroes is to send in overwhelming numbers to deal with every situation, in King’s Bounty you need to weigh the price of new troops with the gains that can come from better items or more skills, and the benefits of using a minimal army supplemented by your own skills with the risk of failure. Unit selection is also far more organic; without the need to “build” your troops you can hire a much wider variety of monsters and create a much more varied set of teams. All in all the game creates a fantastic mix of RPG, turn based combat, and strategy that any fan of games like Shining Force or Fire Emblem is going to love.
Friday, 17 May 2013
Should be Playing - Alpha Protocol
Video games, like movies and music before them, have a very odd way of demanding originality and rewarding familiarity. The masses cry for new and interesting projects, condemn sell outs, praise anyone willing to break from the mold, and then make Call of Duty 9 (or Black-Ops 2) the most successful media event of all time, earning $500 million in the first 24 hours of its release (or about twice what the Avengers, the highest grossing movie of all time, earned in its first weekend). Making the situation worse, while movies had big names like Roger Ebert to remind us of the overall value of experiments and unsuccessful films, video games have MetaCritic and the internet. We universally slam anything that doesn’t meet our expectations while simultaneously criticizing games for not trying new things.
Alpha Protocol suffered this unfortunate fate. With Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 under their belt, Obsidian Entertainment set out to produce two games that they promised would surprise and break from the norm. It wasn’t long before the first project was leaked, a more personal and story driven take on the Fallout universe in the way of Fallout: New Vegas, while the second project known only as an “espionage RPG” didn’t gain much hype until release. It took the stealth game play we were used to from Metal Gear and Splinter Cell and instead focused on the espionage element; conversation, gaining intelligence, and forging relationships between maps was the refined focus, while the maps themselves were the filler. The game pulled off a fantastic (if not a bit convoluted) story that spanned the globe and made you feel critically important to the way things played out. The game featured a bi-polar relationship system with your handler (which you chose before each mission based on who you trust) where both positive and negative relationships have advantages and disadvantages. Have a handler who likes you? Perhaps they won’t tell you about the weapon hidden in the heavily guarded room out of fear you might die. Have a handler who hates you? Maybe you can make them angry and get more information out of them than they wanted to give. Beyond that, as the voice in your head the handler has a dramatic effect on the mood. On one mission, one handler provides you information on how to disable enemies and sneak around without killing them while another plays “Flight of the Valkyrie” over your head set while highlighting weapons. It doesn’t just change the map, it changes who you are.
The game had its flaws. It was a 3rd person shooter that didn’t play or feel like one. Combat was extremely clunky and unforgiving by design, with a little extra clunky added by poor implementation. The game had strong RPG elements while giving you the illusion you can play it the way you want; you can’t. If you build a stealth and conversation oriented character you might as well have a pea shooter even though you would expect the gun on your back to work like it would in other shooters. The game rests in its own genre and that is both its appeal and its greatest flaw. It was rejected by the masses looking for the same experience they got out of other stealth action games and by the masses looking for a 3rd person RPG like Skyrim or Fallout. It’s only people who could look at it for what it is; something fresh, new, and different, that seemed to come to its defence. Still, with a Metacritic rating of 72 and a price on Steam of $5, I can’t recommend this game enough to people who want to feel like a spy without feeling like a unstoppable agent of death.
Alpha Protocol suffered this unfortunate fate. With Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 under their belt, Obsidian Entertainment set out to produce two games that they promised would surprise and break from the norm. It wasn’t long before the first project was leaked, a more personal and story driven take on the Fallout universe in the way of Fallout: New Vegas, while the second project known only as an “espionage RPG” didn’t gain much hype until release. It took the stealth game play we were used to from Metal Gear and Splinter Cell and instead focused on the espionage element; conversation, gaining intelligence, and forging relationships between maps was the refined focus, while the maps themselves were the filler. The game pulled off a fantastic (if not a bit convoluted) story that spanned the globe and made you feel critically important to the way things played out. The game featured a bi-polar relationship system with your handler (which you chose before each mission based on who you trust) where both positive and negative relationships have advantages and disadvantages. Have a handler who likes you? Perhaps they won’t tell you about the weapon hidden in the heavily guarded room out of fear you might die. Have a handler who hates you? Maybe you can make them angry and get more information out of them than they wanted to give. Beyond that, as the voice in your head the handler has a dramatic effect on the mood. On one mission, one handler provides you information on how to disable enemies and sneak around without killing them while another plays “Flight of the Valkyrie” over your head set while highlighting weapons. It doesn’t just change the map, it changes who you are.
The game had its flaws. It was a 3rd person shooter that didn’t play or feel like one. Combat was extremely clunky and unforgiving by design, with a little extra clunky added by poor implementation. The game had strong RPG elements while giving you the illusion you can play it the way you want; you can’t. If you build a stealth and conversation oriented character you might as well have a pea shooter even though you would expect the gun on your back to work like it would in other shooters. The game rests in its own genre and that is both its appeal and its greatest flaw. It was rejected by the masses looking for the same experience they got out of other stealth action games and by the masses looking for a 3rd person RPG like Skyrim or Fallout. It’s only people who could look at it for what it is; something fresh, new, and different, that seemed to come to its defence. Still, with a Metacritic rating of 72 and a price on Steam of $5, I can’t recommend this game enough to people who want to feel like a spy without feeling like a unstoppable agent of death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)