Press Start to Continue needs your help! If you enjoy my comic, spread the word! Advertise my comic in your signature! I'll give you money...er... Monopoly money!

• 6Jun 13

  Will the games be good enough?

  Yes, another not so positive blog about Microsoft and their Xbox One. If you're tired of my ramblings, here's your cue.

  

  http://kotaku.com/more-then-anything-ive-read-this-is-the-deal-breaker-511778528

  Yes, it's Kotaku. But well, they're reporting everything that everyone else is reporting, straight from the horse's ass...er...mouth.  Yes, MS has finally confirmed everything that we've all been hoping for was just rumors and bullsh it.  Well, now it's just sh it.  MS may not issue used games fees (hurray?), but we'll most likely see publishers themselves try it. This is actually where I'm hopeful they won't, considering EA's thrown out the online pass.  There's ridiculous restrictions when it comes to giving games, and trading games will be practically impossible. Oh yeah, and if I want to GIVE you a game, you better have been a friend of mine for at least 30 days... This is ludicrous.  Oh, and the rental market is now fuc ked. 

  And then there's the final confirmation.  The one that's the deal breaker for everyone that I've heard against the Xbox One.  The 24 hour connection check.  Oh, and if you're playing one of your games on someone else's system, that goes up to an hourly connection check. 

  

  Let me just address this one right now before someone posts it. 

  "But, if you have the Internet to complain about the Xbox One, you have the Internet to play Xbox One."

  True, but the difference is, I care about the gamers who DON'T. I don't support this kind of jackassery. There are MILLIONS of gamers WORLDWIDE without the necessary 1.5 Mb/s connection MS requires to utilize Xbox One online. They won't be able to enjoy Xbox One as a result of this. The reason why you're hearing perfectly enabled gamers complaining about the mandatory connection checks is because we're exercising something called sympathy.  It's a powerful emotion that helps keep us from devolving into nothing but a bunch of greedy, selfish uncaring jerks. Do you REALLY need the Xbox One that badly that you would support such unfriendly business decisions? Do you not care that MS is basically pissing on your consumer rights?  Will MS even have games good enough to justify this?

  So, this brings me to my blog title. Will the games be good enough?  Right now, the only game that comes close enough to generating any interest into the system is Quantum Break, and that's only because of the pedigree of the developer. Now, I hear that DICE has something in store for us at E3, and it's been rumored - and I stress rumored - that Mirror's Edge 2 will be Xbox exclusive and if this is the case, it will test the limits of my resolve, because I REEEEEEALLY want that game. To put it into perspective, the only game that I want more than Mirror's Edge 2 is The Last Guardian. I do not want to back down, cave in and buy a machine that I'm strongly against just because of a few choice titles. I also want to own them if I ever would buy them, but MS has made it clear at this point they no longer want their customers owning anything they buy. 

  Let me just go back to the "I have online, so I'm not affected" bit. You don't know that.  You have no idea what kind of things can happen that can disrupt your enjoyment of the Xbox One. Your router could fry as a result of power surge. Your ISP could down, or you lost your job and had to cut back on montly expenses. Your job has relocated you to a remote town where there is no Internet, or at least BB. Some construction worker severs a fiber optic cable leaving you without net for several days. Something may happen that will cause you to say, "Fu ck, why did I buy into this?" It may never happen, and you might enjoy the Xbox One without a hitch for years. But why do you want to game under a Damoclean Sword? Why aren't you bothered with the fact that MS will be watching your every move, making sure each person playing isn't some kind of pirate? 

  So, no. I don't care about MS's offereings this E3. I don't think there's one single game that's going to be amazing enough for me to be able to look the other way on the DRM issues and the 24 hour connection check and the trading and loaning restrictions. It's not going to happen this year. It may not happen next year.  If it will ever happen, it will be when MS's cloud is long dead and powered down, which will be the only way you'll be able to play the Xbox One completely free of an Internet connection.... or will it?  

  Will any game be good enough to buy, knowing you'll never be able to play it again in the future? To be rendered a worthless piece of plastic only fit for a coaster? NO game is good enough for that! 

  • Posted Jun 6, 2013 8:37 pm GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 28May 13

  The downside to achievements

  I'm sure most of you know by now that MS has filed a patent for achievements for watching TV shows.  

  http://www.gamespot.com/news/microsoft-files-patent-for-television-achievements-6408924

  This isn't anything entirely new.  GetGlue does the same thing if you watch something online, and they even spread the news across your Facebook friends.    But having an achievement unlocked for watching a show you genuinely want to watch isn't a bad thing.  The problem with achievements is they coax some people into spending time on something they don't really have an interest doing.  

  In 2005, I remember the first achievement I unlocked.  It was for Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie.  I finished the first level and the iconic little blip appeared on my screen.  I just received my first 100 points to my gamescore, or as some affectionally refer to as e-penis.  Kong was also the first game that I achieved 1000/1000 on.  Is that really an achievement, though?  Anyone who plays through the entire game can do just what I did. 

  The following year, the PS3 released and I bought one.  As the years went by, I found myself buying the majority of multiplats on the 360.  It wasn't because of the 360 being the best in graphics or performance or playing online, or even the preference of the controller.  What got me buying multiplats on 360 more was the actual achievements.  I became addicted to them and had to play the 360 versions to increase my gamerscore.  Meanwhile, the PS3 got ignored.  Even great PS3 exclusives weren't enough to entice me to play the machine again because "I can't get achievements for playing them."

  Addictions are problems.  I'm not saying everyone who plays for achievements are addicts, but I know some are.  I know one person who was the first in my group of online friends to achieve 100,000.  Wanna know how he did it?  He played bad licensed games.  He played kids games.  He played Barbie.  He bought XBLA games he didn't even like because "they were a quick 200."  He spent time on xbox360achievements.com to research his next quickest path to gamerscore domination.  Did he enjoy getting there?  I'm sure he did, so where exactly is the problem?

  The problem is that's not what achievements are meant for.  They were meant for rewarding you for things you wanted to do, and to entice you to try something you normally wouldn't - within reason.  Having to play a bad game, having to play a kid's game, having to play a Barbie game to increase your gamescore should not be encouraged.  You should be playing games you WANT to play and games that you LIKE.  You also shouldn't be driven mad trying to unlock some stupidly hard challenge for 10 GS or spending two hours killing people with the same gun for 15 GS.  I've even heard people paying other people to play games for them under their profile just so their gamerscore could continue to grow when they themselves weren't playing.  Is a gamescore really worth that much to some people?  Apparently so.

  I will admit, I'm guilty of this.  Although I never had it as bad as needing to play a Barbie game, I did play games I had no interest in for quick "chievos".  Hell, I even got the Burger King games because they had achievements.  I also spent far too much time on certain games trying to get all 1000 out of 1000.  Whenever I get a Lego game on the 360, I feel compelled to get every single achievement, and I can't seem to convince myself that it's not worth doing.  It's not enhancing the gaming experience, more as it's just wasting time that I should be spending playing one of the over 200 other games I've yet to play.

  Granted, one could make the argument that the achievement system was designed to lengthen the life of your game.  If you just sped through a great game in five hours, you're most likely not going to spend anymore time on it.  But, if you get an achievement for finishing the game on Hard, that's another five hours.  You might be encouraged to play with your friends online for some more achievements, or explore levels that you would normally pass over.  In the case of bad games, though, you don't want to spend anymore time on a game you don't like.  It's like ordering a disgusting sandwich.  Do you keep eating the sandwich just because it's there?  Do you get an achievement for keeping it down when finished, or should you just have the sense to put the thing that's making you sick down?

  Another problem with this kind of achievement hunting is that it doesn't reflect accurately what kind of gamer you are.  When you compare gamer profiles side by side, you see the games they've played and the achievements they've unlocked.  You get a general sense of what they like to play and just how much they like to play it. When used correctly, the system is brilliant, but what do you think of someone who just plays kids games for the easy points?  Doesn't that strike you as a waste?  Shouldn't you wish that gamer spent his time better?  Well, it is his time after all, but then don't you wonder if he really enjoyed himself, or that he could enjoy himself better had he been playing games he truly was interested in?

  So this brings me back to the TV "chievos".  Now granted, the idea of physical rewards is always nice.  If you're going to get something that you can actually use, that's more than just a boost to your gamescore.  You might actually be encouraged enough to make a point to watch something.  Now, if these are just going to be simple point boosts, then I begin to wonder just how many people will continue to watch a TV series they don't like just so they could get the achievement for it.  

  Aren't there other TV shows out there more deserving of your time?  Aren't there other games out there more deserving of your time?  Wouldn't the real achievement lie in knowing you truly enjoyed what you experienced?  Too bad there isn't a real achievement for that.  

  

  • Posted May 28, 2013 10:25 am GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 26May 13

  I had a dream

  In this dream, MS succeeded with their Xbox One, at least initially.  They sold close to a million units at launch, and sold roughly a million more shortly afterward, but something went wrong.  There were so many problems with the machine itself and with the services they had.  The Red Ring of Death came back to haunt them.  That was the last straw for gamers who put up with it with the 360.  Azure servers went down. GameStop and other major retailers had enough of their used game income being gouged.  They stopped carrying the Xbox One.  Xbox One started dying.

  The PS4 was off to a great start, about as great as the Xbox One had, but their momentum quickly gained once people grew tired of broken MS machines.  It gained faster when retailers stopped carrying Xbox One.  MS tried to repair things with retailers, ending the Azure software agreements and even offered free basic XBL, but to no avail.  Xbox massacred itself.  

  MS's stock plummeted.  They now had internal hemorrhaging they could not stem.  The millions of dollars spent with partnerships such as the NFL and CBS started to show lackluster returns.  Investors left.  The 300,000 plus servers powering the Cloud grew too taxing to upkeep.  Shortcuts were taken and service suffered.  Xbox Ones world wide wouldn't connect and millions of units were instantly bricked.  Anonymous, self-proclaimed freedom fighters of justice, swept in and hacked MS's network, ensuring the Cloud stayed down for an extended period of time, an attack on MS for violating consumer rights.  

  Third-parties began withdrawing, unable to make profits as a result of low sales  of used games, and an inability to make money from used games, a feature MS worked so hard to entice them with.  They flocked to Sony, and some even returned to Nintendo.  EA and Nintendo came to an agreement and as such, the Wii U received the Frostbite 3 engine.  Nintendo wisened up and realized that their newfound support needed to be nutured and cultured, so Nintendo worked with developers so that they could take full advantage of the hardware.  They were still behind in graphical prowess, but it didn't matter.  Third parties became more profitable as Wii U units started selling through the roof.  The Xbox One became a distant third. 

  Now, here's where the dream became really interesting.  Nintendo and Sony relished in the decline of MS.  Two industry giants benefiting from the fall of a third, and the heads had a meeting.  Hirai and Iwata talked and talked.  What they talked about, I don't remember.  That part of the dream was hazy.  But what came as a result of the talk was a partnership.  They forgave one another for the bad blood created during the SNES era where the two of them were supposed to create a CD add-on for the Super Nintendo.  

  Somewhere around 2019 or 2020, they would join forces and develop a new console.  Sony brought with them their immense console marketing while Nintendo brought their innovation and world reknown first party franchises.  The two benefitted immensley from the partnership and grew to be more profitable together than they ever had as competitors.  Hardcore and casual united; gaming found its new golden era.  

  There was also a side effect of this juncture.  They joined forces on the handheld front as well.  While Sony had the muscle in the console market, Nintendo had the muscle on the handheld front.  Sony built an extremely powerful handheld while Nintendo marketed it and took the world by storm.  Sony opened the door to indie developers like they did with the PS4, and this new handheld's library saw variety more vast than the Vita and the 3DS put together.  Under Nintendo's close watch, Sony began repairing the financial damage they incurred from the failure of the Vita.  

  Meanwhile, MS kills the Xbox One.  They try things fresh and release yet another Xbox, this time a machine that is game-centric.  This time, they let Kinect go.  This time, they no longer go after multimedia partnerships.  They tried to go against Apple and SmartTVs, but it didn't pay off.  Windows 9 is released, and succeeds where 8 should have, so it becomes their bread and butter and they run with it.  They learned costly mistakes with the Xbox One and now it's too late for them reclaim their market.  The new Sony and Nintendo console has it all.  MS tries a gaming phone, but they can't get anywhere near the same support that the Nintendo and Sony handheld has.

  Two companies join to capitalize on the mistakes of a third.  What an epic and glorious dream... Shame I had to wake up from it. 

  • Posted May 26, 2013 6:17 pm GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »