DRM is not "evolution" of the industry

Following Microsoft's decision to actually listen to its customers, I was somewhat astounded by the fact that there were people who were genuinely angry about the policy reversal. Apparently it's a bad thing to be able to own your own games and not be forced to arbitrarily connect to the Internet in order to play them. How does this make any sense, you might ask? Well, it really doesn't, but making sense has never been a bad opinion's forte now, has it?

Case study #1: Kyle Wagner. This guy seems to be the one most cited by DRM apologists as having good reasons for why we should like corporations dictating absolute control over our games. Now, I could dissect each individual point of his arguments and show why they are almost all flawed in some way, but there's honestly just too much nonsense there to cover and it wouldn't even be worth it, so I'm only going to address some overarching points made by him and other DRM defenders.

First of all, this narrative that we are holding back the "evolution" of the industry by resisting DRM is just silliness. The implication is that we are being resistant to change simply because it is change and we're not really objecting for any rational reasons, which couldn't be further from the truth. I've got no problems with using the Internet to enhance my products. I use it all the time. I'm using it for this blog right now. My issue is not with the mere use of the Internet, but rather *how* it is being used. See, traditionally online functionality has been used to improve gameplay by offering new multiplayer capabilties that previously couldn't be achieved in games. But tell me, what tangible gameplay benefit is there in making me arbitrarily connect to the Internet to play a single player game? Answer: none. None whatsoever. All this does is restrict my use of the game with the needless addition of another requirement that must be met. Using the power of the Internet merely to restrict my products rather than expand their features is hardly evolution.

The other big argument I see often is the comparison to Steam. Like Microsoft, Steam's platform employs the use of DRM; requiring an online connection in order to activate your games before you can play, and therefore to criticize Microsoft while praising Steam for doing the same thing is somewhat hypocritical. To the first part of this point, I actually agree, though maybe not exactly in the way that apologists might be hoping for. Yes, I do think it is a bit of a double standard. In fact, I think far too many people let Steam off the hook when it should be scrutinized too. Just because Valve has done a lot of other things right doesn't make it OK to take away ownership of your games and dictate whatever terms of service they feel like which they can change at any time. So yes, the comparison here is fair, but that's precisely why you should *oppose* both platforms, not support them.

However, the other aspect of this argument is the assumption that, given time, Microsoft's service could easily become as robust and affordable as Steam's, and therefore it could be just as "awesome" with big sales full of cheap games. The problem is that this argument hinges on nothing but gigantic leaping assumptions, because I have yet to see any evidence presented that there is any actual link between Steam's DRM and cheaper games. Has Valve actually made any official statements claiming that it is directly as a result of their DRM that they are able to profit from hugely discounted sales? To the best of my knowledge, I could not find any sources stating such. In fact, if anything the reasons for Steam sales probably have more to do with the fact that Valve is still an entirely privately-owned company and has not gone public with its assets, so they don't need to answer to any shareholders and therefore have more flexibility to experiment with different business models. This theory is further bolstered by the fact that a while back EA senior vice president for global commerce David DeMartini criticized Valve's Steam sales, claiming that they were having a negative impact on the industry. Now what does this have to do with my point? Well, at the time of his statement, DeMartini was overseeing EA's own digital distribution and DRM client, Origin, which had accumulated a respectable 11 million users during that time; making it the second largest digital distribution client next to Steam. Now why would DeMartini be objecting to this business model if he himself should theoretically be able to offer the same deals with his platform? To me that says the issue has more to do with differing business philosophies rather than anything related to DRM, as here we have an exhibit A example of a company offering a DRM platform but still openly opposing Steam's sales model.

Even Kyle Wagner basically admits in his article that despite his assertions of DRM complaints being "so last decade", the problems people used to have with it still apply. It still forces a dependency on outside servers, and therefore it still amounts to a ticking time bomb/extended rental service for all your games. His only real counter to this is to just ignore the problems anyway because the benefits supposedly outweigh them. Well I'm sorry to say Kyle, but they don't. Most of your arguments hinge on good faith assumptions that we really have no reasons to believe. Moreover, there's nothing stopping Microsoft from still implementing all the features they originally wanted to have anyway. They could still have the 10-person share plan and games being linked to your Xbox Live account. All they'd have to do is just implement it only for their *digital* marketplace and then merely let players have the option to choose which method they would rather prefer. The fact that they decided to completely rescind the whole thing anyway simply tells me they were being petty and wanted to make us feel guilty on all the features we're now losing out on, so your blame should fall squarely on Microsoft if you're still honestly that hung up about it.

Steam and other platforms like it are not god's gift to gamers and I'm not some ignorant neanderthal that just hasn't yet been enlightened about their awesomeness. On the contrary, I've tried Steam and purchased from its sales before, and I've concluded that ultimately I don't agree with the policies of their platform even in spite of their affordable prices, so deal with it.

I won't applaud Microsoft for doing what they should have obviously done in the first place, but I will continue to maintain that they made the right decision here in listening to their customers and removing DRM. It's not "evolution"; it's not the "future of gaming"; it's just corporate greed overstretching its limits, and it's time everyone recognizes that.

Why Nintendo should NOT step down from hardware

I've read countless comments from gamers over the past several years calling for Nintendo to step down from the hardware business and just go the way of Sega making third party software. This sentiment strikes me as lacking in foresight and consideration of the consequences that this would entail; on top of just plain being a bad business decision in general.

First of all, it should be noted that the Wii won the last generation. Yes, I know this still comes as a shock to some, but in terms of raw console sales, the Wii outsold its other two competitors both in the US and worldwide, currently clocking in at a full 22 million units ahead of the Xbox360 with 99.84 million units sold. What's funny is that in spite of this, I was still seeing comments even before the rough launch of the WiiU calling for Nintendo to drop out of hardware, which makes absolutely no sense considering these statistics. Yeah, sure, let's just quit while we're massively ahead? There's a winning business strategy if I ever saw one.

OK, so there is the consideration that despite the Wii's humongous sales, it could be argued that the system isn't as successful as it is made out to be because for many gamers the console has been collecting dust on their shelves after the initial excitement over the motion controls died down and there was a lack of titles to satisfy the hardcore audience. I get that, and from a consumer standpoint, the success of a console should probably be measured a little differently, but strictly from a business perspective, it's the sales that matter at the end of the day, and there's no question that from this viewpoint the Wii was the clear victor. On top of this, the Wii's hardware and price point allowed Nintendo to turn a profit merely from the sale of the console itself whereas Sony and Microsoft had to sell their consoles at a loss and recoup the damages through software. This generation was a massive victory for Nintendo in that regard, and so it would be completely silly for them to stop at the Wii.

But now we enter the WiiU. The console has certainly had a rocky launch and Nintendo has suffered some financial troubles with the loss of the casual market, third party support, and hardcore gamers as well, but even still, this is a far cry from being in the dire straits that Sega was facing when they launched the Dreamcast. Remember that Sega went through three failed consoles in a row before their ultimate decision to throw in the towel on hardware. When was the last time Nintendo had a failed console? An argument could *maybe* be made for the GameCube, but even despite finishing third place, it sold enough units to hold its own, and it was only a very short margin behind the original Xbox in sales. Other than that, the only real flop they had was the Virtual Boy as far back as 1995; a full 18 years ago, and we're long past that now. Furthermore, can the WiiU even be regarded as a failure yet when it's this early in the game? The Playstation 3 had a more difficult launch than this and was able to pull itself up by its bootstraps. In fact, the WiiU has sold 2.6 million units globally as of March 2013, which in a similar timeframe during the last console era, the PS3 only sold 2.4 million units and the Xbox360 had sold 2 million. Still, this doesn't change the fact that in the markets Nintendo really needs to hit right now, they're in quite a bit of trouble, but nonetheless the situation could be a lot worse than where it actually is.

Now, that's just the business side of things, but there's another aspect to this we should consider too. While it's true that Nintendo's innovations don't always deliver and can sometimes come off as gimmicks, they are the only ones in the business that are actually trying to do something different. Without them, we wouldn't have seen our traditional thumbstick controllers in the first place, as the N64 was the first console to feature them. I applaud Nintendo for continually taking the risks that they do because no one else will. Sony and Microsoft in contrast tend to refine and iterate rather than innovate, and while there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, in the absence of anyone else taking the helm to try something different, all that spells is more stagnation and Call of Duty. It's slightly irritating that many of the same gamers who speak out against repetition and lack of innovation in the market are the same people who then turn around and instantly write innovations off as gimmicks. What were you honestly expecting anyway? You think one day we're going to be playing with our standard thumbstick controllers and then the next we're suddenly into full-on virtual reality? Sorry to say, but I got news for you: that's not how it works. Technology generally progresses in stepping stones, not giant leaps and bounds, and the Wii was just one small step toward that virtual reality future we all desire. At the very least, I find it refreshing that I can sit through a Nintendo presentation and get through minimally 5 or 6 trailers before I see the first gun or sword being swung around. I for one welcome Nintendo to continue to carry the torch for game genres that aren't really being explored in the western markets and offering more variety to the table.

I have my fair share of beefs with Nintendo as well. They really do need to step up their game with a more robust online network, stronger hardware, new IPs, and better third party support. I also don't like what they did with screwing over Let's Play Youtubers by stealing their revenue. Never for a second though do I think they should step out of the hardware business; not while Sony and Microsoft are behaving the way they are now, and not while Nintendo is holding such a strong standing in the market. We need the competition.

Our voices heard: Microsoft backpedals on DRM

I just wanted to make a quick note before posting my main blog article for the day. Microsoft has just come out with a new statement announcing the discontinuing of their planned software policy to institute online DRM and mandatory check-ins with Microsoft's servers every 24 hours. Now I admit I've become a rather cynical gamer these days, but at least for this brief moment I'll take my victory. I'll take my victory and run with it.

This proves that our voices can be heard. This combined with PS4 preorders selling out instantly while the Xbox One dragged its heels in the dirt effectively forced Microsoft into making this move before the boycotts even needed to begin. For once it seems justice has been served.

Still, I'm left feeling a little bit like it's a hollow victory. Because of Microsoft's gross mishandling of their next-gen console, Sony was allowed to divert our attention away from sneaking in PS+ subscriptions for online play. At the end of the day, we didn't gain anything. We only lost something while maintaining other features that we should have always had on our consoles to begin with. Nonetheless, it's a small loss in what otherwise could have been a much worse future for gaming.

At this point though, the bad blood is already there, and Don Mattrick can't simply take back the things he said just like that. The damage has been done and it's going to take more than giving back a few features we should already have as a gesture of good faith. Maybe now is the perfect time to start offering Xbox Live for free? That could be a great start.

Yeah right, I can keep dreaming.

How marketing matters more than facts

Following my harsh blog article I wrote on Sony's E3 2013 Press Conference, I not-too-unexpectedly received a lot of hate. My pro-consumer positions on most issues are rather uncompromising, and unfortunately that means sometimes I'll butt heads with even some of the more popular icons of the industry like Valve, and now recently, Sony as well. Nonetheless, I am a firm believer in holding businesses accountable, and I'm not going to hop on the white knight bandwagon just because that's the narrative that is currently being painted for Sony, which brings me to my first point of the day.

Jack Tretton at E3 2013.

Sony is above all else a corporation like Microsoft; not your friend. I can assure you they are in this business for the money first and foremost, and if they saw that it would be more profitable to institute always online DRM and used game restrictions, they would have done so. But they didn't. Why was this the case? Because it was the perfect opportunity to seize a large chunk of Microsoft's disenfranchised audience, and it worked brilliantly. Gamers were angry, and they were seeking an outlet to satiate that anger. Sony was able to fulfill that role for them, and now Sony is poised to make huge bank off that audience because they know Xbox gamers are willing to pay subscription fees for services otherwise provided free on other platforms. This idea that Sony is your savior that cares for you and is looking out for you is misguided in light of that fact. There is arguably no worthwhile benefit for us by taking away a feature that was previously offered free on their platform and charging extra for it. PC games have long been supporting online play without subscription fees quite effectively even before XBL and PSN came into existence.

I bring all this up because I'm trying to show that you should always be vigilant toward business interests, as they don't always have your interests at heart. I know this doesn't fit the nice fairy tale narrative we'd like to have that Microsoft is the big bad wolf and Sony is the white knight savior coming to our rescue, but this is the reality we should come to understand. We as consumers have to keep our interests balanced with theirs, and often times the only way to do this is through exercising restraint with our wallets. That being said, this isn't necessarily to assert that Sony is "evil" per say; all I'm saying is to be mindful that as a business they have their own agendas that do not always coincide with yours, so you shouldn't always assume they are making all their decisions based on your best interests.

There's a couple observations I witnessed firsthand this year at E3 that I think are important to highlight. First, that marketing matters more than facts, and second, that lack of competition is very damaging for the industry. I think people would be singing a very different tune about Sony if they tried to introduce these online subscription fees while Microsoft had been offering strong competition this whole time. If Microsoft never even considered DRM restrictions and they were actually offering real competition in the market, I think we'd see quite a few more longtime Sony fans feeling betrayed, but because this subscription fee was introduced in the context of Sony not being as draconian as Microsoft, it was allowed to slip under the radar. I've been told that I should just be grateful that Sony isn't *completely* screwing us over with used game restrictions and DRM, but what is failing to be recognized here is the understanding that these features have always been standard for every game console and aren't something to be lauded. Make no mistake, this is a *downgrade* from the Playstation 3. Let's review.

The PS3 offers:
>No used game restrictions
>No online DRM
>Free online play

And now the PS4 only offers:
>No used game restrictions
>No online DRM

That's a loss for us, not a gain. Yet, because of Sony's clever marketing and capitalization on Microsoft's tremendous blunders, this is now somehow being billed as a good thing, or something we should simply chalk up to a necessary compromise just because it could have been worse. This is a classic politician move. You play off people's fears about something they're currently really worried about so that you can redirect their attention away from the other despicable move you're going to make. Then you turn around and go, "What? Am I not merciful? I gave you used games and offline single player!" NEWS FLASH: We've always had that anyway. Why are we treating these like groundbreaking features for the console? You might as well inform everyone, "Our game console can play video games!" Holy #$*&, really?

The Playstation 4 can play video games! More at ten.

Microsoft actually tried to use this same tactic with their marketing about their DRM only to lesser effectiveness. For example, when pointing out that all their games need to go through a redemption process that ties them to your Xbox Live account, they were quick to try and redirect our attention by reassuring us that anyone sharing your Xbox One with you still won't have to pay for a second copy. Of course, as I mentioned in my blog article covering this, their point cleverly ignores the other more prevalent problems with this DRM system such as the fact that it still is requiring an Internet connection to access single player content that should otherwise theoretically be able to work fine offline in the first place, and therefore is completely unnecessary.

It's really too bad that Nintendo didn't do a conference this year, because aside from the fact that I think they would've had enough games to make at least a decently compelling showcase, they could have also taken the opportunity to put things into perspective and remind everyone that their system already has been offering these features from day one; including free online multiplayer which now even Sony can't attest to. Hate on Nintendo all you want, but at least despite their currently lacking library of games and hardware, they don't try to pull any nickel-and-dime measures on you and instead just try to win you over by making great games, which is the way it should be normally if gamers had any standards and would stop buying into this crap.

At the end of the day I can understand why Sony did this. Yes, it makes them more money. Yes, they are a business. I just wish companies would stop feeling like they need to make more money through such contemptible means. How about buying out more exclusive developers instead and investing in more games to increase your player base? Or, make the Gaikai cloud features and other new online functionality PS+ exclusive, but still keep the core PSN online play free. After all, if these are really features that gamers want, then let them decide if they are willing to pay for them. How about offering *more* features to entice players to upgrade to your premium services rather than taking them away and charging extra for them? Hell, I'll even take advertisements during load screens if they really need the help that badly to pay the bills for the servers. No sweat off my back. I dunno, that's just a few ideas, but at this point I'm simply tired of all the short changing practices from day one DLC, subscription fees, microtransactions, and the like. Personally I'd rather have companies just be up front about their prices and increase the retail price of games to $70. If games are really getting that expensive to make, then so be it. After all, the retail price of games hasn't been adjusting with the rate of inflation anyway. Don't saddle me with little hidden fees around every corner though.

Speaking of these other questionable practices however, this just yet again exemplifies the double standards and hypocrisy being exhibited from gamers as a result of Sony's marketing. I would be willing to wager that a fairly large segment of the defenders for PS+ are the same people who would decry Capcom for their short changing practices such as on-disc "DLC", so I have to ask, what's the difference? Why is it acceptable for Sony to charge you more for less but not Capcom? After all, it's "only" ten more dollars! As far as I'm concerned, if you're defending Sony's decision with PS+ then you have officially revoked your right to complain about any other nickel-and-dime practices; because really, if you're going to shun me for making such a big deal out of this, then it's pretty curious how selective your outrage is when on the other hand you're unleashing your wrath on Microsoft for requiring a simple Internet check-in. Maybe you think this is all apples and oranges, but at least on the pure substance of the argument, "It's only $4 a month," I'd say on-disc/day one DLC is a completely comparable analogy. Debating the value of the purchase is one thing, but dismissing me merely because the price isn't expensive (regardless of the actual content you're getting for that price) is a pretty weak argument.

I think it speaks volumes about the state of the industry right now when a company is being lauded just for not being as bad as the other guy instead of, you know, being praised for genuinely doing a good job. But OK, perhaps I'm being a bit too cynical about this whole thing and blowing it a little out of proportion. Truthfully, I'll admit that by itself the PS+ subscription fee is not a deal-breaker for me. It's just that it feels like the breaking point for me on top of a long list of exploitative practices the industry has been adopting over the years. It seems so silly to me to pay for online play when I already pay my Internet bill for online access and I've been gaming online for over a decade on my PC without ever suddenly being prompted to fork over extra cash. Up until this point, Microsoft was the only one charging for such a service, and I was hoping that eventually the industry would move away from treating online gaming as a premium privilege, but instead it's taking another step toward it. Therefore I have decided to boycott both the PS4 and Xbox One until they change their practices. I am still considering a PS4 possibly at some point in the distant future, but certainly never an Xbox One, and if I do get a PS4, I'll never pay for a PS+ subscription; just as I have done with Xbox Live in the past. As responsible consumers, we've got to fight back at some point, and now more than ever I don't see a better time to start. Maybe you disagree though. Maybe you can live with that one extra subscription, but can we at least agree that I'm not the bad guy here when I'm just trying to look out for your wallet and put things into proper perspective? It amazes me that I'm being bashed and condescended to for pointing out what should obviously be recognized as a dick move. Even if you don't mind the subscription, you should at least be able to understand where I'm coming from.

TL;DR, Maddox summarizes my views on E3 this year the best.

I realize though that almost all of my blog posts focus on negative topics thus far, so I'm going to be working on changing that. Truth be told, I can't help but admit that I am definitely a critic at heart, and there's nothing that gets me more passionate and motivated to sit down and write something than when I hear news that makes my blood boil. I can't guarantee that I'll ever strike a proper balance with this blog, but despite whatever image you may have of me at this point, I can assure you that I do very much love my games, and I care about them deeply, which is why I will try to devote more time to actually showcasing that passion from this point onward. Therefore, I have planned several new pieces of content to be featured on this blog. First, I will be revisiting two topics that I previously had negative opinions on, and I will be sharing my recently more optimistic perspective on them. Those two topics include the crowd-funded Ouya console, and the state of the MMO genre. I'll also be defending a game that has received a lot of hate from fans of the series, Metroid: Other M. Finally, I'd like to finish off with a "Top 10 Greatest Games You Never Heard of" list, where I will go through some of my favorite games throughout the years that may have often been underrated or overlooked, and I'll be explaining why I love them, and why you should be playing them. So, I hope you're all looking forward to a slightly less cynical Derpalon coming to you in the near future. :p

Sony E3 2013 Conference: So close, but missed the target

Sony's E3 2013 Press Conference has concluded, and boy was much of it a direct slap in the face to Microsoft. I have to say in terms of effectiveness at building hype and rhetoric, they knocked it out of the park with their game lineup and hardware reveal.

You almost had me believing, Sony.

Keeping in line with Sony's previous strategy during their Playstation 4 reveal, their focus was very much on the games, and I found it especially pleasing to see such strong support for the indie scene, with Transistor of Supergiant Games being at the forefront of the bunch. This is definitely the right strategy for building momentum with their audience.

That said, I couldn't help but notice that for the majority of titles showcased--especially outside of their indie lineup--there was an overabundance of guns. Lots and lots of guns. We couldn't go for ten minutes without having another gun shoved in our faces. I understand the reasons for why this is the case, but nonetheless I really do wish there was more creativity in the industry today. I am starting to share some of the same sentiments as industry veteran Warren Spector regarding how cheap and easy it is to do violence in games. Not to say that I'm opposed to violence; just that it's certainly an overused gameplay device and we need to start offering more variety in our games again beyond mindless pointing and shooting. At the same time, I realize these design choices are largely out of Sony's control; they were just smartly picking games to showcase from developers that they thought would be most appealing, and furthermore, I'm willing to forgive them on this front simply because they made such a strong effort to support indie games as well.

Among some of the highlights of the conference, I was fairly impressed by the look of Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag and how they seamlessly mixed gunplay with swords and showed off some shipboard combat. I had been getting a little fatigued of the Assassin's Creed series at this point, and if they can keep the rest of the game as interesting and well-executed as this, I could be convinced to pick it up. However, there were some technical issues towards the end and the demonstration had to be cut off early, but this didn't bother me too much. Bugs can always be worked out in due time with a little software ingenuity.

We also had more gameplay footage of Watch_Dogs which is shaping up pretty nicely, and it appears Final Fantasy Versus XIII has finally been properly renamed to Final Fantasy XV, as it never really made sense to me to use a naming convention that implied relation to the original FFXIII despite sharing none of its characters or setting. Kingdom Hearts 3 was briefly announced which I'm sure has fans excited (though I personally have yet to get into this series), and finally we have Bungie's Destiny, which appears to be a Halo-meets-Borderlands experience with co-op loot-based shooter gameplay. To be honest it didn't look that impressive to me though. I like the character art design, and I know a lot of people are excited for this, but I couldn't ignore the overwhelming feeling that I've already played this game before since the gameplay mostly amounted to the same point-and-shoot monotony we've come to expect from Bungie, and it didn't at all delve into the lore to get me intrigued. After ODST and Reach, I've been burned out by Bungie's lack of creativity and inability to restore the magic that was the first time I played through Halo: Combat Evolved.

Last but not least, Sony couldn't resist taking a gigantic jab at Microsoft with the sudden reveal of their used game and DRM policy, which is to say they have no DRM whatsoever and used games are fully supported. It's incredibly sad that this is something to get excited about when normally these features should be taken for granted as a standard part of any decent console worth its two cents, but regardless this was the most pleasing news of the day for me, as I could breathe a sigh of relief that the industry hasn't totally fallen into darkness with gross abuses of online functionality. To add further insult to injury, Sony announced their price point for the PS4 to be at just $399 USD; a full $100 cheaper than Microsoft's Xbox One. At this point I was getting giddy with excitement. Sony was playing nearly all their cards right and this almost seemed like it could be the perfect next-gen console.

Almost.

Unfortunately, while I see many gamers cheering victory and feeling vindicated that there is an option in the market that isn't totally anti-consumer, Sony has gone and cleverly snuck in subscription fees for online play behind our backs right when we were all most vulnerable. This was the main feature that convinced me to sell my Xbox360 to pick up a Playstation 3 in the first place. I found the practice to be a shallow nickel-and-dime measure considering that my gaming PC has been doing online play free for over a decade now and counting.

But alas, the hype train has already taken off at full throttle and can't be stopped, so already I am forced to address the many excuses being laid out for Sony's dubious decisions. Let's get crackin' folks.

"But it comes with a bunch of free games!"

They're not free if you have to pay a subscription for them, and more importantly, if I wanted those games, I would just go buy them myself, so woohoo! Congratulations! I get a bunch of random games I don't want. In the meantime, my PC still lets me play for free, and I don't have to feel obligated to play in order to get my money's worth.

"It's only $50."

A year. $50 per year. This generation has been running... what? About 7 years at least? So let's do the math. 7 x 50 = $350 I could have better spent on other games I actually wanted, or better yet, $350 I could have saved for more important things. This effectively puts the console's true price at $750 minimum if you want it to offer all the same functionality that the PS3 originally had during its lifecycle (to put things into proper perspective). Even if you still find this acceptable, it should be opposed at the very least on principle, as it sets a bad precedent and leaves an open invitation for them to continue to find ways to short change you because they know they can get away with it.

"Sony has to make up for the manufacturing costs of the console."

Yes, it's true that at its price point (and likely the Xbox One's as well) it will probably be sold at a net loss for Sony. But guess what? That's what the *games* are for! Every game sold on the system has to pay royalties to Sony for being distributed through their platform, and traditionally that has always been how they could recover the costs. Now they're doing that... PLUS nickel-and-diming you extra through PSN. The Playstation 3 was able to survive just fine on the old model even despite its rocky launch, so please, let's stop pretending here like Sony has no other choice or else they'd go broke.

"The money can be used to improve the service."

I've been told many times that Sony's online service is lacking in comparison to Xbox Live, but truth be told, while I do agree that XBL's feature set is more robust, PSN did do its core function well enough; it lets me play my games online, and I'd take it in its current state any day over needing to suddenly pay for the service only to receive arguably marginal improvements.

Sigh, it was just too good to be true. This is really disappointing, and yet so masterfully handled by Sony (and I don't mean that as a good thing). They have covertly gone and stripped away a basic staple feature of their console, and now they're charging you extra for it, and no one cares because they're just happy to not be even more thoroughly abused by Microsoft. This is why lack of competition is bad for the industry. Microsoft is currently unable to offer anything to compete with them, so Sony is allowed to get away with stripping away features we should be able to take for granted. The fact of the matter is, the PS3 already offered no DRM, no used game restrictions, *and* online play for free, and now they're downgrading it. This is a slippery slope if I ever saw one folks; now let's wait until Microsoft announces their *next* next-gen console with fully always online every-second check-ins, and then suddenly everyone will be OK with it when Sony comes out with their check-in being "only" every 24 hours. What? What's the big deal? It's still better than Microsoft!

Don't be fooled by it. You are getting less for more. And look, I get it. I know it sucks that with the seemingly constant stream of bad news in the game industry as of late, you want to have someone in the industry that you can glean a shred of hope from; someone that can offer you an alternative out of the endless river of corporate BS, but currently that someone just isn't Sony. Not yet. But the good news is this: you can make them into that someone. All you have to do is vote with your wallet and your voice; the same as you would with the Xbox One. Let them know that you don't tolerate being nickel-and-dimed for services that have always previously been provided free, and they will listen when they see their money drying up. And once again, when the software is patched back to normal, you can go out and buy your PS4 anyway. I want to reiterate as I have done in my previous blog entry that this isn't about hating on any one company or being a negative Nancy. This is about holding the industry accountable and preserving its integrity for the future. I'm afraid though that with the current hype now generated around Sony, this message will probably fall on deaf ears, and so it appears that though the industry may have temporarily staved off the Internet dark age, it still seems poised toward an age of nickels and dimes at the very least.

And with all that said, I now give my rating for the conference. I was thinking of giving them a B since they came out initially opposed to Microsoft's practices and had a solid game lineup (though nothing totally groundbreaking to get my jimmies rustled), but given how despicable I found their move with PSN and how cleverly they shielded it from us, I'm going with a D. Bad Sony. Please try again, and stop pretending to be the good guy until you actually are.

The worst console announcement in gaming history

Lots of hate has been thrown in Microsoft's direction lately following the announcement of the Xbox One, and even many longtime fans of the Xbox consoles have been abandoning ship in the wake of Microsoft's PR mess. Quite frankly though, I'm actually surprised and even pleased to see this level of vitriol being leveled against the console. Anyone who has read my previous blog editorials would know that for some time now I've been speaking out against anti-consumer practices in the market even on popular platforms like Steam, and for the most part I have felt largely alone and isolated in fighting this battle. I see the industry going down the path toward an "Internet dark age" as boogie2988 has recently described it, and by my estimation prior to this console announcement no one really seemed to care. As you can imagine then, when I started seeing the public outcry pouring forth from the community following Microsoft's press conference on the new Xbox, I was pleasantly shocked to see such a sudden emergence in concern for the issue.

So what exactly is the big deal that is making the Xbox One turn out to be the worst console announcement in gaming history? Let's take a moment to examine the problem in-depth; because in spite of the large outcry against it, there still remains a plethora of gamers that continue to behave apathetically or dismissively toward the outrage, and I can't help but be bothered by it. Now, I could talk about how the Kinect 2.0 requirement poses many privacy concerns, or how there will be inevitable restrictions on used games as a result of granting publishers the power to control their distribution, but these issues really pale in comparison to the Xbox One's most crippling feature; the mandatory online check-in every 24 hours. This issue alone should be a deal-breaker for anyone.

O how backward things have gotten.

I already know what the apologists are thinking though. "So what? Obviously you have a good enough Internet connection to be posting this blog right now, so why should you be concerned about your Xbox One?"

This question demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how the server/client system works when you require an Internet connection for a product; because something that is continually forgotten when apologists pose this question is that it's not *just* the Internet connection that is required once you implement this feature. It also becomes a requirement that you be able to communicate with Microsoft's servers; servers which can be hacked into and/or taken down for maintenance, and which will likely not exist in a few years once the next console cycle has started. Let's not forget the time when PSN was down for months following a hacking intrusion. In any one of these scenarios, your entire game collection would be rendered totally inaccessible whether you have the most stable and blazing fast Internet connection in the world or you're even just lucky to have 56k, so this is *NOT* just a simple problem for people who have no Internet. It's a problem for everyone. It's a problem for people running on Google fiber; for people running on high-speed cable and DSL; for people who care about the preservation of gaming history; for soldiers fighting for us overseas; for you and me. No one is exempt from the damning effects of this design model.

If all that isn't enough to get you riled up, I honestly don't know what could. I guess it's time for the next step in the evolution of the game industry with microchip implants into the base of your skull? I dunno, maybe Microsoft will find some marketing use for tracking GPS statistics of every location you visit. Are we ever going to draw the line in the sand? I understand that I'm being somewhat melodramatic here because in the grand scheme of things there are more important things than video games, but nonetheless I truly do view the medium as an artform and I'd really hate to see it be reduced to nothing more than a brain-dead corporate cash cow.

TV. SPORTS. CALL OF DUTY.

There is no reason you should be required to connect online to access content that can function otherwise perfectly fine offline. This is pure corporate greed running amok; plain and simple, and it's disheartening to see how easily people are still willing to give up their consumer rights for it. I realize the industry has to make money to survive, but there are bounds of reason, and sometimes the only way to enforce them is for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, which brings us to my final point on the matter.

The launch of the Xbox One will be a pivotal test for gamers and a crucial moment for gaming history; not just because it's another brand new console generation that will be open for exploration, but because it will be a test of our restraint and will to resist corporations dictating the course of the industry unchecked. Are we going to allow ourselves to turn games into disposable entertainment to be tossed away after a few months for temporary gratification, or do we care about our rights as consumers and the preservation of gaming history for future generations?

The saddest thing about this whole affair is that we will probably lose this fight if sales numbers for SimCity and Diablo III have been any indicator so far, and yet it's not even that hard to have our voices heard. All we have to do is resist the temptation to buy the system. That's it. There's nothing that makes a giant corporation cave in to pressure faster than seeing their bottom line collapse under its foundations, and seeing as all these issues are software-related, it can all be patched away and corrected out of the system easily within a couple months, and then we can all go out, buy our Xbox Ones, and enjoy the system anyway. See, this isn't about getting on the hate train and bashing Microsoft because it's the hip and cool thing to do right now. This is about protecting the future of the game industry, and whether it's Microsoft doing this, or Sony, or Nintendo, or anyone else, we all have to stand opposed to overreaching DRM no matter who's doing it if we want to put an end to this nonsense.

Git 'em boys!

Don't buy the Xbox One.