Xbox exclusivity?

Now we know why Microsoft is charging you more for your Xbox Live subscription (if you live in North America or the UK):

Now in 2002, it was strictly multiplayer gaming. Now we get those Call of Duty map packs before anybody else does. We’ve got Gears and Halo, of course, as exclusives. We continue to get exclusives on the service as well. And we’ve gone from 400,000 members in our first year to 25 million.

Well, if I were an Xbox player, I wouldn't think "oh, I love these games but I don't want anyone else to play them". That would be selfish and stupid. But Microsoft is paying millions to developers so they don't sell PS3 versions. Do Xbox players get any real benefit from this? No. Microsoft does.

Also, an Xbox player has Gears of War and Halo. Microsoft could easily release Halo for PS3, but they don't want to, because it's all about strengthening the Xbox brand and hurting the competition. Does that benefit Xbox players at all? No. That's only good for Microsoft.

If Microsoft is the one reaping the benefits, why should the players pay for all that exclusivity nonsense? Are you kidding me?

Playstation loyalty?

I own a Playstation. I purchase lots of games. I play as much as I can (which is not much lately, though). Then, the new Playstation loyalty program, "Playstation Rewards", should be perfect for me, right?

Well,

The tiers earn members access to mostly digital rewards, like exclusive PSN avatars that display member status in the program, dynamic themes and PlayStation Home content.

Avatars, dynamic themes and PlayStation Home content? The stuff you can keep if you terminate your PlayStation Plus subscription because nobody really wants it and it's kind of worthless?

You can count me the f*** out.

Nerdrage: The Backlash

So GOG is back in business. Back to normal, I guess. But now a lot of users are aware of the fragility of downloadable games. After this ill-advised PR strunt, a lot of fans have now become haters, stating that they won't buy anything from them ever again because they feel betrayed. Yes, it was not nice, but I think they are overreacting, because we only lost access to downloads for a few days, and some trust. The games are still there, no-DRM and all.

I've read some great comments in RPS, but in this case comparatively few users have stopped to think about this in a calm manner. One of them named "Kurina" wrote this opinion. I couldn't agree more:

I am definitely not a fan of the actions they have taken, temporarily closing down their website and leaving a cryptic message. It was not the smartest move, and has brought them some bad PR that they really do not need.

On that note though, I believe people are also overreacting to some degree. While access to the service was suspended, the website also clearly stated that games would be able to be downloaded again this Thursday. This was never in question or hinted at by cryptic statements. Games and accounts were not lost, and everyone would still be able to claim titles they purchased in the past.

This does bring to light how fragile our dependence on these services are though. All it takes is one problem, decision, or marketing stunt to impede our access to games. I hope many people are beginning to realize how they truly are putting all their eggs in one basket, by focusing on services such as Steam. The interesting part being, at least with GOG, their stunts do not prevent you from playing downloaded and archived games. If another service did this, good luck reinstalling and accessing them in the future.

While I do not appreciate the stunt, this will not prevent me from purchasing GOG titles in the future, solely for the fact that I know I can back them up and play games indefinitely regardless of what happens to the company itself.

I knew this would happen...

...but this was much sooner than I expected.

GOG is down. I repeat, GOG is down.

I knew about the risks of spending money to buy non-physical games, and I wrote about them. But I never expected something like this to happen so soon, and I never expected it to happen to GOG. I trusted them. Many people trusted them, because they seemed to care about customers, and they were so nice... This shows the main issue against digital purchases: you are just "renting" the games and they could take them away from you unexpectedly.

This is just bad, any way you look at it. Some customers say "oh, but you should keep backups for your games", but then again:

-If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't buy digital games in the first place, I'd buy discs with nice cover art and goodies.
-I own 150+ games on GOG. How long would it take to download all those games, and where do I put them? Should I buy a couple of hard disk drives just for them? And hard disks fail after a while, you know.

We are now waiting to see if this is just a really stupid PR stunt for the end of the Beta stage or something, but nobody is OK with this. The trust is gone. We've been warned about the risks, and many people will think twice about buying digital next time.

'Please pay us as much as you can!'

One of the latest, most disturbing trends is to lock away some functions of the game if you buy an used copy. Publishers are getting bolder every day, so now a THQ employee has even said that buying second hand games is "cheating". They want people to pay $60 for every game.

Well, they still don't understand that some people will never pay $60 for a game. I know I never do: I wait until they they hit the bargain bin and cost 15 € (about $20) before buying anything. Anyway, for many people the basic economics for the current way of making second-hand games available is this: a kid pays $60 for a game, finds out that he doesn't like the game for whatever reason, sells it back, and then he buys another one. Do you see a pattern? If he can't sell the game, the chain is broken. A game sale disappears. Furthermore, he'll never buy the game in the first place because he knows that if he doesn't like the game for some reason, he'll be screwed. In the "best case scenario" for the games industry, he'll wait until the game costs $20-25 like I do.

Is it so hard to understand why this "preventing used games sales" will only bring harm to everyone? Also, it doesn't make any sense and goes against what we've been doing for centuries. Just imagine that you go and buy an used car from some guy. You sign the contract, the seller hands you the keys for the car... and then he says, "oh, there's one more thing. The "extra storage function" is only available for first-time buyers. That means that you should go to your nearest Ford dealership and pay them $3,000 to get the trunk key."

Can you see yourself in that situation? And can you imagine doing anything else than punching the seller's face straight away?

Was I the only one waiting for This is Vegas?

It looks like This is Vegas has been canned.

This was going to be the next game created by Surreal Software, the studio behind the underrated horror classic The Suffering and its inferior (but still pretty good) sequel, and I have to admit that I was hoping they would create another great game. But something was not right. The colossal Midway was sinking, and it looked like this game could be a victim of it. Also, to our eyes the game seemed a bit pointless. What is it exactly? A mere GTA clone? A playboy simulator? Is there anything else to do other than just go from one place to another and "party"? With no interesting story or characters sticking out, it looked like they were taking too long for just a glorified HD mini-game collection.

Maybe we were wrong. Maybe there was a great game underneath. But then again, why did they choose to show only those parts of the game? Were they really building up a whole game based on the secondary, throwaway elements that filled up GTA's world for those moments when you wanted a break from the main story?

They've been working on this game for years and they've already spend $50 million. Are they really throwing all that work away? Even 3D Realms allegedly handed Duke Nukem Forever to another developer to finish it. Can't they just release what they have as a budget title, or as a downloadable game? Maybe they won't be able to sell it spectacularly for $60, but why not for $20? I would definitely buy it.

Beyond Good & Evil 2 watch

The chairman of Ubisoft says they are trying their best to make Beyond Good & Evil 2 the best game possible.

If you read the Kotaku article, you could believe he's serious and Ubisoft is still the same company it used to be, choosing innovation and quality above the "iteration method" (running a franchise to the ground with yearly sequels, like they did with Prince of Persia). But remember, until it's proven otherwise, Ubisoft is still the same company that ruined Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell not long ago. And don't forget about their really evil DRM scheme, which always makes me think of this joke.