We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anything exciting about it yet. Maybe it’s better than Sony’s Move, and advancing what the Wii provided from a technological perspective. But let’s step back for a moment and look at where this all began, with Nintendo’s current console offering.

We picked up a Wii on release. We waited in line overnight, for crying out loud. And we did thoroughly enjoy the initial titles we played, but let’s be clear: they weren’t groundbreaking titles. Good titles with motion control, yes, but not groundbreaking titles in and of themselves. Maybe motion control is what made the Wii unique, and sold casual gaming to the masses, and maybe even pushed consoles into family entertainment centers where parents were previously skeptical of consoles as family-friendly entertainment. But as far as titles go, there’s no single Nintendo Wii game that’s more fun to play than any great title on any other console lacking motion control. (For example, the original Mario Kart was no less fun than the current Mario Kart is today.)

Yes, we’ll make a small exception for workout titles; EA Sports is a fantastic at-home workout for those without a gym who want to get into better cardiovascular shape, and traditional control schemes obviously wouldn’t work in this regard. But EA Sports, and games of this ilk, are not exactly fun gaming titles in the traditional sense.

So now with Kinect set to release late this year, we have another motion control scheme, albeit without a physical controller necessary. And this may work well for casual games, and probably pretty good for workout titles also (there will, after all, be an EA Sports title for Kinect). But for other gaming? If anything, Microsoft is looking to grab more Wii users and capitalize on the fact that a good chunk of gamers own both a Wii, and an XBox/PS3. Capturing the “casual” gaming crowd is an expected move for Microsoft, who has already moved in that direction during the XBox dashboard re-do (avatars, et al).

We’re highly skeptical that Kinect will bring anything worthwhile to the table if one already has a Wii sitting next to their XBox; Kinect is the Wii peripheral for the XBox. It’s a cool idea, but nothing more than a novelty, which conveniently comes out mid-way through the XBox 360 lifecycle. If anything, it combats Nintendo’s move of potentially releasing an HD Wii, forcing Nintendo to up their ante and delay a new product release more in line with Microsoft and Sony’s next generation, else simply throw in the towel like Sega did after the Dreamcast.

Either way, the Kinect alone won’t win Microsoft the battle here; the Kinect is a reactive move by Microsoft. Not in the way that the Move is Sony’s reaction to the Wii (which is playing catch-up more than anything else), but in the sense of allowing the XBox to be a competitor to the Wii on all angles – not just meeting the Wii’s capabilities, but arguably exceeding them without adding cumbersome, physical controllers. This move will likely pay off in keeping the 360 situated as the premiere US console, but probably won’t force Nintendo out of the console business entirely, unless Microsoft is able to capture some choice IP for Kinect-based games.

We just don’t see the Kinect doing much to sway the console wars one way or the other at this point. The Wii has already been widely adopted, and so the potential installation-base in Wii-less households appears very small. Unless there are some killer titles out there that make having Kinect outrageously desireable (and we haven’t seen any yet), why drop the money on Kinect? Similar Posts:

• Project Natal: death knell to the Wii. – Reviewing the news coming out of E3 this week has shown itself to be a dreary affair. One, because w…
• Nintendo must be high. – The rumour band-wagon is hastily moving forward that a gyroscopic controller from Microsoft will ful…
• Stop buying our heroes, Microsoft. – When Microsoft purchased Bungie during the dawn of the XBox, it would be unfair to say that there wa…
• Welcome back, WASD. – When Goldeneye came out for the N64, I was less than impressed, considering that First Person Shoote…
• Nintendo “Flipper” production ramps up. – Nintendo has reported that NEC is ramping up production of the “Flipper” chip for their upcoming Gam…

Despite Apple’s sordid foray into the video gaming market with the ill-fated Pippin, TUAW’s Mike Schramm believes that Apple is willing to give console gaming another go. His speculation is based in large part on a piece by Erik Sherman at BNET, in which Sherman notes various patents Apple filed, and various individuals Apple hired, as evidence of Apple’s gaming console initiative.

No TV console aspirations.

We’ll address Schramm first, by noting that an escapade into console-gaming-land would be a horribly poor move for Apple. Apple’s success with the iPod, and later the iPhone, was due to them being able to put a decently-priced but amazingly polished device into consumer’s hands. Before the iPod, mp3 players weren’t particularly notable aside from the fact that they existed at all. Apple pretty much defined the portable mp3 market, and arguably, created the mainstream movement towards legal mp3 downloads. With the iPhone, Apple entered a market densely packed with crappy phones, where even the best sported comparably poor user interfaces and little real online functionality. With the AppStore, Apple blew the doors open on downloadable content, and once again redefined a market, now being emulated by contenders.

The console market is nothing like the portable music or cell phone markets were before Apple got involved. The console market consist of only three key players, all of whom do a great job at building systems, and all of whom have significant industry backing in the form of third-party titles. Plus, all have an indy developer component, and significant mindshare among consumers.

That’s not to say that Apple couldn’t be successful by entering the console wars, but their timing would be way off. Releasing a console before circa 2013, when Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony will reveal their latest offerings, would be dooming an Apple console to irrelevance in only four years time. Furthermore, Apple would fight an uphill battle, akin to what Microsoft dealt with when they unveiled the original XBox. Only, Apple’s experience with the mainstream gaming market (Microsoft had years of experience dealing with PC gaming), is virtually null prior to the proliferation of iPhone games. Simply put, the console marketplace is too volatile a place for Apple to push itself into – the competition is too fierce, so why take an unnecessary risk? Apple is better suited to define a market with much less competition, and the handheld gaming market is a prime target.

The accidental success.

We’re not so sure that Apple expected to be successful with iPhone gaming. Surely, Apple expected to find games developed for the iPhone, but titles from big-name publishers using big-name IP? Maybe Apple even built the iPhone hardware to be capable of running games with decent graphics and framerates, but the very lack of input options makes us question Apple’s expectations that the iPhone might become a veritable Gameboy and PSP competitor. But here we are: leveraging the AppStore’s framework, the iPhone is able to market pretty amazing games via a convenient, cutting-edge distribution model, all for a much cheaper price than games released for the Gameboy or PSP. Like the proliferation of the Wii, iPhone gaming is build on a solid foundation of more casual titles, but as time goes on, we’re now seeing more and more “mature” titles requiring more of a user’s focus. It’s one thing for Apple to have given Mac gaming a mere head-nod in the past, it’s another for Apple to dismiss a clearly growing phenomenon. So, Apple will continue embracing iPhone gaming, and that’s at the heart of Sherman’s observations.

The acquisition of Bob Dreblin, Raka Koduri, Mark Papermaster, and Richard Teversham, might not even indicate Apple assembling a “dream team” for the iPhone gaming market, but let’s assume this to be true. Dreblin’s contribution to the Gamecube CPU may be most telling: the Gamecube was underpowered compared to offerings from Microsoft and Sony, but the thing was admittedly compact. If anything, the rest of the team would play into embedded gaming just as easily as they would in traditional console gaming, not to mention Apple’s acquisition of PA Semi and their investment in PowerVR. If Apple’s going to be serious about iPhone gaming, they’ll want to develop hardware specific for that purpose, especially since this kind of specialized hardware will still be able to power the thousands of non-gaming iPhone applications. By controlling the hardware supply chain specifically, Apple ensures that the competition won’t be building similar products, and furthermore, secures its hardware from additional vulnerabilities.

Sherman makes some good observations about Apple’s patent filings. If anything, it should be pretty clear that Apple is looking to link gaming and outside media. Much as iTunes can suggest music based on one’s existing music library, application 20080076495 proposes similar functionality, only rather than just making recommendations, games could identify appropriate music to play based on a user’s preference. For example, a scene in a game calling for fast-paced, action-packed combat, may query a user’s music library for metal or hard rock music, and based on the user’s ratings, will play a top song in that category. In other words, games will be minimally tailored to suit the user’s tastes based on other media they own. The patent application, at absolute minimum, forms an extension to the iTunes store, in that games may be recommended based on songs a user owns: lots of metal songs may mean a user prefers more action-oriented games, for instance.

The other patent applications Sherman identifies give further insight into Apple’s direction with iPhone games, but it should be pretty clear by now that Apple is looking at solidifying the iPhone game user-base. Arguably, Apple is already ahead of the game with their application distribution model, as Nintendo and Sony are now moving ahead with their own online stores. The difference is that the iPhone is a more flexible system, is nearly always connected to the internet, and meets an application price-point easily suited for growth. By the time the AppStore starts including games costing $20 or higher, the handheld gaming market will be a shitstorm of competition, because Apple will have become a major contender well before that, assuming the next iPhone version further advances a long-term gaming plan (and the 3GS appears to herald this). At that time, Nintendo and Sony better have stepped up their game, because unlike with the traditional console market, the handheld market is far more malleable, especially when the iPhone’s chief gaming success is drawing spontaneous buyers into a web of easily-accessible, easily-downloadable content.

So for those longing for an Apple console, look no further than your iPhone. While it’s already successfully integrated the iPod and cell phone, it’s now looking to devour your friendly neighborhood Gameboy, too.Similar Posts:

• Microsoft wants another monopoly, or, the Vivendi Deal. – Microsoft is yet again reaching out with greedy hands for a bigger market share in the console gamin…
• Let the iPhone gaming begin. – Ah, cell phone gaming. It’s almost an oxymoron considering the poor attempts at real gaming on cell …
• Transitioning the Apple TV into a gaming console. – Some dude, Michael Pachter, a gaming analyst, claims that the Apple TV will soon be hooked up to the…
• Microsoft overlooking the trade-in crowd. – Sony is trying everything they can to lure people into buying the PS3, and at this point, they prett…
• Cell phone gaming. – While clowns like the guys behind the NGage tried their hand at mobile gaming via cell phones, the i…

Reviewing the news coming out of E3 this week has shown itself to be a dreary affair. One, because we had a chance to attend the expo before other priorities revealed themselves (and thus didn’t), and two, because as the hoarse voice in our head mocks, “Perhaps you’re just not a gamer anymore.” And maybe we’re not – we’re certainly not console aficionados anymore, having shed the weight of the console wars many years ago. It was by chance that we again took up the console call with Microsoft’s enormous black boxen, and later again with the innovative Wii. But let’s be clear: our gaming time is a mere sliver compared to when we vapidly devoured every PC title worth playing, and the prospect of playing competitively as we did in Counterstrike years before is simply not realistic anymore. Indeed, we may even argue that our three-round battle with World of Warcraft was the end of our earnest gaming days, but perhaps this is an overstatement: time is simply one variable that affects our level of excitement for games these days, and in short, most new titles simply do little for us. One, because we’re now more interested in titles that don’t require massive time investments per session, and two, because the vast majority of titles remaining either aren’t particularly good or simply don’t titillate us.

Sure, there’s the occasional game of note that grabs our attention, like Fallout 3 or its DLC. There’s even a couple titles from E3 that peak our interest, be it Borderlands or Grindhouse. But most titles simply bore us, and we happen to attribute much of that boredom to the simple fact that we dislike, nay, loathe the typical console control scheme. Look, we’re PC gamers at heart (it’s why we took years to come back to consoles), and quite simply, there’s nothing better than a keyboard and mouse to control most games. Especially FPS titles. In fact, much as we loved Fallout 3, we purchased it for the 360, and the reliance on crappy console controls was our biggest complaint.

This hatred of typical console controls is why we had such high hopes for the Nintendo Revolution Wii. Yet sadly, as innovative as it was, the Wii proved to be little more than a novelty. Indeed, most games we’ve played on the Wii are either novelty titles (like Wii Sports) which wouldn’t occupy our long-term interest anyway, else titles that really didn’t benefit much from the Wii remotes in the first place. But rather than poo-poo all over the Wii yet again, let’s admit that Nintendo’s effort was good, even if the result (prior to Motion Plus, maybe) was marginal.

For those who love casual games, particularly the mini-games Nintendo titles are known for, the Wii certainly stands out from the 360 and PS3. And that’s why Nintendo has managed to survive this round of the console wars, and why it was inevitable that Microsoft and Sony would want a piece of the motion-control pie. So set out both companies did, and both revealed their Wii-killing accessories at E3. The PS3 did so with little fanfare, while Microsoft just made Natal a gamer household name.

For those asleep while E3 was going on, Natal isn’t a controller, it’s the lack of a controller. Natal’s hardware component is a camera that captures physical movements, such that 360 gamers don’t need to hold a controller to swing a sword, or punch, or jump, or do whatever. Natal, capable of facial recognition, will not only act as an interface to the 360, but to a whole slew of new games that will track user movement as an input mechanism. In theory (and from what E3 videos show us), Natal is just as sophisticated as the Wii in terms of motion control, and will likely compete well against Motion Plus equipped Wiis too. The question Microsoft and Sony have been asking is this: “If we can duplicate Wii functionality on a more powerful system, won’t we lure gamers away from the Wii?” And that’s a good question to ask, if it weren’t for the lead Nintendo already has in the motion control arena. While Sony is still vested in the original question, however, Microsoft made steps not just to duplicate Wii functionality, but to move well beyond it, making their original question moot.

It’s like this: every peripheral that intends to use Wii functionality will likely be built to interface with the Wii remote. If not, then the Wii remote still needs to be used in conjunction with the peripheral. For example, why does EA Sports Active use a resistance band instead of a dumbbell? Never mind the acute advantages of a resistance band for casual athletes over a heavier exercise device: a dumbbell would simply never work alongside the Wii remote and nunchuk. Only a resistance band will work since EA Sports Active is ultimately tied to the Wii’s controllers to function.

The same game on the 360 (which is indeed coming, BTW), with Natal as an input device, is far more flexible. (It will likely be cheaper, too, since the game won’t require a nunchuk pouch to be part of the package.) Indeed, EA Sports Active, with Natal, requires the user to hold no device at all, so they could just as easily use a resistance band as they could a dumbbell. In other words, the flexibility a workout game can have with Natal is hugely significant, as a Natal-equipped 360 with EA Sports Active could easily be used with a resistance band, dumbbells, a kettlebells, et al.

About the only disadvantage to Natal versus the Wii is what the camera can’t see, as would be the case if the Wii remote is used behind the player. And that’s a relatively unlikely scenario. There’s also the Wii’s added advantage of having buttons present on the Wii remote while the swinging happens, but Natal can still be used in conjunction with a controller, remote, or other peripheral, so it’s not like Natal’s making gamers give up button presses entirely. If anything, it solves more problems than it creates, and ultimately trumps both Nintendo’s and Sony’s motion control offerings. The trick for Microsoft will be in pricing Natal competitively, and that means cheaply, in order to keep a Natal-equipped 360 close in price to the Wii, and there’s obviously some difficulty in that. If Microsoft can work this formula out, however, there’s no reason they can’t succeed in luring the Wii faithful away from Nintendo’s current-gen icon.

For gamers like us, Natal presents an interesting new landscape. We can likely expect not only casual games that Wii gamers know and love, but since we’re talking the 360, more mature titles that use Natal as well. And that presents some nice possibilities, as we can easily visualize Natal control schemes for fighting games, FPS, etc, as long as there’s some basic method to control avatar movement. For melee-oriented games, Natal is a no-brainer in this regard, as a nunchuk-like accessory would be enough to compliment the Wii. Even FPS could work incredibly well with a nunchuk with trigger component. The next question is, without that component (and there’s no indication that one will exist at Natal launch), will Natal games be limited to too casual games? Right now, Natal offers a rather incredible control scheme with the potential to add motion control to games that the Wii simply can’t handle, effectively becoming what the Wii should have been at launch. But Microsoft could just as easily fail on this front, by either focusing too strongly on party games, or not pushing the possibilities for Natal-enabled mature titles to third-party developers. In other words, Microsoft needs to push the idea that Natal is core to the 360 experience, else it will become just another accessory soon to be forgotten by the general 360 user (think Power Pad, the PS2 camera, etc).

That hoarse voice in our head, it’s chiding us. And if Natal proves to be little more than another hardware console novelty, then maybe it’s right. But we’re pretty certain that Natal can recapture our love for console gaming by making motion control both fun and efficient as an input medium. If not, we’re taking our gaming hat and heading back to PC territory. Even if it’s only for a few minutes a week.Similar Posts:

• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…
• Nintendo must be high. – The rumour band-wagon is hastily moving forward that a gyroscopic controller from Microsoft will ful…
• Thus ends the Revolution. – At least the name, that is, since Nintendo has scrapped the “project” codename for their latest cons…
• Stop buying our heroes, Microsoft. – When Microsoft purchased Bungie during the dawn of the XBox, it would be unfair to say that there wa…
• Dispute the value, not the price. – A recent Gizmodo post caught our eye, in which Adam Frucci attempts to draw comparisons between the …

A recent Gizmodo post caught our eye, in which Adam Frucci attempts to draw comparisons between the current generation consoles by price. Asserts Frucci, “the prices of all three consoles are incredibly close, and you can obviously fiddle with these configurations to change them.” And fiddle with Fucci’s ridiculous numbers we can, and should, because Frucci’s evaluation of the Wii is sadly mismanaged, because not only does he include an extra $80 for four Motion Plus add-ons that do nothing for the console right now because they’re not even available yet, but he, in turn, leaves the $90 cost of the XBox 360′s wi-fi adapter out of his baseline console pricing scheme. Is there any consistency to his madness?

Frucci may as well inflate the price of the Wii by another $80 because he left out the Wii Balance Board. Oh, and the price of component cables (even though they’re only 50 cents at Amazon). Come on, Frucci, pull your head out of your ass and realize that the cost of a console doesn’t include accessories that are currently unavailable, and, in fact, don’t have any games out which support them. That’s not to say that the Motion Plus won’t take off, but if they do, they may very well simply be incorporated into the Wii remote at a future date anyway. Why emphasize them in a console price comparison as though they are required for Wii gaming today? Should we also add to the XBox 360′s price because of the rumoured Wii-like remote that may ship for the 360 later this year?

If Frucci’s not a Wii-hater (and a 360 fan-boy to boot), we don’t know why he’d opt for the more expensive Wii controller charging station, instead of the $33 one also available at Amazon. And why does Frucci incorporate the price of a quad charging station for the PS3 and Wii, but only a dual charging station for the 360? By our estimates, Frucci’s Wii price should sit squarely at $457, while the prices for the PS3 and 360 are $557 and $604, respectively (wi-fi included). We even threw the PS3 and 360 a bone here by removing the price of two games, since Wii titles are not only $10 cheaper per title by Frucci’s estimates, but the Wii comes with a game, which, via Frucci’s numbers, means that the Wii is another $50 cheaper.

In other words, games aside, a Wii is approximately $100 cheaper than a PS3 and about $150 cheaper than a 360 assuming one needs four controllers and a charging station. And that doesn’t even consider the annual costs of XBox Live!, which accrues at least $40/year just for online multiplayer. So even with Frucci’s silly notion of including Motion Plus in this comparison, that’s only two years of multiplayer gaming on the 360, which we gather, most 360 owners have already paid for (aww, shucks).

Sadly, Frucci and Gizmodo haven’t done anything but add flames to the latest console war. It’s one thing to dispute the value of money spent on each console, but that’s subjective depending on who the user is. From a pure price stand-point, however, the Wii clearly wins, and even though we’re fond of the 360 as a heavyweight gaming machine, the truth is that it’s the most expensive system available, even compared to Sony’s monstrosity. That’s true even if we don’t include the 360′s wireless adapter, because Live! is disproportionately expensive considering that Sony and Nintendo offer their online services for free.

Why all the hullabaloo? Because in a highly subjective argument regarding the console wars, there’s still a capacity for objectivity, and price is one of those. One can expound upon the merits of any console to argue for its purchase, but that doesn’t resolve the ugly reality of real costs. A solo gamer looking to play online can pick up a Wii and get gaming for just over $250. Fact. That same gamer can’t get down and dirty with a PS3 or 360 without dropping about $100 more. Fact. Buying three additional controllers doesn’t make the Wii any less desirable from a pure price standpoint over its competition.

Let’s not argue value by obfuscating costs to try making a point, and stick with the truth, shall we? We’re looking at you, Frucci.

Similar Posts:

• Welcome back, WASD. – When Goldeneye came out for the N64, I was less than impressed, considering that First Person Shoote…
• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…
• Getting an iPhone 3G sans contract: the costs. – In what should be illegal, AT&T is charging $700 for a 16GB iPhone that’s not contracted to them…
• Five months later, and still sucking. – Look, I wanted to love it just like everyone else, and briefly, I did. But it’s now almost five mont…
• Wii Channels, and other console computery. – Rumours are spreading that “unannounced” Wii Channels will show up in the days leading up to Christm…

It’s foolish to deny that the cloud will dominate PC use in the future; dumb terminals made sense when raw computing power was unnecessary, and we’ll come full-circle as soon as broadband is ubiquitous. For nearly all applications, all an end-user needs is a browser with an internet connection; there’s an easy case to be made that a majority of computer users could boot straight to a browser, relying entirely on Google applications to fulfill their computing needs. This minimization of digital clutter is intensely attractive to us, because realistically, most of our own computer use is bounded to the internet, which is a proven medium for presenting information.

And that’s why OnLive is so fascinating. It’s a gaming service that will likely leverage core web technologies to present a list of demos and full-on games for consumer consumption. And these games will not be typical Flash-based titles, but high-end games that are typically played on current-gen consoles or state-of-the-art gaming PCs. And it all works on a low-end system because the games will actually be played remotely, on an OnLive server. Rather than a monitor connected to this server, however, the visual output is streamed to the end-user over the internet through a browser plugin, so it’s like playing a console game where the console’s hardware is many miles away, but the TV is right in one’s own living room. The idea is so simple, we wonder why no one’s come up with it before.

Technically speaking, OnLive’s video streaming should be cake – high-resolution streaming isn’t new, and judging from typical HD streams available from Hulu and the major networks, there shouldn’t be any serious doubt as to OnLive’s success in this area. Unfortunately, this is only half the puzzle, because unlike typical streaming video offerings, OnLive is all about an exchange of data. That is to say, a user doesn’t just click “play” and sit back, but rather inputs data through a controller over the course of the streaming. When these inputs are received by the OnLive server, they’re processed, and the resulting video is now sent back to the user. In other words, lag is less of an issue as latency, because the video sent to the user needs to match up with what the user just pressed on his controller. The further from an OnLive server the user is, the greater concern latency becomes.

Admittedly, we don’t know much about OnLive’s server distribution yet. If OnLive takes the route of legacy dial-up companies like AOL and Prodigy, we can expect OnLive to piggyback the infrastructure at the local ISP level, and in this manner, slowly build a network of servers based on the demand for OnLive’s service. The clear advantage here is that servers will be distributed nationally, so as to alleviate latency concerns in the best way possible.

But let’s say that the latency issue is overcome with reasonable ease, and that graphics will down-sample when lag comes into play. We’re still not convinced that consumers will tolerate the hiccups that video streaming occasionally produces, but even with that sorted out, we’re now left with balancing OnLive’s subscription costs with the initial expenses of a typical console purchase. In short, end-users will have to grapple with the idea that they can shell out $300 or so dollars plus game costs, else some small amount for OnLive hardware plus a recurring monthly expense. At what point does the average user go with the monthly subscription to stay cost-effective? For a fresh XBox 360 purchase, plus a year of XBox Live!, and a game purchase once a month for the life of that Live! subscription, we’re looking at a rough cost of $950. Assuming a hardware cost of $100 and a reasonable $20/month subscription, that $950 gives us unlimited game time for about 3.5 years using OnLive. Best part is that the XBox will ultimately be replaced by the next big thing (requiring another hardware purchase), while OnLive’s hardware upgrades should be transparent to the user. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Yeah, it sounds great initially, but that’s before the realization that a $240 annual investment by the end-user ($340 for the first year, assuming the $100 hardware cost) arguably won’t cover the hardware costs and maintenance fees for the OnLive service. An XBox 360 is designed to run one copy of a game, and while one could argue that an OnLive server’s configuration will be able to serve up quite a few more people, we’re still likely talking one dedicated graphics card per customer, and those don’t come cheap. This isn’t even taking into account the licenses per game that OnLive will be running, and with this comes another initial obstacle for OnLive: the success of a console at launch is all about the game library. If OnLive ships with a small library that doesn’t expand steadily, then OnLive won’t attract a large enough audience to build up the needed momentum.

And with game libraries, we’re talking clear limitations on what OnLive can offer on account of their setup. Many folks are enamored with the idea that OnLive will be a stand-in for PC gaming, because OnLive’s servers will be upgraded automagically over time. That’s a faux pas, however, because PC gaming’s strengths are in add-ons, conversions, and other customizations. OnLive severely limits PC gaming because all software, including any add-ons, are controlled entirely by OnLive. This means no playing MMORPGs with custom UI enhancements, limited flexibility in controller options, no beta conversions/mods, et al. That’s why OnLive, for all intents and purposes, is a more likely console replacement than a gaming PC replacement. It simply happens that OnLive works with PCs and Macs, but this is just a cheap way to get out of using a TV, not at cheaply proving a PC gaming experience.

OnLive’s gaming library pretty much acknowledges the notion that the service is aimed to compete against consoles and not PCs. Burnout, Tomb Raider, World of Goo, Crysis, LEGO Batman… we’ve seen these before. Where’s the die-hard PC games that don’t have great console ports, like RTS games, MMORPGs, etc? We’re looking at rehashed console games here, which OnLive wants to use as a springboard before developers start looking at OnLive as a serious competitor. That means that OnLive users shouldn’t expect any worthwhile exclusives for some time. And a second question begs our attention: since these titles are all available already in the console battlescape, why not just get them for the consoles we already own?

The math we mused over before changes some when we’re looking at the current state of console gaming. Assuming a gamer even buys 12 titles in a year, they spent about $600. An OnLive subscriber, on the other hand, will spend $240 that same year. But at only six titles per year, the numbers are already looking more similar, which means that casual gamers will see less benefits from OnLive, especially since their purchases are more likely to be blockbuster titles that OnLive won’t even see for at least a year. When all is said and done, OnLive looks to sport a formula that would be great for hardcore gamers, if only OnLive was mature enough to offer a larger gaming library of blockbuster titles. Asking a gamer to invest in OnLive’s offerings at release, however, is about as bad as proposing someone buy the Wii but stay away from first-party titles.

What it comes down to is this: early adapter aren’t going to get anything from OnLive that they can’t already get on current-gen consoles, but it’s these early adapters that will be necessary to grow OnLive’s offerings to a point where the average gamer will be attracted to the service. For PC gamers, OnLive is a complete bust, because the closest thing to playing PC games on the cheap that we’ll see anytime soon is in something like NVidia’s ION, not OnLive. If OnLive actually manages to survive such that it’s around when the next console refresh happens, then it may be a worthwhile investment for gamers so as to avoid expensive hardware costs.

That all said, OnLive could have a couple tricks up its sleeve, like licensing copies of popular MMORPGs, and figuring out a secure way to let customers upload, or activate via OnLive’s web interface, popular add-ons. Realistically, though, we’re not holding our breathe.
Similar Posts:

• Dispute the value, not the price. – A recent Gizmodo post caught our eye, in which Adam Frucci attempts to draw comparisons between the …
• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…
• Five months later, and still sucking. – Look, I wanted to love it just like everyone else, and briefly, I did. But it’s now almost five mont…
• Microsoft wants another monopoly, or, the Vivendi Deal. – Microsoft is yet again reaching out with greedy hands for a bigger market share in the console gamin…
• Welcome back, WASD. – When Goldeneye came out for the N64, I was less than impressed, considering that First Person Shoote…

We didn’t like Fable 2, and as far as RPGs are concerned, we totally thought Fallout 3 trumped Fable 2 in every possible way.

While our tastes are understandably subjective, we acknowledge that some people may actually like playing a game where the Sims meets fantasy, and where hack’n slash combat is practically mandatory to succeed. Still, we’re happy that the overall theme in the gaming blogosphere is that Fable 2 is not worthy of top honours, and is consistently pushed behind Bethesda’s Fallout 3 by reviewers. Whether this brings us delight because Molyneux needs to be put in his place now and again, or because we immaturely like to grin and say, “We told you so,” is not the point: despite stronger Fable 2 sales, Fallout 3 is a better regarded title by hardcore gamers.

We still haven’t played Gears of War 2 yet, but Fallout 3 definitely gets our top honours for 2008′s top XBox 360 games. Castle Crashers deserves a mention, and Rock Band 2 does too for greatly improving the franchise. Even GTAIV was excellent, though primarily for character design and multiplayer options, and not for the similarly-frustrating rapport-building that Fable 2 makes players participate in. Hopefully 2009 will drop the emote-emphasis in future titles, and focus on action and puzzle gameplay instead of emulating a glorified chat-room. Hear that Sony? Home is destined for failure. Maybe you and Molyneux can pitch in and get a new drawing board.

Similar Posts:

• Molyneux a filthy liar? – In IGN’s recent preview of Fable II, Hilary Goldstein mentions that the now-infamous Pub Games “glit…
• A night with Fable 2. – While we had high expectations for Fable 2 (being fans of the original and all) we became somewhat w…
• Escaping the Vault, only to grind away. – In 2001, PC Gamer named the Fallout franchise the fourth best computer game of all time, cementing t…
• Stop buying our heroes, Microsoft. – When Microsoft purchased Bungie during the dawn of the XBox, it would be unfair to say that there wa…
• “Special” editions and pre-order bonuses have gone too far. Or not far enough. – There used to be a time when pre-ordering a game for a “bonus” item was a snazzy way for a company t…

In IGN’s recent preview of Fable II, Hilary Goldstein mentions that the now-infamous Pub Games “glitch,” which allows one to cheat at a card game to earn enormous amounts of money for import into Fable II, was planned by Molyneux all along. Molyneux claims that having used the cheat will enact repercussions in Fable II once the moolah is imported, which sounds like an incredibly sneaky design decision, albeit one not overly elegant given the lack of in-game warning or clues.

Molyneux’ sneakiness is placed into question, however, when one realizes that the “glitch” was patched recently, suggesting that it wasn’t intended after all, else why patch it? The more likely explanation is that Molyneux wanted to cover his ass and not seem like his studio is incompetent at beta testing. Chances are, any in-game repercussions were added in last-minute, so as to seem competent.

Had the glitch been planned all along, one would think the mechanics for using it would be slicker, and that despite knowledge of it getting out in the first place, any patch issued would simply warn users that there really could be in-game consequences. At a time when our impressions of Molyneux were rising, this debacle is starting to sour us to Molyneux again, which is a real shame. He really needs to let his games do the talking for him.

Similar Posts:

• Gamers agree: Fallout 3 > Fable 2. – We didn’t like Fable 2, and as far as RPGs are concerned, we totally thought Fallout 3 trumped Fabl…
• Molyneux says a lot, without really saying anything at all. – Apparently Molyneux is a gaming developer guru, else he wouldn’t be giving talks at the Leipzig Game…
• A night with Fable 2. – While we had high expectations for Fable 2 (being fans of the original and all) we became somewhat w…
• Stop buying our heroes, Microsoft. – When Microsoft purchased Bungie during the dawn of the XBox, it would be unfair to say that there wa…
• Paris Hilton 3000 not as flexible as the real Paris Hilton. – When I decided to get T-Mobile’s Sidekick 3, I was wooed by the phone’s sexy features, which were sm…

Despite our enthusiasm for the upcoming Warhammer: Age of Reckoning (WAR) MMO, we decided weeks ago that we wouldn’t be participating in the game. This fact has nothing to do with previews of the game, which actually entice us to give it a go rather than succumb to the comparably poor World of Warcraft (WoW) experience. In short, everything we’ve heard and read about WAR makes us drool over the excellent PvE experience for everyone but end-game raiders, as well as the complimentary PvP focus that WAR offers. Frankly, WAR sounds like a more casual-friendly MMOG, with an excellent theme, decades of established lore, and a user experience that should appeal to the majority of WoW gamers.

Why aren’t we playing, then? While a fraction of the reason is recent time constraints, the more pressing reason is the egregious system requirements that put WoW’s requirements to shame. On top of that is Mythic’s lack of support for OS X, and while we have the ability to run WAR under Bootcamp, the fact that we would need to annoys us to no end. To top it off, while WAR’s release date is perfect timing for shaking up the MMOG scene, it’s rather poor for those vested in console gaming – the number of highly-anticipated releases on the XBox 360 over the next couple months is simply mind-staggering, and truly shows how the 360 has matured as the platform of the current generation.

In the end, we’re passing up on WAR (no worries, we passed on the overhyped Spore also), with the disclaimer that we’re pretty sure we would have enjoyed it. WAR looks like a step in the right direction for fantasy-based MMOGs, and while it may not be eons ahead of WoW, it’s an important evolution nonetheless.

Now that you’ll soon have extra pennies in your wallet, Mythic, perhaps you’d care to hire some OS X developers for your next game. Or, you could send us one of those snazzy media accounts so we can keep writing about your content!

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV disappoints. Again. – When Apple TV first hit shelves, I had a couple things to say, the gist of which involved the device…
• Established IP = successful MMOG. – Let’s clarify that: in order for the next big massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) to become a r…
• Warhammer’s system requirements dwarf those of Warcraft. – We just caught the minimum system specifications (MSS) for Mythic’s upcoming Warhammer: Age of Recko…
• NPC party members are a good idea. – Lots of folk are annoyed at Bioware’s revelation of “companion characters” in the upcoming Star Wars…
• Diablo III: the mini-WoW? – Show us a gamer who’s not excited about Diablo 3, and we’ll show you a liar. Diablo 2 was the maste…

There used to be a time when pre-ordering a game for a “bonus” item was a snazzy way for a company to build up hype about their product. The same can be said of “limited” or “collector’s” editions of games. Often, the extra $20+ is worth it to gamers, but many times, the inclusion of a boring “behind-the-scenes” DVD, a tin box, and some sort of art book is simply screwing the consumer. Worse yet when gamers are offered shitty posters that are often folded for packaging and are therefore pointless for decorating anything other than a 13-year old’s nerd-room. Also, fuck your shitty bundled T-shirt – if we wanted to show the world how geeky we are, we’d stick with something a tad more classy, like a penis-cozy or something.

Then we have in-game aesthetic items that serve no purpose to non-n00bs. Okay, we’ll admit that the prospect of a having a cute panda pet from the World of Warcraft (WoW) Collector’s Edition intrigued us, but now we just want to pound everyone who holds it over our head because it’s impossible to get one unless we shell out for a ridiculously overpriced Warcraft-branded laptop. (If we wanted to tote around something that unnecessarily expensive, we’d bedazzle the aforementioned penis-cozy.) Nevermind that these in-game items cost the publishers nothing to distribute, so why the overpriced edition of Gears of War 2 if the only cool thing is a a golden lancer? Not that that’s cool, by the way. It’s actually rather lame. Same for the lame in-game bonuses for Fable 2. Like they’ll mean diddly after leaving the starting zone, as it’s not like anyone would include an end-game worthy item to a collector’s edition.

Yet here we are, still thinking that the Halo helmet included with Halo 3 was cool, albeit not for us, as we’re not rabid Halo fans. Nonetheless, we are Fallout fans, which is why we paid out an exorbitant fee for Amazon’s Survival Edition of Fallout 3. This brings is to our final annoyance: retail exclusives. Why can’t we get the farking Fallout alarm clock somewhere other than Amazon? And more importantly, why does this pre-order screw us out of the Nuka Cola bottle opener that preordering Fallout 3 from Best Buy nets us? Why do Best Buy fanboys get a cheap, albeit awesome bonus that’s not included in the grand-poobah of Fallout 3 packages? If publishers are going to make gamers wet for silly dork relics, they can at least allow gamers to pick all the requisite relics for one title up at the same place without having to buy more than one copy of the same game. We’re half tempted to cancel our Amazon pre-order and call the whole thing off.

If only it weren’t for the PIP-Boy 3000, we might. Too bad it doesn’t have an iPod hookup.

Similar Posts:

• Fallout bottle opener: free. – When we ranted about “special” editions of video games last month, we mentioned the Nuka Cola bottl…
• Amazon’s service apparently run by amazons. – I don’t use Amazon.com that often, in part because the prices aren’t that great compared to other on…
• Escaping the Vault, only to grind away. – In 2001, PC Gamer named the Fallout franchise the fourth best computer game of all time, cementing t…
• A night with Fable 2. – While we had high expectations for Fable 2 (being fans of the original and all) we became somewhat w…
• Established IP = successful MMOG. – Let’s clarify that: in order for the next big massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) to become a r…

We still don’t quite understand what Sony was thinking when they stopped manufacturing the 60GB PS3. Those blind to PS3 on-goings may have missed the fact that the 60GB PS3 was the flagship PS3 that included four USB ports, slots for a variety of memory card formats, and most importantly, complete backwards compatibility with the PS2. Later models of the PS3 dropped hardware PS2 compatibility by emulating the PS2 via software, and ultimately, dropping backwards compatibility entirely. Comments from various Sony fanboys we talked to responded to this move with quotes akin to, “That’s because Sony wants to emphasize their PS3 lineup, which has better games. Who wants to play old games anyway?”

Those kind of comments are interesting because it wasn’t long ago that Sony launched the PS2, touting, “Why would you buy an XBox when you can get a PS2 and have access to the whole Playstation library?” In other words, backwards compatibility was referred to as a “must-have” feature, and access to games from legacy systems is a trend today as well as yesterday, which is why one of the Wii’s key features is their Virtual Console, and why the 360 continues to support XBox games, despite the software emulation.

Sony’s sale of only one PS3 model these days is further interesting because they don’t advertise the lack of backwards compatibility, despite that their user-base is now accustomed to this kind of feature. When a PS2 owner now decides to buy a PS3, they’re being blind-sighted by the lack of backwards compatibility, since there’s no mention of this feature having been removed on the box of the 60GB model.

Then there’s the apparent lack of regard to users of other legacy hardware, as we recently realized when we convinced Bones WIley to pick up a copy of Rock Band last week. After unpacking the instruments and setting everything up, we quickly realized that there weren’t enough ports on the 60GB PS3 to plug everything in, since Sony decided to cut the number of available USB ports in half to two. This makes Rock Band on the “new” PS3 $25 more expensive for most gamers, since the Rock Band hub is required to plug everything in.

Off and running again, we had a blast playing Rock Band, and decided we’d pick up a second guitar, along with Guitar Hero III, so we could jam on the bass while Bones played lead. Then we found out that Rock Band guitars can’t be use in the Guitar Hero games, and vice versa, making this kind of purchase moot. Yet, Guitar Hero instruments on the 360 can be used with Rock Band without problem, making Rock Band yet again more expensive for PS3 owners assuming they already have Guitar Hero instruments.

It’s almost as if a PS3 purchase these days not only gets one a sub-par system with arguably the worst gaming library of the current-generation platforms, but the PS3 also rewards owners with a wallet-raping time and time again. We’re not sure how Sony managed to screw things up this badly, but even if we hadn’t been opposed to a future Sony console purchase before, now we’re definitely set to avoid Sony products like the plague.

Similar Posts:

• It’s time for instrument standards in music games. – So Rock Band brought the music party game genre to a new level when it added drums and a microphone …
• Song redundancy in Rock Band. – After much time believing that the Guitar Hero franchise was not for him, my pal Maxator recently fo…
• Guitar Hero III sells records. – It’s no big surprise that the Guitar Hero franchise is positively affecting sales of the respective …
• The Revolution stalls. – Optimistic reports placed the Nintendo Revolution at a tentative March or April release date, but ne…
• MacBook owners: No Guitar Hero 3 for you! – It was good news that Guitar Hero 3 (GH3) was shipping for both Windows and OS X, and this fact prom…