360 = Going Round in Circles

Failure. It’s not a concept that any company wants to have associated with their products. Just look at the furore surrounding Toyota’s recent accelerator-happy death traps on wheels. Turns out, people like it when their cars stop when they tell them to.

Similarly, people like it when their games consoles work. I was very unhappy, as a young ‘un, when I managed to spill strawberry milk into my Gameboy Colour, promptly and unceremoniously killing it. I was equally unhappy when my PS2 decided it preferred to produce disk read errors rather than operate on top of my booming soundsystem’s basslines.

But those were my fault. The Xbox 360, however, is another matter. The 360 is a better investment in the long term as a doorstop than it is a games console. They simply don’t stop breaking.

This is the part where I’d usually tell you about the mate of my mate’s who’s been through eight 360s in four years (true story). But there’s no need. Because as it turns out, the recent results of a survey of gamers  by No Fuss Reviews.com has resulted in some shocking evidence.

Of the 500,000 surveyed, the number of Wii owners that needed a repair is an impressive ‘less than 1%”. For PS3 players, that number jumps to a worrying 8% (that’s 800 people in every 10,000 consoles – far too many). But the 360? A staggering 42%. That’s almost half of all 360 owners. For ‘3 repairs or more’, the number is still an unbelievable 39%.

39%!? So, over a third of Xbox 360 buyers will need to have their console repaired three times or more? It's not even five years old yet. Compare that to the PS3’s 2% or the Wii’s 0% and the figure seems inexcusable.

These kind of failure rates are simply unfathomably huge. When you consider that the 360 has sold nearly 40 million, it must be considered that a shade over 16 million of those will break. That’s a lot of unhappy customers.

Surely, then, the Xbox 360 is the Toyota of the games industry – except Microsoft haven’t reacted to try and rectify the situation, haven’t apologised and, er, haven’t even fixed it yet, as new 360s still seem to die as easily as the old models did. Great.

Obviously, I’m not having a go at anyone who did buy a 360 – and there are a lot of people out there, more than the PS3 – but you have to wonder whether those customers would have stumped up a bit more cash for Sony’s offering if they knew about the appalling failure rates of Microsoft’s console. It’s a great console because of its wealth of excellent exclusives – Halo, Forza and Gears of War, to name just a few – and its frankly brilliant online service and achievement system. But technically speaking, it’s not a great console. It’s a dreadful, rushed, noisy, ugly beige box prone to random death at any moment, made viable as a purchase only for the efforts of Microsoft and other developers in furnishing the console with a ton of games and features at an affordable price. If the fragile Xbox had to get by with PS3’s early range of games and online services, it would be long dead.

People should not have to put up with it, though. Sony’s system has caught up in most regards, and excels in some others (Hello, Uncharted 2). Microsoft should be made to pay the price for rushing an untested system to market knowing they’d just have to fix them all later.

I love gaming, and that’s why I can’t love Microsoft. Go and make a console that I can actually game on, consistently, and I'll buy it instantly. But I can't accept the inherent faults built into half of all Xboxes, and other gamers shouldn't have to, either.

Modern Warfare 3 is imminent...

Well, it looks like there's a lot more Warfare on the way. Activision today let slip that Modern Warfare 3 is in development (like they weren't going to make one after MW2 sold more than 15,000,000 copies in just a few months).

The bad news? It was let slip as part of official court filings by two ex-Infinity Ward employees (the Modern Warfare developers). Not only was the split between Activision and these key IW members very acrimonious, it seems unlikely that the top talent will return to the series any time soon.

So, let's get this straight: some of the top devs have left the series, they're making lots of spin-offs (hello, World at War and the upcoming COD: Spec Ops) and the series is going to continue because it's making lots of money. Get ready, because Call of Duty is about to go the way of Guitar Hero.

You think they'd learn, wouldn't you?

Just to prove that I'm not biased towards big business...

Below is Sony's official response, hot off the press, to the criticism of PS3's new-found Linuxlessness (see the blog post below). I have, though, amended it with a few, er, additions:

"We are sorry if users of Linux or other operating systems are disappointed by our decision to issue a firmware upgrade which when installed disables this operating system feature. [We're sorry that people can get money off us for disabling Linux, we didn't realise that was possible]. We have made the decision to protect the integrity of the console [our wallets]  and whilst mindful of the impact on Linux or other operating system users [both of them] we nevertheless felt it would be in the best interests of the majority of users [our wallets] to pursue this course of action.

As you will be aware we have upgraded and enhanced functionality and features of the console by numerous firmware upgrades [*cough Home cough*] over time and this is a very rare instance where a feature will be disabled. Further enhancements are in the pipeline [Yes! Even more Sackboy outfits!].

Users do have the choice whether to install the firmware upgrade [as long as they don't mind not using PSN or playing online] and this is clearly explained to them at the time the firmware upgrade is made available for installation [it's buried deep within several pages of tiny text which no-one reads]. Furthermore our terms and conditions clearly state that we have the right to revise the PS3's settings and features in order to prevent access to unauthorised or pirated content [We're Sony, you're a common peasant: tough]."

If you didn't understand what this is all about, read the next post. Ultimately, though, this is a very big mess that's only going to end badly for all of us. Fun, though (unlike Linux, or indeed, Home).

Why Sony was right to remove 'Other OS' from its PS3

Notice anything new about your PS3 the last time you updated it? Probably not. In all likeliness, you watched a long download process, followed by an install bar, when all you really wanted to do was play Modern Theft Hero 6.

 Well, those of you who had Linux, the freeware operating system, running on your PS3 will have noticed that it, er, doesn’t work.

That’s old news now, though. Literally tens of people were outraged at this turn of events, obviously, the rampant popularity of PS3-Linux systems being what they are. Almost every Playstation owner has, at some point, thanked the gods of gaming that their console of choice can run an obscure OS with a large amount of effort and a lot of hassle.

 Well, maybe not. But every PS3 owner certainly should be interested. After all, they might be entitled to a free refund.

  The news surfaced this week that Amazon, the internet shopping giant, gave a European PS3-purchasing customer a 20% refund to make up for the lack of a Linux-install option on the console. Legally, they argued, the customer had a right to a refund or substitute (in this instance: cash) because Sony broke EU law, as the console no longer operated completely as advertised. They didn’t ask for the PS3 back, just gave them £84. And this was a 60GB PS3 owner – not exactly a fresh buyer.

This has massive repercussions for Sony, obviously. I severely doubt that Amazon are going to hand out cash reimbursements without asking the games company for a cheque in return, or that they would do so if it wasn’t completely legally necessary.

 This is obviously a huge problem for Sony at a time when the PS3 is beginning to regain momentum. Personally, though, I think it’s ridiculous.

 The Linux install option was a very, very underused feature. That isn’t the reason – if even one gamer enjoys a console’s feature, then removing it shouldn’t be done unless absolutely necessary. I love being able to move the PS logo from horizontal to vertical, for example – but even if I’m the only one, I don’t want to see it go.

The thing is though, the removal of the OS is actually necessary. The reason Sony removed Linux is because a cocky forum-dweller somewhere on the depths of the internet (read: in his bedroom) brazenly revealed that he had circumvented the PS3’s beefy piracy restrictions.

 I’m not some fascist, fat-cat-loving money man (hello, New Labour), but sometimes, the actions of big business can be justified.

Piracy is massive because it’s so easy. I download things that in reality, I should probably pay for. You probably have. It’s everywhere. I don’t judge these people, nor the many many individuals whom I’ve met playing on DS R4 cards. If the option is there, it’s hard to resist. If I could download a Ferrari, despite the fact that it’s sort of hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars/Hungarian forints' worth of theft, I’d do it.

But this is different. Outrightly attempting to break a console’s security for the sake of free games is a bit wrong, and was only going to end up with one result: the loss of the feature forever.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, and really, both Sony and the pirate are at fault in some way, but the bottom line is that anyone who does want Linux on the PS3 can’t have it, Sony might have to destroy its profit margins to reimburse Amazon customers (and maybe more), and we still can’t play pirated games. If this situation really does get out of hand, we might not even get legal Playstation games any more. The losses for Sony – a company not exactly flush with revenue at the moment – could be devastating. Lose-lose-lose.

 Maybe after the dust of this new scandal settles, the next bedroom console-cracker might think twice before attempting to break some console security. And in a roundabout way, that would benefit us all – the developers who make those games that pirates steal, the publishers who depend on them, and the hacks like myself who write about the industry.

 For now, though, go claim your £84 refund if you’re an EU Amazon PS3 customer. After all, no-one can resist free stuff, can they?

An Extra Dimension of Touching

Okay, so I'll admit it. Right here in this very blog, I said that Nintendo wouldn't be making their next console a handheld. Well, with the recent announcement of the 3DS, the proper successor to DS, I can say that I was quite wrong.

The theory was sound, at least: DSi is graphically more capable than DS, a sort of subtle-successor to DS Lite, ready to have exclusive, shinier games (which, though it looks unlikely now, Nintendo can still make). Meanwhile, Wii is facing a stern test in seeing off the new motion control options offered by its competitors (see below for more on that...).

But that is Nintendo for you. Unpredictable. As ever, Nintendo came up with a pretty left-field idea and caught us off-guard with the announcement of a handheld that can create the effect of a 3D image on its two screens without glasses. Not only that, but it's going to be a true graphical leap from the current DS, and it will probably release this year.

Why now? Well, perhaps Nintendo was rattled by reports that Apple, that 'non-gaming' behemoth, has snatched 19% of the handheld gaming market - more than PSP - without even selling a dedicated handheld. Perhaps DSi didn't sell as well as they'd anticipated. Maybe rumours of an ultra-powered PSP2 forced Nintendo to get in first.

The likely answer, though, is none of the above. Nintendo does things on its own terms, sometimes infuriatingly so (hello, friend codes). The question we should be asking, though, is what this announcement means for the games industry.

Well, whether it actually works remains to be seen. Something closer to Avatar than Journey to the Center of The Earth (not the great book, the awful '3D' film with Brendan Fraser)in terms of 3D quality would be a big boost to the handheld's credentials, but the practicalities of the actual experience are important too. Will the images be 3D on both screens? Will they conflict with each other - or form one huge image? Do I have to hold it in a certain, awkward way?

We don't know, and we're not likely to find out until E3 this year. But on paper, the idea is full of promise. It seems that Nintendo has hit upon something massive. The one barrier to entry to 3DTV adoption, when they go on sale this year, is certain to be the price. Yes, Sony will update the PS3 with 3D-gaming capabilities, but can you afford the £1000+ tech to play on? Anyone who recently emptied their bank account on an HDTV won't exactly be itching to throw their 42" in the bin just yet.

What's the point of a 3D-enabled device if most owners don't and won't own a 3DTV? Well, when you buy a handheld, you buy a screen (or two, in the DS' case). Make them 3D capable at a low enough price and suddenly every 3DS owner has a 3D-enabled games console. That also means that Nintendo can make the 3D capabilities central to the experience. If Sony put in 3D-only content in Killzone 3, for example (like a puzzle that requires the extra dimension), they'd cut out the majority of players from accessing some of the content. But Zelda 3DS can utilise the added depth to the full, because every player can see the mind-bending puzzles. It's simply a stroke of genius.

Don't take my word for it, though. I've been wrong before. Time will tell whether the extra dimension can make the DS a success all over again. Whatever happens though, at least people won't notice now when Sony copies DS' touch screens. That's old news now.

Copy That...

First of all, apologies for the lack of activity recently; without regaling eager gamer-readers with the intricacies of my personal life, it’s been hectic.

It seems I’m not the only one who’s been busy though, nor the only one in need of making an apology.

It seems that Sony fans everywhere should be extending the olive branches right now – Playstation Move, the new motion controller from Sony, is a real Wii-too effort.

Nintendo fans everywhere are – quite fairly – lording it over their Sony counterparts, partly from the smug realisation that their downtrodden Ninty had fought back to literally and metaphorically lead the pack, in sales and ideas, partly out of anger from being so blatantly copied. Should Sony find runaway success with Move, Nintendo might well feel a little hard-done by.

The games industry, though, is above such petty squabbles. The fact is that Nintendo’s move towards motion has just taken one step closer to being the gaming standard. Will traditional button-based pads remain come PS4? Probably, but for the foreseeable future, if you aren’t up for arm-waving, you’ll be waiving your chance to play some key titles. Rumours of a motion-based Uncharted 3, a waggle-infused Heavy Rain add-on and even some sort of integration into the ever-delayed Gran Turismo 5 are flying around almost as readily as limbs in a sports-based set of mini-games, one of which has already been announced as a launch title for Sony’s wagglesticks (wonder where they got that idea, too?).

Gamers need to be ready to embrace motion, because it’s where the games industry wants to go next. Even Microsoft’s ‘big new idea’, Natal, is based on the idea of limb-flailery in the extreme. It may use a sophisticated camera to track your movements rather than any sort of controller, but the end result is the same – jumping about to kill, explore, score and kill again. All the usual gaming objectives can be accomplished.

The thing is, many gamers aren’t ready. For every gamer out there who wants to literally punch the air to make a kill or hit a home run, there is at least one who wants to stab X, eat crisps and gawk at the telly from the comfort of their sofa. If the ratio is even 1:1, that creates a dangerous split in the demographics. Yes, for now, Sony will still serve up great button-based titles – but what if Move doubles PS3 sales? Roughly speaking, that would mean that roughly half are still traditional gamers – but you can bet that motion would be crowbarred into every title, regardless of the large contingent who aren’t interested.

This is the real issue. It seems that no one actually wants to serve the traditional gamer any more. Why spend a hundred million pounds making a GTA V when you can knock up a motion mini-game collection for 3% of the development cost but 50% of the revenue?

The Xbox 360 and PS3 have so far amassed sales of 71 million consoles, combined, since the beginning of this generation without any kind of motion controller being available on either system. Never mind that this is actually more than Wii’s 69 million, but it’s pretty clear that the traditional gamer is still a market worth paying attention to.

Sony might find some success by mimicking Nintendo’s little white box, and Microsoft with their quirkier new camera, and I wish them luck, but they would do well not to Move too far from those gamers that bought ten million copies of Modern Warfare 2. Hopefully losing standard game-pads forever will be one motion gamers won’t carry.

Let's Get Critical

Games reviewers. Both our best friends and our worst enemies. When they slap a high score on that title we’ve already thrown down a hefty pre-order price for, we’re quick to sing their praises. When they cruelly slam our most anticipated titles with a witheringly low ‘6/10’, or some such figure, the conspiracy theories fly. ‘They’re Xbox fanboys!’, ‘they hate this genre’, ‘they’ve been bribed by Sony/Microsoft/etc.’
Our relationship with reviewers, then, is truly Marmite – which is to say, very love/hate. But is it just our crazed internet personae being baited into knee-jerk reactions online, or is does the system itself need to come under review? I certainly think so.

Games, it has often been argued, are an entertainment media on the up. What was once seen as a childish or nerdy pastime (though the medium still struggles with such labels) is more commonly being seen as a serious form of escapism, culture and very occasionally, art. Titles like the recently-released Heavy Rain (pictured) seek to show a more considered, mature side to gaming.

Not the big guns, big swears, bigger 18-symbol kind of mature, but the kind which focuses on strong narrative and adult dialogue. Games like Brain Training and Wii Fit have taken a stab at gaming maturity in an entirely different, but arguably even more successful way, taking a ‘kiddy’ pastime and allowing adults to utilise it to solve deadly serious adult problems like weight gain and senility.

It is time, now more so than ever, that we treated the medium seriously. Which is to say, critically. We cannot allow games to have an easy ride, especially when the standards of production values, graphics and even writing have never been higher. It’s time we got critical.

Other serious forms of entertainment are regularly given a rough ride, panned and pulled apart for every tiny flaw. Whilst I’m not arguing that every film is minced by critics, nor that every game should be, either, it is only by calmly acknowledging a game’s drawbacks can we improve for the future. If games reviewers simply foam at the mouth every time a good game comes along, we’ll never be able to tell what’s truly hot and what’s just hyperbole.Case in point: Grand Theft Auto: IV. The darling of reviewers this generation, garnering a 98/100 average on reviews-aggregate website, Metacritic.

Hold on. 98/100? On average? It doesn’t take a mathematical whiz-kid to work out that 98 on average is an absurdly-inflated score. Similarly, Super Mario Galaxy, Nintendo’s biggest critical success on 97/100 average, is obviously over-scored.
As a regular reader of gaming reviews, it is quite difficult to accept. SMG is possibly Nintendo’s single greatest achievement, potentially besting Super Mario 64 or The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. In my humble opinion, it does. But I still don’t think it deserves a 97/100 average. I don’t think any game does.
Film reviews are more considered. You get the feeling that the critics aren’t simply raving fanboys, rabid hype-junkies or silly company-politics obsessives.

 For example, Avatar, now the most successful film ever, garnered a very impressive 84 on Metacritic.That's a hugely positive review score, and any game developer should feel proud to achieve such a stunning critical reception for their title. Except, that’s not quite the case. For games reviewers have become accustomed to only using the top end of the scale.

 As a result, a 6/10 seems ‘a poor score’ when in reality it’s above-average. Similarly, 9/10s and 10/10s are dished out like Guitar Hero instalments, meaning it’s difficult to distinguish a truly outstanding title from a pretty good game. Now, games reviewers have created a vicious cycle in which only the highest scores will do. Regularly, reviewers point out real flaws in a title whilst going on to award it a 10/10 regardless.

Some publications do things differently, and get a fierce kicking from all corners of the internet as a result. EDGE magazine, for example, recently handed Final Fantasy XIII a 5/10. They argued that the game was technically accomplished but far too linear. Fair complaints, if we take linearity to be a bad thing (but that’s for another day...). A 5/10 is not a bad score, it is average. A game doesn’t need serious flaws to score in the middle of the scale, just be a game which is not particularly outstanding. Many forum-dwellers quickly pointed out that ‘an EDGE 5 is a normal 7 or even 8’.
Sadly, they’re right. Games reviewers and the industry at large needs to realise that high scores should be the exception, not the rule, if gaming as a medium is to truly be respected.

Don’t agree? Good. We need to be more critical.