Last year I was looking for a PC only gaming site. I found Rock Paper Shotgun. I liked it a lot. I read (present tense) it daily.
RPS has a very cool, informal style. They're referential, but not in a way that comes off as creatively stilted. They're just constantly reminding us how something they're talking about fits in the current gaming/pop-culture landscape. Or they're being clever. Or punny.
Some sites have staff writers I hate, and I end up skipping most of their posts. I like all the writers on RPS. I do have a favorite. Kieron Gillen, of course. He seems to be a favorite of many, but that may be because he's announced that he's retiring from writing up video games. Well, he's retiring from doing it on a regular basis.
I have a few weekly highlights. NBC's Thursday night lineup (with Community as my favorite). G4tv's web series Feedback, which honestly hasn't been the same since Patrick Klepek left but it's still quite good. One of my favorite weekly things though is (was?) Kieron Gillen's The Sunday Papers. It's a roundup of notable video game news/opinions and is usually ended with a nod to a certain band or song. Reading it's posts is a great way to spend a nice, relaxed Sunday.
This week's Sunday Papers was followed by an additional installment--a "Gillen-y Supplement". The supplement contains highlights from his 15 years of games journalism, selected by Gillen himself. I was familiar with his writing from my one+ year of reading RPS but that obviously only scratches the surface. This is well worth reading.
If you keep hearing people expressing sadness about his retiring and can't put a face (or article) to the name, the aforementioned supplement is required reading. Really great, fun writing, and I've got a handful of new games to go out and try as a result of reading it.
I'm going to close this by adding a post that's been in my bookmarks for years. Yes, years, because even though I've only been reading RPS for a little over one year apparently I've known of Gillen for quite a lot longer. "How to Use and Abuse the Gaming Press". I stumbled on this article a long time ago--um, I don't know how, or what I was searching for when I found it, or why I didn't start reading his blog regularly, but it's there, in my bookmarks, and I've never forgotten about the article since I first read it. Regardless of how I found it, if you're even a little bit interested in games journalism or marketing in general, you should check it out.
Ahh, finally put his blog in my feed reader. Should have done that ages ago.
You should do it right now.
David
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
OK Nokia, just take all my money.
NOTE: I probably shouldn't even be posting this. As I say later all images/specs of the N9 online are the result of unconfirmed rumors that are pretty widely contested for technical and logical reasons.
The current phone I would like to swaddle and carry around like a baby is the Nokia N9 (picture from SlashGear).
Nothing has been officially confirmed by Nokia yet. We're not even sure the device pictured above is what the phone will look like (there are some pictures online of a black phone claiming to be the N9). EDIT: It sounds like the phone will be available in silver and black (the keyboard will be black on both versions).
Rumored specs: (found here, originally obtained here I think)
The release date could be as early as December but will probably be Q1 2011.
Of course, the phone have MeeGo running on it. I haven't made up my mind on MeeGo yet. MeeGo Netbook seems like something I would be willing to put on my T91MT if and when I get some confirmation it works well. I haven't seen enough of MeeGo Handset to make a good judgment on it, but to be honest I haven't really been impressed with what I've seen so far. Also, Maemo 5 is THE BEST mobile OS I have ever used.
I mean, come on. They've been working on Maemo for years, making it better and better. It's finally amazing (to be fair it the N800's Maemo 4 is still light years ahead of anything Microsoft has done, and I still prefer it to the iPhone OS), so they release it on one device, don't properly support it (Ovi Suite anyone?), and scrap it in favor of a brand new OS. MeeGo is coming along nicely, and far more quickly than I had any reason to expect, but it's still a bit of a slap in the face.
I actually stopped in the middle of writing this post to check out MeeGo Handset videos on youtube, and it does in fact seem to have a lot of Maemo 5 qualities. In some places if almost feels like Maemo 5 with a different skin though that's obviously not the case. I just hope that a lot of the things I like in Maemo 5, such as the closing of pop-up menus by touching in the out-of-focus area "behind" the pop-up, make their way to MeeGo as well. Looks like the task switcher, one of my favorite Maemo 5 features, will remain intact, with a few more options.
Also on the Maemo/MeeGo note, the Maemo community is bad-assed and super-awesome. They also seem to love the platform and devices they're developing for. All that considered, I'm sure that if MeeGo's user interface is worse than Maemo 5, and Nokia doesn't work out some sort of a port, then the community definitely will. Because as I've already said, they're awesome.
Okay, okay, okay, this post sat in my browser over night, I did a little more research, and it looks like MeeGo is being built with the expectation that phone manufacturers would like to implement their own UI, and in fact it sounds like Nokia will be putting the UI Maemo 5 has on top of MeeGo. This is what it sounds like to me, and I really hope it's so.
So, all that conjecture and rumor considered, it seems ridiculous that the N9 would have a Qualcomm processor or a 720p screen, as some are claiming, which is fine by me. The one spec I really care about is the FM transmitter. If the N9 doesn't ship with one I might not buy it just out of spite and switch to an Android phone. Everything else looks good. The phone's style is a little hard to place--is it retro? Is it faux-futuristic? It's like something you would see in a sci-fi movie, but probably a rather good one, or at least one with a good design team.
Please Nokia, please make some sort of official announcement regarding this phone. Release the specs. Let me know if I need to start saving money for it. Oh hell, I'm saving up for one anyway.
Till then,
David
The current phone I would like to swaddle and carry around like a baby is the Nokia N9 (picture from SlashGear).
Nothing has been officially confirmed by Nokia yet. We're not even sure the device pictured above is what the phone will look like (there are some pictures online of a black phone claiming to be the N9). EDIT: It sounds like the phone will be available in silver and black (the keyboard will be black on both versions).
Rumored specs: (found here, originally obtained here I think)
FM transmitter (YES! The one on my N900 has come in handy far more than I ever expected)
8 or 12 MP camera, depending on where you hear it
720P video recording
HD out via HDMI
Qualcomm processor - (Doubtful, pretty sure Nokia has said they were going to use OMAP 3 processors)
64GB internal storage, expandable via a MicroSD slot
720p Super AMOLED screen. It won't have one of these. Seriously, it won't. Probably a 800x480 screen, possibly just AMOLED (not Super).
Finally, and most importantly, the N9 will have a anodized aluminum finish! YES! Ever since my Tapwave Zodiac, which never got a scratch, never, I've been so hopelessly in love with anodized aluminum finishes. Of course, I do also have a thing for soft-touch plastic...
The release date could be as early as December but will probably be Q1 2011.
Of course, the phone have MeeGo running on it. I haven't made up my mind on MeeGo yet. MeeGo Netbook seems like something I would be willing to put on my T91MT if and when I get some confirmation it works well. I haven't seen enough of MeeGo Handset to make a good judgment on it, but to be honest I haven't really been impressed with what I've seen so far. Also, Maemo 5 is THE BEST mobile OS I have ever used.
I mean, come on. They've been working on Maemo for years, making it better and better. It's finally amazing (to be fair it the N800's Maemo 4 is still light years ahead of anything Microsoft has done, and I still prefer it to the iPhone OS), so they release it on one device, don't properly support it (Ovi Suite anyone?), and scrap it in favor of a brand new OS. MeeGo is coming along nicely, and far more quickly than I had any reason to expect, but it's still a bit of a slap in the face.
I actually stopped in the middle of writing this post to check out MeeGo Handset videos on youtube, and it does in fact seem to have a lot of Maemo 5 qualities. In some places if almost feels like Maemo 5 with a different skin though that's obviously not the case. I just hope that a lot of the things I like in Maemo 5, such as the closing of pop-up menus by touching in the out-of-focus area "behind" the pop-up, make their way to MeeGo as well. Looks like the task switcher, one of my favorite Maemo 5 features, will remain intact, with a few more options.
Also on the Maemo/MeeGo note, the Maemo community is bad-assed and super-awesome. They also seem to love the platform and devices they're developing for. All that considered, I'm sure that if MeeGo's user interface is worse than Maemo 5, and Nokia doesn't work out some sort of a port, then the community definitely will. Because as I've already said, they're awesome.
Okay, okay, okay, this post sat in my browser over night, I did a little more research, and it looks like MeeGo is being built with the expectation that phone manufacturers would like to implement their own UI, and in fact it sounds like Nokia will be putting the UI Maemo 5 has on top of MeeGo. This is what it sounds like to me, and I really hope it's so.
So, all that conjecture and rumor considered, it seems ridiculous that the N9 would have a Qualcomm processor or a 720p screen, as some are claiming, which is fine by me. The one spec I really care about is the FM transmitter. If the N9 doesn't ship with one I might not buy it just out of spite and switch to an Android phone. Everything else looks good. The phone's style is a little hard to place--is it retro? Is it faux-futuristic? It's like something you would see in a sci-fi movie, but probably a rather good one, or at least one with a good design team.
Please Nokia, please make some sort of official announcement regarding this phone. Release the specs. Let me know if I need to start saving money for it. Oh hell, I'm saving up for one anyway.
Till then,
David
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
2 Cool Animation Programs
Did a little surfing around yesterday looking for new or updated animation programs. Currently in my spare time I'm using Blender for 2d animation, but I try to keep updated on proper 2d animation programs.
Well I saw that Synfig has been updated a few months ago. It now fully supports importing svg files. I tested it out a little bit, it works great. It handled every svg I threw at it, including a few pretty complex ones. The greatest part is it's a proper import, meaning I seem to be able to edit svg files I import the same way I could edit an image I made entirely in synfig. This is really cool.
Synfig, for those who don't know, is a vector 2d animation program that was designed for professional use, abandoned, then open-sourced. It seemed to sit there for a while, gaining little improvement (probably because the volunteer coders were fixing bugs, not adding features) but it's really coming along now, and seems stable enough for me to use for a lot of my projects.
Unfortunately, Synfig still doesn't support adding sound to the timeline, so you'd have to use a cue sheet or something similar to time lipsync movements so that actually match up with an external audio track. Lack of sound support is a big deal for me, though I understand that it will take a lot of work for them to implement.
Sound assumedly used to work in Synfig, but very poorly so using a proprietary and (now) depreciated library.
That said, sound isn't too big of a deal. Remember that 20 years ago nearly all animation was done by hand, so all lip syncing was done by counting out the number of frames. Lip-syncing in Synfig is still easier than it would have been back then.
The other program I stumbled across is Animata. From it's website's description:
Go to the website and check out the videos on it's front page. Then check out the tutorials over here. Pretty cool, huh?
The main problem I can see with Animata is that, as they say, it's real-time and designed for live performances. There doesn't seem to be a way to save an animation as a video file or as a string of still images. I haven't played around with the program yet, but I'll bet you could use CamStudio or some equivalent to record the animation off your monitor and save it as a video. I don't know how good the quality would be, but it could work.
There you have it, two cool animation programs to play with if you're so inclined. Unfortunately I can't at the moment, I'm still too engrossed with Blender to even think about digging into another app.
For now, anyways.
David
Well I saw that Synfig has been updated a few months ago. It now fully supports importing svg files. I tested it out a little bit, it works great. It handled every svg I threw at it, including a few pretty complex ones. The greatest part is it's a proper import, meaning I seem to be able to edit svg files I import the same way I could edit an image I made entirely in synfig. This is really cool.
Synfig, for those who don't know, is a vector 2d animation program that was designed for professional use, abandoned, then open-sourced. It seemed to sit there for a while, gaining little improvement (probably because the volunteer coders were fixing bugs, not adding features) but it's really coming along now, and seems stable enough for me to use for a lot of my projects.
Unfortunately, Synfig still doesn't support adding sound to the timeline, so you'd have to use a cue sheet or something similar to time lipsync movements so that actually match up with an external audio track. Lack of sound support is a big deal for me, though I understand that it will take a lot of work for them to implement.
Sound assumedly used to work in Synfig, but very poorly so using a proprietary and (now) depreciated library.
That said, sound isn't too big of a deal. Remember that 20 years ago nearly all animation was done by hand, so all lip syncing was done by counting out the number of frames. Lip-syncing in Synfig is still easier than it would have been back then.
The other program I stumbled across is Animata. From it's website's description:
Animata is an open source real-time animation software, designed to create animations, interactive background projections for concerts, theatre and dance performances.
Go to the website and check out the videos on it's front page. Then check out the tutorials over here. Pretty cool, huh?
The main problem I can see with Animata is that, as they say, it's real-time and designed for live performances. There doesn't seem to be a way to save an animation as a video file or as a string of still images. I haven't played around with the program yet, but I'll bet you could use CamStudio or some equivalent to record the animation off your monitor and save it as a video. I don't know how good the quality would be, but it could work.
There you have it, two cool animation programs to play with if you're so inclined. Unfortunately I can't at the moment, I'm still too engrossed with Blender to even think about digging into another app.
For now, anyways.
David
Friday, June 25, 2010
A series of windows
Apparently everyone is wrong. The internet is not a series of tubes. It is a series of windows. Copying a file illegally is apparently identical to breaking a window and stealing physical property. According to US Vice President Joe Biden.
Hey, it least he didn't call proponents of copyright reform radical extremists, then blatantly lie about it, as Canada's heritage minister did (and oh yes, he did call them radical extremists, as the end of the linked article points out, it's on tape).
No no, our VP simply chose to blatantly lie about the damage and impact of file sharing, trying to make it sound like something dangerous and violent--evil, really, when in fact it's something that is mostly harmless ("Downloads have an effect on sales that is statistically indistinguishable from zero.") and largely blown out of proportion--the actions of both sides, file sharers and the RIAA, are more misguided than anything else.
Perhaps more on this later, I've got a rant brewing, but whether it gets posted or not only time will tell.
Till then,
David
Hey, it least he didn't call proponents of copyright reform radical extremists, then blatantly lie about it, as Canada's heritage minister did (and oh yes, he did call them radical extremists, as the end of the linked article points out, it's on tape).
No no, our VP simply chose to blatantly lie about the damage and impact of file sharing, trying to make it sound like something dangerous and violent--evil, really, when in fact it's something that is mostly harmless ("Downloads have an effect on sales that is statistically indistinguishable from zero.") and largely blown out of proportion--the actions of both sides, file sharers and the RIAA, are more misguided than anything else.
Perhaps more on this later, I've got a rant brewing, but whether it gets posted or not only time will tell.
Till then,
David
Sunday, June 6, 2010
By all means applaud
(Image blatantly and obviously stolen from NewEgg.com)My current twenty-something inch computer monitor has an aspect ratio of 16:10, and it isn't advanced enough to perform any kind of scaling. That means it doesn't work with my Playstation 3, which outputs a 16:9 aspect ratio. A bit of the image is lopped off of one side.
Why don't I just plug my PS3 into a tv? Because the tv in the living room of my new place already has a PS3, an Xbox 360, and a Wii hooked up to it. I'm sure there's a HDMI slot available for my PS3, I just doubt there'd be an available time slot where I could play it on that tv.
I was thinking about getting an HDTV for my room. Oh, but I can't do that, I'm broke.
A much smarter decision would be to buy a LCD computer monitor that will support my PS3's aspect ratio (I will point out that supposedly the Xbox 360 handles a 16:10 aspect ratio just fine, but as I don't have one I can't confirm that at the moment).
So I'm looking at monitors, and saw this one on sale (until the 9th):
That's the Acer B233HUbmidhz, in case the link doesn't work once the sale is over. The sale isn't the important part, though it is a decent sale. The point is, as the above image shows, this monitor comes packaged with every single kind of cable it would need.
Audio cable (it has speakers)
USB cable (it can act as a USB hub)
VGA cable (as if)
DVI cable
Power cable (duh)
I just felt like that's worth mentioning, since most manufacturers of televisions and other high-definition devices (ahem PS3 ahem) don't see fit to provide a $6 HDMI cable. Well here's a $270 (retail price) monitor that comes with every single cable you might need.
Acer, you are awesome. I will probably buy this monitor, partially because it has all the cables, partially because it's getting great reviews, and partially because it has better-than-HD resolution and I'm running out of annoying things to brag about.
David
Here's the usual disclaimer: I have no affiliations with any other sites. No referral bonuses, no commissions. No money is put in my pocket from mentioning anything like this.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
I'm kind of an asshole.
I am. Really. I know it's hard to believe, but bear with me.
I'm a pretty self-important consumer.
Let's look at gaming. I own a PS3. I want to purchase an Xbox 360 soon, I wouldn't mind owning a Wii, but I like PC gaming best. I can play PC games anywhere I have a computer. I can use nearly any input I want--Xbox controller, PS3 controller, keyboard and mouse, classic gamepad, joystick, etc.
For a while it was enough for me to say that if a game wasn't coming out for PC, I wouldn't buy it. In truth, there are enough good games out on PC to keep me occupied for years. Eventually games like Uncharted 2 came along to make me finally buy a console (the PS3 being a Blu-Ray player I could stream files to from my PC helped make that decision, too).
I still have a bit of a chip on my shoulder. I was considering not buying Red Dead Redemption because it came out for 360 and PS3 but not PC. I probably will buy it soon, but why isn't it out for PC? I'm sure it will be in a few months, just like GTA4 was, but it's still a letdown.
And look at this. Earthworm Jim HD, a remastering of the Sega Genesis game, is coming out soon. And what is it coming out on? DS, Wii, PS3 and Xbox. Also iPhone and Palm Pre. No mention of PC? It's literally coming out on every available platform except for PC? I really hope that's an oversight. If it isn't coming out for PC, what the fuck?
Analyzing myself, it seems I'm okay with system exclusives. Well, I'm not happy about it, but I understand why some games only come out for PS3 or 360--because Sony or Microsoft courts developers and gives them more assistance or better deals if they're developing exclusive titles. That's what I'm assuming, anyway.
I really resent cross-platform games that don't come out for PC. Why? Why not release a game for PC? Don't you want my money? Maybe developers are (wrongly, I think) worried about piracy. Maybe they just can't afford to develop for a third platform. I don't care, it makes me angry regardless.
I know, I know, it's all supposed to be about the game, right? If the game's good enough, then I should get it on whatever platform I can. From that perspective, my insisting that every game come out for PC--and refusing to buy some games that look cool only because they're not available for PC--does make me feel like a bit of an asshole.
And this PC semi-restriction isn't my only rule.
I also put a blockade on certain DRM restrictions. If there's a 5-machine activation limit, I probably won't buy the game (but 4 activations a month or something like that I'm fine with). I certainly won't buy any Ubisoft games if they keep that ridiculous always-online restriction in place.
If the game requires me to use a Games for Windows Live account, I probably won't buy it. Why? It's annoying. G4WL games tend to have online matchmaking instead of dedicated servers. Saved games don't work right if I re-stage my computer and simply copy my saved games back into their old directories. I had to edit save files with a hex editor to get my GTA4 saves to work on a fresh windows install, and it still doesn't work properly (there is the occasional error message).
I mean really! I was using the same G4WL login and everything, but I still had to hack my own saved games like I was cheating or something, just to get functionality every non-G4WL game has. Does Microsoft just not give a shit or what?
I've recently realized that I have another hurdle game developers must jump over if they want my money. I probably won't buy a PC game unless it's available on Steam. Yep.
If you're even a semi-regular visitor of this site, you have probably realized I'm a Steam fanboy. I admit it, I love Steam. I'm not a dick about it, some people think Steam is malware just as bad as I think G4WL is, and I can understand their criticisms. I agree that it was a dick move for Valve to require Steam in order to run CD-based versions of the Orange Box on their PCs. For me though, Steam is a great service and the Steam client is a great all-in-one store/library/social application.
The saving grace of Steam, for me, is it's intelligent DRM. You can install your games on as many PCs as you want, but you can only be logged into one PC at a time--therefore your games can only be played on one PC at a time. It's simple, it's logical, and I have no problems with it. Developers can add more strict DRM on if they want, although many don't, and if the developers allow it you can also set up Steam to play games while offline if you don't have a regular internet connection.
The main reason I will only buy a PC game on Steam is because all my other games are on Steam. What, I want to have three clients open in order to see what games I have available? One library for all my games, that's how I want it. Steam got to me first, so that's what I'm using. Simple as that.
Some people are nervous about putting all their games in one library, because if the service ever goes down, all their games will be inaccessible. I can understand their worries, but I don't share them. I have all my games backed up. If need be, I'm sure I could download a crack or something to play them without Steam. Also, of all the online distribution platforms out there, Steam is the least likely to fail in my opinion. Some might say G4WL would be the least likely to shut down, but Microsoft has shut media services down in the past, leaving all it's users with a bunch of DRM-protected files they've paid for but can no longer use.
Split/Second is the most recent example of my asshole-ness. It's coming out on PS3, 360, and PC. But it's not available through Steam. They've said they have no plans to release it through Steam (actually they said they have no plans to release it through "Stream", was that a fingers-crossed sort of maneuver? Doubtfiul.). I'd like to play the game, it looks awesome. I won't buy it if it's not on Steam though, and I certainly won't buy it on a console if it's available on PC (I have to support my PC brothers, of course). It all puts me in a weird quagmire where nobody wins.
I don't win--I can't play the game.
The developers don't win--they're not getting my money.
And what did the exclusive really gain Split/Second's developers? There were a lot of people in the Steam forums who, like myself, wanted to buy the game but won't unless it's through Steam. I really wonder, did they get anything out of this exclusivity or do they just care that little about the PC market?
You know what? I hate exclusives. I hate console exclusives, I hate pre-order exclusives, I hate store exclusives. It's people trying to earn themselves more money at the cost of our choice.
Exclusives are tolerated in spite of the fact that I don't know one gamer that hasn't been adversely affected by them in some way. I completely dislike them, and I dislike them just as much when Steam is the exclusive seller.
DIGRESSION: Exclusive "Bonus" DLC:
There's really no reason to buy a game at GameStop instead of Walmart or Newegg.com, so they have to try to muscle their way in, and it hurts us twice--it forces us to buy something where we normally wouldn't (for instance I avoid GameStop because they're notorious for selling new games opened, sometimes missing DLC codes), and usually different stores have their own exclusive "bonus" content, so even if we play their game we consumers end up missing out on some content.
I can do without Split/Second. Blur is on Steam. Don't freak out, I know they're not the same game. Oddly enough, I didn't even know Blur existed until people suggested it on a Steam forum post about Split/Second's D2D (Direct2Drive, a competing online game store) exclusivity. That's right, I found out about Split/Second's direct competitor Blur, which even released on the same day, by researching why I couldn't buy Split/Second where I wanted to buy it.
Had Split/Second been on Steam, I would probably be playing it right now, and I still might not know that Blur even exists. I'm definitely going to buy Blur, by the way. For PC. On Steam.
Do you think anyone's learned any lessons from this? Doubtful, but luckily for all of us there are enough great games on every platform (and in every store) that it matters less and less each day. The same way I could shrug off Ubisoft's ridiculous new DRM by just resolving to play the hundreds of other great games in the world instead, I can ignore all these exclusives by turning to something else, very possibly their slightly smarter (and more available) direct competitors.
David
I'm a pretty self-important consumer.
Let's look at gaming. I own a PS3. I want to purchase an Xbox 360 soon, I wouldn't mind owning a Wii, but I like PC gaming best. I can play PC games anywhere I have a computer. I can use nearly any input I want--Xbox controller, PS3 controller, keyboard and mouse, classic gamepad, joystick, etc.
For a while it was enough for me to say that if a game wasn't coming out for PC, I wouldn't buy it. In truth, there are enough good games out on PC to keep me occupied for years. Eventually games like Uncharted 2 came along to make me finally buy a console (the PS3 being a Blu-Ray player I could stream files to from my PC helped make that decision, too).
I still have a bit of a chip on my shoulder. I was considering not buying Red Dead Redemption because it came out for 360 and PS3 but not PC. I probably will buy it soon, but why isn't it out for PC? I'm sure it will be in a few months, just like GTA4 was, but it's still a letdown.
And look at this. Earthworm Jim HD, a remastering of the Sega Genesis game, is coming out soon. And what is it coming out on? DS, Wii, PS3 and Xbox. Also iPhone and Palm Pre. No mention of PC? It's literally coming out on every available platform except for PC? I really hope that's an oversight. If it isn't coming out for PC, what the fuck?
Analyzing myself, it seems I'm okay with system exclusives. Well, I'm not happy about it, but I understand why some games only come out for PS3 or 360--because Sony or Microsoft courts developers and gives them more assistance or better deals if they're developing exclusive titles. That's what I'm assuming, anyway.
I really resent cross-platform games that don't come out for PC. Why? Why not release a game for PC? Don't you want my money? Maybe developers are (wrongly, I think) worried about piracy. Maybe they just can't afford to develop for a third platform. I don't care, it makes me angry regardless.
I know, I know, it's all supposed to be about the game, right? If the game's good enough, then I should get it on whatever platform I can. From that perspective, my insisting that every game come out for PC--and refusing to buy some games that look cool only because they're not available for PC--does make me feel like a bit of an asshole.
And this PC semi-restriction isn't my only rule.
I also put a blockade on certain DRM restrictions. If there's a 5-machine activation limit, I probably won't buy the game (but 4 activations a month or something like that I'm fine with). I certainly won't buy any Ubisoft games if they keep that ridiculous always-online restriction in place.
If the game requires me to use a Games for Windows Live account, I probably won't buy it. Why? It's annoying. G4WL games tend to have online matchmaking instead of dedicated servers. Saved games don't work right if I re-stage my computer and simply copy my saved games back into their old directories. I had to edit save files with a hex editor to get my GTA4 saves to work on a fresh windows install, and it still doesn't work properly (there is the occasional error message).
I mean really! I was using the same G4WL login and everything, but I still had to hack my own saved games like I was cheating or something, just to get functionality every non-G4WL game has. Does Microsoft just not give a shit or what?
I've recently realized that I have another hurdle game developers must jump over if they want my money. I probably won't buy a PC game unless it's available on Steam. Yep.
If you're even a semi-regular visitor of this site, you have probably realized I'm a Steam fanboy. I admit it, I love Steam. I'm not a dick about it, some people think Steam is malware just as bad as I think G4WL is, and I can understand their criticisms. I agree that it was a dick move for Valve to require Steam in order to run CD-based versions of the Orange Box on their PCs. For me though, Steam is a great service and the Steam client is a great all-in-one store/library/social application.
The saving grace of Steam, for me, is it's intelligent DRM. You can install your games on as many PCs as you want, but you can only be logged into one PC at a time--therefore your games can only be played on one PC at a time. It's simple, it's logical, and I have no problems with it. Developers can add more strict DRM on if they want, although many don't, and if the developers allow it you can also set up Steam to play games while offline if you don't have a regular internet connection.
The main reason I will only buy a PC game on Steam is because all my other games are on Steam. What, I want to have three clients open in order to see what games I have available? One library for all my games, that's how I want it. Steam got to me first, so that's what I'm using. Simple as that.
Some people are nervous about putting all their games in one library, because if the service ever goes down, all their games will be inaccessible. I can understand their worries, but I don't share them. I have all my games backed up. If need be, I'm sure I could download a crack or something to play them without Steam. Also, of all the online distribution platforms out there, Steam is the least likely to fail in my opinion. Some might say G4WL would be the least likely to shut down, but Microsoft has shut media services down in the past, leaving all it's users with a bunch of DRM-protected files they've paid for but can no longer use.
Split/Second is the most recent example of my asshole-ness. It's coming out on PS3, 360, and PC. But it's not available through Steam. They've said they have no plans to release it through Steam (actually they said they have no plans to release it through "Stream", was that a fingers-crossed sort of maneuver? Doubtfiul.). I'd like to play the game, it looks awesome. I won't buy it if it's not on Steam though, and I certainly won't buy it on a console if it's available on PC (I have to support my PC brothers, of course). It all puts me in a weird quagmire where nobody wins.
I don't win--I can't play the game.
The developers don't win--they're not getting my money.
And what did the exclusive really gain Split/Second's developers? There were a lot of people in the Steam forums who, like myself, wanted to buy the game but won't unless it's through Steam. I really wonder, did they get anything out of this exclusivity or do they just care that little about the PC market?
You know what? I hate exclusives. I hate console exclusives, I hate pre-order exclusives, I hate store exclusives. It's people trying to earn themselves more money at the cost of our choice.
Exclusives are tolerated in spite of the fact that I don't know one gamer that hasn't been adversely affected by them in some way. I completely dislike them, and I dislike them just as much when Steam is the exclusive seller.
DIGRESSION: Exclusive "Bonus" DLC:
There's really no reason to buy a game at GameStop instead of Walmart or Newegg.com, so they have to try to muscle their way in, and it hurts us twice--it forces us to buy something where we normally wouldn't (for instance I avoid GameStop because they're notorious for selling new games opened, sometimes missing DLC codes), and usually different stores have their own exclusive "bonus" content, so even if we play their game we consumers end up missing out on some content.
I can do without Split/Second. Blur is on Steam. Don't freak out, I know they're not the same game. Oddly enough, I didn't even know Blur existed until people suggested it on a Steam forum post about Split/Second's D2D (Direct2Drive, a competing online game store) exclusivity. That's right, I found out about Split/Second's direct competitor Blur, which even released on the same day, by researching why I couldn't buy Split/Second where I wanted to buy it.
Had Split/Second been on Steam, I would probably be playing it right now, and I still might not know that Blur even exists. I'm definitely going to buy Blur, by the way. For PC. On Steam.
Do you think anyone's learned any lessons from this? Doubtful, but luckily for all of us there are enough great games on every platform (and in every store) that it matters less and less each day. The same way I could shrug off Ubisoft's ridiculous new DRM by just resolving to play the hundreds of other great games in the world instead, I can ignore all these exclusives by turning to something else, very possibly their slightly smarter (and more available) direct competitors.
David
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Warm and Fuzzy
It's nice to hear about some new online scam or phishing method, worry slightly because it's really clever, but then realize that I'm actually not exposed to it. Well, not as exposed as I could be.
Here's an explanation of a new type of phishing attack. Basically a tabbed malicious page can tell when it's not in focus, and when you're not looking it will change itself to look like a familiar login screen, Gmail for example.
Distracted users click over to that tab, assume they left Gmail open and enter their credentials without thinking about it.
So why am I not exposed? Or as exposed? 2 reasons:
1) I use No Script, the Javascript and Flash blocker for Firefox. You can block or unblock sites. I have Google unblocked, so if I got a notification that Java or Flash were being blocked that would be a helpful yet easily missed clue that I'm not on the site I think I am.
2) I use an in-browser password management plugin. If my user name and password aren't already entered in the form (and it wouldn't be because the domain has to be right for them to enter information), I'll know something's up.
Three password management plugins I have used (and like):
Xmarks - it's decent, I currently use it for bookmark syncing but not password, though I have used it for pasword syncing with no trouble. Xmarks also allows you to view open tabs on other computers a la Weave.
Mozilla Weave - for Firefox only, it syncs passwords, bookmarks, open tabs and history. I stopped using it as it would regularly lock up my netbook during it's scans/syncs.
LastPass - A fairly secure (I hope) password safe that works with most major browsers, and there's a bookmarklet to use in browsers that don't support it.
Here's an explanation of a new type of phishing attack. Basically a tabbed malicious page can tell when it's not in focus, and when you're not looking it will change itself to look like a familiar login screen, Gmail for example.
Distracted users click over to that tab, assume they left Gmail open and enter their credentials without thinking about it.
So why am I not exposed? Or as exposed? 2 reasons:
1) I use No Script, the Javascript and Flash blocker for Firefox. You can block or unblock sites. I have Google unblocked, so if I got a notification that Java or Flash were being blocked that would be a helpful yet easily missed clue that I'm not on the site I think I am.
2) I use an in-browser password management plugin. If my user name and password aren't already entered in the form (and it wouldn't be because the domain has to be right for them to enter information), I'll know something's up.
Three password management plugins I have used (and like):
Xmarks - it's decent, I currently use it for bookmark syncing but not password, though I have used it for pasword syncing with no trouble. Xmarks also allows you to view open tabs on other computers a la Weave.
Mozilla Weave - for Firefox only, it syncs passwords, bookmarks, open tabs and history. I stopped using it as it would regularly lock up my netbook during it's scans/syncs.
LastPass - A fairly secure (I hope) password safe that works with most major browsers, and there's a bookmarklet to use in browsers that don't support it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)