Pressing Buttons

Used and abused

I've always been this staunch believer in supporting the industry.

I've very rarely bought a used game, and have only done so when the game is clearly out of print.

And before I got on any further, I'm not tooting my own horn here. This will not turn out to be some holier than thou post where I point out your foibles and laugh.

I've never had the heart to hack any of my systems or pirate games. An R4 would make my life so easy, as it stands I own 47 Nintendo DS games. Being able to carry a large chunk of those on one gray market cartridge sounds like my idea of heaven (or at least a very nice resort). But I view the R4 like the ring from Lord of the...Rings. Whoever touches one turns to diarrhea, and they never buy a game again. I don't want to suffer that same fate.

So, the reason I'm going on about this is that now I'm hearing that the used game market isn't as bad as on might think. Now, I'm not some dolt buying into the blather of some high up executive. While the points made by Dan DeMatteo, the chief executive officer of GameStop, are to be taken with a grain of salt, I do have to say that even post-salt, his points are interesting.

For starters, if say, 100 used games are sold at any given time, only three or four of those are titles that have been released in the last 90 days. That means while Gears of War 2 has been traded in, for three months very few are being sold second hand. So when we read of a title selling 2 million copies in its first week at retail, it's safe to say they're going to do all right.

To continue his point, DeMatteo says that people trading in games are generally putting that credit towards new games, not used. Which is interesting, because it's not as if they're endlessly recycling used titles.

DeMatteo's last point is that gamers are still spending quite a bit of money even when they intend to eventually trade the title in. As I or anyone can tell you, it's a fair generalization to say you get nothing for your trades. So, when we buy that brand new $60 game, we understand we'll make back a third of that if we're lucky. I thought GameStop's argument here was a bit weak, because I already understand that the industry is receiving that money, but this point is a bit redundant in the grand scheme of things.

So, I could hardly say my eyes have been opened to the beauty of trades. However, I do agree that they have a place in the industry, and to condemn them is a bit loopy. I mean, not everyone works a job where they can support their game related habits. $10 or $15 dollars taken off the top is something many people consider easier to swallow or justify.

It's obvious that DLC is the industry's current solution to this problem. Even if I do buy a game used, if I like it, I'm likely to buy the extra content. How I figure it is, if people will only buy games used, they're generally not a consumer you'd be pleasing anyways, so don't attempt to paint the picture that used games are the problem.

 While DeMatteo obviously has an agenda, it's interesting to see that we're not as close to the brink of death as I thought we were. If developers and publishers feel the squeeze to make games that don't bubble up as used games a few days after release, then I'm for it. If they create the incentive, then I'm totally there day one. But people will treat poo like poo, so don't put it out there then complain about the results.

Gearbox better not be in trouble, or YOU'RE in trouble

It would probably do more harm then good, but do you ever wish everyone had the same taste as you?

I certainly do, because then I wouldn't still be wanting an unwarranted amount of time for Beyond Good and Evil 2.

But as it stands, not everyone likes what I like, and that's why we have 31 flavours at Baskin Robbins. But if all future releases of chocolate themed ice creams went away because fools didn't buy enough plain chocolate ice cream, then I'd likely have a fit.

Which I may have right about now.

Something's afoot over at Gearbox Software, and I don't like it.

Supposedly (and then "unsupposedlied" by company president Randy Pitchford himself), due to poor sales of Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, future Gearbox games were on life support. In particular, their Aliens title for Sega.

Damn it.

Even though this whole scenerio has now become something of a ruse (the originator of this rumour likely never imagined the Pitch man would get involved so quickly himself), the whole thing just stinks.

Why do I have to worry about a company's entire future because a few hundred thousand people didn't think of buying two copies of Developer A's previous game. Do I really have to make up for that slack?

I mean, back in the days, I don't remember this happening. Beyond Good and Evil didn't sell all that hot, but look at that, Michel Ancel is still around, putting out hit after hit. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time performed poorly as well, but why would anyone tell Ubisoft Montreal what to do, they've obviously got the right stuff.

But now a developer's entire crop is layed to waste if one game doesn't sell. Does the success of a World War 2 shooter really affect that of a licenced game such as Aliens? The name alone will net you enough to get started on whatever you've got coming.

I think this rumour made so much ground so quickly is because we love to talk about sales as if we actually understand them. On the Shacknews link to this story, they make mention of NPD numbers, and how BiA:HH never quite "charted" as high as expected. For all we know, it's been at number eleven for a couple months now. As well, it could have been selling really well over Steam, Valve's digital distribution service.

But with the game's price drop in the US (not many retailers in Canada have lowered their price), it's only natural to assume in tanked....I guess.

Anyways, I'm glad to hear from Gearbox that this is all a sham, and I hope something like this never happens again. As it stands, I'm very excited for both Borderlands and Aliens: Colonial Marines, so here's further hoping this is all conjecture. Or else I'm rushing out to force a few million fools into buying Brothers in Arms.

My baby will have PC gamer blood in it

With my girlfriend's laptop inching ever closer to becoming "our" laptop (one with diminishing harddrive space due to my less than cautious downloading habits), I've adopted it as my poor performing gaming rig.

That's right consoles, I've gone over to the side that's supposedly dying. Time to start downloading all my games from now on! Illegally!

I'm going through this crazy bout where I'm playing more and more games on this laptop. For starters, I'm finally getting around to playing Grim Fandango, a gift for my girlfriend during Christmas 2006. She and I quickly played it for a week or so after Christmas, and then god intervened and told me I wasn't ready for how excellent a game it was yet. I'd need to play far worse before I could understand it's perfection.

So I rented Too Human.

But silly me, I forgot that this was a PC game I was playing. I couldn't expect to just play the thing whenever I pleased. Eventually I encountered a hiccup where the game's audio would skip around like some demon pogo stick wielding child. After a "late to the Grim Fandango party" thread popped up on neoGAF, I figured I'd get my problem solution-ified.

Some fancy footwork later (I had to open DOS or some such thing), and I'm playing Fandango the way it was intended.

"But that's only one game, idiot," someone is surely saying. "How about you play a real PC game, like World of Warcraft or Diablo."

Well, how does Half-Life sound? And lets be clear, I'm not spouting off about any of that The Orange Box
on the 360 crap I usually do. No, I'm talking about Half-Life ONE. I'm talking about using my keyboard and mouse to control Gordon Free. I'm talking about aiming precisely without the liberal help of auto-aim.

When I saw that it was 98 cents, I knew I had to bite. Even though I was merely putting off the eventual purchase of the Half-Life pack that came with all the trimmings (Blue Shift, Opposing Force, etc.), less than a dollar is hard to turn down.

And too complete my ascension into PC gamingdom, I still play Peggle. I haven't even manned up to Peggle Nights yet. If you haven't played Peggle and might want to look into what it is, don't do a google image search. I don't want to hear about what it looks like, because I will smack your face. Download the demo, and you'll understand.

Since this laptop isn't the strongest thing in the world, I have to stick with these artifacts of gaming for now. But before I continue to refer to myself as a now and future PC gamer, I have to ask if I'm allowed into your super cool club. If paying for my games does me a disservice, I promise I'll change my ways. Thank you PC brethren.

The crybaby's take on Mirror's Edge

Mirror's Edge accomplishes what I wanted it to.

I wanted the sensation of actually controlling a human being, something I never felt in any other title from a first person perspective. Half Life 2 scores highly for interactions with other human being like characters, but he still felt like little more than a camera with a gun taped on. When you run as the Freeman, your gun moves faster, but in Mirror's Edge, your character's hands and arms appear on screen in such a way that doesn't look goofy. Any developer no matter their pedigree could really have gone overboard with, but DICE really pulled this off. It's going to sound odd, but when you look down at your feet, not only do you see them, but the amount of torso that you see doesn't look ridiculous either. I mean, take a look at  Trespasser: Jurassic Park, a title with enough ambition to choke a horse. It too allowed you to look down, but only as a means of gimmickry (your health was displayed as a tattoo on your characters breast).

If nothing else, you respect DICE for not taking the gratuitous route when it came to its female protagonist. And that seriously looks like someone's pants are slipping down.

Can I gush about looking down some more? Hopefully I can.

There was one time where I thought, "You know what? I bet when I look down as I sidle along this building, my body is going to look messed up." Now, I haven't crept along an outside ledge, so I can't say that I speak from first hand. However, if I were to commit such a dangerous deed (perhaps for a ladies further affection), then yes, this is probably how it looks.

Now, despite my favour for Mirror's Edge, there's one thing that's been driving me up the wall. I'm not one to talk too much about a game's visuals, if I did, I probably would have this blog stripped away from me by the powers that be. It's a petty practice to break down a game's visuals, but just this once I'm making an exception. But this time around, be assured it has nothing to do with them being either "whiz bang awesome", or "poo brown bad." Nope, I'm just a little peeved at the screen tearing.

I've always been cool with things like slowdown, bad collission detection, and other such horrors. At least when it was understandable or tolerable.

But like a bratty cousin attempting to appear cool in my eyes, the screen tearing in Mirror's Edge is a constant bother. Were this to be a game where I'm always running straight ahead, I'd be in the clear. But as it stands, I'm turning and jumping plenty, and that's when this snot nosed family member jumps at me with another magic trick.

You can click on that to embiggen it, but if you look to the mid-right of the screen, you can see a line that doesn't sync with the rest of the scenery. If you take that one line, and times it by five, you have what I'm experiencing in Mirror's Edge.

It seems the problem lies with standard definition televisions. I'm playing all my consoles in 480p, which is a teenie tiny step above standard definition. As much as I'd like to own an HDTV, I can't justify spending that amount of money right now. If this is the reason behind Mirror's Edge screen tearing, it's just adding on to the pile of problems developers are creating with their games. It's hard to find any concrete numbers, but I'm in doubt that the majority of people own HDTV's. I'm not necessarily complaining, considering my PS3 and 360 are built with high definition output in mind (although Sony can only afford to provide a composite set of AV cables, and Microsoft just barely goes above that with component). But I do consider it odd to have these problems. I can live with the small text found in titles like Dead Rising and Banjo Kazooie, but annoyance brought along with screen tearing is almost too much to handle.

I still heartily recommend Mirror's Edge, but be warned that while you may experience your first in-game, first person hug, you'll be on the receiving end of some crazy visual impairments.

Not Practising Dignity, or a terrible way to start off a post about NPD Chart discussion

So October's National Product Diary results were published yesterday. The thing's become my menstrual cycle. All month I'm feeling nice and chipper, and then that beast comes and makes everything feel like cold, emotionless chalk.

It's not the results really. It's the bickering and possible ammunition it provides to rage-a-holics the world over.

I mean, is it ever right to talk about a game's financial successes? Little Big Planet has had glowing reviews and is now constantly bolstered by a thriving group of gamers. Why should I care if it only sold 200,000 copies? I've done my part. There's no reason to use this for or against Sony and the PS3. Just go out and tell your friends to go buy it.

What strikes me as odd are the facts people choose to omit. The big thing right now is Little Big Planet's possible "flopping". Third from the bottom of the top ten list, Media Molecules ode to Michel Gondry only sold 215,000 copies during four days of sale. But yeah, that's super terrible. Close the servers guys, this fish is cooked dead.

Lets not give a poo about who's on top of the charts. if we've learned anything, it's that sales don't make a good game. If I want good games, I'll buy the ones I think I should. I'll let the masses buy their movie tie-ins, and I'll wait in the wings, enjoying Uncharted. And when the stars align, and a game like Fable 2 becomes a critical and commercial success, even better. But lets not rub that in someone's face, because honestly, we're talking about video games here. And no matter how much I love them, I'm not going to call someone names over them.

Unless they make fun of what I like. Then they're obviously wrong. The charts prove it.

Phoenix Down is provided, Tyler lives again

If you came into this expecting a Final Fantasy post, you really need to turn around now. That included image is as close as you're going to get, so enjoy it in it's compressed glory ladies and gents. When I look at it, I feel like I need to squint, but then I do and it doesn't help.

So yeah, I'm taking some time from my hectic life to write again. I've got a new job where I work pretty much full time, and my nights are for my lady and I. Games are for when I get home, and after an hour or two, I can't tell a DualShock from a Classic Controller, so I get to bed.

But it's been far too long! I love writing on this thing, and I love feedback. Especially the bad because then my heart races as I try to talk all smart in my reply. Using big words makes me even more correct.

Anyways, I'm back. So don't delete me from your RSS feeds. That's pretty presumptuous isn't it? Well, just keep reading.

Thanks.