Editorials

Regarding the Xbox Live price bump

News broke this morning that prices for Microsoft’s Xbox Live Gold service will be increasing as of November 1. Here are the specifics:

  • 1 month: $9.99, up from $7.99; approximately a 25% increase
  • 3 months: $24.99, up from $19.99; approximately a 25% increase
  • 12 months: $59.99, up from $49.99; approximately a 20% increase

This seems to be sparking some backlash among the masses of outspoken Xbox Live members because hey, it’s always been $50 per year ever since Xbox Live launched in late 2002, right?

Right. But fifty bucks isn’t what fifty bucks used to be. When you calculate the change in relative worth of the US dollar over time, you see something like this:

It turns out that, by just about any measure, $50 in 2002 is roughly equivalent in worth to $60 in 2010. And yes, you could potentially make the argument that Microsoft should be saving a lot of money through diminishing operating costs for maintaining a server infrastructure for machines that are now running five-year-old hardware. But there’s also the valid counterargument that interface updates and access to new free services have helped to maintain a relatively consistent value for Xbox Live.

Is the price increase unexpected? Absolutely not. Microsoft’s gearing up to integrate services like ESPN into its Xbox Live Gold service this fall, and that must have been an expensive deal between the two companies. But when you just take a look at the numbers, there’s nothing controversial about this at all.

Games of skill and games of story, and how Starcraft II blends the concepts

The more I’ve been thinking about gameplay mechanics and how gamers interact with a variety of games, the more I’ve narrowed down video games into two overarching categories: games of skill and games of story. Regardless of genre, games of skill focus more on mastery of a game engine and its trappings, while story-focused games worry more about plot progression and crafting narrative.

Naturally, I would place most first- and third-person shooters, most sports games, racing games, and fighting games into the “skill” category, while RPGs and adventure games dominate the “story” zone. Sure, a game like Mass Effect 2 may have wonderful shooting mechanics, but the game’s focus isn’t on a combat engine that’s balanced for multiplayer, where time investment and development of skill is rewarded. Instead, it focuses on advancing a captivating story with action scenes designed to make the player feel empowered. While it may help engage the player in the conflict, it’s not the same as the combat in a balanced, multiplayer-focused shooter like Halo or Call of Duty. Even the incredibly tight combat engine in a modern Zelda title is focused on a single-player experience, as its traditional “get this new tool and make use of it in the dungeon” gameplay is designed to act as a ramp to climb throughout the duration of Link’s quest.

Conversely, your classic Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, or other fighting game may have a story mode, but it’s secondary fluff on top of the fighting engine, learning characters’ move sets, and how to become a better fighter. Racing games are the same way; simulation games like Forza Motorsport or Gran Turismo are about the feeling of driving, improving yourself as a driver and mastering the physics engine at the heart of the game, not a narrative. And, of course, shooters like Halo and Call of Duty have engines that lend themselves to a level playing field for truly competitive multiplayer.

Using these different lenses, then, it’s interesting to view the changes Blizzard is making within Starcraft II to play to each of these strengths. While the multiplayer modes (as previewed during the beta period and available now with the retail release of Wings of Liberty) seemed like a graphical and game-engine evolution of the original Starcraft, the company has taken a different tack with single player. Of course multiplayer has been updated in many ways, but single player no longer contains all of the same details as multi. Some units are only available in the campaign, as is the ability to make customization choices through a branching path in the single-player mode.

While these sort of branching changes would inevitably break multiplayer — having to balance all the possibilities could be impossible, even for a company with resources like Blizzard — they help make the single-player experience a more robust and individualized process. I’ve heard on different podcasts a variety of laments for taking one upgrade choice over another: in the same way that the branching paths in the game open up unique experiences, so does having that permanent branching upgrade tree. Blizzard introduced more Terran options into the single player campaign, and once you make a decision, you have to live with it.

It may not be an analogous situation, but the new Medal of Honor game from EA is following a slightly similar tack — at the very least, the single-player and multi-player modes are being handled by two different companies within the EA hivemind; EA’s Danger Close Games in Los Angeles is crafting the single-player mode, while Battlefield series developer DICE is handling the multiplayer. This outsourced style of development may be the future of AAA games: the first Bioshock famously had segments of the game outsourced throughout the 2K studios worldwide.

However, separating the development of single-player components from multiplayer — and the admission that they take different approaches to make work — is a fascinating evolution in the history of creating video games. It’s an admission that there are different goals regarding crafting a single-player experience and a finely tuned multiplayer game that allows for competitive play. Moreover, for super-large AAA-quality games in the future where gamers demand both an engaging single-player campaign and competitive multiplayer, dividing the creation duties could become the standard development strategy.

Sasquatch Soapbox: Games and gamers — the line begins to blur

What is a game, and what is a gamer?

In the wake of E3 coverage laced with “it’s not for us,” the rise of games on social media sites and iPhones, and Microsoft and Sony showcasing their motion-control interfaces more thoroughly, this question is coming up more often. An unscientific analysis of quote-unquote hardcore gamers would suggest they’re focused more and more on what appears to be a shrinking market. Nintendo’s press conference at E3 this year, in which it showed off new Zelda, Donkey Kong, and Kid Icarus titles, was held up as a breath of relief; the reaction within core gamers was along the lines of, “Finally, Nintendo is making games for us again!”

A truism about business that I’ve learned in graduate school is that expanding markets begin to fragment and form niches. Read the rest of this entry »

Survey Results

Astute readers might remember that we asked for your input a while ago in the form of a general readership survey. We think we’re pretty good at establishing our strengths and faults (particularly the latter), but we wanted to get some insight from you guys to see where you’d like to see us go from here.

Thirteen of our readers sounded off, and so I wanted to take some time to share what those responses were (don’t worry — all the data we got was anonymous) and how we’re interpreting them to make this blog even better.

Read on for the results.

Read the rest of this entry »

Revitalizing World Tour in Rock Band

It’s no secret that I’m a die-hard Rock Band fan. Ever since Frequency came out nearly a decade ago, I’ve avidly followed Harmonix’s rise from a small studio building relatively niche rhythm games into what is now the undisputed leader in high-quality music gaming. From the time Rock Band first arrived in 2007, I don’t think a week has gone by where I haven’t picked up a guitar or banged on the drums for at least a few minutes. It doesn’t hurt that I’ve amassed a pretty substantial collection of songs, either.

But years have passed, achievements have been earned, and world tours have been demolished. With more than a year and a half having passed between Rock Band 2′s release and now, it’s highly unlikely that many players are still regularly hitting up the World Tour mode; instead, most people are probably opting for the pick-up-and-play simplicity of quickplay. That’s not a bad thing, necessarily, but what if World Tour could be reworked to be more robust, more engaging, and more enduring?

I’ve done my best to compile all my thoughts and suggestions into a relatively ordered list below. While it looks like we’ll be getting some new insight directly from the Harmonix design team based on this short article Lead Designer Dan Teasdale posted today, I figured I’d post my own impressions of what the series’ strengths and weaknesses are, and what can be done to specifically improve the World Tour experience in Rock Band 3.

Just bear in mind that this is only speculation from a guy who maybe loves his music games a little too much, and as a result it’s best if it’s not taken too seriously.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why I can’t wait for Red Dead Redemption

Hype is a strange thing. It causes all sorts of people to vehemently defend a product they’ve never even touched. And despite my best efforts to remain neutral about the release of certain new videogames — in a laughable effort to sustain my school-bred journalistic ethics — I’m as susceptible to flashy advertisements and smart marketing as any modern consumer.

Red Dead Redemption, which is out today, coerced me to put my money down based on its trailers and previews alone. My fistful of (60) dollars is purchasing an untested game that I’ve barely seen or read about, and no matter how capable Rockstar is as a developer, every company makes mistakes (i.e., Capcom’s unsuccessful attempts at building western-focused franchises). This horse-riding, cattle-rustling and outlaw-shooting game could be a flop, but for more than a few reasons I don’t believe that’s the truth.

Instead, I’m going to tell you exactly why I’ve saddled up to ride into the hype-laden sunset.

Read the rest of this entry »

Our impressions of the Halo: Reach beta


With the Halo: Reach beta well underway, Nick and Aaron decided to dust off their copies of Halo 3: ODST to decode the Internet hubbub surrounding the latest entry in the franchise. While their experiences were both positive and negative, one thing is clear: It’s definitely Halo.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sasquatch Soapbox: Unleashing the Banhammer? Xbox Live, cheaters, and bans

Ducking bullets and returning fire in Modern Warfare 2 has become big business online — but with tons of online players, bugs inevitably crop up.

For all the positives that your yearly Xbox Live gold subscription buys, it comes with one major downfall: the generic Xbox Live asshole. This is not a new phenomenon — Penny Arcade codified the “G.I.F.T.” system more than five years ago — but on two recent major Xbox 360 titles, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Forza Motorsport 3, it appears that the Live team is finally taking a strong stance on cheaters.

But is what’s happening in these titles really cheating, and is the tough-guy stance really the appropriate response?

Read the rest of this entry »

Double Take: another look at Modern Warfare 2

Editor’s note: Frequent Silicon Sasquatch podcast guest (and PC enthusiast) Spencer Tordoff has more than a few things to say about his experiences with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. With our review now live, we felt his commentary would be the perfectly compressed chaser to our long-winded critique.

I’d like to preface this by saying I have no interest in Modern Warfare 2′s multiplayer component. The betrayals of Activision and Infinity Ward have come and gone; the damage is done, and for once I feel like I have nothing to say on the topic.

However, the single player portion continued to intrigue me. I loved the campaign in Call of Duty 4, as well as the previous Infinity Ward-crafted stories of Call of Duty 1 and 2. Procuring a copy of the latest game to continue the Modern Warfare storyline felt like a good idea, like an olive branch offered to a quarrelsome friend.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why I canceled my GameFly membership

Gamefly logo

It’s happened to the best of us. Even the most cautious consumer has acted in a moment of passion and purchased a game that wasn’t a sure-fire hit. Oh sure, it boasts of a lengthy single-player campaign and robust online features, but who can say for sure? Emboldened by an opportunity to discover a potential diamond in the rough, you purchase the game and head home without a shadow of a doubt that you’re in for anything but a great time.

But just ten minutes after tearing off the shrinkwrap and unceremoniously tossing the manual aside (“seriously, who reads things?”), it dawns on you: This single-player campaign certainly is lengthy, but only in the why-won’t-this-horrible-game-just-be-over sense of the word. Those robust online features amount to a half-dozen variations on deathmatch that, between the crippling lag issues and a total dearth of players with whom to compete, add up to zero enjoyment.

Sixty hard-earned American dollars, gone in the blink of an eye. Poof. And all you’ve got to show for it is your shiny new copy of Bionic Commando and a room stacked to the ceiling with your metaphysical shame.

But what else could you do? While it’s dying a slow death at the blood-red hands of Netflix, Blockbuster is only stocking a few of the biggest new releases — meaning sleeper hits and lesser-known titles are impossible to try before buying. Hollywood Video is closing its doors in rapid succession. The last option is GameFly, a Netflix-like subscription service for renting games.

I spent six months with GameFly across a variety of plans, and I ultimately ended up canceling the service with no intention of ever restarting my account. While it may be a fantastic concept on paper, its execution leaves plenty to be desired.

Read the rest of this entry »