Initial Thoughts on the PS4

I've talked a number of times about my history with Sony in regards to video games. I had never owned a PlayStation until college and the PS3 was the very last console from the previous generation that I purchased, and I mostly only did it because a friend of mine got me hooked on the "Metal Gear" games. And after using it for a while and warming up to it, I ultimately decided that I should have purchased the PS3 in the first place.

The PS3 was the best system of the previous generation, at least for me. I'm not big on online multiplayer, which I think the Xbox 360 clearly did better, but pretty much everything else the PS3 did much better. I've gone over this before. Better media sharing, better hardware stability, better exclusive games, better indie support, better controller (I'm sorry, I'm not a huge fan of the 360 controller), better digital game support, easier to upgrade the HDD, better paid subscription service, better interface... Honestly, the only reason I still have my 360 is because that's where all of my "Rock Band" DLC lives and it has a Blip and HBOGo app. That's basically it.

So my decision to get a PS4 wasn't born entirely out of the fact that Microsoft completely screwed the pooch on their initial console announcement. And while we're on the subject, yes, I know they've recanted most of the things that made people edgy, but based a recent statement from Albert Penello, it's pretty clear that Microsoft is probably hoping to go back to their original plans later on:

"We just think that's the way the future's gonna go... We may have been right. What we were wrong about was that it's just too soon. People just weren't ready to make that leap right away."

But no, I didn't just get a PS4 because it cost less, lacked an online requirement, and had a lot of support from indie devs. No, I also got it because in spite of my own admitted biases, Sony won me over last generation and I felt like I kind of owed them the benefit of the doubt. I regretted not buying a PS3 sooner last generation, so I felt it made sense to get a PS4 right out of the gate this time around.

So on Friday, my PS4 arrived, I got it set up, and I gave it a whirl. I didn't play with it excessively over the weekend, but I do think I've had enough time to give my initial impressions.

The Setup

Unboxing it was fairly painless. It comes with an HDMI cable, which, yeah, I think this is the first system to do that. Hope Best Buy doesn't mind. The first problem I ran into was... well, finding the power button.

Seriously, because of the way this thing is designed it took me about 5 minutes before I could find the "On" switch. I had to point my lit-up phone at it to see the tiny power and disc ejection buttons sitting wedged in the middle of the front face. Say what you will about the PS3's weird-looking design, at least you could tell how to turn it on and eject a disc.

Once I got it to turn on and connected it to my WiFi, it started downloading the initial Day One update almost immediately. I was actually pleasantly surprised by that. I had heard that the network was really congested, so I actually came prepared to load the initial update manually. Turns out I didn't need to. The update downloaded and installed pretty quickly. I think the whole process took about 5 minutes. Perfectly painless.

Then I tried to log into my PSN account. That... was less smooth. I had to go at it for roughly an hour, sometimes getting errors, sometimes just seeing it spin its wheels for about 10 minutes before backing out and trying again. Eventually, though, it let me through. I still got warnings periodically about PSN Maintenance the whole time, but my connection seemed more or less stable for the rest of the night.

I thought it was a bit strange that the initial update was fine, but logging into my PSN account was a nightmare.

In any case, I needed to connect to my PSN account before I could play any games.

The Games

I was initially going to purchase "Knack", since I kinda liked the colorful design and unique mechanics, but pretty much all of the reviews I've read have panned it, so I decided to cancel that order.

But that wasn't too much of a problem, thankfully. Since I have a PlayStation Plus account (which has more than paid for itself several times over in free games and discounts), I decided to go all-digital this launch. It was a bit of a problem due to the whole PSN Maintenance debacle, but once I got through, it was less of an issue.

On day one, I was able to get "RESOGUN", "Contrast", "Warframe", and "Blacklight Retribution" all for free.

RESOGUN

"RESOGUN" is a fun little game. It kind of feels like a hybrid of "Gradius" and "Missile Command". It's a side-scrolling shoot-'em-up, but you are confined to a single circular area and you have to defend and save 10 humans in the map while simultaneously avoiding getting killed yourself.

It's a really well-designed game and I enjoyed playing it, but I think my only problem with it is that it's not terribly addicting, which is kind of a death-knell for a shmup. I played the first couple levels, had a pretty good time, failed on the third one and then just kind of moved on to other games.

I think part of the problem is that each level feels sort of self-contained. In "Galaga" or something like that, even if I die right out of the gate, I still might feel the urge to keep trying in spite of myself. In "RESOGUN", however, if I lose a life early on or a human dies early on, I feel less inclined to keep going since surviving ten waves of Keepers, which are green, glowing smaller fleets of ships that have to be destroyed to free one of the humans. If they are not destroyed quickly enough, the human just dies. If you destroy them, the human is freed from its cage and you have to fly over to it, pick it up, and bring it to an evacuation point.

Let me just say that this very critical aspect of the game took me way too long to figure out. I knew I had to "save the last humans" as the game tells you at the beginning of every level, but I had no idea how to. I couldn't figure out who the Keepers are, what I was supposed to do to them, and how their deaths affected the humans.

All that was probably my own fault for not paying as much attention as I should have, but I'm just saying the game isn't necessarily terribly intuitive. Also, I still don't quite get why letting the Keepers live causes the humans to die. I would think it would make more sense if the humans got captured or directly attacked, but it seems like the humans just die as a result of the Keepers existing. And when the Keepers are destroyed, the human it frees could be anywhere on the map, often causing a rather intense mad dash to the other side of the map to find them before they get killed, and rushing in this game can be tricky since, like any decent shmup, touching another ship will kill you.

All in all, though, I liked "RESOGUN", I just don't think I'm crazy about it. It certainly is the prettiest game of the bunch.

Contrast

"Contrast" is probably my favorite game of the bunch. I haven't beaten it yet, but I really enjoy playing it.

I'm not 100% sure what exactly is going on (again, haven't finished it yet), but it seems that you play as Dawn, an imaginary friend to a girl named Didi, who lives in a noir-style world. Didi is the only character you can actually see. Everyone else in the game is shown only in shadow. Similarly, it seems no one else other than Didi can see you, though it seems they can see your shadow (though they most seem not to notice you at all). Also, the rest of the world seems very... unfinished. It's unclear whether or not this is just the way the world appears to Dawn, if her ability to interact with the world is limited through Didi, or if the world truly is this collection of concrete islands trapped floating on a void of nothingness.

In any case, the core gameplay of the game is platforming with a slight twist. Dawn has the ability to slip in and out of shadow form, resulting in some very clever level design and puzzles. The puzzles thus far haven't been terribly difficult, but they are still engaging. The platforming itself is a bit flighty and glitchy. Reminds me a lot of "Psychonauts". Clever ideas, but lacking the polish of a platforming game like "Banjo-Kazooie" or a Mario game.

The real highlights of the game, however, are the story and the atmosphere. Didi's story of a girl caught between two parents teetering on the brink of annihilation is a bit cliche, but still engaging. Didi understands more than her parents think, but she also is more concerned with the simpler side of the situation. She understands that her father is in trouble with the wrong sort and she knows that his plans tend to not work out so great, but she just wants her family to stay together and for everyone to stay happy. Her motivations as a character are clear and sympathetic and inform the gameplay by providing simple goals.

The gameplay might be a bit buggy at times, the assets might have needed a bit more polish, and the level design could be tighter and a bit more complex, but the game manages to engage me far more than "RESOGUN". I'd say they are almost complete opposites in that way. While "RESOGUN" has a great deal of polish and balance, it lacks any kind of hook to draw the player in. Meanwhile, "Contrast" probably needed more time for polish and balance, but manages to hook the player in through its unique ideas and compelling story.

Warframe

"Warfram" is free-to-play game for everyone, not just PlayStation Plus subscribers, but I think you might need PS+ in order to play it online. I could be wrong, I don't know.

In any case, this isn't a new game as it's been out on the PC for close to a year now, but this is the first console port.

It's a cooperative third-person shooter where you play as a sort of cyborg going through and fighting aliens. Part of the gimmick is that it allows for a handful of different play-styles. Some levels can be played with stealth rather than constant running and gunning, though if you're playing in a team, good luck using stealth.

Your characters get a number of abilities and the use of a melee weapon (a sword), which is pretty cool, but the gameplay isn't terribly unique.

For what it is, though, I certainly don't regret playing it and I might go back to it. I'm always a fan of compelling cooperative play and as a free-to-play game, it handles microtransactions responsibly. If you have patience, you can unlock everything in the game without paying a cent, but since a lot of gear is obtained randomly by purchasing blueprints and fusing upgrades, spending real-world money to get a particular piece of gear you want would probably save you time. I personally think that's the best way to handle free-to-play in the current marketplace. Meanwhile, games like the upcoming "Killer Instinct" claim to be free-to-play, but there's no way to get all of the content without paying. Sure, you can play for free if you only want to play as one character, but no one in their right mind would do that.

But I had my problems with it. The art design is way too dark, making it really difficult to spot a lot of enemies. I'm also not crazy about the melee attacks. When you use your sword, you lunge forward, so if you space it improperly or your opponent strafes, you may have to spin around wildly to get your bearings straight again.

Still, I'd say it's worth a go. It is free, after all.

Blacklight Retribution

When I tried to play, there was apparently some server trouble, so I wasn't able to play it. The game is still in Beta anyway, so it probably wouldn't be fair to give it a whole review at this stage.

Back to Games In General

So in spite of the fact that I didn't buy any games at launch, I had a pretty good time with what I was able to get for free. Game installations took a lot less time than they did on the PS3, multiple games could download simultaneously, and once I got PSN to connect properly, the downloads went along pretty quickly. My guess is that they were throttling the number of PSN logins so that the download speeds would remain optimal for update and game downloads. Kind of an irritating trade-off, but I guess it makes sense.

I really do wish that they made an effort to have more PSN games from the previous generation to have some compatibility on the PS4. I've downloaded a lot of PSN titles and it would have been nice to see some of those purchases carry over. Also, yeah, the whole backwards compatibility thing is a bit of a drag, but I understand why it's a problem and I hope that the Gaikai streaming service will prove stable. In the meantime, I still have a perfectly functional PS3.

I will say that I can understand the hesitance regarding the 500 GB HDD. On the PS3, 500 GB was plenty. Even for someone like me who has been binge-downloading games from PSN could fit dozens of games without any problem on a HDD that size. However, I did tend to buy my AAA titles via physical copies just because those sorts of games can take up a lot more space. The PS4, however, will need to install all of your games, in full, no matter what. Again, I understand why. I mean, our PCs already do this. But our PCs aren't limited to one 500 GB HDD. We can have external drives and multiple drives and larger drives. The PS4, however, can only have one 2.5" HDD for game installs, and that's pretty much the largest HDD you'll find that will fit within that form factor.

Honestly, though, it shouldn't be as huge of an issue this generation. The ability to play certain games from only a partial download/install will make it less of a hassle to delete games that you aren't playing anymore. Plus, even though 500 GB is by no means "more than you'll ever need" (which is always a doomed statement to make at any given time period anyway), it should be plenty for about a dozen AAA games, which is certainly more than I can typically juggle at any given time, so I don't really have a problem with this. At least not yet. We'll see how I feel in the future.

In general, though, I feel like the games I got were enough to quench my thirst for at least a weekend, and the fact that I didn't have to pay for any of them makes that even nicer. I would have liked to be able to play "Watch Dogs", but I'm willing to let Ubisoft take their time to get that one polished. It looks great.

The Features

The PS4 is more than just games, though, and people expect more from their video game systems as well. So what else do we got?

Well, the controller is very nice. I haven't had a lot of games that used the touchpad much, but it's easy to reach when I have needed to use it, so I think I'm OK with it so far. The rest of the controller is very ergonomic and comfortable and it has an audio jack port this time, which is probably the only feature from the Xbox 360 controller that I would have liked the DualShock 3 to have. Bluetooth was always a nightmare for chat audio. Also, the controller uses micro USB, so you can charge it with most mobile device charge cables if you don't want to plug your controller into the PS4 itself. Overall, the controller is great. No complaints.

One feature that I had a fair amount of fun with was the built-in Twitch.tv streaming. Without needing to buy anything extra, you can set up any game to stream directly to Twitch.tv for the world to see. It was easy enough to set up and you can share announcements for your streams on Facebook to let people know when you're online by spamming their Facebook timeline (sorry about that). I liked the feature, but I have some minor issues with it. The Twitch.tv overlay takes up about 1/4 of your TV real estate to show you that you're on the air, whether or not your mic is active, how many people are watching, and what people are saying. That's all well and good and I like being able to read the chat as I play, but I really think popup notifications could have been plenty for me. The ability to turn off the overlay would have been nice. Also, while it tells you how many people are connected, I wouldn't mind knowing who is watching, even if it's -- again -- just as a popup notification. It's pretty cool and I think I'll keep using it, but it could be better.

The new interface is fine, though there's really not much to say about it than that.

Not all of the apps that were available in the PS3 are available in the PS4 yet. Most notably the YouTube app, which I thought was a strange omission. Still, I imagine it will be carried over soon. And yeah, I really would like it if they could get apps for Blip and HBOGo so I could stop using my Xbox 360.

Probably my biggest complaint is that there doesn't seem to be any media server support. Look, Sony, I get it, most people watch movies and TV through Netflix and Hulu and stuff these days rather than downloading and streaming locally. But seriously. How hard would it have been to support media streaming? The PS3 has been able to do this since launch. There are $50 devices made by startups probably working out of a garage that can do media server streaming. It's just frustrating, that's all. Thankfully, this can probably be added fairly easily in a software update.

I didn't get the PlayStation Camera, mostly because it's voice control features are severely limited and there aren't really any games that really use it yet. Unless I want to start including my face in my Twitch.tv streams, I don't think I'll be rushing out to get one yet. Maybe if they release a better version in a few years or if more games start supporting it or if Harmonix ports "Dance Central" to the PS4. I could get down with that.

The Takeaway

Here's probably my biggest takeaway from this experience so far:

I still use my PS3.

If I want to watch YouTube? I switch to my PS3. If I want to stream a video from my laptop? I switch to my PS3. If I want to play "XCOM: Enemy Within"? I switch to my PS3.

This is a problem, and it's a problem both new systems share. I understand that the PS3's current incarnation lacks backwards compatibility, but it didn't at launch, and that's probably when you need it the most. Games are still coming out for the PS3 and not all of them will have PS4 versions right away, if ever. Gaikai is still months away at the earliest, and even that is probably optimistic.

The PS4 doesn't feel like a replacement to the PS3 or even a successor and I worry that it might take a very long time before it does.

On the one hand, I guess I'm kind of OK with that since I love my PS3 and I would feel weird disconnecting it and putting it in storage, but my PS3 is also really getting old. I finally got the Yellow Light of Death a number of months ago and had to send it back to Texas (read "Mexico") twice to get it repaired. It's working fine now, but I doubt it will have the same kind of longevity that my N64 has. It won't last forever and I have a terrible sinking feeling that when it dies, I will have to either repair it myself at considerable cost (probably from a third-party) or buy a replacement (which would lack PS1/2 backwards compatibility) in order to be able to play most of the games for it. Maybe I'm underestimating Gaikai or perhaps the PS4 can one day natively support some PS3 games through emulation, but this transition feels rocky at best.

I plan to keep using my PS4, but I feel like I'll still be using my PS3 far more often. I'm hoping that will change in the next year, but I think that's the other problem.

While I don't necessarily regret buying the PS4, I feel like I probably could have waited a year and it wouldn't have bothered me much. In a year, I'll probably be done with most of the PS3 games I'm still playing, most if not all of the new games will be available on the PS4, Gaikai might be working, YouTube might be supported, and maybe media streaming too. But I feel like until that day comes, my interaction with the PS4 will be sporadic at best. I still stand by my initial feelings from long ago that Sony and Microsoft would have been smart to hold off for another year and really come out swinging rather than do the usual "rush it out and fill in the blanks over the next year" that most consoles have done in the past.

Still, it feels like a worthy investment. I think I will get good use out of it, just not right out of the gate. I'm hoping that the somewhat sparse launch line-up leaves some room for indie devs to crash on the scene and build names for themselves. I'm hoping that the new hardware gives devs more freedom to push the boundaries of both visuals and game mechanics, especially when it comes to AI. I'm hoping that the PS4 will eventually be my new media hub that I turn on first thing when I get home from work every day.

So... I'd say my feelings are mixed. If you're reading this hoping to get a fix on whether or not you want one... well, I guess my feelings are that if you already have a PlayStation Plus account and you know you'll probably buy one within the next year or two, you might as well go for it now. It probably won't get any cheaper for another few years and if you've already got a PlayStation Plus subscription, you can take advantage of the free games that will come out in the meantime. Build up your library. If you're debating between getting this and an XBOne, I'd say that if you like to play smaller, indie games and you don't want to always have your system connected to the Internet, you should probably go with the PS4. But honestly? I don't really know if the PS4 is a clear winner yet. I've heard the stories about how devs are saying off the record that the PS4 has more hardware power, which is great, and yeah, while Microsoft has said that they're taking steps to be more indie-friendly and they've taken away their online requirements, I find it difficult to trust them. The reaching out to indie devs feels like little more than a token gesture at this point. They say that indies will get equal treatment, that they'll set their own terms, that the XBOne will work as a complete SDK eventually, and that publishers will no longer be needed, but for now those are only words. I'm hoping they prove me wrong, but they rarely do. As for the recanting of the online requirements, as I said near the beginning of this post, Microsoft rarely truly gives up on anything. If something they create doesn't go over well, they take it away, change it up a bit, rebrand it, and try again (see also Vista, Zune, Windows Phone, Windows 8, Microsoft Surface, etc.). I'm willing to bet that in about a year, they'll try again with the online requirements. Maybe offer a new feature that you can only use if you opt into the always-online feature. Then eventually, if the feature is adopted by a large enough percentage of users, they'll make it a requirement. If they get blasted in PR, they'll probably just cite some metrics saying that the majority of their users are always connected anyway or something like that. The only reason they're recanting now is because they still need people to buy the damn things, but that's a problem that will go away after launch.

But that said, if those things don't really matter to you... If you really only play AAA titles, you always have a stable Internet connection, and you think Kinect is worth $100, then... well, yeah, the XBOne is a pretty comparable choice at this stage. It will probably support most of the same 3rd party games and the graphics probably won't be very different. They've started doing the free games thing that Sony started with PS+, though the selections have been pretty underwhelming so far. The Kinect is undoubtedly better than the PlayStation Camera and the system in general has a lot more app support, even if most of those apps are stuck behind a paywall.

But if you like indie games, you're worried about Microsoft changing their minds again, and/or you really don't care whether or not the Kinect is better than the PlayStation Camera... yeah, the PS4 is probably your best option.

Of course, people like Yahtzee will always say that you don't have to choose between the two and that you can just as easily get a PC. And yeah, that's true, but honestly, while Steam has improved the PC ecosystem dramatically in a short amount of time, I just prefer console gaming. With PC gaming, everything feels a bit like a roll of the dice. Usually everything works the way it should, but every once in a while, something just doesn't and sometimes it can be a nightmare to fix it. Consoles offer consistency. A promise that I will be able to use this hardware to play most of the games that will come out in the next decade or so with no serious game-breaking problems. For example, I just got "XCOM: Enemy Within" on my PS3. My PS3 is over 5 years old. So here's a challenge: find me a 5-year-old PC that can play "XCOM: Enemy Within" as well as my PS3 can. Then tell me how much that PC cost 5 years ago. I'm willing to bet any PC you bought 5 years ago with a graphics card capable of playing the PC version without overheating or significantly reducing the settings probably cost somewhere around two or three times what I paid for my PS3 five years ago.

I like PC gaming, I think it can be a great option for certain types of games and Steam often has great deals. But I don't think I could ever make it my "primary" method of gaming. And the Steam Machine coming out next year isn't really a solution either as far as I'm concerned, but that's a whole other ball of wax.

I feel like the PS4 was a good choice. I might not get a lot out of it for a while, but I stand by it nevertheless. At least for now. Hopefully I'll still feel that way in a year.

Xbox Redacted

I'll keep this short because I've already talked WAY too much about the Xbone.

Basically, Microsoft has reversed their position on the online requirements.

I should be happy about this, but I'm actually not.

Why? Well, because this means that pretty much all of the unique things that I liked about the Xbone (family sharing, game installing, switching games mid-stream) are being sacrificed at the altar in order to make this backpedaling possible.

Basically, the Xbone will function in pretty much the same way the Xbox 360 functions in regards to games.

I get that this isn't all that different from the PS4 and thus it might seem silly that I'm still siding with Sony on this, but there's three main things:

1) The PS4 is still $100 cheaper.
2) Sony didn't have to deal with everybody screaming at them before they decided to respect their consumers.
3) The PS4's digital game restrictions are still better than the Xbone's.

So really, now that the Xbone isn't chained to the Internet and it doesn't have all of those cool game-sharing perks, what does it have over the PS4?

Kinect? Meh. It's cool, but I can get it for the PC.

Dead Rising 3? Honestly it looks boring when compared to the two that came before it and I'm kinda tired of zombie games.

Killer Instinct? After hearing that they got a company known for crapping out licensed games to produce this and that they're using the free-to-play model in the way you shouldn't do it, I suddenly couldn't care less.

Ryse? A game that is mostly comprised of quick-time-events that you don't even need to do in order to succeed? And people say that "Heavy Rain" is basically a game that plays itself.

Microsoft probably won over some people by doing this backpedal, but they still have the problem of explaining what makes their system worth the additional $100.

If they had done this backpedal but had the balls to keep in the installation and family game sharing, that actually would have probably won me over. But they didn't, and so I'm still at a loss to see why it's worth it.

Microsoft, you've gone from an F to a C-. Try again.

E3 2013: The Last Generation (Until We Have Holograms)

A year ago, Nintendo announced the Wii U while Sony and Microsoft bided their time. This led to a lot of wild speculation from a lot of people, myself included.

I was subscribing to the theory that Microsoft might skip E3 2013 as well since that would give them time to let Sony stumble out of the gate and get their prices down.

Of course, I wasn't counting on Microsoft behaving like a pack of idiots, so obviously the landscape has changed.

Still, I feel compelled to give my own speculation again on where the industry is headed in light of this year's E3.

In a nutshell, I think it's pretty clear that Sony will have a substantial lead out of the gate, but that might not matter quite so much this time around. I personally believe that we are witnessing the beginning of what could be the final console generation for a long time.

What Will Happen To Nintendo?

Let's get this out of the way right now. Last year I said that by releasing the Wii U last year, "Nintendo could have done the smartest possible thing they could have done, or they could have just dug their own grave again."

Turns out they dug their own grave again.

The Wii U is a technical joke compared to the Xbone and the PS4. It can probably play current-gen titles really well, but at this point, developers are looking forward. Maybe if the Wii U came out three years ago they'd have something, but it's just too little too late.

Still, with the state of the AAA market being the way it is, the Wii U still could have managed to stay competitive if they made things easier for indie developers, and while the eShop is certainly not as bad as WiiWare was, the barrier of entry is still too high and the incentives for developing on the console are still too low. Nintendo cares too much about tending its own garden. Any indie developer with the kind of resources needed to publish on eShop are probably doing just fine on Steam and PSN and don't need to spend another few thousand dollars developing for the Wii U or the 3DS. Nintendo needs to make its barrier of entry low enough for the startups, the guys and gals who live off ramen and code entire games in their basements. Nintendo shouldn't require a developer to have an office and a pre-established resume. All they should need is a good quality game.

I think Nintendo could manage to catch up if they release another console in about 3 years that's on par with the PS4 and the Xbone, but they probably don't have the resources to manage it. And really, there wouldn't be a lot of point to it.

A part of me will always love Nintendo, and they'll probably always dominate the handheld market until smartphones and tablets can provide touchscreens with the same kind of feedback a button has, not to mention better battery life. But the Wii U is going to be a failure. I've seen this song and dance before. They launched too early, they launched too soft, and they didn't try hard enough to court the developers. It will certainly have good games, but it will just be another product that is used primarily by fanboys and children (not that there's anything wrong with that, I loved my Gamecube as a kid) and ignored by everyone else. I probably won't be buying one unless they come out with an exclusive game that I need, because I know that if I got one, it would just sit beneath my TV and collect dust while I give my PS4 a workout. I don't even think Smash Bros. will be enough to get me to buy it this time since I don't have a ton of friends to play with anymore and Nintendo's online play is reliably terrible.

I'm not sure if Nintendo will go the way of Sega and just move to making software. They probably should, but I don't know if they'll have to. They have pretty good business sense and at this point they don't really have to compete with Sony or Microsoft to stay afloat since they pretty much have a completely separate audience. Plus they still have the 3DS which has managed to do pretty well for itself since the price drop.

How Doomed is Microsoft?

As I've said previously, Microsoft fucked up big time and I don't doubt that it will cost them. They probably won't admit it until 2014 or 2015 (that's about how long it took for Sony to realize the PS3 wasn't going to turn around until they dropped the price), but they will most certainly be outsold by the PS4.

I don't think they'll be outsold by the Wii U, simply because the price gap between the Wii U and the PS4 is actually rather small. In the PS3/Wii/360 generation, the Wii was the cheapest console by around $150 dollars and it had newfangled motion controls, so it was a pretty major alternative. Even though the Wii U is technically still the cheapest console, because it lacks a gimmick and because it will be a year old come Black Friday, I don't think it will land second place when all is said and done.

So the Xbone will probably underperform, but in the long run, I actually think Microsoft will probably do fine.

You see, while customers hate the Xbone right now, and while early adopters will probably be unpleasantly surprised by these confusing new restrictions, the biggest factor in deciding the fate of a console is generally how developers feel about it.

And AAA developers love the Xbone. It provides a ton of resources, guarantees that all of its users will have a camera looking at them at all time, pretty much guarantees that all of the users will have an Internet access at all times, and they'll have less to worry about regarding piracy or used game sales. They won't have to risk PR nightmares by implementing DRM since Microsoft already did that for them. Even with the lower userbase, publishers will probably make more money per customer from the Xbone than they will from the PS4, and that will probably be enough to keep them interested.

I know that the AAA industry is looking more and more unsustainable every year, but even if it crashes, it will never go away. If EA falls apart, those IPs, employees, and executives will have to go somewhere, and so another company will just take its place. Microsoft will probably be fine even if they continue to ignore the thriving indie scene.

There is one major caveat, however. If Microsoft pretty much stays at about their current level of ineptitude, they'll probably manage to see this generation through and stay competitive. They'll release a slimmed down version of the console in a few years at a more competitive price point, they'll make certain components either significantly cheaper or optional, and they'll probably find other ways to sweeten the pot. But all of that assumes that they don't somehow make things worse.

Let me put it this way. Remember in 2011 when the PlayStation Network crashed? When it was unusable for about 3 months? Well, that was a PR nightmare, but it ended up not being completely terrible because people could still play games, use Netflix and Hulu, and they basically just couldn't download games, DLC, or play online.

But imagine if Microsoft has a similar catastrophe after the Xbone launch. Imagine if their network becomes unreachable. Check-ins become impossible. Since Xbox Live Gold is required to use Netflix and Hulu, you can't use those services. You've effectively turned all Xbones into over-priced blu-ray players.

That sort of catastrophe could very well end them, and given the track record of other games that have required an online presence, it's not outside the realm of possibility. Still, Microsoft has a massive infrastructure and even if something like that happened, they could probably push out an update that temporarily (or permanently) disables the check-in requirement.

However, that's the kind of disaster they're setting themselves up for. They're crossing their fingers and hoping that their new paradigm will slowly be accepted, but in order for that to happen, they have to avoid anymore major fuck-ups.

The Fate of the "Winner"

And finally we have Sony. The victors of E3 and possibly of the generation.

It is important to note, however, that while the good people at Sony are certainly Internet heroes right now, they are not set for life just because they are having a good week.

The PS4 will undoubtedly sell well. It already is selling well. It will probably continue to sell well.

But where will we be in a few years? Or in a decade? Or two decades?

Well, this is going to take a while to explain, but let me sum up first: Sony will win the battle, Microsoft will win the war, but only if they continue to make operating systems that pay homage to every other Microsoft operating system since Windows 98, and so long as that is the case, they will never be able to truly control the market. And in the end, we won't be using an Xbone or a PS4. We'll be using a futuristic little all-purpose device that will render gaming consoles (and other dedicated hardware) obsolete. At least until we develop holograms.

I swear, I don't enjoy making these blog posts so long, but when I say something like "we won't have another console generation until we invent holograms", I kinda have to explain myself, don't I?

It might seem silly for me to think that we won't be doing this console war again in another few years. I'm sure people were saying the same thing 7 years ago. "With graphics like this, who needs another generation?"

Before the present generation, gamers were clamoring for online integration and better graphics, and this present generation basically hit that peak. The reason Microsoft and Sony took so long to push out a new entry was because it really did take this long for these consoles to feel lacking.

But if you asked most gamers, we're not really foaming at the mouth for a new console. It's not as though we enjoy cluttering up our houses with consoles and throwing down hundreds of dollars every few years. We're pretty much fine with the graphics and controls we have now, and some of the more popular games in recent years have had comparably primitive graphics. But we want to be able to play new games, so we're going through this again. And it's not as though Sony and Microsoft are crazy about moving to new consoles either. As I've said before, it takes a lot of money to develop a new console and they often don't make that money back from console sales alone. It's a major investment. They'd much rather just keep selling PS3's and Xbox 360's until the end of time.

So if the customers didn't want new consoles and the big companies didn't want new consoles, who did?

The developers.

Developers will no longer have to squeeze everything on a half a gig of RAM. They can stretch their legs, be less conservative, build more advanced AI and environments. I might be dooming myself in saying this, but 8GB of RAM is probably all they'll need for a long time. We've hit the point of diminishing returns when it comes to processing and RAM in an x86 architecture.

More importantly, by moving towards an x86 architecture on consoles, development will generally be simpler. And with the potential of the cloud technologies used by both consoles, they will never be truly limited by their current hardware.

Developers ought to be content with the kind of resources they'll have available to them.

So really, what next step could we possibly take that would require another generation of consoles?

In my mind, the only thing that could probably warrant another generation would be developers doing more than just creating life-like models in 3D space. More than just realistic hair. More than objects that break in realistic ways.

If I were to guess, I'd say the next step is building a virtual world that mimics the physical laws of the real world with such precision that you won't need to imitate nearly as much. Right now, if you throw a ceramic pot against a wall in a video game, the pot shatters in precisely the way it was programmed to and it produces a sound that was recorded in a studio somewhere. In a more advanced game, the pot might break in a unique way depending on the way it was thrown, but the sound it makes is still hollow and fake.

Imagine instead a virtual world where the empty space is actually filled with invisible virtual air that vibrates just as real air does. Virtual pottery with virtual molecules that respond to various forms of energy in such ways that when you throw it against a way, it shatters in precisely the same way ceramics would, and the impact vibrates the molecules in the air so that they produce a completely unique sound that is completely procedural and true to life.

This probably seems ridiculous. Who needs to dedicate this much effort into building a virtual world?

Well, imagine the real-life benefits of being able to create a virtual rendering of the physical laws of our universe. It would not only affect games, but so many other facets of science and technology.

Then imagine the next step. Holograms.

OK, yeah, now I'm sure I sound ridiculous, but I really think that's the next big step we need to take to justify dedicated hardware. We as consumers have spoken and we are not interested in 3D television, so much so that ESPN has given up on the experiment. The only way we could truly embrace it would be if we could experience it without glasses and without optical illusions (such as with the 3DS). Holograms are probably the only way to manage that. Images that truly fill a 3D space. No more tricks.

If you managed to create holographic technology and paired it with the kind of low-level physics engine I described, you'd basically have your first basic holodeck. Sure you couldn't interact with anything directly, you couldn't feel anything, but replicated objects could respond to your touch in a believable way. It would be less Star Trek and more Tony Stark.

A lot of people think that we're more likely to head into games that are controlled by our thoughts, but I don't think that technology will catch on very quickly. We as humans are still a very long way away from truly understanding the brain and using it as a reliable control device without requiring some level of surgery. And even then, as I've said before, the present generation is very touchy when it comes to privacy. The idea of a computer reading our thoughts would make us nervous. Even if such a control scheme existed, it would probably go the way of the Wii. We'd use it a little for the novelty, but would never depend on it.

The thing is, pretty much everything I've described is a pipe dream. These are technologies we've dreamt about for decades and we're probably decades away from them still.

In reality, new games will be focusing more on unique and gimmicky game mechanics. Clever ideas. The sorts of things that currently make indie games stand out. And for that stuff, we don't really need that much horsepower. It just makes it easier to focus on those things when you don't have to dedicate all of your manpower to figuring out how to make this world fit on 512MB of RAM.

So while I'm sure NVIDIA will continue producing more advanced graphics cards, I don't think the difference they produce will matter enough outside of the PC Master Race until those graphics start affecting actual gameplay in meaningful ways. Until the worlds they create feel truly immersive. Until the things they accomplish can't be imitated by cloud computing. Until the information is so vast that 8GB of RAM is a joke.

While PCs will always be capable of more power than consoles, game developers generally don't make games with those sorts of specs in mind. They target the sort of specs used by the average consumer, and frankly, those specs aren't going to change much in the next decade. RAM is no longer holding us back. Processors aren't doing much either now that we can't make faster processors that don't instantly burst into flame (suck it, Moore's Law). Graphics cards are too expensive and desktops are too immobile to go mainstream again. Average PC specs aren't going to overtake the PS4 or the Xbone for a very long time, and by the time we get there, I think our entire idea of computers and consoles will have changed completely.

Right now we live in a world where your phone and your tablet and your laptop and your desktop and your console all live in the same ecosystem and talk to each other and come together as one overall experience through various networks and interfaces. Even so, they all exist separately and serve their own individual purposes. Some we barely use at all, except in very particular circumstances. That's partially why Microsoft is so focused on turning the Xbone into a media center.

I envision a world where we just have one device with a handful of "shells" that the device fits into. Imagine, if you'll indulge me, something about the size and shape of an iPhone. It functions in all of the same ways as a mobile device would, but instead of a limited mobile OS, it carries a fully-featured desktop OS compatible with the Win32 API. Then you have a "shell" that's about the size of a tablet. You slide your mobile device into it like a battery, and voila, now it's on a bigger screen and functions just like a tablet would. Then you place that shell next to something like a laptop and it wirelessly connects to it. Or to a desktop monitor. Or to a TV. I think in the future, rather than have a separate device for each of these different functions, we'll merely have a device that can fulfill each role as needed. We may own more than one, but they would be interchangeable. During the day, they function as a desktop and a phone, but at night they become your tablet and your laptop, or your video game console and your webcam.

We've already made baby steps in this direction, as I'm sure you're aware. Phones and tablets that become "laptops". But so far they are limited by how much power can be fit into such a small space, battery life, heat dissipation, and hardware costs. Still, these are all technical limitations that computers have been working through at a blistering pace for the past two decades. It won't take long to come up with a handheld device that's just as powerful as an Xbone and has enough battery life to sustain itself for an entire day at full operation. Once we're there, it's just a matter of time before Microsoft or Apple develops an all-encompassing version of their OS that truly allows for a device to be both a handheld and a desktop without sacrificing functionality or convenience. And when that day comes, the world will change yet again.

In this world, dedicated console hardware will just stop making sense, and unless they develop holograms before they develop a better smartphone OS, I don't think the Big Three will have much reason to go for another round before that world arrives.

That's why I think Nintendo might still have one more console in them if they care enough. They could probably make a better Wii U that can stand alongside the graphical capabilities of the Xbone and the PS4 before gaming consoles become obsolete.

But it's clear that Sony and Microsoft have little interest in rushing through this generation. They're happy, their costumers are going to be happy, the developers are happy, and if they come up with new ideas or control schemes, they'll probably just add them on as accessories like they did with Kinect or Move.

Even if this isn't the last console generation, it will certainly be another long one. At least 10 years, I'd wager.

So if I'm being perfectly honest, I think that while Sony will probably win this generation, Microsoft is still probably going to win in the long run as soon as people can buy a device the size of a hockey puck that can run a full version of Windows and play Steam games as well as their PS4 can play similar games, because that, my friends, will be the true end of consoles. And Sony and Nintendo could probably try and do the same thing, but Microsoft already has a fully-formed OS with the biggest gaming library in existence, and Sony and Nintendo don't.

Unless someone develops a new OS that can install Windows applications without virtualizing Windows, Microsoft will always have the winning hand simply because they have owned the most ubiquitous software API in the world for the past two decades. Even they can't release an OS that is incapable of installing Win32 applications. Well, they can, but it doesn't sell (see Windows RT). We have no use for phones and tablets that can do most of the things a laptop can. We need phones and tablets that can do everything a laptop can. Anything less is a waste.

At the end of the day, software is king, and Microsoft has the most software support. They just lack a method to carry that support outside of the realm of desktops and laptops. They've made their first steps with the Surface Pro and other similar Windows 8 tablets, and in time, it will be all-encompassing.

Microsoft isn't untouchable. The Wine project has tried for years to allow Win32 applications to function in a Unix environment, but it's like trying to piece together a language without a dictionary and it may never be truly complete. Or perhaps Microsoft will suffer before its time arrives and be forced to sell its licenses and assets to Apple or someone else.

I do know that I will never buy a laptop that can't install and play "Grim Fandango". I just won't. There's too much gaming history tied to the many forms of Windows, and so long as a Windows OS is the only way to access it, Microsoft will always be the true winners.

Microsoft may have developed a shitty piece of hardware in the Xbone, but they have never made a lot of money from hardware. Their money comes from being the gatekeepers of software, and that much hasn't changed. Steam can sell more games, but most of those games need Windows to run.

That's not to say Microsoft will get everything they want. Honestly, Microsoft's Win32 API is a curse they wish they could rid themselves of. They want an app store like the one Apple has. They want to be able to approve and manage how people can use their OS like they do on the Xbox. But they'll never be able to do that. Too many people depend on legacy software. Too many software developers don't want to go through Microsoft to get their software on PCs, and because of Win32, they don't have to. So long as they can put a .exe file on a website or a DVD, Microsoft will have no claim to it. They hoped that their new touch interface would change things, that it would be popular enough that developers would HAVE to go through them to stay afloat, but people just aren't that interested in a touch interface for a desktop or a laptop or even a tablet. And if Microsoft ever did render Win32 obsolete, all it would do is put them on equal footing with Apple. And I don't think that's a fight Microsoft can win.

We may have reached the beginning of the end of an era, but the era still to come will probably be wicked awesome.

Dear Microsoft: I'm Sorry

I'm sorry, Microsoft. Truly.

If we're being honest, I get it. Really. I do.

You had a lot of cool ideas for the Xbone, and I actually like most of them.

Being able to play games without a disc, being able to switch between games instantly to play multiplayer, being able to share games and subscriptions with family, guaranteeing Kinect support and improving it so that developers would actually use it, cloud processing... these are all pretty worthwhile ideas.

However, as soon as you decided you wanted to do these cool new things, you immediately went into panic mode.

"If we let them play without discs, how will we stop them from installing rented games? Or borrowed games? How will we stop them from just logging into friends' consoles and installing all of their purchases for them to play when they're not around? How do we prevent people from not using the Kinect?"

From a business standpoint, these questions make sense, and so you set out to address all of them. The console has to be online often enough that it might as well always be online, we have to go through Microsoft to buy or sell used games or rent them, the console needs Kinect to function, and we are limited in how many accounts we can share with. This easily prevents people from taking advantage of you in pretty much any conceivable way.

One might argue that this approach makes sense, but no one on your team apparently wondered if maybe it was a good attitude to find ways to "stop" your customers from using your console.

Sony, on the other hand, has rarely had this attitude. Honestly, you should have known they wouldn't play your game, even if it might have been in their best interest to do so. And I'm not saying this just because of the sassy remarks made during the PS4 conference, I'm saying it because of their past record with the PS3 digital downloads.

The PS3 tried very hard to get people more interested in digital downloads. Sure, they weren't the only one, but you guys made it very difficult comparatively. Purchases made for one Xbox 360 couldn't be downloaded on a different console -- or even on a different hard drive for the same console -- without remaining perpetually connected to Xbox Live. What's more, the Xbox had very few full games available for download, and most of them were indie titles or DLC packs.

So when I got a PS3, I expected a similar experience. I bought a couple digital games and thought that was that. Then a friend of mine got a PS3 and just for fun, I logged in with my PSN account and checked to see if I could download some of the games I purchased and install them on my friends' console so we could play them together. Much to my surprise, I could. Every game or DLC pack I had ever purchased was available to download and install. I figured that they would probably only be accessible if I was logged in, but no, even logged in as my friend, even offline, they could play those installed games that I had purchased on a different console. I figured there had to be some catch somewhere, but no. The games had been installed on both consoles, seemingly unrestricted. I researched it and apparently there was some kind of five-console restriction and supposedly it was eventually reduced to two, but I'm fairly certain that's not the case, at least not for me. I've played games I've purchased on multiple friends' PS3's to this day and I've never run into any kind of restriction even though I'm pretty sure I would have by now considering how many friends' consoles I've played my downloadable games on. Maybe it's because my account is old or because those games have been subsequently uninstalled from my friends' consoles, but in my experience, I've never once had difficulty playing a purchased game on a friends' console using their PSN account after the initial download and installation, and I was very happy with this.

I'm not sure if this was Sony's intention or not, but honestly, I think that this was an excellent policy. If it weren't for this policy, I probably wouldn't have purchased PSN games unless I had no alternative, much like I did with the Xbox 360. Because of this policy, I can play games I've purchased at any friend's house so long as they have a PS3 and a decent Internet connection (at least for a few hours for the download). It makes digital games more convenient than physical copies of games, at least in some respects. It encourages people to try it out in spite of the overwhelming time it takes to download and install, not to mention the amount of HDD space it can take up. The advantages are just too tantalizing.

Going away from video games for a minute, let's take a brief look at a different industry that was similarly consumed by the digital revolution: music.

Because of the earlier limitations of Internet connection speed and HDD space, music was pretty much the only form of media that was easy to download and enjoy digitally back in the day. Napster pretty much revolutionized the way we enjoy music.

Then the music industry freaked out and killed Napster. Then a bunch of other services popped up in its place and so the industry targeted the users themselves, trying to scare them out of it. This just made things worse. Then iTunes came along, gave people the option to buy their music digitally, and voila, problem solved. Then they started implementing DRM to restrict where you could download your purchases and how many computers you could have your account active on, and forcing you to play the music within iTunes or else, but since then, they've eased up a bit with the implementation of iCloud and DRM-free music that can be played elsewhere. Even so, it's difficult to share music with friends in a digital format, which is why some people still prefer to just buy the CD. The CD has no restrictions. You can rip it using a multitude of software as many times as you like and listen to the digital versions anywhere. You can give it to friends and let them rip it, even if it is technically illegal to do so.

That's not to say that the music industry was thrilled by this prospect. They tried to restrict CDs with DRM that prevented them from being ripped or by bundling it with software that spied on the user's computer to see if they had "pirated music", but these attempts just exploded in more bad PR and you basically don't see anyone try to pull this stuff anymore. They realized that making it illegal was good enough. So long as this was something people did and felt slightly bad about, it would be enough to keep it from being widespread.

Now the music industry has basically levelled out. The digital market has proven profitable, its restrictions are reasonable, and most people don't pirate music anymore just because they don't want to.

The film industry is slowly going through the same transition, though they're throwing a bit of a hissy-fit too. But with Netflix and other streaming services, they've made legally acquiring digital TV and movies more convenient than pirating them, so that's what most people do. They still want to cling onto their old model, but eventually they'll get over it, one way or another, or they'll suffer the consequences.

And that brings us back to you, Microsoft.

Like I said, Microsoft, I get it. You want to offer all of this cool stuff, but you don't know how to do it without either restricting the consumer or opening yourself up to abuse.

But the only way you can make this move towards digital work is if you embrace the parts that make digital convenient. If digital is restricted to a certain number of machines under certain conditions, then it might as well be a physical copy, and if your physical copy is similarly restricted, then there's no point in having a physical copy in the first place. You're shooting yourself in both feet here. If the only other option is to open yourself up to abuse from your customers, you probably should pick that option instead, because at least then you'll have customers.

Gaming is a social experience, and it's not limited to the kind of social experience you can have online. People still have real-life friends that they see in person and like to play games with. By trying to make online experiences more versatile, you are hamstringing peoples' capabilities of sharing games with people in a physical reality.

Here's your problem.

You tell people that they have to be online to play their games. They get upset, and then you tell them that it's because you decided to let them install their games on the HDDs and this was the only way you could offer them this feature. They tell you that they didn't ask for that and you have a pissed off customer.

But let's imagine a different universe. Imagine if you went out and said that gamers would be allowed to install their games on their console. That they could switch between games midstream. That their friends could install their games too. Then imagine peoples' surprise when they ask what the catch is and you say that Microsoft will not be implementing any restrictions outside of the obvious factor that you have to be logged into your Xbox Live account during the download and installation. To keep developers happy, you say that individual developers can implement DRM if they see fit, but by default, the Xbone would not inherently limit software installations.

Would this new system be abused? Almost certainly. But more importantly, this system would be used. Even people without friends would buy digital copies, just so they could share it with friends if they wanted to. Just so they could know that they wouldn't have to waste shelf space on a game.

The key to winning over customers is to make them feel like they are in control, and even better, by making them feel like they are smart. I don't mean you have to stroke their ego, I mean you have to let them think they're smarter than you. People would go in, feeling like they're about to get one over on you guys by buying games and sharing them with their friends, but before you know it, those people have bought waaaay more games than they would have otherwise, all because they think they can beat the system.

I mean, just look at Steam. Steam has a lot of restrictions. You have to login before you can play offline. You can't login on more than one PC at a time. But they currently have the biggest market share in software sales because they regularly make their customers believe that they are getting a major deal. Every Summer, gamers buy truck loads of games they'd never have bought otherwise, simply because of how cheap they are. I recently bought the "Alan Wake" series on Steam. I have no interest in playing it. But I bought it anyway because maybe one day I will and it was only $5.

It's not about tricking people. The Steam Sales don't have some kind of catch. You buy the game, you own the game. Simple. There's no dark secret about them. But gamers make all kinds of stupid purchases just because they like to take advantage of great deals and opportunities, just like anyone else. This isn't rocket science. Retailers have known this shit for years.

The Xbone's new features don't feel like great deals or opportunities. They feel like windows in a jail cell. You have to let gamers think they're the smart ones. That they can take advantage of you if they play their cards right. That they can game the system. But instead, you basically look at every possible way a gamer could take advantage of your new services and find ways to block them. And in so doing, you made a console that just can't help but piss people off at every turn.

"I can install all of my games on the HDD and the cloud? Cool! That means I can play my entire library anywhere!"
"Anywhere with a stable Internet connection."
"Oh... well, at least I'll be able to install rental games."
"No you won't."
"Oh... well, at least there will be no difference between new and used games since they install no matter what."
"Wrong."
"OK, then at least I'll be able to install the game and then give the disc to a friend."
"Haha, no."
"But I can share my games with family members right? So if I buy a game, we can play it together without them having to buy it."
"Nope. Only one person on your family list can play from your library at a time."
"Then why the fuck would I want to install games on my Xbox?"
"So you can switch between two games to play online matches with friends!"
"...That's it?"
"Yeah! Isn't that great?"

You've basically implemented cool new technology and then found ways to impose the same limitations that would exist without the technology, and then made the technology mandatory.

Your games look fine, but they're not all that different from what we have right now. I was paying attention 7 years ago. I remember how big of a leap it was from the Xbox/PS2/Gamecube generation to the present one. It was major. The difference was staggering. But what I saw today was not different enough to sell an entire console, and you know it. You've tried to distract people, but it just makes you seem even more deceptive. And as nice as some of your new features are, every single one comes at the price of convenience and trust.

And speaking of price, $499 is ridiculous. You know who knows that? Sony.

They launched their lowest-end PS3 at $499 back in the day and even though their system was technically far better than yours, even though it offered the same features at a lower cost (free PSN, rechargeable controllers, built-in WiFi, high-def video disc player), and even though it had the biggest following from the previous generation, Sony still got their butts kicked by you and Nintendo almost entirely because the system was too damned expensive. How can you not remember this?

What's even more baffling to me is that you're throwing out this price point even though your new software restrictions would basically guarantee a huge boost in revenue by maiming the used game and rental markets. Even though you have a massively successful subscription service. Even though you are fucking Microsoft and have the best connections in the industry and could easily afford to take a hit on console price even if you didn't. Even though you had no substantial pressure to release a new console this year and could have taken the time to reduce production costs before announcing a price. You decided to act like this was the best you could do.

Guys, your two competitors are selling at $349 and $399. That's it. Game over. They win. Even if average consumers can tell that the Wii U is technically inferior to the PS4 and the Xbone, they will probably not be able to discern a major difference between the PS4 and the Xbone and will probably just buy the cheaper one.

But I know what you're probably thinking. Xbox has brand recognition. Average parents shopping for Christmas don't pay attention to things like DRM or sharing restrictions. They just want to get the newest Xbox for their kids. And that may be true, but if you think they won't notice these restrictions, just you wait. I can imagine the Christmas morning now...

"Yay! The new Xbox! Thanks, Dad! Can I set it up now?"
"Sure! Go right ahead!"
*An hour passes*
"Yay! Let's play the new 'Kinect Sports'!"
*Puts disc in*
"Dad, why isn't it playing yet? What does 'installing' mean?"
"Oh, the lady at the store said that you have to install the game on the Xbox now."
"Why?"
"She said it will let you play the game without the disc."
"Oh, cool! That's great!"
*Plays "Kinect Sports Rivals"*
"That was fun! Hey, can I play some 'Viva Pinata'?"
"Sure! Go right ahead."
*Puts disc in*
"Hey, it's not working."
"Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. They said it won't play Xbox 360 games."
"Oh. OK, I guess that's... whatever."
*Turns off Xbone and plugs back in the old Xbox 360 to play games.*
*A few hours pass.*
"Hey, we're going to go to your uncle's house. You want to bring the new Xbox to play with your cousins?"
"But there's only the one game. Can we buy some more on the way?"
"I'm sorry, but 'Kinect Sports' was the only one that seemed appropriate for you."
"Oh well. I guess that'll be fun enough."
*They pack up the Xbone and go visit their relatives and start setting it up on the TV in the basement. Her cousin arrives.*
"Hey Alice. You got a new Xbox too?"
"Yeah, though I only got the one game for it."
"Oh, well my mom got me 'Killer Instinct'. I brought it with me. You wanna play it?"
"Sure! Just don't tell my dad."
*Turns on Xbone, but it throws back an error*
"Hey, it won't start."
"You didn't plug in the Kinect."
"But we're playing 'Killer Instinct'. It doesn't need Kinect."
"The console won't start without it."
"Well... OK."
*Plugs in Kinect. A different error pops up.*
"Oh, it has to be online, too. Go ask Uncle Bob what his WiFi password is."
*Bob comes down*
"Oh, I don't have a wireless router. But I can run a cable down from the living room for you."
*Finds a massive ethernet cable and runs it down to the basement for the kids to play with the new Xbox*
"OK, let's play."
*Puts in "Killer Instinct" and installs it. They start playing. A few minutes later, someone trips on the ethernet cable and Bob unplugs it since the kids aren't playing online. One hour passes.*
"Hey! It stopped working! It says connection lost or something! But we weren't even online!"
"This sucks. I'm tired of this. Hey, I think Carl set up his PS4 upstairs. Want to play that instead?"
"Sure!"

This might seem like a relatively contrived dramatization, but it's really not. I remember what it was like to be a kid with a new console or a friend of a kid with a new console. Gamer kids love to show off their shiny new toys and share them with friends and family, and the holidays are a great time for people to get together and do just that. But if you bring along your new toys and they don't work or they require a massive amount of work to get working properly, not only does it give you instant buyers remorse, it pretty much tells everyone else at the get-together how incredibly lame that new toy is.

You know why the Wii did better than the Wii U? Both consoles had about the same level of software support. Both consoles were roughly within the same price bracket. But the difference was that the Wii was a bigger novelty. People who brought the Wii to their holiday gatherings became the talk of the evening. Everyone played Wii Sports and everyone had fun. So everyone wanted one of their own. But the Wii U just didn't have that wow factor, so after the holiday boom, sales plummeted.

A console's best possible advertising is word of mouth, and if you can't get people excited about your console without giving them a list of rules and requirements, that word of mouth is going to be mumbled at best.

And that's not even considering the fact that a lot of parents are terrified about their children playing games online. A lot of them just leave the system disconnected because they can't be bothered to figure out your asinine parental controls. But now they won't be able to, and that alone might be enough to make them change their minds about which console to get.

Frat boys who love playing Halo and CoD will probably throw a hissy fit when they realize they won't be able to bring their Xbone into the lounge (a lot of college dorms don't have free WiFi in the common areas).

You may think that you can get away with pissing off gamers, but gamers aren't the only ones who care about being able to play games the way they like to play them. This trait is pretty much universal. Even if you're just targeting parents and frat boys, you'll still find ways to piss them off, and they'll probably be even angrier since they probably won't see it coming.

Microsoft, I'm not saying your new restrictions are unreasonable. Well, actually, I take that back. They are completely unreasonable, but I can understand why you made them. Each and every decision has a thread of logic behind it that I can follow and comprehend. I can see why someone in a board room thought this was the best way to move forward.

I don't believe you've lost your minds, but you have definitely lost sight of the bigger picture. You are about to release the most expensive console on the market, you've pissed off the core gaming market, and you will make casual consumers go completely insane with frustration on launch day. Early adopters will be disappointed, their friends and families will have been given a terrible first impression of the new device, and your competitors will be laughing their way to the bank while the pissed off gamers drink your salty tears.

Even if some people do enjoy your console in your pre-determined, overly-calculated, incredibly limiting environment, that's not what you want. You want people playing Xbone everywhere. You want them bringing it to every party, sharing games with every friend, bringing it along on long road trips. You want your product to be ubiquitous, you don't want it exiled to one room in one house. You might think that if people can't move their Xbone, they'll just buy another one, but you're wrong. People who want to play Xbone at a friend's house won't buy their friend an Xbone. They'll return their Xbone, buy a PS4, use the leftover money to buy another game or two, and bring THAT to their friend's house instead.

So I'm sorry, but you've fucked up. You've fucked up big time.

Don't worry, I'm not going to dance on your grave, because if we're being totally honest, I actually love some of your ideas. I'm actually a little disappointed that the PS4 doesn't really seem to be doing much that's really all that innovative. I really like the potential and the technology of the new Kinect and I know the PS4's new Eye won't be able to come close to matching it. I like the idea of being able to install games directly on the HDD from the disc since the 10GB download through PSN can be arduous. I like the idea of sharing games with a short list of family members on different consoles. I like SmartGlass, though it needs a lot of improvement. I like your app variety (I watched the PS4 keynote through your GameTrailers app since the PS3 just directed me to their crappy built-in browser). I even liked that IllumiRoom thing from a while back, even though it is apparently nowhere to be found in the new console (work on that).

I'm a technophile and I want to favor innovation. I genuinely feel bad that I can't support the most innovative console of this generation. But you've set the cost too high. And I'm not just talking about the cost of the console, I'm talking about the cost imposed on all of your customers. You're asking them to give up things that they've come to expect and that never goes well unless you offer a better alternative.

Along with many other gamers, I have already made my decision. I'm sorry, but I've pre-ordered the PS4. I'm typically the sort of gamer that likes to wait and see how things play out, but there seems little point this time around.

Still, I'm open to reconsidering. If you drop these restrictions without also dropping the features, I'll probably change my mind. I'll cancel my pre-order and change my allegiances. I've changed sides in a console war before and I gave up brand loyalty long ago.

But I think we both know how likely that is. Ever since Windows 8, you've proven to have no real comprehension for what your customers want. You believe you have the power to dictate the rules we play by, but forget that we always have the option to simply refuse to buy your shit. I honestly wonder if you'll learn your lesson before the Xbone fails miserably.

I've been a gamer all my life and I've witnessed every console war since SNES vs. Genesis. In those days, it was frenetic gameplay and third-party support vs. beloved mascots and familiar pixels. It was blast processing vs. mode 7. Then Sony got in the game a generation later and it was 32-bit vs. 64-bit. Disc vs. cartridge. Cost vs. power. Then you guys came along and it was fighting games and FPS's vs. Everything Else. Then a generation later it was cost vs. power again. Online play vs. console versatility. No matter the generation, there was always an argument to be made for either side. There was never a clear winner until the market had spoken.

But this time? Well, this is the first time I've seen a community so universally in favor of one console over the other. On every blog post talking about the PS4 announcement from last night, I see no arguments over which console is better because there's really no argument to be had. Unless you really like Twitch, Halo, or Fantasy Football, I'm having a hard time figuring out how someone could favor the Xbone at this point. It's more expensive, more restrictive, more unwieldy, more pompous, and offered a very narrow view of what kinds of gaming experiences we can expect. The system specs are practically identical and yet the Xbone costs more, probably because of the required Kinect that most people (myself not included) want nothing to do with.

Though I'm not just getting the PS4 because it's better than the Xbone. I'm not just settling for it. I'm getting it because during that press conference, it was the first time I felt excited during E3 since I was a kid. I felt like Sony was listening to me. Like they cared about more than just my money. Besides which, the PS3 has been a really satisfying product and I feel like Sony trusts the gaming community. As much as I want to reward the Xbone's new ideas, I don't want to reward the way you treat your customers, and I'd much rather reward a company that at least tries to treat its customers with some amount of respect.

I'm sorry Microsoft, but you've been having a pretty lousy year. Your Windows Phone OS continues to fail to get a market share that can even be considered moderately competitive with iOS or Android. Windows 8 has gone over like a lead balloon and anyone who has upgraded to it who isn't using a tablet thinks it is terrible. Most people who buy tablets still get iPads. The desktop PC market continues to stagnate (though it certainly isn't dying). Your new server OS is equally ridiculous and annoying, implementing the same ridiculous UI even though no admin in their right mind would use a touch screen for a server. And now that you've also screwed up your gaming division, I think you've only got darker times ahead.

I don't think there's anything left for you to break.

Kinectophobia: Xbox One and the End of Privacy

In the wake of Microsoft's disastrous reveal of the Xbox One, there are certainly a lot of things to hate. Not only did they leave out backwards compatibility, they seem bizarrely proud of that fact. The console requires an Internet connection in spite of how much a required online component has kneecapped the launch of several recent games. They appear to be leaving indie developers out in the cold. You don't need me to tell you that the Xbox One looks really dumb and that Microsoft has an uphill battle ahead of them.

But there's one complaint that keeps popping up from both commenters and industry writers that I find a bit... extreme. Or at the very least a bit reactionary.

Specifically, a lot of people are overreacting a little about how the new Kinect is apparently a required component in the Xbox One. It comes with it, it's always on, and the system doesn't function without it.

Now, I actually agree with this criticism for the most part. Requiring Kinect does seem a bit excessive and daunting. The Kinect can be a pain in the ass to set up. If you're just bringing your console over to a friend's house for a party or something, being required to also set up the Kinect might be enough of a reason to leave the behemoth at home. Also, as a Kinect owner myself, I'm curious if the new Kinect has gotten better at detecting people who are sitting down or people of varying body types and shapes. Will people without four limbs be able to use Kinect? The biggest barrier for the Kinect in my opinion is how it seems to work best in very limiting situations: In big, spacious rooms, looking at averagely-proportioned humans standing upright and in full view. So I'm less interested in what new tricks the Kinect can do and more interested in whether or not it can do those tricks under most reasonable circumstances.

But questionable functionality and cumbersome implementation aren't really the reasons why some people appear to be upset about the Kinect requirement. No, some people are merely upset that the Kinect is always on, even if the Xbox One is off, so that it can wake the Xbox One with your verbal commands.

On top of that, the Kinect doesn't just see you with standard IR and RGB cameras anymore. No, it is way more sophisticated now:

People seem to see the always-on Kinect as some kind of Orwellian nightmare.

If you have concerns about Microsoft installing an always-on microphone and camera in your living room, better invest in a veil for the camera and some way of muffling Kinect's "ears." Owners of the next-gen console will need to accept Kinect is watching thee and there's little privacy. [Alexander Sliwinski (Joystiq)]

I’m not sure I like the idea of a piece of hardware that’s hooked up in my living room listening to me on an ongoing basis. [Ben Kuchera (PAR)]

And these are both actual journalists who I imagine use an above-average amount of technology in their daily lives. These aren't tin-foil-hat-wearing octogenarians who think that iPhones cause cancer.

Look, I don't have to explain why this particular complaint is more than a little bit paranoid. If the Xbox One is off, it likely won't be able to communicate over the network, so it's not like there will be a direct feed that would be accessible from the Internet for people to spy on you with. It also probably wouldn't be able to store any data to the hard drive to send later. Besides, Microsoft barely has enough time to respond to technical support questions. You think they have the time to perpetually observe Xbox customers, even if it were possible? I can pretty much guarantee that anything the Kinect sees/hears while the console is off is strictly between you and the Kinect.

However, I get the impression that this is more than just concern over what the Kinect sees when it is off. I feel like this stems from a much deeper concern over why Microsoft wants the Kinect to be omnipresent.

Specifically, even if they aren't exactly saying so, I think people are probably more concerned about how this technology might be used while the system is on, not while it is off. They just choose to express that concern in a very limited scope in order to not sound technophobic. Rather than say, "I'm frightened over how invasive Kinect seems to be," they merely say, "I'm not sure why Kinect needs to be on all the time." It's like if you suspect your friend's brother is a drug dealer, but you don't want to come right out and say that without evidence, so instead you just say, "Your brother sure has a lot of cash on him. What does he do for a living again?" You ask a smaller question with weighted implications to get your point across without seeming irrational. But even if that smaller question has a plausible answer, that doesn't do much to change your deeper suspicions.

Honestly though, I wish more of the people who are bothered by Kinect would just come right out and say that the implications of a ubiquitous Kinect make them uncomfortable, because that's actually a pretty reasonable fear, even if there isn't really anything to support it other than speculation. They're nervous that game developers and Microsoft will use the Kinect to basically collect information from the players, even if Kinect is not required for a particular game. A device that can detect the mood and engagement of a player? Their heartbeat? Probably also able to estimate things like age, gender, living arrangements, number of pets? AAA game developers love their metrics and Kinect will allow them to collect metrics from literally everyone who uses their games. If Kinect and the Internet are both required for the console to function, they can know for certain that anyone playing their game on the Xbox One will be visible to the Kinect and that they can collect whatever metrics they like from it, within the limits and parameters set by the law and by the Kinect SDK.

And if you think you'll be able to just put blinders on Kinect, I wouldn't be so sure. After all, it seems like the Xbox One uses Kinect in order to identify and log in specific users, so I wouldn't be surprised if obscuring its vision would cause various gameplay issues. I could be wrong about that, but at the very least, now that developers know that all of the Xbox One owners will have a Kinect, they'll probably start using it more, if only for things like optional voice commands.

Don't freak out too much, though. They probably won't be able to collect actual sounds and images, at least not without explicit permission in one of the EULA's for the game. Your house is private property and it is illegal to record individuals without their permission on their private property. But they really don't need to. They just want the data that Kinect gathers. Images and sounds take space and time, but statistics and metrics are easy to transfer and compile, and you can bet your ass that every marketing department in the industry will want to take advantage of this.

I can imagine the meetings now:

"Our metrics show that 95% of players expressed visual shock and increased heart-rate after the jump scare in the first level, but subsequent jump scares seemed less effective, increasing overall disengagement and only rendering visible shock in 45% of players by the end. Furthermore, our demographic..." yadda yadda yadda. Numbers! So many numbers! And we aren't talking sampling sizes anymore. We're talking everyone. Everyone will have a Kinect, everyone will have an Internet connection, and everyone will be counted. And they don't have to ask you how you feel. They can just read your expression. It might not be 100% accurate, but it'll probably be much more informative than what they rely on currently.

And that's just off the top of my head. Honestly, there's probably no reason why game developers couldn't use the Kinect to know just about everything about their player base, so long as it is something Kinect is capable of determining.

What's more, with Microsoft trying to push the Xbox One as a ubiquitous portal for TV and streaming video, you can bet that cable networks and advertisers will be interested in these metrics too.

To put it simply, Microsoft can't and won't look at you while you play video games in your underwear. However, they will probably know that you play video games in your underwear. They will probably generate spreadsheets and pie charts saying that you and 34,216 other gamers played "Call of Duty: Ghosts" in your underwear, and that those gamers also had a higher than average probability of drinking Pepsi rather than Coca-Cola.

I'm pretty sure that's what people are really terrified about, and I understand that. Privacy and anonymity can be comforting and anything that trespasses that comfort-zone tends to be repulsive. It happens all the time and it's a very human reaction, no matter how comfortable with technology you might be.

Even recently with Google Glass. In Engadget's review of the first released version of the device, they dedicated a whole section to discussing their privacy concerns, specifically with the video recording capabilities:

The point can certainly be made that it's possible to take a picture or video of someone these days without their knowledge, but the situation here is a bit reversed: nobody knows if you're not taking a picture or video of them. This will, at first, result in some good-natured "Are you recording this?" comments in conversations but, as time goes on, as a wearer, you'll notice that people will be acting a little more cautiously around you. [Tim Stevens (Engadget)]

Again, this is a journalist who writes for a website dedicated to news regarding technology and gadgets. This is not a technophobe, and you don't have to be one to find the idea of someone with Google Glass walking into a locker room with the video feed turned on more than a little skeevy.

But this is the world we're moving towards. And we've been moving towards it for generations.

Privacy is a luxury and a privilege, but I think a lot of us actually take it for granted. When something invades our privacy, our displeasure is expected and inherently justified. But why? Why is our privacy so important to us?

Well, that's usually when people start bringing up Orwell and Huxley and Bradbury. If governments and businesses know everything about us and we can't hide anything from them, what's to stop them from controlling us absolutely? And this is perfectly reasonable, but the inherent problem in these fictional dystopias isn't just that the citizens have no privacy, it's that the citizens have less privacy than the ones in charge. Big Brother sees all from the shadows, but if Big Brother is as exposed to the citizens as the citizens are to Big Brother, suddenly the dynamic shifts.

The future we are moving towards isn't a future where the government or the corporations know everything about us. It's a future where everybody knows everything about everyone. My congressman might be able to see my embarrassing Facebook photos, but Congressman Weiner will never live down his infamous crotch-tweet. Do you think Orwell imagined a world where a picture of Big Brother's erection would be immortalized in the public consciousness? Our future is a future where privacy isn't a luxury possessed by the ruling class, but a luxury possessed only by those who refuse to embrace technological advancement. If you don't want people with Google Glass to record you in the locker room, you'll either have to get them to take them off or you'll have to somehow change the way they function in certain rooms. Either way, the only way to protect your privacy is to find some way to prevent this technology from being used. And if the technology becomes more and more popular, that might get harder and harder to do.

Sure, we might create laws that make it illegal to wear AR glasses in areas with specific designations. But what happens when it becomes harder and harder to distinguish between AR glasses and normal glasses? What if they develop AR contact lenses? What if everyone starts using AR glasses? How do you enforce that sort of thing? Do you turn all locker rooms and bathrooms into dead zones that scramble all wireless communication? Would people be willing to stop using their mobile devices in the bathroom if it meant knowing that they wouldn't be recorded by someone with AR glasses? Would the next generation be willing to? Would the generation after that?

Similarly, we might create laws that say that companies can only gather metrics based on information gathered by Kinect with the express permission of the owner of Kinect, but how many of us actually read EULAs? And what if I agree to an EULA but my Kinect gathers metrics about my roommate who never agreed to anything? How would Kinect be able to distinguish between us? Would our government even care enough or understand technology enough to try and pass this sort of law? Would any judicial body care enough to enforce it?

This is why I think that even if we initially resist these sorts of technological advancement, we won't be able to stop the tide from coming in eventually.

In the course of history, when has new technology ever been completely resisted and done away with? When have we ever invented something and then decided that we shouldn't have it, and thus outlawed it and gone back to the way things were before? Have we ever done that? We invented a weapons defense system that can literally kill the entire planet, and as much as we all seem to want to, we cannot do away with it.

The technology in Kinect is simply too useful not to be used. We can and should do everything in our power to prevent it from being abused, but this technology will be used, and it will probably be used in the earliest of launch titles.

If this scares you, don't worry. This future without privacy won't come quickly. But it will come, generation by generation. My generation was the one that discovered Facebook, and when it became ubiquitous, we feared for our privacy. But we didn't stop using it. Even so, we coined terms like Facebook-stalking, customized our settings so that only our most trusted friends could see our personal information, and immediately started freaking out when our parents and employers started friending us.

In stark contrast, the younger generation seems to have a different relationship with Facebook. They seem to generally like the idea of having all of their information out there for the world to see. They don't care about seeming clean-cut or particularly intelligent. They are much less filtered and seem to embrace it. Maybe that will change as they grow older, but I think it may prove to be a major generational difference.

Really, this is the way it has always been. With each new generation, clothes become skimpier, sex becomes wilder, words become shorter, and lines become blurrier. "Kids today" will always disregard the things we always just assumed were universally sacred because they approach the world without our preconceptions.

While you and I might feel that the concept of a camera in our bedroom or our bathroom to be terrifying and violating, I can't guarantee that the next generation will feel the same way, particularly if that's the world they grow up in. "So what if there's a camera in my bedroom? There are cameras everywhere!"

And frankly, there are parts of this somewhat troubling future that I find intriguing, exciting even. Yes, Microsoft and EA will probably know far more about their customers than ever before, but you know something? I expect they'll probably be surprised at what they learn. What they might have always assumed was conventional wisdom about their audience will probably prove inaccurate. I expect a lot of executives will sit around a table, look at charts and be surprised at how many gamers are women, or African-American, or middle-aged, or physically disabled. With this wealth of information, they'll know exactly what their audience is like without having to assume. They'll know what their audience responds to, both positively and negatively, without us having to write incredibly overwrought diatribes on our blogs that they'll never see. And while some people find this creepy, I think that it's exactly what the industry needs right now: A better understanding of the diversity of its audience.

Too much of the industry is focused on a very specific kind of gamer within a very conventional demographic, and it's been hard to change that because there's no reliable way for a game developer to know what kind of people are buying games these days. They bank on the same tired and out-dated demographics because anything else involves too much risk. They don't want to target niche demographics because they don't know enough about them.

And game developers are already using a lot of metrics in their games and learning things they might not have initially expected. For example, BioWare tends to collect metrics based on what sort of relationships their players choose in their RPGs. This led them to implementing a lot more LGBT options in these games without feeling the need to apologize to "offended" straight male gamers. To quote:

We have a lot of fans, many of whom are neither straight nor male, and they deserve no less attention. We have good numbers, after all, on the number of people who actually used similar sorts of content in DAO and thus don’t need to resort to anecdotal evidence to support our idea that their numbers are not insignificant… [David Gaider (BioWare)]

This is the sort of thing that I like. Gaming will no longer be represented exclusively by idiots and 17-year-old white boys who think that their money is worth more than the money of the people they supposedly outnumber. Each gamer's voice will be heard and hopefully represented in turn, not out of compassion, but out of the same capitalistic greed that foolishly ignored them in the first place.

I know a lot of people take issue with the idea of targeted advertising. Even Microsoft itself has used this to try and bash Google in a painfully stupid advertisement for Outlook:

Obviously there is no creepy, blue-faced individual at Google who goes through all of your e-mails and sends you ads, like this video implies. It's all done anonymously through computers and algorithms.

But still! It's creepy! It's an invasion of privacy!

Maybe so, but you know what? Advertisements are a lot less annoying when they're for products I actually want. And it also makes them more effective, which makes them more profitable for the people using them, which means people who rely on advertising for a living (basically anyone who makes a living on web-based content) get paid better. And Google, who make almost all of their billions of dollars through advertising, use their capital to also fund innovative research and development that benefits the world on a daily basis. You may not like Google, but few could imagine an Internet without them.

A lot of us have been around since the Internet first exploded in popularity, and part of what we tend to find appealing (or at least reassuring) is anonymity. To us, anonymity is an intrinsic part of the Internet, for good or ill. But I'm here to tell you that it probably won't be that way forever.

That might be disturbing to think about, but there's a positive side to it as well. As we become more and more visible on an individual level, each and every one of us has a more significant impact on the world we inhabit. Rather than make us all homogenous, we'll actually become more distinct. More varied. Each voice will be heard and processed and added to the pie chart. And most of us won't even notice the difference.

Is this a good thing? Is this a bad thing? It will probably be both. Technology is inherently neutral and people are capable of both good and bad. All we can do is try and minimize the bad without sacrificing too much of the good.

So sure, let's all be skeptical. Let's all be critical. Let's find out exactly what Kinect will be used for. But let's also understand that just because something crosses a line, it doesn't necessarily follow that the line was important. And let's also understand that caution and hesitation is not always the same thing as wisdom.