XBox One - The Fallout

Yes, it's off-center, yes it bugs me

So, Tuesday was the day.  The day when Microsoft threw off the veil of the NeXtBox and dispelled all of the negative rumors that were swirling around it, tarnishing its image before it was even anno-

Oh, right.

That is not what Microsoft did at all.  In fact, it only seemed to confirm a bunch of rumors that were almost laughable to consider as rumors, not to mention the actual, honest truth.  And what it didn't outright confirm is still in a sort of nebulous half-truth-nobody-is-sure space that only Microsoft (and to a degree, Sony and Nintendo) can actually manage to do with this sort of thing.  Perhaps it's inherently tactile, some of this knowledge, but not a whole lot of it.  Certainly not the information that is the most important, which is what I'm going to head this up with - the information about the Anti-Used Game deal.

Much like the Always-Online thing, I don't know what to say about the Anti-Used thing going forward.  I sort of already said how I think they might spin it if they run with it, with the "Incentivised Purchases" or however they'll state it, but it's a hard thing to consider, because it's hard to figure how they won't make it positively Draconian.  Project Ten Dollar, the thing that sort of started Online Passes (for consoles at least) to 'combat the Used Market' is officially being put out to pasture but, being EA, nobody is very interested in thinking that this move is because EA cares.  Which lends credence to the idea that the NeXtBox might have this functionality (so that EA won't have to mandate it themselves) and as a result, EA/Microsoft might be really really tight Next Gen.  Which would, of course, give Microsoft a very nice incentive right there to do it, since it'll likely mean a lot of stuff that is exclusive to the NeXtBox from EA as a whole.  It'd be an unprecedented partnership (ha!) and it would be very, very dangerous for Sony and Nintendo (though not the PC market, since they'll likely get it on Origin anyway).

-Me from This Post, "Let's Speculate About the NeXtBox"

I am going to say that, more or less, I friggin' called how this was going to play out....if not for this particular sentence that finished off that paragraph.

For my part, I'm saying it won't be there, but whether or not that's more hope than thought is up in the air.

Oh, how naive I was.

To be fair, the only part that I was 100% on for sure that we know of at this point is that EA and Microsoft have that 'special partnership' that I speculated about, what with coming out in force to the event today, speaking of and showing off no less than four games, while also stating that something to do with the next FIFA will be Exclusive to The One.  Depending on how this whole cluster-fuck plays out (seriously, 24+ hours later and we still don't have a clear fucking answer because Microsoft doesn't even know), that may very well just be the norm for the generation, since this functionality is built directly into the XBone (that is what we're calling it, btw) and may or may not have been EA's dark bidding if we're buying into conspiracy theories.  Though the curious thing is that a lot of defenders are coming out and saying, "Well if the XBone has it, the PS4 -definitely- has it." and no, it doesn't definitely have it.  Allow me to quote myself.  Again.

Let's all remember something about EA. EA wasn't at the PS4 reveal. EA was at the One reveal in force. So, yes, maybe we can assume that Sony might not actually adopt this Used Game thing. And maybe we can assume Microsoft did it to score a ton of EA exclusives for the entire up-coming generation. Because if you are EA, this is fucking majestic.

-You can still release whatever you want for both the PS4/One.
-People -might- choose the One version of EA Sports Game because of Exclusive stuff, but you're still getting people buying PS4 versions of your games. Namely, everyone who didn't want to buy the One.
-Sweet, sweet Microsoft cash.
-You get to do away with a program that was only causing sustained PR backlash against you and was confusing your customers.

It is Win-Win-Win for EA. Microsoft thinks it's Win-Win for them as well since the Exclusive content might sway some buyers between versions. It still might be.

-From my post on the matter in the Penny Arcade thread for the XBone

It is a ridiculously good coup for EA if this is the scenario that's going forward, which I could really, truly imagine is the case.  Game and Console developers have selective and short-term memory, so they will take the fact that third-party software has sold the best on the 360 this gen and literally make decisions about next gen on -that- piece of information alone.  It's like the Wii U situation, but in reverse, yet it is still a large thing of bet-hedging and it still carries the massive risk for backfire.  So, is it possible that Microsoft went "Hey, EA, we sold a bunch more of your games than the PS3" and EA went "Oh, yeah, you did.  So, hey...let's talk shop" and thus the idea was born.  It is entirely possible that a Microsoft/EA partnership is an attempt to solidify Microsoft's tenuous hold on this generation and to make a foothold in the next that will leave Sony out of the equation entirely.  It is entirely possible that this is going to backfire tremendously!

It occurs to me that I haven't even explained this whole Used Games thing, so I should rightly get to that.  Of course, I will only be explaining the version that Phil Harrison initially stated (I am loathe to source Kotaku, much less Jason Schreier, but everything since is running with the back-peddled statements) because it is the only version of this whole scenario that was coherent and while it was later contradicted by Phil Harrison himself as well as like every single branch of Microsoft's Gaming Division PR, it was only contradicted in opposites ('oh no, this is not the case at -all-') or with vagueness ('we will reveal the actual plan at a later date') and is thus unreliable contradiction even though it casts doubt on the original statement.  You might want to strap in for this one.

So, the example provided is that you go and buy the latest greatest game for your XBone, go home and open it up, eager to play.  You slot the disk and it 'instantly' rips the contents of the disk to the HDD, much like a PC, while also asking you for the code that's located in the case.  This is something we're use to by this point.  Then something else happens, however.  The code authenticates through the internet and that game, and that disk are tied to your XBox Live account.  That means exactly what you think it means - that disk is -yours- now.  Furthering the example, you take that disk to your buddy who also has an XBone and slot it in.  "I want to play it on my account", he says, which is perfectly reasonable since it is his XBone.  The prompt comes up an informs him the game is tied to a different account, but if he would like, he can pay the Full Retail price of the game to have access to it forever.  His friend has essentially become a GameStop delivery-boy, bringing him the disk so that he may spend the dollars in the comfort of his own home, sparing him all of the hassle of the outside world and possibly physical currency.

This is obviously the step put in place to keep you from just installing the game onto your XBone and selling it straight-away.  PC gamers have been used to this for 10+ years.  It is obviously the step EA feared implementing with Project Ten Dollar, as they simply resorted to making your disk worth -less- (rather than worthless, see what I did there) without a slip of paper that hadn't already been used.  Which is pretty much why I'm still suggesting that this is an EA idea through-and-through and that it's attached to the XBone which just so happens to have EA's full backing (whereas the PS4 and especially the Wii U don't) through no coincidence.  People thinking that Sony will reveal similar plans around E3 time are only moderately right to be worried (which basically accounts for paranoia and the thought that anyone, Sony especially, will always screw up given a golden ticket to -not- screw up with).

This is unquestionably the biggest thing that came from the conference, which is hilarious since nothing was actually said about it -during- the conference that went on for-fucking-ever to no avail for people looking to be interested in anything.  In fact, no single thing aside from the name are things that came from the conference itself that are actually being talked about.  Nobody cares about the NFL partnership, especially everyone who doesn't live in North America, nobody cares about TV TV TV TV TV TV TV TV, especially everyone who doesn't live in North America, and the games they showed off were not only expected, but wholly underwhelming in terms of number shown.  Because the number (EA not counted because, again, SPORTS) was three.  Two of them exclusive - Forza and Quantum Break - with the third one being Call of Duty:  Ghosts which was announced, what, a month ahead of time?

It's an unfair truth that people care more about negativity than positivity, but it's a truth nonetheless and you are always in a constant need to overcome that when you're announcing anything.  Microsoft didn't consider this at all, or, worse, they honestly thought being able to play Fantasy Football on your XBone while integrated with NFL '14 would be exciting enough to pull away from some of the other things they decided to speak on after-the-fact.  That being able to use a TV Guide through Kinect would make up for the used games thing.  That a Halo TV series directed by Spielberg was going to assuage the fact that it has to check-in once every 24 hours so you can use it.  That the new-and-improved (supposedly) controller with a better D-Pad would make up for....like everything else because I cannot glean any other single good point from the whole of it, manufactured by them or not.

The unfortunate reality to it is that Microsoft simply did not pull off a good presser on any level and anyone who doesn't have the utmost confidence and faith in Microsoft's ability to put out a 'good' product (subjective use, of course) can see that.  This isn't a 'fanboy' thing even though it's very obvious that I have a very Sony slant and openly admit that.  There simply wasn't enough in the presser (hell, even in the after-talks where a couple nice things actually were mentioned, like Ryse being confirmed as a game exclusive to the XBone and the friend limit getting increased to 1,000, which is actually kind of staggering) to make it entertaining for anyone.  Gamers, tech-heads, sports fans, none of them.  I'm well aware that there are the defenders of it out there and I'm not even saying they're wrong - they're just excited for the system and more power to them for that - I just don't understand it, even on an objective level.

I can't even say "We'll just have to look forward to E3 and see how they fix it" because I don't see how any of this can be fixed unless the actual system is completely changed - which would be a worrying idea this close to launch anyway.  Their showing at E3 will certainly be interesting however, and while I'm sure at least one of their exclusive games will be a big deal (I hope, at least), I don't rightly think they can pull out anything, anything that will be holy-shit-big-enough to do anything to really improve themselves in the public eye.  Still, I think it's, hilariously, going to be less about the games and more about the damage control that will keep things from getting too catastrophic for them.  Yet, I'm just curious if they'll manage to say and promise the right combination of things (and mean them) to get back to the level where their machine actually makes sense.

really, the 24-hour check-in is the most offensive thing to me personally at this point, but the rest is still bullshit

Good Lord, This SimCity Thing is a Disaster

I am pretty sure I don't exactly have to elucidate the situation that is SimCity, as it is a thing that has been at the forefront of pretty much everywhere.  For good reason, too, since it is a case where this thing has been, as I say, wobbled so drastically that it's ripe for mockery and derision.  Not a single facet of this entire experiment has been particularly -good-, but merely yet another vessel through which we find yet another reason to collectively put our palms to our foreheads and sigh in something of a mix of disappointment and confusion.  It's hard to think that EA and Maxis, who have been doing this Sim thing in various forms for decades, could have gotten it so wrong with this installment, one that was meant to be a reboot, to bring the series back to 'glory' as they say.  And yet, they did.

If you -have- somehow missed out on the whole deal with SimCity, I would like to know what sites you frequent to ensure that.  More to the point, I can give a little bit of a run-down here so you're definitely caught up and just so we can all rub it in just a tad more.  When the game launched on March 5th, same day as Tomb Raider, the initial flood of players did just what it does with every game that requires online and crashed the ever-loving hell out of the servers, completely putting them out of commission.  Which, since the game has that pesky always-online DRM, requiring an internet connection to constantly affirm that you are totally playing a legit copy of the game, means that nobody got to play it.  Or, at least, very, very few people got to play it.

The problems only expanded as two days ticked by and the game was officially released everywhere aside from North America which caused an even bigger server strain which meant even more people 'owned' SimCity and could not play it.  EA issued a statement saying they would be adding more servers to address the issue over the next couple of days, yet here it is, the 10th, and not a whole lot has -actually- changed.  Presumably more people have, indeed, been able to play, but 10,000 people over 1,000 people is also still -more- so 'more' is honestly not indicative of a clear percentage of people who own the game and can actually play it with a degree of reliability.  Which is, of course, a Bad Thing™.  You know you have a problem on your hands when the company actually asks people to stop promoting the game until it works right and disabling parts of the game to expedite that process.

On the eighth, there was an official update about the situation as well as a little bit of a peace offering.  On top of dedicating 120% more server space, everyone who bought SimCity will be eligible for a 'free PC download game from the EA portfolio' which is a sort of nebulous statement.  Common sense would dictate that it's a pre-determined title, but the wording leaves it open to interpret that perhaps you get to -choose- a title (up to a certain dollar amount, likely, which will preclude 'new' releases).  We'll find that out on the 18th, when players will get an email with details on just how to redeem their game, but either way, free stuff is free and that always goes a long way to placate folks.  It's certainly not something you'll ever find me complaining about unless the situation is far more drastic.  "Oh, I'm sorry, I broke your leg in three places, here have a free PSN game" or the like.  I will assault you with my crutches, sir.

Now, we're being assured that 'the worst is behind us' which sounds very nice, of course, but it's not, really.  I never really understood people openly rebelling against this game, against this concept until this whole thing.  Until all of it made me realize just what the critical flaw of SimCity is:  Whether or not you get to play the game is wholly dependent on EA.  We talk about digital licenses and 'loaning' games to you, not actually 'selling' them and by and large, there's some truth in that, but this is just blatant.  Look up how many games EA turns the servers off of ever year and see just how new -some- of those games just happen to be.  Not, like, year old new, of course, but similarly not decade old either.  So for your $60 investment (or more), you only get to play this new SimCity for as long as EA is willing to hold servers aloft for it which is certainly not going to be more than....six years, I'll say.

There is no way to play SimCity Offline and an idea to do an Offline Mode has already been nixed as a possibility, which of course wouldn't normally preclude it from being possible eventually, but I highly doubt it.  The reason provided, you see, is that the actual simming part of SimCity is apparently done server-side (to incorporate other players into it and the like, all those lovely 'social' features that require it being online) so your game is less a game and more a conduit for input.  And, of course, it's pretty much persistent.  I've heard stories already from people who were locked out of playing the game for a while, only to come back to disaster and unrest because, well, the city went on even though you couldn't continue to play it and guide it.  That, to me, is the most damning thing about the whole situation, and is one good reason why I would never personally look into procuring the game for myself - but also because, as stated, that's a technical impossibility.  It's just absolutely baffling how they took SimCity as a concept, a single-player thing, and turned it into this.  Absolutely miserable.

Welp, Nevermind THQ's Done

Remember when THQ filed for Bankruptcy and the President of THQ came forward and said in an open statement to everyone that 'THQ is fine and isn't going anywhere'?  Yeah, well....that is probably not the case anymore.  Some recent developments with that whole situation over the last weekend were made and they are not pleasant ones for any involved.  The plan was pretty much simple, as it was presented.  Jason Rubin said, basically "We had to go into Bankruptcy and look for an investor so that we could quickly repay the folks we owe as soon as possible" which sounds sensible as all hell and should immediately tell you that it's certainly not going to happen that way.  Because why would it?  I mean, why would things just work in ways that are considerate for everyone involved?

Over the weekend, some groups had raised some complaints to THQ's proposed plan to seek investment through Clearlake Capital Group, well a purchase from them I should say, and there was a hearing about it.  Ultimately a Judge decided that the sale wasn't cool to go through when it was scheduled to because, and this is literally the goddamn reason, 'it doesn't make the most money possible'.  With Warner Bros., EA and other publishers sniffing around, there's a very big, very real possibility that piecemeal sale of THQ's assets will ultimately bring in more money than the Clearlake deal would net, making it the more lucrative option for THQ's creditors.  Because, of course, in this economy when everyone is only too happy to chirp up about how nobody wants to protect jobs or this or that, whine about how outsourcing is too big, an actual plan to prevent the loss of jobs shows up and is instantly swatted away.  It's a fickle thing, clearly.

I guess I shouldn't be too annoyed just yet since there's absolutely nothing stating that the IPs are the -only- things that will go on sale, unless I missed it.  If you all remember when Midway went under, Warner Bros. stepped in and bought the MK IP, but they also got the development team which we now know as Netherrealm Studios and they're doing pretty spiffy, I should say.  So -technically- we could assume that any potential publisher that purchases up the rights to the individual series that will go on sale might also bring the talent over as well, one way or another.  The Netherrealm Studios example isn't the only one of course, as even when Squeenix bought up True Crime:  Hong Kong (later the amazing Sleeping Dogs), they helped United Front Games continue work on it so that they could finish it regardless.  They didn't acquire UFG, but I would assume if a Sleeping Dogs 2 was ever in the works (please let there be a Sleeping Dogs 2 in the works), Squeenix would tap them for a return as well.  If nothing else, perhaps we could assume that sort of situation for whomever picks up these IPs.

Because the IPs are definitely on sale - I mean, it's pretty much a done deal, I would assume.  The end-goal is, I believe, finding out which option will pay more between the Clearlake deal and interested parties purchasing franchises individually.  Whichever one has the biggest bottom line will be the plan that goes forward so that THQ can just funnel that money directly to the people their creditors.  So while it's still technically possible that the Clearlake deal -will- go through, it's highly unlikely as every franchise individually will probably be quite a bit more than a package deal.  As is the case, generally with package deals, which, I suggest is why they are called deals.  At this point it's pretty much just a matter of thinking about who will buy up what and doing a whole lot of hoping and finger crossing.  As much as I don't hop onto the EA Hate Train whenever it rolls around, I'm not at all enthused with entertaining the thought of an EA published Saint's Row 4, for instance.  Picking up the WWE license, however, is a lot more believable and palatable because EA already has like every other sport and they do alright.  I'd just like to think Warner Bros. will do up a thing like they did with Netherrealm Studios.

The ink isn't dry on the deals and there's still a lot of room for the situation to resume changing dramatically, but it's more or less a lot more real now than it was.  I'm pretty bummed, since I really believed Jason Rubin, but at the same time, there wasn't a whole lot to doubt based on what he presented.  He was saying if they didn't do the sale by a certain date, it would cause a lot of problems and that's basically the lynchpin here in that the Judge and others don't agree with that date.  As such, it's basically still up in the air, but I'm pretty sure it's looking like the chips are going to fall on this latter side now, rather than the shiny, bright side that was presented first.  It's a real shame in a sense, but we won't really know the extent of the damages until the actual dust settles.  Whatever happens, it's going to have a rather big impact all around, though, and that's probably going to be a hard show to watch.

Update!:  Well, things are pretty much like it seemed, since it was confirmed that this is a most money wins situation.  The amount of money Clearlake has put up is apparently $60 Million, so that is the number to beat.  If anyone bids -more- than $60 Million for the whole of THQ, they'll acquire everything as Clearlake would, -or- if the sum of the bids for individual franchises from the likes of Warner Bros., EA and such exceeds $60 Million, then that's how that'll play out.  $60 Million is a -lot- of money, so this might be a closer race than anyone could have figured on.  But it just relies on the bids because not only are the companies against one another, but up against this potential $60 Million figure or even more if someone puts in for a whole bid of more than that.  We'll find out around January 23rd just what's going to happen to THQ, so start hoping for whatever outcome you want now.