I hate ripping on another writer for something they published, but I when I see advice as retarded as this it just sets me off. The NY Post has an [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/pagesix/20051117/en_pagesix/don39tbuythexbox360]article online[/url] that is trying to convince you not to buy a 360 just yet. Nevermind the obvious fact that unless you had one preordered very early you couldn’t if you wanted to. The article mentions a few things that I have to disagree with.

The author starts off by picking on the price of the console. Sure $400 is a ton of money to throw at a gaming console. Even $300 for the core system is quite a bit of money to most people. I don’t recall seeing articles of this caliber when the iPod came out. The iPod is priced from $99 for a Shuffle all the way up to $399 for the big version yet nobody acts like it is a waste of money. I personally find a lot more value in a system like the Xbox 360 than I do in a portable music device.

System launches are also not typically meant for casual gamers. With gaming hitting the mainstream hardware launches that would have otherwise gone right under the radar of casual consumers are now in the limelight and facing the scrutiny of critics worldwide instead of just industry wide.

Next is the “lack of games” which I think is a given. Games available at launch are typically rushed, unpolished, or downright bad. The 200 Xbox titles that will work on the 360 should ease the pain of no next gen games unless of course you are in Japan where the launch titles outnumber the original Xbox games that your system will play.

Next the author says that a lack of competition is a good reason to avoid the 360 this year. Again, if cost is an issue for you then you probably don’t need to be buying this at launch.

Probably my favorite part of the article is the so called “hidden costs” of owning a 360. The author insinuates having a HDTV is mandatory and while I will agree it makes the experience complete I have yet to make the move to HD, but I would be that most launch customers probably have a way to view the HD content. He also mentions that the ability to play games online somehow makes the 360 cost nearly $600. How exactly does it cost $200 to get online? Aside from your Live account what cost is associated with getting online?

He closes with a point that I have been hammering in since the day the 360 was announced and that is that the current generation consoles are still alive and kicking. Picking up a PS2, GC, or Xbox right now is one heck of a deal and with huge libraries it makes a ton of sense, but I think the author needs to work on his math. Buying all 3 current systems and a “whole bunch of great games” is going to set you back more than the cost of that pretty little 360 that everyone is after.

I think it is safe to say that competition in the console world is here to stay. With things really starting to heat up for the next generation between Microsoft and Sony, the mudslinging is only going to get worse and worse. We are now a mere two weeks away from the launch of the Xbox 360. Microsoft has been getting everything ready to relaunch Xbox Live to take advantage of all the new bells and whistles they have been working. It is sure to be quite an improvement.

With the undoubted success of Xbox Live, one has to wonder what Sony’s plans are for the PS3 in terms of online gaming. Actually, we don’t really have to wonder because last week Sony [url=http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/11/02/186220.shtml?tid=230&tid=233&tid=10]announced[/url] that they are not implementing a central service for online gaming for the PS3. Say what? What that means for Playstation diehards is that they will face the same challenges for online gaming that they did this time around. There is no doubt that the concept of an open architecture could potentially produce great things, but the fact remains that Live works and is continuing to work.

Things only get stranger when you consider that the Sony execs seem to be confident that the PS3 will be the center of the digital home when it is released. How exactly do they plan to accomplish that with a device that has no central service to connect to? I sincerely hope that they don’t plan on trying to leverage the UMD format on top of pushing Blu-Ray.

Even better is the fact that Nintendo has announced a large-scale WiFi network for online gaming between DS owners. Nintendo is typically very reserved in rolling out technology that may detract from a true gaming experience, and here they are walking right past Sony in the online gaming arena.

Now I realize that an open architecture does work to some extent. For example, [i]Socom[/i] has been hugely successful in the online arena with [i]Socom 3[/i] hitting record numbers of gamers. The problem is those records aren’t even in the same league as the numbers of people playing on Live at any given time. With Live morphing into a central hub of communication, it seems like Sony would rush to create a revenue stream with endless possibilities. They aren’t, however, and nobody seems to understand why.

With the Xbox 360-packed with PC integration and a service backing it as great as Live-coming out an entire year before the PS3, does the PS3 even stand a chance? I hope it does. Competition is good for the consumers, but I have a feeling that Sony is about to get a taste of the medicine they dished out to Nintendo when the Playstation debuted. For now, I guess we will wait and see if Sony follows the path that Microsoft is carving, or if they decide to go their own way and get burned.

1. How come no matter how much you play a game, no matter how good you are at the game, or no matter how much you know about the game, there will always be someone better than you who obliterates you completely every time because they play it all day, everyday, for their entire life?

2. Why did Pickle ultimately decide, after months of not having an answer, for me to finally buy [i]Neverwinter Nights[/i] so that we can roleplay, only to have him play twice with me and then never play the game again?

3. Why is [i]Savage[/i], for lack of a better description, the absolute worst game I have ever played in my life?

4. How come MMOs that charge for online play are the worst games ever? Dear MMOs, [i]Guild Wars[/i] found a way to make theirs free. You should do the same. Love, Milkdud.

5. Speaking of MMOs, since we have had MMOs based on [i]Final Fantasy[/i], [i]Lord of the Rings[/i], [i]Star Wars[/i], [i]The Matrix[/i], and [i]King Arthur[/i], when will we see an MMO based on the Roman Empire era or the ancient Greek era? That I might actually buy. Especially if one of the NPCs is named Kratos and he gives you experience based on how good you are in bed.

6. How come someone forged fake pictures of the rumored [i]Chrono Break[/i], the sequel to the wonderful [i]Chrono Cross[/i], and those pictures included screenshots of [i]Final Fantasy XI[/i] characters and settings, with one of the pictures having the body of a tonberry and the head of Admiral Ackbar from [i]Star Wars[/i]?

7. How come online gaming is marred by people who hack and upload viruses into peoples’ computers? Dear people, is playing the game not good enough? Must you ruin other peoples’ computers to make your gaming more enjoyable? Love, a recent victim of such attacks.

8. How come, if given the resources and time, I could literally make one of the best video games ever made? And how come other people who have that exact thought only end up creating games like [i]Super Monkey Ball[/i] and [i]Lord of the Rings: The Third Age[/i]?

9. Why do elitists in games decide to either boss other players around; stop playing with people who are of a lesser skill; laugh and taunt those lesser players as they mercilessly beat upon them; or a combination of all three?

10. Finally, the [i]Halo 2[/i] question. How come, when playing matchmaking in [i]Halo 2[/i], does Xbox Live match four level 25+ players against three characters around level 18 and one character that is level 2? Why are those games the absolute best, because my team completely annihilates the lower levels and sends them back to [i]Halo[/i] school, thus making me and my team a bunch of elitists who satisfy questions 1 and 9?

This particular feature actually started out as a news post on the front page of Snackbar Games, but I later decided that I didn’t want a single news item taking up the entire front-page real estate for most of our readers.

Recently, Evil Avatar posted a [url=http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5547]link[/url] to an [url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=125925%22]interview[/url] on Computer and Video Games with Mark Rein from Epic Games. The interview got on the topic of why Mark thinks pre-owned games from stores like EB and GameStop are hurting our industry. At first glance, I agreed with Mark and felt like he had a valid point. It wasn’t until my ride back to work today that I realized Mark had apparently lost his mind.

The reasons Mark cites include the fact that EB and GameStop typically try to sell used copies of games over new copies. While this is true sometimes, ultimately the consumers will make up their own minds before purchasing either copy. Retail stores do have a much higher profit margin on the used copy versus the new copy, but last time I checked, the consumers are not interested in the stores’ profits as much as they are in their own bottom lines. I also realize the developer and publisher make money on the new copy of the game, and while that does matter in the grand scheme of things, consumers, again, are probably not that concerned.

Mark went on to say that EB and GameStop should share the revenue from these pre-owned games in some sort of neato marketing partnership. He actually alluded to an official refurbished game policy. Right. The fact is that the games utilize server resources and sometimes even tech support. They cause activation and registration problems which might otherwise not occur. The interview states: “It costs us money. Those customers think they paid for it, and they’re entitled to support. The reality is, we didn’t get paid. They didn’t pay us.” Well, the reality is that you [i]DID[/i] in fact get paid, Mark. You got paid the first time the game was sold. This isn’t an issue of people pirating copies of your game and reselling them. This is a case of one customer transferring possession of a game to another customer. There are no additional copies being produced. You are simply being asked to support a product you originally manufactured and sold. Should we send you a check anytime we give a game to a friend for good? Would $20 do it?

An Evil Avatar member brought up an analogy that paralleled this to Ford getting paid when someone resells their car. Why should the manufacturer be compensated multiple times on the same product without doing any additional work? Are they somehow entitled to retain permanent ownership?

While many people loathe what Valve has done with Steam, it really solves the issue of reselling games because Valve charges $10 for the new owner to re-register the game. They came up with a way to get a piece of the pie on resale copies.

To be fair, Mark went on to talk about wanting game prices down around the prices of DVD movies, which I would love but we all know won’t ever happen. Mark Rein and Epic are looking toward the future and hoping for huge growth in the industry, but I think the idea of publishers and developers getting to double-dip on profits is the wrong way to stimulate that growth.