Project $10 - Get over it.

Today I was reading Game Informer magazine and I happened to see the little segment they call "The Good, the Bad, the Ugly." In this they label EA's most recent sports Online Pass as ugly. They claim it is going to hurt the poor little kids that are only saving a few bucks by buying a used game. I must say, I really don't care about those "kids."

If you're not familiar with the Online Pass, it's real simple to break down. To take advantage of EA Sport's rich and ever expanding online features, you will need an online pass. This pass is included with every new copy of their sports games. If you buy it used, you can buy a pass for a one time charge of $10. Recently some people have really been getting up in arms and saying this is nothing more than an attempt by EA to price gouge.

EA claims that this move is just to help support the cost of the online services. If you've played an EA sports game lately, this might make sense to you. Every year they add more interconnectivity between their games and website. For example, in the latest Fight Night and FIFA games, I uploaded a picture of myself on the EA website. I then connected my Xbox to their online service via the in game menu, downloaded my picture and then applied it to my custom player. So in both games I had custom players that looked like me.

Another feature that is offered in FIFA is uploadable instant replays. So if I score an amazing goal, I can pause it and then upload the video to the EA website. To illustrate this feature, here is my custom player that looks like me (though you can't see his face) scoring a really cool goal.

EA Sports: KC Wizards 0 - 2 Columbus Crew

When I was playing Fight Night, my menu would load audio updates from ESPN.com and play them as if I had a radio on in the gym. So I would get updates about other sports such as football and baseball. And I mean real life updates, not some silly pre-recorded fluff.

All of these features were made available to me for no additional cost. As long as I was connected to Xbox Live, I could access all these features. This is all well and good, but now EA is claiming that they are going to be stepping up their online game even more.

During EA's E3 presentation, they unveiled some of the details for their upcoming MMA title. To say they're ambitious is an understatement. EA is planning on more or less creating their own gaming league. In this league, gamers can cut promo videos to trash talk their opponents, participate in tournaments with real life prizes and be involved with live events. These live events will be broadcast over the internet to PCs and consoles with live commentary from real life MMA commentators. It is an unprecedented online presentation that combines the game itself and multimedia.

I see this as being a first step for a massive change in how EA presents their sports games and how players will play online. It will be risky and costly. Which now raises the issue of money. EA will have to pay for the bandwidth, the hardware and the staff to keep these online services going.

When you buy a used game, none of that money goes to the publisher. When you buy that used copy of Madden 2008 at Gamestop, all that money goes straight to Gamestop and no one else. That means someone could use EA's online services and they haven't paid a cent towards the upkeep of that service. Why should I, someone who mainly buys new games, have to pay towards the upkeep of these services while others don't?

So in the end, EA is saying it's fine to buy a used game. Feel free to play the variety of single player modes while we don't get a cent for it, but we draw the line. The line being they will not provide a maintained service to someone that hasn't even given them $10. It seems more than fair to me.

With new MW2 map pack announcement, it all becomes painfully clear...

Fresh off our show about Activision, the company gives us another reason to dislike them. When Infinity Ward announced the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 would not support private servers and wouldn't be releasing the development tools to the player created content community there was an outcry. These are both things that have been staples of the PC first person community and have been responsible for games living long lives beyond their console based siblings. One of the biggest factors that Activision and Infinity Ward sited for this changes was fairplay. The new IW.net was promoted as a place where people could play without worry of cheaters and hacks. Unfortunately, the game itself has many issues that can be exploited without the aid of additional programs, leading to what can be equated to state-supported cheating. So with the general failure of nearly every goal that IW.net set forth the most cynical of us are now having our point reinforced daily.

Activision, feeling my job as a video game industry muckraker and general loud mouth is too easy, announced it's first map pack for Modern Warfare 2 today. G4tv.com reported today that the new map pack, which includes 3 new maps and 2 recycled maps from the original Modern Warfare, will be released at a price of $15. That's right folks, the same thing that Valve and other companies often give you for free, Activision is charging you for. But not only charging, charging you 1/4th of the game's original value. A game who's multi-player has been fundamentally broken since day one.  It seems that the move to 100% IW.net was nothing more than a ploy to require all content come directly from Activision, and of course, at a price.

Maybe it's just the person I am, but I would think a map pack like this could be a "Thank you for making this the best selling game of all time" or "We're sorry the game has been broken and exploited." These maps could have been an olive branch for Activision to it's customers in a time that they really need it. I'm not sure if they read what people are saying, but the gaming community isn't really happy with them right now. But instead, of fostering goodwill with the very people that keep them in business, they decided to twist the knife and gouge for a few more dollars.

It seems that Activision is hell bent on alienating the fans and developers of one of the most popular franchises of all time. Just remember though, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has tanks, destructible environments and is releasing some free maps shortly. Not saying you should stop playing Call of Duty games and jump onto Battlefield, I'm just saying...

I hate your Favorite Games

Sometimes I get sucked in. I will buy, rent, or demo a game that seems like a winner but actually turn out to be a loser. Sometimes it will take a couple hours, a couple days or even a couple of years for me to get over the initial shock of getting a new game. Once we've been living together for a couple months and I met her mom, it becomes clear. The game is slightly crazy, a bad cook and thinks it's ok to watch Jersey Shore in a non-ironic sense. Wait, are we still talking about video games?

Anyways, God of War is that very video game. I bought the first installment of this franchise shortly after it was released. Those first beautiful hours were much like that new relationship. I was so blinded by booze, boobs and primal gratification that I was in a haze of love. I thought it was love, but then after a day or so of playing it all came crashing down. It was like finding out the person you're dating still really likes Savage Garden. It became clear, that I was just playing Dynasty Warriors. Ok, maybe not exactly Dynasty Warriors, but close to it.

God of War is nothing but a button masher combined with with boobs, a typing tutor program and a touch of the old ultra violence. I have a math problem to illustrate my point.

Just in case I have to spell it out, the Rock Band controller represents the game's quicktime events. Which reminds me, I'm tired of quicktime events. While God of War isn't responsible for me being tired of quicktime events, it is the game that inspired everyone to use them.

The game is honestly nothing more than a Roger Corman movie with a bigger budget and better effects. I would say a better storyline, but I think that's a stretch. Because if there's much of a storyline in the first God of War, I didn't see it. All I saw was a bunch of blood and titties, but even that gets old. If I wanted to watch hours of blood and boobs, I would simply have a horror movie marathon.

I can't really hold it against people that like God of War. On paper, I should like it too. Hell, I did really like it for the first few hours. The problem is the game lacked anything to keep my attention past that. People still love God of War though. Don't let me talk anyone out of like the game. You could do a lot worse. I mean, you could like Tekken...

These are the Dark Ages

There is always a time when people look back at a technology when it was young and say "Wow, that's so much different than now. It almost doesn't make sense!" We're always in a state of these "Dark Ages" even if we're not able to see it in the present. Luckily, I am able to divine some of these things and bring them to light from time to time.

One such example hit me with a giant board with nails sticking out of it today. I believe that in years to come, cell phones will be one of our greatest sources for "wtf were we thinking?" At every turn and every innovation of the cell phone industry, things seem to stay the same. Or better yet, they adopt an out-dated method from another industry. I want to focus on just one of these amazingly short sighted examples today: the complete and utter misuse of WiFi.


One of the largest trends in Cell Phones right now is the "smart phone." Be it a Blackberry, iPhone, Palm, Windows Mobile or one of the six people that owns an Android, smart phones are the it item right now. Handy little devices that let you check your email, browse the intarwubs, manage your calender, play little games on your down time, allow you to use useful applications and... oh yeah... it's a phone. With this ever growing market, we have also seen some features that were previously the sole territory of computers. The main one being WiFi.

WiFi, how I love you, let me count the ways... Where I live, there are no G3 wireless data networks. I don't blame cell phone companies for not developing this technology in our area, because frankly, it would be pearls before swine. The only relief I get from dial-up mirroring speeds is when I get in range of a WiFi network. When at home or in a public place with an open network I can finally see why people in larger cities love these devices so much. I love that these devices support WiFi for the internet end of things and it makes me feel like they understand my pain. There is a "but" though...

Why can't I use these same WiFi networks for the use of traditional cell phone services? Why can't I send a text message or make a phone call over my WiFi? I know it's possible. T-Mobile offers an additional service for $19.99 that turns some select cell phones (i.e. NOT MINE) into VoIP (that's Voice over IP, think Vonage) enabled phones! Why can't all phones have this feature? My phone can send email, connect to Skype and browse the internet all over a WiFi network, why would I not be able to use a Cell Phone Provider's VoIP service? It makes about as much sense as taking a normal laptop, removing all it's traditional ROM drives and declaring you now have a netbook. Sure, a netbook is handy, but why in god's name would you turn a fully functioning laptop into one?

Another thing, why should I be charged for using this service? I am quite literally using my own resources at this point to use your service. Instead of using your precious cell phone towers, which apparently run on the souls of Chinese Orphans at these prices, I am using my self-provided internet bandwidth to make my calls and send my texts. You're still getting your monthly service fees regardless. From this stand point, it sounds as though I should actually be offered a discount on my bill if my WiFi services out weight my on network services, but that would be just plan crazy talk.

Sure, they might cry about the short term costs of having to upgrade their hardware and software so they can accept VoIP as well as their normal phone service, but the long term costs would have to figure up to be a savings. I mean, now with famous people wanting to adopt so many foreign kids these days, the souls of Chinese Orphans have to be at a premium.

Web bias, what a cruel mistress thou are...

We here are Kneel Before Pod are bias. Ryan and I actually had a discussion the other night about it. It went something like this;

Me: "I think we should make sure we focus on being editorial. We're not a news site."

Ryan: "Yeah, we're bias."

Me: "And we just don't have the connections or resources to matter in the news world."

We understand that there is a line in journalism. It's one that used to be sacred and some would make it their mission to never cross it. When you are reporting news, you should do so without bias. When you include your opinion or start to skew the story to support your point of view, it becomes something else. It's no longer news meant to keep you informed of the latest developments in your world. This has been the official standard in journalism for years. There is room for these non-reporting features in the world, and frankly this is some of the best content. Where do I find a problem? When this content is not clearly marked as such. Some people can easily tell the difference, but some people in the world also need a reminder to *not* put a plastic bag securely over their head. I think it's safe to assume if a person doesn't know enough to not kill themselves with what most of us use to carry our cereal home, said person might not be able to tell that a story is being tainted by bias.

Most traditional (i.e. printed) outlets seem to be holding true to this tradition, or at least claim to be when call out as otherwise. That's why when you read an issue of your favourite gaming magazine, there is one whole section labelled "Reviews." This tells you clearly that you're entering the world of opinion. Or they will even state clearly that the content is editorial in nature. The biggest perpetrators of this are the websites that carry video game news. Their mix of editorial content and legit news often makes for a bizzare mix of unbias reporting and complete unblinking bias the next, sometimes by the same author on the very same topic.

The most recent example I have found of this is a website, which I will not name just because I don't want to make it look like I am trying to start a "feud," that has been one of a couple sites running regular posts about the recent stink over Gamestop's policy of allowing employees to take new games home to try and then still sale them as new. I personally think it's all pretty stupid, but that's not the point. The point of my editorial is that this site's posts are hard to take as being impartial. Ever. They have shown blatant bias on many issues in the past. So now, every time I read something of theirs I personally question "Are they being bias now?" Consistently, I never know how to take the words that are written on their page.

Think I might be a little rough on them? Well, you be the judge. Here is a direct quote from one of their stories. "With legal ambiguities surrounding this issue, we'd simply suggest buying used titles from your friendly, online click-and-order retailer in the meantime, rather than contributing to billions of dollars in used game sales at your own and other gamers' expense" is said at a more recent post about Gamestop. They are suggesting that you, the reader and consumer, bypass a company before anything is decided by *ANY* governing body. This is a practice that the company has done for well over a decade and has never been deemed illegal. Yet despite the total lack of guilt on Gamestop's part, they are suggesting you boycott them. Not only that, they are suggesting that you boycott the purchase of their... used games... which... has nothing to do with the current issue. This makes my brain cry. That is par for the course on this website.

Now let me say, there is nothing wrong with opinion laden content. Hell, that is 99% of all the original content you see on our site. We have a third of our weekly show dedicated to us remarking and talking general jackassery about actual news. I'm just saying lets make this a clear divide. Lets see a little tag that indicates real news and what is the ranting of a clearly bias fanboy. I feel so strongly about this, that recently we have started doing it on our site, even though I have already admitted that 99% of our content is pretty much devoid of unbias fact.

One last thing before I finally decide to go to bed. I hate Gamestop. With the burning passion of a million suns. I think that they are part of the problem and not the solution in nearly every issue that the video game industry faces. I think that they are a company that treats a majority of their employees *very* poorly. So, it almost causes me physical discomfort to defend them in even the most remote way. If you want to know how we feel about this policy at Gamestop, listen to this weeks show. I'm sure it will come up. Till then, be excellent to each other.

"The Pitt"falls of DLC: A look at my favourite games' DLC

So, I make it no secret that I am kind of picky about my games. I have so many hobbies and habits that I have to play it smart with my money. This is why many times you'll see me get very passionate about the games I play. I try to choose games that will have a lot of replay value and deep storylines. There are two such games that I have talked about at lengths that fall into this group. Mass Effect and Fallout 3 are prime examples of what I think is right in the video game world. They both feature a robust mixture of action and RPG. They both have deep storylines with moral choices that will rock you to your core. Both are just fun, rewarding and engaging games.

There is one other thing that both these games have in common, they both completely fail in the way they incorporate their post-release downloadable content. I have played to completion both games multiple times before this content was released. I was completely consumed by these games and couldn't stop playing them even if I wanted to. So why would both these games release content after the fact that depends on you not finishing the game? Do they expect me to not finish these wonderful games until they have released all their DLC? Apparently so, because in both cases, once you finish the game, that's it. There's no more exploring or free roaming as a post game reward. Unless you have the foresight or the blind dumb luck to have a save file, you're going to have to start a completely new character just so you can access this new content. In most cases, this new content is maybe a night's worth of extended play. Now, this might not sound like a big deal, but for me personally it is a deal killer. I have downloaded the Mass Effect DLC and have never played it. I never had the desire to start a fourth character just so I could do one extra mission.

More recently, I downloaded The Pitt expansion for Fallout 3 and was completely uninspired. I was lucky enough to have a save file from my first play through from right before the last mission. So I get my level 20 character up to the new map marker in my fully decked out Power Armor, only to be told "Yeah, you can't take any of your gear. All you can take is this gun or this knife, but not both. Your anal cavity only has room for one." Ok, I added the anal cavity part, but it's still the truth. So I do what any red blooded vault dweller would do in this situation, I ignore Snake Plissken and decide I am going to do what everyone says I can't do. I walk in with full armor and combat shotgun raining pain. I have no problems killing all their gate guards, only to be stopped at a second gate and beat down in a cut scene. That's right, the game can't stop me so it cheats and just knocks me out in a cut scene. So moments later, I wake up in a slave pit with nothing but the slave rags they put me in and the small handgun I smuggled in my ass. I attempt to start trudging my way through this campaign to get to the story which I am told is full of some great moral choices and such, but I can't do it...

I have been playing video games the better part of 27 years. I know all the cheap tricks. I know about invisible walls, random respawning enemies and the worst of the worst. The old "We can't balance the game play or we're having a problem making this challenging for the player, so we're going to take away all your power ups and make you start all over again." No sir. I do not approve. Taking away items/skills/power-ups, or Samus Disorder as I like to call it, should not be a part of any game, especially after the first fourth of the experience. Retconning a person's character never achieves anything but frustrating the player, unless said character is completely removed from the reality of the gameworld. Prime example of the proper use of this is the Fallout 3 DLC "Operation Anchorage" where almost the entire story takes place in a simulation.

In a situation where you're basically formatting a character, why bother even letting us use our old character? Why not just give us a new character to play. I would have been much more compelled if The Pitt was a stand alone game where I roll up a brand new level 15 character to play through the campaign. Grand Theft Auto did pretty much that with it's new GTA4 DLC to great success. Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and GTA4 all benefit from having a rich world where you could just plug in a new character, tell a new story and it would still be compelling.

So, I know there are a lot of people that say "Well, you're complaining a lot, but I bet you have no suggestions on making it better." Well, that's where you're wrong slapnuts. Here's my suggestion for Bioware and Mass Effect 2. Release the game and get as much content as you can on the release. After that, forget about adding anymore content to the main campaign. You're done. Just call it a night. Now, start working on a couple stand alone expansion packs that focus on either side characters or completely new characters that bridge the story from Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 3. You can have that one for free Bioware, but if you want more, put me on the payroll.

So, in sort... here are my rules for good DLC content.

1. Don't use the original main character if the game locks after completion.
   
2. Don't Metroid us and take away everything away from our characters unless it serves a really good purpose.
   
3. Don't be afraid to use new characters if the game locks or if the main character dies.
   
4. Do use DLC as a bridge between sequels.
   
5. Do use the complex universe that you've created to it's fullest
   

Just follow these simple rules developers and we'll be cool.