OUYA customers receiving an alpha build of the newly released console.

On Jun 25th, OUYA, the grassroots console system made possible by the incredibly successful Kickstarter fund raising campaign, launched into the gaming world. The reception to the new console has been lukewarm at best, with gamers complaining about the lack of substantial titles, the awkward controller and the underwhelming hardware performance. Regardless, the OUYA has sold out on Amazon, proving that the new console is at least a moderate success.

Unfortunately, the launch of the OUYA has not been without it's fair share of criticism and issues. According to many Facebook posters on the official OUYA Facebook page, the promised early version of the OUYA system that was sent to the donors of the Kickstarter page has shipped with an alpha version of the systems software.

Looking through the OUYA support page of Twitter, this remains unconfirmed, however some of the Twitter responses have managed to provide some humorous responses.

Sexism in games: Is there a line to draw?

Anyone who  pays close attention to the controversies in the video game community should be no stranger to the heated theory proposed by those who believe sexism is a permeating issue within video games and, in some cases, society itself. Unfortunately, this debate is remarkably one sided, with very few people on the other side of the fence who, in many cases are too afraid to take a contrary stance in fear of being publically shamed or called a sexist. But myself, being the low life with no self respect as it is, take no issue with arguing the contrary. Not that sexism doesn't exist in video games, of course it does, it exists in all facets of life and it effects both genders, not just female by the way. My stance, instead, is that despite the fact that sexism in video games exists, we should take no action toward stopping it. Open your mind and take a journey with me.

Drawing the battle lines.

In the thickest of fighting over the issue of video game sexism stands an icon of gaming feminism, Anita Sarkeesian, host of Feminist Frequency and champion of feminist gamers all over the world. She gained notoriety through her Youtube channel, speaking at several conventions (including TEDx) and most notably, the massive success of her Kickstarter project, Tropes vs Women, which raised over $150,000, well past the targeted goal.

Naturally, trolls from every corner of the world were quick to jump on the bandwagon and begin harassing Mrs. Sarkeesian and her followers. But instead of ignoring them like any sensible vlogger would, she instead dedicates entire speeches to denouncing the trolls and claiming they're part of a massive coordinated "hate campaign" . I've never, for instance, heard Anita address her alleged public shaming of Twitter users. The Youtube user, Thunderf00t, for instance, has put together a brilliant dissection of Anita's arguments, found here.

No sensible person has an issue with giving your opinion on an open forum like Youtube, but when you complain about how feminists are being misrepresented and then dedicate entire, syndicated speeches to misrepresenting your opposition, that's when you should reexamine your arguments and see if they would actually hold up to scrutiny without trolls to use as scapegoats.

You don't have a right to not be offended.

A few months ago, in the final week of last semester, I sat with two other game design classes and watched a great presentation by game industry veterans. At the front of the room they talked about their career history, what games they worked on and gave us advice in their respective fields before we plunged ourselves into the competitive world of video games.

One of the many moments that stuck with me, however, is when the speaker spoke briefly on the difficulty of joining the gaming industry. At one point he explained how few female game developers there were throughout the industry and that he doesn't know why it had "taken so long for the game industry to get more women". It was the way he phrased it that rubbed me the wrong way. Was he suggesting that the gaming industry is a conscious being that decides what gender ratio should be allowed to develop games? He seemed completely oblivious to the fact that there is absolutely nothing preventing women from obtaining a game design degree or starting an indie project. Instead he tried to push the blame on to the industry itself for being "anti-woman".

As I said at the start of this article, sexism in games absolutely does exist but people seem to forget the reason. Back twenty or even ten years ago, if you played video games, you were considered a loser. You hid it from your friends and you hid it from any girls you knew. You were afraid to reveal that you played video games. Video gamers were seen as nerds on the lowest rung of the social ladder and often times they were simply by virtue of the fact that throughout their young and teen years they were out caste by members of the opposite sex. Video games were a male past time, especially back then when most teens and tween girls wouldn't even touch gamers never mind pick up a controller.

Eventually these gaming nerds grew up and began making their own games. Entire game companies full of almost exclusively male developers. And knowing that at the time there were so few female gamers and even fewer female developers, they didn't have to worry about offending anyone and when left to their own devices, a male majority will create male centric products.  It's nature. But now it's 2013 and the number of female gamers has increased dramatically and we are beginning to see developers walk on egg shells as not to offend any potential female consumers. But why is this a bad thing?

I think it is any developers artistic duty to offend their viewers. Provoking thought through expression is the only way to create compelling pieces of art. Instead what we see is an industry that is vastly more censored than any other industry. For some reason, in the past few years, comedy and video games have been under fire as the only artistic mediums that are not allowed to be offensive. When Mayor Giuliani proposed the closure of an art museum for containing works of art he found offensive, people were up in arms about how censorship is the death of art. But for some reason, going after game developers and comedians is considered admirable.

Censorship is the death of art. If you are reading a book, or watching a movie or playing a video game and you are not offended at some point in the story, than it has failed as a story telling medium. Without anger or objection in a plot  line, whether by gender or not, the story will fail to engage readers or viewers.

And if your reasons for objecting to sexism in game is personal, that the story does not suit your tastes and you wish the developers took a different path so you could enjoy it more, than simply admit that is the case. I wish the Transformers series was more in line with my tastes, but I have accepted that Michael Bay's vision for Transformers is a vapid expression of art. I didn't start a Kickstarter to speak out against bad directors, I didn't make videos talking about how action movies have no place in the theatre, I simply did not watch.

Societal damage.

Some may argue that sexism in video games promotes the 'rape culture'. This ties once again with comedians being shouted down for rape jokes. These people seem to miss the entire point of free expression. Free expression isn't there to comfort you, it isn't there for you to mold into your own personal soap box. Free expression allows for anyone to share their opinions and vision, whether it be in a public forum or through an artistic medium.

Harkin back to Mayor Giuliani trying to close an art museum over offensive content. Now contrast that with the fact that many gamers, myself included, consider video games to be a form of art. Are we, as gamers, so willing to restrict and censor a form of art simply because we are afraid of offending someone? If video games are an art as many of you say, than no amount of offensive content would be grounds for removal or alteration. No amount of sexism or racism or any content that one would deem offensive should be subject to censorship or, god forbid, legal action. For years gamers have tried convincing the masses that video games are a form of art, but how can they take us seriously when even we ourselves do not treat video game as a form of art? And if you deem that video games should be censored, than you have forfeited all grounds to call video games an art. Censorship is the death of art.

Some feminists may also argue that sexism in video games effect us as a whole on a societal level. This argument is not unlike the debate on whether or not we should ban violent video games. The proponents of this philosophy propose that the consumption of violent video games has contributed to the murder rate, mass shootings, suicides and crime rate despite the fact that the crime rate has seen a steady decline even as video game consumption increases. This also rings true for sexism. There is no study that suggests that sexism in video game has a direct correlation with rape or violence toward women and in fact the number of rape and domestic violence is decreasing with the overall crime rate. In fact, in countries where abuse toward women is common, particularly countries like Kenya, Pakistan and Ethiopia, the video game consumption rate is remarkably low.

It is logically impossible to take to the stance that violence in video games does not affect society but sexism in video games does.

The bottom line.

If, after reading this article, you still maintain the stance that sexism in video games is wrong, than you forfeit the right to call video games a form of art through virtue of censorship. If you call video games an art but still maintain your stance against sexism in video games than you must admit that it is for a personal reason and that the best course of action is to simply not partake in the purchase of said game.

If you maintain the argument that sexism in video games effects society negatively, than you must also take the stance that violence in video games also increases the murder and violent crime rate, in which case you have lost the empirical argument given that a magnitude of scientific studies has  debunked this claim. This arguments house of cards cannot stand under scientific scrutiny.

Should you take anything away from this article, let it be this: Censorship is the death of art. Artists should be left to their own devices without fear of censorship or scrutiny. Any rational human being would not dump paint on a piece of art they found offensive, no rational human being would prevent people from entering a movie theatre showing a movie they found objectionable. No matter how offended you get, no matter how hateful the content of a piece of art is, nothing should drive you to actively work for its removal.

When a developer releases content you do not agree with, simply do not purchase it. Any further action against that product would be absolute selfishness.

Company of Heroes 2: Before I even begin, let's talk DLC.

I mentioned on one of my blogs that Company of Heroes is one of the best RTS games of this generation. Everything from it's robust graphics engine, it's AI, and it's unique approach to how battles play out on an individual level was a step in a new and brilliant direction. It felt like a fresh break from the average strategy game where enemies stand in front of each other and hit the other guy until he falls over.  

RIP THQ. The show must go on.

So imagine my excitement when I heard about SEGA announcing that Relic Entertainment was making a sequel to the "highest rated RTS game in history". There was a few months there where we didn't know what was going to happen to the game series. THQ had filed for bankruptcy and was sadly no more after a valiant battle with financial troubles. But then SEGA buys out Relic and now Company of Heroes lives! Yes! I was so excited! Of course I'm going to play this game and proudly review it, it's the sequel to one of my favorite RTS games of all time!... 

How about a nice cup of shattered dreams?

So... Are you waiting for the catch? Can you FEEL it in the air? Can you picture it hurdling toward you, about to slap you in the teeth? Well, my friends, when SEGA bought the rights of Company of Heroes, I was alright with it. SEGA publishes Total War, my favorite strategy series, what could go wrong? A lot actually. You see, the gaming community exists in a series of controversies. Before DRM, there was DLC, before DLC there was whatever people older than me can remember.  

While the whole EA, Xbox One DRM train wrecks were being cleaned up, we suddenly seemed to not care anymore about day one DLC. There was a time, just a few months ago where day one DLC was in our cross hairs. Mass Effect's hilarious on-disk DLC for example had the internet in a fit and Bioware haters in stitches. But because the bloated tumor that is corporate interest continued to grow to the point where it over shadowed DLC, we've come to accept it as the norm. 

"Alright. Fine. We have day-one DLC. It wasn't that bad, so why are you so angry?" You ask in a perplexed tone with your head cocked to one side. Allow me to illuminate the answer to your question, dear reader. 





Let see, two dollar camouflage patterns that doesn't even effect all the vehicles. See the (L), (M), and (H) next to to the text? That means the pattern only effects the light medium or heavy class of vehicle. How lovely. Three dollar tactics. Tactics.  I know some people might have taken it a bit far by saying day-one DLC was ripped off the disk, but I refuse to believe this wasn't slashed off the disk and monetized. They literally took a skill tree from the game and are charging three dollars for it. Not only that, they're doing it four times. The German Spearhead and Joint Operations and the Soviet Anti-Infantry and Conscripts Support doctrines. All yours for the low low price of 1/5 of an entire game. 

$55.74. That's how much it will cost you for all the day-one DLC. That's less than five dollars from being a whole other game. Awesome. But hey, at least you can get all the DLC if you "upgrade" your game to the collectors edition, in which case it will only cost you $40. How nice of them. 

What a disappointment to be faced which before I even buy it. But that's what happens when we let some things slip because we were paying attention to the newest controversy. Companies finallyfound a way to make us accept day-one DLC. They finally did it, guys. Which makes me wonder, what kind of monstrous, colossal frozen turd are they going to try to launch at our faces so we forget about console DRM? 

People thought they had a victory against big business this week when Microsoft pulled their DRM. Instead what they got was a distraction that let other companies run profuse behind your back and put in yet another way to screw you out of more content and out of more money. 

Please make the ride stop. 

Games you shouldn't be excited about..

We all know the gaming industry has recently been inundated with throbbing hoards of garbage being passed off as "triple A" titles. The largest culprit of this perpetual excretion on gaming is the "broader appeal" philosophy. For those who don't know, the broader appeal philosophy is where you take your core fan base, the people who have supported you throughout your companies history, and tell them to fuck off. Now that you don't have those 'fans' anchoring you down, you're free to turn the game series into a thriving pile of cancer cells. And oh, my friends, there have been no shortage of broadening appeals in this years E3.

Curb your enthusiasm

Ryse: Son of Mediocrity

Inaccurate armor designs? Tiny tower shield? Romans fighting by themselves? Romans with British accents? QTEs? QTEs you can't even fail? God damn, Crytek, it's like you didn't even try. Yes, the developer of the Crysis series, owned by the broadener of audiences themselves, EA, wants you to broaden your asshole and buy another DudeBro summer smash, God-of-War hack and slash press X to win clone. But this time it's Romans instead of Greeks. How. Fucking. Quaint. 

Crytek couldn't even be bothered to make an interesting gameplay video. Instead, they took the opening scene of Saving Privite Ryan. There is so much wrong with this game just from the demo. Like the armor. It's so over-designed and tries so hard to look uber for the CoD crowd. And the shields, why are they so tiny? I guess you can't pull off L337 executions with a realistic shield. That

That covers the first 50 seconds of the game play trailer. There is so much that reeks of bad about this title, from the uninspiring Saving Private Ryse beach landing to the hilarious "formation" you pull before you assault the city.

I want so much for a good, realistic, game where you play as a Roman legionnaire that isn't full of #YOLOswag420 casual garbage. Oh well, I guess I'm sticking with the Rome mods for Mount and Blade for now.

Dragon Age III: Inquisition
Oh Dragon Age, what happened to you? You used to be so above decent. Oh right, broader audience.

Dragon Age: Origins was Biowares way of telling us that they still cared about dedicated RPG players. It had a decent range of classes, interesting characters and branching paths. But we should have known that the only reason it was so enjoyable is because DA:O had been in development before EAs acquisition.

I have never and will never understand the mentality of big publishers who believe they can garner more fans by trying to garner more fans. Do they really think World of Warcraft exploded in popularity because the developers said "Lets make a game that will get us 13 million subscribers."? Of course not, at least back then they didn't. Now the new Blizzard is more concerned with holding subscribers than they are with making good games. This is what happens when entertainment is melted down into a series of statistics and share holders.

These are the reasons I have no hope for Dragon Age 3. No matter how many gimmicks they can shove into the disk (right next to the on-disk DLC of course), no matter how open they claim the world is, I have absolutely no faith for this game.


Dead Rising 3
'Wooh wooh wooh' you're thinking, "Dead Rising are great games". Well, I have news. If you haven't noticed a recurring theme in this post, allow me to illuminate the mystery. Somehow, Capcom got lost up their own ass (again) and instead of trying to build their fanbase from the roots that made it popular they

Brown and Bloom: The Game

instead chose to... That's right... Broaden their audience

Capcom seems to be going for a more "realistic" version of the Dead Rising games. Remember all that fun you used to have by killing zombies with golfballs and wifleball bats? Well that's not 'visceral' and 'dramatic' enough for Capcom. They want you to pick up an AK and stay frosty,


Elder Scrolls: Online
I actually had some hope for this game. I know that practically every singe MMO in the past 4 years have either failed spectacularly or has proven to be a mediocre vomit spewed solely for the purpose of profit. But I actually had hope, and what happened? They were dashed the second I opened the video for the game play.

The second the video starts you notice the first flaw. The Hero Engine. OH BOY, you mean the engine that proved to be a perpetual pain in the ass for SWTOR the first 5 months after release? Well were off to a roaring start, what else will this quality video show us? Well not much honestly, just your typical MMO trailer, killing things and trying to look flashy (Which they never do since MMO combat is almost always inherently bad). But for the the real dirt on why this game looks like a trash heap lies in the information given by the developers themselves.

Dungeons, third person combat, hotkey based, combo system. Really the entire thing looks like another typical WoW clone with a dash of Guild Wars 2 thrown in for shits and giggles. The lore is COMPLETELY fucked (Really. Nord working with Elves? Yeah, ok) and the combat looks just as boring and uninspired as every other MMO since WoW.

Abandon all hope.

Well that wraps up the games I'm pretty confident will turn out to be mediocre to terrible.

Remember this shit? Me neither. I tried to suppress the memories.

The games on the horizons undoubtedly have potential and a lot of them I WANT to succeed. But there are games coming that I didn't even mention that will turn out to be terrible. Halo 5 might be terrible, espeically considering the colossal box of disappointment Halo 4 was, Battlefield 4 will PROBABLY be terrible since it melting more and more into the COD cycle while EA shits out more funding for DLC packs that don't all get released before the next sequel is announced.

And to be honest, I love good games, but hating bad ones is almost just as satisfying.

Something ELSE to get insulted about.

First sexism in video games and now religion. Now people get to be insulted over something else so they can take up their righteous pitch forks and act like entitled little children who think they have a right to not be insulted.

If you go on Broteam's latest video you'll see that the comments are saturated with rage and indignant people, mostly saying something along the line of "Islam is the religion of peace, now fuck you.". But surely, there is a reason for all this outrage? Surely this hatred and bile is just?

 Well, in a follow up video, the Youtuber KhaleDQ84EveR make it obvious what line in the video he finds the most offensive. "The Christian Jew god of Prophet Muhammad"... That's it? That's the line that made you make a video, calling for a digital Jihad against Machinima? I have a feeling, judging from many of the comments on the video, that mixing the word "Jew" and "Muhammad" in the same sentence is what sparked this controversy. It's amazing the amount of intolerance the intolerant what us to tolerate.

When I watched the video, I was all I could think was "what could cause this kind of outrage?". Did they burn a Qur'an? Did they tell Muslims to fuck themselves? No. They called Mohammad a Jew. Oh for Christ sake. I just wanted to play video games. I was PROMISED video games. Why has there been such a title-wave of people actively looking to be insulted recently?

Anyone who can't take a joke need to delete themselves from the internet, because the internet is full of them.

Total War: Best in series. (Plus Rome 2 features)

It's that time again. Another Total War is on the horizon and it's what we've all been waiting for. Rome 2.

I mentioned before that the Total War series is my favorite video game series. Despite that, I don't consider myself a hardcore Total War fan. Don't get me wrong, I buy all new Total War games but I haven't played the first Shogun and Medieval Total Wars. Regardless, after I played Rome: Total War for the first time, I was hooked on the blend of RTS and grand strategy. But there is an unanswered question about this legendary game series. What is the best game of the best strategy series in gaming?

Rome: Total War

The first Total War game I ever played (And I suspect this is the case for a lot of people) is Rome: Total war. I'll never forget how blown away I was at how massive the battles were and yet each character fought their own individual fight. It's reasonable to say that most people who have been with the Total War series for a while would say that Rome: Total War is the best in the series. As much as I love, and still play Rome, I can't help but disagree from an objective standpoint.

Rome: Total War at the time was the peak of big battle RTS and was undoubtedly the best Total War during that period, but the game, when compared to the standards of today's Total Wars lacks a lot of the improvements that later games had. Some of the annoyances included diplomat characters (This one is debatable, having specialized diplomats was pretty cool), weird control schemes, incredibly easy and one-sided economics (Just build random things and make money. SKILL!) had Rome Total War showing its age later on. It is nonetheless one of my favorite games and the defining strategy of my teenage years. But the best? It pains me to say it, but no.

Medieval 2

Medieval 2: Total War should, on paper, should be considered the best Total War game of the series. The units are incredibly diverse, their armor changes with upgrades, eventually you can use gunpowder weapons, you can even be the first country to explore the Americas. There is so much to do and experience in Medieval 2 when compared to Rome. Unfortunately, it's greatness is hindered by several problems that Rome didn't have.

For now lets talk positive. What improved with Medieval 2? Number one, the world map and diplomacy aspects were greatly improved from Rome: Total War. Instead of every settlement being the same and just building everything in every city, players had to choose between a town or fort city. Towns gave wealth, forts gave military. Already players have to make a strategic decision. This coupled with the religion and Papal States and being able to call a crusade (Or being called upon) if your reputation is high enough added another layer of complexity to diplomacy. Still shallow, but better.

But every great feature doesn't come without a price and Medieval 2 had plenty of issues. The most obvious was the sluggish AI. When you told a unit to go somewhere, it would often take several seconds to process the order. On several occasions my units would stand around while being slaughtered as I furiously tried to get them to move. Medieval also suffered from a problem that Rome suffered from, and that is that EVERYONE hates you. Why? I've done NOTHING to you, you fuck. I never understood why relations in Total War were effected by difficulty. You should be able to cultivate relationships in Total War, not just have it be a dice role. Really the primary issues in Medieval 2 were AI issues, the overall game itself was excellent.

Empire: Total War.

This game is odd. Not because it's bad, but it's not particularly good either. It has the reputation as being the worst in the series and for good reason. The release of the game saw massive amounts of bugs and AI issues. The combat was repetitive and sometimes outright boring with player just doing nothing as two armies shot each other until one of them ran away. But I don't think Empire: Total War gets a fair shake. While it is PROBABLY the worst in the series (At least from Rome to Shogun) it is also the most additive in terms of features.

Naval combat? Added with Empire. Towns and villages? Added with Empire. Technology research? Added with Empire. In fact some of the most important UI improvements came with Empire. You could actually see the firing arc of ranged units, you could control the camera with WASD, you no longer needed agents to negotiate for you, instead you could just pull up the diplomacy screen. Empire added a lot to the series and while it certainly wasn't the best, it was a very important stepping stone to the modern Total War series.

Napoleon: Total War.

It's seriously just Empire: Total war plus automatic unit replenishment and minus the horrible bugs. It also had a lot smaller campaign map.

Shogun 2: Total war: Shogun 2.

This is where the series starts to define itself in modern gaming. Shogun was the return of non-gunpowder units. We would get to experience the improvements that came with Empire while enjoying the great strategic combat of Rome and Medieval. And Shogun delivered. At first I had trouble adjusting, mainly because I wasn't a big fan of the direction the art team had made. After I got used to it, the game really came together. The AI was good (at least as good as you can hope for in a Total War game), the graphics were spectacular, the controls were solid and the campaign map and diplomacy was more interesting than previous title. Even Naval combat with these shitty little blocks of wood for boats was interesting simply because it was another take on naval combat in the ancient world.

My biggest issue with Total War: Shogun 2 was the utter lack unit diversity. Every faction essentially had the same units with minor bonuses depending on the clan. Thankfully, the fights in Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai were much more interesting. One side had gun powder units and the other had traditional sword and bow units. I loved seeing the different ways each side had to adapt depending on who they chose to play as. FotS also added naval bombardment support in land battles which offered more incentive to build a strong navy.

Shogun 2 was a great game and overall, despite some changes I don't agree with, I'm satisfied with the direction that Creative Assembly is taking the series.

The best of the best.

I'll come right out and say it:

Medieval 2: Total War is the best of the Total War series. Yes it had issues but everything right down to the armor upgrades felt like it was put in with love and care. There were so many features, so much diversity in the units, the buildings, the maps, events and diplomacy that it's hard not to say Medieval 2 was the best in the series.

Medieval 2 took what made Rome Total War great and simply added depth. Although it lacked the complex campaign map of Shogun 2 and Empire, the diplomacy and events made the world feel like it was constantly progressing. Going from basic mail-wearing light infantry in France to cannons and musketeers in South America all the while with Mongols closing in to seize Europe from the east makes the player feel like power is constantly shifting and flowing. How can you NOT think that Medieval 2 is on top of the Total War series?

On the horizon.

Of course Total War isn't stopping there. With the new Total War: Rome 2, fans have a lot to look forward to.

-Naval and land battles are being combined, D-day style. Now you can conquer Egypt without having to trudge through sand. Just row right up to their cities and attack from the shore.

-Regions are grouped into provinces with one city being the 'center' of the province. I'm not sure if this is similar to Shoguns system, but it will be interesting to see if they've changed it at all.

-Players can ask their allies to attack specific town. I'm very happy to see CA expand their diplomacy some more.

-Naval battles are fought over naval 'regions' rather than the water being like a giant open lake.

-The campaign map will stretch farther east. No details on how far.

-There will be new unrest systems to make it more difficult to conquer rather than just steam rolling the entire world with one super army.

-Armies will be recruited from a General in the field. It isn't too clear how this will work and what the limitations will be.

-Armies have their own skill tree. CA looks like they really want each legion to have their own unique traits.

-Generals are affiliated with their own 'families'. It looks like these will work similarly to how the clans in Fall of the Samurai works. I'm hoping it is similar to how Hearts of Iron handled political parties. I'm really happy to hear about Creative Assembly focusing on more than just combat.

-Units in battle have true line of sight. What they see, you see.

-Ambushing armies will be able to deploy traps such as burning boulders.

-Calvary charges won't crash on a unit. Instead they will power through and reform on the other side for a second charge.

-Heavier units will be able to 'push back' lighter units.

-Soldiers throw spears on the run.

-Overhead tactical map.

-Soldier heights will vary to add more variety to the looks of units

-Infantry will use their shield to block arrows (Holy fuck it's actually happening)

Judging by how many features CA is adding with Rome 2, it could easily over take Empire as the most additive Total War in the series. But with all these improvements and depth being added along with more complex diplomacy and politics becoming an actual faction, Rome 2 may take Medieval 2s place as the greatest Total War in the series.

TRIARII

Bring back the DRM! (Not really, but seriously just kidding)

And engine with no frame.

You see, Microsoft? This is what happens when you push as hard as possible to the point that your consumers outright say "no". This is what happens when you try to get as many inches packed into our sphincter as possible before we fight back. You actually had me believing that day one DLC and Dew Doritos DudeBro Halo 420swag was actually the lowest form of scumbaggry in the game industry. But you proved me wrong. Congratulations.

Microsoft tried their hardest to give massive breaks to publishers with restrictive DRM and completely obliterating the used games industry. Remember those small movie and game store'? FUCK EM! They have no place in the future!. Fortunately, the majority of hardcore gamers weren't having it. They told Microsoft that enough is enough and they're not going to buy their shit after they spit in our faces (how's that 'free market' working out for you?). So Naturally when Microsoft removed the restrictive DRM, many claimed it was a victory for the gamer and consumers around the world. Unfortunately, Microsoft was so dead set in selling their bullshit that the people who did support it that they were fine with the president that Microsoft had set. Xbox One fans were fine with the DRM and no used games as long as they get their shiny 'UNLIMITED POWERRRRR' cloud technology. And now those fans are pissed because when Microsoft took away the DRM, they took away the shiny toy that came with in.

Morons People like Jason Chen were quick to throw a shit-fit  at the news that Microsoft was removing the most restrictive DRM to date, because god forbid the consumer actually not get pissed on. He pointed out a quote from Henry Ford stating that "if I had asked what my customers wanted, they would have said they wanted a faster horse" as if to say that the Xbox One is to the video game industry what the car was to the world. This pompous ass completely ignores the fact that companies have tried always-online DRM and they have never worked; in fact companies like EA, ya know, one of the largest video game publishers in the god damn world, have completely back away from these pants-on-head policies. The world simply isn't at a point where it's possible to stay connected 24/7. 

There are billions around the world who don't even have access to a toilet never mind the internet. Google, for instance, is tackling this problem with 'Project Loon'. But in this world of uncertainty, where we can't even get scumbag companies like Verizon to not bottleneck our internet service because they want us to upgrade to "high speed" (Because 500kb/s is high speed right? Assholes), what the shit came over Microsoft that they actually believed Xbox One owners wouldn't be burdened by these requirements?

I understand wanting to be apart of the future, but Microsoft is trying to drive the car before we've even built the road. And when your car is a one billion dollar project, you look like a damn idiot when it gets covered in mud. The world is still integrating to cloud services, I mean for god sakes the internet itself is still relatively young. There are plenty of companies who have launched cloud storage services and there are plenty of other cloud services on the rise. But NONE of them require this bullshit where your computer needs to be connected to the internet 24/7.

If this is Microsofts 'future' than they are getting their ass handed to them by consoles who have literally changed NOTHING in terms of their online abilities.

Attack of the fans.

But what about the Xbox One fans who did have a stable internet connection? Well it seems their out of luck  this time around. Because Microsoft, for whatever reason, decided to take their toys and go home. No more family share plan, why? Well cause Microsoft said so. And with rumors like soon being able to share games on steam, Microsoft seems to be caught with their pants down. 

Along with all this disappointment from both sides comes a recent story about an alleged Microsoft insider with some pretty interesting facts about the family share plan and perhaps why it wasn't marketed very heavily. According to the insider the 'share' plan was simply a way for players to give a free demo of the game they purchased. The shared game would include the full game but only a demo that lasts from 15-45 minutes. There is no way to confirm if this is true and since Microsoft backed away from all these policies, there is no reason to confirm or deny.

So what were left with are 3 types of people. The Xbox fans who would buy the system regardless, the people who no longer trust Microsoft and the hardcore fans who are now pissed that they removed the family share plan. Of course, it's hard to feel bad for people who wanted to screw over the people outside the 21 launch countries and gives a nice, fat middle finger to the service members who had no internet. Maybe all their hubris and idiocy is finally getting a nice helping of karma. I don't care if you wanted to share a game with your friends digitally, the fact that you would support these scumbags who were hellbent on crushing countless video games stores with their used game policies just shows me that you deserve every bit of disappointment coming your way.

So what was the point? As far as I can tell, Xbox wanted so badly to be the next Steam without taking the hint that the PC evolved naturally. Steam is an online service. It functions online, you download online, you play it online and EVEN THEN it has an offline mode. Steam was never sold as an 'all in one' console that can play games and watch movies and watch TV and scratch your balls  and whatever the hell else Microsoft claimed it could do. People understood Steam and respected it for what it is, an online service.

These actions don't deserve a defense. This kind of DRM doesn't have a place in today's gaming and the fact that Microsoft was so determined on shoving this down our throats and only changed their minds when they saw the PS4 was destroying them in pre-order only serves to show how much of a bloated tick on the industry Microsoft is becoming. 

Maybe next gen, Microsoft, but this time, you fucked up.