I'm Not an Apple Fanboy, But...

It's that time of year again.

It's the time of year when Apple unveils the newest version of the vastly popular iPhone, and I, for one, am excited.  Like many, my phone purchasing is dictated by when my carrier contract is up, and at this point my iPhone 4s is starting to show its age a little bit.  Frankly, I want to see what it is I will be buying next, and barring something catastrophic, I will get to see it tomorrow.

There are many who will simply buy the next iPhone on faith because it's the newest phone from Apple.  While I like Apple products (I have an iPhone and I'm on my second iPad), I don't think I have any blind devotion to them or their products.  In fact, there are some ways that the iPhone is demonstrably inferior to its Android counterparts.  For instance, if you want a big screen, a longer batter life, widgets of any kind or to be completely free of iTunes, you're getting an Android phone.  Truth be told, all of those things appeal to me.  The Galaxy S4 is, frankly, the most appealing form-factor I've seen in the mobile space.  But they're not enough to overcome the biggest advantages that the iPhone has, in my opinion.

Advantage 1: Android suffers from a serious over-stratification of its user-base.  There are simply too many hardware and software configurations.  My original smartphone was a Motorola Droid which I purchased almost as soon as it came out.  While the phone was a pleasure to use at first, it quickly became out-dated and under-powered compared to the newer, shinier phones.  Before too long, the phone felt old, slow and frustrating.  With dozens of Android phones using different versions of the Android OS, apps and games aren't necessarily going to be optimized for every hardware and software combination. It's entirely possible that the introduction of the rumored iPhone 5c will be a step down that same path, but even that would leave Apple with much less market segmentation than Android.  This leads right into the other advantage.

Advantage 2: When it comes to app development, iOS is often the primary platform, with Android playing second fiddle.  I know this isn't always the case.  In fact, I'm still waiting for the North American Soccer Netowrk iOS app to come from Android to iOS.  Still, it happens often enough for it to be of note to me.  This is especially true when it comes to games.  iOS may not be the leader in terms of market share, but it is the leader, from what I can tell, in terms of mind share.  That counts for something.

I don't love iPhone because it's Apple.  I prefer it because I've tried the alternative and didn't care for it.  Reasonable minds can differ on the iPhone versus Android debate.  In fact, I've recommended Android phones to people in the past.  As for me, iPhone presents the better package for me.  I don't NEED anything out of tomorrow's event other than a faster processor and more RAM for me to be purchasing my second iPhone in the next few weeks.  Sure, I'd like that bigger screen... but it's not worth what I'd have to give up.

I'm not opposed to switching back. I'm sure I will at some point, but for now, I'll stick with my Apple. 

E3 Throwdown... I Mean Massacre

There doesn't seem to be any doubt:  Sony won E3 2013

Whether it's the DRM, Kinect privacy concerns, or the tone-deaf response from Microsoft to consumer concerns about them, Microsoft dropped the ball.  Indeed, they seemed to have admitted that they screwed up when they nearly completely reversed their policies on DRM and online connectivity requirements within the week after announcing them.  The truth is, their biggest problem remains, and that's the ridiculous price point.

I'm not a hardware expert by any stretch of the imagination, but everything I've read indicates that the internals of the PS4 are superior to the X-Box One.  They're pretty similar, but the Playstation is using faster RAM, though it doesn't seem like the architecture of the respective systems will allow for an appreciable difference in the performance.  Still, if there's an edge to be given, that edge has to go to the PS4.  So, why is it the X-Box priced so much higher?  The answer is, of course, the Kinect.

Microsoft has a lot invested into the success of Kinect, and one can plausibly make the argument that part of the reason it wasn't utilized to its full potential on the X-Box 360 is that developers could not count on the player having one.  So, Kinect was relagated to quirky gimicks.  Microsoft is attempting to  learn a lesson from the past generation when it comes to fragmenting the player base, a mistake they made both with the Kinect and with the presence of a hard drive in the system.

The problem is that players have no reason to trust them.  I'm actually a huge believer in the potential of Kinect.  I think that there are lots of ways it could be used in ways that would appeal to hardcore gamers, but everything that they've done so far argues to the contrary.  In a way, the debacle of the X-Box one actually began with the poor implementation of the Kinect on the 360.

Microsoft is clearly excited about the Kinect and they want all of us to be to.  Gamers, for the most part, are not.  Gamers have no reason to trust that Microsoft will do anything worthwhile with the Kinect to the point where they're okay with being forced to shell out an extra $100 for the device.  Microsoft understandably wants the Kinect in as many homes as possible.  With the trust deficit they've created for themselves their path should be clear.  Microsoft should be eating the cost of the Kinect, not forcing their customers to do so.   Why should gamers pay for it?  Gamers don't believe in it... Microsoft does.

Sony learned its lessons from the mistakes they made with the PS3.  Clearly, Microsoft did not learn from Sony's mistakes.  Sony's strong showing leaves gamers like me with a clear and preferable alternative.  $400 isn't cheap, but it's a hell of a lot easier to swallow than $500, especially when at least $100 of that price is for something that has as much if not more of a chance of being a gimmick again than it does of being anything that adds to my gaming experience.  As a result, it looks like when I can finally afford to make the jump to the next generation, it will be time to retire my Gamertag and trade it in for a PSN ID.

A Little Self-Reflection

Someone asked me about my hobbies last week.  I was talking with someone of an older generation while I was at work.  He's not a co-worker, but someone I see frequently in a professional capacity.  We were talking about a project he was working on at home, and when he finished describing it, he politely asked me what type of hobbies I spend my spare time on.

I led off by saying that I'm a soccer fan.  I love to watch soccer and I enjoy playing in my indoor rec league.  After briefly talking about that, I found myself in an awkward situation.  The other hobby which I approach with any amount of passion these days is technology and video games, especially video games.  I love video games.  I love playing them and I love talking about them.  For some reason though, was afraid to admit it.

I don't understand why I feel this way.  I presume there are others that feel the same way that I do.  We're in a period when people who grew up with video games are entering the professional world and working with or under people who did not grow up with video games.  I don't generally have a problem talking about video games with people of a similar generation or people that I know like video games as well, but I think there's a fear on my part that there's an baseless judgments will be lumped into a stereotype based on my hobby. 

The truth is that the same thing happened in the last generation with comic books, and the generation before that with TV.  It's easy to see that from my perspective, and it's easy for me to see objectively that I've got nothing to be ashamed of.  There is plenty about the video game hobby to be proud of, and I actively try to avoid some of the more shameful aspects of the hobby (like internet flame wars).  I know it, but plenty of folks don't.  

This will end in one of three ways.  At some point, I may be comfortable enough and established enough as a professional that I won't have to care much about the opinions of others.  I may be around long enough to get to the point that the older generation retires and and the problem evolves out of existence like TV and comics before it.  The other option is that I have to hide in the shadows and wait for those moments when someone else I run into reveals him or herself as a gamer and I know that I can talk safely about the hobby with that person.  

It's entirely possible that all of these things will come to pass at some point.  As a post-script to my original story, I mentioned my video game hobby.  For my trouble, I was rewarded with a story from the person I was talking to about his long nights playing Goldeneye 64.  As gamers, we are becoming more and more the rule, not the exception.  Eventually, we may not feel any need to hide our hobby from the "adult" world.  The truth is, we don't NEED to and we SHOULDN'T feel like we need to.

The Next Gen is Almost Here

On Wednesday, Sony is poised to unveil the successor to its Playstation 3 and officially kick off the next generation of video game consoles.  No, the Wii U doesn't count.  I don't care what Nintendo fans say.  I'm not saying it's a bad system.  I'm just saying Nintendo has finally caught up to the current generation of console hardware.

If Sony's track record is any indication, they will set the bar high in terms of hardware specs.  We don't know what Sony is going to unveil on Wednesday, but I can pretty much promise that once Sony lets us have a look under the hood, even the most unreasonable of Nintendo fanboys will have no choice but to acknowledge that the Wii U simply doesn't stack up in the hardware department.

The next generation is here.  Nintendo has managed to leave themselves behind for the second generation in a row, not that it stopped them from being financially successful in the last generation.  What is clear is that they are doing their own thing.  They're not playing the same game as Microsoft and Sony.  Sony has decided to lead off on Wednesday.  What we don't know is what playbook they're working off of or how Microsoft will respond.

It's been a long time since we've had new consoles unveiled.  Wednesday's event is set to kick off an exciting year of cat and mouse between Sony and Microsoft.  My hope is that no matter which company claims victory, gamers are the ones who come out on top.

Y, Wii U?

To start of, I've been a skeptic of the Wii U since it was announced.  I don't consider myself a Nintendo-hater, but I have not owned a Nintendo console since the Nintendo 64 my brothers and I got for Christmas in 1996.  I purchased a Playstation 2 on launch day.  I now play my games on the PC and the X-Box 360.  I love video games, though I have no particular loyalty to any particular platform.  I like them all for different reasons.

Nintendo is unquestionably the master of first-party software support for their systems.  Their catalog of characters and their consistently high quality offerings go back nearly three decades.  For a long time, Nintendo was synonymous with video games.  If you were playing games, you were playing Nintendo.  Now, that's hardly the case.

Financially, the Wii was a smashing success.  The console was hard to find more than a year after it was released, and Nintendo made a profit on every one they sold.  The problem is that the success, in hindsight, was built on a bubble.  That bubble was the non-gamer community that saw the Wii as a toy or the Wii Sports machine.  These are not the people that are going to buy more games and drive long term profitability.  

In addition, because of the unusual control scheme and the fact that the Wii was so under-powered compared to its contemporaries, the X-Box 360 and the Playstation 3, third party developers found it difficult to simply port their across all three systems.  Most simply chose to develop for the 360 and the Playstation.  Once the Wii hit market saturation, there were no software sales to drive continued profitability.

  

These are the problems that the Wii U was supposed to fix.  It is supposed to meet or exceed the 360 and Playstation in terms of the hardware power.  The availability of more standard type controls, along with the hardware power, was supposed to allow for the multi-platform games that would re-attract the hardcore gamers who came to see their Wii as nothing more than a machine for first party Nintendo offerings.  

The problem is that it will likely soon be behind, as Sony and Microsoft are heavily rumored to be introducing new consoles next year.  The Wii U, in terms of hardware, is probably 3-5 years too late.  The Wii U is not going to get the third party support that is needed to attract gamers to use a console as their primary gaming platform.  Most will continue to turn to Microsoft or Sony to fill their console needs.

That's not to say the Wii U doesn't have its place.  To be sure, there are some unique things that it can do with its tablet game pad, and anybody who thinks Nintendo's first party games are going to disappoint probably has not been paying attention for the last couple of decades.  On the other hand, anybody expecting the Wii U to be their primary console is going to be disappointed.  Either another console or a gaming PC an important counter-part to the Wii U for the traditional gamer.

What remains troubling is Nintendo's apparent inability to get with the times.  By all accounts I've read or heard, including Giantbomb, Polygon, Shacknews and various Reddit threads, Nintendo still does not understand how to implement a proper online structure.  Confusion about friends list functionality and the lack of account migration and general cloud support of any kind are causes of concern.  The OS is apparently huge and ridiculously slow.  These are basic things that Microsoft, Sony and Steam have taught the modern gamer to expect to work well, and they are ways that Nintendo has apparently failed.  It can be fixed, but they had the road map to follow and they didn't.

It's obvious from the reaction I've seen on Reddit and other forums that people want to like the Wii U, but most of the reactions I've seen come in one of two forms.  A large portion of people sound like they're are trying to justify their purchase, both to others and to themselves.  Others are perfectly willing to accept the likelihood that they may never get any significant third party software support, but Nintendo's own offerings make the system worth it to them.

To be fair, the game pad and the Miiverse seem to be resounding successes, and could be things that other's would do well to copy, assuming they have staying power.  It remains to be seen what the future holds for the Wii U, but my money is on it being a Mario machine.  There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you know what you're getting before you fork over the dough.

So They're Making More Star Wars Movies...

I'm sad to say that more Star Wars films are in the works.  The most sad thing is that this is a sad thing.  Star Wars is something that people love, but love is built on the back of movies that are 30 years old.  Nothing with the Star Wars name has been able to live up to the legacy that was created with the original trilogy, and there's no reason to expect that will change.

Sure, there have been some bright spots.  There have been some video games that have been positive parts of the Star Wars legacy.  The X-Wing, Tie Fighter, Battlefront and Knights of the Old Republic games have done well.  The bright spot, unquestionably, are the books that comprise the Thrawn Trilogy, written by Timothy Zahn.  Quite frankly, Zahn's Thrawn trilogy is the best writing in Star Wars... Anywhere.

The movies were magical because of the world(s) that Lucas created and the broad story he created.  Let's face facts, Lucas is and was a horrible director and writer of dialogue.  It's no coincidence that the best two Star Wars movies were the two he didn't direct.  Lucas only recently admitted that Empire director Irvin Kershner was right to keep Harrison Ford's famous ad lib response to Leia's profession of love.

Disney, the new owners of LucasFilm, would do well to pay whatever they need to in order to get Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford back together and adapt Zahn's works if they really are making new Star Wars movies.  That assumes they want them to be good.  If they want to settle for the same garbage Lucas churned out with Episodes I, II and II, by all means let Lucas run the show.

In Defense of "TDKR" (Spoilers)

Those of us who care have had a good opportunity to digest "The Dark Knight Rises."  So, I think it's time for some reflections.  I was listening to an episode of the "Games, Dammit" podcast.  In this episode, the 1up.com/IGN.com writers were discussing the movie rather than their normal topic of video games.  Overall, they were pretty down on the movie.  Their criticisms were much the same as many of the other criticisms I've heard about the movie.  Cheesy lines, nonsensical plot points, and sub-par fight scenes are typical criticisms of the movie.  I would argue that in these respects, "Rises" is not all that different than "The Dark Knight."

Compare some of the nonsensical plot points.  In "Rises," you have the fact that Talia and Bane could have flooded the reactor room as soon as they pulled the core out, leaving the good guys with less of a chance to stop the detonation.  You have the entire stock exchange heist that was used to put the reactor into Talia's hands.  These are ridiculous plot points that require serious suspension of disbelief, without a doubt.  But are they worse than the fact that nobody noticed the cop in the funeral firing squad with the heinous Joker scars? What about the fact that the Joker was able to plan complicated attacks with military precision on seemingly a moment's notice?

Then there's the dialogue.  There are lines such as the exchange between Batman and Catwoman when she first gets into "The Bat," or Batman's line after Catwoman disappears off of the building when he's not looking.  I can see why these might bother some people, I don't think they're any more cringe-worthy than Harvey Dent's "interrogation" of the schizophrenic cop impersonator, or Gordon's lines during the final confrontation with Two-Face.  Admittedly, the off-putting part of these lines was the delivery in my opinion, not the written lines, but I think the point stands.

Then, there's the complaint that the movie wasn't about Batman, but Bane.  I would argue that the movie was about Bane and Bruce Wayne, which is standard for the series.  Batman had frustratingly little screen time, I grant you, but I don't think that thematically alters the course of the series.  "Begins" was very much about Bruce Wayne and his need for Batman.  "The Dark Knight" was about the other side of the Batman coin, Joker.  "Rises" was about Bruce realizing his original goal for becoming Batman, and being able to walk away.  None of these movies were about Batman in the way the movies in the 90s were.  I'm not sure why people expected different in "Rises."

It's clear that "Rises" was a disappointment for many people, especially after "The Dark Knight."  The problem is that people didn't seem to realize, though I've been arguing it for a couple of years now, that "The Dark Knight" a quality action movie that was elevated exponentially by the once-in-a-lifetime performance of Heath Ledger.  Replace Ledger's performance with even an above average movie villain, and most of the complaints people have about "Rises" will be almost immediately noticed in "The Dark Knight."  Had Ledger been able to reprise his role, we might not be talking about these complaints with "Rises," but we'll never know.  To compound things, Ledger's death forced Nolan to tie "Rises" more closely to "Begins" than to "The Dark Knight," which people also seem to be griping about.

I think that "Rises" falls into the same category as "Return of the Jedi."  Both are very good movies and satisfying conclusions to fantastic stories.  Both, however fail to live up to the historical brilliance of their predecessors.  The difference is that if you realize how much of the expectation for "Rises" was based on a historic and unrepeatable performance of one actor, the expectations placed on "Rises" seem even less fair than those placed on "Jedi."  "Rises" was a very good movie, and I'm not going to let the brilliance that was Ledger's Joker cloud my judgment on that.  You shouldn't either.