Outlandish Video Game Fan Theories

Fan theories may border on fan-fic, but there is something about them that can take a substandard story and turn it into something else entirely. Movies and cartoons often get this treatment such as Dr. Claw being the real Inspector Gadget trying to get revenge on an inferior machine that replaced him or that The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is really Will Smith's trip through the afterlife. Just little twists to a story that can give someone a new take on it. And video games are no different. So I rounded up a few theories I found scouring the web, and thought I would put them out there.

Also, beware, if you care about spoilers, there will be some for some of these theories. So if you care about the secrecy of plot points in games from 20+ years ago...beware!


The Pokemon War

RPG's are full of cliche's, one of which is where the main character only has one parent. Usually, the mother. Pokemon is no different as you start off in the home with only your mother downstairs. No real mention has been made about who he is.

But, one small comment made from one of the gym leaders spurred a theory about what happened to Ash's father. In Vermillion City, the gym leader Lt. Surge makes an offhanded comment about how "electric Pokemon saved him during the war". Considering that Surge looks relatively young, it could be speculated that whatever war he was in has not been over for very long. Now if there was a war, perhaps Ash's father had left and never returned possibly being a casualty of it. Why Ash's mom would let Ash go on a journey with Pokemon after losing her husband doesn't seem to fit with it particularly well, but at least it seems like a somewhat plausible explanation.

Plus, it makes me want a Pokemon game set during a war time. Imagine a war scene with Dragonite and Charizard soaring overhead while ground forces of Rhydon's, Rapidash's, and Onix's crash into each other on the battle field. Seems like such an awesome setting that we'll never see.



Gary Oak Seeking Clarity

Gary was a headstrong turd in Pokemon Red and Blue who was made out to be your rival. You battle him on many occasions, one of which is in Vermillion City. Gary, like some players, usually kept the same Pokemon in his lineup for a chunk of the game. But there was a point in the game in which you visit Lavender Town, or as most people would remember it, the town where Pokemon souls go to rest in Pokemon Tower.

When you battle Gary in Vermillion City, Gary has a Raticate. When you see him and battle in Lavender Town, that Raticate is no longer in his party and he makes some sort of cryptic remark about "Have you ever seen a Pokemon die?" And while it's perfectly reasonable to think he let the Raticate go or kept him in his PC Box, it seems somewhat weird that he would have one empty slot in his lineup and no longer sport one of his early Pokemon while keeping the others.

So why would he be in Lavender Town? Well, the theory states that when you battle Gary on the S.S. Anne, all of his Pokemon faint. Due to difficulty of getting off of the ship in time, he wasn't able to make it back to a Pokemon Center before his Raticate died. Perhaps it was injured worse than the others or it had some weird disease, who knows. The point is, that one Pokemon died while the others didn't. So he traveled to Lavender Town and paid his respects to his fallen Pokemon.

So now Gary is on a mission. To go out and beat Ash and prove he is a better Pokemon trainer while getting some revenge on Ash for killing his Pokemon.

 Missingno Destroys Everything

I swear this is the last Pokemon related theory. But for those who remember playing Pokemon and taking a chance ruining their save file by capturing the elusive Missingno glitch, this is for you. For those who didn't know the pleasures of infinite Master Balls or Rare Candy's using Missingno, here's how it worked:

In the north part of Viridian City, a man will ask if you are in a hurry. You're not, so you tell him no and watch the demonstration that will benefit you in no way at this part of the game. Fly to Cinnabar Island or Fuchsia City (then surf to Seafoam Islands) and surf along the coast of the beach. Up pops Missingno. If you capture it, one of two things occur. Sometimes, your save data will mess up. BUT, the other thing can be a replication of the sixth item in your bag. Master Ball, Rare Candy, doesn't matter get replicated many many times.

But what is Missingno? This is where the theory comes in. Some say it's the code that allows a Marowak to transform into a Kangaskhan (meaning that Cubone is a Kangaskhan baby wearing it's dead mother's remains as mentioned in the Pokedex). But the theory that I love is that Missingno is a shrunken sprite of the Kanto region map. Meaning that when you battle and capture it, essentially, you are bringing into existence a Pokemon who is an alternate version of the world that you are in. And when you bring an alternate version of that world into the same place and time of the one you are in, that causes problems to reality. Which in a weird way can be construed as...a glitch.

Super Smash Bros are Toys

As if the figurines aren't a decent indication of giving this theory a nudge in the butt, there's some fiction that goes with this theory regarding Master Hand and Crazy Hand. Imagine two brothers playing with their toys of various Nintendo figures. Once in a while they mix in some other ones like Sonic and Solid Snake, but the majority of the time it's Nintendo.

But then who is Tabuu? Some crazy father who doesn't like how the boys play, so decides to wreck them his way by being a little too hard on them. The kids don't particularly like their dad, so of course he is the evil character in the game who happens to use the villains for his own deeds. But taking him out of the equation, it's just some harmless fun between two brothers playing with their toys. By smashing them. Superbly. Super. Smash. Brothers.

Of course, if you don't like that, you could always go with the Valhalla idea where all of these characters have died and are transported to the Viking mythological land of Valhalla. Where they battle each other in epic battles for all of eternity...



Mario is a Villain

This isn't anything revolutionary by stating that some theories have Mario as a villain. He's kind of an ass to everyone including his brother and Yoshi, he constantly lets the Princess get kidnapped, he's imprisoned Donkey Kong, and let's not even discuss how everything in the Mushroom Kingdom (like the blocks) are toads having been transformed using magic from King Koopa as stated in the Super Mario Bros. manual.

So the theory is slightly expanded on a little more by taking a look back to the Super Mario Bros. game. Take a look at the world. Sweet and peaceful. Turtles and Goombas, not doing a damn thing but walking around. That is until Mario runs around shooting them with fire and jumping on them or kicking them into each other. The world itself seems to be just fine until you get into further stages.

As the game progresses, the enemies also seem to get a bit more fierce. You have the Hammer Bro's tossing around their work tools, Bullet Bills trying to convince you of gun control in the Mushroom Kingdom, and Lakitus tossing around Spinys hoping to murder Mario from above. So if there is this crazy man running around killing people in your kingdom and conquering castle after castle, you beef up your force and try to stop him. Unfortunately in Bowser's case, he fails miserably.

Princess Peach gets kidnapped by Bowser though, right? Well, what if she is trying to get away from her abusive ex-boyfriend Mario by seeking refuge with Bowser? Maybe the only reason she goes with him at the end is to avoid being slapped around by her plumbing psycho ex so she doesn't avoid ending up like Pauline (who mysteriously vanishes...). So perhaps instead of Bowser being the villain, he's just trying to rescue Peach from this abusive relationship only to be manhandled by the two brothers. Because let's face it, Luigi is a moron and probably thinks his brother is doing the right thing.

And he convinces everyone he did the right thing by putting on a stage performance from his "perspective" in Super Mario Bros. 3. Only Bowser, Princess Peach, and Mario know the truth. Other than poor Pauline.



Squall is Dead

This one isn't as much fun because it falls under another cliche used in storytelling not reserved for just RPG's, even though it is one. Everything is a dream. Or in this case for Squall, a dream if one dreams...IN DEATH!

At the end of Disc 1, Squall and the gang is trying to assassinate sorceress Edea who is guilty of creating hostilities in their land. This ends up as horrible as it can go when Squall receives a large chunk of ice straight through his chest. He then falls while closing his eyes as Rinoa reaches for him, and cut to black.

Disc 2 starts out with him waking up in a cell with no memory of what happened between the Edea attack and where he currently is. The hole from the ice shard is gone and nobody seems to mention this fatal attack again. Some think he was healed by Edea before being captured, but there would really be no point in doing so.

The site Squall Is Dead really nails the point home, but some points they touch on include the absurdity of the story from that point on (Moombas, weird twists like Cid and Edea are married and that the man behind Balamb Garden is not human, and Seifer's relationship with Rinoa becoming almost nonexistent from that point) is one of them. They focus on some dialogue that can insinuate something deeper happening, and they even have a breakdown of what could be happening in the end game cinematic. I know I sure as hell couldn't tell you what happened in it when I first watched it, so I am automatically assuming that their explanation is truth.

So if you don't mind feeling that the majority of Final Fantasy 8 is a dream sequence that Squall is creating as he's dying in an attempt to wrap up his own story, than this may be the theory to cling on to.



Rinoa is Ultimecia

Supposedly Square has denied this theory as truth, but it doesn't make it any less interesting in a game most people tend to dislike, one reason being for the characters.

During the game, Rinoa becomes a sorceress and fears for the potential outcome. After seeking advice from Edea, she finds support in Squall since most sorceresses tend to go crazy. So Squall is her emotional tether to remain sane. Fast forward to the future where Squall is dead and Rinoa has gone batshit crazy becoming the time compressing sorceress known as Ultimecia. And time compressing is her method of being reunited with Squall.

Some points used to solidify this theory is that Ultimecia has the Guardian Force Griever which is the symbol Squall has both on his necklace and the ring he gave to Rinoa. Before the final battle, she mentions that she's attaching it to a character, so it can easily be Squall's Lionhart, but for the sake of the theory, we'll say it's the ring. Which in her mind, the Griever is her link to Squall. So when he died, Griever became her idea of Squall who "would always be by her side".

It's also worth noting that Rinoa and Ultimecia have some similarities like being the only sorceresses with wings (Rinoa-white, Ultimecia-black) and that they share similar facial structures which is reinforced in an FMV sequence which has the faces flash between each other.

Also, since the power she gained was the evil Adel's, she may have been tainted by his evil but been able to hold it off while Squall was alive. Once he died, the evil fully manifested itself and took over control of her entirely. And as for why she wanted to kill Squall, it was mentioned that the use of a GF can erase memories, so it's possible that she forgot who she was after using Griever.



Giygas is a Fetus

While it's more plausible to believe this theory as a symbolic interpretation over a literal one, some take this one a tad further than others.

At the end of Earthbound, you face Giygas, a being who loses mind and body due to being the ultimate force of evil in the universe. The way to solve this was by being put in "The Devil's Machine" which allowed Giygas to retain his power and part of his mind. And this is where the theory begins...

To some people, the machine Giygas is trapped in resembles a uterus with parts of it that could represent a cervix, vulva, and vagina. And what it holds inside is released once the machine is turned off, and the form surprised some people by looking like an outline of a fetus. Others have joked about seeing an outline of a duck and Mickey Mouse, but as outlined in the above picture, it looks pretty close to a damn fetus. Itoi has come out and said this was just a coincidence and not intentional, but people still run with it.

But...let's stick with the possibility that Giygas is a fetus. If his mind and body were destroyed and then put into the devil's machine, it could be trying to recreate a new body from the chaos (and thus) starting out as an infant. The evil tortured face that is shown in the fetus head and body could represent the evil still flowing through it. And it's choosing the form of an infant due to it's relation with Maria from the first game who took care of Giygas.

Plus, considering how weird Earthbound can be, would it really be that off the wall to picture yourself fighting an evil fetus at the end? Especially when the villain was created from a misinterpretation of a movie Itoi accidentally saw as a child making him think he witnessed a rape scene. Then trying to use the feeling he got when seeing that movie to incorporate it into this character and dialogue used.

There are some fans of Earthbound who absolutely HATE this theory, but whether it's as farfetched as they make it out to be...



Mass Effect Indoctrination Theory

Another game. Another cliche. Another dream. The Indoctrination Theory was the saving grace for Mass Effect 3 fans trying to gather some sort of ending that they thought was more appropriate than the ending they were given. It was their attempt to clear up some confusion and make sense of what exactly happened.

Which is to say, the ending may or may not have happened. Everything was in Shepards head. As Mass Effect pointed out many times during the series, Shepard is unique in being able to withstand the Reaper probing to manipulate the individual when so many have failed before hand. And Shepard has touched or been around quite a bit of Reaper stuff in these games, so he should be walking hand in hand with them near the end.

In the theory, he was. He was indoctrinated by the Reapers and everything that was experienced was a dream or hallucination. The way to break free from this control of the Reapers is presented by the three choices at the end of the game. If he chooses the blue (control the Reapers) or the green (synthesis), the Reapers inevitably win by still being a part of the universe. If Shepard chooses the blue, he can control the Reapers who in reality already control him. It's him giving away his free will entirely. With the green, he let's the machines be apart of every living thing in the universe which sounds like an end goal of the Reapers anyways. But there is the red option in which they are destroyed. The option for him to break free from Reaper control. Which, if selected, the player will see an extra scene at the end of Shepard coming back to life or "waking up" from the hallucination.

This would also explain why so many people were confused by the color options and why the outcomes didn't seem to match with the paragon/renegade color scheme the rest of the series portrayed. But, if the Reapers did have control of Shepard, then they would flip flop that and try to convince him that the bad/red option is to destroy them and you really want to select one of the other ones. It goes completely against Shepard's role in the series, but it would make some sense. And, if you look at it that way, the game is slightly meta by bringing the player into it and saying "you are indoctrinated as well...Can you break free?"

The folks on the Bioware boards put up quite a bit of evidence to explain how this theory makes the most sense, and it makes quite a good read. Especially if you were not happy with how everything turned out in the first place.



Chell is the Daughter of GLaDOS

Portal was one of those games that nobody expected to come out of thinking there would be this elaborate thought provoking story. It seemed like an innocent little puzzle game until suddenly BOOM, everything changes. But despite all of the changes, there had always been things not quite explained such as Ratman and who Chell was exactly. Some things did get explained such as who GLaDOS really is and the story behind Ratman, but Chell is still a mystery.

Like pieces of a puzzle, people have tried to fit a story into explaining who Chell is. And one of the most convincing ones out there is...she is the daughter of Cave Johnson and Caroline (GLaDOS).

So a little piece of fan fiction to elaborate on why this is. Portal 2 fills in a lot of holes such as Cave Johnson being the man behind Aperture Science who falls in love with a woman named Caroline. He gets sick and knows he will die and wants to leave something behind. His science isn't enough, although he uses it to make Caroline live forever in GLaDOS. But he wants a child. Someone his legacy can fall to when he is no longer there.

What happens can be split two ways. One is that Cave and Caroline conceive a child in Chell.

That's a lot of "C's" in that sentence...

The other that I'm more fond of and going to explain a bit more is that Cave and Caroline don't have a child, but adopt. And the adopted child is an infant Chell.

In Portal 2, GLaDOS makes an offhanded comment about Chell being adopted. It comes off as a personal insult like she was prone to do in that game. But later on, she remarks to Wheatley "What's so bad about being adopted?" Perhaps, this is her true feelings coming out letting Chell know that being adopted isn't bad, because her adoptive parents would still love her. That being, Cave and Caroline.

Chell was also a kid of someone at Aperture Science who arrived at "Bring Your Daughter to Work Day". Which would fall in line with her being the child of Cave and Caroline. But like Chell, we don't know the last name of Caroline either. Both of the last names have not been given and in Chell's case, her last name was "redacted" from her paperwork. It seems like Valve is actually hiding her last name, but since we don't know any other Aperture Science workers, what would be the point? Why have a last name at all, or just give some random last name? Perhaps because it matches the same last name of one of the 3 characters we know in the game. Cave Johnson.

Then there are little things like the turret opera lyrics sing "My child. My dear dear child", the link between GLaDOS being a potato and a potato being what Chell had brought in as a kid, GLaDOS saying she loved Chell in the first game, dates of events seem to match up, and GLaDOS mentions two relatives with the same last name being in stasis (and who better to keep in stasis then the big man himself and the love of his life?)

It goes on and on, but reading the theory convinced me that Chell is the daughter of Cave and Caroline.



Aeris Lives!

And quite possibly the most famous theory, Aeris was supposed to live in Final Fantasy 7.

Most probably know this one, but for those who don't, Aeris dies. Stabbed in the back by Sephiroth right in front of Cloud. One of those tear-jerking moments that caused an entire fan base to hate a villain like no other. So when they started hearing rumors that Aeris could be alive, the game was picked apart to support this theory.

Parts of this theory have been proven false. One included treating Tifa like crap and being nice to Aeris. Never have Tifa in your party. Go on a date with Aeris at Golden Saucer. Stuff like that. In the cutscene where Aeris dies, Tifa is supposed to push her out of the way (as long as she is in your party) and be killed instead of Aeris. Doesn't happen.

Another was that Aeris's final Limit Break is only accessible after she dies. This is not true and can be found with a simple Google search. Her ghost was another example that she should return, but her ghost appears to be a weird game glitch as her ghost can be seen on Disc 1 in the church after she is captured by Shin-Ra, but before she actually dies.

So where exactly does this theory come from? There are two biggest arguments that I have seen. One includes the picture above which comes from the manual. Aeris is shown standing in front of the Highwind, although the airship isn't available until after she has died. The second is the lone cliff at the end before the fight with Sephiroth. If you gather all of the allies (including Vincent and Yuffie), every ledge is accounted for by a character except one. Supposedly, this is where Aeris would have stood. Then during the final battle, when you must split into three parties, one of the parties only has two members.

There is a way to bring Aeris back, but it involves using a Gameshark usually. But the talk of the Internet had lots of grinding as the solution to bringing Aeris back. This included having her final Limit Break, leveling up a Cure Materia to receive the "Restore" spell, and receive the Underwater Materia used to cancel the timer for the Emerald Weapon fight. All of this needed to be done before she left the party to her ultimate demise. Then and only then would this work.

While it does seem there is no way to bring her back without a cheat device, that hasn't stopped the discussion about whether or not she was originally supposed to. While the creators have said she was never supposed to have survived, people who use a cheat device have found unique dialogue that only Aeris will use. Most of these are when she isn't dead yet, but not a possible character to have in the party. Some suspect that means the story could have been re-written including the part where she dies. Could mean she was supposed to die at a different time, or maybe not at all. Even though this shouldn't matter at this point thanks to the movie and spin-off games, some people can't let this one go.

Earthbound: Free Your Mind

 

My love for Earthbound came about in the mid 90's after a trip to Blockbuster. On the shelf stood a game box the size I have never seen before. I had never heard of Earthbound and wasn't quite sure what to expect from it. But after putting many hours into the game in my childhood, although never having finished it, I was in love. Earthbound, also known as Mother 2, ingrained itself in my head and in my love for video games.

Now that Earthbound is making a resurgence on Virtual Console (whether or not stuff will be changed such as the music, who knows...), I wanted to make a post to my favorite game of all time. The name Earthbound is thrown around a lot with a cult love that some don't understand because they haven't played and appreciated it. But with the release of it on the Virtual Console, can it stand the test of time? In my opinion...without a doubt.

The first thing that stands out would be the look of the game. One of the criticisms the game received when it first released was the graphics. For a game that released late in the SNES life, many expected it to look better than it did. While the graphics aren't superb, there's a beauty in the simplicity and the bold colors that are used that really make the game pop. It's easy to put it down, but no other game quite looks like Earthbound other than the Mother series itself. But the game itself still looks amazingly gorgeous to this day.

The music in the game is also another standout reason to play it. I never listen to video game soundtracks, but there's so much aesthetically pleasing music that I always find myself singing a tune or wanting to listen to one from the game. You will know immediately what kind of music to expect once the first boss battle is over and you start the new day with upbeat music and a brighter world.

If I had to make any negative comments about the music, it would simply be that it is the reason it's been so difficult to port over according to Nintendo. Since there was inspiration taken from American culture, there is a lot of nods to the Beatles (which Keiichi Suzuki gained inspiration from Lennon) which intimidated Nintendo from re-releasing it due to legal concerns.

The battle system has some unique aspects which I wish most RPG's would include. For example, none of the battles are random. You will see all the enemies before you engage them. Most enemies will scramble towards you in an attempt to battle, unless the player is overpowered. Instead of making the player waste their time easily dispatching an enemy, the enemy will instead try to run away and avoid battle. If the player touches them, most of the time it is an automatic win. No battling is required, just a quick flash, and you receive a "Congratulations" message saying you won and acquired some experience. Otherwise, the screen will swirl from the inside out with a specific color. If it's red (attacked from behind), you have been ambushed and the enemy will attack first. Green (you attack from behind) means you get the upper hand and attack first, and blue (face to face) means it can be a toss up who attacks first. This way, you are never surprised going into battle as you know instinctively to never get attacked with your back to the enemy.

The other quirk in battling I want to touch on is the rolling health points. While most RPG's have the health points automatically deducted after the attack, Earthbound will instead roll the points down until it reaches the number they were attacked. And in most games, if the attack is more than the health, you automatically die. In Earthbound, this isn't the case. A player can heal themselves before their life hits zero and the health will be added starting where their health was at. So if they receive mortal damage which should kill them, but heal themselves by 50 when their life is at 22, their health will be 72 (or maxed out if their health is lower than 72). On the other hand, if you can defeat the enemy before you health reaches 0, the battle will end and the character will live with whatever health was left. It's a fantastic addition that I wish was implemented more often.

 While the story is a tad cliche with the whole "boy on an adventure to save the world", it is surprisingly dark in many respects that one wouldn't expect with how lighthearted the majority of the game plays. The first indication is running into the insane cultists in Happy Happy Village which are dressed essentially as the Ku Klux Klan with a makeover. Another part of the game has one of your characters going through one hell of a torture sequence in an attempt to complete a personal trial to leave their homeland. And let's not even talk about the lead up to the final boss battle where you literally give up everything to save the world. Completely messed up for an innocent looking game, and much darker than most people will give it credit for.

But one of the most appealing things about the games is it's goofiness. I don't know if I've ever fought hippies or piles of puke in a game before, but Earthbound does it. Their filtered view of Western culture makes this game so fun and off the wall. If the weird enemies don't do anything for you, maybe breaking the 4th wall will. Riding the Loch Ness Monster after a bubble gum blowing monkey calls for it is pretty cool. Visiting a town of Mr. Saturns who are basically weird pigs with a speech problem(-o) is entertainingly dumb. Visiting a magic town where a walk down memory lane is somewhat depressing but oh so trippy. And speaking of trippy, what about visiting a backwards world where everything is in neon. There are so many things I can list that make this game so different than any other RPG I've ever played, and saying any more would spoil it for those who haven't played it.

So seriously, if you haven't played it, don't hesitate especially if you love RPG's. There's a reason it has the cult status that it does, and not on a "I love this game because it's so bad" kind of way. The game is smart on so many levels and should be appreciated on all of them. While it's not the most complex game out there in terms of it's leveling up system and the inventory limit can be frustrating at times; I don't think there's any game out there that quite compares to it. For it to have went unnoticed to so many gamers is a travesty, because it is one of the best games ever released and I will argue that with anyone. To this day, I have never played a game as much as this one and I have not grown bored with a single thing about it. And I doubt I ever will.

Microsoft and the Xbox Rumors

On May 21st, Microsoft will unveil the new Xbox to the world and have gamers talking leading into E3 a few weeks later. And while there's no guarantee of what will be shown or announced, I'm sure it'll be similar to what Sony's PS4 conference had with spec information and some games, I think there will be some focus on the non-gaming aspect the new system will have along with seeing the box (since that's so important to Mr. Microsoft Major Nelson apparently). Not to mention, the name should be announced so people can stop guessing whether it's going to be Xbox 362, The Xbox, Xbox Infinity, etc.

So in this post, I wanted to highlight some rumors that I find either interesting or need to be discussed with a somewhat open mind without jumping to automatic conclusions.


1. Two Models: To Game, or Not to Game

While it's a given that the next Xbox will have both gaming and non-gaming capabilities, rumor is that Xbox will have two different models. One of those models will not include a disc drive as it will be more of a Roku or Apple TV type device that is used as a media center device to stream movies and shows. One rumor is from someone claiming to have worked on this set-top box saying they will have functionality allowing an individual to search using gestures and voice-recognition, which makes it sound like Kinect could still be integrated into this sku.

Microsoft has taken strides to become more and more like Apple as the gaming side of Xbox has dwindled but the functionality with other apps and programs has become increasingly important. Having a box that rivals Apple TV with some new bells and whistles could be another way in doing so while still using similar hardware already being put to use in the gaming market of Microsoft. Whether or not Microsoft decides to go this route will surely be seen later this month, but there's no reason to believe they wouldn't as they seem to have a healthy dose of products to put on such a device.


2. Backwards Compatibility Add-On

The past few generations have been spoiled with backwards compatibility. Back in my day, we wouldn't expect a new console to play old games unless they were re-released on the new console. But thanks to the Internet and vocal minorities becoming vocal majorities, it has become commonplace for people to clamor for backwards compatibility.

Not to say it's not logical. It makes sense as to why people wouldn't want to keep 16 different systems laying around the TV and switching them out to play a few games if you could keep just one that played all of them. And with technology improving with each new iteration, eventually one of these would be able to play old games with little effort, right? In the case of the PS3 it's understandable why the PS4 won't be able to due to completely different hardware, but why not everything else? Cost? Console design? Hell, I don't know. If I could answer this completely, I sure as hell wouldn't be typing up this blog.

While rumors say the new Xbox won't be able to play 360 games, there are talks of an add-on that could be hooked to the new box to do so. Either way, Microsoft might find a way to convince people to get rid of the old system, but keep the games and upgrade to new hardware. While this would be pretty great, let's not forget how the current gen backwards compatibility fared as only some games would work and others wouldn't. Hopefully, if they create an add-on device, they would work out the kinks to allow all current-gen games play, and not only a selection of them.


3. Two Year Contract

Microsoft announced a model last year for a $99 Xbox that would then have a 2-year contract for customers to pay. Easy money up front, long term commitment. And while the total payment would come out to more than what you would just forking it all out at once, it may have been a positive experience for them. They haven't released numbers specifically for that model, but it could have been the beginning of a good idea for the next gen console.

Some look at the overall price and realize that you will pay more in the long run, but most customers won't care. It's easy to pay monthly than one lump sum at the beginning, and that's enticing to many people. Sony and Nintendo would be smart to have a similar option, but nothing has been noted yet. Microsoft looks poised (and is rumored) to release this option with great success, as it will look like a great deal sitting next to consoles priced $399 and up.

On the other hand, consoles make for great presents for birthdays and holidays. I'm not sure how eager some people are to buy "the gift that keeps on giving.....you bills each month". But if Microsoft releases a brand new console with this type of option, it will be a winning formula for them.




4. Always-On

Yep. That's the error message Sim City players received due to the always online setup with the game. If Microsoft decides to go this route, you may be familiar with similar error messages.

But Microsoft wouldn't really do that now, would they? I think people give them a little too much credit. Microsoft knows people will pay for their service even if they aren't entirely sure what they paying for. If I had to guess, it would be more ads and more content I would never use. Yet they get rid of 1 vs 100 which was amazing but is the one device I have to pay extra on to watch Netflix. Something is a little screwy there. But how many people willingly fork out $40-$50 a year on a service for party chat and "better servers". Heads up folks, you aren't paying for "better servers", you are paying for "Internet capability" which just happens to have "better servers". Considering how cluttered the dashboard has become and slow everything seems to have gotten, clearly the money being put on Live isn't going where it should be. But people still pay, and that's how Microsoft knows they have customers hook-line-and sinker.

Microsoft would be foolish to have the next console be always-on, especially after the disaster that was Sim City's launch. Factor in every Christmas where the influx of new users makes the system crash (or the release of a new Halo game) or just cases where it doesn't work where they don't really explain why; having the system be always-on would be the biggest slap in the face to their customers, not to mention the ones who don't have Internet. The negatives far outweigh the positives, and there is no benefit that anyone can muster except Microsoft...because it benefits them.

As much as I want to dismiss this rumor, there have been a lot of rumors about this. Adam Orth helped fan the flames with his twitter ramblings, docs have been released saying it's always online, Dev kit screenshots show always-online capability...there's just a lot coming out to simply dismiss this. If Microsoft thinks they can do this and do it well, best of luck to them. But they are playing with fire, and as Frankenstein knows, you don't want to piss off a mob of people who have fire.


5. Used Games

If the always-on concern doesn't frighten you, then perhaps the talk of no more used games does. I'm on the fence when it comes to used games. I love having the ability to sell my games to purchase a new one, but at the same time, I understand publishers need those purchases so stores will buy more games from them to sell.

But both PS4 and the Durango have had rumors about them not playing used games. Jack Tretton for Sony said used games will be playable on the PS4, and while it's not as definitive as that, Gamestop seems enthusiastic about the new Microsoft console. And if Gamestop is happy about it, then my guess is that it will play used games.

Cut and dry, right? Not quite. Not long ago, something was added into some games that caused a collective groan among gamers. Online passes. Once they were redeemed, other gamers wouldn't be able to access the online portions of the game if they purchased it used. Some would luck out as the passes weren't redeemed, but most gamers would have to fork out an additional $10 to use any online aspects of the game.

Now what if both Sony and Microsoft were being honest in that the consoles can play used games? The caveat being: You buy it used, you have to pay a little extra to be able to play it. Not an online pass, just a game pass in general. As criminal as that may sound, nobody can really complain in the long run. Gamers who had a problem with no used games would still have the ability to sell them to Gamestop, Amazon, wherever. Gamestop would still have sales coming in from used games. Publishers would receive a little something for used games whereas in the past they didn't. Everyone seems to win a little bit, even if it's not a perfect scenario for everyone. So while I think the rumor of no used games is bogus, I think there could be a possibility of some information being held back until the last possible moment.



In just a few short weeks, we may have an answer to a few of these rumors. Some answers may hide crucial information to see the full picture, but some rumors will definitely be put to rest. Microsoft will have some momentum going into E3, and the gaming world will be in full frenzy until the release of next generation of consoles.

I bought a Vita...

Judging from their sales numbers, especially here in the States, not many people are saying that apparently. Their sales are abysmal and despite the recent surge in Japan, it clearly won't continue to sell like hotcakes there.

But why would I want one? If you listen to everyone, the Vita is a sinking ship with no games coming out for it and is a failed handheld. Everything is either Ouya, 3DS, or IOS/Android. Vita is this forgotten child locked in the basement that we peek in every once in a while just to remind ourselves how disappointing it is. Or at least, that's how I interpret most responses about the Vita.

And yet, I wanted one. I already posted about why I have a new love for handhelds, but the love couldn't sustain my need to keep my 3DS. Although I enjoyed playing games like Pushmo, VVVVV, Pokemon Black 2, and The World Ends With You; I couldn't really justify the need for a 3DS that I couldn't have with a DSi. Sure it had a couple Mario games and some 3D versions of 64 games, but having played several of these 3DS only games...I can't say I really cared. I never played Ocarina of Time on the 64 and grew bored with the 3DS version and it's bland empty open world. New Super Mario Bros 2 was nothing spectacular and while 3D Land was good, it didn't blow my socks off. So, I no longer own a 3DS.

So why the interest in a Vita when the "superior" 3DS can't hold my attention? Well, first and foremost, the games. I know, I know. There are no games. The same cliche' response that every person who dislikes their Vita seems to go to. I think the proper response isn't "There are no games", it should be, "There are no games that I'm interested in playing". Those are two completely different responses, and only one which I would say is valid.

Here are a few of the games I am currently interested to play on the Vita: Uncharted: Golden Abyss, Escape Plan, Unit 13, Assassins Creed III: Liberation, LittleBigPlanet Vita, Gravity Rush, and Persona 4: Golden. To make matters even better, PS+ has been knocking it out of the park with free Vita games. Add to it PSN games and the Cross-Buy games, and there's a huge selection to choose from. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks it, but games like Rayman Origins or Retro City Rampage are games better suited for Vita in my opinion.

I'm also looking forward to the integration between the Vita and PS4. I wish I could really expand on this, but I'll probably have to wait for E3 to do so. But playing PS4 games on the Vita while I'm out of the room or being able to play against people on the console using my handheld opens up more possibilities than having a specific restriction to that one device. The potential of the link between these two systems intrigues me and I can't wait to learn more about it.

So I gave in to the urge and purchased my first Vita. And immediately I knew why some people disliked it, and that was the need for a memory card. While you can play Welcome Park on it, that's more of a tech demo than an actual game. Nice to try out some of the features such as the tilt control, the camera, the touch screen, etc; but I wanted real games. So after spending $30 on an overpriced 8gb memory card, I was able to get some of the games I wanted. And while the PS3 has been recognized for it's slow download/install times, I didn't notice the same problem with the Vita.

The buttons and the sticks are kinda small and I'm still not sure how I feel about them until I put some more time into the handheld, but I like it. I'm happy with my Vita purchase. I wish I could say the same about Gravity Rush which has been somewhat disappointing so far (due to the controls if anything), but I have more on my plate I'm able to try including Tales From Space: Mutant Blobs Attack which I'm eager to keep playing. I haven't really touched a ton of the other apps such as Near, and I think there may be some trouble with trophy sync (Mutant Blobs Attack seems to sync, but Gravity Rush hasn't yet...), but I think I found a winning handheld.

And it's only just begun...

Polygon, Sim City, A Review, and the Implosion of the Internet

Everyone is fully aware of the embarrassing launch that Sim City has recently undergone. And while some talk is about EA and their ineptitude of having servers ready, the future of always-online games, and the overall frustration gamers normally vent; Polygon decided to open a new can of worms with Sim City and wrote a review. The review itself wasn't the problem, it was what they did after the review was written that caused a backlash.

The above score of 9.5 was the written review of Sim City before it's initial release. As you can see, it was a very highly regarded game and almost reached a perfect score. This was on 3/4/13, the day before release. Less than 24 hours later, it received an updated score:

Still a pretty good score, but why the change? As everyone is well aware, Sim City has...to put it lightly....botched their release day. The game is nearly unplayable to most gamers. A game being unplayable is a pretty big problem, and I would say warrants a worse score than an 8. That is if you decide that server problems like this should influence the score. Which it did...to an even greater extent:

This is the most recent score that Sim City has on Polygon. A 4. Within two days, a near perfect game is ranked as a game you should ignore. And the biggest reason is the server issues. Which leads me to the main point of this blog.



Perhaps it's because I'm not in the business, but I have no problem with a game getting a slight ding against it due to online issues. If a game has online problems, people who read the review need to be made aware of it since they will be throwing money at the game to play it. But perhaps online instability shouldn't be a large ding against the game on a review. Thanks to where we are in gaming, patches and fixes can come on a daily basis. What is broke today, may be fixed tomorrow. But how does a reviewer attack that exactly? Clearly server problems weren't evident before the game release which would warrant the score of 9.5. There are three ways I think this should be approached, both without touching the final review score:

1. Review Game but Update with Notes - This would be for reviews that come out before launch day. Which is the case for most big time games. Usually online problems are not persistent for review (and early leaked) copies of the game. It either works or it doesn't. Score the game based on what it deserves at that time. However, if the game releases and is unable to work online, you don't update the score. You update the REVIEW, and you do it at the top where everyone sees it immediately. Don't hide it in the original review and don't create a different section at the bottom. Let the readers be aware that there is an update to the review that doesn't go into the final factor of the score, but should go into the final factor of your purchasing decision.

2. Hold the Review Until Launch - Blasphemy. Sites need these reviews for unreleased games mainly for hits which brings in the money. This is definitely the worse of the two, but it can be considered. The problem is the competition with other gaming sites and who releases the reviews first. People care less about the accuracy of their reviews and more about how many views their review receives. This could be true, or it could be that they do care about their reviews but the higher ups don't. This would lead into discussion about embargoes, and that's not something I'm going to touch. Especially since I'm not too familiar with them.

3. Review Online Mode Later - While this wouldn't work with Sim City due to it always being online, some games have a functional single player mode and a broken multiplayer. In cases like this, the single player can be reviewed but leave a discretion to the reader that the multiplayer can't be reviewed yet because it's broken. Anyone who played Brink on the PS3 on launch day remember that you couldn't play online due to the Sony hack. In this case, review the single player and let the readers know that the multiplayer will be reviewed at a later date. Same can be said for any multiplayer that doesn't work immediately.

Polygon however decided to take their own route on it, and just change the score with a reason as to why. But I have a slight problem with it. For their score of 8, they listed that being unable to play the game was a big reason. Understandable, but if that was a huge concern, you would think an unplayable game would receive an unplayable score. Fast forward one more day and you receive more problems that stem from the same issue of server overload. So they lower the score again. But while you can actually get into the game, there are other issues such as the speed of which you can play it (no more "Cheetah" speed), crashing issues and no leaderboards. That caused the game to receive a 4. Maybe I'm a crazy person, but I would much rather play a game with some issues than not play a game because of issues. But scoring a game less because it actually works and still has problems as opposed to not working in general is completely ludicrous, and the reviewer should rethink the approach.

Many seem concerned with Polygon's approach to changing games. But it shouldn't be that big of a shock as it is mentioned in their review guidelines:

Taken from Polygon:

Polygon's reviews and database have been built based on the idea of updates, or "bumps," as I've called them. If a game changes in a substantive way, we can add an update to our reviews that informs you how and why, and we can modify our scores accordingly. This will appear on the reviews in question as a timeline of that game's evolution and our corresponding recommendation (or lack thereof). The original review score will never vanish or go away, but our readers will be able to better understand where our opinions as a site reside over time for games we review.

We do not guarantee that we'll be able to do this with every game, and whether we do so or not is solely at Polygon's discretion. We will act in what we consider the best interest of our audience, while being as fair as possible to the developers and publishers who pour time and money into the games you play. If a game sees substantive improvements that make for a better experience, we want to reflect that. If a game is less worthy of your limited time, we also want to reflect that.

 Whether you agree or disagree, they have it on their site as to their approach on reviews. But one should question exactly what it would take for them to update their scores. Games have problems with launches. It's common. Everyone is well aware of similar issues Diablo 3 had upon it's launch, but it received a perfect score. What is weird though...it's online is STILL messed up....It hasn't been updated, it never received a docked score, and was one of the biggest releases last year. This idea of pick and choose what reviews will be updated is not something a professional site should use, even if I agree that a game worthy of your time should receive this attention. Clearly, it doesn't. It only matters based on what will create hits at that time. Even the creator of Minecraft made comments on it because he constantly makes updates that improves the game. Oh, and in case you haven't heard, Minecraft is a pretty popular game. Not just on PC, but 360, Android, and IOS.

Polygon has made some bad decisions in this review, and to make it worse, they don't even follow their own rules. Here is what it says about a 1:

A game that doesn't properly function, which is what Sim City was. Instead of giving it an 8, it should have received a 1. Bottom line based on the review guidelines that the site itself set up. If they don't follow their own guidelines for scores, what makes Polygon a site worth trusting with reviews? Back that up with their pick-and-choose approach to what games will get updated scores, and I wonder why anyone would go to Polygon for their reviews.

Despite this being a Polygon centered blog questioning their review not only for Sim City but review scores in general, I think it sets up a precedence for the possibility of future online-only games. But it's not only online-only games that are affected. Every Call of Duty or Halo release seems to cause problems on Xbox the first day or two due to sheer number of people online at any time, and I don't think there's been a single MMO that hasn't released without a hitch. It's not singled out to Sim City. But Polygon needs to think about their review process a little bit more before this happens again, because the Sim City review has painted them in a negative light. Especially if they don't treat this game equally to other games with similar problems on launch day.

Square Enix: How The Mighty Have Fallen

It's hard to believe that at one point in time, Square Enix used to be one of the biggest names in video games. It still is, but not in the same way. Whereas they used to be an acclaimed developer known for their amazing RPG's, they no longer warrant the attention they once deserved. But why?

Well, let's go back a ways first. You see, people don't have super fond memories of Square Enix, it's usually Square. Square is the company that came up with a little game series called Final Fantasy. Other gems include Parasite Eve, Kingdom Hearts, Legend of Mana, Vagrant Story, Xenogears, and Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. Perhaps you have heard of a few of them? In 2003, Square was merged with publisher Enix best known for Valkyrie Profile, Star Ocean, and the other juggernaut RPG franchise, Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest. Square Enix now appeared to be an RPG developer that nobody else could touch.

Too bad for Square Enix, they decided to no longer touch RPG's for the most part either. While Square was a developer, Square Enix became more of a publisher with some instances of developing games. Front Mission 4, Romancing SaGa, Kingdom Hearts 2, and Final Fantasy XII were some games that came within 3 years of the acquisition that were developed by Square Enix. Then, the turn for the worse started to become evident.

While they were never opposed to releasing handheld games, it soon became a more reoccurring aspect to their releases. From the merger in 2003 to the end of 2005, they developed 15 games and only one was a handheld game with co-developer Jupiter. This release was Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories on the DS. In a similar time frame between 2006-2008, they released 19 console and handheld games. Only 7 of them were console releases. Not to say handheld games will be terrible, but considering some of these games are Pingu's Wonderful Carnival, Snoopy DS: Let's Go Meet Snoopy and His Friends, and Mario Hoops; they don't quite command the attention a new game in a successful franchise would warrant. And of the new Final Fantasy games released, it was 4 years between XII and XIII that were littered with Crystal Chronicles, spin offs such as Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII, and in recent years have re-released many of the older games.

Then perhaps one of the worst moves they ever made was to tease a remake of Final Fantasy VII, one of the most beloved RPG's of all time. After the movie Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children was released, the idea of a sequel or remake started making waves. They then touched on the Final Fantasy VII universe again with Dirge of Cerberus, but the worse offender came at E3 2005. There, they tried to show what kind of power the PS3 was capable of. And to do so, they remade the beginning sequence of Final Fantasy VII with HD graphics. They let loose the hounds of hell with this tease, and they haven't heard the end of it since.

The Last Remnant was their "biggest" RPG release between XII and XIII, and it was released to weak reviews. Although it was received positively in Japan, many complaints about it's graphics and battle system led to many reviews in the west being disappointing. While the PC version played better than the 360 version, it wasn't enough to keep the game on the tongue of RPG players who wanted more from RPG's in the newest iteration of consoles. Especially when Square Enix teased other games...

Knowing that Final Fantasy was the cash cow most companies didn't have, they began work on several games. These games were announced at E3 in 2006. On the horizon loomed Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, and Final Fantasy Agito XIII (later renamed Final Fantasy Type-0). Final Fantasy XIII was not well-received thanks to the 8-hour tutorial filled with corridors and handholding. Final Fantasy Type-0 released in Japan but is nowhere to be seen outside Japan. Final Fantasy Versus XIII is still in limbo. Later came Final Fantasy XIII-2 that made improvements, but still didn't woo the audience. That doesn't matter though as Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII is set to release next year.

Then, rumors started about an HD collection of Final Fantasy X and X-2. While X-2 hasn't been announced to my knowledge, HD Final Fantasy X did get recognition in 2011 that it was coming to PS3 and Vita due to it's 10 year anniversary. A few months later, development on the HD re-release started and then news fell by the wayside. Until last month. February 2013, Square Enix showed some HD models of Tidus, Yuna, Bahamut, and Yojimbo. And while Square Enix may be proud of where they are on the HD re-release, it has fans scratching their heads wondering why all they can show after a year of development are some HD models of a game that was released back in 2001.

And let's just ignore the disaster that was Final Fantasy XIV...

At the recent Sony press conference for the Playstation 4 reveal, Square Enix committed another act which left people confused. They showed a tech demo, which looked like a Final Fantasy game, to everyone in attendance. But what was weird though, was that they released the EXACT same tech demo the year before at E3 when they revealed their new Luminous Engine. Instead of showing more footage of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII or even something involving Thief 4 which was announced today, they decided to make themselves a laughing stock at the PS4 announcement conference by showing something everyone has already seen. Didn't attach a working title to it, didn't give anything else other than "Please look forward to E3!" And all I have to ask myself is...why?

It's baffling to try and construct some sort of explanation to figure out exactly what Square Enix has been doing in recent years. They have done little with some of the bigger franchises they have available to them, and some of the biggest franchises they have are plummeting to their demise or surviving due to re-releases. Perhaps with the next generation of consoles they can dig themselves out of whatever hole they have created and reinforce to gamers that Square Enix is a developer you can get behind. That Square Enix is a developer who understands the fans and release games they like. And that Square Enix is no longer the joke many see them as and become the powerhouse they should be. But until the stupid decisions are abolished, nothing will be changing.

What the Next-Gen Consoles Need to Succeed

It seems the past few years we have expected the consoles to release at any time. Well, it seems that time has come. With more and more rumors coming to light and Sony having an announcement on 2/20/13 discussing the future of Playstation, the console war looks to spark up again between the next generation systems.

However, there won't be such a discrepancy between the systems as there once was. According to rumors, Sony has ditched the cell processors that were problematic for developers and are going to be on the same level with Microsoft in terms of development. They both may have the potential to collapse the used game market (unlikely, but still being talked about), both will try to have a focus on being a media box instead of solely being a game system, and integrating motion control into the system (or controller) this time is a possibility.

So what do the systems need to really differentiate themselves between the competitors? Wii U has hardware that isn't on the same level, and they are clearly going with their game pad, 1st party exclusives, and social aspect of the Wii U to be what captivates gamers. Despite those big three things, the sales for the Wii U has seemingly been disappointing in the eyes of most people, but shouldn't be counted out considering it hasn't been out for very long. It takes a while for a system to really get steam and have the potential unlocked, and that may just be the case for the Wii U. But for Microsoft and Sony to succeed next generation, they have more to prove.



1. Price

Sony knows better than anyone how much the price of a system can influence sales. The PS3 suffered heavily due to it's intimidating price point, and a more recent example can be the Vita. Not to say that each system isn't worth that amount, but for a consumer, it's not easy to fork out the amount that the PS3 and Vita asked for considering the competitor system/handheld prices.

Fortunately for Sony, they are making a system that will have cheaper specs and Blu-ray is no longer the price cow it used to be. But the magic number of $399 floats around as being the absolute most someone might spend on a new system. $450 with a game or an extra controller, but $399 for a basic system what people seem to clamor for as the most a system will cost. Hopefully this isn't completely outrageous, but I'm not a developer and I have no idea what it takes to make a profitable and affordable system. Which at first, probably won't be.



2. Exclusive Games

I think it's hard to say that exclusive games don't matter. Part of the reason Nintendo is successful is because of the love of their franchises. Originally that wasn't the case as many developers outside of 1st party could succeed on older systems such as the SNES, but recently Nintendo hasn't been as loving to outside devs. They seem to be trying to change that with the Wii U, but it doesn't change the fact that their Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros., Mario Kart, etc are what help make that system successful.

So both Microsoft and Sony need to focus on exclusive games as well. Microsoft needs to continue pumping out the Indie games, even if they are usually timed exclusives, such as Fez, Limbo, Trials, Super Meat Boy, etc. They have some big hitters when it comes to 1st party games in Gears of War, Halo, and Forza, and it's almost a guarantee those will continue to come. Sony needs the same and has been improving with their PSN games such as Journey and the Unfinished Swan. But they have also let off a lot of their studios and that doesn't bode particularly well for the future of exclusives. But they can always fall back on Resistance, Uncharted, Killzone, and Infamous. Neither company have the exclusives that even register on the same scale of Nintendo, but they need to promote the games they have and the other company doesn't.



3. Marketing

Microsoft and Nintendo know how to market their games. The same can't be said for Sony. Marketing is essential for successful games, and the biggest proof is Homefront. A game that was appallingly bad to most people but sold millions of copies. It benefited by being in a popular genre, but if it wasn't for the marketing, that game would have flopped.

So Microsoft and Nintendo...just keep doing what you're doing. Sony, come over here for a second. What are you doing? Have you realized how bad your commercials have gotten? Of course not, because most of your games have no commercials to critique in the first place. Most games don't need a ton of press because they fill a niche' market that isn't going to succeed simply because of a lot of marketing. But each game will have a specific crowd who will buy it regardless, but marketing can get sales of those unaware of the game. Look at Sly Cooper. That game is beautiful and wouldn't be terribly difficult to market, but nobody knew it came out which is disappointing. If you want to be a software juggernaut, you need to know what you are doing marketing wise. But you don't. Hopefully the new firm you are using will do a better job than the last one.



4. Apps

Long gone are the days where Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube are worth mentioning. They are almost a given. Instead these systems need something special that the other console doesn't have or won't have. Playstation Home can be considered in this topic, but nobody uses it. But no other console had something like it either. An interesting idea with poor implementation. The Wii U has an online community where help can be given or pictures can be drawn and it's super interesting. One of the best things the Wii U has going for it that the other systems should think about. Microsoft had my heart with "1 vs 100", and I absolutely loved it. But they didn't apparently and got rid of it.

So these companies need to find another killer app that will convince gamers that it's too awesome to pass up. Talks of DVR's using your console would be a nice addition, and Microsoft is rumored to have a Siri-like interaction with Kinect this time around. But they can't expect that something as small as Crackle is going to be a bullet point on the back of the box to sell gamers.



5. Online Service

This may be the thing that pushes the next console out in front of the other. I have been vocal about my disgust at Xbox Live and how it's nothing more than a glorified online pass. It would be one thing if they offered free online service and then with a Gold subscription you had the additional perks such as cross game chat and better servers, but instead you are paying simply to have online access. Good online access, but online access. If Sony were to make improvements to their online service and offer the same things Gold has but not charge for it, where does that leave Gold? Perhaps they will do something similar to PS+ where it focuses more on deals and games over things you should already have access to (such as Netflix).

Which is where I'm hoping Sony knocks it out of the park. PS+. Many consider it a rental service, and it partially is. You keep the games you buy, which can be found at discounted prices, but for those that complain about it being a rental service don't often complain about Microsoft's online being a "rental service". What I'm most interested in is the Gaikai acquisition and whether that may play a part in PS+. They have been pushing the idea of an Instant Game Library, but what if they were to expand on that idea and have a Gaikai service stream games if you have PS+. And not just one game a month, but have an actual library of games you can choose from. Yes it would still be a rental service, but it would remove the need to download and install games, more games would be available at any given time, and be one hell of an incentive to have PS+ all year round.





I am truly excited at the next generation of consoles. I'm not expecting a huge leap forward, but there's something special about knowing there's a new console looming on the horizon that could come in and sweep the rug out from under our feet and leave us speechless. But for them to do it, they need to improve on what made this generation of consoles so wonderful.