Post of the Day: 4.21.2009

GameStop Reviewing Their Sales Policy in Light of Kotaku Story - good for them!

Post of the Day: 4.10.2009

Gamer War Vet Fears Game Will Dishonor Those Who Served in Iraq.

(Note: I'll be out of town tomorrow and Sunday - no posts of the day. I know, you're all about to cry now, aren't you? ;)

GameStop Selling "Rented" Games as New

You know, this really irks me. As much as I enjoy the convenience of shopping at and pre-ordering games from GameStop, some of their practices really annoy me. I've always disapproved of their practice of selling display copies of games (the ones where they open the game, remove the disc and put the case on the shelf for people to look at without risking theft) and I never buy these copies. When they try to sell me one, I just tell them "no thanks, I'll go buy it somewhere else". Luckily this doesn't happen with pre-ordered games, which is the route I take most of the time anyway.

As if that wasn't enough, now comes news that they're trying to pass off "rented" copies of their games as new. See, apparently GameStop allows employees to "rent" out games for a few days. These "rented" discs often get mixed in with the "story display" copies and all of them are sold as new. In fact, it seems to be against company policy to sell these in any other way besides new. The good news is, this may be against federal law.

I really hope something comes of this, because either of the above practices really should not be happening. A new game should be defined as one that is still inside the factory seal, not some cheap shrink wrap or GameStop logo seal the store puts on these opened games to pass them off as new. When you buy a sealed game, system or just about any other product imaginable, you can return it as new only if the factory seal is not broken. I can sure guarantee you if you bought a sealed game from GameStop, cracked the seal and tried returning it for a full refund, they would force you to sell it to them for the (incredibly low) price they would pay for trade-in. They seem to think they're special and have the right to make the customer pay full price for a copy of a game with a broken factory seal. This is wrong in my book.

Post of the Day: 3.7.2009

Recession - The Beginning of an Era. An interesting little article on how the recession may affect the gaming industry for the better.

Post of the Day: 3.1.2009

LA Times: Parents should regulate what kids play, not the government. Yes, yes, it is the parent's responsibility.

Post of the Day: 2.21.2009

Things we can ban instead of video games!

Post of the Day: 2.8.2009

State of Texas Creates Video Game Day. How nifty!

Another Game I Won't Be Purchasing

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I'm a Sony person. Although we've fallen on hard times, things are starting to look up. This is why its very disturbing that several developers have taken the road of no DLC for the PS3 versions of their games. The latest in the line is Tomb Raider: Underworld.

I refuse to buy any game that discriminates when DLC is produced for it, for whatever reason. Its unfair to gamers - the customers. So, I suppose I'll stick the latest Tomb Raider game on the stack, along with Fallout 3. I may play the games via rental, but I likely won't purchase them for the above reason.

Speaking of which, doesn't it seem like only Western developers are restricting DLC to certain consoles? I haven't yet seen a Japan-developed game restrict their DLC. Food for thought, I suppose.

No More Non-Mainstream Games from Square-Enix?

Say what? This has to be the most short-sighted thing I've read in quite a while. Apparently earnings for the 2007 fiscal year weren't up to par, so Square-Enix's president, Yoichi Wada, issued an ultimatum to the development staff - if they develop any non-mainstream games (read: Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest), layoffs will quickly follow.

What kind of policy is this for a gaming company? I love Square-Enix's games, mostly because I'm an RPG fan and they tend to be very high quality products. I also don't think they should ever stop making the games they're known for - the Final Fantasys and the Dragon Quests. But you know what? Games such as The World Ends With You - a completely new and critically praised IP - have their place too. Gamers need something new and have a tendency to be very stand-offish when things change too drastically with their favorite franchises, so why not create new IPs?

The next Final Fantasy-type franchise could come from one of those projects, the corporate hot-shots don't know that it won't, the gamers in general don't know that it won't. While The World Ends With You seems to me to be more of a sleeper hit, like Vagrant Story, its still a critically acclaimed game for the hottest selling game system in the world. It will be a sad day when companies decide to stick strictly to mainstream, big-money games and ignore newer, more innovative ideas. Its not very heartening to see Square-Enix take the first steps in that direction.

Carding Mature Game Sales

Much of the time gamers get incredibly angsty and vocal when bills are introduced that have the potential to regulate the industry more so than it already is. Gamasutra is reporting today that there is a new bill that is on the table that calls for video game ID checks. I'm sure, once this gets out, the gaming community will once again be up in arms about it. But why, exactly?

Why is it such a bad thing to enforce the regulations that are already in place? When you see an ESRB rating on a game of M, that means its not supposed to be sold to a minor. In fact, I have a feeling most gamers who are parents would agree with this rating system. I know, if I was a parent, I sure wouldn't want my pre-teen playing GTAIV. What is wrong with requiring ID verification that the person buying the game isn't a minor? After all, when you go to the store to buy some beer, if there's any doubt about your age, you should be carded and no one has a problem with that. Many stores and restaurants have made it a company policy to card everyone who purchases an alcoholic beverage.

What's wrong with requiring the same type of thing of retailers who sell video games? As the article points out, the first amendment, which so many gamers are quick to bring up when any such bill is introduced, really shouldn't have a bearing on this because the bill "does not attempt to rate or define the content itself, but instead legally enforce the existing age ratings".

As I've pointed out before, I'm absolutely not a fan of gratuitous violence or sex in games (thus why I have no interest in the likes of GTAIV). However, I can't say I'm for regulating the content itself or placing heavy restrictions on what is allowed on store shelves. The games should be available to those people who meet the age requirements and want to play them. The developers should be given the freedom to create the game they want to create. That all being said, I can't say I'm opposed to requiring ID verification from those purchasing M-rated (or worse) games. Its not the end-all, be-all of getting those games out of the hands of minors, because there's always the possibility that a parent or other person will buy it for them, but at least its a small step in the right direction.

[EDIT: Case in point - ESA Boss Slams Video Games Rating Bill as Unconstitutional. Give me a break.]

EGM Calls Out Midway, Sony, Ubisoft

An interesting bit of gaming news surfaced today (well, I read it this morning anyway). Apparently three companies - Midway, Sony and Ubisoft - will no longer send their games to Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM) to cover. The reason? "Bad" reviews. And by that I mean reviews that the game publishers didn't think were right. (Here's the story at VGMWatch and GamePolitics.)

This has got to be the biggest load of stinky crap I've seen in a while. If game publishers don't want to get bad reviews, put extra time and money into the game to make them the best of the best. Don't settle for anything less. If a game has some flaws, I darn well expect the reviewers I trust to point them out, not be "paid off" to say good things by the game companies.

Apparently EGM's editor-in-chief Dan Hsu called out those three companies in his editor's note in the latest issue. Unfortunately, I let my subscription lapse, but I did resubscribe...I just haven't yet received my first issue. I'd really like to read the exact comments that were said. I salute EGM for standing up to the game publishers and calling them out on this, because the last thing we need are our game reviews tainted by publisher bias.

Writer's Strike - Plain and Simple

I thought this article pretty much sums up what the WGA strike is all about - why its happening and what could end it. To quote from the article:

"So how do we get our point across, to people who don’t understand why we’re doing this? The best way I have found, is to say: everything on the internet? We get zero. They get everything. They get millions and millions and eventually billions and billions, and we get zero. And the “they,” here, is basically six of the biggest baddest companies in the world, run by men who annually receive salaries and compensation well north of 50 million dollars."

Sound fair? Methinks not.

On the same blog, I found a post about how the media is pretty much ignoring what is going on, due in no small part, I'm sure, to the fact that the local stations are owned by the large networks, which, in turn, are owned by the huge corporations who are at odds with the WGA. Still...the writer of this post has a point.

"You're telling me when 4,000 people show up in the streets of LA, shut down a main thoroughfare in the city, a laundry list of celebrities are on hand, Jesse Jackson addresses the crowd and the subject is an industry-wide strike some experts say could cost the local economy hundreds of millions of dollars, such an event only warrants 15 seconds at the end of the newscast?"

California Video Game Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Yesterday in California, a federal district court judge ruled the video game law that Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law back in 2005 unconstitutional. The same day, the Governator issued a press release stating that he was going to appeal the ruling.

"I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children."

Question: Why should the government be ensuring that parents are involved in making sure the things their children play are appropriate for their age? Isn't that something the parents should be doing willingly and be greatly involved in? Its sad when someone says that the government has to do something to ensure that parents will do this...when they should be doing it anyway.