Well, it's been quite the week, and we've only just gotten started.

First off, the Newer Xbox Experience, as I like to call it, came out today, and I've had a chance to test drive it. It's only the first day, and it might improve later on, but I can't help but notice that it's just as sluggish as it did in Giant Bomb's quick look at the beta. It doesn't happen often, but it seems sometimes as though a frame or two here and there will drop while you're browsing the interface, which is a strange thing to happen during what should be the least graphically intensive thing you should be made to do. The mini-blades, by contrast, seem to run consistently at noticeably half the frame rate that it used to. Not a practical concern, but it's just uglier than it used to be, indeed than it should be. Also, the system seemed to freeze for a moment several times while I tried to set up media center, suggesting that the underlying OS is laggier than it used to be. The changes don't end at the main menu, however. Going into the marketpalce, the compartmentalized, organized sections of the old NXE have been replaced with a mess of text, with the categories up top and text positioned underneath, looking a lot less attractive. Indeed, any of you who are familiar with the Zune software on PC will notice immediately that the marketplace now uses the same oversized, ugly fonts that the Zune software uses. Also, as far as I can tell, you can no longer browse manually through a game's picture gallery, but have to wait for images to go automatically. I may be wrong about that, but I couldn't figure out how to go through the gallery when I tried to for Super Meat Boy.

In essence, the system hasn't changed much on a practical level, but the menus sure look ugly now. A shame, really. The Xbox 360 didn't need that.

Oh, and don't forget the welcome intro when the 360 first runs after the update.  You know, in case you've forgotten how an Xbox works between Oct. 31st and today.
  

In other news, the Supreme Court will hear arguments between California and the game industry tomorrow. While the Justices don't have to render a decision until June, I maintain my confidence that they'll do the right thing and reject California's attempt to rip First Amendment protection from video games. Put simply, in order for the Court to rule in California's favor, it would have to willfully ignore the fact that research in this area is decidedly inconclusive, to ignore the possibility of such restrictions bleeding beyond video games, to disregard reams and reams of information given them in documentation from over 138 different sources before argument, and most importantly, to believe that traditional obscenity law doesn't cover games that are created solely to offend as is already. In short, the Court will likely need a whole lot of reason to broad brush an entire medium, and that is, in the end, what we're talking about. With very little reliable evidence that violent videogames, in the absence of other violent media, truly effect minors as much as California claims, the court would have to come in with a bias against video games, and if the ESA's lawyers do their jobs and show that mainstream gaming is nowhere near as bad as the holier-than-thou types make it look, we're good.

In short, relax. Everything's gonna be all right. 
  

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm watching Netherlands VS Sweden in Euro 2012 qualifiers. Yay ESPN3.

All right, it's been a few since I blogged last, so here I go,

I'm sure many of you have heard about the renaming of “Taliban” to “Opposing Forces” in the multiplayer portion of Medal of Honor. Given the sensationalism of sites like Kotaku, you'd be forgiven for thinking that EA were being spineless and cowardly given this change. You'd also be forgiven for thinking that this was effective throughout the whole game as opposed to just the multiplayer, as that's been given very little mention since keeping people in a blind fury helps get page hits.

It's worth remembering that EA went to the Army for assistance with making the game, to make it as realistic as possible, and the Army, as it does with film, wanted to make sure that they weren't helping to make something that painted them in an especially crappy light. Turns out, EA didn't show them the multiplayer, and when they learned about it, were understandably displeased.  I'm sure you could see how having “TALIBAN WINS” plastered on a screen would sit wrong with the Army. So they asked that it be removed, and EA honored their agreements, even though at this point, the Army pulling official support would have been meaningless because the game was done.

This is a good thing for two principle reasons:

1. No one wants to be seen as not being straight-up and honest. You make deals, you're expected to keep them. The Army obviously lent EA a great deal of leeway by supporting the single player as it was, since it deals with a very, very current conflict. Paying them back by turning a cold shoulder with the multiplayer would have been crass, especially given the mostly meaningless nature of your average deathmatch. This leads us to number 2.

2. Sequel support. Think about it a moment: Let's say Medal of Honor does well. Millions in sales, high praise, so on and so forth. When the time comes around for a sequel, do you honestly think the Army would have supported the game had EA not bent on the multiplayer bit? And would you want the single player, the story, the meaningful stuff in the next game, to be damaged because of such a triviality?

It should go without saying that I'll never support censorship. I love games far too much to see them compromised, and hate when companies bow down to political pressure. However, this is far from that. The Army is giving EA a great deal of help in ensuring that the story Medal of Honor tells is as realistic as possible. The least EA could do is not to just take the help and run. They're not going to remove stuff from the story or anything: they're just doing a favor for the Army to make their soldiers more comfortable, and that should be praised. Sensitivity and respect should never be mistaken for cowardice.

Dear GOG users,

We have recently had to give serious thought to whether we could really keep GOG.com the way it is. We've debated on it for quite some time and, unfortunately, we've decided that GOG.com simply cannot remain in its current form.

We're very grateful for all support we've received from all of you in the past two years. Working on GOG.com was a great adventure for all of us and an unforgettable journey to the past, through the long and wonderful history of PC gaming.

This doesn't mean the idea behind GOG.com is gone forever. We're closing down the service and putting this era behind us as new challenges await.

On a technical note, this week we'll put in place a solution to allow everyone to re-download their games. Stay tuned to this page and follow us on Twitter and Facebook for updates.

All the best,
GOG.com Team

Some of you may have seen the sudden closure of GOG.com, including that letter on the front page. At the time, it seemed like a business move. They even mentioned how hard it was to stay DRM free, suggesting that was the reason for the closure.

That is, of course, until you dig deeper.

In the days leading up to the closure, they'd gotten Serious Sam one and two, as well as the first three Space Quest and King's Quest games, as well as King's Quest VII and VIII. Why would companies that can actually sell games on other services continue to work with them were it not for the service actually working? This is especially true with Activision, who would clearly be the most prickly when it comes to piracy, what with being as obscenely huge as they are and all. The community was large, and there were plenty of games being put on their catalog, with updates coming every other week. As one could imagine, people were already suspicious that this was a publicity stunt.

Then this came onto the gogcom Youtube channel. 

All I know is that if CDP's going to have to work incredibly hard to get me back as a customer. This is the worst way to treat any community.

I say Zogby isn't worth anyone's time, and I'm not the only one.

KingOfOldSkool called it: The media manufactures controversy.

So I'm sitting there at the Halo: Reach line, surrounded by kids way too fucking young to be at a midnight launch, including this little girl that couldn't have been more than 5 crying for a figurine or something and a bunch of annoying ass football fans who'd been following the San Diego-New York Jets game.  Generally a crap experience.  Then, with about 30 minutes to go, there came a truck with a bunch of people setting up a table with gingerbread cookies, soda and strange panphlets.  Turns out, Ubisoft had set up a little stunt to promote Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, and it turned out to be a shining ray of light in the dreariness of the late-night blah.
 
Turns out the little booklet was a series of postcards.  Check it.
 

As soon as this is posted, I'm going to go to my local Gamestop and sit in a line, waiting for Halo: Reach. I'm excited to see this, the culmination of nine years of Halo, but at the same, I can't help but feel sad.

Nine years. I still remember clearly when I first played Halo. It was a few days after Christmas 2001, and I'd gotten quite a bit of money that Christmas, so I decided to go to Toys R Us and pick up the original Xbox. They were mandating that people buying the system bought an accessory and a game. After deciding on a memory unit (huge mistake in hindsight), I settled on the game. Halo was something of a media darling at the time, and while the screens made it look like just another FPS, it was the most obvious choice in a middling launch lineup. So hey, why not try that Halo game?

I took my gear home, set up my Xbox, and proceeded to be wowed like I never had before. The enemies were smart and varied in their tactics. The Marines' were some of the most eclectic game characters that had ever been assembled at the time. The story, while still very isolated and not revealing much (who's the Covenant? What's this Reach place? Why'd they leave?), felt at once epic and oh so personal, the tale of humanity itself stubbornly holding on in the face of an insurmountable force of religious fanatics so incredibly poignant given the events of just a few months prior. And Lord, the music... Never before and very rarely since have I heard such inspirational, emotional music as the tunes in that special game. The game was a perfect storm, that rate launch game that defines the system throughout its entire lifespan. Surely one would have expected it to be milked to death, but Microsoft and Bungie proved careful stewards of the Xbox's flagship series, taking the needed time to craft two masterful sequels and a spinoff that showed the depth of this interesting world. Put bluntly, this has been one hell of a ride.

And now, this ride comes to an end. With Reach, Bungie bids Halo adieu. Yeah, Microsoft will still keep the franchise going, and 343 Studios will keep the style and mythos of the Halo world to a high standard. However, Bungie is an undeniably unique developer, and without their hand directly involved, what will happen to Halo? It won't be milked to death (MS has proven that they're not Activision), but will they screw up with the story? Will the story continue going back in time, disintegrating Lufia-style into a never-ending sea of retcons? Will the Chief return, only to be thrown into a stupidly improbable adventure? And what of the multi-player? The skill matching and balancing have become a hallmark of the series, but will 343 and MS remain committed, holding off the temptation to turn it into a sci-fi themed Call of Duty? There are so many questions.

Then there's Bungie. While they're going to be in full creative control of the new IP they're creating with Activision, what if they misfire? Oni wasn't exactly the greatest game ever, and Marathon, while thematically wonderful, isn't exactly the narrative tour-de-force that Halo would eventually become. Can they do it again? Or will they slip back into obscurity?

Perhaps that's the reason I'm so conflicted with the release of Halo: Reach. We're going off into the unknown once this game comes out. There is plenty of promise, but at the same time, the possibility for everything to blow up into a horrid mess with both Halo and Bungie. I hope for the best, but even if it all goes to crap, it's been one hell of a ride.

I'm listening to the membership shill episode right now, and I can't help but feel a bit icky.

Honestly, I don't give a crap that they're adding stuff to Whiskey Media just for paid subscribers. That's the point of a paid service. Why would you pay without a carrot?

However, the division of the podcast strikes a nerve with me. The problem now becomes whether the first hour simply becomes a dull program, or worse, a teaser for the second hour and onward. Does it become “heeey, the fun stuff's next hour! Do you really wanna wait another week?”

And while we're at it, what if the paid membership doesn't take off? Will the non-paid members lose access to having the second hour the next week? Does the commitment to “making it better, not making it worse” erode if this doesn't take off like a silver bullet? Hell, will I eventually lose access to the blog? Will I lose archival video access after a certain period of time? For all the assurances we're given now, the podcast segregation seems an omen of things to come should the paid membership not take off?

Now I know I'm gonna get all sorts of shit, especially when this is attached to the Giant Bomb forum (assuming that isn't linked to the pay site from now on), but it's a real concern. I already have a paysite subscription, and another one would be a bit much. Now, between that and having already committed myself to leaving XBL in the wake of their recent price shenanigans, I can't help but wonder if Whiskey is going to change from the PlayStation Plus approach that they now seem to be employing to the XBL approach of taking things away. This is especially true since you have to commit to a whole year in order not to have advertising.

I want to support the site, really I do. However, I can't help but wonder, can't help but be apprehensive about the future. Will the division of the podcast be the beginning of the Whiskey sites becoming a place where the haves are treated better than the have-nots?

I can only hope that's not the case. You shouldn't have to buy integrity.

As most of you may know, Gearbox Software and Triptych Games are finishing Duke Nukem Forever after 3D Realms proved itself incapable of doing so. With a capable developer behind the wheel, 2011 suddenly seems like a realistic possibility.

What people may have only learned recently is that Gearbox Software now owns the Duke Nukem IP. Randy Pitchford announced at PAX yesterday that they've bought the IP from 3D Realms for an undisclosed amount. With the IP now in the hands of a good developer, the future looks a hell of a lot brighter now for The King. Indeed, we might need to wear shades from here on out. Indeed, the divorce from Duke Nukem seems to be going along at a fast pace over at 3DR, as they've closed all their Duke Nukem forums and forbidden any future Duke Nukem discussion.

While Duke Nukem's future is finally secure and has a hell of a lot more potential than it ever had since DN3D, what of the past? Currently, one can get the Duke Nukem series games at Good Old Games and 3DRealms' store. However, with the transfer of the IP over to Gearbox, these sources of the legacy games are obviously in danger. It's almost a foregone conclusion that they'll be removed from the 3DR shop at some point, but what about Good Old Games? Will they be able to establish a new deal with Gearbox? Is Gearbox even interested in keeping their legacy titles alive? Or is the legacy of the Duke Nukem series doomed to fade into the abandonware abyss?

Hopefully Gearbox will do the right thing and keep Duke's past alive so future generations can experience those amazing games of yore.  These games are an important part of gaming's history, and they don't deserve to fade into obscurity.

With the announcement of a price hike for Xbox Live from $50 to $60 US, I've come to the decision that I'm no longer going to maintain my Xbox Live Gold subscription.

It's not the principle. It's $10 bucks more for a year. However, the new price forces me, as well as people like myself who don't play online a ton, to re-evaluate whether the money being spent is proper for my needs.

Put lightly, it's crap paying $50/year to play online, and paying $60 is hilariously bad, especially given the fact that most of that cost is going up for reasons other than gaming. Now this is just conjecture, but think about it for a moment.

First off, we have Kinect. This is a massively expensive expenditure that has met near universal thumbs down for its price, space requirements and the lack of anything approaching a killer app. It's also undeniably an expensive project, considering the nature of what it's trying to do. Unless people really fall in love with Kinectimals and Dance Central, MS is looking at a huge loss here.

Then there's all these silly non-gaming applications being pushed onto the 360.  Netflix was fine I suppose, but now we have Twitter, Facebook, Last.fm, and now ESPN3, which I should remind you all, can only be used by select ISPs (and even then only in the US), and likely cost MS a good bit of money.  Indeed, the non-gaming spending that MS is doing for Live is odd in the extreme, as though they were desperate to get people who don't play video games to buy the 360. However, how many of these non-gamers are going to spend $50, let alone $60, a year to access things they can access for free on other consoles (Don't forget that both the Wii and PS3 offer full web browsing and Netflix gives free discs for both consoles), not to mention mid-range mobile devices and the iPhone/iPod Touch/ iPad? How many hardcore movie lovers are going to use their 360 for movies, instead of using either their PC hooked to the TV (via either VGA or HDMI-to-DVI cables)? How many people who can even access ESPN3 are going to use their 360s for that? So now we have the unfortunate situation where gamers are being charged an obscene amount of money, not for gaming, but for MS' desperate attempt to grab the Wii consumer who isn't interested in their console and will likely never buy gaming hardware ever again because the novelty's worn off.

What have they done for gamers lately? Well, there's Game Room. Yeah, Game Room... I'll just let Jeff and Co. talk about Game Room with three of my favorite Game Room Quick Looks.
   

So now Xbox Live has quite resoundingly fallen off the rails, but not only that... I really don't use the service enough to justify it anyway. I'm not SmokeDawg420. I mostly play single player games and local multiplayer, mainly because I don't need to be called obscene names over and over again. Really, there's only one person I've ever really given a shit to play with regularly, and now that we've both exchanged Steam names, we can go that route, not to mention our PS3s. Keeping Xbox Live gold now just seems like a totally retarded thing to do all things considering. So now the Xbox 360 is the second console and the PS3 is the primary. Basically, for games where I'd want to play with my friend, the PS3 is always going to be the first choice, even when there might be minor graphical hitches. Obviously, single player games and games without a worthwhile reason to drag my friend onto are unaffected, and I'll buy those for the console they look and play best on, but barring evidence, the PS3 will be my default option, simply because the 360 is so centered around a service I'm no longer going to be bothering with.

It seems like every company has to go through their period of irresponsible arrogance/masked desperation. 1996 was Nintendo's, 2006 was Sony's, and now it seems that 2010 is Microsoft's. One can only hope that when MS reaches the point where the backlash costs them consumers that they can recover the way Sony has. The added competition is good for the industry.