With E3 done and over, there's a lot of yelling about which company won and for what reasons. If you have any ear pointed anywhere, you'll hear that Sony soundly trounced Microsoft, and Nintendo was largely ignored. That may be the popular sentiment, but my perspective is that every one of the big three have misstepped, and thus my interest in any of them is far below that needed for a day-one (or even year-one) purchase. So, time for a crabby post from yours-truly.
Xbox One:
(Disclaimer: My stance on Microsoft as a whole is slightly south of neutral; I like my Xbox 360, I do not like Windows.)
I actually followed Ars' liveblog of the release announcement, just because I was interested to see what Microsoft had up their sleeves. Two minutes in, though, and I was thoroughly uninterested. Every other word was 'television'. I don't care about TV - it's a wasteland of crap I don't care to watch. When the games finally arrived, it was...Call of Duty. And the focus there? Arm hair and dirty fingernails. I shit you not, that's what they showed to demonstrate graphics. And then sports. And then TV with sports. And then more TV. So far, it's shaping up that Xbone is a DVR or a media center, not a games console. Fair enough, if they want to move that direction, but that's not what I'm looking for.
Kinect always-on doesn't bother me too much. From a privacy standpoint, yeah, it's a little disturbing. If they really want to watch what I do in my living room, here's a spoiler - I sit a lot, I curse a lot, and I drink a moderate amount. That's a bit on the paranoid side, though, since our phones have so much more ready access. We're happy to have mobile devices always-on, video and audio, but we can't get over a stationary living room device? Please.
Microsoft has since gone back on two points - used game support and online check-in every 24 hours. Apparently, now the Xbone will allow used games the same way the Xbox 360 does; which is to say, have-disc, will-play. I haven't read enough into it to see if it's just first-party games, or everyone, but I like that move...if only because we're back to status quo on an issue that doesn't need 'fixing'.
Online check-in is less a sticking-point for me, but I'm in a suburban area with steady Internet access. My Xbox 360 is already 'always online' (when it's on), as is my PC and my phone. The obvious rallying call is that the check-in would be for DRM. Let me say now, I hate DRM; I hate the concept, I hate implementation. I don't hate what it intends to do - enforce appropriate access to legally-purchased content. However, any DRM I've ever heard of has done so very poorly, while simultaneously punishing law-abiding customers. Net negative on all fronts. Then again, assuming the check-in is solely for DRM also tips toward paranoid.
Even considering the most recent MS announcement, there's still nothing really stand-out about Xbone. It won't be a first-day purchase; probably more like a couple years down the road, as is my SOP for consoles.
Playstation 4:
(Disclaimer: My stance on Sony is well south of neutral, firmly embedded in 'negative' territory.)
I did not watch or follow Sony's announcements during E3, but the Internet certainly exploded during and after. Sony apparently can now do no wrong - the system is a full $100 cheaper than Xbone, it allows used games, and it doesn't need to phone home every 24 hours to work (MS has since reversed the latter two points, as mentioned above). Sounds great, doesn't it?
My overarching question here: why are those things suddenly so positive?
1) New consoles are expensive; $100 is $100, but really, for the market being targeted (and we all know what market that is, thank you), $399 to $499 is not a big jump. Period.
2) Used game support has firmly been in place in the console and PC markets for years. Why it should suddenly be a big deal to _continue_ supporting it is mystifying, at best. Yes, there's an argument that digital distribution essentially cuts that off entirely, but did we really miss it? You want to stop used games sales, you don't stop supporting used games - you make games that people want to keep. $60 is no longer (I would argue, 'was never') an acceptable price point for a new game. Personally, I don't sell my games after I buy them - I'm very careful about my initial purchase.
3) It's a(n) (fortunate/unfortunate) advancement that everything is getting more connected. A stable Internet connection is all but required for a lot of the big titles, multiplayer support, system updates, et cetera. I don't agree with the 'always on' requirement, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.
More on the 'used games front', now that the dust has settled, Sony has clarified that their first party disc-based titles will be as friendly to second-hand use as you can get: have-disc, will-play. Third party support is left entirely open. I don't disagree with this model, as it very much emphasizes platform openness; Sony can control their first party titles as closely as they want, but leaving a major decision like this to a third party is actually a good thing. They can shoot themselves in the foot, if they so choose.
So most of this is still positive (or, at least neutral) for Sony, but I'm still staying away from them. Their overall history has been very consumer-hostile, and I don't see the PS4 as their sudden redemption. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, who knows.
(If you have some sort of amnesia, consider Sony's rootkit DRM on audio CDs. Or removing tons of features through PS3 firmware 'updates'. Or poor handling of customer data breaches. Or...)
Wii U:
(Disclaimer: My stance on Nintendo is well north of neutral; I grew up with their consoles, bought most of the more recent first-party titles, and still look forward to their announcements. Usually.)
The Wii U isn't a bad device. I've spent enough time with it (I do not own one personally) to confidently declare the following:
1) The Wii U Gamepad / tablet thingie is a novelty, not a long-term selling point - unless there is heavy, heavy support from both first- and third-party, which has yet to materialize.
2) The launch library was anemic, at best; non-existent, at worst.
3) HD Mario is neat, visually, but more of the same gameplay we've already seen from...25 years ago. Not that it's bad to use a well-tested formula; it was a safe move, but 'safe' was all it was.
Nintendo's E3 announcements were exciting! At least, they will be, when 2014 rolls around. That's when the majority of the first-party titles for well-known series will arrive. I think a new Smash Bros is for late 2013 (like, December). Wow, so that's over a year from the console's release? Not heartening at all; makes me rather glad I waited.
And what of some of those titles? A 're-envisioning' of Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past? I love that game for SNES. I loved the graphics style common to that era's adventure games. Injecting 3D? Eh. Not really looking forward to that part. An HD remake of Wind Waker? Ehhhh. Didn't really like the source title on Gamecube; too...cutesy for my tastes, but whatever. (I much prefer the 'darker' style present in Twilight Princess. Damn, that was great.)
...Super Mario World 3D? Again, I love Super Mario World (SNES), and this one looks to be a mash-up of that and Super Mario 64. Hmm...something to be enjoyed, I think.
I think this time, more than ever, the number of (re-)remakes and re-releases is starting to wear thin. Much as I like to see different takes on classics, and games I've enjoyed thoroughly, it's reading more as a cash-grab than anything else. Then again, let the newcomers experience those things, if they want; but I'll wait for the new games, the new concepts, the new ideas.
E3 notwithstanding, there are reasons I don't really get into next-gen for other platforms, either. PC:
There's very little here that actually interests me, AAA-wise (and let's face it, AAA is the 'next-gen' source here). I've poured a fair amount of money into my PC. It could handle just about anything; but the glut of WoWs and LoLs and CoDs and BFs and...and...yeah. The most versatile of platforms and not really all that exciting (for AAA; I could wax, and have waxed, poetic on the neat independent games).
Mobile:
I never really understood the draw of mobile games, hardcore or otherwise, on anything other than a dedicated mobile gaming device. iOS and Android is saturated with crap. I'll admit there are some very good, unique titles, very good mobile ports of other good titles, and the like. But as more come out, there's such a rush to make the next biggest hit that quality suffers greatly on the whole. Solid 'meh'.
Android-based 'consoles':
There's the OUYA, and the GameStick, and the nVidia Shield, and the Wikipad, and others. Tons of pluggable and mobile, platforms based on the same core, but nothing really stands out here. Sure, there's already a large library to draw from, but mobile games scaled up to larger sizes? Based on touch controls and ported to a gamepad or similar? Eh.
Even so, there's a lot to be said about what could happen with all the above. A new release cycle for anything starting out slow isn't exactly unexpected. There will be the early adopters, the die-hard supporters, and the nay-sayers, as always; but until the future happens, I will pass on all of it.
