G-pinions

I guess it does seem kind of ridiculous that it takes a $140 investment to go online with the PS2 vs. X-Box's $50/year, even if you do get FFXI whether you want it or not. But that fact, and the fact that the more powerful X-Box is selling for $30 less than the PS2 is a big compliment to Sony. In my eyes, all game systems are a steal considering the technology you're paying for. And as far as I know Microsoft still takes a loss on every X-Box sold, which is pretty amazing 3 years into it's life. Regarding the investment to play online, I think it comes down to software. A large percentage of X-Box games do have an online multiplayer component, but none of their really killer software does. Halo, KOTOR, Ninja Gaiden. You can enjoy those games without going online and without paying Microsoft for their online service. Add that to the fact that EA games are only online on PS2 (which I would bet my life changes this year), and most of their big system sellers don't have anything to do with playing online. Nevermind the fact that their hard drive is fairly underutilized. On the PS2 though, you've got Socom, you've got Amplitude, you've got all of EA's games (and EA Big), you've got Midnight Club, CO:Norrath, Resident Evil, etc. Many of their recent best selling games have a big online component, one that people are willing to invest time and, more importantly, money into. And with FFXI, they pretty much have all the killer online titles until Halo 2 comes out. Now I'm not saying which service is better, which has better games, or which I'd sooner put my money into, I'm just saying that for the time being, people would apparently still rather go online on their PS2's, even if it is more expensive. And the hard drive is certainly a luxury at this point if you're not interested in FFXI. I don't think it will succeed in the end, unless we see an influx of developers supporting it at E3.

Yes, Silicon Knights leaving Nintendo does seem like a pretty big blow. Even though they aren't necessarily going to stop making Gamecube games, they definitely are going to start developing games for the other systems. And though it blows goats for Nintendo fans, you can't really blame them. It seems ridiculous at this point in time, where we have three giant, successful videogame companies, to be making games exclusively for the one in last place. PS2 has such a huge installed base that even if a game doesn't sell that well it will still probably outsell a fairly good-selling game on GC. It's a shame, but it's a business reality. As I've said before, unless Nintendo starts embracing their second and third parties more and supporting things like online play and proves their system can sell games outside of their own, they're going to keep losing support. I don't think it's quite as drastic as "they'll be developing games for Sony and Microsoft by the next generation," but let me tell you, it's a lot less improbable of a thought than it was as recently as a year ago. But who knows, maybe we'll see some big surprises at E3, and maybe the DS will be huge and the Big N won't even need the little support is still has. I think we'll have a much clearer picture of their fate come May 15th.

In other news, Tom and I started playing Toejam and Earl III: Mission to Earth last night. We wanted to start a new co-op game (fear not, Norrath isn't going anywhere), and were apparently in the mood for some funk. Besides having the worst control and camera I've seen in ages, it actually has some crazy-enough, unique-enough gameplay to keep it compelling, so far. It's one of those situations where you just have to see what's in the next area, even if it's a massive, annoying, controller-smashing bitch to get there. If we actually get though the entire thing, you all owe us high fives a'plenty.

And in even more news, it's way too nice a day to be inside writing about video games. See you on the beach, suckas!