Lag isn't always bad.

     This is going to be a relatively short post, for a relatively small thought. Gamers complain about lag quite often. Whether it be frame issues in singleplayer games, or latency issues in the online world, lag is despised. Which is fair in its own way.
     But consider this, if you will. When an explosion echoes so resoundingly, that the game itself freezes. When a gun battle is so intense, the screen slows as bullets and smoke fling by. The intensity and fear that moment or two of slow down causes, to solidify the violence ensuing on screen. Lag can be irritating- Sure. But in the days of a smooth 60 frames per second, I find myself missing the days of GTA when blowing up 10 cars slowed the game. When so many enemies charge you, the game itself stutters. A small thought maybe. Irrelevant maybe. Here it is though; ponder it.

Microtransactions can be good.

     Another quandary has plagued my mind concerning the microtransaction and its use. Though I feel it lacks a place in console gaming, where games should be solid pieces of entertainment purchased for a set price, it can thrive on the PC landscape, where games can be expansive, breathing experiences. The PC game library is supported- in recent days- by kick starters and Steam greenlight. These are the epitome of open platform, and such can benefit from the use of microtransactions. PC gamers can download a free game and play it to their heart's content, buying small items for reasonable prices and in course supporting the developer. There are many well established examples of this in practice today. League of Legends uses this model to great effect, encouraging long time players to invest for their own benefit, but in most cases allowing any player equal opportunity to succeed based on skill. Loadout, a free-to-play shooter offers a diverse amount of gameplay options for any user, barring only cosmetic design to a dollar amount.
     Even games that have an initial price wall can benefit from microtransactions. Guild Wars 2, an MMORPG, costs a fee for entry, afterwards being completely free and open. Every gameplay aspect of it is free for life (or until the server expires) and will stay that way. Small buffs, cosmetic items, and space upgrades for character slots and banks are available to purchase for a nominal fee, but considering the wealth of content you get for one price, the small transactions are OK and help the developer of the game.
     Piracy is very prevalent on the PC scene. Gamers pirate games in lieu of a demo, or often times because they don't believe the game to be worth a purchase. Some later buy the game to show support for the developer, but this is not always the case. Microtransactions are also a product of this, offering a chunk of the game for free, but holding the best content for the ones who want to pay. This can be a tricky tactic however, because the guise of a "free game" often makes a gamer feel entitled to the whole package from the get-go, annoying a gamer when they hit a pay wall. As a compromise though, free-to-play and microtransactions help the developers and gamers to an extent, in these piracy situations.
     Microtransactions may be infamous, but that does not mean they do not have their uses. Maybe after this tumultuous transition period, consumers and developers can strike a good middle ground on where to fall on the microtransaction debate. In the meantime you should show your support for the developers you appreciate and pay for their game; in whatever way they have established.  

     I do not own an Xbox One. I do not own Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare. That being said, it still upsets me to see the addition of microtransactions to the game. I can't attest to the balancing issues this will create. Or what kind of content will even be offered. I am here to share my thoughts on the microtransaction movement as a whole, triggered by this particular slice of news.
     The gaming industry is different than that of movies, or music. It does not pander to the common consumer as you may think. Sure game companies try constantly with things like kinect and wiifit; but gaming has never grasped the mass appeal to the extent these businesses would have hoped. This is where I think microtransactions stem from.  The regular "gamer" is informed. They, or someone near them, has an on hand vault of knowledge about any game and every game. Gamers know what is good and what is bad. They know what they like, and what they don't. It is a very self fulfilling industry, where people make informed purchases sparingly. This differs from any other standard popular culture industry. In those many trends and purchases are skewed by popular trends. Trends set by the corresponding media such as tv or magazines. This is where no one dresses based on how they want, but how they see others dress. People listen to what's on the radio. Though choice is still a factor, the degree of freedom is not.
    What does all this mean? What is the point? Microtransactions are a ploy to involve the average consumer in to games. It is a way to monetize a game based on popular appeal rather than merit. To a gamer this seems shady and underhanded. But gamers are picky and do not just buy any old game. The game has to (usually) be quality and well recommended. This buying pattern is not conducive to a product that has minimal effort placed in it, trying to exchange for high profit margins.
    This is why microtransactions exist. It is not to trick gamers, It isn't even for gamers at all. It is just a new market emerging within our own. A new brand of consumer that has less discretion on purchase than a gamer would. They don't care that Dungeon Keeper makes you wait 24 hours to play more. They don't care if they have to buy the best Angry Birds cart just to win. It's just mindless distraction from their real passions and drives. Gaming is an established culture, one microtransactions are not a part of, and aren't really trying to be.

Sony Snafu'd

     Very recently the Vita got a much needed upgrade to the backlog of compatibility. Such titles as Spyro and Crash Bandicoot, and many others, were unlocked to be download for previous owners of the titles. There was no official press release from Sony on the matter, which came off as a bit odd.
     The reason for this however, was that the unlock of these games, that had been requested for months, was a mistake. They did not mean to do it. Promptly realizing their mistake, They removed the titles. Locked them away again. Now as they are the publisher of these games, it is understandable that licensing issues could have occurred, but still. Does it not strike you as odd to remove them? Any user lucky enough to grab the downloads while they could, got to keep them, but I personally only got about half, reserving the rest for later. This is very strange business practice. I am sure there is a logical reason. Giving Sony the benfit of the doubt. Correcting mistakes can be a great thing. We saw this with the reversal of the customer-lambasted Xbox One designs earlier last year. But this time was a happy mistake. A mistake that made out Sony in a good light. It demonstrated the ideal of listening to the loyal consumers who have adopted the Vita.
     Even as an avid supporter of the Playstation Vita, who has been very satisfied with the offered support, this decision kinda feels like a low blow. It isn't too late for Sony to save face, All they have to do is re-unlock these games to download again. This time adding them to the official download list on the Store. These Ps1 and PsP classic would be great on the Vita. As we have seen, the Vita does justice to the classics with its renovated control schemes and oled screen.
     I urge to make your voices known. Email, tweet, hell, even call Sony to let them know your dissatisfaction at this flagrant disregard for customer appeal. Let's get these games where they properly deserve to be- In our pockets.

Why I haven't purchased a PS4

       The next generation has flipped over to the current generation. My Playstation 3 is now old news- outdated. Though it will still see the release of new games, it will never again be the main focus of publishers. This is how the industry works, and I'm okay with that. You'd think that my fond memories and love for the last-gen would be the route of my unease at the switch between generations.
       Although that is a factor, the main reason is is that nothing has changed. I love my ps3 and games. They have defined and punctuated so many good days in my recent life. But the Ps4, is the same. The games follow the same trends, the graphics, though more polished, are generally what the PC versions of last gen games already looked liked. I want more games for my Ps3, and I want them to be the type of games I enjoy, however this does not mean those are the Ps4 games I want. The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 were one of the longest generations, some would speculate too long. However that was the point, people enjoyed this gen, so much to the point where no one required an upgrade in hardware. That's all this is, a hardware boost. Even with the shiny bobs and bells, I see no real change in the core of the games like we have seen in so many previous generations.
       A ps4 would be nice, a longer life on my ps3 would be even nicer, but these are not interchangeable wishes. I do not want more Ps3 on a Ps4. I want the Ps4 to forge its own, unique identity. Maybe it will in the coming months, and at that point you will have a new customer in me.