E3, or the story of how Sony won our love

So E3 has came and went. Normally, the only response I can rise to E3 is a saddened apathy. For years, E3 has not been for me. It has not been for the average gamer. Instead, it puts on a spectacle and invites up celebrities to talk nonsense words to speak to it's actual intended audience – wider mass media and investors. If I wanted an event to truly speak to me, a gamer, I would seek out one of the PAX events instead. However, this year was different.

Going into E3 we had the previously mentioned disastrous reveal of the Xbox One, or to call it by it's derogative nickname, the Xbone. Where the Xbone had a lot of ground to make up to gamers, Sony's PS4 coasted in with a slow building hype. Where the Xbone had set itself apart with some brutal anti-consumer policies, the PS4 had neglected to mention anything regarding DRM and necessary persistent online connection, and had been inundated with cries from the internet to make a firm stand in the opposite direction. So the stage was set for some serious drama, making this years E3 actually potentially interesting for once.

Microsoft went up first. Unfortunately, they failed to recognise the mood of the everyday gamer and give a big, 'Hah, we fooled you! Mega DRM and shite. Yeah, we ain't doing that, because let's be honest; it's absolutely fucking stupid to put our desires ahead of the actual consumer.' But they at least revealed some games, which was sorely needed. Also EA revealed Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare, turning a beloved tower defence game into a shooter.

Everything must be Call of Duty!

Rock on EA, you crazy mad assholes.

Anyway, up came Sony's turn to take the stage. But first, a tangent.

Late last year, (I think) Blip.tv had a series of adverts that stick in my mind. One of Blip.tv's problems regarding adverts personally is the fact that they don't do variety – if you've seen a advert pop up as you watch SF Debris or catch up with Weekly Manga Recap is that you are going to see that advert every fucking time you play a video for the next bloody month. Please Blip.tv, let a couple advertisements run in tandem. It's maddening. Anyway, Pepsi were promoting a drink, I refuse to recollect the name, and they were pushing it because it had 'natural flavourings' or some bollocks. Now this wouldn't be too inoffensive, aside from the fact they're trying to tell you that a fizzy pop drink is healthy, but they included Coca-Cola's Sprite as a comparison. 'Sprite is filled with icky chemicals, but we're chock full of fucking sunshine and unicorn farts and are good for you!' was the whole gist of it.

You should never, ever mention your competition by name. For starters, it's free advertising. Secondly, we humans like picking sides. And this advert annoyed me so much with it's smug condescending manner, I went out and brought a Sprite. And I cannot stand Sprite. It's disgusting, and stick to your tongue in a cloying, artificial way. But I bought one, went online, booted up something at random, waited for the hated advert to start, and I flipped it off with one hand whilst choking down the Sprite with the other.

Basically, referring to your competitor can be a risky business. Sony is full of smart people, they must know this. And so they stepped on the stage...

'sup.

...and did the theatrical equivalent of rubbing their balls all over Microsoft's face for the entire damn set.

And it was one of the most glorious, reaffirming, hilarious things I have ever seen.

I mean, Sony's policy regarding used game sales and ownership is literally to do business as usual. But they made a big song and dance about how it's business as usual, i.e.: you own your own damn games that you paid your own damn money for, and we loved them for it. A big middle finger up at Microsoft. I mean, explain this video:

I mean, come on. This is Sony wrecking the Xbone's shit and loving every second of it.

So, boom. Oh, and were Sony done? Were they hell. No online connection requirement. Boom. No regional locking. Boom. No creepy camera watching me. Boom. An imperial fuck-tonne of games. Boom. Considerably cheaper then the Xbone. Boom.

'Follow me, gamers, to the promised land!'

If I have one complaint, let me make this one clear: I am not happy that they're locked out online multiplayer behind Playstation Plus. Now, that sucks. It sucks a little less then Xbox Live at least because it's only the online multiplayer locked out – a Netflix app, for example, will still be accessible regardless of membership to Playstation Plus as far as I am aware. However, the Playstation Plus has been existing as a subscription for free games. And it still will be. In fact, before seeing E3, I was looking into getting a Playstation, and everyone of my friends for possesses a Playstation Plus has said it is tremendous value for money and worth getting. So in all likelihood, picking up Playstation Plus is a no-brainer, so I'll still be getting online multiplayer if I want it.

Still a little sore about having to, I admit, but it's a damn sight better than Xbox Live. Better a tweak to the nose than a punch on the balls? Okay, both suck, but still...

And in Microsoft's camp? Well, their thunder had been well and truly stolen. When questioned about people not having the required internet connection (even America, there primary market, has spectacularly poor internet infrastructure: why do you think Google Fibre is a thing?) they laughably said, 'Buy an Xbox 360 instead.' So yes, they turned around and said 'Don't buy from us.' Genius. So, all those soldiers out on the field playing games on their down time? Better get a PS4. Why'd hate America Microsoft, huh? Why'd chu hate 'Merica?

Well, they'd have to regardless, because the Xbone's supported country list at launch is depressingly slight. What is hilarious however, is the Witcher 3 was touted by Microsoft... which is a game, developed by a Polish game studio, from the books of a Polish writer... and the Xbone is region locked, and has no Xbox Live support at launch in Poland. Yep. No Live, no verification, no game, for the god damn developers of said game! Oh Microsoft, you so funny. And stupid. And funny.

Incidentally, you know that eventually, Microsoft drops support for it's products? Everyone does. But when you need to log in every twenty-four hours, what happens to your games when they drop the servers? Hmm. Who knows?

(Quick aside: playing Mass Effect 2 two days ago, and all of a sudden I can't log into Xbox Live because they started demanding additional information from me in the interests of 'security.' Twenty sodding minutes of hoop-jumping before I could play the game, on this console at least, that I own. Microsoft. You wonderful crowd pleaser, you.)

At E3, Sony turned around and made many, many converts to them. And they did it in a wonderful, comical, entertaining way. It's a hell of a sales pitch; I feel like I'm getting something, rather than begrudgingly permitted to do certain things as long as I jump through enough hopes. So well done Sony; I'll be switching. I look forward to seeing what the developer Naughty Dog has next to offer.

I cannot believe I'm going to have to learn where those damn square-circle-triangle-buttons-nonsense go. Damn it.

Tabloids are still terrible, and yet I am surprised

How is it Sunday already? Sunday night even? MASS EFFECT 2 THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT.

In fairness, we're surprised you came back to us.

Anyway, it recently came to my attention that whilst one of my favourite punching bags, our newspaper media, is terrible, we don't have a unique monopoly on god awful print media. Which is honestly a good thing, because when you only have the perspective from one country you get kinda blinkered, and worried that every other country actually manages to have a print media that understands and uses respect, rather than just a word it shouts at people for being deemed lacking in it; notably young people and whatever cultural or racial group has recently been termed a social pariah. Then one of my co-workers gleefully handed me a tabloid from an excursion to America, and they actually used the phrase on the cover, 'Evil Camilla.'

Of course everyone else has terrible print media, it's obvious, but sometimes it's just nice to be reminded.

The cover was regarding the Queen rolling back some of her duties and letting Prince Charles cover some of them. Probably just a ruse to conserve her strength to delay his assent to the throne for as long as possible, and it was very strange to sure such a harsh unthinking criticism of the royal family grace the front pages of anything: it's never something you'd see here. Maybe because it's traditionally unwise to upset the reigning monarchy of the country you reside in, or the fact that the most ill-will the majority of us can direct towards the royal family normally doesn't normally go higher than apathy. I personally stopped caring utterly when the details of how our monarchy gets funded were gradually explained to me; these lease out their estates in return for a cash sum. And we make money off of them, which is nice. Further criticism boils down to the whole 'heredity rulers,' thing, which... actually started to bother me again when instead of just siting their waving as they're supposed to, it turns out that Prince Charles lobbies our politicians a lot, and no one knows what about. Way to keep politically neutral, genius.

I suppose I should begrudgingly get back to what I originally discussed, because it's a good thing we globally share awful newspapers because last Friday I saw some real winners of headlines. Take a look at Fridays's Daily Express:

 ...And the Daily Star:

Well, those headlines look curious, right? If you just take the headline, no other reading, they are very definite, especially the The Daily Express. Amusingly the Daily Star of all things is more accurate; a bloke wants in on the Lotto, will donate more. But what's the small print?

It's the newspaper's boss who wants it. (Also, once again, the Daily Star puts that bit clearer than the Express. The paper with prominent breasts on the front is out journo-ing the other. Whee.)

So leads the important question: are we actually seeing, honest to god, someone using their own newspapers for blatant self-promotion? The second question is: Duh, what else do you run newspapers for? I was at least hoping for him to be subtle about it.

I've come to terms long ago that newspapers are simply devices to spread your own personal world view. If something doesn't fit, trash it or ignore it, of if nothing fits, invent it. Whatever. If I ran my own newspaper I'd immediately shut down the celebrity division, (unless they're doing charity work or something) have no pictures of anybody under 18 without express written permission, and have a heavy bend towards reporting easily-digestible science, and political criticism... which would undoubtedly give me a readership even lower than this blog. That still would dwarf the Guardian's readership, however. But I am still naive enough feel troubled but absolute blatant, no-holds-barred, self promotion. You can do that in full page adverts in your own papers for free if you want. Just leave it off the front page, and don't pretend it's a story.

Of course, if they wanted to talk about how awesome I am, they're welcome to go on right ahead. No shenanigans going on there, because I have no money to speak of to slip them, moreso the pity.

I will give some credit to both papers however that they at least specified on the front page with the headline that the man they were pushing, Richard Desmond, was their boss. It would of been hella unsettling otherwise.

What is happening with that press standards thing? Because, that literally was occurring, like, two months ago, or something, and I've completely forgotten. I remember vaguely someone coming up with a Royal Charter, then the press said no, then someone said, well, I guess we can't force you... Oh yes, it got delayed, I remember now! More consulting time, it needed, apparently. By this point, I would just like a decision, and a heads up on how things will go. If they must be a mass of phone hacking, police-bribing, up-skirt shooting psychopaths, I would very much appreciate them embracing and running with it. We all love the conman who we know is conning us, perhaps we'd find print media more palatable if they winked at the reader and said, 'Well, we got no dirt on this guy now, but I've got one of his friends who's a bit desperate for cash and fame, and we know he doesn't lock his bins. Come back tomorrow to see what we basically made up!' And then we move them to the fiction area of the display stands, so we all know what we're getting into.

Or that would be even worse. I'm sorry, it's hard to tell sometimes. I would give an example of how horrible they've been recently, but it's all started to blur together, unless it's that brain tumor finally making it's appearance.

Though before I go, I have one interesting titbit to mention. You see, Richard Desmond owns not only those two papers, he also owns Portland TV, which in turn owns Television X and Red Hot TV among other pornographic channels. So the next time you ever see the Daily Express start hand-wringing over porn and falling standards... just remember that little factoid.

And snicker.

One of these days, I'll post on time

I screwed up my timekeeping, so you'll get tonight's article tomorrow. So once again, double update week! Christ, by now I have more 'double update' notices then actual entries.

It'll about newspapers. Again. So that'll be fun.