Four Player Co-Op 10.20.09: Motion Control, SKUs, Shills, and Smashing

Posted by Rod Oracheski on 10.20.2009

Which motion control scheme holds the most interest? Have we seen enough retail SKUs yet? Are forum shills the lowest form of advertising? How will your TV meet its demise? 411 staffers discuss these topics and more in the latest edition of Four Player Co-Op!

Todd Vote has joined the game.
Sean Garmer has joined the game.
Mark Salmela has joined the game.
Rod Oracheski has joined the game.

Question One: Wiimote + Nunchuk. Natal. Sony Wand + Eyetoy. Which of the three is the most interesting to you and why?

Todd Vote

Honestly, I think Natal has the greatest potential of the three. We are several months removed from E3, and that Milo demo still gives me the creeps, Skynet-style. I think if Natal can garner the support of the developers, we could all be in for some great things. And honestly as cool as motion control is, the idea of not needing a controller at all to do anything with your console is an interesting concept, so I'd have to say Natal is the one that is holding my interest at this point.

Am I interested enough to be the first in line to buy it on release? No, but I will be keeping my eye on it. At this point all three are simply gimmicks to capture the casual fans. We'll have to see if any have the staying power to last past the current generation of consoles.

Sean Garmer

Natal interests me the most because I've already seen what the Wii can do, and I don't care if Sony has a wand to go with it, I don't find the eyetoy interesting. Natal is hands free, it allows you to do other things with Natal besides playing games, and it could take gaming to a different level. the graphical power of the 360 with Natal may give us the ability to play as ourselves in a game. I'm just kinda excited to see what Natal could eventually offer gamers all around the world because its hands free. It also seems to have a greater range of motion than the wands provide, and I like the idea that it can scan our own objects into games.

The best part for me is, since it doesn't have a controller I don't have to constantly buy batteries. I already don't know how much I spend every so ofter having to replace batteries in my Rock Band instruments, if I had a Wii I'd be broke just with buying batteries. Not to mention, it costs 60 bucks every time I wanna buy another Wii Remote and Nunchuck, that's too much. Especially when they know to have the full experience you will want to have all four. I don't know, maybe its just because there is a lot left to the imagination with Natal, whereas the other two its kinda been there and done that type deal. The only thing that will probably hurt Natal is the price.

Mark Salmela

Project Natal. I'm tempted to go with none of the above, but if I have to choose I'm going to go with Project Natal. Natal does offer a lot of potential, but I can't imagine that most companies are going to properly utilize it. The problem is that 99% of developers have no idea how to make games using motion controls. The Wii is living proof of that. Developers go out of their way to use motion controls in place of buttons. That only complicates the process. I don't want to shake the Wiimote or PS3 wand to jump. If I want to jump I'll push the god damn A button, thank you. Motion controls are a nice gimmick, and they have their place in video games, but there is no way they should become the standard in video games. I have a high suspicion that the PS3 Wand and Project Natal will degrade into what the Wii has become. These motion controllers will degrade into a dry and dull experience that is packed full of dozens and dozens of motion controlled mini-games that get boring after 5 minutes. Kind of like a night with Lansdell's Mom.

Rod Oracheski

The Wii controls don't hold much for me, with potential that continues to go unrealized after so long, and it seems likely that the Sony Wand (or whatever they plan to call it in the end) will wind up stuck in the same 'hey let's make them waggle the controller instead of pushing a button' path. Natal is less likely to go that route, though if I'm completely honest the only thing I'm really interested in it for is waving my hand from the couch to surf through the movie collection I've stored on my home server system.

---

Question Two: They just brought out the PS3 Slim, the One True SKU that would herald in the new age...and now there's a 250GB version for those that didn't bite. The Xbox 360 Elite drops in price, then later on a Modern Warfare (or Forza 3, if you're in Europe) themed console is announced with two controllers, the game, a 250 GB HDD, and a unique look. Are there just too many SKU's these days, and does it wind up making consumers hold off on buying?

Todd Vote

Nah, there aren't too many SKU's out there. The more options the better. I don't think it will make new consumers hold off on buying, by giving them more options you may actually be encouraging more buys. However being some one that jumped in fairly early, I always feel a bit burned when the company I gave my money too does more to entice new gamers than they do to keep the current gamers satisfied. I've said it before when a new Force Unleashed game was announced. Why should someone who has refused to buy the product up to this point be the one that is rewarded for it?

Sean Garmer

I really don't understand why they just can't make different HDD's and be done with it. There are too many SKU's out there, but as I said on fact or fiction this week, I guess its nice to always give people that have never bought a system before, a chance at having the most memory possible. At the price that they give standalone HDD's its actually a bargain. Sony is doing a smart thing and only charging $50 dollars more for it, instead of the $100 dollars I thought they would charge. In the end, most people will only ever need the $300 PS3 slim, but if they have plans of maxing out their HDD's they always have the option to buy the other one instead. If Sony really thinks this will sell, I guess why not do it.

Mark Salmela

Yes, there are way too many skus. What happened to the days where there were just one sku per console? I am all for packing in games with consoles. In fact to some degree I think it should be a requirement. Just look what it did for the Nintendo Wii. But if you're going to do that include one of your best games that appeals to a wide audience. Now I can't speak for the casual consumer, but I believe there are way too many options for consoles. How many people know the differences between all the PS3 skus? How many people know the difference between the Xbox 360 Pro and the Xbox 360 Elite?

The Wii is simple. If you want a Wii you buy a Wii. You don't have an option unless you find one of those crazy Walmart mass bundles that only an idiot would buy *which actually appeals to their ideal costumer*. But I miss the days where if you wanted a Super Nintendo, you bought a god damn Super Nintendo. You didn't have to choose between 3 different versions of the Super Nintendo, each including features the general public doesn't know if they really need. If you wanted a Sega Dreamcast than by god you bought a Sega Dreamcast. There was no Dreamcast Pro, no Dreamcast Ultimate, and no Dreamcast Arcade unit. I know the 360 Arcade makes Microsoft a lot of money, but I for one am not in favor of multiple skus. Give me one console, give me everything I need in the package, and don't give me anything else.

Rod Oracheski

I don't think there are really that many consumers who are confused by what's offered in the SKU's on the market these days. There was some confusion back when the PS3 dropped backwards compatibility, but that's now a thing of the past. Every box on shelves is clearly labeled as to what's inside, so anyone confused really has only themselves to blame.

That said, I don't think adding a newer and better SKU so soon after the relaunch of the brand is a good idea. Consumers might not be confused, but when they see newer - better - deals rolling out so soon after one another, they might just be inclined to hold off and see if there's something else coming down the pipe instead of picking up the latest deal.

---

Question Three: It appears a viral marketer was outed on NeoGAF talking up Borderlands. Does this kind of marketing dissuade you from buying a game or is it 'all's fair in love and marketing' for you?

Todd Vote

I see no problem with viral marketing, but it can be done without trashing games that are near and dear to a lot of gamers hearts. I believe they can market a game anyway they want, and thats okay with me, but if you are going to say your game is better than Call of Duty, Halo, and Left 4 Dead, you better be prepared to eat some shit stew when people find out otherwise. I'm all for marketing in whatever way you can, but be careful which dog you poke with a stick.

Sean Garmer

If they can come out with clever ways of doing marketing, then its something I don't mind. Borat and Snakes on a Plane proved that good viral marketing can be a way to get people to talk about and see the feature. If someone just goes on a forum and talks up a game, that just annoys me. It just looks silly and in bad taste, look at all the posts of people that said "I'm not buying this game now" those statements probably have some truth to them. Why? Because that isn't good marketing. Talking about a game in supposed "hip" language doesn't get you any farther than telling a news wrtier to post a press release about the game. In fact, comparing Borderlands four-player co-op to an orgy is just rather gross and unnecessary. And talking down about other games to make your look better, actually just makes the poster look stupid.

Mark Salmela

If you're dumb enough to believe some random scrub on a message board than sure, what's wrong with that? I could go on 411's forums right now under a hidden name and sing the praises of the new Buzz Quiz game. If you believe me that it's going to change the world than you've probably already signed up to lead the new world order after 2012. There's no hope for you Armand… I mean there's no hope for us, oh wise one. For everyone else, just ignore it.

Rod Oracheski

This kind of thing is just sleazy. I'm all for advertising your product, but do it without trying to trick your potential consumers. Having someone set themselves up as 'just another member' of a forum community for months prior, just so they can pimp your product from a position of trust - that's low. It doesn't sound like 2K or Gearbox had anything to do with this guy, so maybe he was just overzealous - or trying to show what he could do.

---

Question Four: The Home Shopping Network recently had their first (to my knowledge) Wiimote disaster, smashing a TV during a live broadcast. With motion controls becoming more and more common in the future, how much risk is your set in and what's the most likely way it will meet its demise, should it fall victim to a motion control-related fatality...Wii bowling? A horrific Sony Wand archery accident? Drunk
Natal?

Todd Vote

Drunk Natal sounds awesome. I can see my self playing that little block breaking game they demo'd and falling right through my TV on a drunken night. Do you suppose Microsoft will include a Do Not Play Drunk warning?

In all seriousness, this is more a case of excitable gamers than anything. The Wii-mote works just as well without going all spastic on the herky jerky motions. If you are swinging a Wii-mote like you are playing in the major leagues, you deserve to bust your TV.

Sean Garmer

Unless Natal offers accessories it probably seems likely that it will still happen with a Wii Remote. I always use the strap for a reason because those things can slip out of your hand easily if you aren't careful. Especially with all the different forward motions you have to do in games like Wii-Tennis or the Baseball games, I wouldn't be surprised to see kids accidentally throw the remotes. The way it happened on the HSN was rather funny because it looked like it just slipped out of his hands. But I think people are aware this can happen and will take precautions to make sure that does happen to their TV set. Cause I don't think that is covered under the insurance, if you even bought any.

Mark Salmela

Wow, this is a tough one. When it comes to my friends and I, I have confidence that none of us are going to be that careless as to chuck the Wiimote at a TV screen like the guy on the infomercial. I mean that guy just flat out whipped that Tennis peripheral off the Wiimote. That was an accident waiting to happen. But I do think that there are kids who don't know any better, and if left unsupervised could have an accident like that. Do I think it's Nintendo's fault? Hell no, it's the parents/users. But I do understand the potential is there. Now if I had to predict which of the three motion controlled peripherals is most likely to break my TV I'd say Natal. Because after the first couple of nights with the Wii I've never stood up and got excited about playing a Wii game. Well WiiFit is an obvious exception but that isn't used for anything other than leaning left or right like an idiot or for doing yoga. The same will apply with the PS3 wand, I'm not going to stand up and get caught up in the moment like an idiot. But Project Natal appears as if you're not going to have the choice but stand up and move around for the majority of games. Thus, with a little alcohol, and maybe a pill or two that is used to keep Todd Vote out of the insane asylum, and bam, an accident is waiting to happen with Natal.

Rod Oracheski

Without a doubt it's going to be a Wiimote that does some damage to my TV. I have a three-year old who's becoming addicted to the Wii Sports Resort swordfighting game and, unfortunately, that can only end badly for the 60" screen I love so much.

---

Question Five: Taking Dungeons and Dragons Online to a free-to-play model seems to have paid off big for Turbine, who report a 40% increase in subscriptions after going to the new free-to-play model. Should every MMO out there (most of which offer a one-week trial with varying levels of access to the full game's features) be giving the free-to-play model a hard look, or is this just an aberration they want stomped out?

Todd Vote

I think free-to-play is the way to go. I've always thought it was a pretty shady practice to make people pay for the game, then oh whats this? You have to pay a monthly fee to keep playing the game. I don't know if there is a game in the world I would enjoy playing enough to pay for the game every month. Especially in this economy I think that free-to-play will attract more gamers.

Sean Garmer

As an article I read states, "people like to play these things in groups" and if its free more people will play. I don't know why anyone would think that have a free model such as Dungeons and Dragons does is bad. There are people that would never play the game otherwise if they not only had to pay $50 bucks and then $15 a month too. Sure, there are many MMO players that do it, but money can be a crux for others. Using a free model makes people get into the game and then decide after playing a few levels if they'd like to access some of the paid features. If you let players pay for what they want to play it can easily get them to pay for some more stuff. I think more MMO's should use this approach because you never know who's out there that just wishes they could play the game for more than one week.

Mark Salmela

This is really hard for me to answer. I'm a firm believer in that games should not have subscriptions to begin with. If I buy a game it's mine. I should not be forced to pay a fee to play it. What if I had to pay $0.30 every time I wanted to play Tetris? What would I do if there severs are taken offline? I'm sure some people are fine with paying a monthly subscription for games, but I'm not. That's why I'm never going to play MMO's like this. 20 years from now I want to have the option to play it, maybe even with my kids *once again, hello Lansdell's Mom*, but I don't want to have to insert my credit card number to do so. I don't have to get a subscription to play Pong, and I don't want to have to get a subscription to play a game. It's as simple as that for me. But to answer the question, I do think the free trial is a good method of gaining new costumers. It's what drug dealers do. The first hit is free, but after that it's going to cost you an arm and a leg to get that fix. If you need more information just ask and I'll shoot you over the email address of the Robbins brothers.

Rod Oracheski

I doubt I'll ever pay a monthly fee to play a MMO again, burnt out on the WoW experience and tired of the treadmills the games inevitably become. A free-to-play game though? Maybe that gets me to try it out. With no financial commitment, I wouldn't feel bad about 'cheating' on it with other games, or failing to play for a week or more.

So long as these free-to-play games don't become a barebones framework where you have to pay to do anything, I'm all for it.

---

Bonus Question: Industry analyst Michael Pachter theorized a future where Microsoft bumps the price of Xbox Live up to $100 a year. Believe or disbelieve! If true, what would they have to add to make this hike in fees worth the jump?

Todd Vote

Todd's answer for this question has yet to arrive.

Sean Garmer

I pay the monthly $8.60 to have XBOX Live Gold, if that goes up to more than 10 bucks I can't afford it. I'm fine with what they offer me now, I really don't know what else they could offer other than free arcade games or longer demos. I really do hope it doesn't go up that high because $100 bucks a year is way too much for online service. And with almost everything going online now, that's just being ridiculous.

Mark Salmela

Honestly, there is nothing Microsoft could add that would make me pay $100 a year for Xbox Live. I don't care if Modern Warfare 2, 3, and 4 were 360 exclusives, I wouldn't pay $100 a year for it. I don't even pay $50 a year for Xbox Live. I went without Xbox Live for 4 months earlier this year because I flat out am not going to pay to play games online anymore. There's an obvious flamewar waiting to be started and while I think the Xbox Live interface is leagues better than what Sony and Nintendo have, it's still not worth $50 to me. I managed to get away with a $30 subscription because I wanted to play a couple games with friends, because otherwise I would still be without Xbox Live, a full 8 months after my subscription would have run out. But I dare Microsoft to make Xbox Live $100, because they'll never see my ass again.

Rod Oracheski

I don't think Pachter was really saying Microsoft's going to increase Xbox Live to $100 a year, which makes the choice to disbelieve pretty easy. The idea that they'd like to make more money from Xbox Live isn't exactly a stretch - Sony would love to make more money from PSN and Nintendo would like to pull in more from their online system as well.

The question of what would make Xbox Live worth $100 a year is harder to answer, but more intriguing. I'd say that a system similar to how Zune Pass works, where you pay monthly to get access to the entire Zune music library and each month you can designate some songs as 'yours' permanently, would be the way to go. Maybe it's just for Xbox Live Arcade titles - you get one every month (more realistically probably one every two months) that you can keep for good. Maybe it's a certain dollar amount added to your Microsoft Points total every month, defraying the total cost of your Xbox Live - but ensuring that discount will be spent on the Marketplace. That second one seems a lot more likely, in this unlikely scenario.

I think the reality is that we'll continue to see Microsoft add functionality and features to Xbox Live so they can continue to justify charging for the service when held up against Sony's online platform. As Sony gets closer to feature-parity with Xbox Live, the charge seems less palatable to consumers - so Microsoft needs to keep raising that bar.

---

If you have any questions you'd like to see the Four Player Co-Op crew handle, feel free to submit them via e-mail or in the comments.