411 Games Fact or Fiction 04.12.11 Anonymous, SSX, Sonic and More
Posted by Adam Larck on 04.12.2011
Will the rights to Modern Warfare ever revert back to the original developers? Are we interested in the newest Sonic title? Can NBA Jam cover for a lack of a basketball simulation game from EA this year? 411’s Jordan Williams and Stephen Randle debate these questions and more in this week’s 411 Fact or Fiction: Games!
Welcome back to another week of 411 Games Fact or Fiction. I'm Adam Larck, and I'm currently in a co-op mood. Playing Dynasty Warrior: Strikeforce and Splinter Cell: Conviction, along with checking out a bit of Bayonetta. Thank you used game sale.
This week, we have Jordan Williams going up against Stephen Randle. Let's see how these two do. Time for banner!
1.) West and Zampella will never get the Modern Warfare rights back.
Jordan Williams - Fact: I don't think anything outside of the wrath of God will force Activision to give back the rights to Modern Warfare. I am sure they can fight it out in court for the rest of time and the best West and Zampella might get is monetary kickbacks from any MW games but as far as them getting the name rights to make a new game? No way in hell.
Stephen Randle - Fact: I mean, it'd be nice for them and a blow to Activision, but I suspect that the multi-billion dollar corporation has better evil lawyers. And, probably the law is on their side too. I think a lot of this attempt is public posturing to maintain sympathy and keep themselves in the news for when they announce what they're developing next, but I doubt they really believe there's anything beyond an outside chance that they'd end up regaining the rights to Modern Warfare. Besides, I'm fairly sure not having the name won't prevent them from designing a game that's the same conceptually without the label.
Score: 1 for 1 - I just don't see it happening. I think the duo needs to just start a new series up.
2.) Anonymous was justified in attacking Sony over the lawsuits against hackers.
Jordan Williams - Fiction: I am torn on this one because normally I am right there with Anonymous when they take up arms to combat something but I think this one is just doing more harm than good in the long run. They said it themselves that what they are doing now is negatively affecting Sony customers who had no part in this whole little war to begin with. It also doesn't help the media disassociate the gamer culture with the malicious hacker culture that whines when it can't get it's way. What Sony is doing with the lawsuits might not be friendly, but outright attacking them via hacking and what not just helps Sony's side of the matter.
Stephen Randle - Fiction: I'm all for human rights and such, but believe it or not, Sony is completely in the right to attempt to protect their intellectual property from hackers and people who can affect their ability to profit from what they've created. All this attack by Anonymous does is give Sony another thing they can point to and say "see, hackers are malicious and harmful", and guess what, they'd be absolutely, totally, 100 percent right to say so. Just because you have the ability to perform essentially untraceable attacks against Sony and the PSN because you have a beef with them doesn't make you a freedom fighter. I'm pretty sure it just makes you a criminal. Hey, Anonymous, why don't you try using your "powers" for something other than defending guys who, guess what, had to know they were going to bring Sony and the legal system down on them when they hacked a PS3 in the first place. Because what they did was illegal.
Score: 2 for 2 - I really don't see what Anonymous was trying to accomplish besides strengthening Sony's resolve against hackers.
3.) It's a good move by EA to drop the Deadly Descents subtitle for SSX.
Jordan Williams - FACT: Why is that in all caps? BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE. SSX is one of my favorite game franchises EVER and while I make it a life to defend pretty much every shitty move a company does (See above question) when I saw the SSX: DD trailer at the VGAs last year my heart just sunk. They took the fun arcade fun of SSX and turned it into SSX: Modern Snowfare. I am so happy they listened to the uproar that it caused and went back to the roots of what SSX was.
Stephen Randle - Fact: Well, the market spoke up in disdain for the title and the perception that the game was moving away from what made it great, and EA reacted appropriately. I'd actually be less on EA's side if they'd changed it because, I don't know, somebody thought that calling it "deadly" would offend people affected by the earthquakes in Japan (NOTE: I'm not making light of the terrible tragedies suffered by the people of Japan). If the reaction to the name is profoundly negative, they'd be silly not to change it, especially if simply changing the marketing campaign is the difference between success and failure.
Score: 3 for 3 - SSX has always been a lighthearted series, and it's probably a good call to keep it that way.
Stephen Randle - Fiction: Never been a huge Sonic fan, but mainly I didn't even know there was a new one coming out. That speaks a lot to their failure in marketing, doesn't it? I mean, I can name about fifty different release dates for other games, and had no idea that another Sonic game was even in production.
Jordan Williams - Fiction: …Nope. I think I am pretty much done with Sonic. Why? Because Sonic is just…it's just there now. Sonic Colors might've broken the dreaded Sonic Cycle but even then it just seems like there is nothing NEW you can do with Sonic. You start, you run to the right side of the screen. You finish. I just don't care anymore.
Score: 4 for 4 - I just want to see what the new and old Sonic being together will mean to the series.
5.) The NGP really won't be delayed due to the recent Japanese earthquakes.
Stephen Randle - Fiction: I can see why it might be, but I'm fairly sure that Sony will be putting a whole lot of resources into making sure that the NGP makes its release date if it's at all possible, including using resources outside of Japan where at all possible. I'm sure people would understand the need for the delay, but I think Sony will want to prove that everything about this handheld, including the release, will go off without a hitch.
Jordan Williams - Fact: I think it'll be delayed but I don't think the earthquakes will have anything to do with it. I can just see them using E3 as a gauge for what exactly they want to do with the NGP. If it goes over like a fart in church I can see them holding off to get the best launch line up but if it sets the world on fire like the 3DS last year they might rush it out. For some reason I don't see them stealing the show at E3.
Score: 4 for 5 - I can see the system possibly hitting a delay, but doubt it will be due to the earthquakes.
6.) NBA Jam will be able to cover for the lack of a simulation basketball game from EA in 2011.
Stephen Randle - Fact: This mostly is because the 2011 edition of EA's NBA franchise was apparently so putrid that it led to this situation in the first place. I'm fairly sure a lot of gamers will give EA some credit for choosing to cancel the game for this year instead of releasing a pile of crap, especially since they also released NBA Jam this year, which sort of fills the gap. Sure, it's less than completely realistic gameplay, but the NBA hasn't followed actual basketball rules in decades anyway (seriously, if they started calling travelling these games would never end), and as long as EA can produce a good return to the franchise for 2012, I think basketball fans will manage just fine with NBA Jam for now.
Jordan Williams - Fiction: There is no question EA is going to feel the pain of not having a simulation basketball game out in 2011 because although NBA Jam can coast on nostalgia for awhile, but as soon as another NBA 2k game comes out they will drop NBA Jam like a bad habit and go that-away.
Score: 4 for 6 - I don't think Jam will be able to stop the next 2K series in sales.
Bonus Question.) The Portal 2 "advertisements" are awesome.
Stephen Randle - Fact: I also like that it doesn't give away too much for people who haven't played the first Portal (which you should anyway) and might not entirely understand why the disembodied computer voice is encouraging us to have fun. For science. You monster.
Jordan Williams - Unknown: I…I haven't actually seen them. So…uh…BANANA. Yeah, that'll have to work as an answer.
Adam Larck - Fact: I would love to see how Valve keeps coming up with these great videos. They're humorous, yet still don't give away a lot about the game or the plot. Honestly, if you haven't seen them all by now, check them out at GameTrailers.
The pair comes close, but stumbles on the last two, going 4-for-6. What do you think? Agree or disagree with their answers? Let us know. See you in seven!
It is nice to know that public outcry caused EA to back down over SSX because I'm sure another outcry will be necessary when they decide to turn Dragon Age and Mass Effect into CoD-clones.
Posted By: Guest#4929 (Guest) on April 11, 2011 at 11:49 PM
It is ridiculous and immoral that companies like Apple and Sony can prevent you from doing what you will with their products post-purchase. YOU OWN IT. Can Ford or your real estate company prevent you from modifying your car or home? NO. This is especially ridiculous when they are artificially limiting the potential of the hardware YOU already payed them for.
They deserved and earned the ire of hackers. All they should be able to do is stop you from cheating when you play others online. You payed for the product, and unless you are affecting other paying customers via your hacks they have no business telling you what to do with your property.
Posted By: Bavitz (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 04:34 AM
Is there actually a difference between the new and old Sonic characters? Or is it more of a Mega Man Universe thing where you can choose retro versions of the character? Time will tell I guess.
Posted By: Guest#7261 (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 11:13 AM
It is ridiculous and immoral that companies like Apple and Sony can prevent you from doing what you will with their products post-purchase. YOU OWN IT. Can Ford or your real estate company prevent you from modifying your car or home? NO. This is especially ridiculous when they are artificially limiting the potential of the hardware YOU already payed them for.
They deserved and earned the ire of hackers. All they should be able to do is stop you from cheating when you play others online. You payed for the product, and unless you are affecting other paying customers via your hacks they have no business telling you what to do with your property.
Posted By: Bavitz (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 04:34 AM
Silly boy. You lease the stuff. You never actually OWN anything these days. You think your corporate overlords would ever allow that?
Posted By: Brandon (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 11:24 AM
"It is ridiculous and immoral that companies like Apple and Sony can prevent you from doing what you will with their products post-purchase. YOU OWN IT"
Actually, there are many restrictions regarding what you can and can not do with a product. They are called laws. You must use your product in a way that complies with the laws of wherever you happen to live. Just because you have a car doesn't mean you can drive it 150 MPH. Just because you legally own a gun doesn't mean you can put a silencer on it (in most circumstances at least).
Sony feels that way in which "Geo Hot" used his product violated laws. Not being a legal expert, I can't really verify this, but it certainly seems plausible.
Posted By: Justin Weinblatt (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 01:59 PM
"It is ridiculous and immoral that companies like Apple and Sony can prevent you from doing what you will with their products post-purchase. YOU OWN IT. Can Ford or your real estate company prevent you from modifying your car or home? NO. This is especially ridiculous when they are artificially limiting the potential of the hardware YOU already payed them for.
They deserved and earned the ire of hackers. All they should be able to do is stop you from cheating when you play others online. You payed for the product, and unless you are affecting other paying customers via your hacks they have no business telling you what to do with your property."
Yep, it's like it Ford came to my house and took the transfer case out of my truck, because 4WD can let me drive off the road, and they don't want people doing that.
Posted By: G-Walla (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 03:11 PM
It is my understanding that you do own your Playstation. However, you are only granted a license to use the software on it. Do whatever you like with the hardware - you do own that. Just do not try to modify the firmware as you will get sued. This is what happened to the ass hat Geohot.
As for SSX changing the name doesn't make the game sound any less rubbish. Travelling the world and skiing down famous mountains isn't the same having a single mountain with different courses and challenges to explore.
It just doesn't sound like my kind of SSX thanks.
Posted By: Squishy (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 03:58 PM
"It is ridiculous and immoral that companies like Apple and Sony can prevent you from doing what you will with their products post-purchase. YOU OWN IT"
Actually, there are many restrictions regarding what you can and can not do with a product. They are called laws. You must use your product in a way that complies with the laws of wherever you happen to live. Just because you have a car doesn't mean you can drive it 150 MPH. Just because you legally own a gun doesn't mean you can put a silencer on it (in most circumstances at least).
Sony feels that way in which "Geo Hot" used his product violated laws. Not being a legal expert, I can't really verify this, but it certainly seems plausible.
Posted By: Justin Weinblatt (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 01:59 PM
That argument doesn't work with electronics. If I buy a computer at Best Buy don't I have the right to add or remove programs from it? What if I don't like Windows and I remove it to put on Linux? It's exactly the same thing.
When we buy a PS3 we are buying the hardware and the software that comes with it, but we should be able to change anything if we want to as long as it doesn't affect the PSN or anyone else's gameplay experience.
What surprises me is that Sony is spending thousands or millions or dollars making "hack-proof" software and going after hackers when that money could be spent making better games or fundamentally improving the system for the 99.99% of us that don't mod our systems. It just seems like a giant waste or resources.
Posted By: Guest#7780 (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 05:28 PM
That argument doesn't work with electronics. If I buy a computer at Best Buy don't I have the right to add or remove programs from it? What if I don't like Windows and I remove it to put on Linux? It's exactly the same thing.
When we buy a PS3 we are buying the hardware and the software that comes with it, but we should be able to change anything if we want to as long as it doesn't affect the PSN or anyone else's gameplay experience.
Posted By: Guest#7780 (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 05:28 PM
Using your analogy when you buy a computer from Best Buy yes you can remove Windows but you cannot modify Windows and re-distribute it. When you install Windows (or buy a computer with it installed) you are agreeing to a user license.
It is a similar user license that you agree to when sign into the PS3 and PSN. You are perfectly within your rights to completely wipe the PS3 and use it as a server as people have done.
But you cannot modify Sony's proprietary code any more than you can modify Microsoft's.
Posted By: G-Man (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 10:09 PM
@Justin Weinblatt
Toyota doesn't set the speed limits, the government does. Remington doesn't make laws on silencers. The government does.
Sony sued goehot. Civil charges are not the same thing as criminal charges. He would be in jail, not South America had he broken the law.
Now in Germany? Yes he would have broken laws, but that is why German police raided the home of a German hacker who worked on the project.
Learn before you speak please.
Posted By: Bavitz (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 11:36 PM
"That argument doesn't work with electronics. If I buy a computer at Best Buy don't I have the right to add or remove programs from it? What if I don't like Windows and I remove it to put on Linux? It's exactly the same thing.
When we buy a PS3 we are buying the hardware and the software that comes with it, but we should be able to change anything if we want to as long as it doesn't affect the PSN or anyone else's gameplay experience.
What surprises me is that Sony is spending thousands or millions or dollars making "hack-proof" software and going after hackers when that money could be spent making better games or fundamentally improving the system for the 99.99% of us that don't mod our systems. It just seems like a giant waste or resources.
Posted By: Guest#7780 (Guest) on April 12, 2011 at 05:28 PM"
There seems to be a bit of confusion, since there were (as far as I know), two separate issues here that anonymous were upset about. The "other OS option" and the lawsuit against George Hotz.
In the case of the "other OS" option, Sony is probably in the wrong. In general removing an advertised feature is usually illegal. I'm not sure about the full legality of this, but I'd imagine Sony would need to reimburse anyone who wanted to return their PS3 as a result of the "Other OS option". I think there is already a class action lawsuit going on about that.
The other issue anonymous had was with the George Hotz lawsuit, which is more complicated. It's legal to own a PS3, and legal to hack it (I think), but illegal to use it to play pirated games. Just like that computer you got at Best Buy. You're not allowed to do anything you want on it. For example you couldn't download child pornography, or copyrighter materials. So there are restrictions.
As far as I know, George Hotz did not download any pirated material BUT he was fully aware that the information he was giving would help those who wished to pirate games.
The legal situation is similar to the one in the Limewire lawsuits. Limewire did not actually distribute any illegal content, but they provided a great deal of assistance to those who wished to do so.
Knowing that this information could potentially cost them millions of dollars, how could Sony NOT take legal action? Piracy was a huge contributing factor to the downfall of the Dreamcast, and is an even huger problem for the DS market. More people than you think mod their console. Red Steel 2 was downloaded at least 850,000 times (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/12/29/most-pirated-games-2010). That's twice as many times as it was actually purchased. RDR was downloaded around 1 million times for the X-Box. Sony has so far remained nearly unscathed by piracy (at least with the PS3) so you can't blame them for being litigious.
Posted By: Justin Weinblatt (Guest) on April 13, 2011 at 02:27 AM
"@Justin Weinblatt
Toyota doesn't set the speed limits, the government does. Remington doesn't make laws on silencers. The government does.
Sony sued goehot. Civil charges are not the same thing as criminal charges. He would be in jail, not South America had he broken the law."
My first point is taken completely out of context. I just meant to show that you are not allowed to do whatever you wish with a product.
The government made the digital millenium copyright act, and the computer fraud and abuse act, which Sony is claiming are the laws that George violated.
The difference between civil law and criminal law regards who is bringing up a suit. In Criminal cases the plaintiff is always the government. In a Civil Case the plaintiff is a private citizen or corporation. The point of the whole trial (before it was settled) was to prove that Georgie did indeed break a law. Just because this was a civil case doesn't mean that no laws were broken, because if laws weren't (potentially) broken they wouldn't have gone to court.
Lastly, I, and pretty much everyone else in this topic, have been pretty respectful. No need to insult people, especially since your knowledge of this situation is clearly far from perfect. :)
Posted By: Justin Weinblatt (Guest) on April 13, 2011 at 04:09 PM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
