411 Games Fact or Fiction 08.09.11: Borderlands 2, HBO Go, EA Sports and More
Posted by Adam Larck on 08.09.2011
Are we excited for Borderlands 2? Will EA Sports' new Season Ticket fail? Is there interest for a zombies-only map pack for Call of Duty: Black Ops? Can HBO Go take on Netflix and Hulu on consoles? 411’s Stewart Lange and Armando Rodriguez 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've beaten Bastion and almost finished with Insanely Twisted: Shadow Planet. Other than that, I just picked up Oblivion and Morrowind on PC, so I've been enjoying those games.
This week, we have Armando Rodriguez and first-time contributor Stewart Lange going head-to-head. Let's see how these two do. Time for banner!
1.) You're excited that Borderlands 2 finally got announced.
Stewart Lange - Fact: First of all, I'd like to thank Adam for having me here in the Games zone. I've enjoyed doing these answers, so I'd be happy to come back whenever you'll have me. Secondly, I'd like to say hell yes I am. Borderlands is still one of my favourite online games, and alongside Left 4 Dead 2 it is one of the few games I am more than happy to play long after I have all the achievements. Early screenshots for the sequel suggest more of the same, but with the expected improvements. With any luck, they will give us some great DLC with this one too, more "General Knoxx" than "Mad Moxxi" hopefully. The only thing that will prevent me from picking this game up on day one is how close the release is to Bioshock: Infinite, as while BI will take priority, I have no doubt Borderlands will drain my time away.
Armando Rodriguez - Fact: I have yet to play the first one...but don't kill me! I am getting it this week; I was just waiting until the GOTY edition dropped in price. Two of my friends got them recently and they are all hooked on it and call it one of the best games they have ever played. I am eager to dive on it myself. So yes, in a week in which Borderlands started getting some "promotion" from my friends, a sequel gets announced. Of course I am excited!
Score: 1 for 1 - This was a huge announcement I was looking forward to. Day one purchase for me.
2.) A zombies-only map pack for Black Ops interests you.
Stewart Lange - Fiction: I'll be honest, COD hasn't interested me for a long time. I'd much rather play Battlefield BC 2, but I will try and look at this objectively – and my answer still has to be fiction. From what I understand, the maps pack is one new map, with the remaining four being remastered versions of the bonus content from the hardened edition. While I'm sure there are plenty of people out there with these maps already this is a bit of a cop out in my opinion (to Activisions credit, they are giving the pack away free to anyone that owns the four original maps). My second issue is the price. Unless you play nothing other than COD online, I think 1200msp is far to expensive, especially compared to the likes of say, the Broken Steel expansion for Fallout 3 or more recently, the Arrival for Mass Effect 2. Given the extra playing time for two thirds of the price, I'd like to say I can't fathom why COD packs always cost more – but as long as people are paying for them, that's what they will cost. Back to the question though, while Zombies were a fun distraction when I did play Call of Duty, they would never last long before I would be straight back into the main maps, they would never be something I paid extra for.
Armando Rodriguez - Fiction: I am so burned out of COD that I could care less about map packs, zombies or not. After the original Modern Warfare, I have failed to truly enjoy a new CoD game because it feels like more of the same. Battlefield is where it's at. So zombies or no zombies, it's equally dull and unexciting to me.
Score: 2 for 2 - I'll be honest; I'm more interested in this than I am the usual multiplayer map packs.
3.) You're surprised that Square Enix picked up True Crime: Hong Kong.
Stewart Lange - Fiction: If the price was right, why not? The only surprising thing in this news is that it is not the sort of game Square Enix is recognized for. At the end of the day, the game is probably around 90% done so they have a game that is nearly ready for release and while they appear to not own the "True Crime" name rights, it surely is not going to take an awful lot of work to get the game onto shelves.
I think it would make sense for Square to release the game, whatever it may be called, under the Eidos banner as I think they have a better reputation for releasing non-RPG games, as in the UK at least, Kane and Lynch 2 and Bloodstone were not well received. I am interested to see how the game turns out, but with GTA still rattling along and Saints Row 3 due out soon, it may be lost in the shuffle.
Armando Rodriguez - Fiction: I struggled with this one. I would say Fact because it is the type of game that is as far away from a "Square Enix" project as you can get. But at the same time, Square Enix has been trying to diversify their portfolio over the last few years and in a way it makes sense. So it makes sense, but it is equally surprising. Confused yet? Either way, I think the game has potential and I like to see it has gotten a second chance.
Score: 3 for 3 - Out of all the games Square Enix could pick up, this one really surprised me. I'm interested to see if the game will be worth it when it releases.
4.) You disagree that Ubisoft's DRM is "a success."
Armando Rodriguez - Fact: I strongly disagree. When the biggest claim DRM has is that it has forced people who LEGITIMATELY bought the game to pirate it in order to NOT deal with it, how can you be considered a success? Instead of preventing pirating, it is encouraging it. What companies fail to grasp is that pirates ALWAYS find a way and by doing something like DRM you are punishing those who acted under the law and paid their money for your product. Personally, I'd refuse to buy any PC game made by that company; I'd rather purchase it on consoles. You can say "Yes, you are giving your money to them anyway" and that's true. But they are losing money too. I mean, what is the point of doing a PC release that NO ONE wants because of DRM?
Stewart Lange - Fact: I think it is pretty hard to argue it is a success. I've kind of ignored this story from the get go as I think this sort of thing is a bit of a joke, ultimately punishing people who, for example, get low speed internet, whilst giving pirates a new challenge. But, and correct me if I have my facts wrong, Ubisoft released a handful of games that supported the new system, if the server crashed you lost your progress and when this was patched you could play it offline, therefore negating the whole thing in the first place. In what world is that "successful"? Also, all signs point to Ubisoft actually losing PC sales because of this whole shambles, so any claims to the contrary are just corporate damage control.
Score: 4 for 4 - Why Ubisoft continues this is beyond me. They punish actual buyers if their servers go down, but hackers can patch it and enjoy the game online or offline whenever they want.
5.) HBO Go will be able to challenge Netflix and Hulu on consoles.
Armando Rodriguez - Fiction: I don't think it will, but it doesn't need to. Sure, HBO has great exclusive series and tons of good movies, but in the end, I think Hulu and Netflix have more variety and that's what truly sells a service. However, they are enough DIFFERENCES in content that people will want both. I think. My projection is that there is enough room for everybody so we don't need to worry about who challenges who at this point. But maybe in 5 years......
Stewart Lange - Fact: I think challenge is a strong word, but I think the service will be successful enough and certainly establish itself as a worthy addition to the existing line up. I'll use this point to stress that I live in the UK so cannot use the service, but have enough friends on my Xbox Live list that use Netflix often enough that I cannot see any reason they wouldn't use HBO Go. From what I am led to believe, if you are an HBO subscriber already then you will be able to access the service, so if this is true then absolutely people will use it and while it may not become as popular as Netflix (half of their views are allegedly on consoles) it should be able to keep up with Hulu in terms of use and popularity.
Score: 4 for 5 - As long as you don't have to have a cable account to use it, it may do well. However, the selection that the other two offer may be lacking here.
6.) The EA Sports Season Ticket will fail.
Armando Rodriguez - Fact: This is another one I struggled with. I think it is a fantastic idea! But Madden players don't necessarily like hockey....or golf. There might be some cross-potential with Madden and NCAA football, but does anyone REALLY play every sport game and buys them NEW every year? If this were a free service, it might encourage people to try it. But you have to pay an additional fee on top of the $60 times X amount of games (with the possibility of their franchises added in the future) every year....for what's usually a roster update and a few new gimmicks. It is a great idea in theory, but I don't know how well it will do.
Stewart Lange - Fact: When I say failure, I mean they will see the value in doing it again next year. Reading the list of benefits, I just don't think the value is there, especially as the DLC is only discounted, rather than all inclusive. If they had gone with something similar to the Rockstar Pass then I believe it would have been a great success, but at the end of the day, who buys ALL of the EA Sports games EVERY year? I have FIFA 11 as it was a gift, but I don't play sports games unless I have friends round or I get them dirt cheap. As a result, I won't buy it, but loads of people will, just enough to consider it a successful venture for EA and they will revert back to the usual way of doing things.
Score: 5 for 6 - Unless you buy every EA Sports game, the $25 comes off as a waste. I look for a big discount next year, or maybe make all DLC free. Otherwise, I see no point in this.
Bonus Question) Sony should reconsider Vita's price after Nintendo dropped the 3DS cost.
Armando Rodriguez - Fiction: I think both portables appeal to different kinds of people and Nintendo's mistake was pricing something usually attractive to kids at the same level at something designed with more mature users in mind. Plus, I still think the 3DS would have sold better at that price if it had some actual most play games. Maybe Nintendo jumped the gun here or maybe they did it to screw with Sony. Whatever the case, I don't think Sony should do anything until they test the waters with this thing.
Stewart Lange - Fiction: At least not initially. I think the main reason for the Nintendo 3DS price drop is that it has now been out for a while and they want to get the consumers that were "hanging off" on buying one. The Vita sounds like it is going to offer a lot more than the 3DS rather than what I see as just a novelty gimmick so why reduce the price just because Nintendo has? $300 still seems very steep for a handheld and if they have an issue with sales it will be this, rather than what the competition is up to.
Adam Larck - Fiction: The only reason I'm going with fiction here is I'm going under the assumption that the Vita will have good support from Sony out of the gate. It needs to have big name titles come out when it releases to warrant that $250 price point. Otherwise, Sony will end up in the same boat that Nintendo is now.
The pair finish this week going 3-for-6. What do you think? Agree or disagree with their answers? Let us know. See you in seven!
