Something I've always respected about the
Rainbow Six series is the willingness the team has to stay as true-to-life as possible in the games, so long as the game allowed them to be. First-person shooters have become a little bit of an arcade, attention-deprived, run-and-gun shootfest that even games like Battlefield, that pride itself on simulation-style, have allowed things to get out of hand. Now, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six series is going to take things to the next level and go back to its beginnings of 1998 by not letting users respawn after death.
Rainbow Six Siege is a game I have been insanely excited for and Ubisoft's focus on teamwork and tactics are sure to make it a highly anticipated game for a lot more people than just me. At least for those who aren't twitch shooter fans. That's because in the multiplayer matches for Siege, there will be no respawns. Just like in my beloved Counter-Strike of FPS past, when you die, you're out for the round. For anyone tired of the Call of Duty series, highly rendered dog and all, this should be a huge breath of fresh air.
Appropriately called One Life,
Rainbow Six Siege forces players to actually use skill to win, and not rely on one type of overpowered weapon or glitch. On the dev blog, Behind the Wall, the team goes on to explain why the decision was made.
When you're not allowed to respawn during a match, twitch reflexes aren't the only skills that keep you alive. Teamwork, map awareness, planning, adaptability, communication, and leadership become just as important to win.
You can't see it, but I've gotten out of my chair and am applauding reading those words right now. In a team game, putting more focus on team efforts makes so much sense I'm surprised it took over a decade for us to remember that. It evens out the playing field to make sure players of all skill types can enjoy a game, work together and have complete tasks laid out in front of them.
Now, there are those who are going to hate this and might say that there won't be anything to do in those few minutes of downtime. Ubisoft has said the matches are short and "precise" operations, so that if you die you'll only be sitting out for three minutes at most. And luckily, Ubisoft is taking advantage of those players removed from the action by giving them something to do that can affect the outcome of the game.
Yes, losing boots on the ground creates a disadvantage in firepower, but the player still contributes to the team by becoming a source of information. They are able to use limited visibility tools, like the drone and security cameras, or survey from a chopper above the operation zone to keep their team informed of the enemy's movements. We call this Support mode, and it's a crucial aspect of the round as the team balances firepower against information.
So even a dead player can provide crucial information to the fireteam. Still not convinced this is probably the most exciting game that will launch in 2015? After the break I posted a video of some gameplay. Watch that, then come back here and let me know what you thought of it.
Lately we're seeing this strange influx of inexpensive gaming set-top boxes that can also stream media. Additionally, we're seeing them all run Android for whatever reason, and each of them just feel cheap. Not even counting the
OUYA, there have been a dozen or so other boxes that have been announced in the past eighteen months that all feel the same way. Now, Google is looking to get into that game and prays that you forget all about the Nexus Q.
In a world where we'll probably never see an actual
cost-effective Steam Machine, NVIDIA launching some type of graphics-card powered device and the Fire TV, Google has come out with the Nexus Player, not to be confused with that weird-looking Nexus. Google's vision is to harness the success and popularity of the Chromecast and come up with a device that doesn't need a computer counter-part at all. Instead, the Nexus Player is sort of what you'd expect from every other set-top media device we've seen. Play games, stream content and use apps on a clunky, Android-based interface.
You get a remote, just like the others, to navigate through the menus, and if you want to actually game, you can pick up a controller for $39 to compliment the box, both made by ASUS. The slight difference here is that it will be the first-ever gadget to run Android TV, which was announced at Google I/O. A 1.8GHz four-core Atom processor runs alongside 1GB of RAM and 8GB of data space to power the Nexus Player, and it will double as a Chromecast, offering the same experience you've come to know through the $35 HDMI plug-in. Intel says the chipset is capable of pushing 1080p streaming with "console-like" graphics, but I'd be curious to see how accurate those statements will be in the real world.
For $99, the Nexus Player can be purchased on November 3rd when it launches, but you can already pre-order the thing should you want to. Adversely, you can spend the same amount for an Amazon Fire TV if you want, and you'll get pretty much the same features and experience, plus Prime Instant Video. Are any of these interesting to you? Do you have a smart TV instead? Or are you just using an Xbox 360 like the rest of us? Let us know in the comments below and click on the break to see the Nexus Player teaser video.
Time Warner-Comcast merger has been a point of contention for many. Until now, the most vocal of which has been Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, who has said that the merger will lead to higher prices for everyone.
Hastings has a new ally this week, the city council of Worcester, Massachusetts. City Councilor Gary Rosen said,
It's a terrible company. In my opinion, they should not be welcome in this city. Comcast is a wolf in wolf's clothing; it's that bad. They are awful, no doubt about it. Maybe we can't stop it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out.
This comes about as Comcast and Charter are making a few customer trades across the country in preparation for the merger. Like with wireless carriers, spectrum and customers sometimes have to be traded with competitors to avoid regulatory hurdles. Worcester is one of the markets that is being transitioned from Charter to Comcast, but clearly they are not happy about it.
This comment comes in preparation for a vote on whether to allow Comcast into their city. The
Telegram & Gazette said,
The City Council is urging City Manager Edward M. Augustus Jr. not to sign off on the transfer of the city's cable television license from Charter Communications Inc. to Comcast Corp.
By an 8-3 vote, the council Tuesday night asked Mr. Augustus to reject Comcast's request for the license transfer because it feels the cable company lacks the necessary managerial experience, based on the number of public complaints there have been about its "substandard customer service practices."
If the city manager doesn't do anything, the transfer will be approved automatically. If he does reject it, Comcast will, obviously, appeal the decision. Unfortunately for the council, their reasoning is not sound. Deputy City Solicitor Michael E. Traynor said,
The cable license transfer can only be based on four criteria: the company's management, technical and legal experience, as well as its financial capabilities. If Comcast can meet that criteria, the transfer cannot be denied.
He believes that customer satisfaction does not indicate enough managerial experience issues. The council hopes that the vote will send a message, though. City Councilor Konstantina Lukes said,
This is not a paper vote; this is not an empty vote. This is a very clear vote that we are not going to tolerate the kind of responses we got from Charter and Comcast.
While it may not make a direct impact on the city, they do hope the FCC will take notice that there are some who are unhappy with the idea of a merger. Will it affect their decision regarding the merger? Only time can tell.
Congratulations are in order for Sony's seemingly only profitable division: PlayStation. September was another successful month for them, outselling Microsoft's new console for the ninth straight month. This is a big win for Sony, who has been having nothing but trouble internally. Between
billion dollar losses and major layoffs, Sony needs the win here.
With a 136% increase in hardware sales over last year and a large increase over August of this year, this was a great month for hardware. A lot of this can be attributed to the overall success of
Destiny. Unfortunately for Microsoft, higher than Sony software sales of the game did not translate into higher hardware sales. Neither did offering a free game with console sales.
However, Sony shouldn't put all of their eggs in their PlayStation basket. In the last generation of consoles, at the end of September, the winning console was the Wii. Nintendo focused so hard on the Wii that they lost sight of the ball. Shortly after, the Wii was no longer the top console, being unseated by the Xbox 360, which stayed there almost unchanged until the end of the generation.
Obviously, initial sales successes do not indicate product successes. Allowing the PlayStation's initial success to rule the company could ultimately prove fatal. Hopefully they can continue to expand their Xperia line and get the media division back into profitability before the possibility of a leader change catches up to them. It wouldn't be the first time it happened.
HBO's business model has been fairly consistent for its entire existence: if you have cable, you can add HBO to your subscription for a monthly fee. In the last few decades of cable-based appointment television, this model has been incredibly successful. The two major changes to their business have been original programming, such as
The Newsroom and Game of Thrones, and HBO GO.
HBO GO allows existing HBO subscribers to stream content on a variety of devices. The biggest issue with the service is the existing subscription requirement. Many young people are cutting their cable subscriptions entirely, meaning the target audience for HBO GO is completely ineligible to use it. That makes it difficult to justify the cost of the service, which can't be inexpensive.
Earlier this year, HBO Chief Executive
Richard Plepler said,
Right now we have the right model. Maybe HBO GO, with our broadband partners, could evolve.
Analysts predicted that
the evolution would come sooner than later, which makes sense in a time when the face of television is changing. Appointment television is coming to a swift end; I am watching old episodes of a television show as I write this. But can HBO compete in an arena that RedBox is vacating?
They are certainly going to give it a go. Plepler announced that, launching some time in 2015, HBO plans on offering content to non-cable subscribers. What they did not say was what content would be available on this unnamed platform. He said they would work with "current partners," which indicates that, currently, none of their contracts allow for off-network availability. This could prevent current programming from being available, as indicated previously.
What price would you be willing to pay to get HBO content without a cable subscription? Sound off in the comments.