Sunday, January 21, 2018


Well, the last post was a bummer, so let's focus on something a little more fun.

SF Debris puts out enjoyable videos about (mostly) science fiction media. His best videos, in my opinion, deal with Star Trek. He's recently begun to take on Star Trek: Discovery, which is good since I still refuse to pay $6 a month to see that show. So, I'm looking at his video about The Vulcan Hello episode when I noticed something around the 6 minute 42 second mark. In a memory flashback Michael Burnham (the protagonist of the show) remembers being in a Vulcan learning bowl at the Vulcan Science Academy.

Now you can eat cereal & learn quantum mechanics at the same time!
I thought, where did I see this before? And then I remembered...

Yes, the 2009 Star Trek movie. Which actually cleared up one of the most glaring problems I had with the Discovery series so far. The producers have sworn up & down that this series is set in the Star Trek Prime universe, 10 years before The Original Series. But the aesthetics, the look of the show don't support this. It leans closer to Enterprise & the more recent films. Plus, you now have to explain why Original Series Spock never mentioned having Michael Burnham as a half-sister. Not mentioning Sybok was one thing, but Burnham? And before anyone naysays me, McCoy mentioned having a daughter, Sulu says Chekov never had a brother, and we met Kirk's brother Samuel & his family. Plus you have to explain why there's no mention of the spore warp drive that the Discovery ship uses in any of the Prime universe Star Trek TV shows.

But if the show is set 10 years before the 2009 Star Trek movie, this solves all these problems. The aesthetics look the same throughout, we don't know much about the Spock from the Kelvin timeline (the universe in which the Star Trek 2009 movie, the Into Darkness sequel & the third movie Beyond is set) so you can do whatever you want with the character, & you don't need to explain the spore warp drive. We can assume some ships in the Kelvin universe use dilithium, and some use the spore drive.

Of course, this contradicts what the showrunners of Star Trek: Discovery have said, but in my mind, this fits. Especially since in all prime universe Star Trek media involving Vulcan learning, those places have a different aesthetic that is at least consistent. Consider this image from the Voyager episode "Gravity" where young Tuvok goes to learn how to purge his emotions:

"This isn't working. Now I feel depressed!

And look at where Spock takes multiple tests in Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home:

"I get to fail all my finals at the same time! Neat!

These are different learning facilities on Vulcan, but they are all in desert caves, or what looks like caves. The aesthetics here are pretty consistent. All this leads me to believe that Star Trek: Discovery is set in the Kelvin timeline, not the Prime timeline.

Which is great, for me. Now I no longer have to scratch my head, wondering where Discovery fits in. 

I look forward to the flame war I just created in the comments.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

A Perfect Storm

A particularly bad or critical state of affairs, arising from a number of negative and unpredictable factors.

I know that starting out this article with the meaning of the title is pedantic and pretentious. But I also know that I don't particularly care. My reason is that this storm is a perfect counter to all the nonsense put out by trolls and idiots that say they don't want politics in the entertainment media they consume, whether it's video games, movies, music, books, etc.

So, let's set the stage. Recently, Gal Gadot has stated that she would not play Wonder Woman again until Warner Bros. cancels all partnership with Brett Ratner. The link to the article is here

Okay, for those who don't know who Brett Ratner is, he is the director of the Rush Hour films, X-Men 3:The Last Stand, and the Hercules film starring The Rock that nobody saw. He has also been the subject of sexual harassment allegations. My default state is to believe the victims for obvious reasons, not the least of which this is the automatic stance that law-enforcement personnel must take when performing their duties (or rather, they should, but that's another subject altogether).

                The other Hercules film nobody saw that year, and it doesn't even have The Rock in it.

Brett Ratner also owns RatPac-Dune Entertainment, which helped produce the Wonder Woman film, and thus profited from the deal. The closest analogy I can think of is (Godwin's Law incoming!) if Hitler financed and produced the film Schindler's List. I hope you can see what the problem is here. If not, let me spell it out for you:

A man accused of sexually harassing women profited from a film that has women's empowerment themes.

And, oh, it gets better. According to the article, the Warner Bros./RatPac-Dune deal was originally brokered by Steve Mnuchin, the current Treasury Secretary for president Donald Trump. And no, the lower case p is NOT a typo. And yes, Donald Trump has also been accused multiple times of being a sexual harasser too, at least.

Trump: "Here's a great idea! I want as my Treasury Secretary the guy who financed Batman v. Superman. I'm sure he'll knows how to spend America's money wisely."

All of this is to make the following point: even if the entertainment media you enjoy has no political themes IN IT, that doesn't mean politics is completely devoid FROM the making of that media. And that leads to situations exactly like this. And I can't believe I have to explain this relatively simple concept to people. 

Now if you don't care about the politics surrounding entertainment media, that's fine. But that means you also lose the right to bitch/moan/complain when those politics result in good media not being made. 

I, however, do care about the politics surrounding entertainment media, and that means I take notice when the politics behind one of the first (and, if we're being honest, the ONLY) good movie DC Films has ever made may result in more good movies not getting made. 

Now, to be fair, as the article points out, the chances of Warner Bros. completely severing ties with RatPac-Dune are really good, since Wonder Woman was a good/beloved/profitable film, so Gal Gadot coming back to do more Wonder Woman films is also very likely. 

But since Warner Bros. also likes to shoot itself in the foot every now and then, it is equally likely that they'll replace Gal Gadot and put out an objectively inferior Wonder Woman movie. And this is not even taking into account that Patty Jenkins, the director of Wonder Woman, would probably walk out too (and if you don't think she will, you haven't been paying attention). That last paragraph may be my opinion, but I'm willing to bet money I'm not the only one who thinks that way. 

           Meet your new Wonder Woman! Fighting for truth, justice, & the Nazi way...Wait, what??!!

So, to all those (including myself) who don't think politics matter in entertainment media, I say this: we're all fooling ourselves.

Monday, October 23, 2017

Moby Dick, Flipper & (Insert Famous Minnow Here)

A recent Jimquisition video talked about a company that uses customer data gathered from mobile games being played in real-time to offer different microtransaction prices to different gamers at the optimal time where their resistance to buying said microtransactions is at their weakest. Here's the link (and if you enjoy his video, consider kicking him a dollar or two to his Patreon, if you can).   

But the pinned comment to this video is far more interesting to me, since Jim Sterling inevitably gets these kinds of comments whenever he brings up the subject of lootboxes and microtransactions. The relevant portion of the comment I want to talk about is provided here, courtesy of THePunisher Xxx:

I'm so sick of your bitching and assumptions with no facts. "Only whales buy crates". You are basing that off of conversations and conjecture, you have no hard facts showing game sales and who buys crates.

Oh, hard facts. That's for me. My brain always conjures red flags whenever somebody mentions "no facts to present your case" or some other such nonsense. And since I've been accused of being pedantic, well...time for me to lean into that characterization. So let's get pedantic...


First, what is a whale in this context? It was first used by casinos to describe people who bet thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The earliest use on the internet I could find was from February 2001.

The term was later used and expanded upon by Hany Nada to form what he called the WMD Model (Whales, Dolphins, Minnows). In his article on the subject (written in February 2013), he described how whales make up almost 3% of the freemium game user base, but drop thousands of dollars on microtransactions, making up the majority of a fremium game's revenue, so they are the best customers to "reel in", as it were. Dolphins make up a larger percentage of the user base, but spend tens to hundreds of dollars. Minnows make up the largest percentage of the user base, but either make one purchase or none at all. The information on player base and spending habits comes from a Swrve Monetization Report, which you can download here.

Since then, marketing has taken the WMD model to heart, and there are plenty of articles on this subject, which the latest one I could find was this one

So, Thee Punisher One Large Ex and Two Small Exes, is all this "conversation and conjecture"? Is this enough "hard facts" for you?

Maybe you should take 5 seconds to google the subject before you pop off about stuff you clearly don't understand.

As usual, if you want to comment on this, share your thoughts. And please, pardon my terrible, terrible photo. I promise the quality of this blog will improve, someday.  

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Developers v. Gamers

A very interesting thread popped up on Twitter. A game developer opined that the reason developers don't talk to gamers is that the gaming culture is so toxic that anything said by developers concerning how games are made will be accused of lying or cheating the gamers in some way. 

I read the thread about a day before the story broke on news outlets, so I've had more time to think about the issue than others. And he does have a point. Whenever a video game is about to come out and it has a feature that is unfamiliar, weird or shady, (or had a feature that was in a previous game taken away), the gaming community will rage and troll and launch boring tirades against the developers of that game, claiming they will boycott the game. Then the gamers buy it, enjoy it, and wait for the next outrage to cross their path. If you want a really good example of this, take a look at the outrage surrounding No Man's Sky. Even I wrote about this game, and while I have softened my stance from the developers being liars to just getting in over their heads, the basic point stands. There are a lot of gamers that are toxic to developers (and most everyone else really).

But what no one seems to be asking is why this is. So let's ask why. I have a few answers, and the ultimate reason(s) could be one, some or all of them.

1. Shady business practices. Video game companies are secretive about how much games cost to make. This is not surprising. Most companies don't release numbers on how much to make a product. What gets gamers in a uproar is how these companies ask for $60 for their games, and it turns out to be an upfront fee, and then ask for more money from you in the form of microtransactions or lootboxes for cosmetic game items that used to be free in previous games (like shaders and haircuts). And these gamers tend to blame the developers for putting them into the game. But these developers are coding microtransactions in these games at the behest of their boss, the video game company. You know, the boss who signs their checks, and thus gives the orders, and the developers obey them or they get fired. You gamers want to get mad at someone? Be mad at WB Games. Be mad at Activision. Be mad at EA. Ask them why it's so expensive to make a game. Ask them to explain themselves and their actions. Don't blame the developers. 

2. As a corollary, video game companies are throwing developers under the bus. Usually it's the developers who are the face behind the games, not the game company boss. So it's the developers who are talking to the gamers. And those developers have the unenviable job of convincing gamers why microtransactions, lootboxes, day-one DLC, season passes and other shady crap are necessary to the experience of playing these games. Even if they are adept at public speaking (which they're not for the most part), all these shady practices are a hard sell. Take a look at this video and this article to see what I'm talking about. And again, fans can't parse out the fact that WB Games ORDERED Bob Roberts to say those things and Sony LET Sean Murray twist in the wind, promising No Man's Sky features that would never be in the game. Why? Plausible Deniability. Oh no, it's the developers saying these things, not us your friendly neighborhood game company.

3. Gamers can (and usually do) act badly. Sure, they've been lied to. Sure, they've been cheated out of their money by greedy companies. That's still no excuse to shoot the messenger. The developers are toeing the company line, and they have to if they want to keep their jobs. Stop blaming, harassing, doxxing, & sending death threats to the developers. They are slaves to the capitalist nightmare just like the rest of us, and are trying to bring a little entertainment to our lives. 

4. And sometimes, certain developers can be super-jerks themselves. I'm looking at you, Digital Homicide, Konami, Capcom, Blizzard. That's right, I said Blizzard. With your really good-looking $60 Overwatch game with the freaking lootboxes. You make more money than the GDP of every third-world country on Earth combined, every year. Why the damned lootboxes?????!!!!!!!!!!.............Uh, *ahem* yeah. I guess I need to take my own advice & calm down. 

Honey, where's my Lord of the Rings music CDs?

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Quark Would Be Proud

Never be afraid to mislabel a product - Rule of Acquisition #239

Jim Sterling has brought up the issue of Triple-A video game companies reaching into gamers’ wallets to yank out additional cash AFTER they have originally paid $60 for a video game again and again and again. He has repeatedly stated that he will stop talking about this anti-consumer practice immediately once these game companies stop doing this. Well, good luck with that, since apparently game companies seem disinclined to stop.

Let me be fair to these companies. Businesses exist to make a profit. And I’ve argued before that companies can be as greedy as they want. But I’ve also maintained that they don’t need to be jerks about it. I could go on about this, but for now I want to focus on this video made by Jim Sterling. The subject is how to have microtransactions in games correctly. I will expand on this video by comparing the advice he gives with Star Trek Online, which does all these approaches right. Notice I said right, not perfect. I urge you to watch the video first so that you know I’m not misrepresenting his views.

And welcome back. So, let’s take these concepts and apply them to Star Trek Online (STO). It is an MMO based on the Star Trek license. Let’s see how STO stands up to regular triple-A games.
As explained in the video, microtransactions are psychologically manipulating. They tempt the player into paying money for additional game content (whether it’s been held back from the game initially or created later). In his opinion, once you pay for a $60 game, all the content should be accessible in some way without paying additional money (virtual or real). You should not have to pay twice. That’s like paying for a car and paying again for seat belts to be installed later.

STO is a free-to-play game. You can create an account, download the game and play all the story content for free. There are 13 groups of missions, with 115 total missions, all inspired by the rich 51-year history of Star Trek. There is even a story set in the Kelvin Timeline from the recent Star Trek movies. These are mostly good stories, which includes characters like Seven of Nine, The Doctor, Spock and Geordi LaForge, voiced in most cases by the original actors. Let me remind you again that all this story content is free to play.

Ever wonder where the Prophets sent the Dominion Fleet in "Sacrifice of Angels? You find out in this game.

So where are the microtransactions? They are the starships you buy, the bridge crew, the uniforms, the alien races, and so on. You buy virtual currency (Zen) with real money or with in-game dilithium you can collect or mine in the game. Does the game give you free starships and bridge crew while playing? Yes. Are they good enough so that you can breeze through the story content? Also yes. You can play the whole game without ever spending a cent. Does the game tempt you by waving pictures of starships in your face and reminding you of what you can buy? No. You are never tempted to buy the U.S.S Enterprise for 500 Zen (equal to $5.00). But you can go into the store, look at the ship and make your own decision whether you buy it or not.

Any fans of the Robotech novels out there? If so, you'll get the starship name reference.

This, in my opinion, is how you do microtransactions right. Star Trek Online makes the game free-to-play, then tempts the player to pony up for additional in-game items. Like I said, if you mine dilithium, you can exchange that dilithium for Zen, which is then used to buy anything in the store. It just takes longer to save up the Zen for the ship you want. This goes for everything in the game. So, everything in the game is free. It just takes a long time to get all the in-game items that way. Spending real money simply makes acquiring those items faster. What’s more, there is no paying for power. The game is almost ruthlessly balanced, so that the only advantage you get over others is a cooler-looking ship, or a better-looking avatar.

So cool!

In the video, Jim asks the question (in a whiny-voice) “But how do these free-to-play games make money to pay for the servers and support the game?” Well, in the case of Star Trek Online, they must make a lot of money, considering they’re able to pay for actors like Robert Picardo, Leonard Nimoy, Chase Masterson, LeVar Burton, Tim Russ, Garrett Wang, Jeri Ryan, Ethan Phillips, and Denise Crosby to voice-act the roles they’re famous for in the game. So, they’re probably doing very well for themselves. And for the record, they’re putting out another series of missions on October 3. That means they make enough to pay programmers to make new content. Another sign STO makes more than enough money.

Here’s another question posed by Jim; “But if we’re not forcing people to buy them, why would anyone buy them?” Here’s a large sample of what I bought in STO over the years with real money:
the U.S.S. Enterprise; a playable Federation Klingon Race; a playable Trill Race; the Future Enterprise ship from the episode “All Good Things”; 3 Star Trek Uniforms; 3 other starships.

All these items I was never forced or manipulated to buy. I wanted to buy them, and thus reward STO for their hard work. Not just in creating these stories, but setting them in the Prime timeline. These stories are set after Voyager came home. And this is the only licensed Star Trek property (other than the novels) that are doing this. Not even Star Trek: Discovery is doing this. I am never manipulated into buying STO’s stuff. They tempt me. They seduce me. But they never manipulate me.

Got this for 2600 Zen ($26) at a sale. Money well spent.

Games like Overwatch, Middle Earth: Shadow of War, NBA 2K18, Destiny 2 and Dead Space 3 are all $60 games, and all of them have microtransactions that psychologically manipulate people just by their very presence in those games. Like Jim, I also have a mildly addictive personality, so if I buy these games, there’s a very good chance I won’t enjoy these games because I will always wonder how much of the game is being cut out and gated behind a microtransaction paywall and being sold back to me. And I might buy something to find out. And buying something once in a $60 game with real money is once too often in my opinion.

Friday, September 8, 2017

Throwing Shade(rs)

Hi, I’m back. It’s been a while (thanks to real life concerns, really sorry about that), but a recent event has brought me back to the internets once again, and that event is the recent release of the Destiny 2 video game. And in my opinion, this game represents everything wrong with the AAA game industry.
I will present my case through a unique method; by responding to the comments about Destiny 2’s new way of giving shaders to players.

Shaders are color palettes that can be added to your in-game gear. You know; make your gun red, your boots green, your armor gloves purple, that sort of thing. In the first Destiny game, once you acquire shaders, you can keep them & apply them to all your gear.

In Destiny 2, shaders are consumable items that you apply to individual pieces of your gear. And once you apply a different shader, the original is gone. Same thing if you get better gear down the road. Once you get rid of the other gear you applied shaders to, the shaders  on them are gone too. This means that no one will apply shaders to equipment that’s going to be upgraded or traded for better gear anyway.

And just to twist the knife a little, you can’t buy the shaders you want. You buy random shaders from lootboxes with real money. Granted, you can acquire shaders from leveling your character, from the chests & engrams you find, and from rewards received from vendors plus endgame activities.
A lot of people think this is bullcrap. But every devil has its advocate, and Destiny 2 is no different. So, let’s see what these advocates have to say. Then I’ll respond with what I hope will be cogent arguments against these commenters. The link to the article by Jason Schreier is here, and the Twitter statement from the game's director is here. And please read the comments yourself just so you know I'm not misrepresenting anyone.

Leopard on Twitter says: “You know you made a great game when the biggest issue is cosmetics” [laughing emoji]---No, the biggest issue is the AAA game industry's tendency to nickel & dime you to death AFTER they already got your $60 to $100 depending on which version of the game you bought.

Rocker[DTP] on Twitter says: [To be honest] people will complain about anything. I have proof that they drop more than enough to make them expendable {and then shows a picture of the different shaders he collected and how many of each type of shader]---But I notice from the picture you used that you can only hold 50 types of shaders. Star Trek Online (a free game) has more than 50 types of shaders that I can use on my character, uniforms, and (sometimes) starships that never run out and I don’t have to buy.

Dang3rousFluffy on Twitter says: Look at it this way if I spray paint my gun and grind off the paint am I going to get my paint back---Let’s set aside the false equivalence here (a real gun vs. a digital space gun) and address this. Let’s say you went to a car dealership and bought a Porsche that has a really sweet-looking cherry-red paint on it that washes off at the first rainstorm. But you have the following options: bring it back to the dealership and pay for a new paint job (that also washes off in the rain) and get a RANDOM COLOR, or every time you complete a workday you get a paint can filled with a RANDOM COLOR you apply yourself (that also washes off in the rain). You would want your damn money back on the car.

 After some commenters talk about how making games are risky ventures and expensive to make thus making game companies continue to push the line a little each time regarding pricing scams, Jason Schreier says: The REAL problem is that the price of games hasheld steady at $60 despite inflation and the rising cost of game development. $60 is pretty expensive to begin with, so it's hard to imagine that changing, but this is unsustainable!---So either stop making games or raise prices. Or at least be more efficient with your resources so game development doesn't cost so much. In any case, I don't care about any of that. I'm a customer. I only care about getting a good game for a low cost.

Finally, AldoraGreel (commenting on the article) says: So what they're mad with is they use to be infinite use items and they're not now, right? Because as a Diablo 3 player, I have no issue with this. If you wanted to customize your look in D3, you paid in-game currency to do so. If you wanted to change colors, you bought one-time use bottles of dye to do so. Need to make your new armor red? Buy more dye. This is EXTREMELY common in games. I actually don't think I've ever played a game with infinite reuse color change items. Usually, if there is an item to earn to change the color or look, it requires multiple purchases. As long as the shades are relatively easy to buy/earn with in-game currency/methods, why would anyone give a shit if Bungie is trying to be scummy and sell people stupid shit? Sad your favorite developer isn't as pro-consumer as you once thought? Aw. Poor little guy. Must not have been paying attention for the past few years.---

This is a good comment to respond to. Number one, Diablo 3 is NOT Destiny 2. Different aesthetics, different game styles and mechanics, different everything. Not equivalent at all. Number two, explain to me how limited-use items is superior to unlimited use items. Number three, so you don't care that Bungie is scummy and sells you stupid shit? So you don't care if businesses sell you inferior goods and services? So you don't care if a car dealership sells you a lemon, or a realtor sells you a house filled with termites? Number four, I don't care if a business is pro-consumer or not. I DO CARE if a business is anti-consumer. Finally, I have been paying attention, which is why I haven't bought any AAA game except for The Witcher 3. Because game companies pull crap like this.

And the ONLY reason game companies pull crap like this is because apologists like the above people keep buying these games. Now if they find value in these games, more power to them. But please don't defend these companies. They don't care about you, anymore than they care about this blogpost. And that's fine. But any video game buyers out there reading this, I urge you to think twice before rewarding these kinds of anti-consumer practices by buying this game.  

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

So, as it turns out...

Whelp, Devin Faraci has been accused of sexual assaults he had apparently done in the past. As I have said before, I never agreed with a lot of what he said, but I respected his opinions. Now I must withdraw my respect of him. Why?

Because it's my personal choice to do so. The reasoning behind my decision doesn't really matter, but as a human being I cannot condone what he has done. And no, I will not discuss my reasons here. This is a nerd site, and I am determined to keep it that way. No politics & no religion. I created this blog to be a safe zone for us nerds. 

However, one of my blog posts has dealt with Devin, and I felt I needed to address that. While it dealt with his profession and not him as a person, and while I believe in my readers' ability to tell the difference, there may be those who may choose not to parse out that difference due to personal belief. 

So I wrote this so that I may assure new & longtime readers who come to this site that I don't tolerate this kind of behavior in myself or others.  

That post will remain up, as a reminder that I make mistakes, but this post will also remain up, as a reminder to me to own my mistakes, and apologize for them.

Thank you for reading.