What's the Deal With the 360 Spring Update?

One thing 360 owners have come to expect over the last few years are the bi-annual dashboard updates that are released in the Spring and the Fall which add all sorts of new functionality to the console interface. Right around now is the time when the Spring Update would normally be released. Next-Gen is reporting that there will be no Spring Update this year, based on an interview with Xbox Live manager Marc Whitten, however, as one Next-Gen reader pointed out in the comments, Whitten never specifically says that there will be only one update this year, just that "most users will not notice any significant changes to the dashboard this spring".

This could mean any number of things:

1. There will be a spring update, it just won't be as significant as past updates. This makes sense because as time goes on there are going to be less and less features they can reasonably add.

2. There will be a sizable update, it just won't be in the Spring. Remember that the Fall Update was released so late in the Fall that it was very nearly the Winter Update. It would follow then that the next update might not be ready until early to mid summer, which would make it the "Summer Update". That of course begs the question, "Why didn't Whitten just say that the update wouldn't be out until the Summer?"

3. Next-Gen is right and there won't be any kind of update until the Fall or later.

I would hope Microsoft wouldn't go an entire year between updates while Sony constantly updates the PS3 firmware. I've always liked Microsoft's strategy better because not only is it something to look forward to, the updates are always virtually seamless. Anyone with a PS3 (or PSP which works the same way) will tell you that updating the firmware is a huge pain in the ass, made worse by the fact that Sony regularly releases updates that do nothing, but are required nonetheless.

I'd like to think Scenario 2 is what will happen, but either way this definitely requires further investigation.

[via Joystiq]

Xbox Live Arcade Size Limit Raised to 350MB

Here we go again. We learned a couple months ago that Microsoft would be granting a dispensation to Capcom to allow it to break the 150MB barrier for Bionic Commando ReArmed and Street Fighter II HD. What we didn't know was how big those games were going to be. 200MB? 250MB? 500MB?

Today, we know they're not going to be bigger than 350MB, as that is the new file size limit Microsoft has set for XBLA games.

I find the timing of this revelation interesting because it comes only days after The Behemoth announced that Castle Crashers, which was infamously delayed for a year to take advantage of the previous increase to 150MB, has finally been completed.

Now, it's all well and good that MS is increasing the size cap yet again, but honestly, why couldn't it have been raised to 350MB last year? Or even 450MB? The current 512MB memory cards could handle it. We all know that in another year's time we'll be hearing about it being raised to 700MB and MS will have a new 1-2GB memory card that'll sell for $50.

I really hope that the timing of these announcements aren't a coincidence and Castle Crashers will be among the first to utilize the extra space. It was clear they really needed the extra 100MB so an extra 200 on top of that would no doubt have been a godsend. I can't imagine it's fun to repeatedly have the rug pulled out from underneath you. It'll be a real damn shame if the game isn't everything it could have been simply because of an arbitrary size limitation.

Just as likely is that the announcement simply precedes the release of Bionic Commando ReArmed, the first game to break 150MB, which should be released any Wednesday now. Remember that Castlevania: Symphony of the Night brought with it the news of the fall of the 50MB barrier.

[via XBOX360 Fanboy]

Too Human Co-op Cut In Half

No sooner do we get a set date for one of my most anticipated games of the last few years than we get news that the main feature I've been anticipating has been neutered.

Yes, 4 player co-op in Too Human has been "scaled back" to only two players. Why, oh why?

"The reason we did that is we looked at it, and the way the game is really frantic, and when you have a lot of guys zooming around, we weren't sure that would play out the best", says Silicon Knights' Denis Dyack.

Which, to me, sounds like the engine couldn't handle all of that action with 4 players on the screen at the same time.

I still have no doubt the game will be solid but I really think they are killing off its long term appeal by limiting the co-op play. There is a huge difference between playing with a partner and playing as a team. The game features five unique character classes, but that doesn't create much of a dynamic when only two people can play together.

Regardless of whether this change really is in the best interest of the gameplay, it's still a huge disappointment for anyone who was looking forward to playing the game with a group of friends.

Too Human is starting to look like it will be this generation's Fable: a solid game that ended up a disappointment because it was too ambitious and didn't deliver on its lofty promises after being in development for ages. I really hope that isn't the case.

[via Co-Optimus]

Too Human Gets Quickest Delay Ever

I just read over on IGN that Silicon Knights had finally locked down a release date of August 12th for Too Human, after announcing it for PSOne ten years ago. I returned to the page a few minutes later to get a source link and I'll be damned if the release date wasn't changed to August 19th.

Microsoft's official Too Human page lists the August 12th date but company reps insist that the 19th is the actual date. I don't know about you, but that's the fastest delay I've ever seen.

You might say, "Well, one week isn't really a big deal." But then you'd remember that August is practically the new November and there are a mess of huge titles dropping. It would definitely be in MS's best interest to get the game out earlier in the month and give it some space before other long delayed titles like Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway and Mercenaries 2 release later in the month.

In any case, it'll be great to finally be able to play a game I've been looking forward to for years (even though my anticipation has dropped off greatly). Now Silicon Knights has their work cut out for them to actually get the other parts of the trilogy out on the 360 before the next Xbox hits in 2010-11.

[via IGN360]

Microsoft Shot Down Portal for XBLA

Portal was, without a doubt, the biggest surprise of last year. What was essentially a "bonus" game in the Half-Life 2 showcase, The Orange Box, completely stole the show, and the hearts of gamers everywhere.

You'd think then that MS would jump at the chance to make Portal available as a standalone downloadable title for XBLA. Then you'd remember that Microsoft has rules. Rules that they break when they see fit, but apparently Portal is not such a case.

Valve wants to see it on XBLA, but just like the free maps they want to offer for Team Fortress 2, Microsoft is having none of it.

Valve's Doug Lombardi has hope though, telling GameIndustry.biz that, "It always happens once it's been proven and I think it's been proven now on Steam, so I'm sure it'll migrate back to the consoles just like everything else does."

I say, put Portal up on PSN. Just as with Bionic Commando and Street Fighter II HD, Microsoft will change their tune when Sony has something they don't.



[via Destructoid]

Why Digital Delivery is Bad for Gamers

For years we've been hearing about how digital distribution is the future of gaming (and music, and movies etc.). After all, it's a win-win for both publishers and consumers. Publishers save a ton of money by taking retailers out of the equation and not having to produce a physical product which has to be packaged, stored and shipped. Consumers, in theory at least, get cheaper games as well as the "convenience" of being able to download a game directly to their console of choice without ever leaving their house.


I say in theory, because in practice, the exact opposite has been true. Far from passing savings on to consumers, digitally distributed games typically cost the same as or more than their retail counterparts.

Take the recent Oblivion expansion pack, Shivering Isles, for example. Both the 360 and PC versions were released with an SRP of $29.99, regardless of whether you were purchasing the downloadable-only 360 version or the disc-based PC version. So right off the bat the savings to someone downloading instead of buying a physical product, with all the costs associated with it, is absolutely nothing. This is made worse by the fact that the PC expansion can easily be obtained on sale for under $20. Circuit City has it regularly for $18. Digitally distributed content on the Xbox Live Marketplace doesn't go on sale because there is no competition. If you want Shivering Isles, it's the Marketplace or nothing.

You can see how, in reality, this business model benefits only the publisher, while the consumer is firmly held by the balls.

The recent song packs for the 360 version of Guitar Hero II are another demonstration of how consumers are being raked over the coals with digital distribution. At the price being charged for them (over $2 per track) it would cost a customer over $100 to download all 47 Guitar Hero I tracks. Now, keep in mind, all you're getting is songs. You already paid for the game separately. How is it reasonable in the least bit that those 47 tracks can be sold on PS2 for $40 along with the game itself, pressed on a disc with a manual, case etc. but just the data for the songs, distributed digitally at much less cost to the publisher, will run you almost three times that?

If Guitar Hero I were to be released as a standalone game for 360 they couldn't get away with selling it for more than $60, and yet, because it is being digitally distributed, the price is inflated tremendously.

The worst part of digital delivery came smacking many 360 owners in the face this week with the release of the new Elite model. Fans who chose to upgrade to the new machine discovered that content downloaded to their old unit is forever tied to it due to Digital Rights Management (DRM). What that means is any previously purchased XBLA games, TV shows or expansion content will only work on your shiny new Elite's while signed into Xbox Live with the GamerTag that purchased them, so Microsoft can verify that you are in fact entitled to play them.

So, not only are you paying a premium for downloaded content, you don't even actually own it.

While it is unlikely digital distribution will replace physical media-based distribution any time soon, simply due to bandwidth and storage limitations, the emergence of networks controlled by the console manufacturers (PS Store, Live Marketplace, Wii Shop) is already giving rise to some shady practices such as the aforementioned DRM and gripping of balls.

I dread the day widespread digital delivery becomes prevalent because there is absolutely no benefit to the consumer. The publisher saves a fortune on production and associated retail costs, eliminates the middle man and the possibility of lost sales to secondhand copies, and can maintain a high price point for much longer because they're essentially the only store in town. You can either choose to play by their rules or find a new hobby.