I mentioned in my review of Tiny Tower that I felt a bit disappointed that there wasn’t an end to the mindless toil in that particular game. I began to get that same sensation in Devil’s Attorney after moving into my second new apartment, I felt the familiar dread of buying another set of furniture and chintz and I considered giving it up.
There is something really endearing about this lo-budget shot-for-shot version of a Star Trek Into Darkness trailer. I really hope they do the whole movie like this, it would be amazing.
I’m actually quite excited by the Disney Skylanders knockoff. This is mostly because I have a nearly three-year old nephew who loves everything Disney at the moment. At least that’s what I’m telling myself, in reality, I have a hankering to battle Zerg with the Dread Pirate Barbossa on the Death Star.
The basic premise is that you buy a base set which consists of the Infinity Toy Box software, a connecting base set and three toys: Sully from Monsters Inc., Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean and Mr Incredible from The Incredibles. The Infinity Toy Box, much like Skylanders, allows you to take the physical toy and play with in game versions when you slot them into the base set. Each toy also gives you access to the area in game they come from, so Jack Sparrow has a Pirate themed area and Sully allows you to explore Monsters University.
There are no classical Disney characters, which is a shame, and the sets lean heavily towards Pixar and Pirates of the Caribbean. There are some surprising faces, however, as Jack Skellington from The Nightmare Before Christmas will be available to purchase when this is released later on this year. So far there is no news on whether other Disney is going to exploit other IP in their quest for world domination, but surely it can only be a matter of time before we see Star Wars and Marvel Infinity sets?
The cost looks to be astronomical, if you want a complete set of figures, some sources are suggesting £300 for the lot. If you want to buy them piecemeal, as most people will, the Infinity starter set is £55-£65 and the expansions are priced at £12-15. If Skylanders is anything to go by, this is a license to print money. The Activision game has raked in over $500 million since it launched in 2011.
I had a brief twitter exchange with Duncan Harris, the proprietor of the excellent website Dead End Thrills, which, for the uninitiated, uses third-party mods and bleeding edge hardware to produce stunning screenshots from computer games, sometimes known as tourist shots or less politely, bullshots (because they’re bullshit screenshots, obv). The following tweet from Duncan started it all off:
I’ve had a fair few industry requests for editor-assisted bullshots recently. Soon they will be everywhere, custom lighting and all.
And was followed by:
Normal screenshots just aren’t seen as competitive by a lot these days. Gotta spotlight those models and enrich those shadows.
I tweeted that I didn’t think it mattered in feature material, but in reviews it probably wasn’t a good idea. Duncan replied that websites are moving to a more stylised lifestyle magazine approach, which meant that all the shots are likely to be bullshots, even those used in reviews. His second reply stated that as long as everyone knows they’re fake then its not an issue, but he did later tweet that the jury is out on whether or not whether or not bullshots actively mislead. The Storify link has the salient points or see our twitter feeds for full details.
The issue here is one of imperfect information. As I am aware of bullshots and the possibility that any promotional material may be processed and not representative of the game, I fall into the camp of the informed consumer, and it is completely right that I should take note of the providence of the screenshots. It’s also true that, due to the age of my PC rig, I was unlikely to get the best video quality anyway, so I was already labouring under a false pretension when I saw un-modded screenshots.
So why am I making a fuss? First of all you get an impression of a game from its screenshots, especially in a review. If the shots have been enhanced then it can mislead the reader, as they have a reasonable expectation of getting an approximate experience described by the words and images of the review. Even though I can’t get the Ultra settings on my PC now, I have the opportunity to upgrade and achieve the same quality in-game, whereas the bullshot is usually impossible to recreate during gameplay as they can involve any number of tricks to achieve their fidelity and composition including stopping time, weather modifications, and third-party image processing and lighting.
But if it’s obvious, it’s okay, right? I don’t know if the shots on Dead End Thrills taken in isolation are obviously modded to a layman. I agree they are different to normal screenshots, but are they so different that you would know they’re not modded? I’m not so sure. If you put those same shots on IGN or Eurogamer in the middle of a review it becomes much less obvious. Adding a disclaimer in each review and/or a note on the bullshot to state that it has been modded might be enough to placate my sense of foreboding, but I doubt it.
Context here is king. On Dead End Thrills it is obvious that these shots are being produced by a combination of modding, artistic skill and top-end hardware because the website is all about modification and extremely detailed screenshots. We are told very clearly what modifications have been used on every shot and in some cases have a detailed breakdown of how the shot was achieved. On a gaming website, bullshots may, or may not, be marked that they’ve been produced by a third-party, and may, or may not, appear with a suitable caveat. If a bullshot is being used for a review then that misrepresentation may be enough to convince a person to buy a game they may otherwise not have.
Bullshots, quite rightly, sell games, they can even make dud games look awesome, which is why their use in review copy a little troubling. As ever, the cry is Caveat Emptor, Buyer Beware!
Is it sensible for the gaming press to largely ignore the stupendous growth in mobile gaming?
VGChartz publishes a weekly digest of video game hardware and software sales (here for the latest numbers), but it is limited to the big three console manufacturers and doesn’t take into account the iPhone, Android or windows platforms. Perhaps the reason for this is that it is difficult to quantify the amount of use a mobile phone or tablet is actually dedicated to gaming. As hybrid devices they are not going to be used purely for games, but surely some method of measurement should be attempted?
The reason I make this fuss is that it bothers me to see the market share graphs that VGChartz produces. The 3DS and PS Vita are put head to head and it is clear that the 3DS is streets ahead of the competition, selling 35,000 units a day compared to a paltry 6,000 units for the Vita. These sales figures give the 3DS a market share of 85% to the Vita’s 15%.
The really interesting thing is that these two figures are absolutely dwarfed by the sales of iPhone and Android devices that are nearly in the two million activation’s a day range (478,000 per day iOS, based on quarterly sales of 43 Million, and 1.3 million Android activations a day). Looking at market share in those terms, Android has a 71% market share, iOS sits at 26%, the 3DS has less than 2% and the Vita is struggling to reach 0.5%. That’s a 40 to 1 difference in sales between portable and mobile gaming.
The counter argument is that mobile phones aren’t pure gaming devices, so you can’t compare like with like. The reality is that 9 out of 10 of the most popular apps on iOS are games. It is difficult to see on Android, but the top 10 on the Google Play Store at the moment is made up of 5 utilities and 5 games. Even if we say that mobile phones are only being used for games 20% of the time, and adjust the sales figures accordingly, they still trounce portable games by a factor of 9 to 1.
To put this into further perspective, even at the height of the Nintendo DS’s popularity, Christmas 2008, it only sold an average of 132,000 units a day, 10% of the current sales of Android devices…
The portable king is dead, long live the mobile king.
Anyone can use, in whole or in part, my music for whatever reason they like with the following provisions:
1. Attribute me correctly and point to my website, the one you’re reading at the moment.
2. That’s it…
More formally, I’d suggest that I’ve exercised my right to release my work under the creative commons attribution license below, but that seems rather fussy. For full details, click the link.
If you do plan on using any of my tracks, let me know first – It’s always nice to know if people are going to be using your stuff. If you need higher bitrate audio files or the original song files, they can be provided, so it’s always worth asking.
In the spirit of free endeavour, Volume is now also free to download, enjoy and tell your friends (and if you don’t like the album, tell your enemies!)