The Digital Home

More people are playing online games.

(Credit: Electronic Arts)

Electronic Arts announced Wednesday that more than 500 million online matches have been played on its lineup of 2009 sports games. According to the company, all those matches took place between June 2008 and now. They include Madden NFL 09, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09, and others.

It's an important feat. But is the online gaming space really the best environment for the gamer? I'm sure that the hard-core gamer who spends hours online each day would say that it's an ideal way to enhance the gaming experience, but there are some of us who disagree--myself included.

I don't like online gaming, for the most part. I find it overrun with people who spend more time screaming obscenities than actually playing the game. And unless you have the luxury of spending hours each day playing one title (something I don't), you'll be rolled over by someone who has honed their skills and tactics down to an art. If you ask me, it doesn't live up to the hype.

But if you're intent on playing, here are some pitfalls to watch out for:

1. Watch out for the predators. Though most online games attempt to find you a fair match by either asking you what your skill level is, or assigning it to you one based on playing experience, don't expect it to work perfectly. On numerous occasions, I've entered a game where I thought the competition would be fair, only to find out that there were players who had lied about their skill level, changed their username, or played a few other tricks to prey on those who weren't as good. It ruined the experience.

Used video games play an integral part in the lives of the gamer: instead of spending $60 for a new title, they can save some cash and get the same game used at a discounted price. But from a developer's perspective, every used game that's sold yields no revenue, and that has created a divide between publishers and gamers over whether or not used video games should be sold at all

Two Atari executives--CEO David Gardner and President Phil Harrison--shared some gripes about used video game sales earlier this week at an Atari event. And as far as they're concerned, used games are hurting us all.

"Second-hand game sales represent consumer choice and desire," Gardner said at the event. "Obviously, it has economically been extremely painful for the industry (and) the publishers don't benefit."

Harrison echoed the CEO's sentiment saying, "there's no doubt that second-hand game sales have a macro-economic impact on the industry and a lot of people get miserable about it."

Harrison went on to say that his company is focused on developing more games with incentives like post-release content built-in that discourage used game sales and coax more owners into keeping their games.

I'm all for incentives that increase a game's viability, but simply adding more post-release content to a title doesn't strike me as something that will kill used game sales. In fact, I don't even understand why the video game industry would want to kill the sale of used video games.

Electronic Arts posted a major loss on Thursday. According to the company, it realized a $310 million loss and will be forced to lay off 6 percent of its staff due to worsening financial conditions and bleak outlooks.

Of course, EA, as a public company, blames its results on economic factors and just about everything else, besides what it should really blame: itself. But the problem facing the video game industry isn't unique to EA. Each company in the market is facing the same problems, and they're all forced to blame it on ludicrous reasons.

But as anyone who follows the industry knows, the real reason behind poor performance is the general lack of innovation coming out of developer studios lately.

I don't think there's any debating the fact that innovation in the video game industry is practically nonexistent. Every time I turn around, there's another crappy first-person shooter hitting store shelves with the same basic mechanics and control scheme. Even better, there's always a new sports title out there to whet your appetite. But whatever you do, look past the same player models, and derivative gameplay, and look at the new enhancements made to this year's stadiums!

What a joke.

I explain why in-game political advertising is fantastic in the latest Digital Home Video.

Even better news: you can now subscribe to this show. Just add it up right here!

And as always, drop me a line or follow me on Twitter!

The video game industry is abuzz over the possibility of Take-Two Interactive and Electronic Arts joining hands and become the world's most powerful video game developer. According to EA, such a move will improve its lineup of games and help consolidate its presence in the industry.

Take-Two hasn't been so delighted about EA's acquisition attempts. The company has let the offer deadlines slip countless times--the last happened just nine days ago--but it still can't quite shake EA. And this time around, the companies have signed a confidentiality agreement that would ensure both sides don't go public with the closed-door proceedings.

Some tout this acquisition as the next logical step for a video game industry that's becoming more consolidated. Others say that EA's takeover of Take-Two could actually increase the value of games and create a company that will offer some of the most impressive titles we have ever seen, thanks to the combined efforts of developers.

That sentiment may ring true in some cases, and every now and then, there's a flash of something unique, but if this acquisition becomes a reality and EA swallows up one of the biggest developers in the industry, it spells trouble for gamers and the industry itself.

With the upcoming release of Spore making just about every gamer's mouth water, I couldn't help but wonder if the game will be the greatest of all time.

I understand that it's premature to even suggest that a game we haven't ever played will somehow be the best game ever, but with the hype surrounding it and those that are "in the know" saying it's really that great, it's easy for all of us to get caught up in that kind of hype.

Daniel Terdiman, who writes the over at the Gaming and Culture blog here on CNET, recently interviewed Will Wright to discuss Spore and delve deep into the inner-workings of his mind and his creation.

After reading through that interview, a number of things stuck out in my mind. Does Will Wright truly believe that Spore will best the Sims franchise? Is Will Wright the industry's premier innovator and the one man that will be able to propel it forward into a new era? And most importantly, will Spore, after the dust settles, be considered the greatest game of all time by the majority of people?

In an interesting interview last week with the San Jose Mercury News, EA's CEO, John Riccitiello said although his company is doing quite well in the video game space, it committed a major blunder earlier on in this generation and now it's trying to play catch-up.

"One thing that's different [this generation] is we typically figured out who the market leader was going to be before the start of the cycle and bet with our development resources on that platform," Riccitiello told the Mercury News. "We made the wrong call there (by betting on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360), which made this transition harder than it would otherwise be. But now we're catching up, and I think we're fine."

Regardless of whether or not EA actually is fine, don't you think the company should have admitted this long ago? And let's also not forget that EA isn't alone in this. Countless other developers have denigrated the value of the Wii and even today, most of them don't want anything to do with it even though it's selling like gangbusters.

It needs to stop. Instead of clinging to the faulty belief that only Sony and Microsoft matter in the software space, developers need to start focusing more on the Wii and develop games that are not only innovative, but more in the vein of those titles they're creating for the competing consoles. And in the end, I think we'll all win.

Call it rash, call it dumb, call it outlandish, call it crazy, but I'm officially boycotting first-person shooters. Why? Because I've finally had enough of the video game industry and its laser focus on profit to the detriment of innovation and fun.

Understand something: I grew up in a world where video games were not only innovative and fun, but they weren't derivative, they weren't over-blown movie wannabes, and they absolutely were not multi-million dollar projects that required more business acumen than innovation.

So for the past few years, I've quietly sat back and witnessed the video game industry sink into a rut that it's unwilling to dig itself out of. Why have we been forced to sit through sequel after sequel of the same rehashed game with only a few improvements here and there? Why have we been forced to sit through countless sports, first-person shooter, and dumb adventure games? Why have we been forced to basically play the same old game when all we really want is to play something new, exciting, and unique?

And although I can boycott any derivative genre I want, first-person shooters have become the worst culprit of them all, and if I want to take my own personal stand in the little way I can, that's the best place to do it.

Gamasutra yesterday featured a story about Junction Point's Warren Spector, who took issue with some of the prevailing trends in the video game industry.

"Game costs are going to be $35-40 million, even $100 million, and the expectations are huge," he said at the Game Education Summit last week. "You have to differentiate yourselves. One-hundred hour games are on the way out... How many of you have finished GTA? Two percent, probably. If we're spending $100 million on a game, we want you to see the last level!"

Spector went on to explain the video game business is changing and although it didn't care about the story in a game years ago, it's now one of the main attractions and certainly paramount in developer minds.

Although Spector made a number of good points, he seems to believe that epic titles like GTA IV, which are capable of lasting you as little or as long as you'd like, are a thing of the past and will slowly (but surely) die a slow and agonizing death. Spector ostensibly believes that developers would rather spend cash on parts of a game you'll see than those sections you won't.

His theory makes sense and it's difficult to argue with the logic, but if epic games fall by the wayside and we're left with titles that don't offer the kind of immersion we've come to expect in some titles, what does that mean for the video game industry?