Separator
News Blips: Kinect Pricing, Violent Game Legislation, OnLive, and More
Imag0074
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Not only is Microsoft's Kinect technology the Next Big Thing, its $150 price will assuredly turn your wallet into A Very Empty Hole.

News Blips:

Kinect bundleElectronic Entertainment Design and Research Vice President Jesse Divinich analyzes the recently confirmed $150 price for Kinect. Calling the cost "appropriate," Divinich contrasts the peripheral's longevity on the market with similarly priced devices such as band kits."With the Kinect, however, there is the possibility of a wide array of games across a broad range of genres, potentially giving the Kinect a much longer shelf life than a typical peripheral," he said. Of course, none of that matters the moment my clumsy foot shatters the poor thing.

Eleven states support California legislation on restricting the sale of violent video games to minors that's under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorneys general from Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia filed arguments defending the measure, stating that citizens "are vitally interested in protecting the welfare of children and helping parents raise them." Lawmakers, I'd like to introduce you to an often neglected group called the Entertainment Software Rating Board. [Gamasutra]

"If you're a hardcore gamer, then OnLive is not the place where you're going to play," said OnLive Chief Executive Officer Steve Pearlman. In fact, he'd be quite contented if subscribers chose to use the game streaming service as a sampling plate for potential title purchases. "We're super happy if people want to use us [as] a demo service, as a rental service, as a purchase service, and as a social network," he told CNET in an interview. "Some people have said the only way you're going to use OnLive is if you're buying games, and it's just a little bit silly." How about blending things -- can I use it as a blender?

With Starcraft 2 on the cusp of its release, Activision Blizzard has high hopes of making back the more than $100 million sunk into development costs. Surging past Gran Turismo 5's cost of $50 million, Starcraft 2 not only represents one of Activision's "pillars of opportunity," according to CEO Bobby Kotick, it's also one of the most expensive video games of all time. I wonder how many gatherers they needed to rake in such a boatload of minerals. [Wall Street Journal]

Update: The Wall Street Journal released a correction on 7/23/2010 stating that World of Warcraft, not Starcraft 2, cost Blizzard $100 million to make.


Got any hot news tips? Send 'em over to tips@bitmob.com.

 
1
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (6)
Inception
July 20, 2010
Oh good grief, just because states express an interest in restricting game sales TO MINORS, oh you know, KIDS, every game blogger and forums cries and moan about it. If your an adult, guess what? You don't have a darn thing to worry about.

I guess game companies and game journalists are worried that they're going to lose sales from incompetent/oblivious parents, which pretty much shows me how companies REALLY care.
July 21, 2010


After playing around with OnLive I can actually see how the service could definitely be used for sampling games since the service allows you to play the actual full game for 30 minutes.  As I mentioned in a previous post most games currently on the service are console games.  While I personally wouldn't mind paying $4.95 a month to demo full games, if the official price of OnLive, once it's out of a "closed beta", turns out to be $14.95, that's a bit much for a demo service.   On top of that is the pricing structure that shows no consistency between games and the hill looks that much steeper.


Default_picture
July 21, 2010


Keenan, these laws aren't just restricting game sales to minors. They are putting them on the level of pornography or cigarette sales (with a number of politicians saying that they should be). That means that given the way these laws are being crafted, it actuallt becomes a crime to simply allow a minor to be in the same room as it. These laws are a literal definition of saying "the public does not know what's good for it, so we will make that determination." Leland Yee (original drafter of the bill) has said as much, almost verbatim.


Inception
July 21, 2010
I'll be honest, I actually think these games shouldn't be out in the first place, does that mean I think games should be burned like books were? Or that game makers shouldn't have the freedom to make what they want? No, but I can't help but feel that game designers are just putting as much violence, not for the sake of "realism", but to be "edgy" and controversial to get attention.

I don't like politics, never have or will, but I'll be very suprised if that bill were to pass. Because guess what? Most of these bills don't get very far, this has been the only one I've ever heard get any interest from other states.
Default_picture
July 22, 2010


Personally, I agree with you that sometimes designers put extreme levels of violence in for controversy and nothing else, and that such games are beneath me as well. But These are not the only games being targeted, merely they are the excuse. Mass Effect and it's sequel for example, a pair of stellar games that didn't just throw extreme violence in for controversy, are being targeted by this bill. Same with the Legacy of Kain series. Violent, sure. They also have some of the best voice acting in games and a massive plot that takes a lot of work to sort out. Those, and games like them will also be considered the likes of pornography. How would you like it to be busted simply for playing mass effect while a minor was in the vicinity?



And true, most bills don't get very far, mainly because either some people with common sense shut it down before it becomes law or the ECA gets it thrown out after it becomes law. And the only reason that several states are involved in this one is because it's the only one to reach the US Supreme Court. The only reason it got this far is because Leeland Yee is hard pressed to make it a standing law at the expense of all else (it actually is probably one of the worst formulated bills made regarding this issue). Yes, you heard that right. This bill is one of the many reasons California's politicians haven't bothered to fix the monetary craphole they're in.


Inception
July 22, 2010
@ Bobby Krell:

Looking at the last paragraph of your post proves why I don't like or even bother with politics!
You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.