Why the U.S. Military Doesn’t Train on XBoxes

Alright, my unplanned, unintentional hiatus from my blog has lasted long enough. This is just too ludicrous to not post. A recent article on wired.com explains why the U.S. military uses computers rather than Xboxes (or is it Xboxen?), even though the latter is cheaper and much easier to configure. Here's one of the three reasons Microsoft gave to Roger Smith, chief technology officer for PEO STRI, the Army command responsible for purchasing training equipment:

"if the Xbox became an Army training device, it would taint its reputation. Microsoft was concerned that “do we want the Xbox 360 to be seen as having the flavor of a weapon? Do we want Mom and Dad knowing that their kid is buying the same game console as the military trains the SEALs and Rangers on?”

Really, Microsoft? Well you better not tell "Mom and Dad" that that PC that the whole family uses currently possesses the "flavor of a weapon" because maybe they'll stop buying those, too. (Also, why is the kid buying the game console and not the supposedly concerned parents?) True, it's quite unlikely that the PC at their house has the same training software on it that the military does, but Microsoft wouldn't have to make the Xbox game(s) that the military would use available to the general public either. It's not even the game itself that they're apparently worried about, it's the game console. I'm sure there are a number of people out there that would refuse to have an Xbox in their house knowing that the U.S. military trains on them, I just don't think that that number is greater than the number of consoles Microsoft would sell to the military.

Oddly enough, another concern that Microsoft listed is that they couldn't handle the workload of producing Xbox 360s for both the military and the general public. Seems to me that these complaints cancel each other out. If you think manufacturing for the military will cause civilians to no longer want your product, then production won't have to worry about a double workload.

360s for the military seems like a win-win situation. Microsoft gets more money (if they're that concerned about a "shortage of Xbox 360s", don't they have the means to expand production?), and the military gets a cheaper, less problematic training device that its users are more likely familiar with.

Feeling Blu

Warner Bros recently announced that they are becoming Blu-ray exclusive as of this June. New Line is apparently doing the same. And now, there are rumors that Paramount will follow suit, due to a clause in their HD DVD exclusivity contract. This perturbs me a bit, and not just because I bought 3 HD DVD players (2 as gifts) over the holidays that may soon become paperweights. Everything that perturbs me is pretty much summed up in this article.

A few "highlights":

Kevin Tsujihara, president of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Group,
acknowledged in an interview that the HD DVD format had some advantages.

"The interactivity is more advanced on the HD DVD side, but I'm
confident that we're going to get there" with Blu-ray, he said.

"There were cost advantages on the HD DVD side," Tsujihara said. However, "even with that price advantage, you weren't seeing the consumer move toward that format."

That's what really bugs me right there...Warner admits that HD DVD is currently the better of the two - both in cost and features - but they are still siding with Blu-ray. Ugh. Why? Because more people are buying Blu-ray. So basically they are endorsing the loser of a race just because more people are cheering for him.

But why, if the studio support was until now more or less cut in half, were more people choosing Blu-ray anyway? Cooler name? Maybe...but I think the real culprits are the gaming systems. The video game industry is on the rise and I have heard rumors that sales of video games surpassed movies this holiday season. This turns Sony's gamble of including a Blu-ray player in each and every PS3 into a genius move. Looking across the pond, at Microsoft's Xbox 360 (the other high-def console), they have an HD DVD player - but it's an $180 add-on! That's the same price as most stand-alone HD DVD players. Blu-ray players on the other hand go for about the same price of an entire PS3. So a consumer interested in HD was left with the following purchase options:

1. Standalone HD DVD Player - $100 - $500 (No gaming capabilities)


2. Xbox 360 - $350 (No HD movie viewing capability, except for downloads from the Xbox Live Marketplace)


3. Xbox 360 + HD DVD Add-on - $530


4. Xbox 360 + Standalone HD DVD Player - $450 - $850 (same as above, without needing to be hooked to each other)


5. PS3 - $500 (Built-in Blu-ray)


6. Standalone Blu-ray Player - $350 - $1,000 (No gaming capabilities)

So, as you can see, if you or anyone in your family is remotely interested in gaming, your best bet for Hi-Def movie viewing is in fact a PS3. The fact that the PS3 is trailing both the Xbox and the Wii in sales doesn't matter because neither of those have built in HD movie players. If Microsoft had made an Xbox with a built in HD player for $500 or less, Warner probably would've either continued making both, or chose HD DVD. Microsoft's unwillingness to take the risk that Sony did is ultimately what is doing HD DVD in.

The one benefit in the HD DVD drive not being built-in is that now Microsoft has the option of adding a Blu-ray add-on, once it becomes the standard format. This would be a smart move if they want to keep people from going over and just getting a PS3. In the meantime, hey, HD DVDs should be cheaper now, right?

Achievements are Addictive

Disclaimer: this post is about video games and may be regarded as nerdy by some. Bite me. Ok, don't actually bite me. It's just an expression.

I thought about titling this "Why I Never Play the Wii Anymore" or "x Reasons the 360 is better than the Wii", but since it really comes down to achievements, I thought I would put all the blame on them right smack dab in the title.


The annoying thing is that I still really like the Wii - I like the innovative motion controls, I like the games (especially the ability to download classics on the VC), and I like Channels like Internet, Weather and News. But for some reason, the past few months, great titles like Metroid Prime 3 that I haven't beaten yet but enjoy playing are now just sitting on the shelf, being about as useful to me as a flowerpot. Usually when video games sit on the shelf, it is because I am too busy doing other things like actually getting outside and/or doing something productive. But that's not the case the past few months because I have been playing video games. Just not Wii games. And if Link wants someone to blame, he should point his crossbow at Xbox 360's "achievements" system.

The achievements system makes it so not only do you have a game to play just for the sheer fun of playing and beating a game, but now you have these specified achievements to unlock that give you "Gamerscore" points that, in fact, are absolutely useless. Yet these useless points actually end up controlling my actions. Case in point: last night I popped in Burnout Revenge for a quick race or two before I went to bed. Upon completion of the race, I saw that I only had a mere 15 points to go (3 - 15 races depending on how good I did) before I reached the next level which would certainly unlock another achievement. So much for bedtime! I then continued to race until the darn thing crashed on me (the xbox, not the car). Thanks for rudely reminding me that tomorrow was a work day, Microsoft. I pay you for entertainment, not for nagging nanny services.

Anyway, do you see the problem? I prioritized pointless points before a beneficial bedtime! And I know I'm not the only one. A quick Google search for "Xbox 360 Achievements" will return entire websites fully devoted to the things. I'm even devoting a blog entry to them! Perhaps if the gamerscore was somehow related to the Microsoft Points system, which is what you use buy things (like more games!) with, the drive to increase the gamerscore would be more logical. But outside of bragging rights amongst friends, they are meaningless.

Therefore, that must be it. It's a social thing¹. We are now bragging to each other about how much time we waste playing video games. As of this writing, I currently have a Gamerscore of 950. I really want to reach 1000. For no reason. I don't even care how I reach it - I just want 1000. It's pathetic.

Another example:

Worms is one of my favorite games of all time, so I was delighted when I saw it on the Xbox Live Arcade. Right now it is one of my most frequently played games, partly because it's conveniently right on the hard drive, and partly because I can easily increase my Gamerscore while playing it. It went up about 65 points in less than 15 minutes the other day. 20 was simply for playing an online game. But once I get all the achievements (which should be soon, only 3 to go), will I play it as much? Probably not, not when there are 10,370 points to be gotten in my other games. Which means I am now playing one of my all-time favorite games solely for pointless points. That's sadder than a blind kid at the Grand Canyon.


So I really don't know if I like achievements or not. On the one hand, it increases the replay value of the game and you can argue that you get more for your money. But on the other hand, it almost seems like it takes a bit of the fun out of playing a game just to play it and now we have these chores to do also. And once the "chores" are done, there's no reason to play anymore. Perhaps if all achievements were things that would naturally be done throughout the course of completing the game, it would be better, but then you take out that replay value thing I was talking about, at least for the hardcore gamer. I guess the problem is I am just a casual gamer trying to live up to a hardcore gamer's lifestyle. Oh well...back to Worms for me!

---

¹ Actually, the "social thing" better describes Xbox's forte over the Wii. While the Wii is finally inching it's way into the world of online play, the Xbox nearly has it mastered with friends lists and profiles, IM, matchmaking, voice communication and tons of download options (including HD movies), the only thing the Xbox is actually missing is a built-in browser - which, surprisingly enough, the Wii has. The only real exciting online experience for the Wii that I can't get on the Xbox that I can think of will be Smash Bros Brawl. And even then, I'm curious how well it will do in the matchmaking world - especially without voice communication.

Marketing Never Was Microsoft's Forte

This has got to be one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen....





If they made a commercial like this for Vista, I would immediately go out and buy a Mac with OS X. Speaking of which, did you notice how at the beginning, dudeman mistakes 386 for OS 2? Gee, and now Vista is getting criticized for looking like OS X. Did Microsoft ever come out with something unique looking? Oh well, good to see some things never change, I guess.

But the combo of a white "business" woman with ginormous glasses rapping about an operating system while taking her clothes off (settle down, it doesn't show anything, thank goodness) is...well, let's just say the entire marketing department must have been enshrouded in a smoky haze back then. (Which should be assumed anyway I suppose, since it was the 80's and it is Washington!) How Microsoft ever sold anything with this "promo video" I'll never know, but I guess even corporations have their awkward teenage years.