Activision is pressuring Sony from releasing a patch that would allow Guitar Hero III controllers to work with EA’s Rock Band for PS3.

The average consumer isn’t going to understand why two controllers for the same system, with the same button layout, dont work with two games that have them functioning in the exact same way. Activision is essentially forcing people to buy two of their guitars to play the game instead of allowing people to buy both the GH III bundle and Rock Band bundles, giving them a total of two guitars. Supposedly Activision offered to work with EA to come to an aggreement, aka. “pay us money,” to which EA declined.

In the end the only one that suffers is the consumer.

Chufmoney

[via 1up]

The first DLC song lists for Rock Band were leaked today. That is kinda ridiculous, don’t you think? I mean, the game hasn’t even come out yet and there is already DLC set up.

But, what worried many when they saw the DLC list, was that it showed bundled songs. It also listed singles, but, early on, it appeared that you had to purchase the bundled songs in groups of three. Thankfully, 1up.com has confirmed with MTV that you can purchase the songs individually or bundled. Suffice it to say that…er…rocks.

Guitar Hero III, on the other hand–which already has DLC out for both PS3 and 360–still only has songs purchasable in 3 packs. Yeah, it sucks. But, what sucks even more is that people are buying it. Bitching only goes so far, it’s the power of the purse that matters.

Though personally I am still in the boycott Rock Band camp–due to their stupid bundle only option–I can appreciate that they aren’t screwing the consumer with the online content. Now, if they would only sell the individual fucking instruments…..

Chufmoney

EA’s been in a funny place this year, as they’ve managed to release seasonal games that are better than they’ve literally been in years (such as Madden 2008 and Medal of Honor: Airborne) to securing publishing deals for some of the most anticipated titles of the year (including Rock Band and The Orange Box), as well as releasing well done original titles that have threatened uncontested kings of genres (in this case, the critically lauded Skate.). It’s refreshing to see a company who in years past was accused of complacency, employee abuse, and everything evil and despised about video games have something of a critically banner year. I’ve found myself in an odd position of defending the evil empire in threads and conversations online and off, as this is exactly the EA we’ve all wished existed since they transformed from the quirky aggressive indie publisher to the industry monolith they’ve become. In fact, their size has allowed them to go the extra mile and do the right thing by delaying a game in trouble, namely Army of Two:

Within the house of 1UP, editors have been playing through what we once thought was the finalized review code for Electronic Arts’ original co-op IP, Army of Two. Turns out that’s not true; EA has announced today Army of Two will be miss its November release date, giving the team a few extra months of polish before the game’s actually released in early 2008.

“Game quality is our top priority. Army of Two has potential to become a lasting EA franchise — so getting the first title right is essential,” said President of the EA Games Label. “The team at EA Montreal thinks that more time for polish will make the game truly great. We’re going to trust the team and give Army of Two a few more months in the studio. Army of Two will ship in first quarter of calendar 08.”

Why did it get delayed? Because the game was in serious trouble. While no reviews that I’m aware of have gone up, there has been a creeping sense of hesitation in preview coverage for the game over the last few months. Our own Anthony Gallegos had this to say after a recent EA event:

From the game’s Aggro system — detailed in our previous preview — to parachuting, sniping and getting to cover, you do almost everything with your partner. If one of you goes down, it’s up to the other to bring him back before he dies. Our A.I. partner managed its part of the co-op actions without issue. We never had to coax our teammate into the proper position, or order him to heal us; he performed with no assistance whatsoever. But while all these elements can build upon the overall co-op experience, they sometimes felt forced or too frequent in the levels we played. Unless there are enough variations between the co-op game actions, we fear that the team actions will feel like more of a gimmick than a compelling part of the experience.

Joystiq also posted their own preview today (which actually reads more like a review):

Because of the demo problem, I can’t comment too deeply on the graphics. The other systems looked good, about at the level of other recent games but not pushing any new standard. The frequent, brief cut-scenes also looked crisp, although they threatened the pacing. Often, the cut-scenes just showed us climbing to a second story of a building or something mundane.

Army of Two is built for two-players, but online multiplayer games will let two of those teams face off. EA didn’t demo this mode, but the company compared it to a simultaneous, competitive game mission. Both teams will be fighting NPCs and trying to beat each other to fulfill game objectives — like killing certain enemies or recovering a valued object. Four-player split-screen won’t be supported.

Army of Two felt like a unique, high-fiving action game, which is a pleasant surprise. Some of the risky decisions may fail after lots of playing, but these gambles give the game its own niche.

EA has staked a great deal of its financial viability in the future on the ability to release a lot of titles for various platforms, and this is the right decision. We’ve lamented other publishers that seem hellbent on releasing games that just don’t feel ready for the fall melee (I’m looking at you Kane and Lynch and Haze), and it’s good to see a company more known for hubris than humility make the call to give a game the time it needs, rather than adhere to a schedule.

-Aegies

One of the main elements of the agreement which finally put EA titles on Xbox Live on the original (and current) Xbox was the stipulation that EA be able to run games through their own servers, as opposed to peer-to-peer matches directed through Microsoft’s Live servers. This has some advantages, as server based online multiplayer tends to have better latency than peer-to-peer connections. However, it also means that games that depend on server based multiplayer are at the mercy of the owners of the server; pull the plug on the server, pull the plug on online multiplayer. Now it seems like one of the reasons for EA’s insistence on using its own servers for their published titles is becoming more clear: they want you to upgrade yearly. Starting September 1st, the following games won’t be playable online any longer. Expect this to become a yearly thing.

(more…)