PixlBit

I've got the Xbox360 version of the first game. I don't care which version I pick up for the second.

I've actually been meaning to talk about that, Joaquim. I think there's an element of ridiculousness in how that process was described. I'll either talk about it next week in PB & Jason, or write up an extensive comment as a reaction.

I got 14.3 on my second try, but I don't feel like tiring out my hand hitting keys all evening. Maybe if it were on a controller...

Two things: That's why you should read the holiday gift guides we make at PixlBit...

And

That's why I need someone in game development to work with me to create the game idea I've posed in PB & Jason, of course.

I forgot to mention this on PB & Jason, but know that I meant to do so! Reviews from the audience perspective are always something nice, so I hope to see more of these from you, Angelo!

Your thoughts on these class-action lawsuit deals mirror my own, but as long as people understand they can take action on their own, and if the people who realize that hold the company's feet to the fire, the risk for the company could potentially be greater if they make a misstep that results in the risk of a lawsuit. It's a tricky line they're walking, and companies that include clauses about mandatory binding arbitration could potentially be setting themselves up for a ton of smaller lawsuits that would be much more expensive in mass.

The thing about the GameCube controller? If you kept your finger on the A button, you were always very close to every other face button on the controller. You could always transfer to another button very quickly. Comparative controllers don't necessarily have a "main" button in that same way, and as such, sometimes buttons can be awkward. I'm not particularly praising the GameCube controller to extreme degrees, more, I'm just saying it's the last time anyone major attempted to make buttons simpler for everyone, and that's the problem.

To set up Kinect correctly must involve some sort of magic beyond my ability. When there was a Kinect around here, speech registered about 20% of the time. To say it only works flawlessly when one creates lighting like that on a stage is a large barrier of entry. In regard to movement tracking, even in menu navigation, I've had struggles. The Kinect will see my hand for a few moments, and then lose track for just a second, resetting timers for menu selections. The gestures needed to perform some operations are clunky and feel unnatural. Anyone who feels Kinect is a better operator than a standard controller is deluded in my opinion. That's a big problem with the direction of the game industry: Motion controls can have a time and a place, but implementing them everywhere will scare people away and back to their cell phone games more than anything.

Just awful news for people who actually want to receive decent coverage of the show, naturally. If there were an extra day added, a media day, or fewer wandering exhibitor passes, maybe the venue could work, but it's ridiculous that E3 only aims for LA year after year, even in the event of a clear conflict.

Sarcastic or not, things like this happen. While this isn't a move I saw by a games journalist, I've read an article before written by someone involved in the stock market. Essentially, it said that traders with high followings and/or media positions could potentially manipulate a stock price a little bit on the short term by spreading a rumor about a company that officially "...does not comment on rumors and speculation."

A negative rumor could be spread to make the stock price drop artificially before the person with influence purchased the stock, whereas a positive rumor could be spread right before a sale. These rumors wouldn't carry water on the stock's price in the long-term, but a movement of a few pennies up or down can result in tons of extra money, depending on the bulk of the purchase/sale.

Hence, when a rumor like this pops up, particularly one that has so many generic and already speculated outcomes, I'm skeptical. In this case, I don't imagine the rumor would be spread to profit on the stock market, but rather, I think some editor at Kotaku is trying to flex his/her publishing muscle to get exclusive information.

I think the rumor is all pretty much fabricated. That seems to be my standard line about rumors, but it needs to be said.

In this case, I feel like someone at Kotaku wanted to force out some news from Square-Enix about the game, and so they came up with this claim. Maybe they heard rumblings that there was change in Versus XIII, and want to get impressions and/or hands on, or something like that.

The point is that I think the goal in this story isn't to actually reveal anything true, I don't think Versus XIII is cancelled, though I could see if it was renamed FFXV just for marketing purposes. Anyway, I think this is more a move to give SE a tough time from their investors to update progress on the long-developed game. It seems more like manipulation than speculation to me, especially since we're told very little in detail here.

In fact, the rumor essentially says nothing, aside from suggesting FF Versus-XIII won't keep that name. It's a popular idea, considering a hoax around E3 had much of the internet believing it already. Aside from that, they say the game could be continued entirely, could be gutted for resources for another game, or could be cancelled entirely. What kind of a rumor is that? Literally, they just suggested the conditions in which any game could be. Let me give you a rumor about Smash Bros. for the Wii U: It's either been cancelled, still being developed, or being gutted for resources. Nintendo hasn't shown off anything about the game because one of those things are happening with it.

See how generic that is?

No, they did not. They were of the few without any time.