Most everyone has heard the news of OnLive, the new cloud-based computer gaming platform. I’m not here to regurgitate that for you. Instead, I intend to give it some context.

Cloud computing is all the rage right now. With netbooks growing in popularity, all sorts of Internet-based services are popping up to make the experience of owning a netbook more rich. OnLive applies this model to PC gaming while broadening its appeal way beyond the netbook crowd. Where an app like Google Documents might outsource a little processor load and some data storage, OnLive’s system will send all of the intense load to your CPU and graphics card associated with PC gaming to a monstrous computer hundreds of miles away. The benefits are clear. While existing web apps have sold themselves to the typical PC user on convenience (e.g. the ability to access documents anywhere), this is the only service I can think of that has a chance to sell itself by saving gamers significant money on the hardware that is typically necessary to run these intensive games… not to mention the dedication to keep up with frequent upgrades just to maintain the performance status-quo. An entry-level gaming PC is going to cost around $800. This system enables a $300 netbook to do the same thing by relegating every task associated with the game other than actual display of the resulting video stream.

There are also implications here for the established modes of game distribution. In my most recent post, I discussed a possibility for a new model of game distribution that does away with the physical product altogether, but that proposition did not suggest any fundamental shifts in the way gaming works—only the way they are distributed. Digital distribution platforms have gained significant popularity over the past year. OnLive’s distribution model is digital, but it seems to be something of a hybrid between GameTap and Steam. I honestly don’t understand the model entirely, but Steve Perlman claimed in an interview there will be tiers of service which suggests a subscription model while the interface’s options for either buying or renting any given title suggests a more traditional model of paying per title. This is serious competition on either front. Steam will have difficulty as games that are available for both services will have significantly lower requirements through OnLive. Subscription services like GameTap typically serve so-called “casual” gamers better and contain few if any new release hardcore games. OnLive is coming into this with major partnerships with huge publishers (and committments for simultaneous release with retail) to give it some more muscle.

For the numerous advantages, this service already has a few small disadvantages I can see. First, the max resolution being quoted right now is 720p which is a bit behind the times. I understand there are now Internet bandwidth considerations as the resolution increases, and I’m sure that is the reason for this choice. It doesn’t make it any better for gamers that crave high fidelity experience with their PC gaming and are accustomed to running 1920×1200 or higher resolutions on their PCs. Second, with any digital distribution model comes concerns about consumer issues. As with other similar platforms, many consumers will likely not be comfortable with the license they are actually purchasing. Every software purchase is merely a license whether or not you receive a physical product, but, frankly, it is much easier for software publishers to enforce unreasonable demands in a license while they still control the software. If I have a disc, I can always resell it whereas a digital software purchase may be impossible to transfer.

For all my excitement, I am sceptical. It sounds much to good to be true. The only way we’ll know (before an actual launch, that is) is by getting in on the beta which should start this summer. If OnLive launches at an attractive price, good performance, and reasonable licensing agreements, this may be the Trojan horse that brings PC gaming back to the forefront.

Are you hot for technology, the Internet, and games? If so, subscribe to raddevon.com!

I just posted on the 1Up forums my ideas for a new model for games distribution that might help the industry escape the wrath of economic recession. I thought I should repost it here to direct readers’ attention toward it and get some feedback.

I’ve been listening to lots of discussion about the problems the industry faces moving deeper into recession with the current software distribution model. I have some ideas and want to get everyone’s feedback so here it goes.

I’m admittedly on the outside of the industry, but some of the major problems as I perceive them are

1. Lack of retail shelf space for software and difficulties negotiating with retailers
2. Inability to abandon retail distribution due to lack of broadband in many areas and for fear of alienating retailers
3. Publisher perception that used game sales undercut publisher and developer profits

Here is a single solution that, while incomplete, attempts to address these problems: A fully digital distribution model that allows for purchase of software from home via the Internet or at the retail store by way of software kiosks. The DSi and, if the rumors are correct, the next PSP may already be prepared to support such a model. Gamers will still be able to purchase games at the kiosk which will allow publishers to reach gamers that do not have access to the Internet connection necessary to download a large game. This will also allow retailers to share in software revenue compelling them to continue stocking the hardware. Shelf space is no longer an issue. Every store can carry every available title. Gamers with broadband will benefit by not having to travel in order to purchase games; every game will be available online. Used games will be a thing of the past as there will be no physical product which can be resold based on current digital purchase licensing arrangements. (Honestly, as a consumer, I find this part troubling, but I also see it as an inevitable reality.)

Any thoughts?

The developer has released a meaty update to the fantastic iPhone dual-stick shooter iDracula (my review). It includes two new levels, new weapons, and new game modes. It really adds quite a lot to a game that was already well worth the cost of admission. If you were waiting, maybe this is the incentive you were waiting for.

Online shopping has opened up for many of us a shopping world that was totally alien before it. Online retailers are competing with every other store you can think of which makes the competition fierce. They also sell large quantities of items which opens up room for deep discounts never before imagine by B&M retailers. Computers and the Internet also make it easier to shop. Here is a technique that automates the entire bargain hunting process. If you want something and a have a few weeks to wait, use this procedure, and there’s a good chance you’ll find a deal you never thought possible.

First, you’ll need a Gmail account. If you already have one, you’ll probably need an additional one. Second, you will need a Yahoo account for use with Yahoo Alerts.

Use the procedure described in the video, sit back, and watch the deals roll in!

Here are some great feeds to subscribe to in order to get the most out of this system:

• Ben’s Bargains (Feed: http://bensbargains.net/rss.xml/0)
• Techdeals.net (Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/techdealsnet)
• GottaDeal.com (Feed: http://www.gottadeal.com/rss2.xml)
• The Bargainist (Feed: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/bargainist)
• JungleCrazy (feed: http://www.junglecrazy.com/rss.php)
• DealHack (Feed: http://www.dealhack.com/index.xml)
• SlickDeals (Feed: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/SlickdealsnetFP)
• FatWallet (Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FatwalletHotDeals)
• CheapAssGamer (Feed: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/rss.php?contenttype=2)
• CheapCollegeGamers (Feed: http://www.cheapcollegegamers.com/forum/external.php?type=RSS2)

That should get you started. If you find other feeds I may have missed, please post them in the comments. Thanks for watching. I’ll have a new episode on April 3rd.

Download the podcast

• Quicktime HD
• Quicktime Standard
• iPod
• MP3 (audio only)

There was a short period of about a month just after the app store went live that there were no tower defense games whatsoever. Now, that space is much more crowded and with good reason. The iPhone is a gaming platform excellently equipped for the tower defense genre of which geoDefense is a solid example.

There are two basic variations of the genre. Some games allow you to place towers anywhere, and the towers form the path the creeps will traverse (e.g. Fieldrunners). Others like geoDefense lay out a path for the creeps and allow placement of towers anywhere except on the path. This is my favored style. I prefer to concentrate on the strategy involved in placing towers rather than placing towers and constructing the most effective path.

The place where geoDefense does the best at differentiating from other tower defense titles is its look. The graphics harken back to the vector graphics of old arcade games like Asteroids and Battlezone. This is an often used style, but the explosions in this game are really a sight to behold. At its more frenetic moments, the player will be treated to hundreds of colored particles exploding around the screen as he lays waste to hordes of creeps.

Unfortunately, the game takes few chances overall. There are a few new towers I haven’t seen in previous TD games (like a tower that collects energy from creep explosions feeding it back to towers for more powerful shots), but this does little to provide incentive to purchase this title over and above similar games on the app store. Towers are sometime introduced (and taken away) for particular missions which adds another layer of strategy to the game.

Disclosure: I am not and will not ever be competing on the pro circuit in strategy games. That said, I found this game more difficult than most. This is not a bad thing. Usually, I expect to coast through several waves of creeps in a new TD game. In geoDefense, I found myself scraping by even in the early levels on easy mode. I then tried the medium levels and found that they were very similarly difficult. The feeling ov even difficulty across easy and medium difficulties could have been because I became more skilled playing the easy levels and was better prepared to play on medium. The hard levels do feel significantly more difficult. This is where I first experienced the game actually removing access to a tower. It certainly achieved its desired effect.

In short, geoDefense is an excellent example of what it is: a simple tower defense game with excellent graphics. I would love to recommend it more highly because I really do think it is an excellent game. However, it takes virtually no risk and sticks to well-established conventions of tower defense games. I don’t necessarily need genres to be blended or anything like that, but I think there are some simple elements that could be added to make the game more compelling. I would love to see some sort of progression where it feels that my play in one scenario will actually affect my standing in the next. That would be a relatively simple feature that, if balanced properly, could really provide some incentive for reply.

Windows is a rare breed: an open software platform that has seen a great deal of success. Open platforms are what people tend to think of when they think of software platforms in general because they are more accessible. If I’m thinking about a software platform not as a consumer but as a development platform, I’m probably going to think of something I myself would have easy access to develop on. Openness of a platform is something of a double-edged sword as it allows more choice for developers and users while also granting that same choice to developers who would love to wreak havoc for one reason or another in the form of viruses and malware. Openness also allows for careless developers to release buggy software that can cause problems for users and give the platform in general a bad name.

The earliest platforms were probably closed. If I am a university sitting on a computer that cost millions of dollars to build, I’m unlikely to allow just anyone to come through and run whatever software they please. Although they have arguably been around longer than open platforms, closed platforms have been mostly taken for granted up until the iTunes app store launched with tremendous success nearly overnight. Closed platforms allow for tighter controls on developers and crafting of a ore unified vision for the platform as a whole.

Windows has often been criticized for the litany of malicious software that has plagued it virtually since day one. Users of closed platforms most often do not have to worry about malicious software. Controls can be put in place to test software for any malicious intent. If something happens to sneak through to users, it will most likely be found and corrected in short order. This does not apply only to malicious software but has been useful to control content for creators of platform that want to portray a squeaky-clean image. This has been used recently by Apple in denying approval to developers of apps that defend the company’s taste in some way. Nintendo also utilized this to great effect by insuring that titles released on its consoles were more family-friendly than those available on competing platforms.

This is an example of a Tengen cartridge released for the NES without Nintendo licensing.

The closed approach to the software platform also leaves companies vulnerable to backlash from both developers and users. Apple has felt this very recently on multiple occasions from initially restricting the availability of the now venerable sub-genre of mobile flatulence noise generators to their recent denial of the Twitter app Tweetie for it’s display of a swear word as a popular tag on the social network. Backlashes often create an underground of users and developers that find new ways to circumvent the closed systems and open them up. Apple has recently been on the attack against iPhone “jailbreaking“—the act of removing the iPhone’s protection against installation of unauthorized software. Jailbroken phones have recently gotten their own “app store” which provides developers and users a marketplace to buy and sell apps that, for one reason or another, went unapproved by Apple. Nintendo suffered from this as well in the late 80’s when developer Tengen reverse-engineered the NES lock-out chip to allow their games to run on NES consoles without approval.

Closed platforms allow for the party maintaining the platform to profit directly from the sale of software. Apple has deemed a charge of 30% is sufficient for their services of providing developers the tools, platform, and marketplace necessary for iPhone development. Microsoft has announced a similar mobile app store  that charges developers a yearly fee on top of a percentage of the sales revenue for apps. Gaming console makers have been charging licensing fees to software developers for many years now. In fact, game console hardware manufacturers often sell their hardware at a loss in anticipation of future software licensing revenue.

Because of the accessibility of open platforms and the lack of a centralized marketplace (although there are closed platforms without centralized marketplaces as well), software developed on open platform can have trouble gaining traction. The openness means there is a potential for much more competition which can lead to most releases being virtually invisible. This can be mitigated with beefy marketing budgets but those undermine the open nature of the marketplace. It doesn’t matter that I can develop for a platform without jumping through hoops if I then have to spend a million dollars to sell any copies of my application.

Ideologically, I much prefer the model of open software platforms for one key reason: all closed platforms to a greater or lesser degree leave developers wondering whether a piece of software to which they have devoted significant time, effort, and possibly money will, in fact, make it through the approval process so that it may be profitable. Open platforms give developers the peace of mind knowing that only the market will decide their success or failure. Closed platforms have distinct advantages, but the freedom offered to all parties by an open platform is a hard thing to sacrifice to any end.

As soon as you launch Zen Bound, you’re going to realize you’ve stumbled into something really special. True to it’s name, the game is really a zen experience. The feelings I get playing this game are very close to those I get playing Flower on the PS3. I’m sure it’s much easier to sell a game if you stick guns and blood into it, but bravo to brave developers willing to stretch the definition of gaming even if it makes the marketing a bit more labored.

Zen Bound allows the player to manipulate a wooden object by way of touch control. A rope is stretched from the screen to the object at an angle determined by the accelerometer. Players twist and turn the object to wrap the rope around it. The goal is to touch as much of the object with the rope as possible while soothing music plays in wonderfully separated stereo. There are two modes. As best I can tell, the difference is in the types of objects you are given to bind. The Tree of Reflection presents the player with a series of representative objects (usually animals carved from wood) while the Tree of Challenge contains more abstract and geometric shapes. As you bind the objects, they become “painted” a different color. The unpainted portions are those still left to touch.

It sounds like a very simple concept but there is really a lot of strategy involved. I can’t just string my rope anywhere as I might bridge the rope over portions of the object that I will then be unable to touch later. Also, you are limited to a length of rope for each object forcing you to be economical with your use of it. Each stage has three flowers the can be attained. The first at 70% coverage, the second at 85%, and the third at 99%. It is possible to obtain all three at once by achieving 99% on your first completion of a level. Flowers accumulate to grant access to new stages higher up each tree. A level is completed by tying a second nail that begins glowing when you have reached the first completion level (70%). This adds another level of challenge as the level will end as soon as the rope makes contact with the nail after reaching at least 70%. If you want to achieve the second or third level of completion, you will have to avoid the second nail until you reach your desired coverage.

The graphics are simple but beautiful. Granted, this isn’t a game with high polygon count models, but the models are beautiful and serve the purpose perfectly. The style of the art is complementary of the music. Everything feels relaxing and very… well, zen. The game opens with a text message which says that it is designed for use with headphones. Please take this to heart because the iPhone speaker does not do justice to the wonderful music in this game.

There are currently 6,000 games on the app store. Far less than 1% of those are entertaining. Less than 1% of those are unique. This game is in that 1% of 1%. I implore you to reward developers that think outside the box and toss out the tropes of gaming that have been established over the past 30 years. Zen Bound is an incredibly unique and rewarding experience that should appeal to nearly everyone.

This is a big deal for social web addicts. One of the first articles posted to this site was about the inadequacies of Google Reader as a sharing platform when compared to FriendFeed. Yesterday, one of FriendFeed’s advantages over Google’s sharing platform was mitigated as Google unveiled comments for shared items. Google Reader makes it easy to share stories with friends, but it hasn’t fostered conversation around shared content. The best you could do is to either e-mail the sharer or re-share the item with a note containing your own comments. This new feature is a real breakthrough, and it’s something I know for a fact I will use every day. Now, if Google will only copy Gmail’s new label management system right on over to Google Reader…

The Quest is a first-person Western RPG in the vein of Daggerfall and probably some older titles I don’t recall. RPGs on the app store are few and far between. Most of those are JRPGs which are often characterized by cookie-cutter save the world/princess storylines and strictly linear gameplay that rarely strays from the main storyline. The Quest, like other Western RPGs, is open-world nonlinear and contains many quests that are off the main storyline which can be completed in any order. This game is something of a throwback and may not appeal to new gamers who have only joined the fray in the last five or so years but veterans like myself will find much here to appreciate. The graphics are serviceable but nothing particular special to look at. However, the depth of this game is unmatched by anything I have seen thus far. The game includes a robust inventory system along with in-game shops that will sell you new items and buy your old ones. The game includes a magic system in which spells can either be cast from scrolls or learned from books. There are projectile and melee weapons at your disposal.

You will not find yourself running out of things to do here. At any given time, you will probably have multiple quests which can be completed in any order. There are townspeople to talk to. The game employs a day and night cycle which will actually have bearing on what you may do in the game. There is so much here it would be impossible to cover it all.

The game’s interface is a success in some areas and a failure in others. Movement can be accomplished in one of two ways: via the on-screen arrows or by gesturing on the actual viewport. The game recognizes six different movements: forward, backward, sidesteps left and right, and turns left and right. Arrow movement is straightforward; there is an arrow for each movement type. Gesture movement is less obvious but still fairly intuitive; swipe up to move forward, down to move backward, left or right for sidesteps, and diagonals for turning. Navigating the world is pretty easy using this system. Games like this are obviously better suited to a mouse and keyboard, but this is a good implementation given the platform. The inventory system is a bit unintuitive. When shopping or picking up an item,  the game allows you to switch between viewing your own items and the other party’s items (be that party a seller or the ground) by way of a pair of curved arrows. Unfortunately, it is not immediately obvious (at least to me) which arrow is which. The green arrow pointing up will display the other party’s inventory while the yellow arrow pointing down displays your own.

Combat is turn-based and simple enough to execute. Simply face your target and tap the attack button to perform a single attack after which the enemy will have an opportunity to either move or perform an attack on you. There is a little luck involved and health potions are strongly recommended.

I can’t recommend this as a game for the masses. Not everyone will enjoy it. It appeals to a small albeit devoted audience. However, for RPG gamers, this is a game that is hard to find on the go. A game with the depth of The Quest on a mobile platform is a real treat. It’s not without it’s problems, but those can easily be overlooked by anyone looking for a substantial RPG to play on the go.

When the excellent social bookmarking site Delicious launched in 2003, it re-branded an old idea about categorizing and organizing data—namely tagging. Tagging is basically the same concept as keywords, but somehow the rebranding makes it seem more friendly and accessible. Delicious provided users with a system that made tagging easy and gave users a way to exploit this organization allowing them to browse tags to find sites and pages of interest.

With tagging comes debate about how best to utilize the tags to the benefit of the community. In the summer of 2007, Tagamac—a blog about utilizing tagging on the Macintosh platform—wrote a post outlining a set of general tagging conventions that can be applied to any tagging system. The post excited me, and I began religiously putting these tenets into practice. The conventions as laid out in the post are simple:

1. Be succinct
2. Use lowercase tags
3. Use singular words

A couple of months back, I realized this system wasn’t really working for me. The realization came from my own habits in searching Delicious for content. First, let me say that Delicious is a fantastic search tool. Since Google uses an algorithm to return search results, it can be gamed and isn’t always accurate. Delicious having user-generated tags is much more accurate. If I browse through a tag on Delicious, I know some user has looked at each of these sites and decided to give it that tag. It’s much more reliable than an algorithm no matter how sophisticated. Needless to say, I often use Delicious to find resources. I noticed that when I searched Delicious, I didn’t assume that others followed the conventions laid out in the Tagamac post which I myself followed. In fact, I couldn’t assume that… at least not with any success.

The author of these guidelines has an admirable goal. By setting out rigid guidelines for tag use, it would make tagging more useful to those who use the organization to find things while also making it easier for taggers to tag a piece of content. The problem may be that tagging is more of an organic activity. People tend not to dwell much on composing tags. It’s almost word association in which the tagger asks, “What does this make me think of?”

I want to address each of the three guidelines in turn. Succinctness is without a doubt important and is encouraged by most tagging systems. Tags are often limited to a single word by using the space as a delimiter. For example, if I bookmark a site in Delicious and want to tag it hardware, tutorial, and diy, I simply type each of those words in the tag box with spaces between like this: “hardware tutorial diy”. If I decide I also want to tag it “how to,” I can’t just type that into the tag box. Rather than adding a single “how to” tag, the item would be tagged “how” and “to”. Instead, I have to either butt the words together or use a hyphen to avoid their being split into two distinct tags. This automatically discourages tags with multiple words and, although there are times it is appropriate (such as the aforementioned scenario), multi-word tagging in general is not desirable or very useful. Using lowercase tags is a reasonable guideline, but most systems are case-insensitive. Why even worry if people searching tags will not see a difference? The last guideline is the most problematic: singularity. It is sometimes difficult to decide which form of a word to use when tagging. A simple rule like “Never use plural words,” would be great if everyone followed it all the time. The problem comes when only 10% of taggers follow the guideline all the time while the rest use whichever form of the word pops into their heads at the given time or whichever form seems more appropriate given the circumstance.

I propose an alternate method: the shotgun approach. Use every form of a relevant word that comes to mind when tagging an item. It may sound a bit like overkill, but consider the stakes: as a Delicious user, I want to find sites about games. I come to Delicious and view the bookmarks tagged “games” to the exclusion of anything that is tagged only “game” or “gaming“. Because of the simple fact that, when I ask myself, “What am I looking for?” my brain replies “games” rather than “game”, I will miss out on the benefits of any resources you have tagged “game”. What is lost by tagging an item with both plural and singular forms of a word? A few seconds at most. If I have a new bookmark that I want to benefit the most people, I will want to tag it with as many synonyms as possible to reach the widest audience. My tag shotgun will sacrifice accuracy to hit a wide range of users with my chosen tags. I can apply this tenet to more than just plurality. In terms of the example given in the previous paragraph, tagging a tutorial with “tutorial tutorials howto how2 how-to diy” will be much more effective to users than giving it any one of those. Even though my tag cloud will look a bit messier, I have provided more value with my post.

This method actually better exploits the advantages of the tag model of organization. For so many years, computers have been dependent upon the hierarchical folder structure for organization imposing a strict one-to-one ratio. We needed to decide the one location that would be the easiest place to find an item and hope we could reason that out the same way when we were later trying to find it. Tags grant us the flexibility or giving an unlimited number of descriptive words to an item to make it easy to find later regardless of how we decide to describe it.