Blizzard knuckles down on community as Valve fiddles

taken exactly the kind of firm, decisive action we've come to expect of the company; it's added some graphs to the interface. Nothing's going to top the sheer shade of Gamasutra's headline on this topic - "Steam considers preventing review bombs, adds graphs instead" - which perfectly sums up the exasperation so many developers feel with the service at this point. "We're aware of the problem, and doing as little as humanly possible to fix it" is in many ways the worst response the company could have conjured.

Review bombs, for the uninitiated, are when a mob descends on Steam to leave a flood of poor reviews - often accompanied by a grossly offensive comment - on a game whose developer has done something to raise their hackles. The most recent example was the review-bombing of Firewatch after its developers demanded PewDiePie remove videos of the game following his latest racist "slip of the tongue", but dozens of developers have been targeted for this kind of treatment, often simply for the sin of being female or a minority, or for in some way otherwise upsetting the denizens of Reddit and 4chan. Review bombing can hammer a game's rating on Steam and consequently seriously damage its sales - it's a direct and effective way for online mobs to damage the livelihoods of developers.

    "What's most frustrating is that the data Valve is now revealing makes it clear how trivial it would be to fix this problem if they actually cared"

Valve's response has been to effectively shrug off responsibility for these problems and place it entirely on the shoulders of its customers. Steam users will now be expected to look at a graph for a game to make sure it's not being review bombed, a process that assumes that they've bothered looking at a game with a low review score in the first place, that they understand what review bombing is, and that they know what it looks like on a graph - all of which seem vanishingly unlikely, making this move entirely unhelpful. What's most frustrating is that the data Valve is now revealing makes it clear how trivial it would be to fix this problem if they actually cared; an automated system that flagged possible review bombing for human review would be beyond trivial to implement.

This is the crux; the problem is not technological, it's philosophical. Valve clearly has a strong philosophy and political standpoint about how online services should work and about how the freedom of users (including users who haven't actually bought a game but still want to give it a 1-star review and call its creator a variety of colourful names) should be balanced against the protection of creators' livelihoods. Moreover, it has a belief that where problems do arise, they can be fixed with more data and tweaked algorithms; this reflects the broad Silicon Valley ideological fervour about the power and purity of algorithms, which conveniently ignores the extraordinary degree to which code that deals with human behaviour tends to reflect the implicit biases of its authors. Valve absolutely knows it could fix this issue with tighter rules, more human supervision and, yes, some better algorithms to report back to those supervisors; it just doesn't want to do that, because that's not its philosophy.

On the flip side of this coin, you've got Blizzard - a company which embraces technology with every bit as much fervour as Valve, but takes a very different approach to protecting its players and policing its community. Last week, Overwatch game director Jeff Kaplan laid things out very clearly - the team has absolutely refocused personnel and resources away from other features and content in order to address player toxicity in the Overwatch community.

    "There will always be a subset of people who get their kicks from aggressively ruining other people's fun... For them, harassment and abuse is the game, more so than the game itself"

It's throwing people, time and money into making its blockbuster game into an environment where people can play without facing abuse and harassment. Some of that effort boils down to developing smarter systems - Kaplan bemoaned the fact that resources have been diverted from other features in order to implement player-reporting on consoles, a feature Overwatch initially lacked on those platforms in the belief that consoles' own native player management systems would suffice. Other simple aspects of the game's systems and designs are clearly designed to avoid player harassment - dropping kill:death ratios from the scoreboard is one such move, for example.

Ultimately, though, the work Blizzard is doing on Overwatch - and that other companies that genuinely care about this issue, such as League of Legends creator Riot, are doing on their games - is about people, not algorithms. Clever design and good code gets you so far in managing human behaviour, but there will always be a subset of people who get their kicks from aggressively ruining other people's fun, and will devote themselves to learning to game any system you throw in their way. For them, harassment and abuse is the game, more so than the game itself; to deal with them, ultimately, you need living, breathing people empowered to make good decisions on behalf of the community.

This is, perhaps, what Valve doesn't understand - or is the understanding which it rejects on the grounds of its philosophy. Review bombing is a form of "gaming" Steam's systems; it arose because groups of people discovered that it was possible to manipulate Steam's data and algorithms in a way that achieved their political objectives. You can't fix that by just providing more data; the only way to prevent it from impacting on the income and livelihoods of developers (who, let's remember, give Steam a hell of a cut of their sales, and deserve to be treated with a damned sight more respect by Valve) is to seal up loopholes and add a layer of human supervision, in the form of people with clear priorities to protect creators and preserve Steam as a great retail platform, not a vector for online abuse mobs.


Blizzard's philosophy here (and again, it's not just Blizzard - plenty of other game operators also recognise and value of properly policing and improving their communities) is a great counter-example, and a window into what a service like Steam could be like if Valve rooted out some of this counter-productive philosophy from its way of doing business.

Steam is one of the most important developments in the games business in the last 20 years; it effectively rescued PC gaming from commercial doldrums and placed it on a path to the rude health it's in now. Its very importance, both commercially and culturally, cries out for better management; for it to slide into being a hostile environment for developers and a vector for online abuse (and thus also a pretty unpleasant place for the average consumer to shop for games) is a deeply worrying and unfortunate outcome.

Valve's critics don't pile on the company out of dislike, but out of disappointment at seeing such a vital part of the industry go to seed; if the company is really serious about fixing these issues, we'd suggest that a good first step would be to put down the graphs and see if maybe Blizzard is free for a chat on the phone.

Switch is Nintendo's last console

"Nintendo Switch. Starting to feel a little hype, not gonna lie."
That was me in October, following Nintendo's reveal of the upcoming console. I was perfectly fine with with the initial reveal of the Switch, feeling that glimmer of hope that, as an admitted Nintendo fangirl, I have grown all too familiar with. However, I am also familiar with disappointment.
The Wii U was an epic flop, so much so that recapping the ways in which the system fell short is unnecessary. And in all honesty, the Switch is what the Wii U should have been in the first place. The Switch gives players multiple ways to play without the limitations of its predecessor, offering a bridge between traditional gameplay on a TV and the on-the-go appeal of the 3DS. Unfortunately, the upcoming system is coming just a bit too late, and brings with it plenty of red flags of its own.

The price is too high at $299, especially when you factor in that there will be no bundled game and the included Joy-Con grip will not charge the Joy-Con controllers - you'll need to buy that separately. In addition, the replacements and peripherals revealed for the console are also too high. A pair of replacement Joy-Con controllers will set you back $80, while individuals will cost $50. A replacement dock set is $90, and the Nintendo Switch Pro Controller is $70. While the console itself feels overpriced, particularly when noting the absence of a bundled game, the replacements and the peripherals are almost shockingly expensive.
While the Wii U has been heavily criticized for coming out too strong and failing to maintain third party support and a healthy, consistent flow of games, Nintendo appears to be doing the exact opposite with the Switch in what is too drastic a pendulum swing. The lineup - both at launch and during its first year on the market - is concerning. At this point, the Nintendo Switch will be releasing with ten games in the US - Zelda: Breath of the Wild, 1-2-Switch, Just Dance 2017, Skylanders Imaginators, The Binding of Isaac: Afterbirth+, I Am Setsuna, World of Goo, Little Inferno, Human Resource Machine, and Super Bomberman R. The two Nintendo launch titles are Zelda, which will be releasing simultaneously on the Switch and Wii U, and 1-2-Switch, which is a collection of mini-games that should have been bundled in with the console but will instead set you back $50 so that you can pretend to eat a hoagie or milk a cow while making awkward eye contact with your friends.

As of right now, Nintendo has fewer confirmed Switch games releasing in all of 2017 than the Wii U had at the time of its launch.

As of right now, Nintendo has fewer confirmed Switch games releasing in all of 2017 than the Wii U had at the time of its launch. While it's possible more will be revealed, this isn't the most comforting list to have in front of you with less than two months to launch - and, if there was going to be another large title launching alongside the console, I have to assume we would have heard something about it by this point. According to Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aime, this is intentional. Speaking with CNET, Fils-Aime stated that Nintendo has a "great ongoing march of content to motivate you to jump into the platform."
"Launch day is not the be-all and the end-all," Fils-Aime said. "It really is the steady pacing of content that continually reinforces for the people who bought into the platform why they made a smart choice, as well as what compels people who might be sitting on the sidelines to jump in."
However, it is questionable how long this content will last, even when released at a steady pace. In the 2017 state of the industry report issued by the Game Developers Conference, more than 4,500 developers answered a variety of questions - including what consoles they were currently developing for. Only 3% confirmed that they are currently developing for the Nintendo Switch, while 22% are developing for Xbox One/Scorpio, 27% are developing for PlayStation 4/Pro, 38% are developing for Smartphones and Tablets, and 53% are developing for PC/Mac. Fewer developers admitted to developing for the Switch than confirmed development for Apple TV.
The release schedule is hardly the biggest hurdle that the Switch faces. Prior to last week's detailed Switch presentation, I penned an editorial, laying out a list of must-haves for the console to be a sure success. Looking back, I realize I was too optimistic with what I had thought were simple expectations. While a strong launch and strong third party support were the first points I argued for - and, sadly, am unable to check off - I also argued that the Switch needs good battery life. If one of the major points is that it's a hybrid, with equal importance given to both docked and undocked play, then the battery has to reflect that. However, Nintendo has revealed that the battery on the Switch between charges will last 2.5 to 6.5 hours, depending on the game you are playing, with Breath of the Wild able to last three hours between charges. The one bonus here is that you can charge the Switch with a USB-C, and you are able to play while charging. However, unless you're carrying around a compatible power bank this will drastically limit the portability of the console.
Price for value is another issue. The Switch has 32GB of internal storage, making digital downloads very unattractive for gamers. While the console's storage can be expanded via micro SD card, a good SDXC card with a capacity of 256GB retails for up to $200, giving you less internal storage than a 500GB PlayStation 4 at a greater cost. While the portability does add value to the Switch, the above issue of battery life makes it a bit less appealing.

The truth is, Nintendo's consoles are what we put up with in order to access the games we want to play.

The Escapist's Steven Bogos shared his hands-on impressions of the Switch from PAX South, stating that the Switch, when viewed as a new handheld, is impressive enough to replace Nintendo's 3DS, but that as a home console "the Nintendo Switch is a bust."
"It's not as powerful as a PS4 (made obvious by the framerate issues I had on Breath of the Wild) which means that it's going to have the same third-party issues that the Nintendo always has," he added.
Bad timing and bad choices have led Nintendo to a pivotal moment. The gaming industry has always benefited from competition, but everything that we know of the Switch shows that Nintendo only appears to be competing with one company - itself. The Switch is too limited to replace smartphones and tablets, and it is far too weak and limited, in both its hardware and third party support, to be a true home console competitor. As much as I would love to see Nintendo succeed, I cannot shake the feeling that the Switch will be yet another hardware flop. Nintendo's value is not in its hardware, as the company is more interested in weird gimmicks than actual gamer-friendly home consoles. No, Nintendo's value is in its IPs - Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Splatoon, METROID (cough, cough) - which are still gaming staples with the ability to captivate players. What these franchises deserve, more than anything, is a home worthy of them. The truth is, Nintendo's consoles are what we put up with in order to access the games we want to play.
Nintendo giving up on consoles and focusing on software is an idea I've tossed around for the past few years, particularly since the company began teasing the new console. "If this doesn't work, Nintendo should just focus on games," I'd say, and even the most stalwart of fans have struggled to argue against that point. While I love the 3DS, and can easily see Nintendo maintaining a strong presence in the portable gaming market, there is still so much untapped potential in franchises that have suffered by the lack of suitable hardware.
The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are both successful because they're more alike than they are different. The Wii U went a totally different way, and as a result was difficult for developers to create games for, and it appears that the same will likely be true for the Switch. But no one should count on the lights being turned off at Nintendo - the company just needs to "switch" to more energy efficient bulbs.

Nintendo Switch Won’t be Copied, but Only Expects 50 Million Lifetime Sales

Infamous industry analyst Michael Pachter recently appeared in his regular video series the ‘Pachter Factor’, where he answers questions from fans about the gaming industry. In the latest episode, number 72, one of the questions that came up was related to the Nintendo Switch. Seeing that the system has had strong sales since it launched back in March, the person who asked the question to Pachter was wondering if this could entice either Sony or Microsoft to create their own hybrid devices, thus directly competing with the Switch.

Pachter immediately dismissed the idea of either company creating a hybrid system, noting that Sony has not found a lot of success in the portable market with the PSP and PS Vita both being trumped by their competitors. Microsoft has yet to release a portable system, and Pachter doesn’t expect them to make a move in that market anytime soon. He then shifted the focus to the beginning of the question where the Switch’s strong sales were mentioned.

Comparing the Switch to other handhelds, Pachter doesn’t expect it to do very well. His reason for this is viewpoint is the price, but he noted that it’s impossible to know until “supply and demand are in balance”. He pointed to Nintendo’s goal of selling 10 million Switch units this fiscal year, saying that “we’ll see”. Overall, he expects the Switch to sell about 50-70 million in its lifetime, but stands firm on the notion that price will ultimately be deciding factor:

“If they keep the price at $300, it will sell 50 (million). If they cut the price to $200 pretty quickly, it will sell 70 million. If they cut the price to $100, it will sell 90 million. But, at a price…everything is all based on supply and demand. If demand goes up, then price goes down. So, “success”, at $300 then there’s no way they’re selling more than 50 million—no chance."

My response to this is that Pachter is a bit off by trying to compare the Switch to other handhelds. I’ve emphasized this many times in the past—the Switch is a home console first-and-foremost. Nintendo itself classifies the Switch as a home console with the functionality to be transformed into a portable device. As a result, any comparisons that should be made needs to be against other home platforms, whether they be from Nintendo or its competitors.

On that note, if the Switch does sell 50 million like Pachter thinks it will, then that would basically tie it with the SNES as the third-best selling Nintendo home console ever. If the Switch hits 70 million, then that would put it higher than the original Nintendo Entertainment System, taking the second best-selling spot. In order to become the true best-selling Nintendo home console, the Switch would have to surpass the Wii’s massive achievement of over 100 million units sold. Some analysts have actually predicted that the Switch will actually do just so, but we’re just going to have to wait and see how it turns out.

As Pachter mentioned, trying to make a prediction right now is kind of difficult. The Switch is only a half-year old at this point, which is still far too early to determine its long-term success. Right now, it’s factually proven that the system is performing much better than the Wii U. Nintendo currently lists Switch lifetime sales at 4.7 million as of June 2017. It’s now the middle of August, so there’s a good chance that the Switch is somewhere in the realm of 5 million at this point. If Nintendo really does hit or even surpass its goal of selling 10 million units by March 2018, then the Switch would already match the Wii U’s lifetime sales of 14 million, which it took four years to amass.

While it’s currently impossible to predict how well the Switch will sell, it’s at least notable that Nintendo is pleased with its performance so far. Nvidia, who built the custom Tegra processor inside the Switch, is also pleased with the system’s strong sales. Even Sony has acknowledged that the Switch has been doing very well so far. All-in-all, things are looking pretty decent for the Switch in its current state, but we’ll just have to wait and see what the future really holds.

Top 50 horror films

The Shining
The Thing (1982)
The Mist
Antichrist
Silence of the Lambs
The Exorcist
The Omen (1976)
Let the Right One In
Bram Stoker’s Dracula
Silent Hill
Alien
The Descent
In the Mouth of Madness
The Ring
Triangle
The Cell
Thirst
The Evil Dead
Psycho (1960)
Christine
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
House on Haunted Hill (1999)
Event Horizon
Sleepy Hollow
The Re-Animator
Insidious
Eden Lake
Creepshow
Creepshow 2
The Fly (1986)
28 Weeks Later
[REC]
[REC 2]
Martyrs
Misery
The Wicker Man (1973)
The Devil’s Backbone
A Serbian Film
Hellraiser
Cronos
Skeleton Key
The Orphanage
Inside
Day of the Dead (1985)
Saw
Cabin by the Lake
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Ghost Ship
The Hitcher (1986)

Top 50 Films of the 90s

1. Goodfellas
2. The Shawshank Redemption
3. Neon Genesis Evangelion end of Evangelion
4. Ninja Scroll
5. Ghost in the Shell
6. Macross Plus
7. The Matrix
8. Terminator 2: Judgement Day
9. Jurassic Park
10. Saving Private Ryan
11. Reservoir Dogs
12. The Silence of the Lambs
13. Fight Club
14. Leon: The Professional
15. Heat
16. Forrest Gump
17. Braveheart
18. The Lion King
19. Toy Story
20. Beauty and the Beast
21. The Lion King
22. Aladdin
23. Princess Mononoke
24. Unforgiven
25. American Beauty
26. Trainspotting
27. Good Will Hunting
28.Fargo
29. Eyes Wide Shut
30. Independence Day
31. The Nightmare Before Christmas
32. The Fugitive
33. Batman Returns
34. Dazed and Confused
35. 10 Things I Hate About You
36. Clueless
37. Titanic
38. Romeo + Juliet
39. Goldeneye
40.. Leon: The Professional
41. Richard III
42. Tomorrow Never Dies
43. Rushmore
44. Wayne's World
45. Austin Powers; International Man of Mystery
46. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
47. Sling Blade
48. Wayne's World 2
49. The Fifth Element
50. A Few Good Men