So...is this the game you wanna play Netflix?

    Whelp, Netflix…you have really screwed the pooch this time. Before I begin, let me start with facts and figures.

-Netflix in 2008 charged $8.99 to customer for a one DVD and unlimited streaming plan

-Netflix in 2010 charged $9.99 for the same thing.

-In 2011, Netflix offered a streaming only plan for $7.99 for an unlimited streaming only plan.

-Now, come September 2011, Netflix will charge $15.98 for the one DVD and unlimited streaming plan. The combo $9.99 plan will cease to exist. They are now going to be separated into $7.99 for a single DVD and $7.99 for unlimited streaming.

     For preface on my past thoughts of Netflix, read this post I did a while ago. My thoughts currently, well…

     When Netflix lifted their streaming restrictions in 2008, it became pretty much the most ubiquitous name over night in movie rental and content streaming. Once it was supported on hardware such as Blu-Rays players and the Xbox 360, it became a household name. Supposedly it has 23 million subscribers. If you base this on the law of averages and let’s pretend every has at least the $9.99 plan of one DVD and unlimited streaming (it honestly being the best deal), then that means Netflix makes about $230 million…a month. That’s a little under 2.76 BILLION DOLLARS ANUALLY, for what’s essentially a latchkey service. Add content to servers with movie studio approval for streaming and keep a somewhat supple supply of DVDs in a warehouse in one or two major cities per state. Oh, and stay on the USPS good side.

     Now, I’m no idiot, I am sure there is more to it than that, and I know that those billions of dollars aren’t pure profit. I am sure when it comes to dealing with movies, there is a ton of overhead. Let me ask you this though, is there really so much overhead that Netflix has decided that it is a good idea to price hike their most popular and basic plan by 60%?  What kind of sick battle plan is this? Wax out the competition and then jack up the price? This screams of a potential monopoly.

     So, if Netflix decided to add more movies and shows to their streaming site, this wouldn’t be an issue. On the contrary, the benefit of the DVD and streaming plan is to supplement the somewhat small selection in the streaming library. So, let’s say Netflix is having trouble with the movie industry and getting content is costing too much. Ok, someone in their financial department must have said “Why don’t we just charge our customers more money so we can get more money to buy more content?” I am sure somebody said “Brilliant!” (I would actually hope not and that they gave this serious thought…).  So, they announce the big bad plan hike. Well, turns out they might lose, according to CNET, thousands upon thousands of customers. Even if you don’t, let’s say some people are actually happy with streaming only and pay $7.99. That means the company just lost $2 in sale, permanently. 

      How in the world is this a good business practice? Cellphone companies have price hikes and plan changes every 2-3 years, and you know what placates their customer's? It's called "grandfathering your plan". In case you don't know what that means, it's this simple concept where the customer's under a current rate plan (say, the current DVD+ streaming $9.99 plan) get to keep that plan so long as they remain customers and NEVER EVER change their plan. The moment the want to change their plan in anyway, it invites them into having to switch to the current rates. All new customers and returning ones would be subjected to the new rates that you propose. THERE! DONE! This would keep your current, loyal clientele base from leaving in droves and would secure more money from new customers your service will inevitably attract. Telling every single customer, old, new and potential, that your service is getting more expensive with giving a really good reason is asking for some serious, company damaging lash-back.

   In retrospect, I will admit that establishing a grandfather system does muddy the customer service waters and it makes the company "seem" like it's playing favorites, but the opposite is true. Loyal, long-time customers should get fringe benefits, as all companies tend to do. I suppose the method of pissing off every other customer works in some backwards way, too but does it really? 

   From the other side of the coin, I could go on and on about how maybe the movie industry is really to blame and maybe Netflix isn't doing as well financially as first impressions would have me perceive, but at the end of the day, I am the consumer. These financial matters with the content dealers should not be a punishment towards me. Maybe Netflix should come out, snarky as hell, and say "We have to raise the price because Sony and Starz, etc are being jerks and demanding more money". If nothing else, what more damage could that possibly do. It would be actually refreshing to see a company say that the reason something is more expensive no is because the supplier is demanding more money.

  You know, this wouldn't even be a problem if the streaming plan was even CLOSE to their DVD selection. As such, I have the ability to decide if this is still a good deal or not. As an Amazon Prime member, semi-consistent RedBox customer, and (for some reason) Dish Network service customer, I actually do have some semi attractive options open.  but come September…it will be decision time.

Shadows of the Damned

This game is not for you.

Having said that, do you know who Suda51 is? No. Well.. there are other games out there. This game will just make no sense to you. However, for those who are still interested, we'll make it simple.

Suda51 made Killer7 and No More Heroes 1 and 2, among other things. So take his sense of humor, his character design and overall concept. Take the music from Silent Hill, that sad lonely terrifying tone with the occasional upbeat terrifying tone the games known for. Add the combat system from Resident Evil 4. (not 5, only in parts) and you get general idea. Dress it up in a mexican/demon/dia de los muertos atmosphere and you have Shadows.

Is it a good game? Sure, but like most of the late spring/early summer games being released, there just isn't much to it. I find the game hilarious, disgusting, and stylized as it gets, but I also have a terribly dark sense of humor.

You are a demon hunter. No, not you, the video game character. Your girlfriend has been stolen and taken to the land of the dead. You go to get her back. You have a witty sidekick who also acts as your weapon. Your gun shoots demon teeth which are collected off of fallen demons. You can enter the darkness of this evil world to solve puzzles, but be careful, the darkness can also kill you. There are huge boss battles, collectibles and upgrades and a huge cast of characters.

Honestly that's probably 5 paragraphs more than the actual Shadows press-release. Again, it's a good game, just simple and enjoyable.

Part of me is actually really glad that the summer games are simple. inFAMOUS 2, Dungeon Siege, Shadows, Fear. Nothing huge or time consuming, just simple things that are enjoyable to play when you have some free-time.

I still have a stack of deeper games to finish up, so it's nice to be able to jump into a simple act-based game. Controls are simple, aim and shoot. You can turn on a dime, roll to dodge, and side-step. Seriously, it's Resident Evil 4 controls and basically a RE4 engine, but you'll get no complaints about it from me. Any playthough? Not really, it's a good story to finish once, but once that's done, it's time to let it go.

Shadows and Fear will be traded towards Skyrim. Speaking of games that will consume my life.

Another week-long adventure, but that's just fine with me on a hot summer day.

F3AR E

So so many games. I'm sorry I've left you. I'm back. All is well.

Fear 3! The little game that.... well tried.
Let's do some backstory, yeah? Fear the first was a game that came out on the PC, in a dying age of PC shooters. It did alright, got some recognition for some sassy elements. You could sorta slow time, the storyline was dark, but it all seemed very run of the mill. Scary sure, but not super terrifying. You were a super solider, you were fighting evil. Sound familiar? Of course it does, you're probably playing one of those games right now. Then they ported it over to the consoles, and it got the same resounding "meh" from everyone. A decent shooter, but that's about it. Know how they call some movies "Sunday Afternoon"or "Rainy Afternoon" movies? They have those for games, they're called average. Duke Nukem Forever, Shadows of the Damned, Perfect Dark, games that don't require much of you expect to be a responsive meat-popsicle. Easy to play and not much depth, but sometimes that just hits the spot.

The Fear series scratches that same itch. Nothing big, just a decent 8 hour single player. You hear me Fear??? A DECENT SINGLE PLAYER.

You see, someone once said that Fear 2 had a really awesome multiplay, and Fear took them serious. So they added and hyped their multiplay into Fear 3. Brilliantly they added a solid co-op system, but you have to play basically like you're online and wanting to be captain of the leaderboard. Look Fear, it's nothing against you, but like I'm always griping, unless you're Battlefield or COD just leave multiplay alone. It's not that they are the best multi shooters ever, it's that they know what they are doing, have the server support, and don't try to make both a good single and multi shooter.

So Fear went on super sale and ended up being $40. So did a lot of games, but that makes Fear more of a realistic pick. I happened to get a pre-owned copy so I managed to go home with it for about $25 not a bad price for an average game.

So wassamatta with it you ask? Well nothing really. It's a straightforward shooter, there are some Bulletstorm-esque challenges to accomplish, some fancy bullet-time elements and a ""scary"" storyline. It's scary like Paranormal Activity was. If you were terrified of it, you'll be terrified of Fear. If you though Paranormal Activity was lame...well.... hope you enjoy shooters.

An average shooter. You'll finish up in 8 hours or so. You can play through as two different people if you'd like, so that'll get you 16 hours-ish. Any glaring problems? Eh. Nothing unmanageable except.... well.... the bullettime mode is set to the Y/Triangle button. Which is normally used for weapon switching. Can you re-map it? Nope. So instead of switching weapons I often used bullettime. No big deal, the thing recharges over time anyway. If I play another shooter, I just need to remember that the only game that used the shoulder button to switch weapons was Fear. Shoulder buttons for most shooters are the grenades. That could be lulzy I suppose.


Moral of the story? Don't expect much from Fear 3. The achievements are mostly online multiplay or require you to play through multiple times. (Kill 2500 things a certain way? ummm.)

Perfect for GameFly, decent for a rental, buy if it's used or you already have the other 3. (FEAR, FEAR Files, and FEAR 2). It's just an average shooter with no problems or benefits. Give it a whirl if you're looking for a summer week event?