Relic's Dawn of War II multiplayer beta is now live, doors officially unlatched to anyone interested. You'll need Steam to grab the download, 5.5GB of hard drive space for the install, and a beastly system if you're running DX10 per Vista or the Windows 7 beta.

You know Warhammer 40,000, right? Far flung future with a dark fantasy tinge and limitless "make war, not love"? The Dawn of War II beta harnesses that vibe, then lets you test drive the game's four factions - Space Marines, Orks, Eldar, and Tyranids - and square off against opponents on five multiplayer maps. The beta supports two modes: 3-on-3 team battles, or 1-on-1 square-offs.

If you've played the original Dawn of War or Company of Heroes, you know Relic's MO. Resource gathering out, low-level unit interaction in, all for the capture of scattered map nodes to accrue points. Resource nodes let you build or upgrade structures and units, while victory nodes fortify your final score. All that stuff's sprinkled across each map, making matches tug-of-war gambits. Squads can be reinforced or topped off with leaders to increase their effectiveness, and rudimentary cover and conceal physics help mitigate the absurdity of squadrons standing only a couple inches apart while laying into each other.

What's different in Dawn of War II? Decentralization. In Dawn of War and Company of Heroes you had a traditional home base. Unit outflow was centralized and terminal base assaults were still plausible with conventional mob rushing.

In Dawn of War II, there is no base trunk, only branches. Simplified structures are fielded at capture points, revamping the precepts of effective map occupation (everything's implicitly hydra-headed now). You still have a central HQ building defended by turrets, but it's extremely tenacious and a long-shot for mob-style "annihilation" wins.

The message? Stay out in the battlefield, and win with effective small-unit tactics, not by amassing a graceless army and sending it trundling toward Armageddon.

Part of the game's overview may belie how it plays. Relic describes the battles as "intimate" and the combat as "visceral hand-to-hand." But the paradox with games like these is that they invest heavily in tactical detail you're never able to savor as you scroll around the map like a shuttlecock, batted from one scrum to the next. Dawn of War II attempts to mitigate this by confining the act of "building" stuff to a single structure, eliminating confusing sprawls of buildings harboring unique units.

"Build efficiently, fight more effectively," in other words.

Sounds elegantly utilitarian on paper. I just hope there's some grace behind the implied go-go-go. My enthusiasm for RTS games is inverse to their velocity. I'm a distance runner, less a sprinter. 'Strategy' implies at least thoughtful calculus, whereas rapid-fire RTS games too often hinge on fast-twitch reactive mental processes.

Will Dawn of War II's "streamlined" approach get the balance right?

Fingers crossed.

Matt Peckham

Matt Peckham wishes slow and steady still won the race. You can follow his poky dispatches at twitter.com/game_on.

Posted by Jan Birkeland at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 0 )

Despite the demoralizing sack of Flight Simulator series developer ACES per Microsoft's 5,000 jobs attrition plan, Microsoft says it remains "committed" to the Flight Simulator franchise. Make that a well-worn franchise, in computer game years -- perhaps the oldest.

It started with University of Illinois whiz kid Bruce Artwick in the late 1970s. Artwick's the guy who got the idea on its feet. Most folks peg Flight Simulator's birth in 1982, when Artwick officially licensed the series to Microsoft, but he was actually selling copies per his startup subLOGIC ("the computer flight people") in 1980 for the Apple II. In fact that's how I remember it: As an Apple program first.

My first serious run at the sim wasn't until 1991 on a 386. I'm sure some of you could trump me with your TRS-80s and Commodore 64s (there were versions for them, too). Sure, I had a C-64, but I didn't really catch the flying bug until Flight Simulator 3.0.

"But wasn't 4.0 out in 1991?"

It was - it came out in 1989, actually - but my CompuAdd 386sx/16 (no math co-processor, a paltry 8MB of RAM, a barely cognizant video card) ran version 4.0 like a donkey towing a freight truck. It's a "problem" that's followed the series through the decades. Until guys like id Software and Doom or Quake, you could even say Flight Sim was the benchmark for games performance (even if it's never really been a game).

Over the years I've dabbled with different versions and enthusiast peripherals - a pair of rudder pedals here, a flight yoke there. But it wasn't until Flight Simulator X that I finally took the plunge and built the home cockpit, stuck a piece of metal on my head to signal an infrared head-tracking gadget, bought a bomber jacket, signed up for private pilot's lessons, took an actual Cessna 172B Skyhawk up for a spin, and started working through Jeff Van West and Kevin Lane-Cummings's surprisingly applicative Microsoft Flight Simulator X For Pilots: Real World Training.

You see, I'm actually afraid to fly. Terrified, really.

You might say Flight Simulator's been a form of therapy, then. A place to park the usual psychological control issues by taking control in a virtual safe space. Learning how everything fits together got me back in the air after nearly a decade being grounded. It's true what they say - understanding how things work and why, can completely transfigure your perspective.

So when Microsoft responded to my request last week for more information about the ACES shutdown with an ambivalent "We can say that you should expect us to continue to invest in enabling great LIVE experiences on Windows, including flying games," I was pretty bummed. Variations of the same sentence have been circulating around other news sites. It's the company water being carried.

Which, being water, tastes like everything or nothing. "Flying games" is just a catchall for whatever you want it to be, from wingtips and ailerons to jetpacks and anti-gravity belts and magic carpets.

I have no problem with arcade games like Microsoft's Crimson Skies, but it's not my bag. "Sky-Doom" has its momentary appeal, but I've never much cared for aerial combat (much less aviation 101) with D&D physics and thumbsticks.

Microsoft has to do what's right for Microsoft, of course, and whether that's relaunching the franchise internally or licensing it out to former studio members, here's hoping the folks at ACES land on their feet.

In the meantime, maybe it's time to consider the alternatives. I've been meaning to give X-Plane a go and test the community claim that its "blade element theory" flight model beats all.

Who knows. One franchise's shakeup could bring about the rise of another.

Matt Peckham

Matt Peckham still pops sedatives for long flights across the pond. You can follow his sleepy aerial dispatches at twitter.com/game_on.

Posted by Jan Birkeland at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 0 )

Video game pirates are really just underserved customers, says Valve's business director Jason Holtman. Sound like a controversial claim? Sure, but it kind of makes sense when you think about it.

According to Holtman, who cites Russia as an example, Russian gamers get hyped for the latest celebrity titles, "but the publishers respond 'you can play that game in six months…maybe'."

Piracy as a means to assuage regional limitations, then, not unlike the practice of grabbing international TV episodes through a torrent tracker to circumvent out of sync region-specific broadcast schedules.

Holtman says that by making Valve's games available in Moscow and St. Petersberg simultaneous with their North American and European releases, "piracy rates dropped off significantly."

In the U.S., games published in other languages, e.g. Japanese, enjoy a natural linguistic piracy deterrent. But English is the so-called "lingua franca of the modern era." The likelihood that a Russian gamer would thus be able to functionally understand an English-language-only game is far greater than the reverse scenario.

Software piracy rates are dramatically higher in countries like Russia and China than in the U.S. The assumption is usually that economics, unclear or disparate legal issues, or inadequate policing are the culprits. Perhaps it's really (or largely) just product timing and availability.

Releasing games worldwide isn't as simple as Holtman suggests. Localization is no small chore, and a shoddy translation will rightly sink a game. Critics have long, cynical memories, and love syndicating the hilariously mangled Zero Wing phrase (now internet meme) "All your base are belong to us" to exemplify various forms of communicative inanity.

Matt Peckham

Posted by Jan Birkeland at 5:43 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 0 )

Should Sony charge for its currently gratis PlayStation Network? That's the question some are apparently asking in a kind of fawning, anticipatory way, assuming for not entirely clear and maybe even slightly confused reasons that it would bolster Sony's revenue models. Why? I guess because a company with a financial portfolio as complex as Sony's needs speculative general financial advice from the crowd.

The answer is no, of course, Sony doesn't need to start charging for its PSN, or, so long as we make that analogous to simply "communicating and gaming with others online," doesn't as in ever. But since we're tossing around provocative ideas, how about a consumer-friendly alternative? As in: Microsoft needs to stop charging $50 a year for its Xbox Live online matchmaking service.
This summer, Microsoft rendered its Games For Windows Live online matchmaking service free. Up to this point, it looked like Xbox Live does today. $50 for "Gold" and unfettered online play, nothing at all for "Silver" to more or less stand at the window looking in.

Microsoft wised up to its PC audience by dropping the annual fee, even going so far as to proactively refund subscription fees for then "Gold" subscribers. While it sounds bold and noble, the decision to make GFW Live a freebie was inevitable. Computer gamers and developers alike balked at Microsoft's attempt to throw precedent out the window and slap a tax on traditionally free functionality without a single compelling value-add (I'm looking at you, TrueSkill).

Of course the next question was as inevitable: "What about Xbox Live?"

The answer this summer from Microsoft Senior Global Director of Games For Windows Kevin Ungangst was:

The GFW Live announcement has no bearing at all on what we're doing with Xbox Live, and I think if you look at the Xbox-related announcements we just made at E3, we're going to continue to deliver even more value to Xbox Live gold subscribers. Frankly, Xbox Live members are going to get more people to play with as a result of the GFW Live announcement, and I think that community will get exponentially larger as a result of what we're doing on Windows. They're different services designed for difference audiences that happens to be connected and share a Gamertag.

Which, with respect to Kevin, who's basically carrying Microsoft's water here, was a classic, bullet-point dodge. There simply isn't any extra value in an Xbox Live Gold membership (getting "more people to play with as a result of the GFW Live announcement" certainly isn't something one side should have to pay for). And while the Windows and Xbox architectures are wildly unique, the for-money services we're talking about aren't. The message Microsoft is sending by charging $50 for one and nothing for the other is "Hey PC gamers, you're special, you get a break." To console gamers? "You've been willing to do this up until now, so business as usual."

If there's a point in Microsoft's favor, it's that last one. If people are willing to pay, why change? For lots of reasons. Smart shoppers weigh all the pros and cons before diving into a purchase. The Xbox 360 is always its base price plus $50 times however many subscriber years ($50 seems like chump change, but four or five years starts to add up). How many more systems would Microsoft sell by dropping the online fee? Beats me, but it's certainly not going to stunt platform adoption.

Then there's the micro-transaction argument. Think picture packs and themes, and if we're talking stuff like music games, additional songs or band packs. Think Netflix. Think old games you can download for a couple bucks a pop. Think new games available via digital distribution. Think whatever other partitioned off applications the company cares to innovate into a salable product. Microsoft takes its cut from all of that. Charge for the content, not the vehicle the content's riding in.

And when in doubt, at least turn half an eye to precedent. You can tax something like the internet and risk checking or stifling its growth, or you can find smarter, more creative ways to gather revenue that benefit from its expansion. Computer gamers have enjoyed the ability to interact with their peers without paying above their ISP subscription fees for decades. It's a feature console gamers had essentially been enjoying for free until Microsoft decided to make it fee-based. It's a feature the competition continues to offer with increasing bells and whistles. And remember, Xbox Live isn't World of Warcraft. It's not an MMO or a game you play. The part you're paying for is essentially messaging and matchmaking related. It's "value-add" is entirely mimetic, a point that others who've defended its pricing structure seem to be missing entirely (though in the latter case, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of re-structuring pricing, if it means making online gaming and messaging free).

Will any of that come to pass? Does Microsoft even care?

Of course they do, though I'm sure they'd care a whole lot more if they weren't doing so relatively well with the service as-is. When you're in pole position, "fairness" sounds like a euphemism for "handout." Strictly business hat on, I can't exactly argue with that.

In the end, it's not a question of what ought to be, but what the market will bear. For now, that's an annual premium for services computer gamers -- with their vastly greater library of games and communication options -- enjoy entirely free.

Matt Peckham

Posted by Jan Birkeland at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 2 )

This past holiday season, Big N’s little white console dominated the competition once again. Largely due to its family-friendly appeal and relatively low price, Nintendo Wii sales haven't lost momentum since its 2006 release. However, for hardcore gamers, the Wii has always left a bit to be desired. Last generation graphics, few adult games, weak online community, and lack of DVD movie playback are just a few of the things that have led me and many other twenty-somethings to oft-favor a certain other console. However, with my recent discovery of the Homebrew Channel, I can mark one up for the Wii. I know it’s old news for some, but for those of you who always wished that glowing blue drive could play your games as well as your movies, it’s now easier than ever. Here’s how to it, no warranty voiding mod-chip required.

First of, the things you need are:

•A Wii with system version 3.2.

•A FAT/FAT32 formatted SD card (no bigger than 2GB, as the Wii can’t read SDHC cards).

•An SD card reader/writer (or a USB device that can act as one, such as a digital camera or digital photo frame).

•„Zelda: Twilight Princess„ for Wii (random, I know, but you should really own this anyway).

•The ”Twilight Hack„ (a modified Zelda save game that runs the Homebrew Channel Installer).

•The Homebrew Channel Installer.

•„DVDX,„ a Homebrew app needed for the Wii to read DVDs from the drive.

•„MPlayer,„ a Wii port of a media player that plays commercial DVDs.

There are essentially two main tasks here: installing the Homebrew Channel, and installing the DVD player. I’ll start with the HBC.

1) Insert your SD card into your reader and copy the ”private„ directory of the Twilight Hack onto it. Also copy the Homebrew Channel ”boot.dol„ file.

2) Insert the SD card into your Wii and delete your Zelda save file in the Wii File Manager (start a new game if you don’t already have one). If you care about your saved game, you can first copy it to your SD card and copy it back after you’ve installed HBC.

3) Before inserting Zelda into your Wii, flip it over and take note of the text on the inner ring. It will either read ”RVL-RZDE-0A-0„ or ”RVL-RZDE-0A-2„ - both versions will work, but you need to make sure you apply the correct hack (RVL-RZDE-0A-0 requires TwilightHack0, RVL-RZDE-0A-2 requires TwilightHack2, both included in the package).

4) Switch to SD view in your Wii File Manager and copy over your correct version of the hack.

5) Insert your Zelda game disc and start the game. You should see the Twilight Hack save game. Select it to start the game. Once you can control Link, walk backwards (weird, I know) until the Homebrew Channel installer starts. After a minute or two, the HBC will be installed and can be accessed just like any other Channel on your Wii.

Once you have the Homebrew Channel up and running, you can now install a slew of great third party apps such as emulators, homebrew games, media players… even Linux! For now, here’s how to get DVD playback on your Wii with MPlayer.

1) Pop your SD back into your card reader. You can erase the ”boot.dol„ file and the ”private„ directory if you’d like (we no longer need the Twilight Hack or Homebrew Channel installer as it updates automatically and can be removed just like any other Wii Channel).

2) Create a directory on your SD card and name it ”apps„ (no quotes). Copy the ”dvdx„ and ”mplayer„ directories into the ”apps„ folder.

3) Eject your SD card and insert it back into your Wii. Turn your console on and start the Homebrew Channel.

4) Now you should see the two apps you just copied onto your SD card. Run the DVDX installer app. When that starts up, select ”Normal Installation„ and wait for it to finish.

5) Go back to the Homebrew Channel, insert a DVD movie of your choosing into your Wii and start the MPlayer app. To play the movie, select ”DVD-Video„ from the MPlayer menu, and then ”Play DVD„ (or ”Play Title #1„). After a few moments your movie will load and you’ll be enjoying a feature that should have worked out of the box to begin with!

*I should mention that while this method does work, the MPlayer software is currently pretty buggy. DVD menus are pretty hit or miss and not every movie I tried even plays. Hopefully they update the MPlayer software at some point, but I suspect it was more a proof of concept. There’s always a certain amount of risk with installing unofficial, third party software, but hey, that’s part of the fun. In any case, the Homebrew Channel is a really cool piece of work and will definitely breathe new life into your neglected little Wii.

Mike Keller

Posted by Jan Birkeland at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments ( 1 )