It used to be, when I wanted to play the latest game, I would go to the video store or to my local electronics outlet and pick up a copy for what used to be a steep price (approx. $3 to rent for a few days or $40 to buy).

However, as time has passed, so has the need for store-front video game rentals. In their place we have the likes of digital downloads, pre-orders, GameFly (a Netflix-like subscription service) and now – Redbox game rentals. Redbox in particular, I am sad to say, has left a sour taste in my mouth.

Don’t get me wrong – the premise of Redbox game rentals is an underrated idea: Instead of requiring a subscription to something like GameFly or having a membership of a local video store, all you need for a Redbox game is your cash card and an idea of what game you want. Easy, right? Exactly.

With most locations opting to carry a Redbox dispensary either out front or inside their store, finding one with the game you want is as easy as visiting the store for some groceries and picking up a game while you’re there.

The problem, however, comes in with the price per rental. Ten years ago, I was able to rent the latest games from my local video store for $3 and get it for approximately three days. The cost of a one (1) day rental from Redbox? $2.

Now, to the very casual gamer, this is no problem. Two dollars gets you time to play the game and see if you like it, get a few achievement points/trophies and then take it back. But for someone such as myself who is interested in playing the game for longer than a couple of hours (some of us have responsibilities), it’s a ridiculous price at best.

Consider, for a moment, that with movies rented from Redbox, you’re likely to watch it in a span of one and a half to three hours, completing it in one fell swoop. This is why the cost of $1 (or $1.50 for a Blu-ray) is more than appealing and – frankly – why my family has opted to use Redbox for movies over Netflix.

In the same amount of time that it takes you to watch that movie, you might experience only a small portion of a video game that you’ve rented for twice the price of a typical movie rental.

While I’m sure the price increase is tied to the kind of media being rented, conventional wisdom suggests that something requiring additional time to complete would run at a lower cost, which would make your service that much more popular and drive the demand for more games. This would also suggest a probably increase in revenue due to multiple rentals. But hey, that’s just me thinking crazy, right?

I honestly like the idea of being able to “one-stop-shop,” so to speak – getting my groceries and a video game for an after-dinner romp through whatever world seems to be the most appealing at the time. However, if the cost of a single game is going to run me upwards of $20 by the time I’ve completed it (that’s 10 days of playing time at around two to four hours of play time per day, give or take)? No thank you. At that price, I’d just assume buy the game and play it whenever I want, which defeats the whole point of renting it in the first place.

Redbox has a good thing on their hands with the game rentals, but they need to figure out how to price it correctly so it can make a lasting impression – not a fleeting one that leaves a sour taste in our mouths.

The latest Call of Duty: Black Ops DLC – “Rezurrection” – was exclusive to the Xbox 360, just like
previous Call of Duty DLC packs – dating back to Modern Warfare 2.

Over the past several years of my gaming life, I’ve been noticing a trend in the Downloadable Content (DLC) marketplace that has created a burning question in me: “Exclusive” rights to new DLC.

Much of this has shown its face in the form of map packs for Call of Duty games or DLC for games like Fallout: New Vegas. What’s more, when it comes to who gets the DLC first, it is ALWAYS (unless the game is exclusive to a console), The Xbox 360 that gets it first.

Now, understand first that I have nothing against the Xbox 360. The only reason I sold my 360 in favor of PS3 was for the free online gameplay, which the 360 did (and still doesn’t) have – a fact that my wife reminded me of each time I spent money on my LIVE gold membership. I enjoyed my time on my 360, just as I’ve enjoyed my time on my PS3 – with the exception of DLC.

My curiosity lies within the the message that is sent when Microsoft pays however much it is they pay to have DLC for games come out a month early on their console. For many 360 faithful, there is no problem. For many PS3 faithful, it’s a vicious injustice. For me, as a gaming fan in general, it’s a divisive tool that suggests there is inequality between the consoles and suggests that there is a “better” console to own.

I’m sure some of you just read that and are now thinking “of course there’s a better console! It’s [insert console of choice]!” But hold on a second and let me continue before you click away.

What I mean is, I’m tired of the incredibly pointless arguments that surround which console is better and I’m especially tired of how DLC exclusivity perpetuates that idea that there IS a better console.

In its current state, the 360 v. PS3 debate is incredibly stupid when you consider that each console have their own share of great exclusives and share most of the big-name titles that have come/are coming out. Both consoles have great graphics (depending on the game you’re playing; lets face it – some of the games that are billed as high profile before they release can end up laying an egg with the bulk of gamers. See: Homefront). That’s not to say the games themselves are terrible, but unfortunately, some people put graphics further ahead of story than they should. Another area that people might argue is price. With the base-model 360 costing roughly $50 less than base-model PS3, people forget that the PS3 has a Blu-ray player which provides incentive to raise the price by at LEAST $50. Take away the Blu-ray and it’s very likely the price points are the same.

My point is, the best console on the market is the console that allows you to enjoy the games you want to buy. Unfortunately, exclusive DLC releases for games on both consoles suggest otherwise (at least in my view). Microsoft seems to feel the need to buy the loyalty of their console owners by puffing their chest with exclusive DLC when – in all likelihood – if they released DLC at the same time as the PS3, it probably wouldn’t do ANY worse.

Now, if you’re thinking at this very moment that I’m simply an envious PS3 owner, please save your breathe – this is not the case. It doesn’t hurt me personally that I have to wait an extra 30 days for DLC – I certainly don’t hate waiting to spend my money these days (my wife doesn’t either). What I think what it DOES hurt is the camaraderie that there should be within the gaming world across all platforms. Instead, we have owners of one console or the other trying to argue that their choice is better and we have exclusive DLC adding more ammunition to a pointless argument.

Do I think the DLC-exclusivity is subject to change anytime soon? No. Do I hope it does? Absolutely. I think the less contrived reasons for us to argue over which console is better we have, the better. And, in the same regard, I think the more positive dialogue we have between the owners of different consoles, the better.

We’re gamers because we enjoy the experience. How we enjoy that experience should be secondary to the experience itself (unless it is a console-exclusive title, which creates another opportunity for positive dialogue). If we’re too busy arguing over who has the better console (and why DLC is a reason for that), we’re missing an incredibly important aspect of the gaming experience and hurting the upward momentum of a unified gaming community.

Now, let me know what YOU think. Get at me.

Couldn’t shell out the $150 for a ticket (and whatever airfare might have cost) to Los Angeles for the inaugural Call of Duty XP event? Worry not – we have the live stream for you to watch right here!

We’ll have our thoughts on the event following its conclusion, so be sure to keep your eyes peeled. In the mean time, let us know what YOU think about what you’re seeing!

For many people, finishing a game to 100 percent completion is the entire point of buying a video game. For others, it’s a way to challenge themselves based on the particular title they’re playing. Whatever the case may be, it’s always a satisfying feeling to know that you’ve not only completed a game, but that you’ve finished all the tasks available in it.

However, with the advent of motion gaming (Playstation Move, Microsoft Kinect), and the goal for game makers to integrate motion gaming technology into the latest games, we may be moving to a new era in gaming that requires players to utilize said peripherals to complete a game to that 100 percent mark.

According to a recent article from Game Informer, one game – Forza 4 – is already stepping into that arena, requiring Kinect to complete the game in full.

However, what kind of precedent does this set for the gaming marketplace? On one hand, you have a new way to enjoy the games that are coming out for the system(s) you own. You have a new way to get involved – a way to “broaden your gaming horizon.” This might prove to be especially fun for you if, until now, you’ve only been using the motion gaming items as way to enjoy games that involve dancing or children’s games.

If anything, this strengthens the desire for people who were on the fence about getting motion peripherals to actually go out and pull the trigger on a Kinect or Move, which is great for sales on something that I – to be completely honest – expected to be more integrated than this in gaming by now.

Another benefit to this is the possibility of greater challenges extended to gamers. As if many of the current challenges weren’t tough enough, integrating the need for motion controls to complete the necessary actions is another notch on that proverbial belt when you finally do complete the challenge.

But what about the possible drawbacks? Is requiring gamers to have a motion gaming controller really the way we want things to progress or was it inevitable from the beginning?

Unfortunately, my fear is that this is just the tip of the iceberg for gaming requirements. In the case of Forza 4, the achievement is not overly significant as it only nets the player five (5) gamer points or the equivalent of a bronze trophy on the PlayStation 3. But that’s not the point. The point is, once it is determined how effective – if at all – this attempt to increase motion gaming use is, more manufacturers are likely to follow suit in including it in their games.

What does that mean? It means that you, the gamer that is interested in reaching that triumphant 100 percent mark, will be all but required to purchase a motion gaming setup in order to attain your prize. It also means those of us who aren’t interested in the 100 mark, but at the very least attaining some trophies/achievements, will have less of them to work with if we don’t want to shell out the coin for a motion gaming system. Basically, it limits our options and puts us in a position of “if you don’t like it, don’t play it,” even with games that we may have otherwise been looking forward to – all because of motion gaming.

Now, that last bit may sound like an extreme, but realistically, how extreme is it to suggest that progress won’t take the motion gaming movement that far?

If either of the points I’ve discussed above happen, I can’t say I would be surprised. But if it comes down to me having to choose between buying a motion gaming system to enjoy a game that I would have otherwise been able to enjoy with just my controller? I don’t know that I will be able to hold a continued interest in gaming.

We should allow gamers the opportunity to choose their level of involvement. A little integration isn’t necessarily bad. I simply hope manufacturers recognize a limit and try not to push it too far.