But the Glasses Hurt My Brain!

Ever since James Cameron's Avatar set box office record, there's been a new concept flying around. It was one of the bullets that killed the Spider-Man movie franchise, built up interest in PC gaming again, and became a new reason to make TVs expensive again. All of this happened because 3D became cool again.

New movies are being either created or adapted to be in 3D ever since the financial success of Avatar. Clash of the Titans received the update months before its release along with summer blockbusters like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Shrek Forever, and Toy Story 3. It didn't take long to jump the shark though because this summer we'll be seeing Step Up 3D. If there's one thing that will make my life meaningful, it's seeing bad acting like I'm already there. It's the night of local theater I've secretly dreamed of!

But the 3D train wreck doesn't stop there. The Sony has announced the PS3 will be 3D capable by the end of the year and recently Killzone 3 would also have the capability. This follows the Avatar tie-in game featuring 3D, which seemed like a last minute add-on, and 3D graphics cards for computers. CES 2010 was loaded with new 3D televisions and a 3D version of Avatar for Blu-Ray has been promised. ESPN and Discovery channel have already stated their intentions for 3D stations of their programming. With all this steam, 3D has to be the next wave, right?

Too bad it will take too long to be affordable. You just dropped a big chunk of change on a 3D capable TV? I hope you bought the goggles for it too. Those are a couple hundred on top of the TV. Want to share it with friends? Better buy some extra goggles. I find it hard to spend $60 to buy another PS3 controller to have friends join me in LittleBigPlanet, let alone $200 for the one in one hundred game or movie that will be in 3D. Sorry, dudes, but you better bring your own goggles. Movie theaters are struggling to keep up with new summer blockbusters in IMAX and 3D as they were unprepared for the sudden influx. Avatar will be seeing a second release in August because Fox complained Alice in Wonderland 3D kept it from making more money. 3 months in theaters wasn't enough? As the summer rolls on, Iron Man 2 was already pushed out of IMAX by Shrek Forever after only 2 weeks. With the state of the economy and the theaters, the public is not ready to make the transition to 3D as quickly as it is being pushed. This will cause the 3D movement to burn out as little more than a fad... hopefully.

This brings me to the other concern of the 3D push, sacrificing quality for the sake of a gimmick. Sam Raimi struggled with Sony over Spider-Man 4 being in 3D. Raimi's main argument against it was he knew nothing about it and didn't think he'd be able to make a quality movie with it. For the horrid monster that Spider-Man 3 was, Raimi regained some respect from me for showing some integrity. The Avatar game was panned by critics for its unfinished flaws, yet it manages to sell almost 3 million copies. Nintendo has announced their next handheld system will feature 3D, possibly a worse gimmick than motion control turned out to be, and I'm sure will lead to mountains of shovelware in the following months. Unfortunately, 3D brings in quick money and therefore is quickly becoming the new standard. Soon enough we'll be seeing the likes of Frost/Nixon in 3D, and the part of me that appreciates reason will cry itself to sleep at night with Nixon's nose jammed in its face.

It's yet to be seen if I have a prediction or a dream, but I hope for everyone who enjoys a good story and realizes the medium is just as meaningful as the content that 3D is just a fad. Wait until next summer and we'll see how much life it still has left in it.

Friday Reboot: Maniac Mansion

Well, it's a day late, but it's time for the weekly reboot. This time around it's time for a classic favorite of anyone who played a Nintendo Entertainment System beyond Super Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt. In those 8-bit days, very few games fed into the player's creativity. Most games only had the choice of moving left or right and that's as far as they'd go for open-endedness. But in 1987, the company now known as LucasArts put out a game with optional characters, multiple endings, and hidden comedy ranging from pop culture references to exploding hampsters. It's time to go back to the Maniac Mansion.




If Maniac Mansion had anything, it was a high replayability factor. With seven different endings, six characters having different abilities with only two to select for the game, and the capability to interact with almost any object you came across, anyone would have a difficult time playing it the same way twice. But the times have changed and there are even more possibilities for open game styles. This is a title that would need a serious overhaul to be ready for today's market.


CHARACTERS


One of the most memorable aspects of the original was its diverse cast of characters, playable and non. The Edisons, the primary antagonists living in the mansion, were a colorful group besides their blue skin. It was a family consisting of an evil scientist, a militaristic son, an obsessive daughter, and two tentacles. Depending how you played the game, you could turn your enemies into allies. However, Edna could use some more fleshing out beyond the romantic who hung out in the kitchen at the beginning of the game.

The playable characters could transition into a more modern interpretation but it could stand to have them more balanced. Bernard, the do-anything nerd (and possibly a character created as wish fulfillment on behalf of the developers), could be scaled back with a modern interpretation. I also never saw the need for two musicians when neither of them offered anything different. There is also the option to diversify the gameplay with photography and Easter Eggs with radio channels.

GAMEPLAY

Gaming genres have diversified much more since the days of the NES. Thanks to games like Resident Evil, games offer more suspense and terror than most horror movies now. The classic adventure style of gaming has been fading for a while and perhaps the best way for a reboot to succeed would be to follow more of a survival horror style of exploration. Maniac Mansion, with all its goofy humor, still created a feeling of suspense. You didn't know if the next room you were about to explore would be occupied by one of the house's residents or what kind of danger there was to interacting with any given item. They just have to make sure they get the camera right.

STORY

Obviously there would have to be more to the story in a new generation of the game, not only because of hardware ability but because a refreshed version of the old game wouldn't offer much to old fans. A bigger mansion offers more interactions for side stories and character development. But the most important aspect would be more endings. The original Maniac Mansion and similar games like Crono Trigger begged to be played again just to discover what other outcomes there were. Maybe give Edna that romance she was always looking for. Personally, I'd love to see a giant hampster rampage through town after giving it radioactive water.

With the rough economy, many publishers are going to already established IPs rather than risking a new one. LucasArts is still around and I'm sure they wouldn't have any trouble finding a publisher for a reboot. Maniac mansion is one of those classic games that can send a group of 20-somethings reminiscing of hidden jokes and crazy story developments. It was Maniac Mansion that taught this gamer if you have a problem with something, throw it into the trunk of somebody else's car.

What? No Recent Warfare?

There's been a lack of news regarding the Activision/former Infinity Ward employees lawsuit, but recently there have been some developments that might be hinting on the future of the Call of Duty franchise as far as Activision is concerned.

Part of the lawsuit involves contention over the Modern Warfare name, what I consider an important part of moving forward if either party continues with shooter games. Recently though, Activision has registered domain names for possible titles Future Warfare, Space Warfare, Secret Warfare, and Advanced Warfare. Could this be a sign of their intentions or possibly branching off from the franchise? Shooters are a dime a dozen these days and with Activision having projects underway with Sledgehammer Games, Raven Software, and a dismantled but functioning Infinity Ward, it makes me wonder if the Call of Duty title will become the new Guitar Hero, slapped on any piece of shooter shovelware that's pushed out the door.

When the dispute over the Modern Warfare license first broke, the first thing I thought of was the implications if Activision were to lose it. With Call of Duty: World at War's zombie DLC being received fairly well, it's evident Activision could take the franchise into alternative history styles like Wolfenstein or Freedom Fighters, a personal favorite from the PS2. With Future Warfare and Space Warfare, it seems they may be shedding their realistic base and going more into the direction of Halo and other sci-fi shooters, which is interesting considering their new partnership with Bungie. When it comes to space warfare though, a certain Lombax already has that market cornered in my heart.

The titles of Secret Warfare and Advanced Warfare lend themselves to a more traditional interpretation though. Secret Warfare would fit in with the announced Call of Duty: Black Ops, focusing more on a stealth style of gameplay. Advanced Warfare might as well be Recent Warfare. There's tons of interpretations that could be taken from the title, whether it be expanding on strategy and supply drops to a not-quite-future style.

The move into spin-offs for the Call of Duty franchise may be a way for Activision to mitigate damage done to the development cycle. While litigation is pending, it would be unwise to release a Modern Warfare 3 unless they feel comfortable paying out royalty checks. However, if Activision fails to release a new title annually, the fickle minds of the shooter masses will easily forget it. It didn't take long for the bugs of Modern Warfare 2 to send gamers over to Battlefield once it was released. If the new titles end up being garbage software to fill a time table though, it will have seriously damaging effects on the brand of Call of Duty. It's taken a while for the stigma of being a WWII shooter to wear off and right now they run the risk of running the IP into the ground.

Friday Reboot: Ghostbusters

Like many children who grew up in the 80s, I pretended to be a Ghostbuster. I had the proton pack, the trap, the fire house playset... The only toys I had more of were my beloved Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It's funny looking back now to think how we fought over who got to play as one of the nerdy, balding men. But Ghostbusters has been one of those timeless franchises that when watched when you're older, still seems really cool. You can imagine how crushed I was to here Bill Murray say to David Letterman that there will not be a third movie. When the recent video game was announced, rumors started to fly and it all came crashing down.

But thanks to reboots, not all hope is lost. There's still a chance they'd want to pass the torch on, which was rumored to be the plot of the third movie, and let somebody else take over. It's this dream that I share as part of this week's Friday Reboot.

THE CAST

For starters, you're going to need a terrific cast to pull off the character magic that was Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harrold Ramis. With the current trend in Hollywood, things would have to be full of action and in 3D, but my goal is to pay as much homage to the original while updating for current generations.


Bill Murray was able to pull off a charming and somewhat heroic loser in the form of Dr. Peter Venkman. He was always after the girl and never seemed to take the job seriously. However, he was easily recognized as the leader of the group because of his quick wit and confidence. Whoever stepped up to replace Murray would have a big role to fill and have to bring a lot of character to the table. I admit my choice is a bit biased, but the actor I think would be perfect for the roll is...





James Roday. Roday plays the roll of Shawn Spencer for USA Network's Psych, a charismatic slacker able to get by with pop culture jokes yet commanding and confident enough to have you believe he's the hero of the story. It'd be a bit hard to picture his as a professor of paranormal psychology, but how many people actually remember the Ghostbusters working for a university before being kicked out? For the sake of a reboot, I think that's one detail that can be rewritten. Ghost Hunters is big now, why not cast them as paranormal researchers?



Next up is Dr. Raymond Stantz, more professional than Venkman but always seemed to come off as being a bit immature. He always reminded me of the happy-go-lucky chubby kid, like Chunk to the Goonies if you will. The next Ray Stantz would have to be professional enough to be believable as a scientist yet have that oddball quirk to add some comic relief. Honestly, Ray was my favorite Ghostbuster and picking someone was a bit difficult.







I'm not a big Seth Rogan fan, but he's in practically everything already. I think if you get him away from some of the stoner roles he's been cast as, he has the possibility to truly develop into a believable follow-up to Aykroyd. He's capable of the humor yet still able to pull off a more serious tone. I say give him a shot.








Dr. Egon Spengler was the brain of the group, with jokes delivered so dry, anyone without a sense of sarcasm wouldn't realize the humor hidden inside. This was a role, much like with James Roday, where I instantly had someone in mind.



Neil Patrick Harris is known currently for How I Met Your Mother, but he's already played two doctors, which qualify him enough for me. He's someone who can pull off the geek look but still sound sophisticated and confident enough to believe he's the brain of the group. Throw him in a lab coat again and Dr. Horrible would fit right in hunting ghosts.




Winston Zeddmore felt like a convenient plot device for the first movie, the new guy hired in so the rest of the team could explain to him (and the audience) how they captured ghosts and introduce the containment grid. Other than that he didn't offer a whole lot of character for the team. However, I think a reboot would benefit from a more fleshed out character. Rather than playing the straight man to the rest of the team, a role I found Egon fitting perfectly and probably made Winston more forgettable, he would fit better as more of a wild card for the team. Ernie Hudson deserves credit for what he's done, but my pick for Winston would be...


Wyatt Cenac of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It would be the perfect role for him to branch out into film and he has that every-man quality that would help the audience relate to being the new guy on the team. He's got the comedic ability to really make the role shine.




For Louis Tully, the team's future accountant, attorney and dog-man, Rick Moranis was perfect for the role. You don't see too many people become famous playing the role of a nerdy, wimpy guy, but there's one on the way now that Moranis has left the spotlight.






Christopher Mintz-Plasse has played the role before of the nerdy guy who thinks he'll get the hot chick. I don't know how much of an honor it is to say this, but he's this generation's Moranis. Keep an eye out for him if I ever start drudging up a Honey, I Shrunk the Kids reboot somewhere down the line.





Dana Barrett, the damsel of the story, was played by Sigourney Weaver. She's made quite a career of herself but I've never really believed her as the helpless woman who needed to be rescued by another world from within a fridge. Maybe that's because I saw Alien before Ghostbusters, but who knows.



As a replacement for Weaver, I would pick Anne Hathaway. It'd be a step down from leading in romantic comedies, but she has that adorableness to play a haunted musician who turns into a hell hound from another dimension.







The final cast member to need an overhaul to shake the almost 30 years of dust that had piled up is the Ecto-1. What was a refurbished ambulance that fit well into the original movie's setting has always been instantly recognizable. To change this would almost be like changing the van of the A-Team. But because of age, many people confuse it for a hearse. This again is a sign of my own personal bias, but I would love to see a new Ecto-1.



What mode of transport would be more practical than an ice cream truck? Tear out the freezers to put in a charging station for proton packs and give it a new paint job. It already has exterior speakers which would be perfect for an ice-cream truck version of the Ghostbusters theme.





As far as directors, I think the franchise would thrive in the hands of geek favorite Joss Whedon. He's shown with his catalog of TV series that he has what it takes to fill a story with the right amount of action, comedy and whimsy with believable characters. I believe he's someone who would be able to have his own vision for the series but still be able to make fans happy.

In addition, the original cast making cameos, whether as a group of ghosts hanging out together or squeezing them in anywhere like Stan Lee in the Marvel movies, would be an Easter Egg for the fans of the original.

The Story

As far as the story goes, technology has caught up now where I think Aykroyd and Ramis can do what they really wanted to. Some of the early drafts called for the team to be dimension hopping warriors with glowing wands. I say keep the proton packs but who's to say the inside of Dana's fridge couldn't be another world? Have a bunch of fresh faced ghost hunters running around New York City busting phantoms and find a way to tie the original scripts with a remake of the final product.

However, there is one recognizable cast member that wouldn't make the final cut: the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man. Nothing against the guy, he was always one of my favorite, but I don't think there's any way they could do the original justice. As part of the re-imagining, a giant stuffed animal, cartoon character, or fast food mascot would work as a great replacement. Shower the citizens below in stuffing or fried chunks of hamburger and it still pays tribute to the original ending.

As timeless as Ghostbusters is, it could use an update for current generations. I lost it when I went around my office finding that at least half of my department hadn't seen this classic film. I think it's a sign that the generation following my own missed out on some of that wonder that made a franchise like Ghostbusters so great. In the right hands with the right parts, a reboot of the series could pay mountains of respect to the original while updating the story while breathing new life into it.

The Final Few

On April 15, 2010, a part of gaming history died, or at least it was supposed to. Microsoft had planned to disband their Xbox Live service for the original Xbox. What they didn't count on was a group of faithful 14 fans of Halo 2. As of May 10th, only 2 remain. Part of me applauds them for keeping the dream of retro gaming alive. I've always been a fan of reverse compatibility because I don't want to have tons of wires hanging out the back of a TV with my entertainment system full of consoles.

But for all the hype surrounding the Final Few, it makes me wonder about them. Were these just people who couldn't let go of their Xboxes? I still bust out my SNES from time to time, but I'm not going to waste the electricity and everything else involved involved with keeping it running. This is really a big commitment to make. These guys are sacrificing internet speed and energy costs just so they can still play Halo 2 together. Al Gore must be pissed.

Why obsess over Halo 2? There's been 2 full games and a beta out now that have made a lot of improvements. It's like playing a Mega Man game after they gave you the slide. You can't go back and play Mega Man 1 again without wishing the Blue Bomber could do that crazy sideways slip. I can appreciate the simplistic fun of playing a less complicated game. That's why I have a DS, but I'm not going to organize a sit-in protest when they discontinue the hand held.

So why have these 14 die-hard gamers dwindled down to 2? For starters, apparently electronics are not meant to constantly run 24/7. I hope they realize the sacrifice they made for Halo 2 that now they'll never be able to play it again, offline or online. Some of them ended up with losing connection and others my always favorite: the internet going out. I can't even imagine how that service call went with some of the language I've heard playing games online. I only hope they had one of those automated "tell me the nature of your problem" systems. I wonder what response it has programmed for "You're a f**king f*ggot, you homos!"

Honestly, I think Microsoft should just pull the plug. Most people couldn't hold it against them with the service being available for years after the Xbox 360 came out. They did their duty and these guys just need to let go. The last 12 were already given Halo: Reach beta codes to get in on the next installment of the game. They've gotten their fame as hero outlaws among gamers. But when it's down to 2 and you're still holding on, it changes from inspirational rebellion to just sadness.

Personally, I wish Xbox Live was being held up by two guys refusing to forfeit a paused game of Madden NFL 2003.

Friday Reboots: Why I Love a New Spin on Things

One of the most controversial aspects of our culture is the reboot. It's the idea of taking something that's been around and starting it over, getting a fresh spin on things. With the down economy we've been in, it's something pretty common for Hollywood right now. Why take the risk of a brand new idea when you have an established audience for old ones? It's especially popular with things that didn't go over the first time around, but there are some people who think some things you just don't touch.

For example, I'm sure plenty of Trekkies out there were pretty pissed off J. J. Abrams would even consider starting over with Star Trek, yet last summer the movie was one of the summer's biggest blockbusters. It was an interpretation that was respectful of its roots but offered a brand new direction for the franchise. It was fresh enough for the masses to enjoy yet had the Easter Eggs for long time fans.

Other franchises are in desperate need of some fresh ideas. There are a number of super hero movies that have bombed, video game franchises that have gone off the rails from their successful roots, and TV shows that started great but jumped the shark.

This all comes down to why I love reboots. It's great to see a new interpretation on a classic character we all know, no matter what horrible monstrosity it comes into the world as. Even though I hated Sony's Godzilla, it was nice to see the rubber suit get the CG treatment. Christopher Nolan reinvented Batman for a modern age where the basics are still there, but it is a more practical imagining of the hero. It's the idea of taking something familiar and giving it a new spin that is so exciting. Who doesn't want to try the new recipe of their favorite dish at a restaurant, or their least favorite? There is always that intrigue to see if things turn out better.

To show my love for reboots, I'm starting Friday Reboots. Every Friday I will discuss a reboot that will or should happen, and what I think could help make it better. Think Ghostbusters needs some updating? Maybe if somebody just tried to make a new Jaws then there wouldn't be so many crappy shark movies out there. How can Sonic the Hedgehog get back in the race? How would a ninja side-kick affect Mr. Rogers? I'll be taking a franchise and looking at what worked, what didn't, and maybe even offer my own spin on things.

For every good idea, it inspires a thousand others. That is the concept at the heart of the reboot and why I love them.

It's Like Hookers for Games!

I'm not a fan of stereotypes. Not any of them. Sure, my background is in Sociology, which is basically studying groups of people and predicting how they react, but that's a bit more complex than stereotyping. But one of the stereotypes I really don't like is the idea that a guy would do anything for a pretty girl, especially nerdy guys who of course have no chance of spending time with a pretty girl outside of hooking up their computer. But now there's someone out there who seemed to think this made a pretty good business plan and called it...

Game Crush

So here's how Game Crush works: for $8.25 per 10-minutes, an "attractive" female gamer will play a game with you. It ranges from a quick flash game to Xbox Live. In exchange, the girl gets paid 60% of the final cost for her time. Doesn't seem like a bad deal, does it? The nerdy guy gets to spend a "date" playing video games with a hot girl without leaving the confines of his obvious home of his parents' basement and the girl gets a decent chunk of change for just playing games and talking.

Here's the thing, there are some major ethical issues going on here. For starters lets look at the target audience. The entire business plan is based on the idea that there are some hopeless geeks out there who believe that some girl out there will play video games with him and somehow fall madly in love with him to spend the rest of her life with him. Obviously geeks have money to blow because they just waste it on Star Wars merchandise or whatever obsessive fetish they have, am I right? What harm is there in relieving them of this burden by exchanging social interaction for money? That's healthy, right? Here's the thing, when you're marketing to a crowd that's already socially insecure it becomes morally questionable to play on those insecurities. Sure, it can be argued with body images for women and things like that, but that's an argument for another day, one that I support. This kind of act targets people who are already emotionally fragile enough to keep them from socializing on their own, and tries to crush them even more with the idea that not only would a woman not have sex with them without payment, but they won't even spend time with them unless there's money involved.

There's also the issue of where fantasy and reality blur. What about the obsession you see on occasion with some men and strippers? I don't think it'd be too long before we start hearing about girls being stalked because they played a game with some guy. When I was growing up phone sex lines were all the rage on the news with reports of the actual women on the phone being nothing as advertised. It all came down to how their voice sounded. I tend to be quite cynical when it comes to things and I honestly believe that's going to be going on here. Whether or not the girl is "attractive" is the issue. If somebody wants to play a game, I could care less how they looked. Where this becomes an issue is the truth in advertising and how damaging it would be to both players if the truth were known. There's enough racist, homophobic, angry teenage trash talking going on with online games as it is. How do you think the reaction will go when they find out the "hot" girl they're playing with isn't as advertised?

My other issue with this is part of the debate of sexism in our culture. This is part of that slippery slope that runs down through strip clubs and prostitution into sexual violence and the objectification of women. This is no different than GameFly adding a bonus girl to your game rental. It treats women as a commodity, categorizing them as "flirty" or "dirty," depending on what you're in the mood for. On top of that, the girl is rated based on "gaming skill," "flirtiness," and "hotness." Only one of those should really matter if they're just selling someone to play games with. This is a step into the "female companionship" of the digital age, where the girl is reduced down to a voice and an avatar, the sad old man sitting alone at the strip club at 3:00pm.

On the other hand, if you're interested, I wholly endorse is SessCrush. I honestly would pay for this.

Video Games - E3 2010

Interesting Times indeed...

Anyone who pays much attention to video games beyond the store shelf is probably aware of the current fiasco with publishing juggernaut Activision. Almost all of the internet already hated CEO Bobby Kotick for his public comments on "taking the fun out of making video games" and talk of releasing games as part of TV peripheral hardware rather than console software. Activision's unpopular reputation as of late has only been worsened with the legal suits and dismissals between the publisher and members of developer studio Infinity Ward. Many employees have already resigned and found a new home in Respawn Entertainment, created by Infinity Ward founders Jason West and Vince Zampella in partnership with EA games. While the controversy continues to storm, Bungie Software recently announced a ten year deal with Activision, leaving many to collectively reply with "WTF?"

Details have emerged with the Bungie/Activision deal revealing what could possibly be an interesting new trend between developers and publishers, retaining the rights of an intellectual property. Part of the drama surrounding the Activision/former-IW members law suits is the ownership of the Modern Warfare title. For the casual gamer, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, a game that made $1 billion in two months, the title is simply Modern Warfare 2. Modern Warfare is the brand and the title is a key part in ensuring the success of a sequel. It has a reputation when it comes to multiplayer gaming, just as among many solid platforming games, Mario is the most recognizable. But with Respawn participating in EA Partners and Bungie's deal giving them the rights of the new IP, what we're seeing now in the game industry is the beginning of a movement which has affected other industries from comics to film: the ability for the creator to own their ideas.

Every creator has the dream of coming up with the next Harry Potter, Mario, or James Bond, that timeless concept that goes on to have them swimming in money like Scrooge McDuck. Their idea is their baby, and they don't want to just hand it over to let them do what they will. As more and more creators start standing up and keeping their babies, we'll see some very interesting things happen:

• BETTER QUALITY GAMEPLAY - How many times has a game been passed on to another studio and you felt that it just wasn't as good? Sure, the Knights of the Old Republic games are both solid titles, but what about Spyro the Dragon? Insomniac Games' baby hasn't had the chance to bounce back yet.

• BETTER QUALITY STORY - It's a lot easier to tell when a series was put together by the same people. Compare the pre-Christopher Nolan Batman movies. If you handed someone Batman Returns and Batman Forever who didn't know much about Batman before, they wouldn't really know what's going on. The Jak and Daxter Precurser trilogy has that pay off where those of us who were with them for the whole ride really got to see the big picture in the end.
  

• DEVELOPERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE FINISHED PRODUCT - Not to say that an employee can't care about what they're doing just because they didn't create it or own it, but it's clear to see with franchises like Guitar Hero where it was just being shoveled onto the market. A lot of emphasis is placed on the yearly cycle of releasing a game, but as GTA4 showed everyone, if you put out a quality product, people will wait for it.

Creator ownership is a trend I want to see continue and expand, not just as someone who likes to create something, but as a consumer. You get the best thing you can get when people care about it. Congratulations to both Bungie and Respawn because those are the first steps to stand out and bring us into what I think are going to be some very interesting times.