I've never owned a Xbox product, but I'm not necessarily against owning one in the future.  I've just never seen anything that the Xbox or Xbox 360 does that I felt I needed to experience.  After yesterday, I still haven't.  I buy a video game console primarily for its games, and while the Xbox One's games are surely on the way, the company didn't feel the need to spotlight many of them at the reveal event.  The games it did show were all Xbox stereotypes that aren't part of my world: realistic sports and gritty military shooters.  A new property, Quantum Break, was teased, and I'd like to know more about that, but the teaser trailer for the game didn't exactly explain what it's meant to be beyond claiming it will blur the line between games and television.  I've read people in the community waving the lack of games away with "this wasn't the venue for games", but I expect a video game console to debut with games above all else.  Television tricks, video conference features, web browser integration, and so on are nice, but they distract from the ultimate mission of a game console.  Tellingly, Microsoft is positioning the Xbox One as something far beyond the media capabilities of current generation game consoles.

The big reveal at the event yesterday was actually that Microsoft has finally delivered on its decade-old promise to conquer the living room with an all-in-one entertainment box.  Microsoft spent more than half of its presentation showing off the Xbox One's ability to display live television via a cable subsciption and use the next generation of Kinect to act as a remote control.  That's neat, but it's the first thing that the company felt it should show us when debuting its new game console.  The presenters then spent over twenty minutes playing with this functionality on stage.  I would use it if I owned a Xbox One, but it's not a feature that will convince me to buy the console.  Microsoft has designed Xbox One to sit in between you and your TV content and become the gatekeeper and curator of television programming.  Here's hoping that Xbox One owners have a cable subscription of some sort or else this enhanced television material is just useless fluff.  The Xbox One also will offer Netflix, Hulu Plus, as well as other streaming content services and will play Blu-ray movies (which does interest me, for the record, but can already be done with other hardware I both own and intend to later buy), but little time was spent with those features during the show since they are familiar ones.

It's unfair to judge a console based on its unveiling presentation, and I feel terrible slinging around gloom and disinterest here.  I come not to bury the Xbox One, but I can't exactly praise it.  Unfortunately, all I have to judge the Xbox One on is based on what Microsoft has announced and shared with the press, and what I've read so far isn't promising.  This is a console that requires daily online verification checks with a master server in order to continue to authenticate and allow access to purchased content.  It's a console that requires a Kinect camera supposedly sensitive enough to observe heartbeats in order to function, and that camera and microphone pair is always watching and listening even when it's supposed to be turned off (and it's never really off).  It's a console that restricts the use of used, rented, and loaned games by requiring extra fees.  This is not a hardware ecosystem in which I want to invest.  Worse, Microsoft is backpedaling from some of these announcements by proclaiming them to be "potential scenarios" that may or may not come to pass.  I don't expect the company to have every last Xbox One detail worked out at this point, but I do expect it to announce true information and not contradict itself with competiting announcements.  There's also still a lot we do not know about the console, but with E3 just weeks away, I would hope that there will be more news to announce, new games to debut, and consistent information to share at that event and beyond.

From my perspective, Microsoft's big accomplishment yesterday was to show once again that the Xbox brand is not for me.  I'm alright with that.  As it stands, I'm not interested in buying a Xbox One.  My plans remain unchanged with intentions to buy a Sony PlayStation 4 and a Nintendo Wii U once the futures of both of those consoles are better defined and assuming that those futures meet my needs.  The Xbox One, as of now, does not meet my needs and, in some ways, actively goes against what I want in a video game console.  That's not a good way to win my business.

And now, a brief thought from my pal and occasional Power Button podcast co-host, Joey Davidson, regarding the Microsoft Xbox One.

I hope that Microsoft's official stance on rumors from here on out is that they're all "potential scenarios."

— Joey Davidson (@JoeyDavidson) May 22, 2013

It's almost like MS is Doc Brown and we're Marty McFly. The potential scenarios are what happens if we bring the old sports almanac home.

— Joey Davidson (@JoeyDavidson) May 22, 2013

Deathstroke will be playable in Arkham Origins' challenge mode, a game type which, in previous series entries, tasks Batman (or other playable characters like Catwoman and Robin) with completing combat and stealth challenges to earn high scores and compete with their fellow players.

"Deathstroke will come complete with his own unique weapons and special moves, and will be playable in all challenge maps in the game, as well as two additional challenge maps that will be included with the pack," the DLC's press release announcement reads. "The pack will also contain two alternate Deathstroke character skins."

I don't really know that I need all of this.  I've mucked around with the other challenge modes in the series and never did much with them beyond exploring what they involved.  I don't like being told how to take down enemies, and isn't that type of freedom the whole point of the Arkham games?  To become Batman and do things just about however you like within the scope of the game?  Challenge mode restricts what I can accomplish and how I can accomplish it, and the addition of the extra playable characters released for a fee still feels like a needless cash grab to me.  Previous Arkham games allowed players to use Joker and Nightwing in the challenge modes, but not anywhere else, for instance.  Of course, maybe Deathstroke is playable in the game's story; after all, Catwoman was a small part of Arkham City's story and Robin was playable in the DLC epilogue.  Why go through all the trouble to create a playable Deathstroke (with alternate character skins, no less) and lock him into just one minor mode?  I would see what Deathstroke had to offer if I wound up with him (Amazon is giving away the DLC for free with preorders), but I wouldn't spend actual money on the DLC.  My interest is the story mode.  Everything else is just fluff.

Since Mario sits this game out, another character needs to fill his slot in the playable character roster.  Enter Nabbit, one of Mario U's new additions, who cannot power-up with traditional items, but can run into enemies without taking any damage.  So there's a trade-off for you.  Nabbit is meant to be controlled by the less skilled Mario fan in your couch clan, giving him character invulnerability not seen since Player 2 realized that Tails was immune to harm in the traditionally single-player mode of Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

I like the idea of a retail release for Luigi U.  Nintendo has been hyping this DLC as a whole new game, so if that's really true, then why not send it out to retail at a budget price?  While Nintendo did announce all of this new information, one item left out of all of this is the file size of the DLC.  With the limited memory available on the Wii U out of the box, it might make more sense to pay the extra $10 and pick up the disc if the downloadable version of the expansion will take up lots of space.  Say, do you know what would be nice for prospective Wii U owners?  A bundle made up of both Mario U and Luigi U sold at a slight discount compared to buying both separately.  I could definitely go for that when the time came to pick up a Wii U.

Power Button Presents Kombo Breaker - Episode 22: Sprinkles and Blood Rain From the Sky

Sonic Action Pack (includes Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic the Hedgehog 2, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 & Knuckles, Sonic CD, Sonic the Hedgehog 4 Episodes 1 and 2, Sonic 3D Blast, Sonic Adventure DX, Sonic Generations (including DLC), and Sonic & Sega All-Star Racing) - $9.99

Ghostbusters: The Video Game - $4.99

BioShock 1 and BioShock 2 plus Spec-Ops: The Line bundle - $9.99

Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City Game of the Year versions bundle - $11.49

Saints Row: The Third: The Full Package - $12.49

Saints Row 2 - $3.49

Grand Theft Auto IV: Complete - $14.99

Rollercoaster Tycoon 2: Triple Thrill Pack - $4.99

Ultimate Sega Dreamcast Pack (Sonic Adventure DX, Sonic Adventure 2, Jet Set Radio, Crazy Taxi, Space Channel 5 Part 2, Sega Bass Fishing, Nights Into Dreams, and Sonic Generations) - $8.49

There's enough here to keep you busy for a very long time.  Every purchase you make via one of the green links here goes to help support Press The Buttons which, as always, I thank you for doing.

“Initially launched as an effort to package a full menu of online content and  services, many players didn’t respond to the format,” Reseburg said. “We’ve  listened to the feedback and decided to do away with it moving forward.”

Online Pass is seen by publishers as a bulwark against the second-hand  market, which retailer GameStop dominates. Publishers were worried that  consumers were buying games used instead of new — especially big games with  popular multiplayer modes. So the online pass became a way that publishers  forced consumers to either buy a game new — or pay extra for online.

But from this point forward, you won’t need an Online Pass for any of EA’s  games online.

Let's hope that other publishers who have followed EA's lead with online passes such as Activision and Ubisoft will follow once again and move away from using them.  I can't say that the presence of an online pass requirement in a game ever persuaded me to buy a new copy of a game just to get the pass code and save myself the additional ten dollar fee.  I rent games in which I only have a passing interest, so if a game I would normally rent required an online pass, I just didn't rent the game and skipped playing it entirely.  The same goes for buying used games.  I would rather not play a game than have to pay an additional fee to fully access what it has to offer.  Judging by EA's change of heart, I must not be the only person who behaves that way.

Microsoft is killing off its Points system that's primarily used for its Xbox console. The death of Microsoft Points has been a long time coming, and follows Microsoft's move away from the virtual currency towards cash in Windows 8. Sources familiar with Microsoft's Xbox plans have revealed to The Verge that the software maker plans to replace Points with a new gift card system.

The gift card system will follow the familiar model in use by Apple with its iTunes cards, but customers can also spend money directly at the online marketplace with credit or debit cards.  I'm glad to hear that this change is coming.  While I've never purchased anything with Microsoft Points, it is frustrating to me that a major player in the industry is effectively hiding the true price of its content behind an alternative currency system where 1600 Points equals $20.00.  It's all a mind game; at a glance, a game that costs, say, $19.99 on the PlayStation Store costs 1600 Points on Xbox Live appears to be cheaper on the Xbox platform when they are actually the same price (plus one cent).  I was never happy with Nintendo's Points system either, but at least that ecosystem maintained a 1:1 conversion ratio.  Content should be priced in actual currency rather than points, coins, stars, zennies, or whatever other fake money that a company dreams up.  It's only fair to the customer.

Comix Zone is basically a tribute to comics in general, yet is not too overtly influenced by any particular story. The premise of mutants lurking in New York's sewers may be faintly reminiscent of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but it's otherwise a fairly creative world that Sketch has devised for his unlikely deathtrap. The game itself is a bit hard to cap as a straight genre, but it mostly plays as a sidescrolling beat-'em-up with elements of platforming and puzzles wedged in. The major difference from the likes of Streets of Rage or Final Fight is that the action only takes place on a single plane. Sketch must survive the pages of his own comic book by whomping on whatever enemies are in front of him and figuring out how to move onto the next panel. When Sketch can move on, a yellow arrow points away from his current panel, allowing him to flip over the panel border into the next scene. Some moves from Sketch and enemies will rip through the pages to reveal the papery underside, and the hand of Mortus will often appear to draw on new hazards for our hero. Even when you die, Sketch's body will turn into pencil sketches and get crossed out by Mortus' marker.

There's a lot to like in Comix Zone and it's worth exploring if you've never experienced it, but beware of the steep challenge level and a few frustrating mechanics.  Sketch often takes a small amount of damage while opening doors or breaking boxes as part of the game's design, enemies respawn endlessly at certain points, and players only have one life in which to complete the adventure.  The comic panel aesthetic is delightfully unique, however, and feels ahead of its time.  Imagine how Comix Zone would play out on the Nintendo 3DS where Sketch and his foes could pop out of the backgrounds in order to hop across panels.  Comics are flat, yes, but that extra dimension could help bring the game to life in new and fun ways.  Even if a revived Comix Zone isn't in the cards, I'd like to see a comic-based game try this mechanic.  It's practically begging to be done.