By now, if you're the obsessive gaming geek that I am, you've no doubt read the recently released (And apparently infamous) Xbox One review at Wired's website. If not, do so now since what I'm about to say within this blog post will not make sense otherwise. Their review, although a bit too brief and lacking in details for my taste, reveals some very startling facts about Microsoft's new machine that many are having a hard time understanding. These revelations, which consist of removed features and functionality, didn't have the same effect on me. If anything, their inclusion (Or perhaps lack of inclusion) merely supports my long held theory that Microsoft distrusts the user and endeavors to remove power from the owners of their devices for fear of them gaining control over the experience.

Grandiose claims coming from a lowly geek on a gaming blog, right? Not so, considering not only the track history Microsoft has of doing such things but also the degree of functionality removal present in the new Xbox One. After all, how can you explain away the absence of hard drive space reporting in the new console? Or the fact that the system will auto-delete older games you no longer play to make room when you need to? Or that the remaining charge within our controller battery isn't viewable in the GUI by any means? Or that the voice command module is so incredibly sensitive and ill-planned that other players can shut your system down through declarations made through their headset?

It's easy to read the previous paragraph and dismiss me as a rabble-rousing Playstation "fanboy", but the truth is I'm not. I always buy every console and enjoy them all equally. Though I'm primarily a PC gamer, I do frequently engage in console play when the right games emerge for them. I enjoy their ease of use, their simplicity and their JRPG-heavy libraries. Unfortunately, as these consoles become more and more like small form-factor PCs I have watched the honeymoon period with them end and a new age of complexity and failure begin. Though the new Playstation seems to retain the essence of the typical gaming console (for the most part, anyway), the Xbox is looking more and more like a PC.

...and much like the PC, Microsoft seems intent on preventing you from learning how to use it or understanding how it works.

Simply put, Microsoft has had a long held belief that taking power and usability away from the user is a beneficial tactic to take when developing new operating systems. Like the Xbox One's OS, Microsoft Windows has undergone a very similar downgrade through the years. Whether it was the removal of DOS, the ever-thinning options in the control panel, relegating popular features to unspoken command line options, or Microsoft's purchasing of Skype resulting in dozens of removed features (Editing Skype chats, notification of chat connection confirmation, inability to remove individual Skype chats), Microsoft has proven that they simply do not trust the user to be the caretaker of their own devices.

Why is this so, you ask? To again keep it in simple terms, Microsoft doesn't want you to dominate the experience. It isn't so much about believing you lack the ability to work your devices, especially given that my two-year-old nephew is already using an ipad, but it's more about making sure you do not modify the experience their well-paid researchers decided was best for you in their behavioral studies.

This is also why Microsoft is so "Anti-PC Gaming", since it's nearly impossible to control a PC gaming environment where modding and hacking are so common and inevitable. They need utter and complete control over your experience and believe that keeping you focused on a very limited and restrictive "spotlight" width of options will allow them to fully dictate what you see and do on their service while also giving you the illusion of freedom. Granted, it's their right since it's their service and their device, but that doesn't stop it from being unfair.

We'll see how this pans out over the next few months as people get their new consoles, though if the reaction online is any indication, it seems people are getting fed up with Microsoft's anti-user antics.

Those who know me are aware of my love of Valve. I have championed them like a brave little biased white knight on forums aplenty and defended their cause more often than I should probably admit. I'm a hopeless Valve fanboy who has stood behind, and still continues to stand behind to this day, the company that has made my platform of choice the powerhouse it currently is. Nothing could ever hope to sway my opinion of them or the exalted Gave Newell and nothing ever will...

...However, I'm not the kind of person to ignore facts.

Facts like the one "Evil Avatar" brought up in the first page of this forum thread here:

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196546

In this thread, if you're too busy to read it, Evil Avatar makes the bold claim that Valve hasn't released Half-Life 3 because they are lazy and their large mound of steam sale cash has made them so comfortable that they are content to rest on their laurels rather than make another epic scale AAA title.

Naturally, the younger folks were quick to worm their way out of the woodwork and cite all of the games Valve has released *since* HL2. Games like HL2 Episode 1, HL2 Episode 2, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Portal, Portal 2 and Dota 2. Game set match, right? Those guys sure showed him, right? They sure knocked his logic for a loop am I right guys?

Uhhhh....no. Not when you realzie that most of those games were already mostly done thanks to recycled assets and their small sizes.

Episode 1 and 2? That's easy to discredit as being a supposedly substantial, time consuming game...it used recycled assets since it was nothing more than a 2 hour expansion level for an already finished game. To sit here and tell me that the sliver of new content that was in them (The ant hive level, the logic puzzles with the new gravity gun) were time intensive, resource consuming fantastic feats of programming daring-do is to either lying to yourself or simply being ignorant of how a typical expansion (Or rather, so-called "episodic content") works.

Left For Dead? As much as I liked it, the game is nothing more than a zombie-themed co-op add-on to Half-Life 2. The movement, the way flashlights work, the health system, the...well...*everything* about the game is Half-Life 2. Granted a lot of it can be blamed on it using the same engine, but does Oblivion play like Fallout New Vegas? Does Dragon Age 1 play like Dragon Age 2 (Unfortunately not)? Does Gears of War play like Bioshock? Does Icewind Dale play like Baldur's Gate 2? Does Torchlight 1 play like Torchlight 2? Using the excuse that time or company differences makes those comparisons invalid is conveniently forgetting that the stupefying amount of cash Valve has means they can pump as many resources as they want into a title to make it unique. Even going so far as to hire someone from outside the company to do them.

Left 4 Dead 2? C'mon, I'm sure you remember the petitions. Everyone should be aware that it was merely an uncalled for and unneeded expansion for L4D1. That's the main reason I waited until it was 5.99 to buy it. I'm desperate, but not foolish.

So what about Portal? Same thing. A very small (read: 2-3 hours) game that was a demo stretched out into a game that only took 5 months to make. The sequel? Throw in some new models and a co-op option and you've got your sequel. Easy money is ever there was any.

TF2? I've played it and it's nothing more than a micro-transaction storefront for headwear. The game itself is disturbingly shallow and makes Counter Strike look like College level algebra by comparison.

As for Dota 2, don't even get me started on that trainwreck. Icefrog ripped off his way to riches and now Valve is seeing dollar signs in all the useless tchotchkes they can sell to weak-willed gamers with un-maxed credit cards.

Which brings us to a big reason *why* Valve is so lazy and isn't using their money to make daring new content the way they used to:

Micro transactions.

When TF2 went F2P it was the beginning of the end for Valve. It was bad enough that they were growing complacent from the large amount of money their Steam sales brought in, but throw the hat money into the mix and they realized what a lot of Korean companies did a decade or so ago: That peer pressure and ego can make a gamer spend a lot of money just to fit in with his buddies.

So now we have a Valve that is so rich, so flush with cash that they don't need to push the envelope any more. They can simply sit back and rest on their swivel chairs content in the notion that Steam will buy them new cars and put food on their table for the rest of their natural lives. Their is no longer any need to be the daring innovator of gaming that they briefly were in the 90s. Those days, like the time when gaming journalism involved actual research, are long gone.

While I still love Steam and consider it to be superior to both Xbox Live and PSN in every way, I can't sit back and ignore the facts of the matter.

The fact that Valve, as a game developer, has grown lazy...and that is why you may never see Half-Life 3.