TIME Video Games

Flappy 2048 Review: Wherein I Clear 2 Million

What happens once you flap past the 2048 block? You'll have to play to find out.

“Some maniac combined Flappy Bird and 2048!” writes an Imgur user. That about sums up Flappy 2048 (thank you @ShawnElliott, former editorial compadre, for bringing it to my attention): a game — you can play it here in a browser — that weds the inanity of Flappy Bird to the puzzling mathematical madness of 2048.

Flappy Birdthis link is to someone else’s web-based copy — you probably know. But in the event you don’t, it’s an endless side-scroller where you tap your screen (or click a mouse) to make a bird flap its wings and arc through narrow gaps between Super Mario Bros.-like pipes. The pipes are positioned close together, your flaps feel more like lurches, each gap is very small and they change height as you go, making sustained flight virtually impossible. There’s no saving, the achievements are competition-medal minimum (and they max out low), and so the impetus to play much past “gold” harks back to old-school arcade-dom, King of Kong style.

2048, by contrast, is a math-based slide-tile game currently tearing up the freemium charts that’s been relatively well-received. I first heard about it when someone claimed they’d landed a score of 8,192. Having fiddled with it myself, I now realize just how incredible a feat that is.

Flappy 2048 marries the two by replacing Flappy Bird‘s gaps with 2048‘s matching numbers. Click here to see that Imgur poster’s animated GIF of the game in action:

Like Flappy Bird, you click the mouse to flap the bird-cube’s wings and aim for a number match to trigger 2048‘s math-doubling, then repeat, ad nauseam. I’ve been playing the web version this afternoon and managed to clear 2,097,152, which sounds really impressive, but since I suck at Flappy Bird, is really just another way of saying it’s a whole lot easier than Flappy Bird. All you have to do is get close to the intended number block and it all but pulls you through (that, and it’s pretty forgiving about its thresholds). This is what those of you who can’t stand Flappy Bird should consider playing. That, or check out 2048 itself.

flappy-48
Flappy 2048

Though: “Things get really weird after you reach the 2048 block,” writes the Imgur poster. I can vouch that yes, they do. Yes, they definitely do.

TIME technology

This Video Game Will Let You Be a Cat (Finally!)

Getty Images

It's still in its early stages, so fingers (er, paws?) crossed that it gets the funding it requires

A few months ago, we reported that a video game that would let you pretend to be a cat is in the works. In that game, the player’s only objective is to knock things over. That’s it. You win by pretending to be a cat and then knocking a whole bunch of things over.

Now, don’t get me wrong, that game — which you can play in your browser — is a rollicking good time. It’s truly a delight. But now there’s a new game in the works that offers a much more comprehensive feline simulation experience. Because let’s face it: being a cat is about so much more than just knocking your humans’ stuff to the floor.

Simply titled Cat Simulator, this third-person game will allow the player to chase rats and mice, climb trees, eat, sleep, poop, and do all the other important things that cats do each and every day. It’s still in its early stages of development, and its creators have launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise additional funds. They hope to create more realistic graphics and more cat customization options, along with other animal friends so the cats don’t get lonely.

Here’s a sneak peek. Right now it’s looking pretty low-budge, so here’s hoping that they raise more money.

(h/t Mashable)

TIME Video Games

Let’s Hope Dragon Age: Inquisition Finally Has Dragon Age Figured Out

With any luck, BioWare's third-in-series action roleplaying game will remedy the last installment's over-simplistic combat and drab, recycled locations.

+ READ ARTICLE

I’ve liked none of the Dragon Age games. Not even the first. But I’d have to say I enjoyed the first immeasurably more than its lazy sequel, which conjured feelings of loathing by the time I was ticking off the game’s last few achievements and rolling through its embarrassingly recycled cityscapes for the umpteenth time to experience all of its tedious alternative denouements.

In October 2009, when I spoke with Dragon Age: Origins‘ lead designer, Mike Laidlaw, I asked him about something he’d said elsewhere: He wanted the game to be the HBO of RPGs (he also referenced George R.R. Martin’s “Song of Ice and Fire” books, which hadn’t transitioned to television yet, but everyone already thought of as exemplary):

Specifically, we wanted to remove the sense that the fantastic is casual, and to present the fantastic as something that for the common man, for the everyman is still very much fantastic. Almost terrifying, in fact. One of the key tropes we’re trying to upend is that lightweight lack of consequences feel that can happen in fantasy. It’s like “Oh, he’s dead… But it’s okay! Because we resurrected him!” No one ever talks about the near death experience or the tunnel of light or like in real life, the survivors going “Oh my god!” You know, we’re talking an inconceivably intense experience.

But when I finally played the game, it felt nothing like the HBO of anything, mistaking mere blood splatter for maturity, and foisted-upon-you consequences for meaningful ones, and overwrought, cliched fantasy banter (by writer David Gaider) about mature topics for artful storytelling. (Fair warning, I’m a literary snob: I’m looking for Cormac McCarthy and Gene Wolfe and Jorges Luis Borges and Alan Moore and China Mieville all the time, and why should games get a pass?)

I want to think the best of Dragon Age: Inquisition, though Laidlaw returns as lead designer and Gaider as lead writer. It doesn’t feel like a Dragon Age game in the trailer above, though it’s obviously trotting out the horse-beaten amnesiac hero shtick about random-person-you surviving a calamity and having no memory of why. If the gameplay turns out to be intriguing, of course, all bets are off, because I can play the heck out of a Final Fantasy VII or X or XIII (or Fallout 3, or Diablo III, or Baldur’s Gate II) and just let the first-rate game systems override the unimaginative storytelling.

In any case, the other pullout you’ll be interested to note here: the trailer confirms Dragon Age: Inquisition will ship on October 7 (for Windows, PS4, Xbox One, PS3 and Xbox 360).

MORE: The History of Video Game Consoles – Full

TIME Video Games

If There’s an Apple vs Google ‘Arms Race’ for Mobile Game Exclusives, Android’s Losing

Apple and Google are supposedly battling for exclusive games on their respective mobile platforms, but we haven't seen many fireworks.

A story by the Wall Street Journal claims that Apple and Google have staked out a new battleground over mobile games, as both companies try to grab exclusives for their own platforms.

Citing unnamed sources, the Journal says Apple and Google are apparently offering promotional placement to game developers in exchange for timed exclusivity. While the report claims no money is changing hands, top placement in the iOS App Store or Android’s Google Play Store can have a huge impact on sales, so developers have a strong incentive to consider these deals.

But while reading the Journal’s report, one thing struck me as odd: There isn’t a lick of evidence that Google is actually fighting back against Apple’s supposed exclusivity push. While the story provides several examples of Apple making exclusive deals with top game developers, it doesn’t offer a single instance of Google doing the same.

With Apple, Electronic Arts reportedly agreed to a two-month exclusivity window for Plants vs. Zombies 2, and ZeptoLab gave Apple’s platform a three-month head start for Cut the Rope 2. An executive at GameLoft also confirmed that the company talked to Apple about an exclusivity deal, but ultimately decided against it.

What examples do we have for Android? The Journal merely says that Google has helped promote apps that “integrate Android branding.” One deal, with Russian developer Game Insight, apparently involved a discount on in-game items shaped like Android’s robot mascot. It’s safe to assume Apple wasn’t competing for this deal, and besides, Game Insight isn’t nearly as well-known as ZeptoLab, Gameloft or Electronic Arts.

Deal or no deal, it’s hard to find many instances of games going Android-first. Some noteworthy exclusives do exist, including Square Enix’s Final Fantasy VI and Gree’s Rage of the Immortals, which both had roughly a one-month head start on Android. But there are many more cases of popular games hitting iOS first, including Threes, Deus Ex: The Fall, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Hearthstone, The Room 2 and Ridiculous Fishing.

The story also mentions Amazon, practically as an aside. But at least with Amazon there are previous, documented examples of exclusives for the company’s app store. (The Journal’s report doesn’t even mention that Amazon is now creating its own games, which, as an approach to exclusive content, is much more interesting than making limited-time deals with other developers.

The idea that Google and Apple are battling for exclusives sounds good, at least, as it’s reminiscent of how traditional game console makers buy up exclusives for their own platforms. I’m just skeptical that there’s much of a fight going on in this case. Or if there is, it’s been extremely lopsided in Apple’s favor.

Besides, exclusives don’t mean much if they aren’t being marketed as a way to lure people onto one platform instead of another. If Google was having success with locking up Android-only releases, wouldn’t we be hearing about it from Google, rather than from “people familiar with the situation?”

TIME Video Games

What’s Happening with Uncharted and The Last of Us Developer Naughty Dog?

Naughty Dog

That's three high-profile departures in two months.

I wish I knew. First Amy Hennig — who I’ve interviewed, and who’s arguably the creative lifeblood of the Uncharted series (she directed or co-directed all three installments) — leaves Naughty Dog, or winds up forced out, depending who you talk to (Naughty Dog co-president Evan Wells claims the separation was, in fact, amicable). That made headlines in early March. Then “Uncharted 4″ (or whatever it’s ultimately called) director Justin Richmond follows Hennig’s lead and exits the studio to work on League of Legends with developer Riot Games.

And now Nate Wells is saying his farewells. Wells — no relation to Naughty Dog co-president Evan, as far as I know — worked as lead artist on The Last of Us, a game that went on to win pretty much every award a video game can. Prior to working at Naughty Dog, Wells was the lead artist on Irrational Games’ BioShock Infinite, where he served until August 2012, leaving Irrational to work on The Last of Us at Naughty Dog. (A remastered version of the latter for Sony’s PlayStation 4 is due later this year.)

Here’s Wells (Nate) confirming his new digs on Twitter last night:

Wells is now working at studio Giant Sparrow, the folks behind PS3-exclusive adventure game The Unfinished Swan.

I can’t imagine any of this bodes well. Naughty Dog’s lost the director of its next big Uncharted game, the director and creative lead for all its prior Uncharted games and the lead artist on its most critically acclaimed game to date (The Last of Us), all in the space of two months.

[Gamespot]

MORE: The History of Video Game Consoles – Full

TIME Video Games

Beyond Earth Interview: ‘No Civilization Game Would Be Made Without Sid. He’s the Guy.’

Firaxis

Turn-based science fiction games are scarce in gaming’s history, much less ones with insight into the history of the genre. There’s Julian Gollop’s X-COM (or Jake Solomon’s XCOM, the recent reboot), Brad Wardell’s Galactic Civilizations, Steve Barcia’s Master of Orion and the odd Civilization mod, but the one I’d wager most remember the fondest is Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri from 1999.

Sid Meier’s Civilization: Beyond Earth is a spiritual sequel to the latter, a 4x (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate) game that trades its namesake’s traditional obsession with things that’ve already happened for things that have yet to. It’s a game whose design team sounds as intrigued by the ramifications of our post-human future as they are obsessed with folding such heady concepts into a compulsive piece-pusher — something worthy both of the “one more turn” cliche and sci-fi’s legacy of stirring, often subversive fiction.

Firaxis unveiled the game at PAX East on April 12 — it’s due later this year. You can watch the PAX East panel’s announcement here:

This is the second part of a two-part interview, here with the game’s lead designer David McDonough and lead producer Lena Brenk. The first part — with gameplay designer Anton Strenger, Sid Meier’s Civilization series senior producer Dennis Shirk and associate producer Pete Murray — is here.

In Beyond Earth, you lead different factions with contrasting cultures. One of the critiques of Civilization V‘s take on culture was that it felt like a second tech tree instead of a feature unto itself. How does culture work in Beyond Earth?

David McDonough: There’s a system called virtues, which is an expression of what your civilization cares about, so who they grow up to be, what their priorities are and so forth. It’s been totally redesigned for this game, meaning it’s different from any previous Civilization. Culture drives the acquisition of items within a virtue table, and those items have a lot of cross-linking benefits in and out of other systems in the game — everything from city progression to tile improvement to military strategies to territorial acquisition and diplomacy and so on.

Lena Brenk: The way Anton designed it, the trees are a lot deeper, so you have a tree that you can follow down, the whole column through, and the more points you spend in one tree, you get kickers — additional bonuses that you rack up. If you go very wide and select virtues from different branches of different trees, you get kickers as well, but they’re different in that they give you bonuses for going in very different directions and not focusing on one tree. So the system is quite different from prior Civilization games.

Firaxis

Recognizing that realism’s subordinate to gameplay, how hard-science-minded have you been able to keep Beyond Earth, for those who relished that aspect of Reynolds’ Alpha Centauri?

DM: We care deeply about exactly that thing. When we set out to design the game, we were already huge fans of not just science fiction, but actual science, and one of the first things we did, and you can find this on Wikipedia, is that we pulled together the original reading list that the designers of Alpha Centauri assembled. I think between us on the Beyond Earth team, we’d read about half of that list before we got started, so we read the other half, and then some.

Every part of the game’s been designed with a very careful eye toward achieving the sweet spot Alpha Centauri did, with finding a plausible link between science that everybody knows and that’s real, and science fiction that makes sense and comes from it. I think one of the best expressions of this in the game is the technology web. The future is treading technological ground that we don’t know yet, and we get to invent it. So we start you in the center of a web surrounded by technologies that are more or less recognizable, that are based on present-day Earth technologies plus a few hundred years. But then it radiates outward to any of a dozen very different technological places, and they all end up in a very interesting sci-fi place that is definitely sci-fi, but also definitely plausible, and you can see the thread all the way through from today to then and how humankind could have gotten to that technology, and why they would have, and what they’d do with it.

So as you play the game, you get to make these really interesting choices along the way, like what kind of technology is important to me, what fits my needs on the ground, what’s going to help me achieve victory, what do I just find the most attractive, and by the time the game is over, you have a collection that represents your priorities as the human race. Your neighbors on the planet will have made a different set of choices, of course, and you’ll clash because your technologies don’t line up.

LB: I can attest to the enthusiasm with which the design team went at it, and the art team as well. We love history here at Firaxis, we love Civilization of course, but going into the future — far into the future — was really cool. It was a challenge, but such an opportunity for the art team to stretch their legs. The designers came up with the technologies and said this is what we’re going for, and then the art team came in and had to imagine what that would mean for units and leaders and the alien environment, how that would look and be represented in the game. The enthusiasm was incredible, and still is incredible, since we’re only pre-alpha at this point.

What’s the timeframe in the game? How many years are we talking, from launching your colony ship to an average game’s conclusion?

DM: That’s a good question, because we don’t say specifically in the game. And we do that on purpose so the player can enjoy imagining the answers to the questions they’re asking. We hypothesize that it’s roughly 200 to 300 years from today, that that’s when the seeding occurs, and once you land on the planet, you play forward by somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 years.

Firaxis

The reason I ask is that Alpha Centauri managed to sneak in some pretty out-there futurist notions, and if you follow guys like Ray Kurzweil today, you know he thinks this notion that Star Trek‘s going to happen in another century or two misses the point — that we’re going to be clouds of foglets or whatever long before we’d ever get to Roddenberry’s naval-metaphor view of humans sailing through space and yet somehow remain human as we define human today.

DM: Yeah, that was really the first kernel of the design, the first question we asked: What is the human race going to look like in 500 years, let alone 1,500 years? What kind of post-human weirdness is going to happen? There’s no shortage of interesting ideas in sci-fi, ideas that range from plausible to at the same time sort of terrifying.

We sculpted the game around three impressions of that, which we call affinity, and each one represents a concept somewhere between an ideology and a religion — it’s more just a philosophy of what humankind is going to be like by the time you reach the next great turning point in our history.

One of them, supremacy, is very focused on technology as the savior of humanity, that by embracing the machines and eventually integrating them to the point of replacing yourself, the future of humanity is forever assured — that these machines can survive any environment, we will never be displaced from our home again and we’re saved by the machines. Living as a nano-cloud is reflected in the ultimate extent of those technologies in the web and in some of the things you’re able to build, some of the wonders and so on. We go right up to that threshold and hint at it, then suggest to the player, “Look at this crazy place humanity’s arrived at, and just imagine what’ll happen next.”

Firaxis

It sounds like you’re hoping to use the new quest system as your primary storytelling mechanism.

LB: That’s right. In Civilization we’ve generally been able to assume that players know what the history of humanity has been, more or less, to date. You don’t need to be a historian to know who Genghis Khan was, or the Maya. That lets players tell their own story because they have a historical framework to do so.

When we’re going into the future, that framework’s obviously unclear. We still want the player to tell their own story, but giving them that framework was important, and so one of the ways we found to do this was the quest system. We use it to give snippets of information, little insights into the alien planet and the wildlife there, to give the player a feel for where they’ve landed.

Firaxis

You’ve also added a second strategic angle that’s an actual layer physically superimposed above the traditional one. How does the new orbital system relate to the planetary one?

DM: The core experience still transpires on the planet, so think of the orbital layer which exists above it as an augmentation: It’s a different way to play with the same pieces. You build orbital units in your cities, then launch them into orbit, which exists on a camera level above the planet’s surface. All of the orbital units are designed based on their effects on things on the ground (or water, as the case may be). And so everything from terraforming the ground, augmenting your improvements in your cities, buffing your military units or making military tactics possible to the point of outright bombarding holdings on the ground. And then the other way around, with things on the ground being able to shoot down orbital units. That’s how orbital play is done. Whatever your aims and ambitions and problems are on the surface of the planet, the orbital layer is an extension and complication of them.

Firaxis

Sid Meier was one of the lead designers on Alpha Centauri, and Beyond Earth carries his name in the full title. To what extent is that branding? Or put another way, how hands-on is he with Beyond Earth?

DM: Sid is really the benevolent uncle-godfather of all the designers at the studio. Every Civilization game bears his imprint and has his involvement in it. This is no exception. We never questioned that the game would be called Sid Meier’s Civilization. It belongs in the Civilization franchise and we want it to stand along with that incredible legacy.

That said, it’s a brand new experience, and it takes place literally beyond Earth. The title expresses exactly what the game is — that it belongs in the Civilization legacy, but that it’s a new idea within it. And as a designer I can tell you that Sid’s influence, his insight and his participation are extremely important. He’s always present, always willing to play the game and lend his thoughts and perspectives. I think no Civilization game would be made without Sid. He’s the guy.

MORE: The History of Video Game Consoles – Full

TIME Nintendo

Take Five Seconds to Honor Game Boy’s 25th Anniversary

+ READ ARTICLE

I’m not much for anniversary retrospectives concerning classic video game systems. Not that there’s zero value in examining history, but the older a console gets, the more it feels like we’re recycling the same factoids every time a gaming system reaches another large, round number.

So it goes with the Nintendo Game Boy, which launched in Japan on April 21, 1989. In case your memory is foggy from the last round of retrospectives five years ago, you’ll find more look-backs around the Internet on today’s 25th anniversary. (Jeremy Parish’s write-up for USGamer is pretty good.)

Personally, I prefer to let the above video do all the talking. That little start screen is all I need to unlock a trove of memories, from stuffing too many cartridges into my carrying case at home to slumping in the corner of a dingy gym next to my best friend, playing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Fall of the Foot Clan while his mom Jazzercised.

Happy 25th anniversary, Game Boy.

TIME Video Games

5 Reasons the Latest PlayStation 4 and Xbox One Sales Figures Don’t Mean What You Think They Do

Sony's PlayStation 4 (upper-left) and Microsoft's Xbox One (lower-right). Sony, Microsoft

It's not as simple as 7 million PS4 units minus 5 million Xbox One units equals a 2-million sales shortfall.

Two million. That’s the global gully, valley or chasm — you pick — dividing Sony’s PlayStation 4 from Microsoft’s Xbox One in unit sales as we round the bend from March to April. That’s a lot of units in the short term, or it’s a drop in the bucket thinking longer-term, where bestselling platforms like Sony’s PlayStation 2 and Nintendo’s Wii went on to push more than 100 million and 155 million units, respectively. [Update: Sony's 7 million units are sold-through, or to consumers, while Microsoft's 5 million are sold-in, or to retailers -- not a distinction of consequence to my points below.]

It’s vogue to say console sales don’t matter, but those who do are just telegraphing fatigue with the irrational (and unintelligible, and often downright cruel) conversations that erupt on message boards like so much digital effluvium. (Fandom is as fandom does.) But there’s a very sound, perfectly rational reason to care who’s luring hearts and wallets in the monthly numbers, especially if it’s by wide margins. And it’s this: they determine where the games go.

Wii U owners are struggling with this unfortunate reality as we speak (and will increasingly as we roll forward), unable to play multi-platform games like Battlefield 4, Madden NFL 25, Tomb Raider, Metal Gear Solid V, Destiny, Batman: Arkham Knight, and Assassin’s Creed Unity. It’s not necessarily because the Wii U isn’t capable of running downscaled versions of some or all of those games, but because the sales base isn’t there (and doesn’t seem likely to get there soon) to justify spending time and money on ports.

But let’s focus on the PS4 and Xbox One, in view of the latest sales claims, and delve beneath the surface of reductive analyses like “7 million minus 5 million equals 2 million!” That’s an oversimplification, of course, for at least the following five reasons.

You can buy the PlayStation 4 in 72 “countries and regions.” You can buy the Xbox One in 13.

Everyone misses this, and it’s easy to see why, since you have to scour the fine print to find it. It’s not clear what the nature of Microsoft’s problem is, exactly — whether it’s manufacturing or regulatory or who knows — but the Xbox One was originally supposed to launch in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden and Switzerland alongside the 13 countries in this list back in November. Microsoft scrapped those plans at the last minute, and so to date, the Xbox One exists in just 13.

Not all “countries and regions” are equal when you’re talking about potential audience size, of course, and Microsoft’s going to have its biggest bases covered by the time fall 2014 rolls around, raising its total markets figure to 39. In other words, the gulf between 72 and 13 is huge, but 72 and 39 — because we’re talking most of the key remaining ingredients added in that 39 — not so much.

Still, the clock’s ticking. If you’re a game developer, you want to be, as lyricist Howard Ashman put it, “where the people are.” Microsoft’s challenge at this point is as much (or more) about ramping up Xbox One availability as it is landing crucial third-party exclusives or thinking about price drops.

$100 is $100 (even when it’s not $100).

Show me a significantly more expensive game platform that trounced its competition in the long run. Don’t say Sony’s PlayStation 3, because a few million ahead at the end of the marathon’s hardly trouncing. Don’t say the PC because it’s a wildly different animal, and as gaming platforms go, it’s certainly seen better days. Of course, the PS3 had to drop in price dramatically to catch back up to the Xbox 360, and it did, managing to catch and just barely inch past Microsoft’s console in global sales toward the end.

Nintendo’s Wii left everything in the dust during its prime sales years, I’d argue as much, if not chiefly, because of its lower price tag. Microsoft’s Xbox One is $100 more expensive than Sony’s PlayStation 4, and all the shell-game price discounts and bundles and temporary retailer price overrides in the world won’t change the “much more expensive” public perception until Microsoft makes an Xbox One price drop official (perhaps by offering a version without Kinect). Forget all the blather about which platform’s more technically capable (answer: both!), if the Xbox One had launched at $400, we’d be having a very different sales conversation right now.

The point being this: Price is a big deal, and it’s almost surely hurting the Xbox One, as we knew it would. But you could also argue Microsoft selling 5 million Xbox One units at that higher price point is as much an achievement as Sony selling 7 million PS4 units at its lower one.

It’s impossible (for us) to know whether production constraints are impacting these numbers.

All we have are vague claims from Sony and Microsoft and anecdotal evidence provided by retailers, but production constraints could be masking demand (and almost certainly are if we factor regional availability, as noted above).

Sony knows precisely how impacted it is. So does Microsoft. But all they’re sharing are unverifiable vagaries about production issues. And so we’re left to speculate. Maybe Sony’s PlayStation 4 would’ve sold thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions more. Maybe that’s just marketing spin. But the possibility alone means we should be wary of reading these numbers as reflective of actual consumer demand.

Both the PS4 and Xbox One are performing sales feats of derring-do.

Both the PS4 and Xbox One are selling at unprecedented levels. As NPD noted in its March 2014 sales rundown last night, if you add both systems together through their preliminary five months of availability, you’re talking twice the sales of the PS3 and Xbox 360 for the same period. What’s more, if you run the same figure for retail software sales, combined PS4 and Xbox One software is up some 60 percent. You’d be mad to read those kinds of generation-on-generation numbers as bad in any way for either company.

Titanfall wasn’t supposed to change March 2014’s sales figures, but it did anyway.

Anyone paying attention to point number one (as well as Sony’s and Microsoft’s prior global sales figures) knew Titanfall wasn’t going to eliminate the Xbox One’s sales deficit. Imagine Microsoft selling 2 million consoles over the course of 30 days — that’s just wishful thinking unless you’re the Wii and it’s 2007 (or 2008) again. Titanfall‘s a core online-only game for a very specific sort of player. That it took the number one software sales spot for March 2014 despite the PS4’s unit sales lead speaks volumes in an industry where hardware paves the roads and sets up the shipping lines, but where it’s software that ultimately carries the lion’s share of your profits.

TIME Video Games

Sony’s PlayStation 4 Was the Top-Selling Console in March, but Titanfall Was the Top-Selling Game

Screenshot from publisher Electronic Arts and developer Respawn Entertainment's massively-multiplayer first-person Xbox One shooter Titanfall (also for Xbox 360 and Windows). Electronic Arts

Microsoft's Xbox One cedes the top console sales spot to Sony's PS4, but takes first in software sales for March 2014 with EA and Respawn's Titanfall.

Xbox One owners, exhale: Microsoft had a very good March. While the company continues to cede the top monthly console sales spot to Sony’s PlayStation 4, its Xbox- and Windows-exclusive massively multiplayer first-person shooter, Titanfall, was tops in software sales.

That’s good news, as is Microsoft’s disclosure of a new sales figure: 5 million, or the number of Xbox Ones sold worldwide since launch. Yes, it’s some 2 million shy of Sony’s 7 million-selling PlayStation 4, but remember that Sony had a one-week lead, the PS4 is $100 cheaper and the company’s currently selling the PS4 in a whopping 72 countries and regions, while Microsoft’s only selling the Xbox One in 13. Microsoft plans to expand the Xbox One’s availability to 39 countries this September, but lopsided hardly begins to describe direct sales comparisons.

Retail (and burgeoning digital) sales tracker NPD Group says hardware sales were up 78 percent over March 2013 — no surprise, since hardware sales have been up year-on-year since the PS3 and Xbox One launched last November. That’s translating to across-the-board gains in hardware, software and accessories, which combined were up 3 percent year-on-year.

NPD confirms that both the PS4 and Xbox One are setting records: add both systems together through their preliminary five months of availability and you’re talking twice the sales of the PS3 and Xbox 360 for the same period. What’s more, if you run the same figure for retail software sales, combined PS4 and Xbox One software is up some 60 percent.

This sort of momentum’s never forever, but to all the naysayers who said this next generation of game consoles was going to flop, at least for now, crow’s still very much on the menu.

Sony hasn’t put up a blog post or dropped a press release yet, but fired this off through the PlayStation twitter account:

Microsoft hasn’t manned the Twitter-cannon yet, but did offer more granular figures in an email, noting that it sold 311,000 Xbox Ones in the U.S. in March (60 percent higher sales than the Xbox 360 for the same period — forget the PS4, who can argue with that?), that it sold 111,000 Xbox 360s for March (holding the top seventh-gen console spot) and that it’s seeing attachment sales of nearly 3 games per Xbox One console sold.

TIME Video Games

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Won’t Swing onto Xbox One at First — Will It Ever?

Activision

Activision says it's working with Microsoft to get the game released, but it's also pulled the Xbox One logo from the game's official website.

File this under nightmare public relations debacles happening right before a major multi-platform game associated with one of Marvel’s oldest and dearest properties is due out in tandem with one of the spring’s biggest films: For reasons unknown, Activision has officially and indefinitely postponed the release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 on Xbox One.

“We are working with Microsoft in an effort to release The Amazing Spider-Man 2 video game on Xbox One,” an Activision spokesperson told Eurogamer. “Currently, the game will be available on PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii U, Nintendo 3DS and the PC on 2nd May, 2014 as previously announced.”

This would be something of a first. It’s certainly the case, historically speaking, that platforms are skipped in multi-platform lineups, whether because the platform isn’t popular enough, or it’s simply not capable enough (Nintendo’s Wii U being the most recent and prime example). But delaying one of two premium versions of a multi-platform game based on a triple-A character and film franchise (the movie launched internationally yesterday, and hits the U.S. on May 2) we’ve all been expecting for months? On a system that’s by all accounts selling quite well? At the eleventh hour?

Something’s clearly amiss. It’s no secret that developers have been struggling to get the Xbox One to match Sony’s PlayStation 4 when it comes to render scales and frame rates. Did developer Beenox swim in over its head? Is the game underperforming? Or are there Xbox One-specific features too unfinished at this point to allow the game to launch with its peers? On the game’s official website, the Xbox One version has been removed, which is generally not what you do if you’re simply delaying something’s release date.

It’s hard to imagine Beenox not releasing a version of the game for Microsoft’s flagship gaming console, but who knows: launching movie tie-ins in the vicinity of the movies they’re based on is a big deal. Missing that date, and depending how critics and consumers react to the game itself, the prospects sound iffy. If the game does poorly (the film’s already getting mixed reviews), it’s hard to imagine Activision (it owns Beenox) pumping a ton of money into the Xbox One version to finish it up.

And like anything, even if The Amazing Spider-Man 2 missing Xbox One turns out to be a blip from a sales standpoint, it could do longer-term damage to perceptions about the Xbox One — rightly or wrongly — from a public relations one.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser