Microsoft E3 Press Conference

Microsoft's E3 Press Conference went down pretty much as expected. They threw games out there, lots of games. Everything they didn't' show at the XBOX One reveal was shown. They showed a lot of games that were new like RYSE: Son of Rome and Titanfall as well as old favourite like Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, a game we all knew was headed to XBox after Rising became the first Metal Gear game to crossover to Microsoft and become cross-platform. Then you've got the surprise announcements, like Killer Instinct returning this time to Xbox, which for Nintendo fanboys like myself serves as a bitter reminder of the fact that Nintendo has lost so much third party support. That being said even if it's not the same Rare that was at Nintendo, it's nice to see them reviving an old favourite once again, I look forward to smashing some skulls as Glacius. Or maybe I don't because the price point rolled around. $499...

And this is for a console that essentially bans used games and puts the power with the game publishers rather than the gamers themselves. The 24 online check in requirement and other DRM issues were not addressed at all in the conference, probably to their benefit or else they'd probably cause all kinds of issues. To be honest, had they just ditched the disc drive system, they might have avoided a lot of this hassle for themselves because that's essentially what they're doing, but discs are still around and I literally can't remember the last PC game I bought that had a disc, it's all steam or formerly Direct2Drive for me.

Now speaking as a person who before the reveal, wanted so badly to be excited for the next XBox and for their E3 presentation. I am not an XBox guy, I have never owned a Microsoft games console but I'm a PC user all the way, even a somewhat defender of Windows 8. I'd hoped the Xbox One would blow me away, and honestly, between the extortionate price point and the ban on used games, I feel I can't justify the purchase of their new console. I don't think I ever can unless they sort these issues out. The Microsoft Press Conference was solid for gamers, until you look behind the scenes a little more and realise that for all these great games, there are the huge flaws and issues in the Xbox One.

Perhaps for many Xbox Gamers, they don't care too much about that, they'd like to play the new Halo game that was announced, with no number or subtitle, we'll see how that goes down. But it's looking like the console will have a solid line up but it's a line up that for the most part, Sony will be able to compete with, match or even out do, we'll find out more soon enough.

Final Thoughts: A Solid Presentation of Games and Exclusives, but the $499 Price Point and the DRM issue still lurks over the Xbox One.

Conference Rating: 8/10 - GREAT***

*** Note the conference was great itself, but not enough to override what they'd said in the past, which at least they got out of the way early.

Pre-E3 Expo Thoughts

Just a short update this weekend. This week I will be at E3 Expo 2013, I'll get to see all the awesome new stuff Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft put out there, as well as see what else is in store. Will there be a new Zelda? A New Final Fantasy? Will Call of Duty: Dog Warfare be any good, or just yet another cash-in sequel by Activision and Infinity Ward. And perhaps most importantly, does the Xbox One actually play video games?

I'll be doing a three-day analysis at the end of each day, try and give you some impressions of what I get to play. Bearing in mind I am working at E3 this year for gaming website Screwattack.com, for whom I'll be editing many of their videos in the media room. However I'll try and give my best impressions, specifically relating to the major conferences, we have Sony and Microsoft dishing them out and Nintendo with their hour long Nintendo Direct trying to bring the conference less in a bombastic approach and a more... well direct one.

How will E3 go down this year, no idea. Everything seems pretty level this year, Sony and Microsoft have their new consoles coming up, Sony appearing to be in the lead here. They've shown off more games, though people seem to forget how bad their conference was in face of how disastrous the XBox Reveal was. Microsoft have be all about the games this year, tell us what is going to make someone like myself a person who has never owned an Xbox console before, buy one. What exclusives are you bringing to the table? The DRM thing is a real crap, so maybe they might sort something out there, but it's growing increasingly concerning that they won't be changing that any time soon and we'll all have to pay full price for used games, which frankly is BULLSHIT.

Sony on the other hand have shown off a few games, however they haven't shown off any heavy hitters really just the usual Sony stuff that we expect from them. When I saw the PS4... the presentation that is, I really hope they actually show the goddamn console this time, I was quite disappointed that all they showed off were games that had minute graphical enhancements and there was nothing new about the PS4. They've spoken about using the Vita in a similar way to the Wii U, but for someone to do that would cost them somewhere in excess nearly $1000 in all likely-hood. One thing they should emphasises is a worldwide price cut for the Vita and a massive push for cross-platform play. I love the idea that you can play one game on your PS3/PS4 then go play it on your Vita when you leave your house. The only problem is that you have to buy full copies of each. They've changed that for a couple of games but really they need to make it across all games, buy one copy get the other digitally free. Or buy the game digitally and you get the game on both handheld and home console.

Nintendo have to show off their big guns on the software side, with a very rough start to the Wii U, as an old-school fanboy I'm hoping they can pull something out of the hat. We're expecting Smash Bros, Mario, Zelda and hopefully a few surprises along the way. I'd hate to see their direct show off stuff we already knew was coming. I'd like to see some Mario Kart going on and perhaps most important for me, I want to see what Monolith Soft is working on, everyone keeps talking about Retro Studios... yeah, yeah Metroid Prime was a good game and DKC Returns was great too. But Xenoblade Chronicles was probably the best game on the Wii, and now Monolith Soft are bringing that kind of awesome RPG to the Wii U. What's coming up, I have no idea. But I'm very excited, let's just hope they don't flop like last year's conference, which started out so well and then completely lost steam by Nintendoland, which ironically has turned out to be one hell of a game.

How will things go down, it seems all companies need to focus on their games, with Nintendo probably a step behind because despite their one year jump on the others, they've not done much with it. Let's see how things go down, I'll see you guys and gals on Tuesday.

Cloud Atlas Thoughts

I finally saw Cloud Atlas today and found it both very interesting but also very confused film that I don't think ever really hit its mark. I think it's a movie that is trying to tell us about the human condition and our existence, but when you're telling a SciFi movie like that, you really must make sure your audience does actually understand your meaning, otherwise it can come off as random incoherent babbling. Sadly Cloud Atlas, though commendable for trying to be intelligent SciFi and more than just another explosive movie, feels like it is heading for this big crescendo revelation that it never quite happens.
I'm not really sure what story this movie was trying to tell. That we're all connected? I guess but that's kinda implied before you've even watched the movie.
Was it about souls, love, slavery, the afterlife?

I will admit I have not read the novel this was based on but I have heard that it was good. However, a work of art should stand on it's own, and while unlike many of my pompous contemporaries I find that some of the film adaptations are often better than the original source material. An example of this for me is the Lord of the Rings films, which I felt were far more succinct and felt stronger in overall narrative than the books. Those films did not need any "homework" to understand the movie and Cloud Atlas should be no different. In the end I was very confused by the movie and that's not a good sign. Any one of the stories in the movie would have actually worked very well as singular movies, but even with the 3 hour runtime none of them quite get the development they need and instead it all comes off as an incoherent mess. Any of these stories would have worked better than the whole in the end. Because there is no truly tying thread to it all, nothing that would make an audience member say "Ah riiiight I get it now" this is what it's all been about.

In many ways it has a similar problem that I feel Game of Thrones has too, but where that show succeeds in many ways because of the length and uniting threads of the story. Instead in the end the movie gets lost in its own mythos, unable to have a single theme and trying to tell multiple ones about our existence with nothing to tie them together except perhaps that they're all human experiences. But that's not enough in the end and the movie just doesn't work overall.

I have a theory about movies, they should get better every time you watch them, but at the same time they should get their point across and their general message on the first viewings the rest is in the details. On this part Cloud Atlas fails, and quite miserably so.

 It's a shame really because ever since films like Inception,  I'd hoped intelligent but interesting mainstream SciFi was making a comeback. When I'd heard about this fascinating jaunt through time by the creators of The Matrix, I'd hoped that something might come out of this that would be awesome, instead we got this, a movie that I'm sure made perfect sense in the minds of its creators but was a complete convoluted mess on the screen in the end. What was its meaning? I have no idea, it's clearly trying to convey a multitude of them but as such loses its focus and basically just says "Hey, um... Reincarnation!" without really stating its implications or what this story is trying to tell us.

In Defence of Kickstarter

There has been this misconception in the media that Kickstarter has become a haven for con artists, or worse rich people who have the money and contacts to do something about it but choose not to and would rather get money for free. Specifically the later since the Veronica Mars movie got funded and Zach Braff's second directorial feature "Wish I Was Here" also reached its goal. A lot of people have been saying that Kickstarter should be only for the desperate, those who can't rally the funds together to get their project made but that once you are making money, forget about it. Well, speaking as one of those desperate people who used Kickstarter to raise $30,000 for my web series MY LIFE AS A VIDEO GAME, I can safely say, that the people who say that... Really don't get that Kickstarter is about something more than that. Perhaps more important, it's certainly not a con.

Lets go back a few years, for starters to look at Anita Sarkeesians project "Women vs Tropes in Video Games", many people called her out as being a con artist because she raised over $150,000 for her project, a project that could have been done on a lot less... Like say, the $6000 she  asked for. People often forget that fact when criticising her and her campaign. She never asked for all the money that was contributed, she in fact only asked for a small sum, but people saw the merit in her argument, and the points she wanted to make. I also saw much of the merit, even if I do disagree with many of her points in her final product; her overall argument is a very valid one that even if I didn't agree with it, I would respect. People contributed money to her campaign because they believed in her cause. She not once turned around and said "Hey... Umm I actually need bazillion dollars for a million foot high green screen." She was very gracious as anyone should be for the funding she received. But more than giving her money, it gave her a following and community, good and bad... More on that in a bit.

Fast forward to more recent history and other campaigns. VGHS: Video Game High School raised over $270,000 for its first season. But like many projects even though they only asked for $75,000 they received a whole lot more. But also like many projects,  they either went over budget or Kickstarter was just the beginning of their funds. A way to Lo and behold; Kickstart their project into existence. The eventual budget for season one was $636,010, over double the Kickstarter investment. They invested a lot of their own money for sure, they had sponsorship deals etc. Now I've not looked into this too much, but I'm sure if you asked the team at Rocket Jump, what people had said, I'm sure you'd get trolls saying things like "Why did you go so over budget..." Or "What could you possibly have spent so much money on?" Or even "Bullshit! You're just saying that for tax/bragging/because you took a lot of the money for yourself/insert some other shite reason here". How do I know these questions? Because even I have gotten them. My Life as a Video Game raised $32,314 in total. Not even 1/8 what VGHS season one raised (let alone their record breaking season two campaign). And I STILL had detractors. 

But here's the kicker, I know what it's like for the Rocket Jump team because my own project wasn't entirely funded by Kickstarter either. I have invested to date a lot of money and I estimate I'll put in a lot more by the time the first season of this project is complete. This is money I have borrowed, or had to sell my car to get. While I am immensely grateful for the Kickstarter money it didn't cover all of it. And that's what a lot of people have failed to realise is that Kickstarter even when you reach your goal, is often just the beginning, even with money you will likely have to invest yourself too, there is the stress, the egos, the rage and the overall hell that comes with making a huge project like VGHS or My Life as a Video Game. The same knowledge can be said for even bigger Kickstarter projects like Veronica Mars or Zach Braff's Wish I Was Here, both of which will undoubtably require additional funding and heartache, blood, sweat and tears to be made.

Then there are those such as Ken Levine, who said in his own blog, that people will contribute their money to projects like Braff's or Veronica Mars instead of projects like mine. That's simply not true, for starters Kickstarter projects had more funding during the time Braff had his up than ever before. And no where is it mutually exclusive that you must contribute to one and not contribute to another. Now Levine, though a talented writer that he is and I'll always give props to one of my own, has clearly no clue what he's talking about on this subject. Yes, Hollywood will always try and take advantage of things, but that's the problem isn't it? That's why Kickstarter funds projects like my own, because when people do get involved when money-men get too involved in projects they want their say, studios want things done their way. Instead people like Braff and myself have gone on the record that we want this to be a community project, funded by a community that a community can follow and bring other people into the community. It doesn't defeat the purpose of Kickstarter and it never has, Levine has clearly never done a Kickstarter, so he has clearly no idea what goes into one. He says "support a Veronica Mars movie by buying ten tickets to it". Well without Kickstarter, without fans saying they want want and proving it so by helping make it possible there would be no movie to buy tickets for. And it's not like fans are conned out their money here, they offer it, and they've done it in the past long before Kickstarter was even around. Fans tried to bring back Star Trek: Enterprise for a fifth season raising over $1 million back in 2005 long before Kickstarter existed and a mere few months after YouTube was founded. For Veronica Mars, Rob Thomas came up with the idea because Warner Bros turned it down, but agreed to license it and give them money should they reach their goal and prove it's a viable movie. If anything projects like Veronica Mars and Zach Braff's Wish I Was Here, bring attention to Kickstarter and to other projects like mine. I won't deny there are dangers but the reaction is honestly actually a little insulting to me. Let people use their money in whatever way they see fit. Not to mention this isn't a charity drive, people are getting their returns, as I write this I'm in the process of sending out personal thank you songs, t-shirts and posters to my own backers.

And in spite of this, I'd go as far as to say Kickstarter is about far more than just money. Money can be gained from investors, from studios, billionaires who are drunk. But people like Zach Braff, Freddie Wong, Anita Sarkeesian and myself, went to Kickstarter for more than just money. This is about creating a community, getting people invested (quite literally in some cases) in your project. It also proves that people believe in you. People get back things from Kickstarter in the form of rewards, and they are helping people realise a dream. Together they become a community, they get updated on the project, they get told more and more about it and become invested in seeing things get made. I have backed a number of projects myself, including Braff's, VGHS Season 2 and ScrewAttack Gaming Convention's return. I am a part of those communities now. Kickstarter brings people together as a part of a project. I had very few fans and/or subscribers when My Life as a Video Game was launched on Kickstarter, when Brent told everyone about it, his fanbase came to the Kickstarter and it grew, more and more people joined the Facebook page. Over 4,000 of them are now on the Facebook page. Of whom only a small percentage are Brent's fans. This is thanks to Kickstarter a lot, because even though our fans came from one place they became our fans, they became our supporters and many more joined us.

Kickstarter is near and dear to my heart because without Kickstarter I'd have no community, no project and probably nothing that good going for me in my professional life. Because My Life as a Video Game and Leon Films, my company that produced it, are my full time job now and wouldn't exist without Kickstarter, without the community and the help they've provided financial being only part of it. I've had people who were fans, who came to help on set when we were desperate. We've had people send us encouraging messages which really have pushed me up when I felt down and like the weight of this project was going to crush me.

So to all who contributed and continue to, thank you. I believe in Kickstarter and I believe in those who help us create awesome shit in doing so, in spite of those who would hurl insult and berate. Kickstarter has helped hundreds of people, I'm just one of them. May they continue to help many more.

Why John Hurt Is Isn't The 9th Doctor

So, SPOILER ALERT, John Hurt will be appearing in Doctor Who's 50th Anniversary after the ending of The Name of The Doctor aired last week. He will he be playing "The Doctor" apparently and the main question everyone is asking is; which Doctor? Is it a past or future one. The main theory running around is that he's a Doctor between Paul McGann's Eighth and Christopher Eccleston's Ninth Doctors. The problem a lot of people have with this is that it supposedly bumps Eccleston to Ten and, Tennant to Eleven and Smith to Twelve. Well, I'll tell you why that's not the case and why John Hurt is not even playing The Doctor in the first place.

Now obviously this is just speculation on my part but I think it's pretty sound and I'm actually a little surprised that people haven't spotted this yet because it's right there in plain sight in the dialogue of Hurt's introductory scene from The Name of The Doctor. He is the same man as The Doctor, the man whose name we don't know and probably never will, specifically because to The Doctor that's not his name, his name is the one he chose, as "A Promise" that he made to himself. He is The Doctor. But John Hurt's character is the one who broke that Promise. "I said he was me, I never said he was The Doctor". John Hurt's character may have been introduced as "The Doctor" but that was just to add suspense, intrigue and above all else, simplicity. When you break the promise you have set for yourself, like say for example committing the mass genocide of your own people and another equally as advanced but deadly race, destroying your home planet and locking the Time War so that it can never be reversed or prevented, a move that while breaking the promise of the man who helps people, was necessary  and done in the name of "peace and sanity" but "not in the name of The Doctor".

As you can see, this might be the same man from Gallifrey who flies around in a TARDIS with the camouflage being a Blue Police Box, he is the same being who has done all the amazing things we've seen, all the amazing things we haven't, and all the amazing things he's yet to do... but he is not The Doctor. He broke the promise and as such foresaked the name. Every time they have shown images of the previous Doctors, or shown images of them he is not there. He is not there because he is not The Doctor, the Eleven Doctors until now do not count him as such and likely, he does not count himself as one of The Doctors. He regenerated into The Doctor and from The Doctor but he was not The Doctor. As such when you say who The Doctor is, he is not counted among them. What he did, likely the events that ended the Time War and probably more things during the war to fight the Daleks, are not the actions of the man who would be The Doctor, they're the actions of a man who would break the promise to help people and would instead become a warrior, a soldier, even a villain. 

He is the part of same being we call The Doctor who would hate himself forever, always be the guilt that he carried from Eccleston's Ninth onwards, that might manifest itself as The Valeyard, The Dream Lord and other darker entities that will irrevocably change The Doctor forever. In fact, the show since it's 2005 relauch has had a darker and more sinister tone since the end of the Time War, since the events that Hurt's character likely created. The sinister actions that now weigh heavy on The Doctor, a man who twice chose not to annihilate entire races. "A Coward Every Time" he called himself in The Parting of Ways, because The Doctor would never commit an act. This is why John Hurt's character, is not The Doctor, he may be the same entity, but he is not a man who takes the name, he broke the promise.

What I Would Have Changed: New Super Mario Bros. U

It's no secret that right now the Wii U is struggling in sales, and while I don't believe that to be the case forever, I do think that it's certainly got a bit of an uphill battle compared to it's easy-to-understand predecessor. One of the main reasons for this is that the Wii U has yet to really demonstrate what it's potential is. Sure we've got Nintendoland, that while a fun game, serves little to show how a full-fleshed out game might be on this new console and more like a demo of neat tricks. There's ZombiU, an admittedly excellent game that brings the survival horror genre to new heights by being one of the most intense horror experiences since the original Resident Evil, but sadly that game hasn't really got mass appeal in the same way Mario does. Now let's look at Mario for a second, he has made his appearance on the Wii U in the form of New Super Mario Bros. U - A game that is the best 2D Platformer since Super Mario World for the SNES. However, could it have been even better, could it have surpassed World, or even my personal favourite Super Mario Bros. 3 for the NES? It wasn't helped that a handheld New Super Mario Bros. game came out precisely three months earlier for the Nintendo 3DS, a game that really until the cool new DLC packs came out was very lackluster compared to both it's Wii and Wii U cousins. Now while I don't think any massive improvements to NSMB. U are going to skyrocket the sales of the Wii U, I do think that in my Hindsight of 20:20, there are certain things I would have changed to at best, make the game a system seller.

WHAT I WOULD HAVE CHANGED"NEW SUPER MARIO BROS. U"

Rules:

As per usual with these blogs, here are the rules:

• I can only change things about New Super Mario Bros. U, I can't say "Don't release New Super Mario Bros. 2 for the 3DS, as that's unrelated to changing NSMB.U itself.
• The Game has to be recognizable as a NSMB game. I can't simply say "Make it 3D" which would change it completely

THE CHANGES

First and foremost in any game is the gameplay. 2D Mario gameplay is also great, so why mess with the formula...? Well, I'm not going to. The Gameplay in the game is pretty solid, but the problem with it is just that... It's the same. It's the same as NSMB. NSMB.Wii and NSMB.2 - it offers absolutely nothing new. If you were to show me the front covers and Standard Def stills of NSMB. Wii and NSMB. U; without any of the power-ups of specifically defining characteristics of either game. I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. Except for Wii is a red game case, and U is a blue one. So how am I changing the gameplay without changing the gameplay? Well, I'm not changing the core of the gameplay, I'm adding to it. How to do this? New Characters!

Characters

Perhaps it's just me and my friends but if you get stuck as Toad or worse, Toad-Clone, you're the butt-monkey of the group. Really? Does anyone actually like Toad... well some people do I guess... but in the entirety of nearly thirty years of Mario games are there not a few more characters you can play as. And to make matters worse, all the characters play exactly the same. Now Nintendo's rationale behind this is so that everyone gets the same experience... Well what you call "same experience" I call "dull and lazy". Why shouldn't Luigi get to jump higher like in Super Mario Bros. 2, for that matter, why isn't Princess Peach a character, make her able to glide. The ability to choose your character will get people to stop being Mario and play around a little, make the game a varied experience, as there were no power-ups in Mario 2, maybe now is the time to experiment with them a little, what if Luigi can jump EVEN higher with the Flying Squirrel power-up, or Peach's descent is longer than the rest now. What if Toad can fire up to three fireball/iceballs at once? Why stop at the Mario 2 characters, why not bring Wario into the mix with his unique dash ability only he has from the Wario Land games. What kind of unique power-up enhancements might he receive?

Power Ups

On the matter of Power-Ups, is it just me or are Nintendo running out of new ideas... Ice Mario, that's nice in a 2D game but isn't that great and we've seen it a few times now, a Flying Squirrell? Really? Well, if there are no new ideas, what about old ones. We've got the item menu right? Let's put it to good use like Mario 3. Where's my P-Wing, the Hammer Bros Suit, Frog Suit, all those rare interesting power-ups that made the game so much fun. I mean let's face it, wouldn't you want to see a badass Princess Peach hurling hammers at Goombas?

World Map

Onto the world map. It was a nice change to return to the continuous world map of Mario World's style... however I think it can be made better. There's a few times you can go different routes, but what if there were multiple routes through many levels that took you to different routes on the world map like in Mario World itself, routes that allowed you to access special levels and maybe find warp zones. It played with this idea a little but I'd really like to see it some more. Why stop at eight worlds, defy the norm create, ten, or twelve. In the handheld Mario Games it seems like many of the worlds are skippable easily and you only do half, the same in this game, you seem to choose the path of the worlds you want to do, so why not add more worlds to choose from, give us secret worlds like Star Road, the more content that ships with the game the more it'll feel like this is a brand new game and not yet another NSMB game.

Technology - Level Editor

Last but by no means least, we've just been given this brand new piece of tech in the Wii U GamePad and all you can think of is Off-TV play and creating blocks for people to jump on? Surely there should be more uses of the GamePad than that. What about a level-creator, how many times have you wanted to create your own Super Mario Bros. level but the technology of a normal controller was just all kinds of awkward for designing stuff, but with the GamePad, it becomes nice and smooth, like doing it on a PC or a Tablet. For that matter, this is the first Nintendo Console with solid online gameplay. While it's awesome to play this game in the same room as people, they needed to get consoles out the door, and no way is there better than "Hey, play this round mine... did you know we don't have to socially interact to play this awesome game!? Fuck yeah! Online Play!" Combine this with level-creation and Miiverse and you've got a vibrant community that would shit all over Little Big Planet and make NSMB.U, THE hot product to buy and play for the next generation. It would actually become a system seller. There's still time for a Level Editor, make a DLC to download and watch the money roll in... or dare it say it... watch it... Print in?

This is certainly something we're not likely to see any time soon...

So there you have it, the Mario series in general has always been pretty simplistic and I would never want to deviate from that, just to bring something new and interesting to it. This is not to say that the current game isn't great, it's a whole lot of fun and has a decent difficulty level, especially in the challenges that'll really put you to the test. But for now, this these are the changes I would have made to New Super Mario Bros. U

Five Reasons Why Online Video is Better than Regular TV

The title is pretty self-explanatory; online video is taking over, live regular TV is diminishing in ratings. With that in mind, here are five reasons why online video is better than regular television and why it's taking over.

1. Available to Watch; Anytime, Anywhere.

Regular television had this problem, it can only be watched at a specific time and then it's gone until it came out on video. There have been efforts to counteract this over the years, replays, VHS recording, TiVo, Sky+, DVRs, etc. But it still forced the viewer into restrictions set by the TV Network. With the advent of online video things were up and available to watch whenever you felt like it, and for the most part weren't going anywhere, thanks to the ad revenue system, people could be earning money any time and views can watch content any time.

2. No Wasted Hours of Programming

With so many people working all day, everyday, only "Primetime" shows were watched, three or so hours after 7pm for TV Networks to air their stuff when people could watch it. That left roughly seven eighths of the day almost completely wasted airtime, leading to some people being forced to miss their second favourite show when it clashed with their favourite. Now, they're online all the time, so they can be aired any time they want, as well as the fact that if something goes up in the middle if the day, it's always going to be viewable later when people get home from work to relax.

3. Content in the Hands of Creators

YouTube, Blip.tv, Vimeo e.t.c. all have the ability to upload videos with no oversight committee of assholes, who wouldn't know their head from their bell-end, saying "I want you to change this". Now people can put their content online with only their view count to determine if someone likes their content. It means talented people who have great, unconventional ideas that TV Network execs, who are completely out of touch with the viewing audience, would shoot down before they even reach the pitching phase. Combined with crowd funding sites like Kickstarter, bigger, better projects can be made with the help of a community. In the case of a web-series, their fate for another season lays in the hands of their fans and their fans alone.

4. User Interaction

Despite the fact that in YouTube comment boxes you can find the lowest forms of human scum and obnoxious drivel. Comment boxes provide a way for fans and creators to interact with each other on a level that simply wasn't available with regular television. Audiences can now talk about their favourite shows with each other and the creators can read and what they're talking about. Regular television simply can't do this without something like a forum or dedicated manner. It's the power of social media at its finest, people interacting online with each other.

5. Competition Becomes Collaboration

Maybe I'm being a bit of an optimist on this one but when there's no need for competition between shows as there is no longer a time slot system, what was once competition for ratings between shows now becomes collaboration between them. They help each other out, collaborate on various things and work together for their mutual benefit. Just look at this video here: REWIND YOUTUBE STYLE VIDEO. It's nothing but collaboration based on an Internet meme song by Korean Pop Star. Everyone benefits from it, just like when crossovers happen online, they only serve to bolster each others view count and rating. A system that was once about crushing the opposition and stealing their views, now has become system of mutual help and benefit to each other, a "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" system.

So those are my five reasons why online media is eclipsing traditional television. Take it or leave it, I hope one day I can look back on this and be proven right, but only time will tell.