Having a 13' macbook and a 6-year-old Dell desktop means I'm not exactly in a prime position to play Starcraft 2. My Dell does technically run it with everything turned all the way down, but when multiple armies start amassing and running into each other the game becomes a slide show. Still very playable for the most part, but obviously not the ideal way to experience one of the best real time strategy games in years. This wouldn't be so bad if all I had was my desktop and macbook, but I don't. I own a PS3 and a 360 (and a Wii... but that doesn't really matter.) I thought Activison liked money, so where's the console version of Starcraft 2? Many would scream blasphemy at the very idea, but it makes perfect sense from a technical and even business standpoint.

Crazier things have happened on the consoles this generation, Unreal Tournament 3 on the PS3 is a perfect example. The Unreal series had made forays into the console market before, but the experiences were always compromised to some degree. With Unreal Tournament 3 Epic looked at the PS3, said "hey, we can basically make this exact same game on the console if we wanted," and they did. Keyboard and mouse support was added in, as was support for mods, which at the time seemed totally crazy. Now, as far as I see it, the only thing that is crazy is the fact more developers don't follow in Epic's footsteps. If it can be done, then why not?

A port is all that would be needed; adding in controller support shouldn't even be an option, make the mouse and keyboard required. Coming in part from Activison, the company that requires you to own a plethora of fake plastic instruments to play any of their music games, one would assume they wouldn’t have a problem with this. (The argument can be made that you could very well play Guitar Hero with a controller, but that argument is one devised by crazy people.) Expecting people to have a USB keyboard and a USB mouse is not irregular, its basically common place in most homes that already have a desktop PC. Getting this to work on the 360 could be a challenge with Microsoft's stance on not letting developers take advantage of mouse and keyboard support, but let them know that Starcraft 2 will be a PS3 exclusive... and we'll see how quickly that changes. Allowing 360 users to make custom maps (and mods) would be a much larger challenge, though there's no technical reason why it can't be done. If Microsoft doesn't budge... bring it to the PS3 only where users can have as close to a PC experience as humanly possible.

There's literally no technical reason why Starcraft 2 can't come to consoles. On the business end, it actually makes even more sense... assuming Blizzard and Activison likes money (they do.) One could say that they will make "enough" money on the PC version, and who am I to argue? 1.5 million copies worldwide at the time of this writing isn't just big, it's huge. Starcraft 2 is the fastest selling strategy game... ever. However with an opportunity to go above and beyond that with a console release, why not give it a shot? Blizzard was more than willing to try putting Starcraft on the N64 and Diablo on the PSX back in the day. This was when the consoles were significantly weaker then the PC, and there was no real chance anyone would have a mouse and keyboard. Now consoles can actually compete in the power department, and even support proper PC controls, and now Blizzard doesn't feel like making a console version? Looking at it from a historical perspective, you would think they would of given it one more solid shot since now those games can actually play the way they're meant too. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe Blizzard doesn't like money? Or they feel like they're making "enough" money? For a company that's owned by the people that brought you $15 dollar map packs and plastic instruments (and skateboards) that can cost you a up to and beyond a hundred bucks, I sincerely doubt they feel like they've made "enough."

I have the flag. I took down three Warhawks single handedly, hopped out of the burning wreckage that used to be my own flying machine, and took out a tank with an RPG, alone, to get this far... but now what?

"Hey, guys, I have their flag, someone wanna send a hawk over here and pick me up? The skies are pretty clear for the most part."
-silence-
"I'll settle for a jeep..."
-silence-
"God dammit."

Tell me this doesn't sound familiar. It seems like 11 times out of 10 it's a voiceless empty void in most PSN games. Warhawk, Soul Calibur IV, Team Fortress 2, silence. Okay, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration. I have run into people that talk, every once in a while. But it's rarely ever to, you know, strategize, and that's okay I'm all for trash talking, really, when you kick some ass you want that fact to be known... especially to the guy who's ass you just kicked. It could get annoying, sure, but it's one of the main differences instead of playing against an AI. I just wonder... if the PSN is free, couldn't you use that money you're not spending on a decent headset?

Maybe it's because people can just hop online whenever they want, dick around and do whatever, with no worries about commitment. After all, they didn't pay a monthly fee for this, no pressure.

While this sounds great and everything, the lack of a mic severely hampers many games playability. Why bother even hopping online with Soul Calibur IV when I can fight emotionless, cheap, and downright annoying characters offline against the CPU, and I don't even have to worry about lag! This might sound strange, but after playing Soul Calibur on the 360 and also playing it on the PS3, I couldn't go back the PS3 (even if the 360 D-pad is borderline broken on the 360), at least the online mode. It was just... so boring, no personality. I WANTED people to talk shit. I know, it sounds weird. But when you're so used to something like that and it's suddenly taken away... it's noticeable. Like in Tom and Jerry, if Jerry was ever killed in a mouse trap, Tom would finally get his peace and quiet... but some part of him would die with Jerry.

Okay, you get the picture.

Games like Warhawk, or Rainbow Six: Vegas use voice for shit talking, yes, but it's main focus is for strategy. Call for help, ask people if they need help, plan weapon layouts, stuff like that. It's essential, it makes or breaks your team. Well organized squad? Or a heavily armed mob with the combined intelligence of a acorn? A hard choice I know, but think it over for a minute.

The Socom: Confrontation is nearly out, and judging from the beta it's pretty good. It's got some bugs... and it doesn't really look... what's the word I'm looking for... "next gen." But, what the Socom fans were saying was true, the gameplay does make the difference. On top of which, people were talking! A lot! Actually for the first time ever, people with mics were outnumbering the people without mics. Madness?! Yes, indeed. But welcomed madness. My squad mates were using tactics, covering each other, doing stuff that I found terribly surprising but far from unwelcome. Now I know this is a limited beta, for people that pre-ordered the game. I have a hunch, that many (if not damn near all) of them had played a Socom game before on the PS2, and are using the very same headset. In addition, one of the packaged versions of the game is coming with Sony's wireless headset for only 59.99. A damn good deal, considering the headset alone costs 50 bucks, and the game alone costs 40.

Though they did that whole headset thing with Warhawk... and well we saw how well that's be going.

Never the less, I remain optimistic. The more people playing Socom, means more people talking on the PSN in general. With Socom coming out extremely soon, we're not gonna have to wait long to find out. I wonder if having this game (and Warhawk before it) actually hurt its online community? Either way those that play Socom and get the mic will trickle outward onto other games (I hope), and Sony's official headset will help standardize everything a bit. With all this combined, I really do see things looking up for the whole vocal community. The PSN is a great service thus far, especially for the price. It will definitely take a bit more work, from the players, and Sony, but there is a bright light shining at the end of that tunnel. I think. Never the less, because the console doesn't actually come with a headset like the majority of 360's it's got a long way to go till it catches up to the Xbox's service, at least in terms of player communication... But it sure beats the shit out of the Wii's.