On demand movie and TV streaming service, Blinkbox, has now been optimised for the PS3, meaning console owners have an alternative place to watch things through their console that will adjust to their screen accordingly.

The service offers a range of TV shows and movies that you can rent or buy for your viewing pleasure, as well as a number of free to view videos that are subsidised through adverts.

Earlier this month, Michael Comish, CEO of Blinkbox, said: “The PS3 is the first of a number of devices to which we will be bringing Blinkbox, enabling customers to use our service on their TVs for instant streaming of new blockbuster movies – available on the same day as their release on DVD – as well as a growing library of free ad-supported titles.”

The service has been optimised for the PS3’s browser and gamepad so it should be a smooth experience to use and easy enough to navigate.

Source: News tip from half_empty80

Attempting to explore the literary potential of "interactive entertainment" versus cinema.

I have grown bored with conventional cinema. It isn’t because it’s the same story again and again. It isn’t because I think the actors’ personal lives seem to be bigger than their line of work. It isn’t anything like that. It’s because after a century of work, the industry seems to have done all it can do.

Movies are unarguably one of the biggest influences on our culture ever. We spew out catchphrases and emulate the big screen heroes whether we know it or not.

Film grew from other mediums, such as theatre. It brought plays to the masses at a relatively cheap price, and held our attention for what feels like forever. Excluding purists (of which there are millions), cinema rendered a more traditional medium all but obsolete. The question is, when might video games extend beyond what they are today, and make film all but obscure and cult?

Video games have fought for the past 30 years to be considered more than just a simple “child’s play-thing.” To many, they are still all bleeps and bloops, but the industry is trying valiantly to maintain a balance of both classic arcade and independent titles designed to relive nostalgia, and fully-produced ‘AAA’ releases by developers who can afford to sling money around as if it were as plentiful as trans-fats and corn syrup.

This current run of consoles is almost like a renaissance of sorts. The industry has been able to build on the footprints from previous generations’ “mature” titles which seemed to have an identity crisis. Realizing that kids who grew up in the 1980s were now in their 20s, developers attempted to attract the market with games that were brutal, violent, and all in all, unrefined. The idea was that you could differentiate gaming from being a toy by marketing themes of excursiveness.

It can be argued; but speaking frankly, it didn’t work. The media convinced the mainstream that games were now ultra-violent kids toys. Despite this, the industry began to thrive to the point where it was now generating more profit than its nearest competitor, the film industry. Give credit to shock and awe tactics.

The game industry began to attract the eyes of many respected members of other mediums in a positive light. Suddenly, it seemed that everyone and their mother was somehow involved with every second game. Mark Ecko, Steven Spielberg, and John Woo were some of the early adopters, and that isn’t even taking into account the countless actors clambering to add voices and motion capturing to notable releases.

Overnight, the games industry decided it wanted a more cinematic approach to both gameplay and storytelling. Film has moved people for decades, and the proof is in the pudding: it works.

With these newest additions, games began to follow the same formula they have been using for 20 plus years. Namely, handing the player a mostly linear narrative where the user played the action sequences, but watched the story.

Baulder's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and finally, Dragon Age:Origins

Games had tried to change this, and they will be revered as classics collected in museums. In particular, the Baulder’s Gate franchise attempted to capitalize on the Dungeons And Dragons formula- a game often considered to be role playing in its purest form limited only by your imagination and schedule. The results were this: foundations for extreme story alteration by the user became available.

More recently, Baulder’s Gate developer BioWare (owned by Electronic Arts), was able to craft what Critical Gamer has called the “Next generation of choose your own adventure.” Formulae that were developed 15 years ago had been nearly perfected in 2010. What were once limited to minor character interactions and ethical choices were expanded to a degree that made you feel as if you actually were the character you had crafted.

Sandbox games have been actualized for a full decade or more now. You’ve had the ability to travel anywhere in the game world you’ve wanted before. But now you have the chance to manipulate not just key story moments, but minor ones as well. For example, Mass Effect 2 gave users the chance to carry over saved data from the game’s predecessor and have it affect your newest playthrough in ME2. One specific point was dealing with an all-too-nosey journalist in the original, who you could interact with in the sequel. Personally, I punched her in the face. It felt good (though it is impossible to condone violence to, erhm, chicks. Or reporters, for that matter).

By the time Mass Effect 2 was released, you were no longer just playing the action sequences, you were deeply affecting its narrative aspects as well.

There are always limitations, however. Stories are not only hard to write, but they take time. Lots of it. Mass Effect 2 was penned by 2 writers, Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters, and it is said that they worked on it, well, longer than any one mortal can imagine. Take into account storytelling, and then multiply it by programming and technical development processes. Suddenly, something that took 2 years to write took another 2 years to digitize.

There we have it. I simply prefer games to cinema for the interactivity. For ages I was able to hold both on the same plateau and divide my time evenly between the two, championing them both. Times have changed, and it is hard to see movies as something that can compete with the recent releases of today, or the titles of tomorrow. Cinema seems to exhaust every idea available to them. They have milked celebrities to the brink, and have to rely on gimmicks entirely to bring back audiences once lost who might not know any better. Sure, movies are using 3D technologies right now, but honestly, it feels more like an last ditch effort, rather than something evolutionary.

Games will utilize this gadgetry because it feels like a natural progression, not because they need it to survive. 3D does not immerse you in film, it merely makes you revel in it. In games, however, it allows one more depth of field. Games will be able to move in any potential angle, and not just in a narrative sense.

The same idea goes to many celebrity voiceovers, wherein if you know it’s Will Smith voicing a small fish, you’re going to focus on the voice of Mr. Smith, not the voice of the character he is playing.

To clarify, it would be hard to see cinema falling to the wayside. After all, print media took a steep nose dive in the last decade as well, but it eventually fought back and took back a share of what it had lost years prior. The comics industry is doing the best it has since the early 90′s, and remarkably, much of their current success is because of another medium this particular article is trying to market as obsolete.

The current generation of console hardware brought us adult-themed game releases and has advanced itself enough with titles like Heavy Rain from developer Quantic Dream, and the previously referenced BioWare releases, to establish itself as a completely engrossing medium-so much so, in fact, that critics debate whether or not “game” is really an appropriate genre term any more. Many journalists have taken to calling the art “interactive media,” though the reasons for doing this seems slightly suspect. Arguably, the idea sounds like an immature attempt to distinguish your passion to the “big kids.”

Cinema has pushed itself to the brink, all mediums eventually do. There comes a point where there might not be much left to do, though successful films such as Duncan Jones’ Moon makes a run for the money.

Is the Eastern influenced narrative all but extinct in the wild, wild west?

In 20-odd years, when publishers can give developers $600,000,000 to make a piece of interactive media, then maybe- just maybe- we can revel in an ever expanding world where your warrior elf gets sidetracked by what her pants want her to do and she manages to get impregnated by a lowly male servant. You then bypass saving the world and start a life as a shoe cobbler in an outer rim planet. Keep in mind, you were supposed to save the day by killing a giant space hooker.

Until then, there are placed limitations from technology, money, man power or whatever else. Though the fact that we live in a world where we can destroy almost anything in any sense of the word and have that choice cause dramatic effects in that universe is a good, comfortable starting point.

What causes violence? If you are a fan of George Lucas then you know that ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, and anger to violence. I ask this as currently we are going through the yearly attack on gaming, largely caused by Modern Warfare 2; but most probably an attack which would have attached itself to another game had MW2 not been released. It’s the time of year when everyone wants a game and hence gaming is big. It used to be films which were attacked at this time of year, but hey, compared to games they are so small fry.

It's the fault of these guys. If only they had gone by Easyjet and left the guns at home. Stag parties are getting too complicated these days.

Now whenever I see a news report discussing evidence of how games might make a player violent, I see quotes relating to how those who play games demonstrate increased adrenalin and hence are ‘pumped up’. I can accept that. I can also accept that the same symptom might be displayed by those watching or taking part in football, rugby, boxing, X-Factor, Crufts, ballroom dancing, viewing the news, horse racing, motor sports and, for those who get a kick out of it, fishing.

Are we suggesting we ban those? Of course those commentators who are either stupid or just set out to be, might argue that their point is that only games have you committing acts of violence. I would point out that the violence though has to be triggered through some kind of condition or state of mind. Adrenalin is an indicator normally associated with such a situation. There is little evidence out there of players actually going to commit violence having just played a game. The research instead relies on indicators which might lead to violence, such as adrenaline. Well doesn’t that mean many activities have the potential to turn quiet, peace loving individuals into maniacs?!

In a month where six pupils at a school almost poisoned themselves for copying a plot line from the the pre-watershed BBC drama Waterloo Road, it’s amazing that the industry that got attacked was gaming! Now Waterloo Road is popular, but in the big scheme of things many more millions of young and old people are gaming than watching Waterloo Road. I would suggest that perhaps gaming is less dangerous compared to other activities such as watching EastEnders, Coronation Street, or possibly Countdown. It’s certainly worth examining on that level – i.e. looking at its effect on behaviour proportionally to the amount of gaming content consumed.

What is even more amazing is that the media have no problem with allowing lies about games being circulated. They seem to feel that it is fair game to drop all journalistic training and principles when it comes to attacking gaming. Hence, we see repeated quotes about how MW2 allows you to play as a terrorist – most shockingly played out on Fox TV. For those that have not played the game I have something to say. No you cannot!! You play a CIA operative embedded into a terrorist cell. You witness an attack and, if you feel it’s part of the character, can take part in a massacre; but ultimately you are a bystander to such an attack with limited control over the game at that point. It is crucial to the plot and at the end (spoiler alert) you yourself are then shot dead. It’s dramatic and has been seen in countless movies before. So why the problem now? You even get the choice to skip the scene – ever been offered that by a TV show or movie?

Now this isn't potentially violent at all? He is actually a member of the National Association of Local Butchers

Perhaps it’s because we call them games? Games are meant to be fun, and for children – right? That’s another lie the media propagate of course. They continually allow commentators to remind us that most people buying or playing the games are children. For sure, some are – but most people playing these games are 18 or above, and many are 25 years plus.

In the USA we hear people say that even if a game is bought by and for an adult, if there is a child in the house then they are sure to gain access and play it. Perhaps they are right. However, if they are, perhaps they should start by not keeping handguns in their house! I’m thinking (and correct me if you feel I’m missing something here) that this may be a more immediate and dangerous problem. And you know, you can even lock out your kids from your console very, very easily if you choose to.

I’m not saying there are not games out there with bad taste, nor am I suggesting there should not be age limits or even some games banned. If you can ban a film, then you should be able to ban a game. However, there should be parity between the art forms. In the UK the BBFC initially banned Manhunt 2 and fought to try to stop it being released. Why?

Now, apart from the pictures of men in masks holding guns AND this picture of a fist, what actually IS there on the packaging to alert parents to the fact that some games might contain shooting and violence?

Their own research concluded that players do not think that events in a game are real. We no more think we are really scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup than we think that we too have three heads and live on the planet Zog whilst playing a fantasy game. Indeed, they found that the fact they are interactive and we have to push buttons often brings us out of the drama and narrative, reminding us they are only games. This is something movies cannot do, and we can get lost in them and become ‘pumped up’ in a sustained way without having a release until the end of the film. So, why oh why, when it comes to violent games, suddenly all that research goes out of the window? What is the logic and reasoning for this? When films like SAW and Hostel are released, why then fight to ban Manhunt? Are the individuals in charge of these organisations stupid?

"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb!"

I don’t think they are. Well, I hope they aren’t anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are running scared. Those that are in the industry and those that are associated with it, such as the BBFC, still lack the self confidence to describe and communicate what gaming is to those that do not yet play them, as we do. This is a huge problem as it allows the issue to be hijacked by the Keith Vazs of this world. There are people, often important and influential people, who latch onto these issues without first thinking them through. People who, fuelled by their own ignorance, let their own emotions get carried away, eating away at their fear until they explode violently against an industry, artform and past-time which contributes greatly, in a positive way, to millions of people’s lives.

Maybe George Lucas had it right all along.