For 1600 Microsoft Points ($20), gamers will get two DLC packs that will be made up of six multiplayer maps, two new multiplayer modes, and exclusive armor and weapon skins. Purchasers of the Season Pass will also get early access to new multiplayer maps.

In addition to this in-game content, Epic will be offering Season Pass subscribers a permanent multiplayer XP boost.

The junk-food extra XP tie-ins for shooters such as Halo were sketchy, but were limited by their physical nature and limited-time offers. Weekend XP bonuses don’t discriminate among players who don’t have extra cash to spend on DLC. Paying for this permanent double XP offer is, according to Epic, a way “to accelerate your ascent through the ranks.”

That’s the way Epic is promoting it, at least. Another way to look at it would be to say that players who don’t pony up a $20 tribute will only earn half XP.

True, extra XP in this case may not confer any winning advantages (unless you consider being a high rank winning), but regardless of whether Judgment‘s XP boost amounts to a pay-to-win scenario, it’s another in a long line of incremental DLC offers that are moving in that direction. While these types offerings are normal and accepted in low-cost mobile games and free-to-play games, seeing them pop up for AAA, $60 console titles is more than a bit disconcerting.

We’re excited to launch Epic’s official store and provide our loyal fans apparel and merchandise that they can’t find anywhere else,” said Kendall Boyd, Epic’s director of marketing for worldwide studios. “Our hope is to grow our brand via channels such as the Epic Store and celebrate all of our terrific intellectual properties with the community.”

Unfortunately, the Epic store is rather sparse at this point. Most of the merchandise is Gears of War-related, though there are a couple of Infinity Blade t-shirts, a Bulletstorm t-shirt, and an “Ultrakill” Unreal Tournament t-shirt. There is also a Jazz Jackrabbit t-shirt for old-school gamers or hipsters, and an Impossible Studios t-shirt for those who are excited by Epic’s newly-created development studio, crafted from the remnants of Big Huge Games.

In a statement today, Epic promised its new store will be “continually upgraded and expanded” and that they have “surprises planned for fans in the coming weeks or months.” Here’s hoping those surprises include Shadow Complex pint glasses, or Unreal Tournament LEGO sets.

This announcement comes just two months after design director Cliff Bleszinski announced that he would be leaving Epic. While the reason for Bleszinski’s departure was vague, Capps has a perfectly solid reason for handin off his presidential duties. From Capps’ announcement at the Inside Epic blog:

“If you haven’t heard, I have a baby boy on the way. I’m fortunate that with Epic’s success and generosity, I can be a stay at home dad for a while. My wife Julianne and I are very happy in Raleigh, and other than cleaning up baby barf, I don’t have much planned. I might do some teaching, spend more time on creative writing, and maybe get more active with a few charities.”

Capps revealed through his Twitter account that he will be celebrating his 10 years at epic with a suitably fancy wine:

Follow @epicactual

Mike Capps
@epicactual

The proper way to celebrate 10 yrs at @EpicGames with @MarkRein and Jim – a 10yr old Montrachet. Thx Mark! http://t.co/2fUS8BwQ

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
18 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone · powered by @socialditto

Capps emphasized that he isn’t just walking away from Epic, and will be available “as a resource to Epic, to provide context or advice where I can.” He also expressed his confidence that the remaining executives can handle the transition and business of running one of the most prestigious game studios in existance. From the blog:

Whatever I can do to help in Epic’s success, I’m in! I’ve got great confidence in our executive team – VP of Development Paul Meegan is new to our Raleigh HQ, but we’ve worked with him for years, and I can only contemplate this retirement knowing that he and VP of Operations John Farnsworth can manage development better than I ever did.

As much as Windows 8 has been bashed as a desktop operating system, it’s widely acknowledged that the platform is an excellent interface for tablet devices. And though Windows 8 desktop gaming might end up being a catastrophe, the mobile and tablet gaming experiences are beginning to look very nice. Even Windows 8 Phone gaming might be a blast, as just last week it was announced that the Unity engine will be supported on that platform.

Today Nvidia and Epic Games debuted a demonstration of Epic’s Unreal Engine 3 running on a Windows RT tablet. Windows RT is a version of Windows 8 that will run on ARM devices, such as tablets.

The demonstration seen below shows a short Unreal Engine 3 demo that is running on an Asus Vivo Tab RT, which has a Tegra 3 quad-core processor. The Nvidia labs handler states that the demo is running 30 to 40 frames per second. He also states that the full PC implementation of Unreal Engine 3 is running, meaning that developers should be able to import their games relatively easily.

“The Unreal Engine 3-powered ‘Epic Citadel’ demonstration for Windows RT tablets implements our full DirectX 9 pipeline, with shaders and materials, all running beautifully on Tegra 3,” said Mark Rein, vice president of Epic Games. “By porting the full engine as opposed to a modified mobile version, Nvidia and Epic have made it easy for UE3 developers around the world to bring their best content to Windows RT, Windows 8, and Nvidia’s Tegra 3 processor. Windows RT code is available to licensees from Epic now and we’re excited to see the great games they develop with it.”

It might not be long before gamers see tablet hardware good enough to run the slick-looking Unreal Engine 4, but, for now, the Unreal Engine 3 will certainly be setting a standard for tablet gaming.

Wait, what – Google’s claiming the right to design search results as it sees fit? Ruh-roh, nobody tell Rick Santorum that news.

paidContent explains Volokh’s report as such:

Search engine results are a form of opinion, says the report, in which companies offer information they think is most relevant to users.

In practice, this would mean Google has the right to punt sites like Yelp, which has complained that Google is a monopolist, to the search equivalent of Siberia if it decided that was best for users (Yelp now comes up second in a search for “restaurant review”).

The report goes on to relate cases in which media companies were sued for excluding access to information or producing inaccurate information. One involved a cable company unsuccessfully arguing that excluding certain channels was an exercise of the company’s free speech right – an example, Volokh argues, that does not mirror the situation with search engines.

According to paidContent, Google commissioned the report because it feels that “these issues were worth exploring in more depth by a noted First Amendment scholar.”

I’m sure Google finds such inspections to be of utmost concerning the company seems to have a regular appointment to butt up against the Federal Trade Commission with regard to how search results are produced to Google users. Last year, the FTC launched an investigation to find out whether Google “grants preferential placement on its website to its own products” that resulted in an antitrust hearing with the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust. It was at this hearing, as paidContent mentioned above, that Yelp delivered a testimony claiming that Google was engaging in anticompetitive business practices.

The way Google conjures search results drew more criticism earlier this year when the Electronic Privacy Information Center contemplated filing a complaint with the FTC when Google announced the “Search Plus Your World” feature.

With the completion of this report from a noted free speech legal scholar, Google appears to be circling the wagons around its right to manipulate search results . The debate over whether the government should be regulating Google’s search results has yawned throughout the year thus far, and, of course, Google believes it can reserve the right to alter search results.

In the end, Google maintains that if consumers aren’t happy with the search results, they can always use a competing search engine. However, if searches including only Google-approved results throttle competing search engines and therefore leave consumers with little to no choice other than to use Google, the company could face an antitrust lawsuit. The Justice Department would have to suspect that, somehow, Google’s search manipulation was not in the best interest for consumers before any lawsuit could be filed.

In an interview with The Hill, Volokh echoed Google’s argument, saying nobody was obligated to use Google if they don’t like the search results. “What can be said about Google can be said about newspapers, encyclopedias and a wide range of information sources,” he said.

So what do you think, should this issue fall under the free speech category or is it more of an antitrust issue? Do you think Google should be extended the same protections for free speech the way New York Times or CNN are afforded? Let us know what you think.

The game features some new aspects, along with some recurring points that made the original so good.

• It will be available for PS3 and XBox 360 for the first time; the first installment was for Wii exclusively.
• It will feature voice acting, something the original lacked.
• It is a musical featuring scores from Jim Dooley and Mike Himelstein.
• Since the first installment relied heavily on motion controls, the game will be compatible with the Playstation Move.
• Warren Spector returns as creative director.

Epic Mickey 2 will feature one of Disney’s very first creations, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. See him here in 20′s black and white glory:

An original drawing from this particular cartoon was released along with other promotional material at a special event today. The drawing had previously been kept in the Disney archives, and hasn’t seen the light of day in 40 years.

The rights to Oswald were lost by Disney in a 1928 contract dispute with Universal Studios. It wasn’t until 2006 that Disney got them back.

“It’s amazing,” said Warren Spector, creative director for Epic Mickey 2. “Everybody at Disney is so proud that he’s back. I’m no different. It’s just so exciting to be a part of bringing that character back into the world and to see people respond so affectionately toward him. Now, to have Mickey and Oswald brothers united to save the world, it’s unbelievable. I feel really privileged.”

Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two’s is expected to release sometime this fall.

Today, EPIC announced its plan for an emergency appeal of the decision, and is again pushing for a ruling by March 1st, when Google’s new privacy policy changes are set to update. Google announced in January that they were combining about 60 of their privacy policies into one, calling the idea a “beautifully simple, intuitive user experience across Google.” User accounts will be linked across Google products, and the privacy policy itself will be made easier to read and comprehend.

EPIC is concerned that the changes at Google will compromise users’ privacy, and that Google failed to comply with a consent order issued by the FTC. EPIC asserts that Google “chose not to answer many of the questions,” and failed to fully explain the impact on user privacy that will occur on March 1st. Still, the FTC is in charge here, which apparently really angers EPIC, with the group adding, “if the government is unaware that Google plans to make a substantial change in its business practices on March 1, 2012, it should turn on a computer connected to the Internet.”

>>> Check out WebProNews’ special page covering Google Privacy … updated live. Subscribe to the Google Privacy RSS feed too!

The complaint (PDF) declares that Soble uses Safari and “never disabled the privacy protection” that the browser comes with by default. The suit accuses Google of violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Electronic Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The suit is a class action suit filed on behalf of Soble and “all others similarly situated.” The suit asks for unspecified compensatory damages, plus interest, and legal fees for the plaintiff and all members of the class, and a permanent injuction preventing Google “from installing tracking cookies on users’ mobile phones or computer devices that could track the users’ information in violation of federal law.”

On Friday news broke that Google had been exploiting a loophole in the privacy settings of Apple’s Safari browser (both desktop and iOS versions) that allowed Google’s ads to set tracking cookies in the browser that then monitored the users’ web browsing activity. Google responded quickly to the news, saying that the original report had mischaracterized the situation. The workaround was only developed, Google said, because Apple had designed Safari to work differently than other browsers currently on the market. The workaround was only intended to “ascertain whether Safari users were also signed into Google, and had opted for” personalized advertising. The fact that the exploit also allowed Google’s ads to set tracking cookies, Google says, was a completely unintended side effect.

The situation has drawn massive amounts of attention from users, the media, and even U.S. lawmakers. On Monday representatives Edward J. Markey, Joe Barton, and Cliff Sterns sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission director Jon Leibowitz, asking the agency to investigate whether Google had violated a 2011 consent order concerning Google’s handling of private user data.

Google’s handling of private data has been very much in the news in recent weeks, as the announcement of a new unified privacy policy across all Google’s services created its own storm of controversy. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) went so far as to file suit against the FTC in order to compel the agency to block the privacy policy, scheduled to go into effect on March 1. Google responded quickly to the suit, accusing EPIC of being “wrong on the facts and the law.” In fact, as came to light later, Google had already submitted a report to the FTC detailing the new policy’s compliance with the order. The FTC, meanwhile, filed their own response on the same day the Safari news broke. In a motion to dismiss the case, the FTC argued that EPIC had no legal grounds to interfere in the FTC’s enforcement or non-enforcement of consent orders, and that the privacy watchdog’s suit was “baseless.”

Today, EPIC filed a response (PDF) of their own. Their response asserts that EPIC does indeed have the right “to challenge the FTC’s failure to act,” and that “the agency’s failure to act prior to March 1, 2012 would constitute irreparable injury.”

A request for comment was sent to Google this morning concerning the Safari lawsuit. Google responded with the same statement they issued last week when the news originally broke.

The court gave the FTC until February 17th to respond, a deadline which the agency just met. The FTC filed two separate documents: a memorandum of opposition (PDF) to the suit, and a motion to dismiss it (PDF). In the memorandum, the FTC asserts that the lawsuit “seeks to deprive the Commission fo the discression to exercise its enforcement authority,” that it “flouts controlling precedent that universally rejects such efforts,” and that as such “[t]his lawsuit is completely baseless.” The FTC also asserts that EPIC has no legal grounds for its attempt to compel the agency to enforce anything, as both law and judicial precedent leave all enforcement solely in the hands of the FTC.

It is worth noting that the FTC’s argument against EPIC does not discuss Google’s privacy policy at all. In responding to the suit, the FTC is not making any statements whatsoever about whether the privacy policy violates the 2011 consent order that EPIC claims it does. That leaves open the possibility that the FTC may yet pursue action against Google on that front. The day after EPIC filed suit, however, a document surfaced showing that Google had submitted a report to the FTC detailing the new privacy policy’s compliance with the consent order, which dealt with user privacy and was issued concerning Google Buzz.

According to the court order that expedited the suit, EPIC has until the 21st to issue its own reply to the FTC’s filings.

What do you think? Should EPIC really mind its own business here? Sound off in the comments.

The search giant said the main change for users would be that it could combine information from one service with its other services, thus providing a more fluid user experience. For example, if you conduct several searches on Google on a particular item, Google could assume that you want a video on that item if you then visit YouTube.

What do you think of Google’s new privacy policy? Does it affect you at all? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

According to Danny Sullivan, the Executive Editor of Search Engine Land, the new policy will provide users with more personalized results. He told us that it really wasn’t surprising that Google made the change since most other tech and Internet companies have one privacy policy for all their products and services.

“Google, which kind of has come from privacy policies on a per product basis, is kind of playing catch up, so that they have the ability to be more flexible both in what they may do with the information and how they may use the information to improve products and services,” he said.

This flexibility is what has some people worried, however. Under the new policy, Google could potentially take the information it gathers when users search to target them with ads. Although Google says it will not do this, the new policy gives it the right if it so chooses.

“Potentially, it gives Google a lot of new rights,” said Sullivan.

Privacy groups have voiced numerous concerns over what the new policy could mean. Specifically, the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC) has even sued the FTC, saying that Google’s new policy violates the settlement the company and the agency reached last year over Google Buzz. The group is asking the FTC to take action that will prevent Google from combining user data “without user content” before the company puts its new policy into effect next month.

Due to the timing of the matter, a federal district judge ordered the FTC to have its response to EPIC ready today. In return, EPIC is supposed to have its counter response ready by February 21.

EPIC also filed another complaint this week over the privacy assessments the FTC required Google to take. Google said it was complying with the audits but has, up to this point, kept them closed.

“I thought that if you’re going to be audited on privacy, then perhaps you ought to release the privacy audits so that… the public could see it,” said Sullivan.

EPIC claims that the FTC Consent Order required Google to answer detailed questions about privacy and user information but that the search giant did not answer them.

Interestingly, Forbes featured a report this week stating that the court should dismiss the lawsuit between EPIC and the FTC. According to the report, the privacy group is overstepping its third party right under administrative law.

Glenn G. Lammi wrote:

Washington Legal Foundation would be the last one to argue that federal agency actions should be immune from judicial review as a general principle. But once a settlement agreement has been reached between an agency and a private entity, the agency should not be compelled to embrace an outside party’s view that the agreement has been breached. EPIC is welcome to communicate its general views to FTC (which they do so quite often) on the Google Buzz settlement, just as Google might avail FTC of its thoughts on whether a competitor like Facebook or Twitter violated its respective privacy agreement with the Commission. But empowering activists or competitors to imprint their views of consent agreement breach on the Commission would be a dangerous and easily abused tool. If Congress wanted such third parties to inject themselves into FTC’s process on such agreements more formally and authoritatively, it would have said so.

Sullivan told us that, although he has yet to look closely at EPIC’s case, he doubted the FTC would find Google in any violation.

Unfortunately for Google though, that’s not where its problems stop. The European Union has also asked it to delay the roll out of the new privacy policy. In a letter to Google’s CEO Larry Page, Jacob Kohnstamm, a European privacy regulator, wrote:

We wish to check the possible consequences for the protection of the personal data of these citizens in a coordinated procedure. We have therefore asked the French data protection authority, the CNIL, to take the lead. The CNIL has kindly accepted this task and will be your point of contact for the data protection authorities in the EU.

In light of the above, we call for a pause in the interests of ensuring that there can be no misunderstanding about Google’s commitments to information rights of their users and EU citizens, until we have completed our analysis.

In a post on its European Public Policy Blog, Google responded to the letter saying it had met with several officials prior to its announcement and briefed them of the changes. It said that no one had any objections at that time and indicated that it would proceed with its plans to implement its new policy in March.

Most recently, nonprofit Consumer Watchdog wrote a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee requesting that Larry Page explain Google’s “disingenuous statements about its supposed commitment to users’ privacy.”

In this letter, Privacy Project Director John Simpson wrote:

“If Google were truly committed to “user control,” it would ask users to “opt in” to these substantive changes in its data handling, rather than imposing them across the board… Google’s practices affect millions of Americans. Google is so dominant on the Internet that for many people Google is the Internet.

You must not allow Google to escape legitimate privacy concerns by sending underlings whose high-sounding pledges prove to be empty or whose answers prove insufficient in closed-door meetings. It is the chief executive who is ultimately responsible for the company’s behavior.”

What’s more, a Washington Post poll found that 65 percent of users said they would cancel their Google accounts over the privacy changes.

Sullivan, however, told us that he believes this poll is “99 percent inaccurate.” As he explained, users reacted in this same way when Facebook made changes in 2010. In the end, Facebook grew instead.

“If they’re that concerned about it, then their alternative is to go to another company that is doing exactly the same thing,” he said. “It really doesn’t come down to what these privacy policies say, it comes down to the kind of controls that you’re provided and given, and ultimately, I think, your trust in the company overall.”

Ironically, as Matt McGee pointed out, Google quietly launched a new program that allows users to get paid if they use the Chrome browser and share their data with the search engine. It’s called Screenwise and pays users in Amazon gift cards. Although many other companies conduct similar practices in order to learn how they can improve their services, Sullivan told us that the timing of this program was very bad for Google.

In spite of the backlash, it appears that Google will roll out its new privacy policy March 1. The company currently has an ad campaign to help to alleviate concerns, but Sullivan believes that Google will need to begin doing extensive PR outreach in D.C. as well.

Does Google’s privacy policy go too far, or is it what you would expect from a company of its size? Let us know what you think in the comments.