It first came to my attention via the inimitable GamePolitics that some website, namely The Raw Story, was criticizing an upcoming gaming tournament for their choice of games to hold. The game in question was Gears of War, which is a remarkably violent game. For those of you who somehow misse
d out on what's going on in Gears, allow me to present you with exhibit a:That is a picture of the Lancer, the default gun in Gears. You're welcome to follow the link to where I snagged the picture from, and read all about it if you'd like. But really, here's what you need to notice: The thing has a damn chainsaw for a bayonet. Now, as a responsible, mature, 27 year old man, I find this to be awesome beyond compare. But you don't add something like a chainsaw bayonet into a game without adding some more blood, guts, and an M for Mature rating. Alright, alright. So now you're sure you've got the gist of this whole thing: Some group decided to set up a tournament, invite all the kids, and then put a gory M rated game in there, right? Not really. The tournament was only open to people 17 and older. Meaning they were all at least old enough to walk into a store and buy this game for themselves, if they so chose. It's about now that you should be saying "Well, hmm. Perhaps there was something else about the tournament that drew public attention. Like, perhaps it was sponsored by some group opposed to violence?" And here's where the punchline comes in, ladies and gentlemen. Here's the kicker. The tournament was sponsored by the United States Army as a recruiting tool. I can't make this shit up. Apparently some overly tight-assed prick at The Raw Story felt that the Army shouldn't promote violence. It's a good thing my post is late this week, because I was damn near speechless for a few hours after I read that. I may be that only now, after 4 days, I can say anything coherent about this.
My issue with this all boils down to wondering what it was exactly that the author, one Nick Juliano thinks the Army actually does. These men and women who sign up for this job aren't going to go macramé doilies or compose disturbing yet lovely lays about pastoral countrysides. I mean, certainly some of them might have those hobbies as well, but that's not what the Army will pay them to do. Let's face it, the Army is in the business of war. War is the business of killing the other guy before he kills you. If a chainsaw bayonet were practical as far as weight and fuel concerns go, I wouldn't be shocked if the Army didn't do research on it. Hell, even with it not being practical, I wouldn't be surprised if they did research on it. The point is, they kill other people in the Army. It's sort of their job. To criticize them for using a violent, bloody game as a recruiting tool seems like criticizing model agencies for holding auditions at the mall. There are some things that just make sense.
Then, to top it all off, this morning I was browsing the typically solid Kotaku only to be greeted by a mildly asinine post followed by approximately a trillion really asinine comments. Here's a summary: Downloadable content is too expensive for our tastes! But people are buying it! Therefore, people buying DLC are idiots who are ruining it for everyone! There are a myriad problems with this line of thinking, but I should be upfront first. I am one of those idiots who actually buys DLC. In particular, my ever-present cohort J and I have purchased all of the Guitar Hero II packs thus far. I think J actually put up the cash for them thus far, but I would've done it had he not. Why, you may ask, would either of us feel compelled to buy something that's obviously a poor value? The answer is simple: it's not as fucking obvious as you'd suppose. Really, though, calling me an idiot for having a different valuation of an ethereal item than you is something I expect. People call people stupid moronic idiots for much less.
What really chaps my ass is this assumption that by "caving in," I've apparently "ruined it" for "everyone." Let me explain how this works: If you don't think it's worth the cost that the publisher wants, you don't buy it. Theoretically, they might drop the price, if (and only if) they feel like they could make more money at a lower price! That means they sit around and think "Hey Bob, you know that pack we have on Live? Yeah, the one that's $6... What if we dropped the price to $5? Do you think we'd make more by getting more people to buy in?" Hell, I'll guarantee you that they sit around and think that all the time. That's what business guys and marketing types do. Just because I'm above the threshold where they make maximum profit and you're below it does not mean that I let the team down. There is not team. There is only me, and my desire to have the product that they offered. And my desire is strong enough to overcome the price they offer it at.
The whole situation reminds me of EAs DLC debacle, wherein EA started selling things that people took for granted as part of a game on Live. Things like cheat codes and tutorial videos. There was much outcry and gnashing of teeth and many, many, people swearing to boycott EA. I, however, have always been a realist. I'm not going to boycott one of the largest game publishers on the planet. That would be silly. What I will do, is only buy things that I feel they have priced within my personal comfort zone for spending. A game is $60. If EA tries to sell one for $75, I likely wouldn't buy it, unless they have something packaged with it that is a compelling argument for the extra $15. If EA offers something like cheat codes on Live, I wouldn't buy those, either. If EA offers legitimate content expansion via Live, then I'm all ears. At that point, I'd look at what they're offering and I'd decide whether it's worth it or not. The one thing I will not do is sit around and thing "How will this affect Johnny Football-Star-Who-Also-Happens-To-Be-A-Whiny-Internet-Bastard?" Johnny F-S-W-A-H-T-B-A-W-I-B can go sit on it. and rotate.
--Ak out
No comments:
Post a Comment