Downloadable Violence

I'm late this week. I realize this. I also realize that my droves of fans have been sitting on tenterhooks waiting desperately - nay, craving - more Akbar goodness. Fear not, fair citizens, for I have returned! And with me comes more rambling nonsense! Let us begin:

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 missed 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

On Summer Droughts

Summer's here, and that can only mean one thing: Gaming news has slowed to a crawl. E3 is just around the corner, and even in it's current scaled-down incarnation, there should be plenty of new information coming out of there. But really that just means that all of the big companies are holding back until that day, so we have nothing to talk about until then. So what I'll do instead is wane intellectual on where I think the big three stand right now.

Microsoft
The big M has plenty to crow about these days, as they still seem to have the lead in hardware sold, and easily has the biggest library of titles out there to choose from. Of course, it couldn't hurt them to have hardware that didn't seem to want to explode from people breathing on it too hard, and it might not hurt to avoid confusing the customer base by not having 18 different versions of the same system on the market, all with different SKUs and price points, but hey, I'm no business major, what do I know? The important thing is that MS would have to actively try to screw up in order to alienate the hardcore gaming audience at this point. They've got the systems out there, they've got the market dominance, and they've got the title lineup to keep them comfortably in the market at this point. Not bad for a company who seemed determined to buy their way into a market that didn't want them around 7 years ago, huh?

Nintendo
The big N has become the golden child of casual gamers and a media darling. But does Nintendo have the chops to do what needs to be done to secure their place at the head of the table? Certainly Nintendo's got a great strategy whereby they (at least theoretically) profit off of not only their software, but their hardware as well, ensuring that even a low attach rate of games is going to keep them good and in business, but is that enough to really get back the market dominance Nintendo craves so badly? Nintendo's in an interesting place compared to the other two companies, as they don't have any other business units to augment their gaming sector plans. Nintendo has to tread very carefully, because a poor showing of one console generation could well spell doom for them at this point. The company which became synonymous with gaming in the 80s and 90s via the NES and Super Nintendo fell from grace, hard. After the N64 failed to compete at any real level with the Playstation, I heard that the Gamecube was seen whoring itself out for nickels on the corner of 12th and Adams... Go check it out sometime, I'm sure he's still out there. Anyway, Nintendo has finally hit it big with the general populace, but they still haven't fixed a lot of their old glaring problems. They need third party interest in a bad way. Nintendo should be like some heroin addict looking for third party games... you know, just for that one last thrill. Instead, they seem quite content with selling the system and two games to johnny everyman, completely foregoing the hardcore market that not only grew up with Nintendo, but they people that practically put them on the map 20 years ago. A note to Nintendo, from the fanboy elite: We want to love you, we do. I want to swear that the old N is back, and that we'll never stray again, and that the Wii is everything we could ever want in a system, despite being so different from what's been available before. Honestly, though? As long as games keep coming out for your competitors, good games - mind you, we'll keep buying more and more of their stuff... So until Nintendo gets that through their head, we're stuck with the same 8 amazingly good first party franchises we've had for the past 2 generations. And apparently nothing else.

Sony
The big S is apparently what I should call Sony, given the pattern of the first two sections. That's kind of awkward, though, so I'll just call them... Sony. What's left to say about Sony? They bounce from horrible ad campaigns, absurdly arrogant statements by their upper management, and a price point that seems to cater to people who not only wipe their asses with money, they also use it to make giant paper-mache genitalia. But enough about my hobbies, we're talking about Sony. So what does Sony need to do to get back into the game that they seem to have forgotten that they were a part of? Honestly, I think they just need to chill out, brace for a long, cold financial winter, and wait things out. As much as they've tried desperately to fuck this up, to lose all of their market, Sony still has some aces up their sleeves. Sony has a handful of what look like good games coming out this holiday. There will be Little Big Planet, there will be Ratchet and Clank, and for heaven's sakes, there will be Heavenly Sword. These games won't save Sony by themselves, oh no. When Final Fantasy XIII comes out next year (or is it the year after? who knows?) or Metal Gear Solid 4 comes out, then these games that seem like solid titles will become the fluff titles that a prospective buyer will look at as options to broaden their library. Johnny Football-Star-Who-Happens-To-Also-Like-Final-Fantasy (who names their child that?) will look at the PS3 and say "Oh, FF, sweet! And it also has ! $600 doesn't seem so bad now!" Perhaps there will be a price-cut. Perhaps Johnny F-S-W-H-T-A-L-F-F could exclaim a lower price point. Certainly that would cut a bit of the sting away from his shitty name, but I digress. The important thing to note here is that Sony merely needs to a) not lose any of their big flagship exclusives.... anymore, and b) not go out of business. If they can accomplish those two things, I predict that 2009 might just be a decent year for the big S.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some paper mache to get back to.

--Ak out