The “New” PlayStation Plus.

To say that the nature of gaming is changing, would be a massive understatement. The advent of streaming has adapted the way in which game’s are played. Subscription service has become the oppressive basis for many in the console industry, restraining player autonomy with an autocratic reliance of dedicated premium services, just to access online content that should be free. As someone that prefers to own my game’s, rather than rent them, I hate that the industry has propagated the expansion of this utility as some kind of lavish alternative to extortionate malfeasance of physical media. Perpetuating the false narrative that a subscription is the only prospective approach to affordable gaming, despite dictating the ecology and being the subsequent beneficiaries of it. And it seems Sony are doubling down on this philosophy with their new and “improved” PlayStation Plus service.

Sony has confirmed in an announcement last week, that their long rumoured amendment, that merges PS Plus – a necessary requirement to play online games – and PlayStation Now – a supplementary service with mediocre portfolio of games – will be amalgamated into one user friendly service. The transition will consist of 3 tiers, each providing access to specifics benefits to accomadate individual needs. With the lowest tier operating as an equivalent to the current PS Plus subscription. And the highest comprised of a myriad of unspecified PS1 – PS5 titles. The natural consolidation of these two services is a proposal I’ve advocated for some time – provided that price is affordable.

Though this amalgamation certainly affords more compatability, as well as an appreciable benefit than just a simple composite of these two seperate entities, the price doesn’t reflect service you’d be getting. £13.49 for the premium tier may seem respectable on its own, but becomes an obscene amount comparatively when measured against the rising cost of living that will cripple most families. Even if you purchase a 1 year subscription for £100, that’s still a sizeable amount of disposable income that many of us would be reluctant to part with. Though it is worth noting that a Sony first party title is at launch, in excess of £70! So perhaps a premium subscription isn’t as comparatively extortionate, despite my preferential desire for game ownership.

This Playsation Plus overhaul has been flaunted by some – idiots I presume- as a direct competitor to Microsoft’s Gamepass, which it isn’t. Sony simply does not possess the financial leverage wielded by Microsoft, that makes Gamepass such a dominant force. What Sony is proposing is rather more adjascent than competitive. With a strong back catalogue and regular, revolving door of selected quality titles, PlayStation Plus could generate a dedicated, very loyal audience. But at it’s current pricing and the thriving competition, even the most ardent of PlayStation fans will struggle to justify such a steep cost.

---

What do you think of Sony’s revamped Plus subscription? Let me know in the comments below. Cheers.

Anthem: A Game That Deserved To Fail?

It seems like every week there’s some new farcical controversy that undermines the integrity of the gaming industry. It’s actually progressed to the stage where these kinds of corporate duplicity has become as routine as your morning dump. “Anthem” seems to be the latest faecal matter in EA’s long and notorious line of anal discharge. What a surprise to learn that Anthem, a grindy, repetitious, loot based shooter that everyone knew would be bad, turns out to be objectively bad. A conservative assessment for such a recurrent theme would be to regard it with platitudes aligned with the audience consensus. To ridicule the resulting catastrophe and express your own jaded assertions about the wilful negligence and duplicitous endeavours of an industry that has become more about deceptions than entertainment.

When Anthem was announced, particularly considering the parties involved I knew I wouldn’t be getting it. To me Anthem didn’t offer anything I wasn’t getting from a game like Warframe, that by design exhibits considerably more appealing promise given that it’s a free to play experience. Also its EA, a company that you can trust to make informed, consumer friendly products the same way the British government can negotiate an acceptable Brexit deal. What I find most alarming however isn’t that Anthem is an unfinished, plagiarised medley of concepts, saturated with EA’s patented business model of trying to continually charge consumers for content they’ve already paid for, but rather the community as a whole actively wanted Anthem to fail?!

Considering the overt exploitation of micro-transactions that were traditionally applied to Free to play models, it’s easy to understand why many have been revelling in the failure of Anthem. This unifying collusion of hate towards publishers has been reared by their persistent negligence, becoming a ubiquitous action that has gone unchecked for far too long. You can’t jeopardise the integrity of the industry when such practices have become such a common affliction I suppose. Realistically proactive abstinence and public anger are disciplinary measures desperately initiated to provoke some kind retraction of such eminent policies, to encourage a liberation from unnecessary micro-transactions. And really the only thing publishers like EA understands is money, especially when they aren’t accumulating as much as they want.

If a game actively encourages you to participate to earn rewards through a reasonable grind and repetition, then I’m fine with that. But when a game is so obviously geared towards fulfilling a monthly quota as opposed to actually providing a substantial experience for its users, then it’s understandable that customers so relentlessly exploited would eventually revolt. All this does is further perpetuate the mistrust gamers have with publishers like EA as well as “selective” reviewers. Doubt the veracity of any review that is based on just a few hours of play and includes many glaring omissions, because more than likely EA have encouraged some media outlets to promote a positive reflection of the game.

It’s sad that we’ve reached a point where you can’t even trust a game, let alone their creators, to not screw you over!

Activision Fires 800 Employees, Because $100 Million Isn’t Enough Of A Profit?!

Hypothetical here: You are the new CEO of Activision/Blizzard, congratulations! Your first job is to publish your fourth quarterly profits from 2018, posting record profits for the year in excess of $100 million and generating a modest revenue of $2.4 billion. Pretty successful turnover considering you’ve only just taken over. Well done. So what would be the first thing you did to reward, lets pluck a number from the air here, 800 of your fine, hardworking employees? Perhaps a meagre financial compensation for their dedicated professionalism? Maybe a bottle of wine to commemorate their hard work? Or simply a hearty handshake, a pat on a shoulder and some comforting words that truly expresses just how much you value each and everyone of your valuable workforce? No you silly goose, you sack them. Fire them! Kicked their no good backsides out! You send those surfeit resources packing because a $100 million quarterly profit is “disappointing”. Well this seems to be the way Bobby (The Gecko) Kotick, the current heartless bull-sack CEO operates by firing 800 members of staff because–excuse me while I try not to choke on my own rage here–they “didn’t realise our full potential.”

Just let that sink in. Greedy corporate shills, profiteering from the labour’s of others, asserting that the millions of dollars generated wasn’t enough to sustain the job’s of these 800 supposed fiscal leakages? This is the world we live in where $100 million isn’t good enough?! That is some next level bullshitary I can’t possibly comprehend. If a company you owned is declaring record profits but can’t maintain, let alone build on their resources, then you have no business running a company!

Having lost my job last year due to managerial incompetence I feel passionately defensive for those that have suffered unscrupulous dismissal, and I hope they find suitable employment soon. But this whole sordid affair appears to be another sad, if rather predictable reflection of the industries cavalier treatment towards people and obvious deficit in moral scruples. Corporate greed is a virulent degeneracy that must be vanquished, before the entire medium is irreparably damaged!

---

What do you guys think? Let me know in the comments below. Cheers.

Losing Your Job Sucks.

This week has probably been one of the most difficult 7 days I’ve experienced as an adult. Certainly the most disappointing. The company I’ve been employed by for nearly 13 years is going into administration, having failed in its attempt to secure investment from the many interested parties that flirted with the idea of acquisition and expansion. This leaves colleagues of mine, people I consider friends, some of which have been employed by the company for longer than I’ve been alive without a job. Fortunately I have been able to find an alternate means of employment, allowing me to accept a rather valuable, if not entirely generous redundancy and continue working immediately. This was my biggest concern. Not being able to provide for my family was a paralysing notion. Though only officially informed of our current predicament just a couple of weeks ago, the companies struggles to remain solvent were all too apparent, even to someone as oblivious as me. So I seized the initiative and applied for every available vacancy I felt I could do.

Encouraged by my family I persevered despite the many failed applications and vacuous responses. Job hunting is such a profoundly frustrating process that really tests your inert capacity to tolerate rejection. If you’re not being informed by some vague missive that you aren’t qualified for a job, you’re not being told anything at all. Much of the free time you get not applying for every vacant position in a 20 mile radius is spent making redacted alterations to your CV, emphasising key skills or attributes deemed beneficial to potential employers. It’s a tiring, thoroughly impotent means of recruitment that’s more concerned with the fastidious qualities of the person rather than the individual themselves.

But mercifully I’ve successfully navigated my way through the convoluted online job sites and monotonous recruitment agencies to find work that is a reduction in pay, but still keeps a roof over my families head, leaving me to reflect on a job I’ve been loyal too since I left school.

I remember the elation of receiving my first paycheck there, a meager £740 which by today’s inflated standards is comparatively poultry. But I was 17 years young. No one up to that point had ever been irresponsible enough to give me that kind of money before. That weekend was a haze of frivolous exultation, purchasing the much coveted Nintendo GameCube as well as a wealth of games and fatty treats that give me heart palpitations just thinking about it. The hedonistic excesses of preliminary employment enabled me to fully embrace the value and fleeting acquisition of money. I learned a valuable lesson about squandering money without carefully considering the implications of not having any. Eventually I began saving some of it, preserving small quantities, flourishing to an amount that finally allowed my girlfriend and I to get a mortgage. Acquiring our own little bastion to raise our boisterous little girl and live reasonably comfortable and fulfilled lives. I won’t forget that, nor the experiences I’ve shared with my colleagues.

I could never say that I loved my job, nor that I hated it either. It’s not work I’ll remember with effusive admiration, reciting anecdotal tales about a 12 hour shift where I drank 8 cups of tea and got a splinter in my finger. But I will remember the people, the jokes, the camaraderie and some of the most absurd conversations I’ve ever had and the ridiculously heady Christmas parties I’ve ever attended.

I want to wish them as well as anybody else who has recently lost their jobs the best of luck. I’ll certainly miss them.

“EA” And Loot Box’s: Ruining Gaming For Everyone!

It Should Never Have Been “In The Game”!

As a gamer for over two decades I’d consider my relationship with games to be something of a privilege. I’ve been lucky enough to live in a household where both my parents shared a natural affinity for them. Playing everything from the NES to the PS4 gives you a robust perspective on games and by extension the industry that produces them. Being a committed advocate for the medium is relatively easy when you’ve been nourished with decades worth of interactive pleasure and considering the mediocre times we endure on a daily basis, the simple gratifications enabled by games is all we can hope for sometimes. It’s fair to say however that during my tenure as a gamer the way in which we consume content has altered radically. The advent of online gaming is arguably the biggest amendment implemented, allowing gamers from across the world to interact together with seamless anonymity. But like anything good in this world it only takes time before it is exploited and abused by those in a position to do so. To have something pure and good-natured adapted into something manipulative and selfish, with loot-boxes being the most contentious and EA the most prominent publisher to utilise them.

Season Passes and day 1 DLC are dubious alternatives of generating additional income from consumers who’ve already spent £40 to £50 on the initial retail product. But there’s something far more deceptively sinister about loot-crates. The innocuous method of coercion is so passive, yet intrinsically persuasive. You open one loot-box, earned by your own dedicated endeavours and find a “shiny thing”. Now for instance this particular “shiny thing” increases the power of a gun, giving you a distinct advantage against an opponent who hasn’t acquired this specific “shiny thing”. But it occurs to you that with another “shiny thing” in your inventory that power doubles, making you an even tougher adversary. But why waste time accumulating the necessary points by playing, that would negate the current advantage you’d have, when you could buy your way to success, thereby sustaining this favourable statistic. Of course you can’t just buy the specific “shiny thing”, oh no. Repeated purchases are required, costing £10? £20? £50? £100? More?! Essentially gamers are held hostage by an inert gambling mechanic implemented to sustain financial equanimity that exploits both adults and children, as well as leaving those that choose not to indulge in extra spending at a discernible disadvantage.

Though EA aren’t the only ones cultivating additional earnings through suspect means, they have positioned themselves as one of the leading abusers in their field. It’s interesting then that the manipulation of the Star Wars brand has provoked the collective vitriol of the community, but not other EA published titles like “Need For Speed” or “Fifa”. Considering the overt distension of loot based supplements that contaminates these titles, with arguably more conspicuous assertions, it’s curious just how much gamers are willing to tolerate when it isn’t Star Wars. People genuinely appear to be subservient to the contentious services provided by micro-transactions and the alluring privileges of possessing virtual trinkets. Consisting of items and accessories that provide distinct advantages that they’d rather pay for rather than earn. Of course the subsequent controversy surrounding “Star Wars Battlefront 2” has seen EA repealing that doctrine, if only temporarily to mitigate the ensuing controversy that could potentially scupper the launch of one of EA’s most lucrative assets.

This is a small yet justified victory for consumers, yet ultimately mute considering that EA have a business model that necessitates the prolonged facilitation of a loot crate system, that will have to be reinstated sooner rather than later. If not then perhaps EA might consider alternative means such as a subscription service? The question remains however is now that many chose to purchase Battlefront on the basis of EA’s “goodwill” gesture, whether these same adopters would still be happy to buy loot box’s? Probably, I suspect, which nullifies the serious implications of its discriminatory “pay to win” principles. For EA to endorse and facilitate what is essentially a gambling mechanic is so ethically fallacious I can’t believe the gaming community hasn’t reacted as vehemently to its other properties sooner. Certainly applying any kind of morality doesn’t seem to be financially viable to their directives. And it’s a dormant issue that has resided peripherally for many years.

It’s these kind of dubious circumstances that has deterred many long time gamers, especially older ones from participating. I genuinely believe the reason people of perceived maturity give up gaming isn’t necessarily because they’ve outgrown these infantile endeavours, but because of the considerable expense as well as the monetization of the content. My 12-year-old self would look at loot box’s with utter confusion, spitting out a raspberry flavoured slush puppy all over my latest issue of The Astonishing Spider-Man with disdain. The idea that “Gran Turismo” would add offline single player content as an extra incentive, a substitute no less to the multiplayer is unthinkable! A decade ago that would have been statutory, now it’s a redundant feature that detracts from the money churning profitability of multiplayer exploitation.

Buying a game now is like ordering a gourmet burger. The menu suggests that it comes with bacon, cheese, some fat chips (not fries) and a side of onion rings, but when the meal arrives it’s just a soggy bun and an undercooked beef patty. Smeared with that synthetic plastic cheese substitute, with a suspicious expiry date that exceeds your own life span and accompanied by cold chips and a scratch card. With the waiter informing you that you won’t have access to salt, pepper or any condiments that may improve the relative modesty of the meal. Unless you pay extra or open the mystery box, that more than likely contains that flaccid piece of gherkin no one eats.

Sorry to say EA, but I think I’ll continue to dine in another restaurant.

---

Will this revolt lead to a wide scale, long-term structural change? Let me know what guys think in the comments below. Cheers.