Activision's Lawsuits Renaissance

 Nanomachines, Son!

I guess I like lawsuit news now? I cover it enough. Perhaps through some backhanded way I find this most frivolous yet prevalent of legal challenges morbidly entertaining as it represents a manner through which rare true business-related grievances can be aired publicly. I've heard that humans are naturally voyeuristic creatures, but I've found that to largely not be true on a personal level, yet when it comes to the faceless corporations, oh boy, you bet I'm digging through trashcans and peeping through the downstairs bathroom window; I just can't get enough of seeing the real people who hide behind the abstract names and million-dollar logos. And sometimes I just want to see who has the gall, nay the hubris, to stand up to these titans of money printing; that is, without the protection of company dollars to back them up. I mean that's a true David vs Goliath battle right there, only it's in the real world so we don't automatically have to side with the underdog. That being what it is, I wonder what side you'll take in regards to Activision's recent legal struggle.

So you might have heard of a little game known as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. (No, not that one; the later one) In the manner of ever moving forward, Modern Warfare Junior took it upon itself to further a trend started by Advanced Warfare (Or started by Overwatch/Siege if you're feeling spicy) to have a system called 'Operators' take over online matches to spread a bit more personality than your typical multiplayer loadouts. Now I'll be honest, I haven't played an Infinity Ward multiplayer since Advanced Warfare so I don't know how these systems are playing out in today's COD, but I imagine they're somewhat successful as the project hasn't been abandoned. Activision is putting real effort into creating these operators that work within the Warzone add-on gamemode, so it's makes sense that steps would be taken to put real value and quality into these operators. In fact, I'd even imagine it'd make sense to go the distance and have models come in to be the basis for the operators, to give them that real feeling, you know? Only, that was Activision's big mistake.

Because, you see, one of Warzone/Modern Warfare's most popular operatives, Mara, has recently come under accusations of plagiarism through way of lawsuit. That's right, as reported by Polygon, a writer, photographer called Clayton Haugen has filled a suit claiming that Mara is a direct rip-off of his own OC-don't-steal, Cade Janus. (Urgh. I guess that's Cade to sound futuristic and Janus to reference the two-faced roman god who looks simultaneously into the past and future? Yep, this guy's a writer alright.) But as you can imagine this goes beyond a circumstantial resemblance in concept; actually Clayton's grievances stem from the fact that his Cade character and Mara share the exact same reference model. (Ohh, things are getting interesting!) That's right, the same woman posed for both roles and that lays the basis for what Clayton assumes to be an active effort from Activision to spot his work and try to copy it in as subtle a manner as possible.

And although my gut instinct is "Really? That sounds far fetched." one must always remember that this is Activision we're talking about and they're no stranger to doing incredibly dumb things. Might that have bled over to their developers? It's possible... Clayton, for his part, claims that Infinity Ward hired the exact same makeup professional for the job and instructed them to model her in the exact same fashion that he did. Down to hair, makeup, the whole job. And then, the dastardly villains, forced those involved to sign a Non-disclosure agreement in order to cover up their copyright infringement! Quite the damning story right? Whatsmore, Clayton provided pictures of his Janus character next to the in-game model of Mara. (Because the Infinity Photoshoot isn't public domain. NDA, remember) And the results? Oh man...

They show... a military woman in military gear. Yeah, to be honest there's not really much one can do to make such a generic concept unique. The plaintiff wants to argue that COD copied everything about his photoshot character, but I have to wonder when the only point of potential non-circumstantial crossover is the hairstyle, which are admittedly pretty identical. But maybe that's just how her hair looks best in a decently tactical style? I don't know. I'd imagine if two separate clients asked the same hairdresser to arrange the same woman's hair in a manner that looks 'military-esque' two different times, the results would probably be similar at least. I've never really been one to stand up for Activision, but I really wish there was more actual substance to this suit. It looks a bit frivolous from here. And as for the NDA thing? Is this guy completely unfamiliar with how the entertainment industry works? (I know he's unfamiliar with gaming due to reasons I'll touch on later) NDAs out the windows, NDAs up to your eyeballs, you so much as knock on the studio door and ask to use the toilet, you'll be signing 5 NDAs on your way out. There's nothing particularly incriminating about a studio asking for NDAs. 

But then, the story can't just end there, can it? I was quite interested when I started, but as I went on the lawsuit seemed to lose more and more water until it was totally flaccid. At the end of it I was wondering what the actual point of all this was, although in hindsight I suppose that really should have been apparent from the getgo, no? As I'm sure Clayton wanted, I ended up asking "Wait, what is this Cade Janus and her horrible name a part of again? Some project called November Renaissance? Is that a book?" Well actually no, because you see Porygon left one vital title out of Mr Haugen's name. He is a writer, Photographer- and Director. Oh baby, you know what time it is! It's time to dive down the rabbit hole and check out this movie boys!

Okay, now first of all I have to establish some points. Firstly, it seems that this model's photos were actually shot before this movie was finalised and so she doesn't actually appear on any of the material for the movie in question. But secondly, there is material for this movie because it's actually a Kickstarter project from 2017 which, as far as I can tell, is still in development? Or not in development? (The official website linked off the page is down, so that bodes well.) Yes, peeps, we've got ourselves an honest-to-goodness indie film project headed by Clayton that appears to be something of a Cyberpunk homage? Yeah, judging by the obviously superimposed  purple neon billboards everywhere, the ugly pee-saturation to most shots and criminal overuse of lens flare; this is definitely a Cyberpunk project. (Guess here's a project to remind you that despite their faults, CDPR are still spectacular designers. Imagine if Night City looked like this! >Shudder<) All of which I recommend you look up yourself because ol' Calyton has already demonstrated how he's not above a little lawsuit here and there and though I'm a nobody on the Internet, I don't really want to risk it. (It takes nothing to set up Google alerts, afterall)

Aside from questionable concept shots, however, our Clayton friend has an entire pitch video as Kickstarter etiquette demands; so I wonder what's on the plate here? Well, amateurish camera work aside, the effects are certainly- effecting. Yeah, I came away not too impressed, but curious as to what this was all about. What was this November Renaissance about anyway? Well, as Clayton himself helpfully explained, it's about a world wherein nanotechnology has progressed to the point where it can rewire humans to a molecular level. A society wherein technology can bridge the gap between the poor and the rich- only for the idea to immediately be stolen and then integrated into the capitalist economic hierarchy because- duh. So basically it's transhumanism 101. No thrills or frills, it's just a basic transhumanist plot. That can't be right because I just got through a video of people gushing over how unique of an idea this is and how brilliant the script is. Except, this idea isn't unique. Bladerunner exists where a world like that makes up just the background for a much more relevant conversation about what it means to be living and how the very inevitability of death fuels us. Deus Ex made a concept like that it's very forefront in exploring how a world without technological limits can be exploited to divide society much more than it already is. Both those projects are masterpieces that wrote the book on how to address these topics. But here's November Renaissance with it's biggest contribution to the conversation being the use (and slight, if common, misunderstanding) of the term 'nanomachines'. (I hate to do this to ya, but 'Metal Gear' did it first.)

So yeah, I went a bit offtrack. This started with a lawsuit and ended off bashing an indie film project like a hero, what a ride. Although when you put something this goofy in front of me, I can't help but point and laugh a little bit. Hey, I'm involved with my fair share of cringey indie stuff too, it's just a natural human response. That being said, I hope this November Renaissance gets made because I would absolutely love to watch it. Oh, and I pray that they never hire a proper cinematographer too! Keep the crappy shots with the blinding lens flares, they literally make the whole thing come together. (In many ways, the shoddiness of it is the single most endearing quality. Like your garden variety Neil Breen flick, except not quite as magical) As to the lawsuit? I'm no lawyer but it seems pretty weak, focus on your movie, my man, that's where the real glory is at! 

Activision are the good guys now?

Misdirection or revelation?

How are these guys still in the news? I mean with all the floundering and flubbing that has been going on of late you'd think that it would behoove Activision/Blizzard to do everyone a favour and shut up, yet here we are on the cusp of the holiday season positively resplendent with bad PR leaking out of these studios. I suppose one could call this a success if they are subscribers into the belief that all press is good press, but where I'm watching this just looks like an unmitigated relations fire that the heads keep throwing fuel into. (Eventually someone's got to tell them how that's not the way you put out an inferno.)

Optimists might have hoped that Blizzcon would be the turning point in perception, but even that's managed to garner poor press ever since ol' J. Allen Brack dribbled out that poor excuse of a public apology. Even their flagship announcement: Diablo 4, was strewn with accusations of people claiming that it's 'the exact same game as Diablo 3'. (An accusation that holds weight until you delve into such basic investigative procedures as comparing a picture of the two games.) Their second big announcement, Overwatch 2, has been laboured with similar, much more justifiable, complaints; and now every single word that the Blizzard team says in regard to the future of these franchises is being chided and chastised by critics.

But today I'm not taking such a close look at the Blizzard half of the relationship, but over at the grittier other half; Activision. They've been having a rocky road recently but have ultimately earnt a victory with their newest release; Modern Warfare. People have praised the campaign for it's ability to slide from the dark and shocking to the action packed and goofy, the new large scale multiplayer modes that feature vehicles and seem primed to go up against Battlefield's dominance of large scale conflict, and the extensive weapon customization system which hearkens back to the glory days of weapon progression in Battlefield 3.What's more, all of this was achieved without some damnedable monetisation system ruining the progression of the game and tying everything down with lootboxes or season passes. People are optimistic that this could be the best Call of Duty since Modern Warfare 2 and that has the potential to reflect in the sales.

Of course, this change in direction from Activision wasn't born out of the good pureness of their hearts. The game was primed to the brim with lootboxes before release until the feature leaked during the beta periods. The resulting backlash and cancelled pre-orders prompted the team into talks and discussions behind closed doors where they made the decision to pull back on the heavy monetisation. (For now.) It is important to note, however, that this doesn't mean the game will be free of such systems for perpetuity. Game companies seem to have a mental block in their brain when it comes to defining what 'no microtransactions' means and seem to regularly suffer from short term memory failures whenever such a promise is made 'for ever'. Heck even 'Jedi Fallen order', the game that EA have funded as a test case to see if there's still a market for traditional games, allows for player's to pick up a pre-order exclusive skin for your companion droid if you drop down some early bucks. (Hmm... almost as though they're testing the waters to launch a skin store after release...)

 But Activision still want the public to be live that they've turned over a new leaf, and that is what prompted their decision to loudly remove the paywall between players and guns that had invaded the previous year's CoD game: Black Ops 4. For those that forgot, that was the game for which the development cycle was so rocky that the team had to scrap their plans for a campaign and lean into the Battle Royale content that was originally envisioned to be garnishing rather than the main course. (Which they then lied about during the reveal event.) For their credit, however, the change in direction turned out to be successful for a time.

You must remember, last year the only game anyone wanted to talk about was Fortnite, so for another Battle Royale to step into that field and do even moderately well was quite the accomplishment. Black ops 4 offered a whole new approach to the Battle Royale genre that felt grounded, realistic and was realized entirely in first person, offering a suitable alternative to Epic's number one. A budding community of folk began jumping on the first realistic Battle Royale game with decent controls (Sorry PUBG) and a seemingly perfect TTK. This may have blossomed into a actual rival for Fortnite given a chance, and the team seemed to leaning into this fate when they made such announcements like how Black ops 4 would be their 'most supported game ever!'

The dream started to burst, however, once Activision get ahead of itself in the monetisation fields. Those who remember the birth of overbearing microtransactions (Modern Warfare 3) were hit with a wave of nostalgia as they saw CoD selling red-dot-sights for a premium and special guns that were exclusive to the lootbox grind pool. Folk started to drop off from the Battle Royale mode (Which was the mode that Activision hoped would be their real money maker) and soon the team were left with the loyalist crowd who seemed content with the traditional team deathmatches. (And not spending money one BR cosmetics.) As such, it wasn't too much of a surprise that they ended up going back on their promise and cancelled Black Ops 4 support just before the release of Modern Warfare. (Just like they always do.)

Treyarch weren't happy with the sour note that things ended on, it seems, as they made a big song-and-dance about their revisions to progression in an update post lauded around the Internet gaming spheres. The changes are big and impressive, opening up premium content to people not willing to drop considerable extra cash towards the game and allowing for direct purchase for those that are. It's as though the team went down the laundry list of 'ways to do monetisation right' and did their best to tick off every single mark that they could, basking in the positive press that they earned for doing so. There's only one problem, it comes a year too late.

As I said, Modern Warfare has recently released and Black Ops 4 just dropped their ongoing support train, so why are we applauding Treyarch for this 'noble' but lazy, move? It's the exact same nonsense that everyone railed Activision for in regards to the year-long exclusivity of survival mode in Modern Warfare. Everyone knows that the life cycle of a Call of Duty game is shorter than a cheetah's childhood, so with that in mind, anything that company does after that period is automatically null and void. It's a desperate headline that looks good on paper but cost them nothing to implement, because all of their playerbase has already moved onto to the next game. Does this mean this cycle will continue on towards the next year? Only time will tell, but experience certainly paints a poor picture.

Well, Well, Well...

Look what the storm of controversy dragged in...

Things have been really tough for this year's Call of Duty, and I mean beyond the general public disdain that this series amasses from anyone who's not a die hard convert. For years pundits have been blaming Call of Duty for everything wrong with the industry, first with the lack of creative ingenuity and lately with the propagation of avaricious and predatory business practises. They've even caught a ribbing due to the fact that they seem to have run out of names to call their games. (In all honesty, Modern Warfare is a pretty dull title to recycle.) At times it can almost feel like Activision's darling series is the whipping boy of the gaming community, but they still make stupid amounts of money each and every year so nobody can call them the underdog.

That being said, this year has been something wholly special for the Call of Duty haters out there. Firstly there was the huge issue of exclusivity that Infinity tried to sneak past it's consumers during a trailer. You know, the one in which they wrote in the smallest of fonts about how Spec Ops Survival mode would be an exclusive feature to PlayStation consumers for a whole year? I covered this in my blog last month, as well as the fervour it caused. People flooded the official CoD subreddit and Twitter account, demanding to know what exactly it was that made their money less valuable than PlayStation owner's money. Some made the sound argument that other consoles should be charged less for the game, considering they are getting less of the game at launch. And it seems no one was soothed by the official response of 'That's only 1% of the game, calm down!'. (It would seem that the general public is capable of basic math, Infinity Ward. You've gotta be more careful with your assertations!)

With all that nonsense having come, and mostly blown over, Infinity Ward and Activision must have thought that they had weathered the brunt of the storm. (And mass pre-order cancellations that were heralded by, said storm.) Then the Hearthstone catastrophe happened with Blitzchung and everything blew up once again. This time, Call of Duty wasn't the instigator of Activision's public relations woes, but was an unfortunate bystander in the chaos. Now that it had been established that Blizzard, and through them Activision, were happy to dump their morales in order to make some that sweet Chinese Yuan, everyone thought it only fitting that they dump Activision whilst telling them to get a room with their Tencent sweethearts. Once again, this led to a string of cancelled pre-orders.

Obviously I covered the majority of these topics on my blog, however there was incident between these two that I ignored, simply because it didn't seem like anything out of the ordinary for an Activision title. Namely, the way in which Call of Duty seemed to be primed for the implementation of Lootboxes. Big shock, right? A greedy company succumbing to greedy tactics that sacrifices the integrity of the game mechanics and balancing in order to supplement their revenue? Absolutely unheard of! But even die hard CoD fans had been voicing their displeasure over this development, so maybe this was an issue worth covering afterall. Apparently, last year's Black Ops 4 (The game that was stripped of it's campaign after development mishap after development mishap) was completely gutted by it's microtransactions, and people were scared of it happening here with 'Modern Warfare'. I remember hearing horror stories of individual red dot lights costing upwards of 3$ and just ended up dismissing it as 'peak CoD'. But I guess last year's systems were the straw that broke the camels back, because we may be getting actual change from this year's CoD.

Of course, I would hesitate to call this a direct response to the 'lootbox issue' and more a concession on Activision's part in answer to all their mounting controversy, but hey, might as well take the little victory while you can. We got wind of some potential action being taking a while back when a popular, and often accurate, leaker claimed that Activision had held meetings to address their steadily dropping pre-order levels. (Hear that people? You were depriving the vampires of their life blood, how cruel of you!) Infinity Ward's response to their initial backlash did got out of it's way to throw shade on this leaker, labelling his or her's information as 'rumor' (A legendary moronic move seeing how these leaks were painting the studio in a socially aware and considerate light.) but most people just ignored the PR babble, as they usually do, and choose to trust the voice that had lied to them less. (Ugh, the state of developer/consumer communication these days...)

But how exactly has Activision responded to the lootbox issue, you may be wondering. What could they have done that is even remotely worthy of praise? Well, in a recent blog post 'The Call of Duty Team' detailed all the ways in which they wanted to prove themselves to the community and adopt a positive player-first approach. (Que the "Trust me, I've changed!" monologue.) This post including such 'revolutionary ideas' as; introducing crossplay. Because I've always wanted to get destroyed by PC players. Okay, to be fair a decent amount of thought did appear to go into this system to ensure that control schemes had to be similar to facilitate this type of crossplay, but I wonder about the framerate advantage of superior rigs. (Or will everyone get artificially throttled to keep things fair?) Then they boasted about their removal of season passes and DLC map packs to keep everyone on the same level. Something that the rest of the gaming industry learnt after 2012 with the community splintering effect of Gears of War 3's map packs. (But better late then never I guess.) They also mentioned how they are delivering free maps and post-launch content going forward, which is just an expansion of the above statement but the team needed another bullet point. Finally they vowed to ensure that all post launch maps and modes hit everyone simultaneously. Which is a tad laughable considering the cluster that the Survival mode incident incurred for the very merit of ignoring this release model.

Throwing all the rest of the blog away, the one headlining announcement that will have caught everyone's attention would be the fact that the game will now be featuring a Battlepass system, not lootboxes. I feel it important to note that this message went out of it's way to say "Not a loot box system", as if to throw shade on the leaker who claimed that was their original intent. However, we did see some bugs in the Beta mode for the game which gave away the Loot box system too, so you can kindly get the heck off that high-horse Activision, no one's falling for your crap. Additionally, I am so tired of these developers using the "everything's always changing" excuse to keep consumers guessing about monetisation until a week before launch. (Heck, sometimes it's the day of launch.) Just to be clear, everyone already knows that the studios are dead-set on their monetisation system months before launch, and Call of Duty would have most certainly had a Loot box system if Activision didn't have so many fires to put out.

The cherry on the top of it all, however, is the way how CoD are switching to a Battlepass system and calling it a day. Don't get me wrong, I generally do prefer a Battlepass system over lootboxes, it is certainly leagues more fair on the player's bank account, but that just makes CoD another one of those games desperately vying for player's eternal attention through recurrency ensuring tactics. How long until the gaming industry realizes that there are only so many hours in the week that people can realistically divide between games? At this point, Activision are actively poaching recurrency away from their other games, like their own Apex Legends. Although, given Respawn's tone deaf and draconic approach towards monetisation and public relations I would be hard pressed to say that the game didn't deserve it. Yet it does seem like history is repeating itself and no one learnt their lesson. (I'm referring to the time that Respawn's great shooter, Titanfall 2, was killed by Activision because they released it in a window sandwiched between their own Battlefield game and Call of Duty.)

Maybe this is the first sign of Activision turning a new leaf. Maybe we can expect a player first approach from the studio going forward and every proceeding endeavour will prioritize the quality of the game over securing a profit. Maybe we'll all live in flying castles in the sky with talking pigs serving as our butlers. Who knows what the future will bring. But I find it infinitely more enlightening to look at the actions of a company before the walls start closing in on them, and back then they appeared to be just as avaricious as always. So I wouldn't expect much change from the Call of Duty franchise once the brand finishes licking it's wounds and comes back swinging next year. You could argue that this was the right choice on Activision's part and that I'm discounting that in order to feed into my superstitions, but I always like to remember the adage; Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Brokepoint: The murder of Ghost Recon.

Oh, Looks like I've still got the puns!

Seeing as how misery and hatred fills my existence, it only makes sense that I look upon the face of a game that disappointed me and give out a "You were the chosen one!" type blog. So who has earned my ire today? Be it our old foes over at EA? Or maybe our former heroes in Bethesda? Neither. It was those derivative fools that I always said were not worthy for praise, those whom were only applauded for being the lesser of evils. Well, guess what? Now they've joined the ranks of the greatest of evils, and all I can say is: I told you so! That's right, today we are taking a look at the autopsy of 'Ghost Recon: Breakpoint' and building our case against it's likely assailant; Ubisoft.

For those who are unaware, I was extremely excited for this game when it was first announced. The second I saw that Ubisoft had reached out to the incredibly talented Jon Bernthal to star in their game, I practically squee-ed with how perfect the casting was. (I was so excited that I conveniently forgot how genuinely pitiful Ubisoft's character writers are.) The previous entry, Wildlands was a game I picked up late but fell head over heels for, in how simple it was to play. It felt like an incredibly casual tactical stealth experience, and whilst some others (and myself, if I'm being honest) might have preferred something more challenging, I was enthusiastic about the prospect of a game so easy-to-pickup that I could share it with my non-stealth addict friends. (If I had friends.) Or just pick it up whist binging the latest series of Arrow. (God, I'm a shambles.)

Last month I got to take my first look at what Ubisoft had lined up for Breakpoint and my enthusiasm... wavered. On one hand, the Devs had taken advantage of their expanded team and influence to craft a game with slivers of MGS to it. (That's pretty amazing on it's own!) Stalking through the jungle was vastly improved, AI had actually been programmed this time around and gunfights were punishing enough to encourage you to actively avoid them. On the other hand, the game looked to have been primed for becoming a microtransaction cesspit. All of the game's arsenal had been co-opted into pseudo-MMO equipment levelling system, with each gun being beholden to scrap material and currency to 'improve'. Mobile-esque rarities had been haphazardly shoved into the mix, encouraging the endless grind against that most prevalent of modern video game foes: 'The Algorithm'! And even in the Closed Beta we could see that the character menu tabs had one specially reserved tab labelled 'Store'. At the time it only sold access to the pre-order for the main game, but it didn't take a great degree of imagination to imagine the evil it could be used for.

How impressive would it have been for Ubisoft to take all of these concerns and wash them aside by delivering a game so solid that it stood on it's own rights without having to succumb to predatory monetisation. How the crowds would have cheered their name and said "Wow Ubisoft, you guys really are a inspiration to the industry! I mean, your first-party games are often uninspired and derivative of themselves, but at least you aren't trying to wring every last penny from your consumers like Ebenezer Scrooge." As you can imagine, this wouldn't come to be. Last week, Ubisoft dropped their long awaited tactical follow-up and, what do you know, there's monetisation up the wazoo.

"Okay, but how bad are things really?" You may be wondering. Pretty darn bad. Firstly, you'll find that most of the coolest cosmetics in the game (the one's that were simply labelled as 'unavilable' in the Beta) are completely locked behind a paywall. "You want to play dress-up as the game's special units; the Wolves? Pay us more money on top of the £60 that the game cost." Those weapons that need to be supplied with resources in order to be levelled up? Yeah, you can just buy those upgrades. They even repeated some of the most avaricious mistakes from Wildlands (Why wouldn't they?) like charging players for ability to pick up weapon's accessories. Yes, technically you earn these items in game so, if you are an absolute cretin of a human in desperate need of euthanizing, you could call these 'time savers'. However, Ubisoft even managed to push those too far when it comes to skill points. Indeed, one can find themselves buying skill points for the game's skill tree with an little bit of under-the-table bribe action, except, this isn't really under-the-table anymore now is it? If you are confused as to what the issue is here, let me explain. In Breakpoint your character, their skills and their weapons, are carried on through all of the activities in the game. That means everything you earned is shared through the single player, upcoming raids and competitive multiplayer. By allowing some players to buy skillpoints you have given them the chance to forgo playing through activities to earn their new weapons and abilities and allowed them to pay for an advantage. (What is commonly known in the industry as 'pay-to-win')

Even in a world post the release of 'Joker', this is still the most depressing and cynical thing that I have witnessed all year. Ubisoft are actively trying to sell us every aspect of their game on top of the game itself. Essentially allowing consumers to pay for the game again in order to save themselves from the effort of actually having to play through their purchase. (Here's an idea Ubisoft, how about saving as all from that heartache by cancelling the game and just going into liquidation, that way you could even positively effect the industry!) Perhaps I sound a little incensed about this situation, or more-so than usual, and I most certainly am. I have had a pretty crappy past few months, heck, a crappy past couple of years, and all I have to get me through my daily trash is video games. Yeah, you could label that as an unhealthy dependency, but it makes me actually happy so I'll pleasantly ignore such insinuations. Or at least, they used to make me happy. When this avaricious plague starts to infect my spectrum of games, I take it as a personal insult. And I would be happy to spit in the eye of the next insect who crawls out of Ubisoft's dungeon to hiss about "time savers" and "player choice". (I'm not sure if I have to specify how that was a joke. But I will, just to be sure.)

But the story doesn't end there. You see, we have since received an official response from Ubisoft through their professional patsy; the community manager. On the 4th, on the official Ubisoft forums, a fellow called UbiBorghal decided to offer himself up as the sacrificial lamb in front of the Internet. The post started with a detailing of the core philosophies of the Breakpoint team, and this is worth a giggle at, if nothing else:

From the beginning, two key factors stood out as extremely important for the team.

1. That Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Breakpoint doesn’t include any pay-to-win elements.
2. To make sure that players not choosing to engage with in-game purchases do not see their experience affected. Players will be able to unlock skills and get access to plenty of varied loot & items by simply playing the game.

From the outset this seems like a very heartfelt affirmation for the community to take solace in, however, perhaps this message may have held a little more weight before the game released. You know, before we could see all the ways in which both of those 'important factors' were disregarded and violated. Firstly, the pretense that the game should not include any pay-to-win elements is so laughable that I can't even be bothered to refute it. (Besides, I sort-of already did.) As for the 'player's should not see their experience effected.' I'll remind you of the several cosmetic unlocks that the game dangles in front of the player only to slap them in the face with a hard paywall. Then there is the fact that the main hub-area for the game is a social-online space that you are unable to opt-out of. This means that everytime you go back to craft new weapons or accept story critical missions, you have to mingle with other players, and I'll bet that the matchmaking will go out of it's way to shack up non-spenders with heavy spenders. (Although Ubisoft will never out and admit it, cockroaches that they are.) That way people will forever be seeing content that they are unavailable to access and be encouraged to pony up. All that isn't even taking into account the fact that players could end up getting steamrolled, in the competitive online, by other players who buy all the skillpoint packs and weapon upgrades.

UbiBorgal then explained that the systems would be removed. Apparently their implementation in the first place was a mistake that only became known due to the 'early access' period of the game. Another lie from Ubisoft, on two fronts. First, the game wasn't 'early access' you just released it on the actual shipping date for those that paid £30 extra and delayed it 3 days for everyone else. Secondly, these microtransactions were 100% intentional. The team just misjudged how much backlash they would receive from the systems and decided to backtrack. If you don't believe me, then how about you take a look at the team's own words; "some Time-Savers items (Skill Point bundles, XP Boosters, parts bundles for advanced weapon upgrades) were available for purchase for a few hours in our Store- These items were designed as an optional way for players arriving later to the game (Post-Launch) to catch up with those who have been playing for longer" Yep, not only are Ubisoft entirely unrepentant for their transgressions, they straight-up admitted that these pay-to-win mechanics are still on the slate to be released later on. That means, even if you believe their half-assed excuses (Which I don't) then they've admitted to attempting to circumvent review criticism by unveiling their worst monetisation attacks after the initial release (and the bulk of reviews) have passed. Once again, we are left with a situation in which the team's only defence is "We weren't lying guys, we're just incompetent. Oh sure, we intended to lie, but we were too stupid to pull it off." Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

I am very proud to announce, however, that this time these pathetic corporate antics have come around to slap these companies in the face, and boy do they deserve it. Perhaps it comes from the active (failed) attempt to deceive them, but reviewers are refusing to give this game a break on terms of score. Look up 'Breakpoint review' on Google and the first three scores that you are presented with (The three most influential scores on the Internet right now) read thusly; PC Gamer: 40%, Games Radar: 2.5/5 and Gamespot 4/10. Ouch. Dive deeper and you'll find other reviewers like Eurogamer, very much wearing their hearts on their sleeve as they entitle their review "A limp lifeless spin on the Ubisoft formula." Huh, it's almost like everything that I've been saying since Far Cry 4 has started to dawn on the rest of the gaming community... I'm not calling all of Ubisoft hacks, but those in charge most certainly are, and it looks like their bad decisions are finally starting to catch up to them. Do you think this trend of harsh reviews will end with Breakpoint? Remember that every Ubisoft game is essentially the same game with one new mechanic. (and world-class environment designers who really deserve better.) Now that the community has drawn blood they aren't going to rest until Ubisoft really start dedicating their considerable resources and manpower to truly change things up. (Although, I wouldn't be surprised if Ubisoft's higher-ups can't even remember how to pull that off anymore.)

For a long time now I was seriously considering picking up this game fresh and have it become by new go-to game. (I've been missing out on one for a year now) But, needless to say, that won't be happening now. At this point, my money is going elsewhere, (Likely towards 'The Outer Worlds', so I may have a review of that impending.) and I doubt I'm the only one who has come to the same conclusion. It may seem like a small act of defiance to opt-out of engagement, but this is the only statement of power that we have as consumers, and if enough of us act it has a real chance to change things. Insider rumors suggest that Activision, of all people, held a conference after the backlash over their exclusive Modern Warfare mode led to a rash of cancelled pre-orders. I'm not saying that anything will come from that meeting, or that something similar will happen at Ubisoft, just that things 'could' happen, and that's worth a little abstinence on behalf of consumers, isn't it? We'll see if management end up learning anything from this nonsense, but, personally, I don't hold high hopes. As I wrap up I have nothing more to say except: Get your bloody house in order, Guillemot!
The shreds of my conscience tell me to add;  I do not, and would never. condone any harm being acted upon those at Ubisoft. They may have killed this game, but let their punishment be a punch in the only place that it matters; their wallet.

Modern Warfare, Oldschool Problems

Ah shoot, here we go again.

You know, there is so much cool stuff happening in the world of gaming right now that I would love to talk about. I never got a chance to cover the announcement that Cyberpunk 2077 would be getting an online game or the brand new Avengers footage. But now Activision had to go and put their foot in it and I'm stuck talking about 'exclusivity' again. Ain't life just grand? Oh well, might as well get all this festering rage out of my system through the written word; buckle up.

Let's begin be ensuring that everyone is up to speed. September will see the release of 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare', no not the 2007 'Modern Warfare', the one with the terrorist attack in Piccadilly Circus. (Still not letting that go, Infinity Ward.) With this game, IW intend to bring the series 'back-to-basics', quite literally considering they're even reusing their old titles. This means gritty, realistic combat, vehicles and a stupidly fast time-to-kill. (The more things change the more they stay the same.) One announcement that garnered some praise, and interest from me, was the reveal that 'Spec ops' would be triumphantly returning to the game after eight years of absence.

'Spec Ops' was a mode that was perfected in 'Modern Warfare 2' in which players were faced with various different scenarios with very specific objectives. These little nuggets of game were absolutely perfect for someone who just wanted to a quick COD fix or some co-op fun. Plus, they were a perfect blend between being accessible and challenging, so that anyone could give them a go. Some of my fondest gaming memories is of going through 'O Cristo Redentor' with my dad so often that we knew each spawn by heart. (I'm not even kidding or doing a 'my father' story for sympathy points. We just both happened to really enjoy that game.) I think the best part about 'Spec Ops', the thing that really sealed the deal, was the way in which they all offered something entirely unique. There were maps in which you hunted hostiles, maps in which you snuck by hoards of enemies in the snow, maps that had one player use an AC-130 whilst covering the other, and even one which remade the classic Modern Warfare 2007 (Ugh, I hate that we have to do that now.) level; 'All Ghilied up' and sent you through it backwards.

The 'Spec ops' announcement was just another example in a long list of 'things we got right' by IW that was actually starting to get the attention of the wider public. Recent years have seen COD branded as 'uncool' and 'tired', as most franchises that stubbornly refuse to change their engine are. (What do you mean that The Elder Scrolls 6 will use the same engine again? For god's sake Bethesda, can't you do anything right!) However, this entry saw a brand new 'photo realistic' engine, the addition of a dedicated dark and gritty story mode that the devs seem actually proud of and moment-to-moment gameplay that early critics are calling "Okay." (That's high praise for a COD game!) At this point, everything is looking like 'Modern Warfare' will be a return to form that no one ever thought would happen, good press is finally being dropped on Infinity Ward's shoes, and now all they have to do is release the game and watch the sales roll in. But wait a minute. This is an Activision game, isn't it? Doesn't that mean some thing inexplicably anti-consumerist has to happen to sully everyone's hard-won good will? Why yes, yes it does.

Recently, during Sony's State-of-play stream, Activision thought it might behoove them to have their game make an appearance, seeing as how this would be the most highly trafficked gaming event until the release of said-game. It was there that a moronic announcement would be made for 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare', one that would set the Internet ablaze. Right at the end they spat in the eyes of two thirds of their fanbase by announcing that Spec Op's Survival Mode would be a timed exclusive for PlayStation. "But for how long" you may ask. Well, they announced that too. (Even though any PR manager worth their salt would have begged them not to.) It was on the same page as the announcement, right at the bottom and greyed out. 'Timed Exclusive Content Until October 1st, 2020.' Where do I begin?

Fans were understandably outraged at the prospect of being locked out of an entire gamemode. Activision have done this before, sure. Destiny had some Strikes that were PlayStation exclusive until Destiny 2 came out. (Just in the nick of time.) And any Activision Beta usually comes out on PlayStation first. Basically, Activision and Sony never miss out on an opportunity to trade saliva in the Janitor's closet like a couple of horny schoolkids. (Yikes, grossed myself out a little with that one.) But an entire gamemode? What an absolute kick to the nuts. Things got so bad that the Studio Narrative Director, Taylor Kurosaki, had to take to Twitter to defend the game. "Let’s be honest," He said in response to one incensed fan "'ruining' is an exaggeration. Survival is 1% of the game. The other 99% is simultaneous day and date across all platforms. I’d rather have everyone playing 99% of the content at the same time than 100% of the content some time later."

Okay, barring the actual lack of sense some of that made, (I'm assuming there's some sort of language barrier) let me explain why a lot of people are calling this statement out for being a load of crap. Firstly, "Survival is 1%". Unless the game has 99 other modes, that is just mathematically incorrect. More to the point, he is trying to point out that, whilst 'Survival' might be locked for some players, the rest of  'Spec Ops' is open for everyone. Which is a fair point, as is the response from the public. Many have said that, since the rest of community is paying for a lesser version of the game then the game should cost less on PC and XBox. That's only fair, right?

"But it's a timed exclusive!" Some have argued. "You'll get the content eventually." And that brings me on to my next point of contention, because they're right. Other consoles will get the game mode eventually. After a year. That's a little bit of a problem considering that Call of Duty is an annual franchise. For over a decade now, Activision have used a multi-studio tactic to ensure that a COD game is out every year at roughly the same time. This means that they get the £60 from their loyal base every year alongside whatever else they manage to wring out them along the way with DLC and Microtransactions. The effect of this is that every single COD game is forgotten about and discarded the moment the new one is on the slate. Therefore, by the time the rest of Modern Warfare's audience get the gamemode that is part of the package that they paid for, the core audience of the game will have already moved onto something else.

"But the gaming world is changing." They continue. "Now we have Live-services. Those games can be supported for years!" Which, again, is true. However, COD has failed to adopt that model again-and-again over the years. Things looked hopeful last year with Black Ops 4 when Treyarch announced that BO4 would be their "Most supported game ever." However that proved to be a straight-up lie last week when they announced that 'Dark Divide' would be their last operation for the game, effectively killing that game's support. Why should we expect something different for Modern Warfare, even if they tell us it will be? Activision are proven liars so we can expect the same treatment that we always receive from these people.

Then there is the comment that a few people like making; "You probably wouldn't play the mode anyway!" An affirmation to which I, personally, would like to call foul. 'Spec Ops: Survival mode' has been described as a 'horde-like' scenario which pits a team of players against waves of enemies to survive. Let it be known that I Love horde modes. I'm talking 'Love' with capitalization, with vehement passion! Ever since 'Gears of War 2' it has been my unspoken mission to conquer every single such mode by myself, or at least get as far as I possibly can. (Gears of War 3 did break me a few times.) Plus, you'll never guess what my favourite Spec Ops level of 'Modern Warfare 2' was? (At least when I was by myself.) Yup, 'Sniper Fi', the horde level.

I know I'm not the only one either. Horde modes are an absolutely art form and there are communities of people that flock to these game types just as fervently as I do. Heck, Grand Theft Auto Online literally just released some Ballas-themed horde maps to their game, proving that there is still a market for them to this day! Downplaying their purposeful omission from 'Modern Warfare' does an absolute disservice to the community and the consumer.

The offcial Reddit has also been ablaze about this issue of late, and some Infinity Ward developers have had to wade into that cesspool as well, in order to defend themselves. One of these responses was some canned PR crap that isn't worth the cerebral effort to rebuke, whilst the other was a heartfelt "Hey gang." message that poked at the community's empathy bone. (Being an empathyless individual, I just found the whole post vomit inducing.) The user, going by the name Joel, used his comment to tell the world how diverse the gang at Infinity Ward are and how dedicated they are to making great games. Then, instead of addressing the issue at hand, he made a weird left turn into toxic comments and how they hurt his fee-fees."We all have a pretty thick skin here but yeah it can kind of get to you. Believe me we keep it professional but of course people that pass by my office from time to time can hear me through the walls:)"

Reading this whole thing did leave me feeling a little confused and distracted. Don't get me wrong, I offer my sympathies to them having to go through that situation, (As much sympathy as I can muster for people who are literally paid to do this.) but I couldn't help but feel a little emotionally manipulated by the whole thing. I don't know. Maybe I'm just a terrible person. (Okay, I'm definitely a terrible person.) I'm sure that the buck stops with Activision in this situation and they were the one's that brokered this gross deal with their beau Sony, but the biggest loser in this situation is very much the consumer. I understand that the developers face some bile that is far beyond reason in some instances, but they still get their paychecks at the end of the day, I'm sure they can stomach some inane rambling from some of the more unhinged people online. And if they can't, perhaps they should avoid the Internet a bit. That's the thing about listening to feedback, not all of it is positive, nice or even constructive. (Gah, they've pulled me off topic again. See!)

I'd like to say that all of this backlash will shake the light into Activision and have them withdraw this nonsense, but this is Activision we're talking about; nothing short of The Rapture will quell their greedy antics. This deal is a forgone conclusion and everyone will have to deal with it whether they're happy about it or not. There have been some calls to host a boycott over the issue, but we all know that'll never happen. Not to a degree that'll hurt Activision enough to have them listen to their consumers. Call of Duty is one of those games that has entered the general public zeitgeist and so boasts an army of day-one buyers who will pick up the game regardless of all the behind-the-scenes nonsense. (because they just don't care.) Once again exclusivity has kicked consumers in the nuts and there is nothing we can do about it. Sometime I hate loving gaming.

"It's all about player choice..."

Let's play devils advocate.

Video gaming is a very time consuming hobby. Whether your one who chooses to dedicate their time to an online shooter or a full blown JRPG, you're going to be spending some hours with you butt in front of a monitor. Games are hardier endeavours than movies and TV series' and can even trump the length of books, depending on how slow of a reader you are. This is one of the truths of gaming; if you want to achieve something it's going to cost some amount of effort. That is also one the greatest barriers-to-entry for video games. Not everyone has the time-capital to spend on a hundred-hour RPG, or even a forty minute battle royale match. Other obligations get in the way, life gets in the way if you let it. If only there was some sort of way that people like this could enjoy the fun and freedom of a video game whilst saving themselves time.

That is the proposed philosophy behind the humble 'Time savers pack'. Time and time again, developers slip in these little 'booster packs' and 'premium currencies' whilst telling us that their intentions with these additions is purely to benefit accessibility. Do you have a demanding job that affords little 'me' time? You may find it difficult to compete with others who seem to play 24/7, they'll run circles around you when it comes to progression. Lucky for people in your shoes, modern gaming companies will allow you to circumvent the grind that your competitors endured with a small, inconsequential payment. A 'Microtransaction', if you will. Suddenly, you'll be earning progression at thrice the rate that others do and will skyrocket ahead of everyone else. That's great, isn't it? Equality at a price. True capitalism.

Video gaming is a very fund consuming hobby, also. If you're not dropping £60 on brand new releases, you're putting down £50 yearly on online privileges or triple digits on the latest console. Gamers are trained to believe that being up-to-date also means being flush, and that perspective isn't entirely false. Unless you have a substantial amount of disposal income to play with, you'll likely be limiting yourself to one big release a year. Publishers know this all too well. It's why they sink thousands into marketing to catch your eye, it's why October has officially become the 'battle-month' for big AAA releases and why, when they have you, gaming companies will do whatever they can to keep you. What do these two topics have to do with each other? Well, it all comes back to 'controversy'

Game creators are terrified of controversy. Petrified of it. In their eyes, the second negative press falls on their doorstep it is only a matter of time before the public boycotts their products. If no one is around to pick up the next Battlefield or Far Cry then they will miss their sales goals, investors will get spooked and the entire civilized western world will unravel at the seams. That is why after the 'Battlefront 2 lootbox scandal' every company was falling over themselves to let the public know how they would never stoop as low as EA did. "No Lootboxes here!" You'd see plastered all over marketing. "Please buy our game. We promise not to gouge you." It was as though the entire video game industry had got a hint of consumer revolt and were willing to uproot everything to stop it picking up steam. They appeared to be changing their ways, moving away from aggressive monetization and back towards the way games used to be. Unfortunately, if there is one emotion that always manages to override caution, it's greed.

Lootboxes may not be acceptable in the eyes of the public anymore, but what about general microtransactions? Cosmetics, boosters and time savers. Once upon a time these tactics also drew ire from everybody; but now, in the post lootbox age, people are just happy not to have to deal with glorified gambling anymore. So everything moves backwards and now the market is flooded with 'time saver items'. "But it's okay." they tell us. "Because none of this is necessary. It's all optional. We're just giving you a choice to buy them. It's all about player choice." Pretty words but I want to take a little examination and see how much water they hold, if any.

Let's start of by taking these game companies at their word. Let us pretend that these systems aren't pathetic attempts to shake some lose change out of consumers pockets, and act as though these offers are the magnanimous gifts of charitable benefactors. In this hypothetical, video game companies are supremely concerned about the disparity of free time and seek to rectify that divide anyway they can. What are the options? An 'xp-catch' up system has a bad ring to it, people often compare this to 'rubber banding' and complain how it invalidates hard work. 'First win of the day' bonuses do it for some folk. Games like Overwatch imbue the players with a huge influx of extra XP for their first win of the day; it isn't enough to keep things competitive with regular players but it is a nice, mostly inconsequential, boost. Modern day developers and publishers have seen both of these solutions and tossed them aside for something much more 'robust'.

Cue the reveal of Booster packs. Timed consumables that edit the rate at which the player earns experience by doubling their intake or maybe even tripling it. A consumable that is almost always only purchasable with real-world funds. So this fixes the problem, right? Those with free time deficits can now go toe-to-toe with the no-lifers. (à la moi.) Except not. As I said, these consumables are timed, they may only last a day or a week but eventually they will fade away. If the original issue was that the proposed player lacked the free time to play the game extensively, then they will just end up wasting the vast majority of their exp boost. What happens then? Well, then you're right back to square one, being trampled by the more experienced players. "But never fear" They tell us. "because you can just but another and get right back to it!"

When multiplayer games like 'Gotham City: Imposters', Ghost Recon: Wildlands and League of Legends start selling these xp boosts, they always justify it with the same rhetoric; "It's about player choice" or "It helps busy gamers keep up". But as we just deduced, that is inaccurate. The only way these packs could help keep less frequent gamers keep up with regular players would be if they purchased exp boosts constantly, in perpetuity and managed to play exactly half as much as their competition. This is, of course, assuming that the die hard players refuse to buy any exp boosts themselves, out of some strange desire for fair competition. What I'm trying to say is that this entire line of reasoning is, and always has been, bull. Consumable boosts have never been about fairness, and were never targeted at casual players either; They are laser focused on the dedicated gamers to keep them buying and lock them in as recurrent players through a little bit of sunk-cost fallacy.

Who remembers the double xp apocalypse back in 2011? For those unfamiliar, back before the release of Modern Warfare 3 Activison signed up some stereotypical junk food providers to offer double xp codes alongside their products. That means if you bought any Mountain Dew or Doritos from back in that time (and still have the packaging around for some inexplicable reason) you are  able to enjoy anywhere between 15-90 minutes of bonus xp rewards in MW3's online. At this time Activision were still riding off of the high that was the wide-spread success Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer, they knew this game was going to a hit amongst hard-core multiplayer nuts and wanted to cash in. Primarily with incredibly desperate microtransactions, but they got around to good-old fashioned promotions too. Little did they know how successful this particular promotion would be. People went out and bought gallons of Mountain Dew and barrel loads of Doritos, all in order to collect these codes up. When the game finally launched in November, People had days worth of double XP to spend on climbing through the ranks as quickly as possible. The related brands made 'stupid money' (as Michael Bay puts it) and Activision has teamed up for some sort of real-world brand deal every release since. These are the kinds of stories that you should remember the next time you hear some executive tell you that 'time savers' are designed to be in the best interest of the player.

If that was the only time that 'time saving' microtransactions were utilized I could happily ignore it. I am a particularly selfish creature at the end of the day, and competitive multiplayer games has never been my thing. Unfortunately, recent years have seen similar practises making their way to other types of games too. Forza have their 'time saver car packs' wherein players can forgo the progression of the main game and just buy every vehicle from the get go; Fallout 76 has it's repair kits that allow players to fix their gear immediately, shrugging away the effort of gathering resources and finding a workbench; and then there's Assassin's Creed Unity to Odyssey and their XP boosts, which function much how other games do. All of these microtransactions manage to skate past controversy on the thinly veiled pretense of: not 'technically' being pay-to-win. Which, I suppose, is fair. They just destroy any and all balancing, putting it in the hands of the players with the larger bank accounts but sure, it's not 'strictly' to pay to win.

I have spoken about greedy microtransaction practises before, but this has always been one that has got under my skin more than cosmetics or lootboxes. Maybe because of the fact that so few people identify these practises for the gluttonous cesspools they are. Or maybe because the instituters then have the audacity to try to defend themselves by turning the focus back on the us. "This is for your benefit. We did this all for you!". Whilst lootboxes are busy getting eviscerated on the public stage, no one will bother to cast a critical eye to these other microtransaction practises that have been around for so long that we have begrudgingly accepted them. Therefore these companies get to feel like they've gotten away with their nickle-and-diming and feel emboldened to go even further the next time. I have never partaken in this particular practises myself, but I do know others with fewer scruples who would say I am just being a cheapskate. Maybe I am. And maybe, I will refrain from purchasing games with such mechanics altogether and encourage others to do so too. Maybe, I will do my best to shine a spotlight on these shady deals whenever and wherever I see them pop up. Maybe, I will do any and everything in my power to deprive these gremlins of the capital they so crave. Afterall, it's all about player choice.