A line crossed.

 A playerbase scorned

There seems to be an accepted scale of severity when it comes to dealing with those games that demand monetary tribute from it's players. First of, yes- we've passed through the fact that certain games feel the need to be constantly supplied with funds to in order cover the terrible incurred costs of server maintenance, (that was sarcasm) but live service titles tend to get a bit more leeway because at least those recurrent funds appear to be actually going somewhere. Free-to-play live service games almost get a free pass to nickel and dime as much as they want, simply because they wave you in at the door with a free sample to get you hopelessly hooked before begging you for spare change out of your pocket. No quite the classic dealer-grift, but you can see where these companies developed their inspiration at least. But no platform exists without it's limits.

Once upon a time we used to be decently okay with the idea of subscription models for games that allow for a regular paycheck to be fed into the development studio in exchange for unfettered access to everything that online experience had to offer. There was no case of blocking off content for the most generous players or sinking more effort into paid content whilst giving free players the table scraps- in some ways this was the most universally fair system. However, today these ideals are looked on as relics of the past, probably due to the fact that people are a little bit more aware of the ways they're wasting money these days, and how much time in your favourite online game goes wasted? I don't want to spend a monthly subscription for a game I only get to play a few hours each weekend! What kind of value proposition is that? Still- with the directions we veer off into nowadays, I'm starting to miss that standard...

Because as you may have heard, the free-to-play online COD platform, Warzone, has recently been fingered as the latest company to push it's way past the line of decency in it's attempt to rake in that microtransaction revenue money. Whilst other games of this style are happy selling cosmetics and colour-kits to keep it's lights on, COD have unveiled preliminary bundles with skins that have actual effects in the game. Paid-for skins that will grant extra weapon slots or a free UAV on spawn. These effects are specifically for the DMZ game mode, which appears to be a Tarkov inspired take on the Warzone formula- which in itself highlights the disparity even more between the relatively level playing field that veteran tittle offers and the skewered version of that same kind of play space COD is proposing to thrust upon the world with avarice blinding it's eyes.

You see, this is what is know of as 'Pay to win'. Systems of classism within the player community reinforced by who pays and who doesn't is only worsened when you start making paid content actually significantly effect the playing of the game. Any sort of extra advantage you can pay hard real-world money for spits in the face of fair competition that lies in the bones of any PVP game. And Warzone already skirted that line for years, with certain skins that were objectively harder to see then the base model thanks to camouflage patterns or ghillie aesthetics- but this pushes way beyond even that. It is a pollutant to enter into the gaming ecosystem and a line past which even the most insanely avarice companies in the world typically know not to cross. Ubisoft happily would, but who in their right mind lives their life to the standard of freakin' Ubisoft? I mean, come on!

We've been almost exactly here before, in the whole 'Power card' 'lootbox' debacle that ended up forever tainting the legacy of Star Wars Battlefront 2 when EA thought it oh-so-clever to sell their upgrade path improvements in randomly stocked digital crates. Of course, by the very nature of the idea that was a good percentage worse, because in a competitive game those bonuses are a world of difference between winning or losing- but the principle stems from the same short-sighted place. The entire concept of a game is a special magic box within which everything you do is removed from consequence to everything outside of that box. I'm talking fundamental game design philosophy here. Philosophy that EA, and now Actvision, are wantonly violating with hair-brained polices!

And why do we get so irate about these systems? Is it because we're all cheapskates who shudder at the prospect of paying an uncapped amount of small transactions in the hope of being competitive with other players? Well that's certainly a factor for me, but this does run deeper than that. All of the most successful competitive games which still persist in today's ecosystem, Counterstrike Global Offensive, League of Legends, Apex Legends- all of them feature non gameplay affecting cosmetics that can be purchased with real money. Because when you place gameplay power under a price tag you enter into a whole new economy of weight which influences how every system is then presented to the player. We've not got a competitive multiplayer game which has sold itself fully enough to this devil for comparison yet, but we do have examples from other genres.

Diablo Immortal famously sells chances to obtain it's highest gear under differing 'rift token' accessories that straight up prevents non-paying players from even attempting to roll some of the best gear in the game. What happened to that game? It became a social pariah and it's player base shrivelled up to a small, albeit loyal, contingent of glorified paypiggies. And on an even grander scale- Star Citizen pre-sells it's grandest and newest ships for thousands of dollars before the game is even built, essentially creating a broken economy of progression before the final product has even been stuck together. Some people are going to load into the final game at the end of the progression chain, with nothing left to grind for, others are going to start hopelessly small in comparison with no hope of ever catching up thanks to the nature of the set-up.

As it turns out- anti consumer practices tend to test poorly on, you know, the audience. That special line of decency exists to maintain the thin façade of respect between us and them; and when it's trodden on, even in the smallest of ways- a backlash isn't just justified, it's nigh-on duty bound! Experience has taught us well how these are boundaries written in sand, easily shifting, and without the most vigorous 'watch-dogging', liberties will be taken as they've been taken in the past. Let this indiscretion go and tomorrow's will be worse. Outfit buffs today will be purchaseable ammo care drops mid-game in a month from now; and early start UAV's absolutely will become consumable tactical nukes in a year or two down the line. Nerfs aren't good enough- this needs to be ripped out at the stem!

Toys for Bobby Kotick

Is Bobby Kotick Mr Smith?

Comparing where we were to where we're at, in terms of life and what we see around us, can yield some interesting results in the realm of judging what has progressed and regressed respectively. Are we still working towards the same goals, are the same things still important to us, or has our world view changed and grown somewhat slightly as we, or maybe just the world around us, has matured. Looking at Activision through this lens, it sure has seemed that they regressed these past few years, as just when it looked like this storied publisher was getting a hand on actually diversifying their audience, they've retreated back to the same old holding pattern of 'Call of Duty'. "Got to make more 'Call of Duty', else we may run out!" This reached a whole new scope just the otherday when a promising and well positioned studio was sucked into the Call of Duty machine, thus giving Activision studios the dubious honour of having every single one of them working on Call of Duty to some degree. (And to think we were measuring up the Call of Duty franchise for a coffin but four or five years ago)

So if you're currently an FPS fan looking at the game industry today, you're just about sitting pretty with the amount of options available to you! (Well, unless you're a tactical FPS fan, in which case all you really have is Rainbow Six Siege, but I digress) Apex Legends and Call of Duty provide all the competition and diversity you could ever really need in the somewhat narrow demographic of casual online shooter games with battle royale modes, and they've pretty definitively taken over the market. I mean, who'd have thought that all Call of Duty needed to do in order to soar to unexplored heights would be to just offer their game up for free and charge on the backend? (Everyone in China, I guess, given how that's what Call Duty had been in China for years beforehand) To call Call of Duty Warzone a goliath to rival COD in it's heyday seems apt, so I cannot feasibly throw up my hands and feign surprise when I see all the company slowly mould itself around supporting that game model in the years to come. But even acknowledging that, surely there has to be some limits!

Activison is a big company, afterall, with a storied history touching so many different properties and genres over the years. Do you remember when they used to be that studio for making Marvel games and we got such fantastic titles like Spiderman 2 and Marvel Ultimate Alliance? (Bet they're sad they lost that licence...) They even used to make Tony Hawks game and even a little Guitar Hero back when those sorts of titles were popular. What I'm trying to say is that Call of Duty isn't the only game these guys made and they used to get on great splitting themselves between COD and several other game franchises. In fact, even recently things had been working out just fine for them on that front on account of the revival of the old Spyro and Crash Bandicoot games. So what could have got in the way of this exciting revival for the action platforming genre now that they've got this promising studio 'Toys for Bob' working on them. Unless... on no, they didn't!

Actually, they didn't. 'Toys for Bob' hasn't be shut down or swallowed or forcibly downsized just yet, and with some luck maybe things will stay that way, but they doesn't mean they've been allowed to persist unmolested either. After sitting down and bringing the Crash Bandicoot series back to life through the N Sane trilogy, and then getting the chance to hone an honest-to-goodness sequel with 'Crash Bandicoot 4: it's about time', Toys for Bob have received the ultimate position in Sovngarde; relegation to a support studio. No, I'm not joking, you did read that right, they were rewarded for helming two successful titles by having their autonomy stripped; what the what? Now, one on hand you could look at this from the angle of these developers getting the opportunity to work on the hugely successful Call of Duty Warzone, and be able to stick that on their resume; whilst on the otherhand you could say that they could have requested a transfer to a COD studio if they wanted, and now none of them have that choice.

Now to be fair (pff, there's that expression again) Call of Duty is currently sitting at a very unique spot within it's own history. Not just because they've never done a battle royal before (again, they actually had; but in China) but because they're currently experimenting with having an on-going free-to-play game run alongside their biyearly premium paid for games. There's a sort of shared infrastructure going between each title that just makes absolutely no sense even in summary, so I can only imagine the nightmare that the staff needs to go through in order to keep it running. What I'm trying to say is that I actually understand why Activision feels the need to get more hands on deck in order to keep things running, they've currently given themselves a huge undertaking to handle. But does that really mean every single other property owned by Activison needs to get shafted in order for COD to shine? Because I feel like when you start weighing that up as the alternative to scaling back, maybe you've gone a bit too far and grand plans for COD need to be toned down a bit. (You know what they say about spreading eggs and baskets.)

Mostly, however, this is unfair to the folks over at Toys for Bob and the plans they had going forward. One such plan apparently being a multiplayer add-on coming to Crash 4 that would have shaken up the gameplay and extended that title's lifespan. On such plan who's future is now in question because Toys for Bob isn't necessarily the biggest developer in the world and who knows if they can even do two projects at once. (Even if their new COD duties are more in support) One contractor took to Twitter to mutely share his disappointment on the whole situation, hoping along with everyone that this move is just temporary whilst Activision management get off their behinds and do something proper in this situation; like hire more people to fill support spaces. (You know, be an asset to your market. Is that too much to ask?) So that just goes to show you that at least someone who's worked with Toys finds this all a little distasteful, so there might be more in the studio as well with similar sentiments. So way to demoralise your own staff, Activision, setting that example.

One rumour which spread out of this whole situation was the idea that layoffs had followed this decision, which would have been horrible if that were the case, although it apparently isn't. Some contractors didn't have their contracts renewed, which kind of makes sense considering the vast change in direction for the studio, but no one was whole sale let go just yet. Still, that makes for a small victory when those that remain aren't going to be making what they signed up to do, because artists in particular do have a tendency to underperform when mismatched. (I've met and worked alongside some to know that little tidbit well enough) Just look at other studios like Bioware when their projects started to move away from what they were good at towards what their producers thought would be more profitable. Layoffs weren't needed, key members just quit. What's the point in sticking around when you're not being utilised, right? So will a similar fate befall Toys for Bob? I honestly haven't the foggiest; but it's a possibility.

So all in all, like the Infinity Stones coming together for Thanos; every Activision Studio has come to fall under the COD umbrella. Is this the grand future that Bobby Kotick sees for his company? Mass homogenisation to the point where every studio becomes interchangeable and just eventually end up changing their names to 'Activation California' and the like? Is that just the dream for every mass publisher out there? (It might as well be, that seems to be becoming something of a trend) I want to believe that it's not, Activision still remembers the other properties under it's belt and, most importantly, that Crash Bandicoot doesn't get itself left unceremoniously to the wide side because, gosh darn it, we just got that furry fella back! Thank you for all your hard work, Toys for Bob, I hope that you'll have the chance to demonstrate that ingenuity, talent and resourcefulness once more. (though that's looking like a hope for the far future at this point)

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!