I can't stand rage bait

 I've already lost, I know

I'm so darn tired of rage bait, I really am. Of course, that total exhaustion could be itself a reflection of my general emotional tiredness- which stuff like that only exacerbates, but that does not mean I hold 'rage baiters' as innocents in my situation. To clarify, by 'Rage Bait', I am referring to those who conjure up 'stories' simply for the attention they know they will bring by covering a topic in a bad faith or purposefully contentious manner. Not those who simply have their own opinion on a topic and will fight for it. I don't have a problem with someone's essay on why Fallout 4 is a better game than New Vegas, even if all the presented arguments are hilariously flimsy and ill-conceived, because there's a genuine passion behind the conceiver. (That's a genuine topic I've read by the way. Poor misguided soul- I know) It's those that know better, but know if they push the right buttons simply to infuriate and draw in those all important 'rage clicks', then that's all you need for that short term success.

Before I really got into writing myself I always tried to play a devil's advocate position in situations like that, reasoning that it's probably a situation of quotas and deadlines forcing people to write beyond their ability to conjure up good-faith ideas or at least genuine criticism. Today I'm sure that plays a role, but with over 1300 blogs under my belt, not one shooting under the belt for a quick rage click on a day when I just wasn't feeling it; I'm feeling a lot less charitable in my perceptions. I'm evolved from finding those sorts of articles annoying, to losing all intellectual respect I might have otherwise had for the writer- because clearly they lack the fortitude and resourcefulness to maintain any sort of professional standard with their work. Hell, I'm an unpaid independent and I have higher work ethics than them; that's crazy to think about!

Which is why I personally, just give no props whatsoever to the larger gaming industry; because all but a couple of their number fall into that mire of rage baiting out of desperation, and the couple that have integrity don't even write for any of the big industry sites anymore. At least I can kind of forgive the skewered review scores that slaps 9/10 to such trash as the Resident Evil Netflix show, because we all see the not-too-quiet corruptive elements of 'those who are too critical in the entertainment industry get blocked from entertainment events'. It is by no means a right or just situation; but I can't blame the 'journalists' themselves. Crawling around in the filth, slinging mud and trying to draw in anyone for the sake of watching the ticker on their site go up- that's just pathetic and desperate. I equate that much to internet gutter journalism.

Now typically I'm happy to avoid that sort of world, knowing how annoyed it makes me both for the state of gaming journalism and in the topic they're besmirching themselves; but damn it, I am not a strong man. The years have taken their toil on my willpower and sometimes I've just got to see what the pigs are cooking up in their sty to see how bad things have gotten- of course then I immediately recoil in disgust and go back to avoiding them- for about a week until I fall into the same trap again. See, that's the insidious thing about rage bait. It presents no integrity, talent or intelligence, but by god is it effective. It's the equivalent of taking the easy path to success by stepping on the heads of others instead of working diligently for your own self improvement. It's morally reprehensible I say; and because I have some small integrity that is a stance I'll actually stand up for.

Fitting in with my recent experience, given that I've finally gotten around to playing Spiderman Remastered on PC, (Fantastic game so far) I want to rewind back to an article posted when Spiderman first re-released onto the Steam store. A certain site decided to review the game, the original versions of which they had already gone on record reviewing, and so this time decided to get a bit creative with their article. Rather than judge the game for the game it was, considering it was the review process and that is what you would expect, they made the first mistake of reviewing and compared it against something it wasn't and never was. Yes, I'm talking about the PC Spiderman review in which the game was critiqued for being 'Cop-a-ganda' because the narrative doesn't explore the corruption/systemic racial prejudice of the police department. It's a Spiderman game, based on the Spiderman comics- police corruption isn't typically that character's MO. Do I really need to break down the obvious flaws in that stance? Spiderman is a vigilante, doing the police's job for them throughout the entire game. There actually is a small plot point with corrupt police members working for Fisk in the literal first mission of the game, albeit it's a tiny part of the mission that is easily forgotten. And the Sable Task Force from Act 2 are quite literally designed to represent heavy handed and unjust law enforcement. Even by the narrow definitions the author wrote, their point falls apart like a CV dangling in a rain storm. Yet still, the very fact we have to unravel such trite is infuriating. 

Then there's the classics, like the general character complaints around design choices for video game protagonists like Cal Kestis and... whoever the main character was of Days Gone- that game just can't stay in my head for the life of me. Now this is a really insidious little stance, as it routes itself in a genuine game's industry foil; the lack of main character diversity. I ain't never see a protagonist with the same skin tone as myself, but that's because no one really thinks about Mixed-races, now do they? But there's a difference between noticing that problem and criticising Cal from Jedi: Fallen Order and Deacon from Days Gone (Literally had to look it up) for being "too white." First off, Deacon is an American Biker... duh. And secondly... they're both designed to look like the performing actor! I'll admit, I laughed a little when I saw how generic Cal looked, before becoming increadibly embarrassed when I realised that was Cameron Monaghan's real face pretty faithfully reconstructed for the game. If you're issue is with casting, aim at the causes of fewer actors of colour and diversity making it into the professional world- not the actors for failing to alter their own faces for acting and Mo-cap work they've been cast in. But games journalists don't want to do anything like that, because those topics take time to research.

A popular whipping boy of recent months has been Hogwarts Legacy, and this rage train actually has some visible real world consequences displaying the actual dangers of Rage Bait run rampant! Those who had their issues with the Harry Potter game due to it's link with J.K. Rowling were always there ready to pounce on the game, but their cause didn't become a movement until they got signal boosted by the only people who don't care about the consequences of their pot stirring: games journalists. By feeding into the vague rage of a people upset for reasons that seem clearer in their head before they start trying to voice them, and giving those people moral vindication, we reached a summit of outrage where so-called 'activists' were gathering up the names of people who played the game on Twitch to conduct a virtual witch hunt against them. Essentially turning a movement that was started in good faith into a degenerate rat fest no better than your average 4-Chan thread.

Lastly, and I'm sure I've at least mentioned this in another blog but it drove me to the depths of my sanity so I need to mention it- that Persona 4 article. You know the one; where someone who will remain anonymous coined their displeasure with the game due to it's 'apparent sexism' throughout the narrative. Yes, by their reckoning all female character's in the game exist only to be viewed and judged by the male characters and I can't go on because as I'm sure you'll be aware if you have any familiarity with Persona 4; the content writer rather obviously did not play the game. Or they did and for some reason decided to take a beloved game and pen a objectively untrue hit piece for rage clicks. He got mine, so kudos for that small victory; but it astounds me that a person that low and professionally inept is allowed to call themselves a 'journalist' with chops like that. Makes you wonder where the actual decent standards and integrity the games journalist craft get shipped off to. Forbes, I guess.

Rage bait is about as trashy as it gets within the Industry, fuelled by a faux-veneer of moral superiority and a hair-trigger victim complex that rears up everytime their braying picks up a crowd. Needless to say, I have very little respect for a decent number of the games journalists of today. Things have denigrated so far that I was actually somewhat impressed when I saw that IGN actually reviewed Hogwarts Legacy as the game it was, rather than waste their platform shooting for some fangless statement for publicity clicks. Doing one's bare basic job should not be a point for praise. (Heck, they're even calling that 'quiet quitting' over in America these days.) Let this be my weekly release of disgust at the rage bait culture we call 'modern gaming journalism' and have that cleanse be my excuse not to slap on the very next rage bait- wait, what is that site saying about the Last of Us TV show? Gimme a sec- I've got to click on this one...

Game Passing

I don't love you anymore

You've heard of the Microsoft Xbox Game-pass, we all have. The Legends. The Curses. Foolishness about it lying in the middle of an empty games catalogue, buried beneath a cloud of ineffectual hype. A bright, shining payment plan, luring cost-effective gamers to getting stiffed. The world's most influential social media gamers and streamers flocked to it's introduction. A subscription was seen as a sign of... financial prudence. The pass was supposed to symbolize a road to a brighter future, not just for the stark Xbox games library... but for the whole industry. A chance for any company to commit to an effective subscription model. Except- the Game pass didn't live up to it's promise. Last minute delays froze its AAA offerings in time, like book fans waiting for their big screen adaptation of 'The Knife of never letting go'. The grand subscription service- one big appeasement to a ticked off community. It's still out there, on the servers, preserved, just waiting for some real impressive exclusives to drop on it. But buying it, that's not the hard part.

It's letting go.

Or at least that's the narrative you're currently running with if you are one of the legendarily off-the-mark writers over at everyone's favourite games industry publication; Kotaku. You know, the same writers who reviewed 'Spiderman: Miles Morales' by coining the legendarily cringe-imbued, largely non-sensical, sentence "The way he leaps off of rooftops and flips backwards to face the camera before falling into a headfirst dive is just full of exaggerated swagger of a black teen. It gives me goosebumps everytime he does it." The sort of sentence that only kind-of works when it's written down, and calls back to the sound of a dull thud of a dead body hitting the bottom of Sweeny Todd's death-chute when spoken out loud. Actually, I just lied to you. That was Gamespot. But all these publications are just as bad as each other, I'll bet you didn't even bother picking me up on that and perhaps didn't even notice yourself. 

Gamepass is the latest whipping boy of these publications as it appears that the promise of what Microsoft said their service would provide has fallen short of expectations. Gamepass is meant to give access to a rotating library of games totally free to anyone who pays the subscription fee, with complementary access to brand new first party Xbox exclusive titles on the day that they launch. And Xbox have- well actually they've lived up to all of that for better or for worse. The problem is more with the amount and regularity of the exclusives that are landing on the service which is, as you'd likely be able to guess simply from the fact I'm using the term 'exclusives' when talking about the Xbox games library, wanting. 

Microsoft has been struggling with giving it's platform adequate tools to compete against the Playstation 5, just as it did during the days of the 4; which is especially galling when you remember just how much money that company has to throw around on frivolous crap. Multibillion dollar studio acquisitions and you guys can't bag a developer who can make an exclusive on the level of even Days Gone? Doesn't that embarrass you?  Instead Xbox fans just get to sit and watch as Sony's exclusivity dominance bleeds into simply unmanageable levels as they grab control of franchises which were previously open to everyone. Final Fantasy. Knights of the Old Republic. Why don't you just give them Halo, Microsoft? Give up completely?

The straw that shattered the poor camel's vertebrae irreparably came when Bethesda, arbiters of the Western open world, announced that on the very year of their long awaited Starfield; the blockbuster actually wasn't going to make it. In fact, we've heard it was so behind their announced release window that internal teams were calling it the next Cyberpunk. (That's a messed up thing to say about your baby; Starfield is going to have a therapist when it grows up.) And as an extra kick to the nuts, Arkane's Redfall was another casualty of sudden delays, a real low blow for people who played Arkane's "Deathloop" and didn't see it for the obvious flashing neon warning that this is a studio teetering on the edge of falling off completely like daddy Bethesda did. (Wait, they helped make 'Wolfenstein: Youngblood'? Heck, maybe they already did fall off...)

So what do you do when your game subscription service doesn't have any exclusives coming out for the rest of the year save for yearly Horizon car game number 10? Play any of the other dozens of older or indie games that are cycled onto the service every week? I mean, I guess you could do that; but wouldn't it be better to go that one step further and totally abscond from the service altogether until it has something you want? That's actually a very viable tactic and one which many people are doing with Netflix right now seeing as how that platform is losing more and more of it's cool content every year. Sure, Gamepass can still throw tons of cool new games your way but if you're only around for the big showstopper that everyone else is playing and now you need to play or else you won't feel value in yourself, then subscribe again in 2023! There's nothing wrong with that approach and in fact a couple of Game's Journalists did exactly that.

Of course, they did so in the single most ostentatious way possible, monologuing on Twitter about the woes of such a sparse subscription service, as though competing for the starring role in 'Medea'. And of course, Kotaku is going to come lumbering into the story when the only demographic of the industry they care about, other journalists, start yapping. Now we have the 'Game Pass Burnout is here' headlines to paint the views of two career muckrakers as the gospel word of all the industry. I mean sure, I'll bet there's a chunk of gamers out there who feel exactly the same; but it isn't a sudden culture paradigm shift threatening to leave the Game Pass subscription service totally financially unviable within the year like their rage-bait articles suggest. But telling a Kotaku writer that they're misrepresenting a situation is like informing the moon that it is round; that's a fundamental fact of their character and you're giving news to no-one.

Game-pass is still very much the gold standard of subscription services, which is why its inspiring actual competition from others such as Sony and Epic Games. Heck, I'd argue that Epic Games' approach is even more generous, in that they may not offer nearly as many games but at least they're totally and completely free. Heck, the last game that Epic handed out was literally Borderlands 3; and that ain't no trash consolidation prize to stick in one's library free of charge. So not only is Game pass not suddenly on it's way to a crash in public interest because two people who play games for their jobs can't be assed with it anymore; it's still relevant, it's still packed, and it's still a positive influence on the industry. If that's not enough for publications like Kotaku, well I guess we can all just sit around and read their lazy clickbait all week and see if that holds any great secrets to the betterment of gaming... (My will is strong but my hopes are low.)

The current state of Game's Journalism.

A thunderbolt breaks through the clouds.

What I do bears very little resemblance to actual journalism. I happen upon topics I like regarding the game industry, quite often stuff that's already in the news, and just try to offer my own perspective on it or spin it in my own style. There's nothing journalistic about that, it's just blogging stuff. I don't even source most of my blogs unless I have something in particular to say about those sources, so if I was to sue for a career in freelance journalism there'd be some significant steps to take, stylistic at the least, in order to match the high quality standards that publications demand nowadays. These aren't the days of ragmuffin flatcab newsboys, flogging an armfull of rolled up papers from the perch of his soapbox, we expect our news to be respectable and demure. Except according to what the crème of Game's journalism; I'm literally one email away from being an IGN Freelancer, were it only that I possessed no self respect.

And you'd have to hate yourself at least a bit to self identify as a game's journalist; because aside from a handful of genuine standout individuals, the vast majority of the profession is ruled by the accumulated grime you find underneath the maggot hovels at the bottom of a dumpster that hasn't been washed in a couple years. (Hmm, I really need to work on my synonyms; I keep grossing myself out.) What I'm saying is that it's guttersnipe rubbish. Just article after article of substance-less rage-bait or hilariously uninformed opinion pieces disguised as proper articles. (I'm still waiting for the follow article that will explain to me all the instances of great fantasy worlds without any real world basis to them. I find the prospect truly fascinating.)

Games Journalism should be more, it should offer more to the reader. There are a wealth of great stories behind the ears of the imagineers who fuel our favourite games, and that avenue alone is largely untapped by the big three publications. There are investigative black-holes in knowledge that could be explored, you know before Paul Tassi or the other usual suspects swoop it up. Maybe these multimillion dollar organisations could actually be a little proactive in their reporting, rather than just spinning their wheels until a publisher blesses them with a story to write about? I'm not saying it's easy to find something to write about within just the gaming industry, but then I have been doing it myself for the past 3 years without break or a budget and incredibly my quality of story ideas is about on par with most modern publication staff. That shouldn't be a comparison that's possible to make, these people should outstrip morons like me, so why aren't they?

This of course spawned from a recent tweet out of a mysterious IGN employee, which I wouldn't have taken seriously given that it's not from their main account, but it's been a while now and IGN proper have seemed to have confirmed it in their response, so this is real. "IGN is looking for New Freelancers to assist with the daily flow of stories in games, entertainment, tech and science. $20 base rate per story." Now what an opportunity! Sure IGN might get bit of a bad rap but they're a big name, and I'm sure anyone who wants a start in this industry would love to get their name on a CV somewhere. Heck, I'd even be tempted to give it a shot were this the sort of industry I'd be interested. Except, hang on again- did this Tweet say '$20 base rate'? Thats- wow, do I get a slap in the face for free on top of that? Will you spit on me and call me a worthless piece of trash? Because that sort of price tag really feels like it should come with some freebies.

Now to get some sort of standard of what this price means, apart from that inherent tingle at the back of you neck telling you that this feels wrong; I hoped onto JournalResources.org which is a UK company that has done a bit of research for us to ascertain acceptable freelance rates, just so that we can pick out who's taking advantage here. I'll be honest, it was hard to find any rate this low. More reputable newspapers are looking at around £300 for a commissioned story per thousand words, and for that reputation they of course expect quality, and even SixthAxis, another gaming publication, offers £50 for gaming features. As for a $20 base rate (£15 in conversion currently) there is no real comparison. IGN, multimillion company that they are, are unique in feeding tablescraps so miniscule to their freelancers.

Now if we really break down what it is we're learning about IGN's pricing strategies, it really does start to elucidate the reason behind the... shall we say lax quality of IGN content? I mean what does the old expression say: "You get what you pay for." If IGN are paying less than is typically done by any other outlet out there, then it only fits they'll get crap for their troubles, why would anyone put in the effort for a price point like that? Now to be fair, this is a sliding scale, and IGN would be kind enough to even offer up to $300 for an fresh story with independent and multiple sources- although that appears to be for an entire high-effort story, rather than per 1000 words like proper non-gaming publications offer. Besides, establishing the bar so freakin' low lets us know what they're looking for at the $20 point. "No fresh news, probably a single bad source, and about two paragraphs long; there's your pocket money and we'll hear nothing more about it."

It all come back to ethical treatment within the industry and being willing to pay a fair wage. I can understand a scrappy start-up slapping such a small price point up on it's site to try and scout out some potential employees as they grow into the size they need to be, but IGN ain't no start-up. IGN is owned by J2 global who report around 1.4 billion in lifetime revenue. That's a decent chunk of change, and yet IGN are panhandling out in the alleys. So either IGN is really getting squeezed and what we're really seeing is a concealed call for help, or they're just being exploitative asshats, using their powerful name to try and fool young hopefuls into working for a pittance under their name. Honestly, being around the same industry as IGN for a while, I wouldn't put it past them. (Those folks get nasty.)

Long story short: IGN are a mess, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that it's their own damn fault. Games Journalism doesn't need to be a running joke like it is, but as long as it's big banner-head companies are setting terrible standards like this, nothing is going to change. Of course, this tweet in particular picked up a decent chunk of negative press, pressuring IGN to really look at it's own pitiful rates, but will anything substantial change out of this? My guess is that the next ad is going to say something like "$300 per story" with "per 10,000 words" scrawled in 8-size faded grey text in the bottom corner of the image. So if you're personally eager to jump in the journalism field, love gaming and thought you saw an opportunity here: my advice would be to shop around for a bit, see if you can't find another similar company here willing to at least buy you dinner before they decide to peg you.