Harry Potter: Wizards Retire

 Hate to say I told you so...

I've finally done it, ladies and gentlemen, I've kept this blog going for so long that I've totally outlived a game from inception to death. And, to sweeten the pot, I went full Nostradamus and even predicted that this game would do poorly, and or, crash and burn without catching even a sliver of the fame that Niantic expected for the title. But then who am I to judge? I'm just some silly little Internet guy with manic depressive episodes, suicidal proclivities and a computer so horribly outdated I can barely run the early access for Baldur's Gate 3. Truly I am at the bottom of the rung of sources anyone would go to in order to spy the good word about where the winds of the market might trend. Except, hah! I did it this time, and let it be known to all that Harry Potter Wizards Unite proved itself a pale embarrassment and is due for the chopping block on January 2022. Okay, now I'm done gloating I can be sad, because Harry Potter Wizards Unite is being shut down.

Yes, the impermanence of online video games and the general gaming market has reared it's shaggy, lacksidasical mane in order to remind us once more that everything we know will one day cease to be. And that day creeps ever closer with profit driven enterprises in charge of keeping the plug going. (Thanks, Sony.) I've tasted this bitter spring in a very personal sense with the failure of Elder Scrolls Legends still nudging at my ankles just that little bit, and so I do feel bad for those that genuinely played and loved this title. (I know you're out there, you just weren't enough it seems.) Because, you see, it's not about finding that niche little gem that few others have heard about with games like this, but being abreast of the next big thing and personally supporting it's development whilst hoping thousands of others are doing the same or more than you, otherwise you may one day end up with no game. What a really crappy burden to lay upon the audience, but thus is what we sign up to with this live-service world.

And I suppose I even feel just that little bit bad for Niantic, although that's more so directed towards anyone who might be on the line for losing their job because of this direction change, not for the millionaire CEO's who made a bad bet and lost big on it. They truly believed that in Harry Potter they'd discovered the next evergreen franchise to eclipse Pokémon, even going to far as to gloat about the size of the Harry Potter brand in relation to Pokémon. At the time I addressed this particular point and poured some heavy doubt on the whole assertion, how could it be that Harry Potter is more popular than Pokémon, I mean it's big but I can't think of a single figure that backs those words up. Of course, I overruled myself under the idea that this is a big company and they must have more idea about this like this than I do. (We can see what all that experience was worth, huh.) But now I am left with my own speculation.

What exactly was it about Harry Potter that didn't translate other to the world of Go-like games? The game tried to bring that style of alternate reality gameplay and grabbed tight onto the iconic imagery of the Harry Potter novels, it even tied itself in with the main lore of the series, setting itself after the graduation of the three protagonists and following the works of the Ministry of Magic that they helped shape. (Totally ignoring the fact that the app didn't come up with anything original beyond that premise and spent the whole time theming events around characters and events from the book. I'm sure there's an in-game explanation, I just don't care) There's even an ongoing movie franchise that is expanding upon the world of Harry Potter right now, and which has hit several development bumps which has delayed it into obscurity, but this still should be a ripe time for expanded universe Harry Potter stuff.

First of all I'd like to tackle the size of the Harry Potter audience, because Niantic were in no way wrong in their assertions that this series is vast. J.K.Rowling is the most successful modern writer in her field and the movies form such core staples of many people's childhoods that now millennial parents are introducing their own children to them. (I'm sure someone out there finds that sweet) But here's the thing, that audience, is the wrong audience for gaming. I mean sure, there's going to be some crossover between people who play games and those that like Harry Potter, I'm a member of that particular sample size, but they aren't intrinsically linked. At it's heart Pokemon is a game series and maintains that entertainment angle to every medium it touches, therefore when making an accessible mobile game it makes sense to dream big about snatching up as much of the active Pokemon fanbase as possible. With Harry Potter that just doesn't cleanly translate, those people might show up for another book, would definitely show up to a movie, (that's the only reason why Fantastic Beasts 1 did well enough to warrant a sequel despite being duller than igneous rocks) but a mobile game? Why assume the majority of Harry Potter fans are on board with that? From the beginning Niantic's assumptions were beyond overly optimistic.

Then there's the big one, and this is a common story you see across this industry and many other but that doesn't mean I have to understand or like it: this style of game was directly competing with Pokémon Go. When it comes to collectathon ARG games that demand your daily obedience, most people can't really find the space in their life for two, because there just aren't that many hours in the day and these games are so time consuming. (Which is one of the many reasons why the live service game model is unsustainable, but that's another topic entirely) Thus this game wasn't going to have a clean route to success from the getgo due to the plain fact that Niantic were already hogging their own prospective market with Pokemon Go. People who were playing that weren't just going to up-and-switch to 'Wizards Unite', they'd spent up to three years carefully gathering and curating their squad of Pocket Monsters, why give that up for Wizard stuff? I'm sure some out there could manage both, but most will have to pick one or the other and Pokemon Go had a real head start. And when we consider Harry Potter fans who are gamers and also like and play Pokemon Go (A very likely intersection in the Venn diagram due to the fact that both Pokemon and Harry Potter blew up for the same generation) then we end up even further delineating the pool of potential active players that this game was ever even capable of snagging on it's very best day.   

And finally there's the rug-pull kicker. The sour truth that we all really know but don't like saying out loud to one another. Harry Potter just ain't as big as you think. At least, it isn't really anymore. Unlike Pokemon, which has persisted and morphed to hit subsequent generations with a steady stream of games, TV show and regular seasons of trading cards, Harry Potter has just sort of shrivelled in the years since the last movie of the main series. It's still hugely successful and popular, mind, but it's nowhere near as actively popular that it's mere name might attract hungry masses. The Fantastic Beasts movies was met with initial curiosity that steadily dwindles with each underwhelming entry, J.K. Rowling's abrasive online personality makes it gradually less desirable for social media active fans to talk about Harry Potter and the lack of any other substantial content is hurting the series' staying power. Hogwarts Unite wasn't so much riding off the back of a redhot franchise as it was trying to stoke the cooling coals into a raging fire once again, and if they'd approach this game with that idea to mind, maybe Niantic would have spent more time creating something unique, which doesn't tread on their own shoes, and which was appropriately marketed to the masses as the next big release from the Wizarding world. Alas, shoulda coulda woulda.

What we're left with is a roadbump of an online game that is so easily tossed aside by history that the recent announcement of a Pikmin Niantic game was initially heralded with headlines like 'The first new game from Niantic since Pokemon Go'. Those are games journalists that just the other day erased this game from their own memory, keeping track of this stuff is meant to be their job! (But then, Games Journalists aren't exactly renowned for their... quality) Outside facing press has Niantic painting this as a logical next step that they planned from the beginning ("Not all games are meant to last forever. We accomplished... delivering a two-year narrative story arc that will soon be complete.") but considering that in the same breath they're talking about 'no refunds' and are taking this app off the store immediately, it's no secret that this wasn't the way the team wanted things to go. Here's hoping that Niantic learn from this lesson and the rest of the industry takes this as a teaching mo- Huh? Well, the Pikmin game might be charming enough to get a small fan base at- oh, there's the Fnaf Mobile AR game I guess- urg, and the Witcher one. You know what? There's no hope for any of us. Crappy doomed Live services will be popping up for ever more.

Hey, Pokemon Go. Listen to your fans.

 POKEMON-GO-TO-THE-STOPS

You'd have to scour some of the most remote corners of the globe in order to spy a rock under which exists a people who have not heard of Pokemon Go, and even then that rock would still be brimming with with AR Pokemon. For five years this app has ruled as the jewel of developer Niantic's eyes, turning them into household names and creating an endlessly attractive money sink that even the most lazy Gamefreak executive couldn't dream of. They still have to waste time making new games in order to make money, not Niantic, these guys just have to turn up the spawn rate of some event Pokemon and they'll have generated six figure revenues from half a day's work. Recycle the odd event, change up Team Rocket grunt rewards, you've got a forever game on your hands. Despite how big Pokémon already was before the release of Go, it's hard not to see the success of this mobile little brother as a microcosm of the sheer global dominance of this brand, as well as an ultimate destination for the original mission briefing of the franchise. Short of genetic experimentation and cloning, this is the closet we're ever going to get to bringing Pokemon into everyone's living room.

And so with that sort of success you'd imagine a certain quality of the untouchable to be upon the game and it's creators; an immutability where sheer supremacy raises the product and it's harbingers to a higher plane of being, above the squabbles and gnawing of even their player base. Because where would they go if they were upset anyway? To one of Pokémon Go's Competitors? The beauty of the product is that it's the unique brand which sells the concept, with it's history feeding the diehards, so no matter how many better alternatives pop up, none will ever quite replace the Go. At least, that's what I think the Niantic higher-ups thought of themselves over this half decade, for why else would they try to undercut their own success with another identical game based on an easily less marketable property?

But I think in that hubris, and they very much were drowning in hubris, Niantic have built themselves up as magnanimous heroes beyond reproach, when they are very much still within our spitting distance, a fact deftly shown through their recent controversy. This whole thing actually started with an attempt to do good around the world, or at least capitalise on a world wide epidemic to score some 'good company' points. (Hey, if the end result suits everyone, I ain't got a problem with it.) Niantic threw together a gift patch, in that distances for Pokestops and gyms, real life locations you have to visit practically everyday within the app in order to access any of it's proper features, would be temporarily inflated, thus allowing them to be accessed from further away. Of course this meant that people could stay inside for lockdown and not have to burn rubber across their neighbourhood for their daily ration of Pokeballs.

In fact, it was during this time that I really started to get into Pokemon Go, something I'd never actually tried with any conviction before. And I really did manage to get a lot done, slipping into the addiction with the ease of an ex rehab patient. I got to partake in a few events, go crazy on some of the wild hunting days, bagged myself a shiny Charizard (A must-have for every Pokemon game), dragged myself to completing some of those obnoxiously tedious quest chains, and even scored a couple legendries! One of them was just Mewtwo, more a pity gift for going through one of their endless Team Rocket questlines, but the other was an honest to goodness raid reward! (Only after I caught it on my final throw attempt did I look up catch rates online and realise how stupidly lucky I was.) And you know what? I wasn't the only person who decided that, now the walking requirement wasn't quite as stringent, this would be a good time to get into Pokemon Go. The game saw a drastic influx of newblood and, though I doubt Niantic needed it, a revitalised lifespan.

So this is all just a feel-good story with no possible drawback, right? Wrong. For what I can only assume is a deep seated feeling that they are the authority on people's health, the second that guidlines started to lift a little on how much people were allowed to be in public, Niantic were making moves to turn back the clock to the old way of things, when being a tech company they should know; it's often impossible to turn back. During the time when distances were increased, the Pokemon Go App became more accessible than it ever was before, with players being able to scour their neighbourhood without coalescing within spitting distance of one another. And the dial wasn't turned up so much that you didn't have to leave your home, (Unless you live in a city surrounded by local landmarks, I guess) so the balance was fine. People had come accustomed to the way things were now.

Niantic, just like the Pokemon Company before them, seemed to have an issue with working to the benefit of the consumer. They put out their change-back policy just a few months back, stubborn to bring things back to the way they were without even stopping to consider if they might have been just that bit better. People were still going outside, afterall, they were still exercising, (which is the point of this entire venture) they just perhaps weren't socialising as much. Still they laid down the law, convinced of their moral superiority, and it sparked an actual consumer revolt in response! This sort of thing is becoming less and less uncommon in the gaming world as buyers become more attuned with the power that they have, but I always smile whenever it happens. Because the way I see it, these sorts of events are never born out of a place of malice (unless we're talking about Sports games; those tend to be fuelled by a desire to salt-the-earth. With good reason) but a hope to reach a best of both worlds for everyone. (What's good for the consumer is good for the developer's check-balance, afterall.)

I remember a similar clash between what the company thought was right and what would be best for Pokemon players when the conversation came to special mythical events. In the past these event Pokemon would only ever be handed out in-person at stores or Pokemon movie premiers, a practise that was becoming more and more dated at the world grew more digital. It was only, again, when the pandemic hit that something had to give, otherwise no one would end up getting these stupid mythicals and The Pokemon Company would risk sparking up a godawful grey Pokémon trading market. (If that sounds ridiculous to you, then rest assured that even with the new measures the company took, there were still listings up on Ebay for Pokemon trades.) Ultimately Pokemon caved to pressure and offered online sign-ups to be emailed new codes, but it took pushback in order for these guys to catch up to the rest of the world, and it really shouldn't have.

I understand and respect the Pokemon Go mission statement and what it is they try to achieve. I grimace a little when I see how much money they made off the back of this 'mission', but I still feel that at the heart of all lies genuine altruism. However, when the throes of what you want to do starts to collide with what you should do, maybe it helps to have the screaming voice of the masses changing your internal goals that little bit. Niantic ended up relenting and allowing the further distance Pokestops to remain, and though they do so begrudgingly, this should be as a win. A coming together of developer and fan in a beautiful storm of cooperation. (Or maybe just an example crowd-bullying to get Niantic to dance to their tune; I guess it really is a 'perspective' thing here, huh.)

Kotaku gets bored, stirs up Internet

 Are you still a news-site when you engage in nothing but rabble rousing?

Let no one ever mistake this blog here for a source of the news. I'm not. I'm a nobody enthusiast who makes observations on the games industry related incidents I hear about through this medium. Often upwards of one week after the fact, ensuring that I'm not, and never will be, the breaking source of misremembered fact. I maintain such because it is a position without the responsibilities and expectations of journalism, because I like the freedom to comment however I want on whatever I want, and because I'm lazy and do this for fun. I can't be bothered to be prowling about for the cutting edge of the news or, worse than that, actually go and seek that stuff out. I ain't no Lois Lane (You know what they say: She doesn't seek out the news, the news seeks out her) I'm just a guttersnipe feeding off the dregs of the info circuit for his own mild amusement. And yet somehow I still resist the urge to go sabre rattling.

How galling it must be then, for the professionals all over, when one of the most well known 'journalist' sites for the Industry, Kotaku, has a reputation primarily not for it's journalism work, but for making a habit of kicking hornet nests for clicks. For anyone who seriously tries to make a go of the profession this must feel like a blow to the stomach each time they make another transparent swipe at their own job's integrity, turning the whole act into a circus show. I merely mention this because, at this point, it's just so obvious and sad. I can't remember the last time I saw their logo adorn a page which wasn't sensationalist click bait but instead something of value and worth similar to modern Bloomberg gaming articles. Oh wait, yes I do: it was back when their editor was the very guy who writes those modern gaming Bloomberg articles! You'd have thought he'd have left a bigger example on the team he departed from, huh.

But enough posturing, what have they done this time? The usual, taken a topic which has a few legs to walk with and completely drown it with zeal because it's more likely to upset the passing eye that way. What topic? Lootboxes- oh god, it's 2019 again! (Quick, someone warn the world there's about to be a global pandemic!) But, yes, I will admit that there is a point somewhere within the convoluted mess of an article that riled up a storm. Because that's just how this sort of stuff works. They take the vestiges of a point and stamp it into irrelevance with bravado and pandering. To be fair, that does take a certain degree of showmanship and skill, I'm just not sure it's coming out in the right profession or the right medium. But what are we talking about exactly? Well, in the words of a madman "Pokemon GO eggs aren't Lootboxes...". Okay, agree to disagree there but I see where you're coming from, and it could be the grounds of an interesting conversation about what exactly are lootboxes and how we defi- "...they're fun presents!" >sigh<. Why are we still here?

Recently Niantic made a change to the way the policy with which they handle Pokemon Go's Eggs, in that they decided to actually show people the types of potential Pokemon each Egg can contain with little signage indicating rarity tiers of each mon. There wasn't any actual statistics assigned to that signage, however, such as percentage chances or the number of eggs one would likely have to go through to hatch that. (Stuff which seems kind of expected when even Lootbox essential games like Genshin Impact are capable of swallowing their pride to cater) Instead all this really served for was an official confirmation for the contents of Go eggs. Cool. Not to throw water on ya'll Niantic, but we already unofficially got that data years ago. It's called, experimentation and/or data mining. You've saved the community, like, half a day of fiddling around after every Egg update at best. As you can imagine some people were a little more perturbed by Niantic's lack of candour, and it all might have stirred from some old soured emotions towards Niantic's Egg system and their similarities to lootboxes. Only, you know, apparently without the need for full disclosure if we're to bow to Niantic's whims.

For Kotaku, however, this is not only a non-issue; but we're all a bunch of clueless morons for ever deigning to raise this topic in the first place. Why? Because Eggs aren't Lootboxes, dumb dumb, they're really fun surprise mechanics. Wait. No- that's EA's excuse. What did the 'Journalists' say again? Oh, that's right; "Fun presents". (I honestly snicker every time I read that. Did Niantic corporate send you a gift basket or something, what's with the cringe spin-job?) To understand things as their article puts them, Pokemon GO eggs aren't Lootboxes because they don't necessarily cost money to acquire, (Guess that means Overwatch Lootboxes aren't lootboxes) don't cost money to open (Or Genshin boxes, for that matter) and don't offer tangible gameplay benefits. (...we'll come back to that point.) All of these stipulations do raise an interesting point; what exactly are lootboxes?

Well in my mind, they are a mechanic wherein game items are thrown into randomised pools that the player has the chance to pick from at random, very basic and straightforward. (likely redundantly so, but I'm just trying to cover the basics right here, not write in new laws) Quite a lot of lootboxes out in the world today don't actually require real money to be purchased, because most Devs realise that such puts an immediate barrier to partaking in the system which permenately puts some players off. Better to let them get a taste before circling in for the kill. The way one makes money off lootboxes isn't by selling them, that's too gauche, it's be giving folk the 'option' to buy packs and then implementing such low pull statistics that it whittles people down to pulling out their wallets or limiting the number of boxes you can work in at one time or, as is becoming popular more recently, just implementing limited-time events in order to establish a sense of FOMO and override customer's 'common sense' brain nodes. (Why do you think Genshin operates with Banners?) Huh, you know that last one almost sounds like the sort of thing that Niantic do when they make limited time exclusive Egg Pokemon... fancy that.

But none of that even matters when the rewards on offer don't provide tangible gameplay benefits. Except that they do. Of course they do. This is a Pokemon game, duh. What- what do you think Pokemon games are? You catch Pokemon in them, you train Pokemon in them, any method which grants you access to Pokemon is giving a tangible gameplay benefit. How can you- Why do you- who hurt you, Kotaku, that you must now hurt our common sense in recompense? The pool of Pokemon that come from Eggs is substantially important, as they mark the only way in which the worldwide community can guarantee access to certain sought-after Pokemon breeds out of special events. Remember when Deino was exclusive to Eggs? Do you know why that was? It's because Deino evolves into Hydreigon, which is a Pokemon listed among the prestigious number of 'Pseudo-Legendries', so named for their incredible base stats. How desirable, no? But the only to get this one was through eggs? Seems like the kind of thing you'd want to grind boxes for. Only, you can only work on a certain number of boxes at a time, so you'll probably want to buy so speed-ups so that you don't have to go walking 10Km to open each egg, that'd take all day afterall. Oh, but then you have to bear in mind that in order to evolve Deino you'll need to pull him several times, (about 10) which means even more boxes opened, buy more speed-ups. Oh, and the chances of getting a shiny are 1.9% atop of the chances of pulling him in the first place, so if you're so inclined that'll be more time savers for you. I mean sure, you could just grind these. Just have no job, or life or other things to do ever. That's all Kotaku and Niantic ask of you, step up!

There's plenty of horror stories of people spending upwards of $1000 on each Pokemon Go event despite not 'necessarily' being required to because of course there is, that's how GTA Online keeps making more money each year despite operating off of an identical philosophy. But on the other hand John here has a casual friend who's level 39 and never spent a dime. Neither have I, John, but that's because I'm a cheapskate pauper who's so stubborn he'd rather give up on game entirely than let it twist his arm into dishing out money it hasn't earned in his eyes. Not everyone is so stingy, and some people are actually interested in playing the game with some seriousness. Does that mean that Niantic's Eggs are some particularly predatory and nefarious plot to exploit these people? No, they're no more nefarious than some other common systems, and a lot less nefarious than some of the worst ones. But is still makes them Lootboxes. But heck, you can still call them 'Fun presents' if that does it for you, man. Just don't expect the rest of us to get lovey-dovey with Niantic corporate next to you, 'kay?

Pokémon Going places

Oh? It looks like the revenue books are evoloving!

 

You remember Pokemon Go, right? The ultra-popular, time-consuming, exercise-inducing, presidential campaign-sinking (allegedly) App fad of 2016? Seems that those four years back everyone and their parents were going around capturing little digital Pokemon on their phones, to the point where even the mainstream media picked up on it to characterise it as the end times. (As they are won't to do.) There were tales everywhere about people falling down potholes whilst Playing Pokemon Go, charging into churches whilst playing it, (which is disrespectful I guess) and massive trampling stampedes running about with their phones out. Truly it was the darkest of times for folk who believed that the whole 'Pokemon' craze was a shortlived fad from 16 years prior. And it should hardly be a surprise to anyone, given that Pokemon is one of the biggest brands in the entire world right now. (Honestly, it's quite amazing that Niantic thought their Harry Potter game would do better than Go, it's like they were looking at an entirely different reality.) Though what might be a bit of a surprise to hear is that as recently as this year, Niantic had their most profitable year running the Pokemon Go App. (Figure that one out.)

Yeah, you might be one of the many out there wondering how exactly that works. True, back in the day Pokemon GO was such a fact of life that it made absolute sense for everyone to chip in enough money to pay for a Niantic-funded colony on Jupiter, but this is the enlightened hell-scape of 2020! How on earth are they raking in more bank? Hell, you might even be wondering if people even play the game, or at least to the degree where they'd feel the need to spend on it, and I have news for you; they do. Personally, I actually never played Pokemon Go when it first came out (I know; what the heck!?) Well as it turns out my fandom for Pokemon had been something that I entirely worked out of my system back when I was a kid and played Pokemon Emerald to death. (Or at least I thought it was, for I'm currently grinding through the game everyday nowadays.) As such it was only this year that I jumped onto the mobile extravaganza and I can confirm; the ecosystem is still surprisingly vibrant and alive.

But let's break down the figures; according to Sensor Tower, a blog which describes itself as "Authoritative insights into global App Economy", these past 10 months have netted Niantic $1 Billion in spending for a free-to-play app; that's the sort of crazy numbers we're talking about here, people! Altogether this makes the life-time earnings of this App stretch just over the $4 Billion mark. (for contrast, 'Harry Potter: Wizards Unite', which is essentially the same App from the same Devs but with Harry Potter theming everywhere, celebrated their $160 million earnings after it's first year being live.) This year has apparently managed to surpass all others for Niantic and that's despite all of toned down press coverage of the game and the obvious restrictions that the App has to work around, so let's theorize as to how this happened.

 I think that the biggest roadblock for this year that everyone has had to work around is obviously the Pandemic and the resulting lockdown, but think about what this must have meant for an App like Pokemon Go. We're talking about the sort of App that required players to go outside and walk around to places that were usually crowed hotspots in order to spin Pokestops, catch varied Pokemon, Battle gyms and hatch eggs. All of which become a bit of a liability when you're stuck at home with the worry of a painful death hanging over you should you dare the outside. This was great for all those games and streaming services that encouraged people to be static but for one which encouraged and required movement, you wouldn't be surprised to hear that this wound up being a hellish year for Niantic. Except it didn't, rather the opposite. And you know what, I think the Pandemic helped.

Now I don't want to drag away credit for where it's due, Niantic did attempt to do the bare minimum to help people through this year on their game. They offered remote raid passes for people to participate in raids from home, (which still had the stipulation of ensuring remote players did less damage during those Raids; thanks for that, guys.) and they strung together several events which meant that all throughout the summer Eggs hatched at a fraction of the distance one would usually have to travel. (I even heard that they upped the interaction distance between Stops and Gyms, but I wasn't really effected by that anyway since I live in an area with practically no Gyms or Stops anyway. Walking is a must for me.) So why did things improve with the lockdown?

Well my theory is that this all ties into perceived value and the way how being deprived of the ability to talk a walk made us appreciate it more. Traditionally no one wants to have to walk to the shop for groceries, but when that's quite possibly the only time you will go out for that day (either due to fear or a literal goverment mandate like we had over here for a few months) then suddenly that time becomes a lot more precious to you. Now instead of grumbling you start wondering if you have everything you need to ensure that the trip is a success and you won't be out of luck until tomorrow. Suddenly you have to double check your list, confer with the shelves, peruse the stocks, and while you're at it why not pick up that Pokemon Go app that you haven't touched in months, might as well make the most of your trip. Now you're remembering how much fun you had with the game and it's only the game you can really play while you're outside so you start dedicating more time to it, and there we have it; Pokemon Go enters a renewed state or relevance in the mind.

But again, I don't believe that this rainfall has been entirely luck based, because Niantic really have thrown on all the stops to make their bank this year. For one, Niantic have really thrown their weight behind story driven quests and timed events to get players hooked for weeks at a time. Costumed mons, increased candy rates and even Mega Evolutions coming into the mix; everything has worked to improve the range of activities one can partake in that, and that's ideal for recurrent play. Top that with the sheer amount of purchase options for speeding up play and this makes the ideal ground for a money farm. The new missions are also an incentive to keep people playing, in that they all offer some grand reward in the shape of a Legendary or even mythical Pokemon and all require herculean tasks of Poke-catching to achieve. Either bagging ludicrous amounts of different species or evolving Magikarps or even just battling a simply insane amount of Team Rocket Grunts and Leaders; all of these require items that are certainly a lot easier to buy than they are to farm up.

Quite simply, Niantic have perfected their craft over the years and bought Pokemon Go ever closer to the well oiled money printing machine it seemed destined to always become. Even The Pokemon Company have seen fit to throw their weight behind it, having recently announced an initiative to unite the games and the App through Pokemon Home integrations. (Which is still rumoured to charge a little fee for shiny and legendary Pokemon transfers) Were it only that every App's pandemic story turned into a success (RIP Quibi, you abomination upon man you) Perhaps the future is looking ever more mobile for everyone's favourite battling monsters.

A new competitor enters the Microtransaction fight!

If there's any justice in the world.

Another day another treatise on the awfulness of modern day video game microtransactions, however, this time it's coming from an official report with legislative power behind it. (A whole report? Golly.) Once again, UK Parliament (That's my home team.) have expressed interest in managing the avarice of games companies through restrictions and regulations. I have exposited my opinion on this before, and if you read my last blog on the matter you will know that I have given up all hope of this situation being solved amicably. Government supervision is the last thing anyone needs in a creative field, but honestly, how are they going to taint the medium any worse than the greedy big corpo's already have?

If you go online to Parliament.UK, you can find an extensive report, apparently the work of 9 months,  dedicated to "immersive and addictive technologies". This report defines 'immersive techonogies' as experiences that occupy the realm of digital or augmented reality; essentially meaning VR games and games like Pokemon GO and Ninantic's other cash grabs. They believe that the 'immersion' factor of these games makes them more likely to have an influence on behaviour. Interesting stuff, but I wanna focus on that second one, because that is where Parliament really starts to go for the game's industries' jugular.

'Addictive' technologies is rather self explanatory, referring to products or devices that people either have, or perceive to have, a dependency on. This goes into 'gaming disorder' and 'engagment metrics', all subjects for other blogs, but in Section 3 we get to the juicy stuff: "Financial harms of Immersive technologies." Whenever microtransactions are bought into the world of gaming, the usual arguments start up about; value, pricing and pay-to-win. (or P2W) Lately, as we've moved into the world of rampant monetisation, video games companies have attempted to pooh-pooh any potential backlash with carefully considered statements. "It's just cosmetics" is the, much parroted, phrase that adorns the press release of many an online storefront, whilst "They're time savers" or "It's about player choice." has begun to seep it's vile way into single player games too. Oftentimes gamers are torn between these artificial battle lines that developers have set up, waging between "It's not pay to win if it's just about looks!" and "It's not 'player choice' if the choice is between a fun game and a boring one". (Just look at the recent backlash regarding Fallout 76 and it's fridge to get an example of that.)

Parliament's report will hopefully put an end to much of that debate, as they delve into the murky world of customer manipulation in it's pure form. I will follow their example and establish for everyone that there are real life consequences to systems like these. A while ago I wrote a blog about a family who's children had emptied their parent's bank accounts on FIFA Ultimate team, all wasted on lootboxes for the promise of securing Lionel Messi (Which, due to FUT's lootbox setup, they never did.) Parliament offer a similar tale that pertains to a game that was an absolute blast-to-the-past for me, Runescape. The Report reads "We were contacted by a member of the public whose adult son built up considerable debts, reported to be in excess of £50,000, through spending on microtransactions in British company Jagex’s online game RuneScape."

From this, we can see that people have fallen for the trap of microtransactions before in incredibly serious ways. This is the reason why people gawk when companies like Respawn stand up for their ludicrous price points by saying; "the majority of people never buy them anyway!" That isn't the point. The point is that there as those that do and these people can be abused whilst playing the game. If you're comfortable with creating a product that has the potential/intent to harm or abuse your consumers, then maybe you shouldn't be working in creative fields. "But what can be done?" is the question that must be asked. "Surely if there were ways to cut down on abuse then games companies would have done so!" And they would have, if it wouldn't end up cutting into their bottom line.

The makers of Candy Crush Saga, King, spoke out against accusations that they were complicit in the fleecing and exploitation of it's customers. "we would send an e-mail out when a player’s spend was $250 in a week for the first time. It was an e-mail that said, “We notice you are enjoying the game a lot at the moment. Are you sure you are happy with this?” […] We got back, “I wouldn’t spend the money if I didn’t have it” and things like, “I’m fine, please leave me alone”. We felt it was too intrusive so we stopped doing that." That is all they have done for customer protection, by the by. So that's nice. King sent people emails for a bit until some people complained and then they resolved themselves of all protective responsibilities. (What heroes)

As it just so happens, there is a tool that would be very effective of limiting the exposure of this kind of content to those vulnerable to it. (I.e. Kids and those susceptible to problem spending.) You see, a while back, the Games Industry developed this thing called a 'ratings board', that would provide content guidelines for developers, shops and consumers. (All as a bid to prevent Government oversight.) With the stipulations that this board dictates (I'm specifically referring to PEGI, here) Video games that feature gambling must be labelled as such and be assigned an '18' badge. This would mean that children would not be exposed to the thrill of gamb- I mean loot bo- I mean 'Surprise mechanics' at a young age. (If you feel I was being condescending in that paragraph. Well spotted.)

However, the 'age rating' system was proven pointless after NBA 2K20 unveiled their gambling themed trailer and still got away with a '3' rating. ("Sports games have always been rated 3, why should this one be any different") The part that really gets me is, even if we buy the age old "It isn't technically gambling because you can't cash out!", excuse, the trailer still clearly shows that the game features gambling-esque imagery, which is grounds for a 'Teen' rating under Pegi's own stipulation. Heck, YouTuber YongYea pointed out that Pokemon Red and Blue was labelled 'Teen' for that very reason, and that game didn't even have any microtransactions! (Just an ingeniously clever marketing ploy to get you to buy the game twice.)

I would encourage interested readers to take a look at the article through this link Here and see just what it is that Parliament has to say about the greedy aspects of the gaming industry. (Again, the juicy parts are in section 3.) I'm not yet sure if anything will actually come of it (Especially with the politically tumultuous time that the UK is suffering through right now.) But it's always fun to see someone shine a flashlight under the friendly facade of AAA gaming and watch the cockroaches scurry. As you have likely noticed, this is topic I could talk about until the sky falls down (Falling Skies; great show! Kinda tapered off in the later series...) but I find that situations like this are best left for the observer to look through and come to their own conclusions. Besides, after reading through all of the industries' clandestine action and motivations, I need a bath. 

The case of Pokemon vs Harry Potter

Judge Niantic presiding...

A couple years back a mobile game came out, a little title called: Pokemon GO. You heard of that? Back in 2016 it was something of a killer app. It was a title that managed to amass a respectable $207 million in it's first month and accounted for 45% of play time out of the top 20 android games for its first 3 months. At its peak, Pokemon Go boasted daily worldwide player of 45 million. So it comes to the surprise of no one, that Go's masterminds: Niantic, are oh-so eager to recapture their runaway success with their next project. Which is essentially the exact same idea attached to a different brand. That's the mobile market for you.

In their defense, I would be attempting the same thing in their shoes. Pokemon GO was nothing short of a global cultural phenomena when in launched. All over the world we heard stories surrounding the crazy lengths people would go to in order to get their mitts on the virtual battle beasts. Stories of fan causing stampedes in Taipei, a Go streamer getting mugged at midnight in central park, and even one about a Russian YouTuber who got sentenced to a suspended 3 year sentence for playing the game in a church. The level of proliferation that Pokemon Go reached was unprecedented, even for a franchise known for bleeding into the mainstream more than once before. Even people who would, ideally, never cross paths with Pokemon in their entire lives ended up getting in on the action. Who remembers when Hillary Clinton chanted "Pokemon Go-to-the-polls" In the middle of her election campaign or when Donald Trump commented about how he would like to play the game but just didn't have the time. It was like the entire world went mad.

Nowadays, things have settled down and mobile app stats are being led by King's: Candy Crush Saga, once again. Balance had been restored to the universe. However, Niantic are not done yet. They want to have a second shot at capturing a bottleful of lightning. 'Harry Potter: Wizards Unite' is their next big venture, leaning off another popular young adult franchise in order to sink in it's appeal. It is a sound business move for Warner Bros too, as they are still in the middle of their 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' series and have started trying to drum up interest for a potential Harry Potter TV series. It only makes sense for them to try their hand at roping in fans from the world's most profitable entertainment medium, doesn't it. But will a Harry Potter-Pokemon Go clone really strike the world by storm as much as Niantic's first outing?

CEO John Hanke seems to think so. Although, I couldn't find the interview myself, I watched Alex, from YouTube's AngryJoeShow, claim that Hanke said "Harry Potter is a bigger franchise in terms of global awareness and fan base to Pokemon". Perhaps this is why Niantic thought that this would be their next ARG mobile best seller? I do find such an assumption interesting because, even if he was just paying lip service for the interview, it remains the most insight we have into the thought process of Niantic. I, for one, have to disagree with him on this particular quote. I believe that, despite the inherent difficulty with comparing movie and book fans beside video game and TV fans, Pokemon is still by and large a much bigger franchise in just about every way. But lets take a closer look just to make sure.

The sure-fire, investor approved, method for testing franchise viability is a taking a look at how much total revenue that brand has amassed. This can be a helpful statistic in establishing how many people care enough to spend money on your products alongside how savvy your team is at wringing them dry. In this department, it seems that things are pretty much cut and dry. According to Wikipedia, Harry Potter is the third largest media franchise in the world with a total revenue of $25 billion since inception in 1997; unfortunately for Potter fans, the number one franchise in the world is still Pokemon with an eye watering, $55 billion total revenue. Pokemon easily surpasses Harry Potter in money making potential, whilst having only been around for one year more. Also neither franchise appears to be slowing down, Pokemon is in good standing in the world of gaming as has been for over 2 decades now; and as I've said before, gaming is the most lucrative form of entertainment. J.K. Rowling's series can't really compare in that department.

Now lets look at reception. I think it is safe to say that Pokemon is beloved with its fan base, new and old. How else would they be able to get away with the same cheap, two-game game, marketing ploy that they've been pushing for the last 20 years. Fans respect Pokemon and, despite some recent discontent, will continue to do so, going forward. Pokemon is just too big and integrated with such vertically that no single disappointment from one of it's releases is going to sully the larger brand. Harry Potter is different. Starting off as solely a book series before becoming solely a movie series,(There was a little period of crossover somewhere) Harry Potter has never had as many eggs in the basket as Pokemon does. Kind of impressive if you think about it in terms of how successful it has become, but provably risky. Fans have grown tired over the past few years with the comments Rowling as made as well the general milking of the franchise. So far, 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' has seemed a little aimless and shaky. Heck, 30 minutes of the first movie was dedicated to chasing around CGI monsters. (Which, on a side note, where really poorly designed. Someone on Warner Bros. design department needs to give the guys who work on Monster Hunter a call.) 'Crimes of Grindlewald' really reflected the lack of audience interest when it generated a franchise low domestic take of $62.2 million on it's opening. Does this mean the Harry Potter is trending downwards. Yes, statistically. We'll have to wait and see if an in-universe TV series helps to shake things up.

Then there is the difficult to measure statistic of cultural impact. I could lay down a ton of incidental evidence on this subject, like how Harry Potter never had it own trading card game or never caused seizures throughout japan (allegedly.) But the truth is that I just don't keep enough tabs on Harry Potter news to provide an impartial prospective. What is impartial, however, are numbers. And just like Shakira's 2005 hips; they don't lie. Google trends seems to show that; as of the release of Pokemon go, 'Pokemon' has been a more popular search term than 'Harry Potter', despite 'Crimes of Grindlewald' being released in 2018. I may be a tad biased for the fuzzy electric rodent and his friends but It's hard to deny, Harry Potter does not ring with the same resonance that Pokemon does. It makes you wonder just what on earth John Hanke is talking about.

Don't misconstrue this to think that I hate Harry Potter or anything, Harry Potter was a huge part of my childhood. The only thing I've ever won, was a school competition for which the reward was a collection of the first five potter books, and since then I have been a fan of the wizarding world. However, since then I have also discovered so many other fantastic, well designed fictional worlds, and I can see just how weak Harry Potter's world building is by comparison. Don't believe me? Name one wizarding job that graduates can move onto that is neither school related or a ministry official. Quidditch star? Quidditch star announcer? Quidditch Cheerleader? Harry Potter lacks the depth to support deep dives into its lore, which is why Fantastic Beasts feels so shallow and why Niantic's 'Harry Potter: Wizards Unite' only bought in $1 million in it's opening weekend.

For me I suppose I grew out of Harry Potter after 'The Deathly Hallows'. And before the movies finished, seeing as how I still haven't seen 'The Deathly Hallows Part 2'. I approached the prequels with some interest but after the mess that was 'The Crimes of Grindlewald', I feel I've gone off that too. Pokemon is just so much easier to love and weirdly timeless. It's games are simple and fun, it's show is watchable and the card game is... hopelessly broken, but 2/3 ain't bad. Niantic are naive if they truly believe they can recapture the success of Pokemon Go; and honestly, they shouldn't even try. A lot of amazing things sprung from the days of Pokemon Go but a lot of negativity has too. Remember that mugging I mentioned, or that arrest? There are so many others. One man quit his job to 'Go' full time and another's infidelity was discovered due to the game's GPS feature. My favourite is a man who nearly lost his job when he was caught playing it and the company assumed he was selling company secrets. Whenever anything reaches that level of proliferating into the mainstream it is bound to track a lot of feces behind it. Niantic doesn't need that kind of heat coming down on them again. They're a small (Or rather were small) mobile development company who struck gold but ,for some reason, are still digging. My unsolicited advice, be happy with what you have and careful not to choke on your aspirations.