PUBG Axed in India

 Another Nation shuts it doors.

So I talk about the proliferation of Chinese money rather regularly on this blog. Like too regularly for what should be a gaming themed nonsense blog, so that either says something worrying about me or really worrying about the industry. I'd like to think that this all extends from an apparent distaste I have towards the very concepts of 'monopolies', not only because they usually spell harm for the community, but also because I'm a sad individual who hates to see anyone else succeed too much. (Screw you, Disney! Why don't you take your share of crippling despair once and a while?) Honestly, as a consumer it's quite a different affair to be trying to scrape some enjoyment out of their entertainment products when they exist within the grip of a monopoly, because everytime something cool comes your way it immediately becomes suspect. I'm always thinking, "Okay, so this wasn't made for the consumer, but to benefit their supremacy, so in some way this new game/feature/hotfix is going to start twisting my arm for money and I've just gotta figure out when." As such, China's increasingly solid grasp on international online gaming is turning into something of a substantial turnoff for a guy like me.

And perhaps it is unfair, like they say, to equivalate the actions of the Chinese Government with that of the Chinese company Tencent when they are officially separate entities, but I think the amount of control that government exerts over Tencent is apparent for all to see. Otherwise why else would it be that the second Tencent starts to get controlling stakes in anything the product in question begins to warp to the nauseating standards of the Chinese government? Suddenly Top Gun can no longer display the Taiwanese flag, Rainbox Six Siege has a big back and forth over images of skulls in their maps and PUBG has to rebrand itself 'Game for Peace' and create a whole new Chinese-only ecosystem where defeated players get back up and wave before disappearing. (That one's just creepy) And it seems that the Indian Government are one's who take this correlation very seriously, given their distaste for China.

Now once more, this here ain't no political blog by any stretch of the imagination, but it hardly takes a seasoned political analyst to spot that India and China do not like each other. To a serious degree. (I'd even go so far as to say a worrying degree, if I wasn't afraid of coming across a little alarmist.) And in the realms of Entertainment this has already been made soberingly clear between the two giant nations. Most notable with the recent ban on Tiktok by the Indian Government which was originally supposed to be mirrored in the US before that fell apart because Tiktok is apparently immortal. That makes perhaps the biggest and most profitable social media platform of the day suddenly blocked off from 1.3 billion potential users. (I'll bet that was a hard pill to swallow.) But such is the cost of trying to aim for the two most dense ecosystems in Asia, you get either China or India; securing both is becoming increasingly unlikely. 

Recently the animosity has spread to gaming because out of the blue it seems that India has taken a swipe for the battle Royale game which started the movement all those years ago; PUBG. Now PUBG's involvement with China has been one of biggest points of contention surrounding the game given that the controlling stake of Tencent has proven so influential on the development team. As of yet the public hasn't been made of any way in which such a relationship has affected the wider international audience (At least not directly) but they went and made an entirely separate version of their game specifically to get around Chinese censors, so there's an obvious collaborative effort there somewhere. As such it's hardly a surprise that India, in their desire to swipe at Chinese international domination, would eventually settle on PUBG's door.

The effect this will have both on PUBG and other games around it is where I'm really interested in this story. Afterall, suddenly the question of where your money comes from can be in the equation for whether or not you are allowed to operate within a country, and that could prove to be a serious concern for a lot of companies going forwards. More and more often a lot of studios are beginning to accept Tencent's significant promise for revenue under the presumption that the momentary potential backlash would be vastly undercut by the profit; but losing India is really going to throw that into doubt going forward. Epic games are supported by Tencent, as are Supercell and Riot games; will potential bans be heading their way too? (I certainly don't favour Supercell's odds.)

Though it must be stated for the record, India have officially stated that the reason for this ban has nothing to do with financially attacking a potential competitor and is much more about blocking apps that are "prejudicial to the sovereignty of India, Defense of India and security of state and public order." (Whatever that means.) To be clear, this is the same argument that India and the US used to ban Tiktok, although there I'd argue there was perhaps a little more water. Tiktok was farming data from devices on which it was installed at an alarming rate (alarming= a little bit more than it's contemporaries still do) and thus it's algorithms were, and probably are, some of the best in the industry. I don't know if any concrete evidence has been uncovered to reveal that PUBG is doing anything similar but I feel like that would be the sort of revelation someone in my position would hear about. Not to call the Indian government liars at all, just to throw a little shade.

Curiously, however, it seems that India are following the US' shoes with their handling of Tiktok, in that there are talks of a recent merger between PUBG's developers and Krafton, a south Korean company, which could pave the way for an overturning of this ban. PUBG have reportedly severed ties with Tencent in the region as an act of good faith and if the gods are smiling down on them then PUBG mobile could be back up and running by early 2021. Does this mark the dawning of an age where developers will have to choose their International partners? Perhaps not just yet, as 'Game for Peace' is still up and running, so it does look like both sides are being played at the exact same time. (Although, I've heard some say that GFP is unrelated to PUBG but still linked to Tencent so consider me royally confused.)

Ultimately this is another in a long line of Video game restrictions hitting our industry with questionable intent. As a consumer I am reasonably miffed whenever anything like this comes our way, for fear of it becoming a trend, and I can only imagine what sort of effect this is having on Indian gamers who just want to play their favourite game. Censorship in general is a practise that is rarely pursed for the 'moral' or 'safety' reasons that are claimed and we as the consumers are the one's ultimately stuck paying the price after it's all said and done. That being said; screw the overbearing reach of Chinese censorship. (So I guess you could say I'm off two minds here.)

Battle of the Battle Royales.

Chicken dinner, anyone?

You've all heard of Battle Royale's right? Chances are good that you have, afterall the most popular game in the world right now is, in fact, a Battle Royale. Fortnite has held onto the title of most played game for several months now, bordering close to a year, after taking the gaming world by storm when it launched. But what makes the juggernaut so popular? Well, for my money it is the very formula of Battle Royale games. Admittedly Fortnite did help shape that formula, but every game that has followed them since has met with some degree of success, however fleeting, so we know that it works. Let us dive into that formula, how it works and, most importantly, whether or not Battle Royale's will sustain their popularity in the coming years.

Lets start with addressing where the 'Battle Royale' genre comes from. Because if you think this all originated with Fortnite, you are in for a ride. Fortnite copied their game idea from another game that was on track to the fame and success that Fortnite now enjoys: Player Unknown's BattleGrounds or PUBG. Unfortunately being a smaller and less experienced team than Epic, South Korean developer Bluehole struggled to keep the game relevant once their cartoony competition arrived on the scene. PUBG was known for playing very rough, but the developers decided to spend their time in adding new content rather than fix the existing stuff; that is, at the end of the day, where the money is at. So once Epic showed up with a game that was structurally sound from the getgo, marketable to children and free to play, PUBG's death sentence was all but signed. PUBG is still somewhat popular today but they struggle to pull numbers anywhere close to Fortnite, they missed their chance.

But Brendan Greene wasn't the first human being to come with the Battle Royale formulae either. Before PUBG there were a slew of short-lived fad games that cashed off on the genre before fading back into obscurity. Who remembers The Culling? Or H1Z1? Or... Knives Out? Okay, even I don't remember Knives Out; but it just goes to show that these games were everywhere before the genre leaders were even conceived. So where did it all start? For money it all goes back to the real OG: Minecraft: Hunger games. I know, I know. Minecraft? Really!? But just take a look at what Minecraft: Hunger Games had to offer and the hallmarks are all there. One life, scavenged weapons, randomized loot, the works. And seeing as almost every gamer already owns Minecraft, it's popularity was set in stone. All it took was for one enterprising individual to look at the game and figure out how to monetize it and Battle Royale was then born.

But what separates Battle Royale from any other competitive multiplayer modes? Well, that's easy and obvious, the 'one life rule'. Nothing gets the blood pumping and adrenaline racing like telling your player that they only have one chance to prove what they can do. It worked out for 'Search and Destroy' back in the Call of Duty days, pitting players in a small map without respawns. And it has worked out for every Battle Royale to date. This reflection of mortality goes back to the conceptual origins of the genre: Hunger Games (The movie) which in turn borrowed it's premise from 2000's Battle Royale. Which was an adaptation of a Japanese Novel of the same name. Which was based on true events. (Okay that last part is a lie.) All these stories feature a 'Game' or 'Event' where the cost to play is the unacceptable loss of human life in the hundreds. Whatever the warped purpose for it all, that is the emotional crux of the premise that is meant to resonate with the audience. That kind of cost is hard to demonstrate in Video games with our technically infinite chances, so the way it was achieved was by limiting those chances down to one. Like in real life. Or at least until we all become immortal cyborg gods in the inevitable Cyberpunk future.

Then there is the scavenging aspect of the gameplay which is linked with the balancing and monetization. Contestants start each and every match devoid of all the weapons, tools and equipment that they will need to win the match. Only by digging through lootboxes (Not those kinds) and chests can people hoard up enough of an arsenal to slay their enemies and claim that all important: Victory Royale. The affect of this to make sure that all Players are on an equal playing field when they enter into a match so that literally anyone can end up winning. Some of my favourite Battle Royale experiences, Like Nuclear Winter, skewer this slightly by offering players little selectable perks so that they can angle their playstyle a certain way; but proper balancing of these perks is essential to ensuring that this doesn't end up destroying the harmony of your gamemode. This part of the gameplay is also important to the monetization of the game, which is the part that properties like Fortnite are particularly driven to get right. Players hate being put in a scenario where they have to pay in order to win, so developers have to be sure that any microtransactions that they offer do not affect gameplay in any minute fashion. All the successful Battle Royales have stuck to this rule, keeping microtransactions strictly cosmetic, for fear of overstepping their bounds with gamers. Doesn't make their microtransactions good or valuable, but at least they're not necessities.

But Why do people keep playing these games after beating it once, you may ask. This was a problem addressed all the way back in games like Modern Warfare 2, but perfected in the aforementioned, Fortnite. It is common in multiplayer Video games that as you level up you earn items that can then help you down the line. However, in the past those sorts of items used to be things like better weapons, new attachments and sometimes just bragging rights. However we now live in a video gaming age where developers have narrowed down exactly how to tempt recurrent players indefinitely, They know exactly what buttons to push, what emotions to exploit and what things to say. Earning weapons is, afterall, not applicable in a Battle Royale environment as you have to scavenge for those weapons anyway. What about giving players access to weapons that they could maybe loot in a match? Well, no one has gone that far yet, luckily. Instead these Battle Royale games link their progression with a steady stream of cosmetic items that the player can unlock, I'm talking; Weapon skins, Player Skins, Emotes, Dances, etc. Easy to produce content that players instil their own value to, nudging them to keep playing more and more.

There is a deeper level to this kind of system however, and it is the reason why I said that Fornite had mastered this premise, Because they instituted The Battle Pass. The Battle Pass is a system wherein players start accumulating progression towards season specific content. As you play matches, kill enemies and place high in the rankings, players earn EXP. That EXP unlocks them levels in a Battlepass and occasionally cosmetic rewards, however, Fortnite pushed this into Psychological warfare as they offered two types of Battle Passes, the free version and the premium version. Players will unlock levels on the free version whilst being teased with much cooler loot they could be getting in the premium version. Tempting that subscription purchase. This was all heightened by the fact that the rewards were limited to a season (Usually about 4 months) creating that feeling of scarcity. Was that difficult to understand? Because it was difficult to explain, and that is exactly what these companies are hoping for. Their hope is for people to just do ahead and subscribe without fully thinking it through.

The Battle Royale Genre is a unique blend of traditional casual multiplayer reward systems and hardcore gameplay mechanics to create a skill based competitive format. Those who win are made to feel like they are  superior players when in truth they are just the last one standing. A lot of random luck goes into winning a Battle Royale, but that doesn't mean some challenge isn't in the hands of player as well as RNG systems. Somewhere between chance and skill is a the sweetspot in which the genre resides and it is a very profitable sweetspot indeed. For this reason, more and more companies are starting to tip their hat into the Battle Royale ring, hoping to get some of that profit for themselves. Activison has one, Bethesda has one, Ubisoft are likely making one and EA has two (because they just love competing with themselves.) So surely this means that Battle Royales are here to stay.

Well yes and no. Whilst it's true that few can resist the allure of a Battle Royale game and investors are always eager to fund the next Fortnite, not many last the long haul like one might hope for. I mentioned the Culling earlier, they had a pretty rough go of things and shut down this May. They tried to recapture their success by going Free-to-play but just ended up sealing their own fate. Then there was Boss Key's Radical Heights; a 80's themed Battle Royale that crashed horribly and sunk the studio behind it. Despite that studio being founded by video game legend: Cliff Bleszinski. Even proposed 'Fortnite-killer' Apex Legends has lagged in growth, despite incredibly sound controls, due to development difficulties slowing down the creation of new content. Battle Royales are not the guaranteed money maker that they seem to be and can actually be a pretty risky venture. Because of their involved nature, most players don't have the freedom to juggle several Battle Royales and likely just find one that they like to stick with. Eventually, games companies will be forced to admit that the Battle Royale market is not infinite and be forced to find some other trend to beat to death. My prediction: give it until the next console generation has set in. See if Battle Royales are still the top dog then.