Let the R's fight

 

Max Payne. The great equaliser. A video game about a cop on a journey to avenge the murder of his wife through copious amounts of murder on his own end. A gaming classic, slathered in moody melodrama, heavily black and white colours and comic panel theming and the genesis of the much renowned 'Bullet Time' mechanic. It's also the major point of contact through which the struggling juggernauts of today intersect before now. Because you see, both Remedy and Rockstar games had their chance to touch the franchise with their own games for it. Whatever you have to say about Max Payne 3- Rockstar did throw their weight behind trying to continue the franchise that Remedy currently couldn't. So you might think a silly little dispute like this could be swept up in the background between companies with enough points of contact to settle this sensibly. You'd have thought incorrectly.

It seems that Remedy and Rockstar have entered into contention over the ownership of the letter R. Yes, it is a very valuable and useful letter, resplendent yet reserved, regal and rambunctious- but to be clear the actual contention is over the branding of these studio logos. Take a quick look at Remedy's logo, then mosey on over at Rockstar's. Both very minimalist, as is the style with modern day company iconography, and both featuring that all important consonant. As is ever the case with hyper-active lawsuit filers, this 'of course' means you need to be terrified over the ever present possibility of the moronic public eyeing the two brands and assuming one is the other despite- you know- the very distinct and noticeable difference in colour, the echo effect on Remedy's logo and, you know, the fact that Remedy's logo literally has the word 'Remedy' under the R. That's uh... a pretty explicit difference right there. You'd think the issue would be wrapped up by that alone.

But to be fair, I'm pretty sure the big legal departments of these massive studios are kept on tentative retainer on the expectation that they will proactively justify their own existence wherever possible. Of course, sometimes there are internal departments that are just chomping at the bit to exercise their power, flex them sore muscles. I can't appear to spot any apparent legal Department listed in Rockstar's key executives, but I'm sure I'm just missing them tucked away under someone else. Maybe Marketing. Either way, it's pretty obvious that this is a Rockstar or Take Two aggressor because in situations like this it's always them running to the court house. (And, you know, no one would be stupid enough to try and take on Rockstar in court. Except for the Florida Joker. That guy already made enough poor choices to get the fame he has, threatening to sue the most litigious company in gaming is just on-brand at that point.) They must have a tent up in the courtroom or something for often they're there!

And Remedy weren't a problem for all the many years they were nose-to-the-grindstone, trying to make Alan Wake 2 the best it can be. But show up to the Game Awards, get a little celebration under your belt and suddenly it's all "These guys are going to dilute our brand! You have to stop them!" Were we in a world of sense and logic this would be a frivolous waste of time- but Rockstar have both the size and the connections to outlaw such a world in their proceedings. If there were any legal precedent for suing people into a death sentence, Rockstar would be in contention for America's leading cause of death after drunk driving incidents- they are a company as obsessed with mastering the intricacies of game design as they are with the brusque art of legal beatdowns.

Let us not forget the time that Rockstar went out of their way to hunt down and digitally eradicate all traces of mods for Grand Theft Auto's III through to San Andreas, after facilitating something of a quiet relationship with many of the bigger mod developers beforehand. Or how about when they banned TPain from playing GTA RP because he is apparently helping with Grand Theft Auto VI's soundtrack. Why, because the guy can't be trusted with a simple NDA? You have to ban him from interacting with the community as well? Or is it because if TPain is acknowledged as being involved with GTA VI and is seen having fun in his own personal streaming career, then that might be construed as a quite approval for this unofficial way of playing GTA V? Mayhaps that be the issue?

It seems all of Rockstar's legal prickliness stems from their xenophobia over anyone experiencing their products in a way not tactically intended by the developer and it's oddly reminiscent of Nintendo's view on all things related to their properties. Only- Nintendo has the rather flimsy excuse that they're trying to protect the family friendly image of their brand from anything they don't explicitly control, which is also their excuse for debuting a modern video game console without any form of voice chat, by the way. But what's the excuse for Rockstar? They aren't shrinking violets when it comes to adult content, they court controversy with every breath and as they are happy to demonstrate in an overly zealous manner, any genuine breaches of their conduct could be surgically removed with a well-aimed lawsuit if they pleased. So what's with the scorched earth policy?

Many are eager to sprint to their defence and declare innocence on behalf of Rockstar, because all these evils are actually the purview of their parent company Take Two- but I think there's something of a misunderstanding here about how subservient Rockstar are to the boys upstairs. If Rockstar wanted to tone down the zealous nature of their image they have the power and influence to get that done- they are the single most well received video game company in the world right now and if they make a suggestion then any money-minded executive with their head on straight is going to follow the directive. Take Two's overzealous nature when it comes to these take downs is either due to rank indifference on Rockstar's end, or a harmonious conviction to lock up the IP to the public.

There's enough space in the world for two company's with largely different names that happen to share the same first initial and distinct logos. Just as there's enough space for two producers with strangely similar names such as 'Take Two' and '2K'. The reputation of fear so eagerly stoked with this muscle flexing is the same aura of terror that makes Rockstar so standoffish, which makes it so inaccessible to the public, which sours the next generation of developers who might otherwise aspire to one day lend their talents to the heroes who's games they used to take apart and backwards engineering back in the day. I just hope Rockstar fully comprehend the extent of the persona that they're building for themselves, because it's one hell of a doozy if they don't see it coming.

GTA 6?

 I don't buy it

Hark do mine ears lie? Surely they must because how else could we be subjected to that most impossible of news ringing again soundly from the rafters? With industry insiders now being conjured from out of the woodworks, confirming these most unbelievable of words. Words that claim Rockstar are actively in development of Grand Theft Auto 6 and are approaching basic development milestones already. People seem to be decently happy with a 2025 estimation, which seems insane given that I was fully expecting the next GTA to come out... well never. It has been close to nine years since the launch of Grand Theft Auto V, it'll be twelve once 6 comes, if these estimations pan out according to plan. All logic should dictate that we're actually late for our sequel but... well this is Rockstar and this is GTA. Going the next generation without any new release seemed much more than plausible.

So what is so crazy, what do I find so hard to wrap my head around? It's the risk, honestly; the risk that Rockstar are opening themselves up to might be par the course for any enterprising company worth it's salt but most of those risky, deal-cutting, small times aren't seeing the kind of numbers that Rockstar do. Rockstar rake in near to a billion in yearly annual profit, despite not even being a company that does yearly releases, all because of the live service model that GTA Online adopted which Rockstar seized like a cow and milked it bone dry. To even considering making a sequel to GTA V, even acknowledging that this sequel will have GTA Online 2 attached, is introducing risk that I'd imagine most skittish investors to find totally unacceptable. Because here's the thing, GTA Online is growing in profits, by maintaining the status quo Rockstar could keep the gravy train rolling in indefinitely and simply shut away the outside world, just like Facebook did until it lost it's active users for the first time in the platform's history recently. (Guess the Herman Cain Award is really paying in dividends, huh.)

But a GTA 6? That threatens all that. Picture this, GTA 6 comes out with a brand new Online mode and it sucks. Momentum is kicked back to basics, Rockstar have to build up it's online audience and win back trust in the game over a process that could take years in order to stabilise profits near what they would have been if they had simply done nothing. Or what if it's good, but Rockstar has a hard time migrating the audience from one game to the other (The players having spent literal years with their legacy toons and items from GTA V) so that revenue potentials are halved. Sure they'll still make some money out of GTA Online Mk1, but without active development and content being put into that old game those returns are going to dry up and wham, Rockstar are making a fraction of what they do today. There's so many ways this could tip one milligram in the wrong direction and scuff up a good thing for Rockstar investors everywhere; it's so delicate I'm shocked the investors aren't actively picketing the development studios as we speak to halt their potential downturn. (If I were in their shoes, I'd certainly consider it.)

Now realistically, Rockstar had to move on eventually. GTA V may have been inexplicably healthy after all of these years but nothing lasts forever and you want to always be palming the next triumph in your pocket, but honestly I expected Rockstar to wait until Online was actually receiving diminishing returns before making this move. I suppose in their eyes they're looking at this as an opportunity to go off on a high note and smoothly transition from this plateau to a whole new mountain range so that the ascension can continue unabated. Also there is something inherently British about no wanting to drag things out past their prime. (Pretending they haven't done that with GTA V proper for a while now.) For the sake of reputation and dignity it's best to take the old lame dog out back and put it out of it's misery. I just don't understand how Rockstar came to that conclusion. But let's assume that we do believe the story that GTA 6 is in active development...

Where is it going to be set? The answer seems obvious; GTA IV was set in Liberty City for the hundredth time, 5 bought us to San Andreas so it seems almost natural that VI would bring us around to Vice City again, but somehow I'm not sure. You see Rockstar never pick a setting just because it'll be cool, they pick places with something modern and relevant to mock and a lot of opportunity for satirical subtext. In 2013 LA made for a perfect parody point because of the place that Hollywood was in for the time and there's probably a whole other game's worth of commentary content still there from all the years since, and Miami was iconic during the 80's (for being the cocaine capital among other things) which is why it seemed like such a no-brainer for the original Vice City to be set during that time. But modern day Miami? What has that been known for recently? Which isn't to say that I don't think Vice City is in the running, but I don't think it will be bought to life in the way that people expect.

When fans think of a return to Vice City they're reminiscing all of the gaudy style, the hit-pink neon lights cut with baby-blue accents, All-day night clubs with classic 80's jams and that constant aura of a party atmosphere that has far outstayed it's welcome. But that isn't really Miami anymore, at least not from the outside perspective. (Actually, Miami has been embracing that side of themselves in recent tourism marketing, but I'm talking literally the past couple of years. It's not deeply ingrained in their culture or anything.) But do you know what is more in the vein of today, what is more relevant to the now and makes easy ground for mockery? The absurdity of the wider state of Florida. Due to the laws around publishing legal proceedings being lax, Florida has fostered a reputation in the infomation age of being home to all the insanity of America. (Or at least a lightning rod for it.) Crocodile sightings, bath salt attacks, crazy drunken benders ending in destruction; all of these examples and so much more plaster the reputation of Florida and paints the impression that the entire state is the wasted little brother of America proper. And just tell me that doesn't make prime Rockstar fodder!

A modern Vice City would need focus on the surrounding environment too, such as adapting the marshes of the Everglades or depicting the rampant nightmare-scape of Florida's The Villages old-folks homes. Amplifying and profiting off the untamed bizarreness of a State so prolific that the term 'Florida man' is now used as short-hand for 'nutcase'. There would be opportunity for exercising some of that recent wilderness design expertise the world design team has left over from Red Dead, and maybe they'll even go the extra mile of including another city too, to highlight diversity in the types of city maps they can produce. (I don't know what other city they'd make though.) Of course, the place where they set the game is mostly irrelevant, Rockstar are going to want to impress by pushing forward the genre (something they mentioned in the announcement post) and who knows what form that's going to take- we might as well be making bets on the amount of average rainfall over the summer in Warsaw; it's all guesswork.

Whatever the case may be, and provided we take everything we've heard at total face value, then I suppose it's time to rejoice: Grand Theft Auto 6 will be a reality! What with how everything has moved in the industry, and how certain developers who shall not be named tried and failed to supplant Rockstar's hold on this genre, I cannot wait to have my general gaming expectations totally overshadowed and rewritten before my very eyes. Last time Rockstar revealed their game with that initial GTA V trailer I remember having something of a panic attack which required me to run around the block in order to calm down, so I'm hoping for a more tamer reaction this time now that I'm... nearly a decade older... Wow, I am going to dead before GTA X. Wild.

I'm gonna rant about GTA online for a bit, forgive me.

 You probably wasn't even born!

So it's been a while since I've talked about GTA Online, and even longer since I've played it. And that's because I've well and crossed that inevitable point where a game just evolves so much that it isn't the same one you remember. Heck, back when I used to play the game the key grind spot mission of the whole game was still Rooftop Rumble. And I remember it back before the nerf, now I hear that the game was removed from the mission rotation for 'tweaks' only to never return! How the heck am I supposed to return to a game where I can't blow up a garage full of nobodies in 5 seconds flat and then quickly snipe the escape car that spawns with that same flick of the thumb I'd rehearsed a million times previously? (It's practically not even the same game at this point!)

But like my very own quipu, my time with the game hangs around my neck and the knots in it's strings are testaments to the days I must have killed grinding it's shores for the next released supercar. (Never realising at the time the sheer astronomical buy-in prices each subsequent expansion would release with, to the point where that approach would eventually become untenable.) But even though that is a past long behind in a game I now actively wish for the demise of (because that's the only way we're getting GTA VI and we all know it) I still find myself keeping an eye on the old grounds there, just to keep up with the good old days. (Every past day is great when you actively choose to forget the bad.) That's how I knew about the casino update, that's how I've second-hand experienced the eye-roll worthy Cayo Perico heist, and that's how I've heard of this new update coming our way.

Yet I feel it's important first that I introduce GTA Online to you, as a story. I know, I know, you're thinking "What story? It's just online mishaps loosely tied together my missions and updates" And whilst that is largely true, there's actually something of an origin narrative many forget about. You see, GTA Online tells the story of a low level thug who gets thrown into Los Santos before the events of Grand Theft Auto V and finds themselves quickly (and somewhat unnaturally) swallowed up by the criminal underworld. (Seriously, how the hell does Lamar personally know every criminal in Los Santos? That's straight uncanny!) This is important as a set-up, because it gives players a sense that everything they are experiencing is separate from the main game world, not just in character but in time too. Setting it before the story is important to, because with how much of a starring role GTA cities always have in the narrative, the world after the story is invariably one shaped and owned by that game's protagonist. So it has to be set before in order to give online criminals a chance to make their mark.

And how do we know for certain that this online mode is set before the events of GTA V? I mean, aside from Rockstar remarks made at the time of release indicating such, we actually have verifiable evidence from the sorts of missions that you take from certain people. (Spoilers for GTA V, one of the most played games in the world, ahoy) For one, we take on Martin Madrazo as a client for some of our missions, and he's supposed to be in hiding after the events of GTA V for fear of Trevor cutting him up into little pieces and eating him. Then there's the fact that the player character of GTA Online is referenced by Lester in GTA V, when he claims that he knows someone who might be helpful for a heist set-up but then dismisses that idea as they are "Too unpredictable". And then there's the bunch of base Online-game run-ins you have with character's from the single player game which wouldn't be possible after the events of the story. Trevor, for one, given the fact that the multiple endings of GTA allows you to pick who lives and who dies, so if this Trevor was from after the events of the main game then that would sully the illusion of that ending choice. (For which, if we're being honest, Ending A makes the most sense and is probably the most poetic way for the narrative to close out. B makes no logical sense whatsoever and C is too fan-fictiony.)

So why is any of this important? Well, it becomes relevant with the brand new GTA content drop which is finally returning a character to the franchise that the stories have felt naked without: Doctor Dre. (I just don't know how anyone can justify playing GTA without 'Ain't Nuthin' But A G Thang' in the background.) No, actually it's Franklin Clinton, the middle child of the GTA V main characters and the only person who canonically survives the events of the game no matter which ending you choose. And this isn't prequel Franklin, oh no; he is explicitly portrayed as a successful retired criminal for several years that is looking for a little more excitement. This is clearly a return to the character, indicating that all the time since GTA V has passed in the game world and the next expansion is set in current year. (huh, I missed the Covid update.)

In fact, the implication that things were going this way was first bought up to me with that Casino update I talked about earlier, which introduced a whole new skyscraper to the Los Santos skyline as though that's something no one would have noticed in the main game. And then there was the heist from that very update wherein a careless piece of dialogue with a side character from the main game reveals not only that this story had jumped several years beyond the events of the main game at some undetermined point, but that she was 'nearly killed' during an action scene that only occurs in Ending C. A double confirmation to side up with the Smuggler's Run update, during which Trevor is referred to as being alive (Only in Ending C) and the update before that had someone directly state the year as being 2017, which is four years after when the GTA main story is canonically set.

So does this mean there's some sort of clever narrative manipulation behind the scenes that is deftly being wielded by ingenious world builders? It doesn't really feel that way, does it? A slip-up bit of dating here, a misplaced character there, directly stating which ending is canon thus robbing emphasis out of your main story somewhere along the line. It all comes across as a little... accidental. One might even go so far as to say 'incompetent'. Which would match the quality of effort put into keeping the GTA Online ecosystem going, at least when it comes to all of those polishing details that make every new Rockstar game near perfect masterpieces. If you'd never played a Rockstar game outside of GTA Online you would seriously struggle to understand why this company is considered one of the best in the industry today. And that's not just because of the rampant tech errors or the server issues or the cheating menu problems. It's just the presentation. The gameplay is fun, go figure considering it's largely just recycling the building blocks that the main development team left over, but the story writing, world development and characters verge from average to mediocre caricatures of lobotomised lab mice.

I think that this upcoming update is the literal first time that Rockstar have just come out and confirmed that GTA Online is now set in modern day, although by featuring Franklin it almost seems like they're trying to maintain some illusion of 'the multiple endings are still real'. Why bother? Just call up Steven Ogg and Ned Luke already for one of your silly unrewarding Online heist missions, bring the gang back together. (Although, after stealing several hundred million out of the Union Depository, one might wonder why they'd get together to do a much more dangerous heist in exchange for two or three million at most.) Still, at the end of the day we may mock the sometimes amateurish job that the Online team does of handling GTA Online, but when they do a job right they do it right, and finally bringing back everyone's favourite GTA character, Chop the dog, is definitely a job done right. So good, maybe job, perhaps team.

Take Two have done lost their minds!

 Somebody stop me.

It must be difficult existing as an incredibly profitable and powerful corporate entity, what with managing the finances, organising teams, juggling lobbyists, circumventing tax laws, all the daily comings and goings of the average corporate lifestyle. I can imagine that each company has to handle their challenges with their own unique methods, balancing their own wellbeing with that of their investors, ideally to the best ends for all. And if the pressure should ever get too much, if you should lose the careful cool you've tried to maintain for years in order to perpetrate the false image of intellectual serenity you've erected around yourself like a fort? Well, then you might just slip from the fragile perch of sanity and tumble into an unhinged spree of abusing your power every which-way like a badly written fantasy villain in the last act of his storyline. ("If I can't have the world be under my grasp, then no-one can have the world!")

So Take Two might not be the most familiar to people out there in the gaming space, especially if you base your knowledge of the more corporate angles of the gaming beast by the logos plastered on the front of your games. But Take Two is essentially the big demon behind the curtains that puppets the likes of 2K and Rockstar, basically meaning they're juggling billion-dollar revenue generators under their brand names, so they aren't any slackers in this space by any stretch of the imagination. Take Two covets the sort of power and influence to potentially step on the throats of pretty much anyone they want to, as does any company within the upper echelons of the video game industry, because this is the most profitable entertainment medium in the world right now. (And money obviously breeds power) But whereas we acknowledge the godlike power that these companies dandily wave over our necks like loose-swinging guillotine blades, never actually expecting to feel the sharp cold of the metal's drop, Take Two must have recently become possessed by the spirit of Robespierre because they're dropping heads left right and centre.

They've never actually been the most 'community friendly' over in the corporate equivalent of Mount Doom. In fact, very recently fans of Rockstar games have been tearing out their hair over that fact that Take Two have been mounting a scorched earth campaign on anything online that so much as references a property they own. I'm talking mods, ENBs and even shared save files. All whilst Rockstar bury their heads and pretend that none of this is happening because it's better not to stir the sleeping beast sleeping above them I guess, although the fact that Take Two took down a bunch of superior graphical enhancement mods in the months leading up to Grand Theft Auto's inferior definitive update is certainly curious. I'm not saying that Rockstar specifically put them up to it, I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised if some of the leading Rockstar staff let slip the existence of these sorts of mods during a meeting at some point.

Still, as pathetically desperate as that sort of conduct invariably is, it is technically within Take Two's legal rights. (Whenever you are forced to bring 'technical legality' into the conversation you're pretty much just circling the drainage pipe to hell.) Take Two are in no way legally obliged to support the endeavours of their own community in their attempts to, you know, provide extra value to their property free of charge. (Might as well punish the fans for being fans, afterall.) Another thing they have no legal obligation to do is to overreach in trademark filings against any and everyone they can find with a name that sounds anything like something that they own. I'm not talking about direct ripoffs, and most of the time not even competitors, I'm talking anyone. If your birth name just happens to be something along the lines of 'Maximillian Paine', you can expect to be getting a subpoena through your letter box anytime now, things are that crazy!

Eurogamer has been putting in the legwork to document all of this, which is incredibly helpful because the extent of these claims are simply baffling, and it has stretched back to all across this year. The US patent office has filings against a clothing brand called Max Fayne, a Bejing company called 'Starrocks' (hah, goodluck on that lawsuit Take Two) and a Florida axe throwing company called "Rockstar Axe throwing". These, of course, dredges up that most tedious of queries, does naming your company after an incredibly common term warrant your ownership over that word across the world for as long as you want? Of course, usually the answer for this is 'no', but occasionally the right (or wrong, as the case my be) courts have held up such queer rulings, and perhaps Take Two are just looking for a few victories on the smaller scale that they can use to set a precedent.

But if there's one example here that simply screamed to get my attention, one victim which it makes my blood boil to see attacked by all this; it's the videogame 'It Takes Two'. This adorable little couples game (not a 'family' game- a 'couples' game) is the latest title from Hazelight and, incidentally, a 'Game of the Year' contender; but they've been forced to relinquish their trademark over their own game's name because of Take Two's recent bout of insanity. Just to be clear, this does not mean that they have to change their name at this immediate time, and Geoff Keighley won't be forbidden from speaking their name during the awards next Friday, (although that would be surrealist as heck if that was the case) but it does mean that for the moment Hazelight can't defend themselves from anyone who might attempt to profit off of their game's name; which is crap.

It Takes Two is, obviously, an incredibly common expression that has been used in countless songs throughout the year, but Take Two want to act as it's soul proprietor because it kind-of sounds like their company name. This isn't defence of their brand- this is an attack against others in what some more familiar with these sorts of legal proceedings are predicting are preliminary measures, essentially future-proofing any renaming efforts that Take Two might consider at some point. But is all of that worth attacking a small studio with the likes of Josef Fares in there, the man who famously disparaged the Oscars in an apparently-sober rant during the Game Awards some years back? Sure, the guy may have defended EA once or twice, but his company has literally only managed to put out their games thanks to help from EA, it would be more damning if he wasn't thankful towards them. The man is a treasure, his games are said to be really good, and he deserves better. (Oh, on the topic of his games, the only one I've played is Brothers; and that was great!)

Take Two are currently setting themselves as evil puppetmasters hiding behind an antiquated US trademark office to amplify threats at everyone and anyone and it's pathetic. Is this the purpose of trademark law then? To allow grotesque slugs like Take Two to lazily terrorise small business owners with numerous tinfoil claims? It would seem so, given that most effected are being forced to give up their own protections or face an inevitably costly lawsuit against Take-Two's likely stacked legal team, it's a lose lose. There's no real silver lining to take away from this, no 'well at least this might make things better eventually', it's just a real shame for all involved and a deserved mark of shame on Take Two's already spotty reputation. Justice for Josef!

XCOM Legends

A 98% miss on this one

What shocking news to wake up to right out of the stark blue of oblivion, materialising fully formed and unveiled, sneaking up on you like a stealth combat round; because we have a brand new XCom game out! That's a pretty dirty way for Firaxis to let me know that I have to step up my game on my Ironman Classic playthrough of the Original, but as I said I'm taking my time so that I don't end up inadvertently hating the game, thus I will respect Firaxis to back off. Let me play the games that are out already you absolutely crazy men! Stealth releasing a new XCom right out of nowhere, who do you think you are? And with absolutely no farfare too! Even XCom Chimera Squad had a month or two of agonising wait time before launch, whereupon I watched more back-lore videos than I had for any XCom game before. It's honesty pretty impressive that they managed to hide the development of  a whole new game from their seminal franchise until launch, especially one that was made during active development for their Marvel title- wait what? That's right- they're already making a Marvel XCom-style game, or at least that's what the rumours say, so how did they have the time to make- this was handled externally? Who was the studio? Iridium Stafish? That sounds dumb, and their website is almost entirely bare except for their own logo. What is this- oh god; it's a mobile game isn't it?

Yes. And I already hear the screaming calls of defence from those Mobile diehards out there who's job it is to swing for the throat whenever anyone dare imply bad things about their platform. "There are good games, you just have to find them!" "Not everything is a Microtransaction fuelled Gacha hellhole!". And you know what? This time they are wrong, XCom Legends advertises itself as a Gacha fuelled experience and something tells me they're not going to have nearly the amount of freely accessible fun that a game like Genshin Impact does. What is that cold feeling I have running down my arteries, trailing a web across my nervousness to my core? Is that my blood running cold at the realisation that yet another studio who has, up until now, done most everything right, has given up the struggle in favour of the quick path to cheap buck? "Whore out that popular name a little bit, remember to spit on the loyal fans whilst your at it, some of them are freaks they'll like it" . It's not disappointment, because I'm not really capable of trusting game studios, it's just exasperation at this point.

"But (I'm) being exasperated without giving it a chance", some very misplaced kind souls might argue, and they are right so I'm give it the rundown, for prosperities sake. XCom Legends is set during the events of the Xcom 2 timeline, so just after the failure of XCom during the initial alien invasion but before their victory in the subsequent guerrilla war of XCom 2 and the resulting rebuilding that integrated Alien races into Human society in XCom Chimera Squad. It follows a system whereupon players build a crew and fight hoards of aliens whilst supplementing their soldiers with powerful premade soldiers who cost premium currency in order to roll for in loot boxes and- god I'm so sick of these games. It doesn't even make sense, who are these 'legendary' characters from the XCom universe? Aside from the main cast and Kelly, who actually went on to become main staff in Chimera Squad, everyone else is a made by the player and thus comes their personal connections to each individual. There's no decades of comics to pull ancillary characters from, or tons of side reading material; so why even pursue a game literally labelled 'legends' if it's meaningless? Shall we ease of a bit? Sure, let's just chalk this nonsensical money-dependant progression system up to yet another aspect of core Xcom being stepped on here.

What else is being trampled out like the head of a dying wick? Oh yea, the gameplay. You know; the thing that makes XCom, XCom. You might be forgiven for thinking this would be another game laid out with tactical matches, focused on positioning and hit percentages; choosing your battlefield and playing bonus actions at the right moment. . I mean that would make sense, wouldn't it? That's exactly what XCom is about, and has been about, for nigh-on years now. I'm talking before Enemy Unknown and back to those originals; XCom core essentials go back to the turn based hit percentages. And the very fact that I'm drumming this home for you should portend exactly what I'm about to say, no? They butchered it. The gameplay has died. Look what they've done to my boy. Silly you for having hope, didn't you know that the original newage XCom game was already ported to Mobile, thus this new game is mandated to be considerably less creative. Typical stuff which makes this sort of game an absolute institution for lovers of tactics across the industry

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever played a Mobile game before? Chances are that if you have you've played one of two types of game. Either it's a city builder game, maybe with a popular property stitched ontop of the gameplay, maybe without; or else you're looking at the Shadow Legends model (which predates RAID, but I'm feeling unimaginative; just like Iridium Starfish.) There I'm talking about the gameplay model which is basically just building a team of characters who move from static encounter to static encounter, usually auto attacking the enemies in front of you. Sometimes there's an absolute basic level of tactical cohesion wrapped into the gameplay model, maybe you get to choose your target or use super moves, but at the end of the day the side with the higher 'combat rating' will win. Combat rating will never hit the heights you need without buying microtransactions, suddenly this free game ain't so free anymore; rinse repeat. If you're familiar with that latter model, as much as I hate to say it; you've already played XCom Legends.

I'm only being a little bit facetious there, this is a game that's as cookie cutter as they get and there's probably an online template for these games you can pick up nowadays. (Last time I checked there was one for the city builder type mobile game) It makes you wonder how little the licence holders must care for the integrity of their product if they'll just commission and put out a product this soulless for a quick buck. I mean even Bethesda, in all their infamy, put some originality into both of their mobile games to make them at the very least a value to the franchise instead of an abject drag. Heck, one of the key 'reasons to play' that Iridium Starfish listed on their description was the fact that the game gets resources for you while you don't play it. (Whilst likely leaving out the way the app tells you every time it collects a pebble) Those aren't features, it's a list of all the worst things to include to make your game as much as a sellout as possible.

So now comes the fun game, who do we blame for this monstrosity? Firaxis are the developers, but 2K are the publishers, so we could call this a mandate from 2K, but in my heart of hearts I'm not letting Firaxis off the hook for this one. Take 2 might hold the licence for the moment, but I just know that somewhere down the line the suggestion was raised to their offices from Firaxis. "Hey, while we're busy why don't you commission a cool spin off? That'll go great!" One of theirs pitched before driving home and realising halfway how the soulless vampires he was talking to would take such a proposition. I'm not saying they had the power to stop this, but they could have at least warned us. Maybe try to push 2K to spend more than minimum wage commissioning it? I don't know what they could have done, okay! All's I know is that there has to be a multiverse where this doesn't happen, and I don't care if Kang has already conquered that one; I want in.

But at the end of the day it doesn't really matter, does it? XCom is going to stay on ice for the foreseeable future until Firaxis are done with their Marvel engagements, and rather than having the decent Chimera Squad be the game they left us on, filled with curious memories of a fun Xcom-done-quick approach to the formula we love; instead we have Legends, reminding us that all good things are owned by bad/stupid people. And for the record I hold no- well not a lot- ill will towards Iridium Starfish. I'm sure with a name that bizarre they hold a promising future in this industry, I just hope it's one where titles like this end up as an anomaly on their future resume, just as it'll be a scratched-out blip on the XCOM release timeline. 

Take Two did what?

Double take.

Have you ever sat down to consider why it is that EA is so reviled in the gaming world? I mean, it's a reputation that goes beyond the usual perfunctory nonsense that litters that normal chattersphere of the Internet; people despise this company. (And yet gladly buy their games, because intelligent consumer choices are for wusses?) In fact, it runs even deeper than even that! Beyond the consumers, even fellow games companies hate EA and what they stand for, to the point where they get jeered at formal gatherings. (Okay that happened once, but the point was made.) Perhaps it's just the natural order of all things to have a entity that represents all that folk hate in a games company so that an example can be set of what not to do. Or perhaps it's something to do with their vile and conquering policies and practises. Ones that Take Two apparently interpreted as 'how to' models if recent events are to be taken at face value.

There are few habits worse, in my mind, for the game's industry that the cycle of financially crippling a small studio in order to poach their staff. Sure, 'it's classic corporate fair' and all, but that doesn't make it an anyless unforgivable breech of trust not just to the offended party but to an entire industry that relies on collaboration in order to keep going. In a nutshell the act sort of goes like this; some big publisher will come along and strike a deal with a smaller developer, usually one that is already in financial trouble or whom lack the breadth to sufficiently diversify. These publishers bring them aboard, ensure all mark's eggs are in their basket before pulling out the bottom and leaving the developers financially broken. Then whilst they are in that vulnerable state it's simple to swoop in and 'save' the soon-to-be jobless staff. Is that a dramatisation? Sure. But I feel it hits all the salient points adequately enough for you to pick up roughly what I'm putting down.

As much as I hate to deploy a word which I think is criminally overused, especially in the gaming punditry world, there is no better adjective to describe this type of behaviour than 'Predatory', for that's exactly what it is. These people abuse their size and power to hunt and obliterate others, not exactly the shining example that this industry needs. With that in mind it's a wonder why Take Two, of all companies, thought it wise to do exactly that not too long ago against Star Theory Games; except it's not a wonder, because this is exactly what these sorts of people do on the daily. Most times the studio in question disappears without a hitch and everyone's none the wiser until years after the fact; that is almost the case here except this debacle played out at the beginning of this year, and yet it's hitting the gaming news cycle already. (Whoops.)

News broke last week thanks to the work of a reporter from Bloomberg, of all publications, that goes by the name of Jason Schi- oh. (You know, when he left Kotaku I thought that would force the gaming media to promote someone new to being a real journalist, but it seems they're still relying on Jason.) His sources uncovered this troubling story in great detail that you can read about for yourself, but here's the rub. In 2011 there was this little game called Kerbal Space Program which started out as an indie darling and ballooned into what can be fairly labelled a cult classic. After an actual publisher had got their mittens on it, Take Two demanded a sequel and commissioned it to the care of Star Theory Games, a small developer who have, as far as I can tell, never made anything that I'd be interested in. You can probably deduce the rest of the story from there.

The part of the story that really caught off-guard, however, was when the call for the Kerbal Space Program 2 program to be cancelled was apparently declared over Linkedin, with the offer to take a job at Take-Two either contained in the same message or sent shortly afterwards. Now this could be creative licence on the author's part or just a plain misread on my own, but if this situation did indeed play out like that then there's a special level of insulting disrespect here. Moving past how inappropriate it is to announce important updates regarding company-effecting projects over Linkedin, the fact that the job offers were made not too long after, (As though Take Two had just hit the company and gone all 'omae wa mou shindeiru' on their ass) speaks off off a particularly slimy and premeditated move on their part which screwed over so many 'little folk'. It makes me mad, I'll admit that much.

Of course, this whole situation has resulted in the steady death of the company who once held such a promising project in their grasp, both due to the financial attack and the loss of two thirds of their staff. And lest you believe Take-Two's vacuous excuse about how this game 'did not fit their current business models' or some such nonsense, rest assured that the company have come out to declare that they will be continuing development on Kerbal Space Program 2, so this was most definitely an organised assault since the moment go.  Now the only question left at the end of the day is what, as folk who care about the industry and the folk that get regularly abused in such manners, can we do about it? And the answer is, more often than not, absolutely nothing at all.

As I hinted earlier, this is the sort of behaviour that runs rampant across the video game industry and most of the times it doesn't even get reported on, let alone people care enough to want to respond to it. If the consumers can't even organise enough to punish 2K for their embarrassing lack of effort on their flagship sports titles, then what could they ever manage to do on behalf of a bunch of faceless developers that have no direct effect on them? So is this the fate of the game's industry? This vampiric, feudal relationship where futures are uncertain and everyone wants to step on their supposed colleagues? Perhaps so.

But I'm crying to the wind, I suppose. This sort of behaviour will never go away, not within a world shaped and defined by it. That doesn't mean I have to like it, but I suppose as we hear more and more it's only natural that a certain veil of desensitisation descends on us all. Should it? Maybe, maybe not; perhaps through acknowledgement and steady condemnation of such actions some small merit may be earned, afterall, folk now know not to trust EA even slightly due to similar actions, but then what is the alternative? For a small company looking to break into the AAA industry, there seems to be precious little choice that doesn't come alongside dancing on the knife's edge. Perhaps that's just the price of opportunity and I'm just another clueless rube getting vexed over nothing at all. (More than likely, I'd say.) 

Grand Dead Online

There is never enough time.

First of all, yes, I fully intend to review Red Dead Redemption 2 at some point but seriously, it's Red Dead Redemption 2... it deserves for me to take so time. Or at least for me to do a fully exhaustive playthrough. (Plus the game is only coming up to a year old. Knowing how late I like to do things, it might be more 'on-brand' for me to wait a few years.) However, yesterday I did briefly bring up an element of that game I think is interesting; the Online component. Although I believe it is only starting to reach it's full form, as Grand Theft Auto Online did long ago, I think I've experienced enough to sum up my thoughts on the affair. But before I get there, it would make sense to start at the beginning.

The year is 2013 and September has just rolled around. Rockstar have finally released the long anticipated Grand Theft Auto V after delaying the game by six months, which definitely wasn't because they purposefully announced the game early to build on hype (>wink<).  Fans flocked to the game- (Okay, that's not entirely true.) Everyone and their mother flocked to the game, making it a undeniable success in it's launch week. Although it is difficult for me to say how much they made in that first week, (No one has boasted about it strangely.) I can confirm what you likely already know; the first day of sales amounted to 11.21 million copies sold (about $800 million) with that number climbing up to 16 million within three days (breaking the $1 billion mark.) For perspective, that means that GTA V broke six world records (as observed by Guinness) before 2014; Best Selling Action/adventure videogame in 24 Hours, Best selling video game in 24 hours, fastest entertainment property to gross $1 Billion, Highest grossing videogame in 24 hours and Highest revenue generated by an entertainment product in 24 hours. It was a bit of a success then.

Yet, somehow, impossibly, fans were still upset when they got the game. "Why?" I hear you ask, because the online portion; which, for the record, had only been announced and detailed in August of 2013, after the original release date, (But I'm sure the delay wasn't a marketing ploy >wink<) didn't release with the rest of the game. People had to wait an additional 18 days to get their hands on the exciting multiplayer mayhem that the trailer promised. (18 days!? but that's an eternity!) As you can imagine, mass riots broke out across the world as people took to the streets to voice their displeasure; resulting in several broken bones, casualties, and the overthrowing of the Kaznian government. Okay, maybe that last sentence was entirely false, but seeing the reaction of people online, you'd have thought that rioting was just around the corner.

When GTA Online did finally drop, it wasn't exactly what everyone was expecting. Although, to be fair, no one knew what they were expecting. GTA Online was essentially a sandbox environment for people to murder each other perpetually, broken up by a string of fun missions that led into nowhere. There was also a few unimaginative game modes, a horde mode which I played to actual death and a meta that revolved around grinding as much money as humanly possible in order to buy the most mundane things in the game. (I don't even want to think about how much effort I had to put in to buy my garage of classic/super cars.) Thus was born the foundations of the Grand Theft Auto experience for the next six years.

There was one huge omission that did draw considerable ire from the public, however. You see the premise of the main game followed a washed-up forty five year old seeking some excitement in his life by falling back into a world of crime (most importantly bank robbery.) The game focused around 3 huge spectacle robberies (and 1 James bond-esque robbery) and Rockstar promised that there would be even more in the online portion. People would have a greater amount of control over them and it would essentially be the highlight of every online experience to rob a bank. Reality set in, however, when the online mode launched without any heists whatsoever. Although an official reason was never given, I believe that this was a balancing concern. Rockstar had no idea how profitable their new online service would be and didn't want to upset that balance by adding a way for players to pocket truckloads of money off-the-bat.

Fan's had to wait somewhere close to a year before heists finally landed, and by that point Rockstar had already cemented their formula for the future. For those who are unfamiliar (or who ignored my last blog) it works thus; every piece of developed expansion for the online mode comes attached with a price tag, like normal DLC. However, this price tag is made of in game dollars that can be earnt through game play. The price itself is so high, however, that unless you are as much of a cheapskate as I am, you'll likely just pay for the cash injections that they offer for a small real-world fee. In the end, heists were such a huge time commitment, and took so many people working in conjunction in order to setup, that they didn't butt into that carefully balanced ecostructure at all.

Yesterday I mentioned how much I enjoyed that model, and I stand by my words. I've always enjoyed the concept of "If you work hard, you'll get there in the end." maybe because I've experienced the exact opposite in real life so I find the concept quaint. That being said, I do understand that this system, and it's success, is the main reason why GTA never saw any substantial DLC or 'mix up' like Red Dead Redemption had with 'Undead Nightmare'. The biggest new asset that I've seen that team cook up in the past 6 years is that giant casino that they plopped in the middle of Los Santos. Which, by the way, actually breaks the lore of the game. (Allow me to get nerdy.)

You see, GTA Online officially takes place before the events of the main game, which  is indicated when Lester mentions knowing an operative but immediately scraps the idea by saying that they're too 'unpredictable'. Therefore, the Los Santos skyline shouldn't hold any significant changes to the one from the main game, however, here we are with a brand new Casino. Are you telling me that the entire building disappeared one night, the same way it appeared? What is this, a ghost casino?

Anyway, GTA Online ended up making all the money in the world and grossing something stupid like $6 billion, beating out Endgame and single handedly making gaming the most profitable entertainment medium in the world. It is also the reason why every soulless game's company out there is desperate to make their own hit 'live-service' despite the fact that they all lack the recognition, scope, and talent of Rockstar. (Looking at you; EA, Bethesda and Ubisoft.)

Anticipation swelled when Red Dead Redemption 2 was announced, as people guessed what that game would do to push forward the formula. Rockstar confused everyone, however, by refusing to release even so much as a trailer hinting at such. (despite promising one.) Then they turned around to their parent company, Take-Two, and assured them that Red Dead Online (the name that Rockstar filed their trademark under) wouldn't be a competitor to GTA Online. So what does that mean? Would Red Dead Online not be a live-service? Of course it would be, it would just be seeking a different demographic.

Personally, I see Red Dead Online as GTA Online 2.0. Much of the core concept itself is unchanged, there is a free-roam portion, a mission mode and a whole bunch of online competitive modes (However this game's competitive modes are almost all uniquely imaginative.) Plus, a lot of the game is built around the grind for money, the only significant difference I can see is that the price points have altered. Instead of saving up for millions in order to buy that new supercar, you end up saving just as long for that $600 horse. The biggest overhaul has been the inclusion of a brand new currency in gold.

I struggle to call this a 'premium currency'. As although you can, and are likely expected to, buy this outright; you can still earn this money in game and consistently. This separates this from other premium currencies like those found in Mobile games (that limit how much you can earn to make buying anything fun damn near prohibitive.) and other AAA games. (Like how Fallout 76 drip feeds Atoms through daily activities in order to hook concurrency.) Plus, a lot of the time, gold can be used as a substitute for in-game money, achieving... I'm not sure what, to be honest. (Likely just an incentive to spend real money on gold, honestly.)

The problem comes from the fact that there are some incredibly fun elements of the game that are locked behind gold and cannot be purchased with in-game money. This ranges from particularly cool pieces of equipment to entire portions of the gameplay loop that were added in the 'specialisations' update. Again, you can feasibly make up this Gold by just grinding away at the game, but not everyone is unemployed and talentless, some people out there have lives. I'm not blind to how manipulative this all is, but similarly, I'm not blind to how Rockstar will support this game mode substantially for years to come. It feels like such a betrayal to say that I am fine with this model, but I truly hope you can see my reasoning when I admit that I am. (Although that does not extended to GTA's Casinos. Literally, screw the GTA O team for that.)

One aspect of this game that has certainly improved over GTA Online is the way that they handle progression. Just like in every other live service, you'll find yourself being drip fed things you can buy,  like clothing and weapons, as you level up. Standard procedure. But when Rockstar added the 'specialisation' update, an interesting evolution was made to that system. Instead of just earning more clothing, or endless new pistols (GTA Online), you could unlock specialized pieces of gear or skills that could be used in the main game. For example, if you level up your bounty hunter skills, you'll eventually unlock a bolas, which can knock someone off their horse from a distance and tie them up. Keep working your way through to the upper levels and you'll even learn how to duck on your horse, dodging shots from players or NPCs and becoming an invaluable tool for multiplayer matches. It's important to note that neither of these two mechanics were present in the main game and both were realized exclusively for the online.

The free roam has been expanded upon too, learning from the mistakes of GTA Online. In that game, people were upset that missions took place in their own instanced space, meaning that players couldn't run into each other or interfere unless they grouped up in the mission lobby. Red Dead Online fixes this by not just having mission occur in the open world, but actively encouraging near by players to join in. (Usually aggressively.) This can make a standard wagon delivery mission turn into a deadly chase scene, which I may be alone in liking but I enjoy it nonetheless. Maybe I'm just a sucker for dynamic game play scenarios.

The controls and gameplay are fantastic for it's mastery of all things simple, but that is a topic that I think is best left for my review of the main game. (Whenever that will be.) and Rockstar even took the effort to make movement a lot easier, by allowing you to put your horse on 'auto mode'. Yup, if you go into cinematic mode whilst you have a destination on your map, your horse will take you there. Now, if only Rockstar could make sure that doing this didn't net you with the customary "You will be logged out in 13 minutes for inactivity" threat, then I could really enjoy myself by looking at the scenery.

Red Dead Online is a game that is hell bent on taking all of your free time, and that is a little bit a problem considering every modern video game wants the exact same thing. However, with the sheen of quality over every aspect, I don't feel as dirty donating my considerable free time to the West as much as do whenever I play Fallout 76 or... well, mostly just Fallout 76. I haven't even gone into the real deep end yet; like, did you know that RDO has a Battle pass? But I am enjoying what I have played on a surface level so far. I really do hope, however, that whatever success Red Dead Online garners does not end up putting a dampener on the chances for real Red Dead DLC, as I think the single player is ripe for some extended content.  Now, if you don't mind, I have to collect some bounties.