The Culling Culls itself

You can't get me if I get myself first!

You've heard the story, we all have, but I could not rightly live with myself if I didn't get the chance to document this historic day in my blog over here. This is the sort of story that will don the annals of the fact books, that will turn from story to rumour to legend, that will be a mainstay fixture of every gaming-themed pub quiz. This will be the kind of event that future generations will look back upon and say "Wow, things were really bad back then, huh?". Am I talking about the Corona? Of course not, I'm talking about the absolutely insane monetisation scheme that Xaviant have attempted to dump unto the community much to the bewilderment of... pretty much everyone, actually. I'm seen reputable outlets and pundits alike absolutely baffled by these latest goings on as everyone rushes to answer one simple question; are we the stupid ones? 'Cause someone's definitely being stupid here...

But proceeding under the delusion that you have you have no idea what I'm talking about, let me introduce you all to another popular delusion; The Culling: Origins. Have you heard of it? Did you play it back in the day? Perhaps you knew this title back in it's original days as just 'The Culling'. Let me take you back anyway to 2016 just so that everyone's on the same track. That March, after a brief incubation period in Closed Alpha, The Culling was borne to the world as one of the first dedicated Battle Royale games to ever be made. That didn't make it 'the birth of the genre' by any stretch of the imagination, (if anything that would go to 'Minecraft: Hunger Games', which was inspired by Teen movie series 'Hunger Games' which was ripped off of the much-darker-than-you-remember Japanese movie: 'Battle Royale') but it did earn credits for being one of the first products to take that almighty plunge to see if the market was ready for a soley-BR title. In that way, you could call 'The Culling' one of the grandfathers of 'PUBG' and 'Fortnite'. (Quite the progeny to leave behind, wouldn't you say?)

Many indie games start out their life as Steam early access titles, doomed to forever exist as proof-of--concept builds that prospective developers try to cut their teeth on before eventually giving up. It was with this stigma behind it that 'The Culling' entered the 'early access' program, and yet still it managed to amass a following thanks to its unique 'there can only be one' playstyle. It presented a simple premise that we all now know so well, players would be dropped in the middle of nowhere (although I think 'The Culling' just had the player's waking up in lieu of a 'drop sequence', as I recall) where they would scavenge for weapons to beat each other to death with until only was was remaining. And it proved quite popular. In fact, this game amassed such an audience in it's time that even when PUBG landed in March the next year, 'The Culling' still managed to stand out thanks to it's focus on mostly melee weaponry in it's gameplay. Sure there were some ranged weapons for the endgame, but that initial melee scrap is something no Battle Royale has managed to capture since. (Including 'The Culling')

As the months went on the novelty began to fade, and 'The Culling' was subjected to a number of changes that weren't all that well received by the community. But that community was still there, albeit diminished, and they stuck through all the turbulent times until the game finally exited early access on October 5th 2017. Now that is truly a momentous achievement as the vast majority of titles never make it through the murky early access times. Sure, a significant chunk of the player base had been siphoned off in the meanwhile by PUBG, but there was finally time now that the base game was stable, for development to begin in earnest. This was the end of one journey and the beginning of a whole new one as the game can start to evolve and grow at a competitive rate and really shape it's makeup into a title that won't just shine for a single year but perhaps for several, maybe even deca- and then Xaviant ended development on the game two months after the full release. So that they could work on a sequel. Yeah...

This sequel would materialise into the widely loved and adored, 'The Culling 2', proving that despite the apparent recklessness of their shift, Xaviant's gambit paid off- Oh wait, no. 'The Culling 2' was a total disaster of a game that attempted to shirk everything unique about the original title's melee angle and ape the 'heavily armed' approach that had worked for PUBG and it's clones. What resulted was an amateurish-looking PUBG clone that barely functioned, had nothing unique or original going for it, and lacked the player base to last longer than two weeks. In fact, I've heard claims that the title only ever had enough of a player base to launch maybe 8 matches in it's entire lifetime, and that's assuming all those people were in the same server. (So quite the power play by Xaviant, to kill their flagging franchise before natural death could occur.)

'The Culling' would then be gone for a good long while until much later when Xaviant would come out with a complete Free-to-play re-branding of their original game entitled; 'The Culling: Origins'. (Ain't that beautiful? They spent a year of faffing to get back to the same place they started) 'Origins' was a tail-between-legs attempt to garner back the same loyal fanbase that the original Culling earned, and it worked; for a few minutes. The Battle Royale genre had moved on so significantly in the last two years that it was no surprise that most of the Culling's old playerbase had moved on, whatsmore, Fortnite was out by now, so everyone was busy migrating to the biggest video game of the age. Every single popular Battle Royale had gone the Free-to-play model and were battling to stay relevant against each other, so a title all the back from 2016 which entirely failed to stay competitive in this market and boasted only name recognition was an entirely foreseeable flop. Severs for 'The Culling: Origins' closed on the 15th May, 2019.

That should have been the end of it, but as you well know it absolutely was not. As recently as this week that ol' fox known as Xaviant was up to it's old tricks once more as the Twitter account blared awake like a senile old man in the middle of the night. 'The Culling is back!' it proudly announced, only to regale the confused audience who likely entirely forgot that they were even subscribed to this account with the laundry list of stipulations they would have to abide by in order to partake in this glorious revival. Firstly, the game would be out this week, (actually, by the time of writing it's been out for two days) it would be an Xbox exclusive for now and come to PC later (so Xaviant are already showing their acute business acumen by ignoring their original client base. Darn, how do you get this good?) It would cost 5.99, but if you played it before you'd get it for free. (Wait... it's not going free-to-play?) That right there would be enough to put a nail in the coffin of this plan; it was coming out to no fanfare, on a console that the original game didn't pop-off on, as a premium title in a decidedly F2P market. (Who were these guys kidding?) But, unbelievably, it actually get's worse!

I know you already know what I'm about to write but it honestly does bare repeating; Xaviant now expects it's fanbase to pay by the match! Essentially players will start off each day with a single token for a free match which they can then use how they wish (by that I mean: play a match) after which they have a bevy of terrible options. If they won they can go again because they'll have earned another token, if they lost they'll have to wait until tomorrow to earn another token,or they can buy more tokens at a premium or they can buy an unlimited pass for around about the same price as the tokens. That's right, this is monetised playtime in perhaps it's most purest form. And I cannot, nay will not, accept that this was done completely oblivious of the consequences.

Of course, this news has blown up with the entire gaming world simultaneously face-palming at perhaps the dumbest monetisation scheme of all time. Once again this game is being based upon a 2016 product that is vastly outdated and crappy-looking, once again they are entering a market that is over saturated and ruled by F2P titles, and once again they are restricting their own player base like idiots. What is the number one problem that 'The Culling' has faced as a franchise? The inability to secure a long-term fanbase; so how is the solution to that issue the adding of several layers of paywalls and limitations about how long a single person can play daily? I want to call this the height of hubris but I think they've surpassed that. As I said at the beginning, this is purely delusional on the behalf of everyone involved.

At the end of the day the literal only feasible explanation is thus; this is the world's most ballsy publicity stunt. That's all there is to it, that has to be the answer! They want to drum up the absolute dregs of negative press in the vain hope that when they reverse it the decision will create enough buzz to secure a player base, but even then you have to be stupid to not know that gamer's hold a grudge like no other consumers out there. Xaviant could start paying it's players to jump on servers and their numbers wouldn't reach half capacity after this stunt, they've literally played themselves to death. Years from now I'll suspect they'll be some crazy in-depth dive documentary into the psyche of a studio that risked it all and I just know it'll be one hell of a watch, but right now it's like watching the Titanic 2.0 in realtime (or I suppose it's 3.0 at this point) and, personally, I hoping that this time the thing sinks for good.

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.