How marketing matters more than facts

Following my harsh blog article I wrote on Sony's E3 2013 Press Conference, I not-too-unexpectedly received a lot of hate. My pro-consumer positions on most issues are rather uncompromising, and unfortunately that means sometimes I'll butt heads with even some of the more popular icons of the industry like Valve, and now recently, Sony as well. Nonetheless, I am a firm believer in holding businesses accountable, and I'm not going to hop on the white knight bandwagon just because that's the narrative that is currently being painted for Sony, which brings me to my first point of the day.

Jack Tretton at E3 2013.

Sony is above all else a corporation like Microsoft; not your friend. I can assure you they are in this business for the money first and foremost, and if they saw that it would be more profitable to institute always online DRM and used game restrictions, they would have done so. But they didn't. Why was this the case? Because it was the perfect opportunity to seize a large chunk of Microsoft's disenfranchised audience, and it worked brilliantly. Gamers were angry, and they were seeking an outlet to satiate that anger. Sony was able to fulfill that role for them, and now Sony is poised to make huge bank off that audience because they know Xbox gamers are willing to pay subscription fees for services otherwise provided free on other platforms. This idea that Sony is your savior that cares for you and is looking out for you is misguided in light of that fact. There is arguably no worthwhile benefit for us by taking away a feature that was previously offered free on their platform and charging extra for it. PC games have long been supporting online play without subscription fees quite effectively even before XBL and PSN came into existence.

I bring all this up because I'm trying to show that you should always be vigilant toward business interests, as they don't always have your interests at heart. I know this doesn't fit the nice fairy tale narrative we'd like to have that Microsoft is the big bad wolf and Sony is the white knight savior coming to our rescue, but this is the reality we should come to understand. We as consumers have to keep our interests balanced with theirs, and often times the only way to do this is through exercising restraint with our wallets. That being said, this isn't necessarily to assert that Sony is "evil" per say; all I'm saying is to be mindful that as a business they have their own agendas that do not always coincide with yours, so you shouldn't always assume they are making all their decisions based on your best interests.

There's a couple observations I witnessed firsthand this year at E3 that I think are important to highlight. First, that marketing matters more than facts, and second, that lack of competition is very damaging for the industry. I think people would be singing a very different tune about Sony if they tried to introduce these online subscription fees while Microsoft had been offering strong competition this whole time. If Microsoft never even considered DRM restrictions and they were actually offering real competition in the market, I think we'd see quite a few more longtime Sony fans feeling betrayed, but because this subscription fee was introduced in the context of Sony not being as draconian as Microsoft, it was allowed to slip under the radar. I've been told that I should just be grateful that Sony isn't *completely* screwing us over with used game restrictions and DRM, but what is failing to be recognized here is the understanding that these features have always been standard for every game console and aren't something to be lauded. Make no mistake, this is a *downgrade* from the Playstation 3. Let's review.

The PS3 offers:
>No used game restrictions
>No online DRM
>Free online play

And now the PS4 only offers:
>No used game restrictions
>No online DRM

That's a loss for us, not a gain. Yet, because of Sony's clever marketing and capitalization on Microsoft's tremendous blunders, this is now somehow being billed as a good thing, or something we should simply chalk up to a necessary compromise just because it could have been worse. This is a classic politician move. You play off people's fears about something they're currently really worried about so that you can redirect their attention away from the other despicable move you're going to make. Then you turn around and go, "What? Am I not merciful? I gave you used games and offline single player!" NEWS FLASH: We've always had that anyway. Why are we treating these like groundbreaking features for the console? You might as well inform everyone, "Our game console can play video games!" Holy #$*&, really?

The Playstation 4 can play video games! More at ten.

Microsoft actually tried to use this same tactic with their marketing about their DRM only to lesser effectiveness. For example, when pointing out that all their games need to go through a redemption process that ties them to your Xbox Live account, they were quick to try and redirect our attention by reassuring us that anyone sharing your Xbox One with you still won't have to pay for a second copy. Of course, as I mentioned in my blog article covering this, their point cleverly ignores the other more prevalent problems with this DRM system such as the fact that it still is requiring an Internet connection to access single player content that should otherwise theoretically be able to work fine offline in the first place, and therefore is completely unnecessary.

It's really too bad that Nintendo didn't do a conference this year, because aside from the fact that I think they would've had enough games to make at least a decently compelling showcase, they could have also taken the opportunity to put things into perspective and remind everyone that their system already has been offering these features from day one; including free online multiplayer which now even Sony can't attest to. Hate on Nintendo all you want, but at least despite their currently lacking library of games and hardware, they don't try to pull any nickel-and-dime measures on you and instead just try to win you over by making great games, which is the way it should be normally if gamers had any standards and would stop buying into this crap.

At the end of the day I can understand why Sony did this. Yes, it makes them more money. Yes, they are a business. I just wish companies would stop feeling like they need to make more money through such contemptible means. How about buying out more exclusive developers instead and investing in more games to increase your player base? Or, make the Gaikai cloud features and other new online functionality PS+ exclusive, but still keep the core PSN online play free. After all, if these are really features that gamers want, then let them decide if they are willing to pay for them. How about offering *more* features to entice players to upgrade to your premium services rather than taking them away and charging extra for them? Hell, I'll even take advertisements during load screens if they really need the help that badly to pay the bills for the servers. No sweat off my back. I dunno, that's just a few ideas, but at this point I'm simply tired of all the short changing practices from day one DLC, subscription fees, microtransactions, and the like. Personally I'd rather have companies just be up front about their prices and increase the retail price of games to $70. If games are really getting that expensive to make, then so be it. After all, the retail price of games hasn't been adjusting with the rate of inflation anyway. Don't saddle me with little hidden fees around every corner though.

Speaking of these other questionable practices however, this just yet again exemplifies the double standards and hypocrisy being exhibited from gamers as a result of Sony's marketing. I would be willing to wager that a fairly large segment of the defenders for PS+ are the same people who would decry Capcom for their short changing practices such as on-disc "DLC", so I have to ask, what's the difference? Why is it acceptable for Sony to charge you more for less but not Capcom? After all, it's "only" ten more dollars! As far as I'm concerned, if you're defending Sony's decision with PS+ then you have officially revoked your right to complain about any other nickel-and-dime practices; because really, if you're going to shun me for making such a big deal out of this, then it's pretty curious how selective your outrage is when on the other hand you're unleashing your wrath on Microsoft for requiring a simple Internet check-in. Maybe you think this is all apples and oranges, but at least on the pure substance of the argument, "It's only $4 a month," I'd say on-disc/day one DLC is a completely comparable analogy. Debating the value of the purchase is one thing, but dismissing me merely because the price isn't expensive (regardless of the actual content you're getting for that price) is a pretty weak argument.

I think it speaks volumes about the state of the industry right now when a company is being lauded just for not being as bad as the other guy instead of, you know, being praised for genuinely doing a good job. But OK, perhaps I'm being a bit too cynical about this whole thing and blowing it a little out of proportion. Truthfully, I'll admit that by itself the PS+ subscription fee is not a deal-breaker for me. It's just that it feels like the breaking point for me on top of a long list of exploitative practices the industry has been adopting over the years. It seems so silly to me to pay for online play when I already pay my Internet bill for online access and I've been gaming online for over a decade on my PC without ever suddenly being prompted to fork over extra cash. Up until this point, Microsoft was the only one charging for such a service, and I was hoping that eventually the industry would move away from treating online gaming as a premium privilege, but instead it's taking another step toward it. Therefore I have decided to boycott both the PS4 and Xbox One until they change their practices. I am still considering a PS4 possibly at some point in the distant future, but certainly never an Xbox One, and if I do get a PS4, I'll never pay for a PS+ subscription; just as I have done with Xbox Live in the past. As responsible consumers, we've got to fight back at some point, and now more than ever I don't see a better time to start. Maybe you disagree though. Maybe you can live with that one extra subscription, but can we at least agree that I'm not the bad guy here when I'm just trying to look out for your wallet and put things into proper perspective? It amazes me that I'm being bashed and condescended to for pointing out what should obviously be recognized as a dick move. Even if you don't mind the subscription, you should at least be able to understand where I'm coming from.

TL;DR, Maddox summarizes my views on E3 this year the best.

I realize though that almost all of my blog posts focus on negative topics thus far, so I'm going to be working on changing that. Truth be told, I can't help but admit that I am definitely a critic at heart, and there's nothing that gets me more passionate and motivated to sit down and write something than when I hear news that makes my blood boil. I can't guarantee that I'll ever strike a proper balance with this blog, but despite whatever image you may have of me at this point, I can assure you that I do very much love my games, and I care about them deeply, which is why I will try to devote more time to actually showcasing that passion from this point onward. Therefore, I have planned several new pieces of content to be featured on this blog. First, I will be revisiting two topics that I previously had negative opinions on, and I will be sharing my recently more optimistic perspective on them. Those two topics include the crowd-funded Ouya console, and the state of the MMO genre. I'll also be defending a game that has received a lot of hate from fans of the series, Metroid: Other M. Finally, I'd like to finish off with a "Top 10 Greatest Games You Never Heard of" list, where I will go through some of my favorite games throughout the years that may have often been underrated or overlooked, and I'll be explaining why I love them, and why you should be playing them. So, I hope you're all looking forward to a slightly less cynical Derpalon coming to you in the near future. :p