I’m not a fan of product placement in media. Whether it’s movies, television, video games or whatever, I think it’s nothing more than a way of making people pay twice for content. Sometimes it’s done tastefully and understated and other times you have things like the Transformers movies or Entourage which often seem like little more than informercials with fiction. Many don’t mind it, claiming that they don’t really notice it or that when something it trying to portray a modern setting, it actually adds to the realism somehow. Personally, I think it’s ridiculous to make me pay for a product (be it a movie ticket, a game or the Blu-rays of a TV show or movie), only to shove ads in my face through either the background or worse, by writing them into the script. Most non-media products come with some form of discount for putting up with ads (see most web sites or the new Amazon Kindle models) but in this case, you’re just paying for a product and in a sense paying again while getting no added value from it. That said, I also know this is the reality now and for the most part, my fears of how prominent and wide spread the phenomena would go have not been realised. Then this weekend, I read about how Activision has partnered with Pepsi to include codes on their products that give double XP bonuses in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. Oh, I also saw this:
And this:
Yep, the “foot long taunt”. Oy vay. The ads are so bad, I honestly thought they were just an Internet joke. My heart sunk when I read the multiple stories confirming the promotion’s authenticity.
This takes my beef to an entirely new level. Drake doing Subway ads isn’t really that big a deal, it just looks really stupid as Subway ads have for years now. However, having Drake appear in-game with Subway clothing items on that give the players an unfair advantage? Or buying Pepsi products in order to level up in Modern Warfare 3 faster than the rest of the players who had the gall to only pay $60 for the game alone and maybe don’t want to buy a bunch of sugar water as well? I’m sorry, that goes too damn far. Both of these deals stink but I’m definitely more offended by Uncharted 3′s implementation. While someone who is a total pop fiend (like me back in high school) could theoretically gain a significant unfair advantage in Modern Warfare 3 with their double XP codes, most of the codes only gain advantage for short periods of time and in high-level play, that will barely be noticeable. From what I understand of the Uncharted 3 promotion, players who wear their Subway branded items will have them appear on the character for all other players to see and the stat bonuses they provide will be permanent. In other words, if you’re willing to turn yourself into a running and gunning billboard in the game you already paid $60 for after you’ve also bought some horrible food from Subway, you’ll get to play with bonuses that disrupt the gaming experience for everyone else who either can’t afford to participate or simply doesn’t want ads all over the multiplayer game about fighting treasure hunters in ancient ruins.
This is an example of publishers just not knowing how much is enough. These are two wildly successful franchises (Call of Duty in particular sells more units than several of closest competitors combined on a yearly basis) and yet they have to strike these ridiculous cross-promotion deals which in reality probably aren’t going to net them that much more relative revenue. I understand full well how thin the line is between success and failure in the AAA games industry right now. But both of these franchises are already making buckets of money and turning your players into billboards and diluting the experience that made your franchises popular in the first place isn’t how to endear yourself to your customers. These are hardcore franchises and they have their share of devoted players who will likely buy anything related to the series but these same people are the ones who buy all the DLC and will likely sign up for the laughably overpriced Call of Duty Elite service. These are your most loyal customers, surely you’re already making enough from them and do you really think you’re going to sell a lot more copies of a hardcore focused series like Uncharted because Nathan Drake is on Subway cups? After all, this promotion means nothing to people who don’t own the game but I don’t see a soccer Mom buying a PS3 and Uncharted 3 in order to get the “foot long taunt”.
I know businesses have to make money but I’m sorry, you’re already making money and yes, there is a point where something is earning you enough. Don’t give me that crap about how promotions like this for the big franchises enable the publishers to greenlight new IP and riskier projects down the line. A quick look at Activision’s lineup in recent years and current business model proves that’s a load of crap and while Sony does occasionally release some unique titles, they were doing that long before this type of thing came along. Can I please just pay for my games, get the immersive escapism they’re supposed to provide and leave the out of control product placement for HBO and Michael Bay films? For $60 plus DLC, I don’t think that’s a lot to ask.
Today, video game website Joystiq and writer Justin McElroy stirred up quite an online furor. This isn’t really hard to do as gamers sadly tend to fly off the handle about almost anything but this one struck me as something worth talking about as I’m rather shocked how in the minority my opinion seems to be. The article is here but I don’t think you should give it the traffic so here’s a quick synopsis: A middle-aged man in the UK was playing Call of Duty: Black Ops online. One of the people on the other end of voice chat was a 13 year old kid who constantly taunted and spewed hateful phases at the man (something all too common). The man got frustrated to the point where he somehow tracked down the kid’s address, went there and choked him until his parent intervened. He has since admitted to assault.
The story doesn’t go into any details of how the man found the kid’s address or the all too common questions of why a 13 year old was playing a 17+ rated game and why his parents were letting him spew his verbal bile and didn’t seem to care until the victim got physical with him. What it does do is take this disturbing situation and turn the assailant into a folk hero. It makes comedic light of the situation and boiled down to basics says: “The kid was an asshole and it’s nice to finally see one of these idiots get what they deserve.”
Since its publication, the Internet has exploded and largely in defense of the story. To appease those of us who took offense, they have since added an editor’s note at the bottom, snarkily stating how it was clearly a work of satire and that essentially, the critics have no sense of humour. Well, I do have a sense of humour but I fail to see what is funny about a site that wants to be taken seriously minimising and applauding some abhorrent actions by a clearly disturbed indivdual. Just because you were attempting humour doesn’t mean you weren’t in poor taste. I’ll admit, I don’t participate in many forums and Justin McElroy is a friend of the one forum I do use frequently and he also hosts a podcast I don’t care for but which many hold in high regard. His defenders may just happen to be in greater numbers where I happen to hang out. Still, it disturbs me how many rushed to defend his article and attempt to tear down its critics. This wasn’t someone who stood up to a bully that was ruining his life, this was a mid-40s man who tracked down and choked a 13 year old kid who trashed talked him in a video game.
I don’t have kids, I don’t really like kids and I’ll be the first to admit that obnoxious, abusive, racist, homophobic douchebags of all ages are a plague on most online venues where anonymity is permitted. I also am firmly of the belief that by and large, many young people today are entitled, spoiled brats that are largely lacking in discipline and accountability. I get where Mr. McElroy’s frustrations are rooted and where one may raise a lip in smirk upon hearing of this kid getting the shock of his life. However, to champion the actions of the guy who attacked him is to support the radical opposite position which is no better. People being mean online doesn’t cause you any physical harm and it’s a situation you can always opt out of. Don’t like having to hear the sewage stream that is public voice chat on consoles? Use the mute button, take off your headset, play only with friends, report dickish players to the service’s curators. Everything this guy did in response was wrong and nothing the kid did to him justified the response. I hate the experience of playing games with strangers online but nothing this man did will make that any better tomorrow.
For years now, those of us who are passionate about video games have been fighting the societal and media stigma that we’re all just a bunch of immature manchildren who waste our time with games because we never grew up. We’re only just now starting to have the shift in societal perception needed to overcome that. What must our critics think when they read articles like Mr. McElroy’s? Do they see us praising a hero who did what we all have secretly thought of in the back of our minds at some point? Or do they see a community of people screaming to be taken seriously while raising their fists in support of a disturbed individual who attacked a young kid because he said mean things to him? If we’re going to condemn the idiots who scream hatred into their headsets as not representative of most gamers, then we also have to be adult enough to condemn those who respond with unreasonable extremes.
Mr. McElroy, I don’t care if you thought you were being funny and I don’t care if your editors think the same. Your article was in poor taste, it wasn’t funny and it did nothing but stir up artificial controversy. It provided no aid or benefit to gamers and only served to make our struggle for mainstream acceptance just a little bit harder. You and your defenders took us all a step back today.
