PlayStation LifeStyle » Zak Deering

Premium PSN Services Could be a Good Thing

Zak Deering — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:48:11 +0000

Following the recent announcement of Sony’s plans to offer a premium platform for PlayStation Network users, the gaming community has mixed opinions. Many have cried foul, claiming that Sony is heading towards the Xbox Live model in which free access severely limits your options. On the other hand, others have articulated this is a great opportunity for Sony to open new doors and expand the PSN to new horizons, rich with a multitude of features.

A complete network infrastructure for millions of users cost a pretty penny to maintain. PlayStation 3 staples such as Resistance 2, Killzone 2, MAG (Beta) and Warhawk players generally enjoy lag-free, dedicated servers. While this is an excellent benefit for everyone, it ultimately puts Sony in a difficult spot. Adding a revenue source would free them up to maintain parity with the competition and put them in a position to excel in the Network gaming space. To focus primarily on one of these aspects could lead to disappointment on either side of the spectrum. Equality is important to Sony, and the extra cash would give them the ability to improve the PlayStation Network tenfold. Xbox Live has improved over time and many point to the fact that they charge a premium as the recipe for its success. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and the analogy applies to what Sony is doing with the PlayStation Network.

“SCE will further increase sales by offering users new entertainment through the combination of hardware, software, peripheral and PlayStation Network, especially in the online area, we are studying the possibility of introducing a subscription model, offering premium content and services, in addition to the current free services.”
- Kaz Hirai, CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment [Source]

Quality should never take a step backwards and diminish the great things Sony’s network is already known for. In order to implement these advancements without sacrificing what made the PSN great, it’s only natural to charge consumers seeking options and new experiences. While details on the premium services are scant, according to Kaz Hirai they will be in addition to the current free services.

The PlayStation Network has matured by leaps and bounds since its infancy. Sporting countless free services like online gameplay right out of the box; PlayStation Home, up to date global news feeds via Life with PlayStation, as well as the PlayStation Store which offers a variety of free content (demos, wallpapers, themes and videos). Firmware updates have also advanced the platform and the network alike. PlayStation 3 owners have little to complain about in terms of the value proposition of the PSN.

It is likely that most of the core enthusiasts will jump at premium services. While the Xbox Live Gold membership fees spark the ire of core PlayStation fans, Microsoft has proven time and time again that people will pay. Xbox Live Gold costs each Xbox gamer $50 annually and results in more revenues that can be used to fund new projects for the network. It would have been audacious for Sony to ask for subscriptions for the initial PSN offering, as at the time it was very much sub the Xbox Live standard.

In the beginning Sony faced harsh criticism that plagued them throughout 2007 and much of 2008. Even now, forum threads are filled with numerous complaints about each firmware update and network hiccup. Regardless of the fact that Xbox Live hasn’t been a flawless experience. Updates require a lot of resources and hard work to implement. Of course, the Xbox Live subscription model provides MS the means to keep on top of their game in delivering their community what they want. Sony has been putting in just as much effort at no cost to their end users. There is no logical reason to think Sony would not do similar or even greater things, considering the scale of Sony as a whole entity.

Sony has achieved near parity with Xbox Live without charging anyone a dime. Free online gaming is not going anywhere and offering additional but premium services can only spell good things overall. It will all boil down to exactly what kind of content they will offer. Will they use overwhelmingly requested features such as in-game party chat and soundtracks to merit a price tag, or will Sony have something new and exciting in store for us? For now the spotlight is on them, and the community is patiently waiting.

Are Annual Installments of Call of Duty Overkill?

Zak Deering — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:21:11 +0000

Modern Warfare 2 has been unleashed and has resulted in mass hysteria at retailers around the globe. Being Call of Duty, it’s only natural that such hype should be sustained by a brand name alone. But how long can Activision annually release the same series before their work reaches the predictability of other industry juggernauts such as Madden and Guitar Hero?

The sales numbers have most certainly shown that the games are still in high demand. But as the years go by, is rebounding between Infinity Ward and Treyarch to deliver experiences of jarring similarity the smartest decision? Repetition has already become quite prominent between both Modern Warfare and Treyarch’s World at War. So how long will we stand by and be swindled by these dirty profiteering tactics?

When Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released, the gaming world was set ablaze. The next generation of consoles was finally graced by a title that nearly everyone could enjoy. Offering an unprecedented progression system rivaled by only Rainbow Six Vegas, it gave gamers a huge incentive to play it excessively. The fantastic visuals and tight gameplay didn’t hurt either. A huge new game was on the block, sporting both a universally acclaimed meta score and fantastic sales, Call of Duty 4 was the game that everyone was talking about.

These were the glory days for next-gen console owners who had little to play. But since then, the Call of Duty name has had trouble evolving that hype into any any substantial reason to actually take the plunge into the next experience. Little has changed about the formula, and the series has tended to play it safe. While other prestigious developers like Dice are taking their sequels to the next level, it seems as though Infinity Ward and Treyarch are just fumbling their way through the development cycle to meet Activision’s release window. Not that the games aren’t polished, but so much more can be done with them. Annual release is a big factor in preventing the two developers from thinking outside of the box they’ve been in for years.

A good example of this stagnation is Treyarch’s spin on Infinity Ward’s success – Call of Duty: World at War. To this day, nobody can tell me what redeeming quality World at War possessed, outside of the dreaded accident that was Nazi zombies. Of course, Treyach did a fine job with historical accuracy as far as introducing players to an entirely different side of World War II, but overall, many couldn’t help but feel that this was just a pacific Call of Duty 3 with Infinity Ward’s engine.

Also, when publishers expect their developers to get started on their new game right after they finish the last, that doesn’t exactly give devs an incentive to keep supporting the current game with DLC. Without proper time to let previous iterations do the talking, players will see less of a reason to fork over the extra cash in order to get a couple maps that a publisher as big as Activision could easily make free in the first place. What point is there in buying additional content for a game you know will soon be outdated? By annually releasing the series, you’re splitting up a dedicated community across multiple games which is never a good thing. Most successful multiplayer games have always had a tight-knit community that lives by said game’s name. Socom, Halo, Team Fortress, Counter Strike, and many many more games all have this appreciated element going for them. The same cannot be said for Call of Duty, with five games being released in five years.

How long will it be before that same logic is applied to Modern Warfare? Countless games have unfortunately fallen under the same stigma such as Ratchet & Clank, Madden, Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and just recently EA’s Skate IP. Consumers will eventually have a hard time differentiating a sequel apart from the predecessor, ultimately tarnishing the the value of the Call of Duty name. Being Activision’s biggest property , let alone one of the biggest in the industry, they cannot allow this to happen. They deliver on the experience that they’re striving for, but soon it will be considered just another milked franchise with minimal changes, no matter how drastic the evolution. Because to the everyday consumer, Madden 10 is just another Madden. And if this way of thinking is attached to Call of Duty, it will spell bad news for Activision, Infinity Ward, and Treyarch.

In fact, it almost seems like Infinity Ward and Treyarch are on a constant relapsing development process where Infinity Ward builds the foundation and Treyarch stretches it with needless additions. It’s a crying shame that Treyarch cannot contribute a creative idea without coming up short in comparison to their bigger brother. But unfortunately, this is most likely the path that Activision will continue to follow, ultimately diluting everything that Infinity Ward stands for. The gaming community should continue to expect a Call of Duty game every year as long as there is demand for them. And that’s just not the way to properly treat the IP that helped get you to where you are today, Activision. If you expect your games to keep making a huge impact on the industry, then we suggest that you treat it with respect, and stop milking it for all it’s worth.