EA VS Activision (Round One)

As you've no doubt already heard, the war of words between EA, Activision and every internal developer associated with the Battlefield and Modern Warfare brands has reached boiling point, but the only question we can ask is, is it really necessary? As much as the general populace laps up a feud, whether its business or personal, it isn't always the right path to take and in some cases can end up damaging a product's accountability and leverage within the industry. Just ask Guerrilla Games, who rather infamously pronounced Killzone to be a "Halo killer" long before the product shipped, an accusation that the company, in many respects, has still to live down to this day.

Uncompromisingly aiming for the jugular of an industry opponent has its benefits; it demonstrates that companies aren't just faceless, it builds hype and it tends to be a cataclyst for thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of arguments resonating around the world over which franchise is superior, thus keeping them both in the public spotlight and drawing extra attention to the developers behind them. On the other hand, however, it can have an opposite affect to the intended purpose. There's a fine line between competitive pot shots and borderline desperation. We're by no means suggesting that in this scenario that's the case, but simultaneously, on the other end of the spectrum, its difficult not to raise certain questions - is EA's seemingly constant browbeating really benefiting the Battlefield brand as a whole, or is this rivalry solely geared towards increasing sales, and by extension, taking marketshare away from the market leader? Chances are, it's a little bit of both.

One of the predominant issues lies within the fact that Battlefield has in many ways already surpassed Call Of Duty, or Modern Warfare, specifically, in the quality department. Aside from diehard Call Of Duty players (which, let's face it, is the majority of online console gamers), most would agree that Bad Company 2 is the premier online first person shooter experience. The Frostbite engine alone is near legendary in its capabilities, and the game just keeps delivering to those willing to get past those first few gruelling hours with no equipment. The sheer depth, customisability (that's not simply an aesthetic overhaul), balance and 'feel' enhance Bad Company 2 in such a way that it stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of titles on the market today, including in many respects Activision's behemoth franchise. In the words of EA CEO John Riccitiello, "a lot of people bought Modern Warfare more for the coffee table and didn’t play it for two months." Fighting words, indeed.

To really get a feel for this whole back-and-forth exchange, however, we must take it back to the beginning. Believe it or not, the instigator in this fiasco was DICE back in March 2011 when Karl-Magnus Troedsson, the general manager, stated in an interview with Official PlayStation Magazine UK that their competitors were "getting lazy" and that Activision are "using the same engine, the same recipe for building a game" continuing "at some point you need to take that leap. I haven't seen them take that leap since a long time ago." If this wasn't bad enough, he signed off with a warning shot; "we're coming for you."

EA then proceeded to add fuel to the fire when, less than a month later, John Riccitiello claimed that there'll be "a couple of hundred million dollars [worth of] marketing against these two products," adding that Battlefield 3 is "designed to take [Call of Duty] down." Fast forward to E3 2011 and an admittedly overzealous Bobby Kotick, or at least his personal assistants, try to skip the queue at EA's E3 booth in order to get a hands-on playtest with arguably their biggest rivals title. After much deliberation and many phone calls later, the senior members of EA decide to block Kotick's entrance, claiming that "it would not be possible," essentially stipulating that he must join the back of the queue if he wants to get his hands on it like everybody else.

This can be considered the true beginning of the feud, with Kotick responding in a CNBC interview that "well so far I've only seen Battlefield 3 shown on a PC, so I haven't seen it on a console which is where the bulk of our business is," continuing, "if it's just a PC title as it looks like today, that's a very small audience to participate." This sort of belittlement is befitting of Kotick's general outlook on competition and of the industry he helped blossom; an industry which his company is now ranked number one in the world in (at least in terms of sales and profitability anyway).

Riccitiello's response? "If Bobby thinks that's PC footage, he's in real trouble," a sentiment later echoed by DICE on their official Twitter feed. From here on, it has been suspiciously quiet from the Activision camp, while EA and John Riccitiello have been going to town on Activision's most coveted brand, going as far to state that "our game is more authentic," adding that its "definitely going to do a lot of things better." Riccitiello has also taken it a step further by stating that he would be happy to see Call Of Duty "rot from the core."

Strong words from a company who were considered Public Enemy No.1 for the majority of this industry's lifetime, a fact Riccitiello has been doing his best to remedy with excellent titles such as Dead Space and Mirror's Edge since he took over as CEO. While he has almost unanimously taken the company in a better direction than the yearly updates it used to churn out and rely on despite a lack of significant updates, it should never be forgotten that at the end of the day he is a corporate man and he is there to help his company turn a sizable profit and remain sustainable, especially in a business as turbulent as this one.

The seemingly inherently evil Activision have remained reasonably tight-lipped on the subject, with Activision Publishing's CEO Eric Hirshberg even going as far to state that "we focus on what we need to do to make the best games we can. We don’t pay much mind looking at what the competitors are doing. I know they are focused on us… well that’s all I’ll say." As much as the world loves to hate Activision, even their most staunch opposition, both in the business and outside of it, couldn't criticise their handling of this situation. Whereas EA have been virtually calling for blood, aside from a few pot shots, Activision has stayed judiciously classy. Being the number one publisher, with the two most successful franchises of the past decade affords the leniency and luxury of such a stance. Being at the top isn't easy but the install base is there and if their proposed Elite service for Modern Warfare 3 succeeds then many Call Of Duty devotees are even more mindless than we give them credit for.

No matter what way you look at it, EA is fighting a losing battle, but at least its something they can admit. EA's Vice President and General Manager of their UK branch, Keith Ramsdale has in the past addressed its direct competition when he answered when asked if they could beat Modern Warfare sales with a rather abrupt "no." If they already possess this knowledge, then the initial opening question still stands, why? There's little doubt that with its proposed $100 million marketing budget Battlefield 3 is guaranteed to take numbers away from the behemoth that is Call Of Duty, just like its predecessor Battlefield: Bad Company 2 did last year, but its still unlikely to be enough. If there's one thing that's been reiterated time and time in the games industry, its that we should never underestimate the power, allure and dedicated audiences of a brand. Every big hitter since the Atari 2600 has been franchised and replicated for decades and Call Of Duty is no different. The only difference here is that very few brands will ever be able to come anywhere close to the sales and record breaking statistics of Activision's baby.

This is something EA is no doubt already aware of, and in spite of their protests that Battlefield will overtake it in sales at some point, with EA's Jens Uwe Intat confident enough to insist "the only question is when that day will be" concluding "the sooner the better," it is not looking like something that is likely anywhere in the near future. EA's focus on Frostbite 2.0, and in spite of direct competition, their emphasis on the fact that they believe "lighting’s better, physics is better, animations are better, particle effects are better [and] vehicles are better," has also came under scrutiny, with Sledgehammer's co-founder Glen Schofield going as far to claim that "you ship a game, not an engine," adding "I've seen that trick and the bottom line is, this game [Modern Warfare 3] will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will".

You can't help but assume that Frostbite must be making negative waves over at Activision HQ, being one of the most technically proficient and immersive engines we've seen to date, but brand recognition is the most important factor to consider and Call Of Duty is unmistakenly dominant in this department. EA and DICE seem to be concentrating on how much better their game is going to be, but an amazing game does not necessarily convert into amazing sales. There are dozens of fallen masterpieces littered throughout the battlefield that is the sales chart. Just look at Singularity, ICO, Okami and Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath for inspiration.

Although critics mistakenly quoted DICE's Patrick Bach saying the two rival developers are not even "competing at the same sport" recently, this was taken out of context. What he meant was that the two franchises were competing at different levels and as a result aiming at somewhat different demographics. "It really comes down to personal preference. You choose based on the depth you want, the maturity level, your own personal taste ... it's all about how you get your fix," he was quoted as saying. In the single player department, Call Of Duty, with its grandoise set pieces, scale and 'epic' factor will no doubt be the more contained, but ultimately more refined story mode, but in the online game, where it counts, there is little doubt Battlefield 3 will win with ease.

Of course, its down to personal preference, but in terms of lastability, depth and gameplay (all of the things which matter), the Battlefield series is much more consistent. It appeals to the hardcore, the type of player who has no problem putting hundreds of hours in and still being taught new tricks and trades, those who want a more team-orientated focus. With EA going all out on Call Of Duty, its difficult not to be skeptical. The last thing any Battlefield player would want is the series to adopt the saturate-rinse-and-repeat mentality of the Call Of Duty series, its near perfect as it is. Everybody loves a bit of smack talking, just don't get lost in a haze aiming for a market that will have difficulty adjusting to the tactical yet rewarding methodology that makes Battlefield such a compelling and enriching experience.

Update:

Although I finished this article a few weeks ago, I decided to sit on it in order to let other articles sink in, however, during this period the rivalry has taken a tumultuous turn. If you're a gamer, there's no doubt you've heard about the http://www.modernwarfare3.com disaster. Right now, its up in the air. While most initially assumed redirecting this website towards the Battlefield 3 page was EA's handiwork, many in the industry have speculated that this would be breaking US copyright law.

This was further confirmed when a video embedded on the website had this choice quote for Activision: "Modern Warfare is crap. On November 6th, 2011, the most over-hyped first-person action series of all-time returns with the copy and paste sequel to the lacklustre Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2... Pre-order Call Of Duty MW3 today for Xbox 360, PS3, and PC to secure exclusive bonuses only available online for Modern Warfare 3 fanboys who don't know that Battlefield 3 is the better game."

Needless to say, Activision aren't happy about this embarrassing coup d'etat and have went as far as to file a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum in order to seize and secure the website. In order for them to succeed, there must be sufficient evidence that the website is "identical or confusingly similar to" its Call Of Duty trademarks. On the other hand, the complaint suggests that the only way the perpetrators can keep the website is by "making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark" We'll keep you posted on how this story develops.

Essential VGM #001 - Command & Conquer - Act On Instinct

Essential VGM is something I've wanted to do for a very long time but never had the patience, motivation or outlet to do so. The aim is to pick out the best video game tunes from as diverse a range as possible and showcase them via CGN and YouTube. The reasoning for this is because in spite of big name composers like Hans Zimmer, Harry Gregson-Williams and Clint Mansell getting involved in scoring video game soundtracks, the medium isn't treated as seriously as it should be and this is something we think should be remedied.

First to be showcased is Act On Instinct by the remarkable Frank Klepacki, composer of the Dune, Command & Conquer and Red Alert series. Even gamers who are unfamiliar with his work will almost definitely be able to recognise the opening chords of Hell March. The C&C/Red Alert series remains to be one of the greatest RTS titles of all time and a contributing factor to such accolades is the sheer industrial ferocity of the accompanying music, a sound that has yet to be matched or reproduced on almost every level.

Klepacki also has a reasonably successful solo career, and nearly unpredictably, his music has been featured as the intro music of several fighters on the UFC's The Ultimate Fighter franchise. Due to the calibre of his soundtracks, its highly likely more of his music will be featured in this segment down the line, however, the rationale for choosing this track was because not only do I think its an amazing and contemporary track but it also sparked the beginning of one of the greatest brands of all time.

Welcome

Welcome, bienvenue, willkommen. Welcome to our own interpretation of project mayhem. As you've probably guessed by now, this is a website which first and foremost revolves around videogames. The only major difference between this blog and more conventional publications is that we write the rule book, meaning there is no topic too big, no topic too small, and additionally any company, industry stalwart and, of course, videogame itself is subject to either adulation or condemnation. Obviously such judgement is circumstantial, but in this scenario, we judge via quality of output, and with regards to a more behind-the-scenes perspective, the general ideologies and/or business strategies of those associated with this ever-changing industry.

What we initially aimed for when conceptualising and drafting up this project was a website which very much called it like it is. It was originally intended as a satirical, destructive, damning amalgamation of thoughts and ideas from lifelong gamers who are fed up with certain tendencies and traits that have become or are becoming a staple part of one of our most cherished pastimes. Whilst the core values remain the same, some way through development the shift in balance changed. Instead of focusing almost unanimously on criticism, what we decided to do was dedicate a large segment to both optimism and pessimism. After all, its unlikely that anyone who has even a semblance of interest in this hobby could or would argue that the positives don't vastly outmatch the negatives when it comes to gaming on the whole.

The industry has contributed to an exponential amount of sleepless nights, it has tested the boundaries of friendship (at least online), and it is constantly encouraging us to challenge, and by direct extension, better ourselves in order to stay on top of our game. The beauty, and in many respects, geekiness of this activity is that for the most part it is achieved through pushing buttons. To an outsider, it is illogical. To an insider, it's natural, and it is this inherent social seperation that only serves to highlight just how much of a unique property we have on our hands. There is nothing like it and this is exactly the reason we love it.

Honestly, try explaining exactly why you want to maintain your K/D ratio in any number of online games, why you are spending dozens of hours searching high and low for agility orbs in Crackdown or why you want just one more attempt at beating your friends scores in Trials HD to someone who knows nothing of the industry and you'll almost undoubtedly be greeted with a look of bewilderment or a patronising smile. I've lost count of the amount of debates I've had concerning the artistic and entertainment merit of gaming. Such is life.

In all likelihood, you will have been unaware of our presence online because before now we have had limited exposure to the big bad world of the internet. Although some of us have created and written for websites, made videos and even helmed a music blog (R.I.P.), we have remained very much a niche band of creative outcasts. Until now. We've somewhat grand plans for this blog and while this may seem like a sudden thing, you'll just have to trust us that it couldn't be more opposite. We've been deliberating over this website for the best part of a decade but due to various commitments, obligations and general laziness, we've been unable to gain a foothold in this department.

Originally envisioned as the general gaming network AEN (Artificial Entertainment Network), in spite of falling just short of completion, it went on to inspire the AEN Outrunners clan. The Critical Gaming Network, on the other hand, came about like many things come about; as an inner joke, a borderline self-indulgent idea ingrained in controversy. We originally intended it to be a sister site of the more objective and news-based AEN and the founding principle focused upon its implementation as a vehicle to demonstrate our more critical, or as I like to put it, PR-less opinions and interpretations.

Despite some ideas becoming redundant due to the amount of time we've spent sitting on our laurels, in many ways its a blessing in disguise. As silly as it may sound, we're all very creative and opinionated people with a lot to say and it is these ideas we intend to share with the world, ideas that we have been stewing over for longer than we'd like to admit. This simply means that there is a backlog of articles, videos and concepts waiting to be unleashed onto the world which, let's face it, can only be a good thing. Expect semi-regular content. The reason for this is because half the reason our music blog has been laying dormant for a over a year is because we put too much pressure onto ourselves into delivering content on a weekly basis. It got to the point where we were writing a solid three or four dedicated articles per week before we could even begin to start writing other individual articles and it put a strain on us creatively.

In order to avoid a similar disaster, we've decided to adopt a contrasting approach with this website, preferring less regular articles that contain a higher standard of output. Ideally, we want to create something that is both professional and laidback, objective and subjective, with an injection of seriousness and humour, appealing to both masses and critics alike, and most importantly putting gamers at the forefront and knocking the corporations whose arrogance and unscrupulous agendas are having an adverse effect on a pastime most of us were born into. Enjoy.