Labor Relations and League of Legends

My latest PopMatters article is now live: Labor Relations and League of Legends.

Troubling news from eSports recently after Riot Games announced they would prohibit their LCS players from streaming their competitors' games. Riot quickly changed their tune after community backlash, but the issue has already been set. eSports has matured enough to begin raising issues of exploitation and commodification of its players, which means we've basically arrived, right?

I spend a good deal of this piece comparing League of Legends to the NFL, partly because this is what the game's creators are measuring themselves against. Riot calls their players athletes, people who have started an eSports career. Yet what these terms mean is still ill defined, especially when a "career" can start and end in just a few years. If we are meant to take the idea of professional gaming seriously, then we must consider it a legitimate profession, which in turn should be understood with labor relations in mind. Contract transparency and a collective association of competitive eSports players would be a great way to start.

The push for an organized player body must, eventually, come from the players themselves. Sorry LCS Champions, but I don't foresee ESPN coming to your aid any time soon:

EXP Podcast #225: House of Cards

Image from Giant Bomb

We're all still trying process Microsoft's vision of the future, so why don't we take a short break and consider one of Valve's recent reveals. In a move that both Jorge and I find bizarre and terrifying, Valve is piloting Steam trading cards. While there doesn't seem to be any specific game tied to the cards themselves, the rules and rewards about obtaining, trading, and crafting cards may in fact have the potential to change the way we play and purchase games. Are you tempted by the prospect of a rare foil head crab card or do you plan on relegating your Steam cards to your digital attic, never to be touched? Let us know in the comments!

- Subscribe to the EXP Podcast via iTunes
- Find the show on Stitcher
- Here's the show's stand-alone feed
- Listen to the podcast in your browser by left-clicking here. Or, right-click and select "save as link" to download the show in MP3 format.
- Subscribe to this podcast and EXP's written content with the RSS link on the right.


Show notes:

- Runtime: 33 min 16 sec
- Steam Trading Card FAQ

- Music by: Brad Sucks

PSN Problems

I’ve been trying to give Sony my money for some time now, but they just won’t take it.

Everything started last week when I logged into the PlayStation Network to do my heroic duty by purchasing DeathSpank. Upon trying to confirm my order, I was greeted by a mysterious “80023103” error. With dread in my heart, I navigated to another menu and tried manually adding funds to my Sony “wallet.” This time I was greeted by an equally unhelpful “Funds cannot be added to your wallet at this time.”

Drastic times call for drastic measures, so I actually tried using Sony’s web interface to confirm my credit card and add funds. This yielded no results. The dread in my heart started to crystallize and slowly transformed into cynical resignation. I began to get the feeling that I wouldn’t be saving the world or grinding for loot any time soon.

A quick call to my credit card company confirmed that nothing was wrong on their end. In fact, the credit card representative told me that several $1 charges from PSN had been put on the card and then removed. This is usually a good sign, as companies tend to test the card by making small charge when you first submit your information. If the charge goes through, they clear the card for more purchases. It seems that Sony knew of my card, but simply refused to use it.

I then called up Sony’s customer service and talked to a really nice guy about my problem. After I described my issue and all the ways I had tried to fix it, he sheepishly told me that there was nothing they could do but suggest I buy pre-paid PlayStation Network cards for all my purchasing needs. He also said that many people have been having problems similar to mine since the last few firmware upgrades. Before I hung up the phone, we shared a laugh about how many calls he gets every day from whiny kids who want their Modern Warfare map packs.

Until now, I’ve been fairly happy with PSN. Demos and purchases went smoothly, the store was easy enough to navigate, and the transactions were straightforward. I’ve always appreciated that the prices are listed in terms of actual currency, rather than the deceptive and somewhat condescending “points” system used by Microsoft and Nintendo.

However, my recent experience has exposed the main drawback in their system, as well as any console-based digital distribution system: because the proprietary nature of the console environment, players and games are subject to competency of the companies maintaining the networks. If I could go to the store and buy a physical copy of DeathSpank, it wouldn’t matter if Best Buy couldn’t sell me one; I could go to Game Stop or Target. But, because the PSN can’t sell me DeathSpank, I can’t have it.

Of course, I could follow the nice Sony rep’s advice and go purchase a pre-paid PSN card. However, doing so would mean I would likely have to pay sales tax, shipping costs, or both on the purchase. This would effectively mean I would be paying more than $1 for each usable dollar of PSN content, an idea that I find utterly repugnant.

It’s almost poetic that this is happening just as Sony is trying to convince me to pay for their service. In addition to the fact that PlayStation Plus still lags behind Xbox Live’s feature set, it seems there is also a possibility that it cannot handle such basic functions as making a transaction with a major credit card company.

In my more desperate moments I began fantasizing about a world in which Steam and Impulse somehow convinced the major console companies to allow games to be sold through their system. Seeing as how Portal 2 will have Steam Cloud support on the PS3, perhaps this isn’t as far-fetched as one might think? Steam provides an experience superior to those offered by Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, and does so without charging usage fees for the service. It would be a shame if the for-pay model became the standard when there are other viable options.

But this idle speculation does nothing to fix my immediate problem. My options seem to be either to waste my money by buying pre-paid cards or to waste my time praying to the digital deities in hopes that the network might magically start working again. This whole situation illustrates the problem with the move towards wholly-digital gaming: while players live more convenient lives, they lose self-sufficiency. I am at the whims of Sony’s non-existent network support. The poor guy who I was on the phone with was just as powerless as I was to change the situation.

Maybe the next firmware update will fix things? It couldn’t make things worse, right? Don’t answer that.

EXP Podcast #52: The Difficulty with DLC

"Thank you Mario. But our princess is in another castle! I'll show you the way...for only $5!" This scenario might be an exaggerated nightmare, but the world of DLC is becoming an increasingly complicated one. The recently released Dragon Age: Origins launched with day-one premium content, some of which is actually offered by in-game NPCs. Unsurprisingly, many gamers vehemently disapproved of this and set out to form angry Internet mobs. This week, we discuss Sean "Elysium" Sands' plea for gamers to re-evaluate the merits of premium downloadable content. He makes a thought-provoking argument, suggesting that DLC may be the price we pay in order to perpetuate the existence of gaming as we know it. Do his ominous predictions have you reaching for your wallet? We invite you to jump in with your thoughts, free of charge.

Some discussion starters:

- What kind of DLC have you purchased? Do you have specific personal rules about what you buy?

- Do you believe that one game's DLC can subsidize other games, or will it just yield more DLC for that game?

- Is there an ethical component to DLC from an artistic or democratic standpoint?

To listen to the podcast:

- Subscribe to the EXP Podcast via iTunes here. Additionally, here is the stand-alone feed.
- Listen to the podcast in your browser by left-clicking the title. Or, right-click and select "save as link" to download the show in MP3 format.
- Subscribe to this podcast and EXP's written content with the RSS link on the right.

Show notes:

- Run time: 30 min 52 sec
- "A Dirge for the Sinking Ship," by Sean "Elysium" Sands
- Music provided by Brad Sucks

EXP Podcast #48: Exploiting Bobby Kotick

He has been called a heartless, devilish, carpetbagger. He is unapologetic about his mission to take the fun out of making video games. He has inspired neo-folk protest songs. He is Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision. This week, we discuss one of gaming's most infamous characters and his influence on the medium. We cover capitalism, sensational journalism, and some light conspiracy theory in an attempt to fight against the culture of "skepticism and pessimism and fear," perpetuated by everyone's favorite villain.

Some discussion starters:

- How does Kotick's business philosophy affect your perception of Activision-Blizzard and the titles it publishes? To what extent are your more casually-interested friends and family aware of the business side of games?

- Which (if any) company executives make a positive impression on you? How do they do this?

- To what extent is Kotick simply playing a role for the public? Is this even plausible?

To listen to the podcast:

- Subscribe to the EXP Podcast via iTunes here. Additionally, here is the stand-alone feed.
- Listen to the podcast in your browser by left-clicking the title. Or, right-click and select "save as link" to download the show in MP3 format.
- Subscribe to this podcast and EXP's written content with the RSS link on the right.

Show notes:

- Run time: 27 min 50 sec
- "Why We Love to Hate Activision - And Might Be Wrong," by Leigh Alexander, published on Kotaku
- Music provided by Brad Sucks

LittleBigPlanet and the Battle Over Culture

This is the fourth of five posts about LittleBigPlanet. My first post dealt with the mechanics and deconstructionist nature of the game, my second post addressed the game's cooperative appeal, and my third post examined LBP's novel means of facilitating communication. This post touches on what I see to be the game's philosophical quandary. As always, feel free to jump in with your thoughts as well.

LittleBigPlanet is a game that claims to be composed of people's dreams. A hefty claim to be sure, most of which is based on the game's capacity to facilitate player-created content. Creation often sparks controversy, and LBP is no exception.

LittleBigPlanet's potential to spur creation suffers due to what I call "cultural medievalism." Much like feudal lords in Europe, societal groups are trying to carve out cultural fiefdoms in hopes of controlling human expression. Whether it be music, game characters, or any other means of expression, their approach is one based on monopolizing the value of cultural symbols, regardless of whether this value is financial, ideological, or some combination thereof. This view of cultural ownership is inhumane, shortsighted, and repugnant to the supposed philosophy of LBP.

Holy War, Sackboy!

Even before its release, LBP found itself in the midst of a cultural dispute. One of the musical tracks contained verses based on passages from the Qur'an. Some people claimed offense, and a small group of people were able to effect a worldwide delay of the game.

As Jorge and I discussed, Sony's actions exemplified corporate risk-aversion at its finest. Rather than engage in a dialogue about why the musical choice was made, how it could be construed as offensive, or what claim people had over ownership of the verses, the game was sterilized. In the spirit of trying to subvert this sterilization, I ask everyone to listen to the (allegedly) offensive track. My point is not to attack any one belief system; I urge instead that we liberalize our notions of who cultural ownership:



I wonder about the number of people who were actually offended by this song. Furthermore, from everything I have read about Toumani Diabate, this song was not meant as an attack towards anyone. Additionally, I am certain I could find some Christians who find other video games' use of the word "God," offensive. One does not need to look hard to find something in any cultural product that could offend at least one group of people. So why were the lyrics scrubbed in this situation?

Sony's fear of lawsuits and controversy is understandable if viewed through the logic of cultural medievalism. While delaying a high-profile, console-exclusive game is a drastic (and unprecedented) move, the reasoning behind cultural exclusivity demanded it: Sony does not have any legal ownership over the Qur'an, and therefore ceded cultural ownership to a minority of offended Muslims, a group whose case for exclusive rights is arguably stronger than Sony's. However, I do no think that the core of this issue is a Muslim or even a religious consflict.

In setting the precedent of acknowledging and ceding cultural ownership, Sony set itself up to invoke and utilize the very same doctrine to police LBP's players.

The Picasso Problem

Pablo Picasso once said: "Good artists copy. Great artists steal." While glib, this sentiment succinctly communicates the idea that creation does not exist in a vacuum. Because of this, it impossible for someone to create a LBP level without being influenced on some level by ideas that were not "theirs." This is a scary concept for cultural medievalists.

The line between borrowing and stealing is a blurry one that continues to fade into obscurity with each passing year. Oftentimes, familiar cultural references points can be synthesized to create something new, like Danger Mouse's "Grey Album." Works like this make cultural medievalists uncomfortable because it weakens their exclusive control over cultural symbols. To them, expression is limited by strict copyright laws designed to exact immediate profit.

There is nothing wrong with crediting a work's creator and making sure they are fairly compensated for their work, but to ban LBP levels for containing user-created Sonic or Metal Gear characters is shortsighted madness. Even if one were to step away from the ideology of unlimited free expression and analyze Sony's actions in terms of current economic norms, it seems that Sony only hurts itself by implementing draconian rules on user-generated content. If a player makes a Sonic level, no one is harmed: Sony has people playing their game, Sega has people adding to their brand's visibility, players have a novel experience, and video games develop into a more layered medium.


In releasing a game whose aim is to stimulate human imagination, Sony has created an entity with the potential to develop independently of its creator. Left to its own devices, LBP is a chaotic, spontaneous creature because it is continually recreated by similarly chaotic, spontaneous creatures. Sadly, it seems that instead of letting this creature (and these creatures) develop, Sony instead seeks to lobotomize it in order to maintain exclusive control over it. In doing so, Sony keeps us enclosed in a cultural fiefdom.

News for 11/12/08: Activision Blizzard Plays the Sequel Game

This week, we're discussing some recent comments made by Activision Blizzard CEO Robert Kotick. Most interesting to us were his very candid comments about the company's approach to sequels and intellectual property. Take a look at some of the articles discussing the story and then feel free to weigh in via the comments, email, Twitter, smoke signals, etc. How do you feel about the current video game industry's business model and its treatment of sequels versus new franchises?

Scott: From the Gamasutra article: "With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform, with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of, over time, becoming $100 million-plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us," Kotick said in the Gamasutra-attended call later transcribed by Seeking Alpha.

Jorge: That strategy has worked very well for them indeed.

Scott: This resulted in them dropping Ghostbusters! Good thing Atari picked it up. Even if the game doesn't end up being all that great, I love Ghostbusters. Chronicles of Riddick, not so much. I think the crazy thing here is how brazen they are about their financial strategy:
He literally used the word "exploit!"

Jorge: He knows exactly what he is doing, though maybe not what he is saying. "Exploit" has some pretty negative connotations. He could be dropping some really cool IPs too, 50 Cent notwithstanding. It makes me uncomfortable as a gamer knowing they are willing to drop innovative titles because of a market strategy.

Scott: Let's remember that Activision Blizzard has arguably the hottest IPs out there: WoW, Guitar Hero, Call of Duty. Exploiting these franchises is their meal ticket.

Jorge: They are also working on Starcraft II, which they are planning to break up into three games for each class. These are some great titles, but this is a bit weird. It feels like they are artificially elongating Starcraft, and these franchises in general, so they can milk it as much as possible. I wonder what the development process look like for these games on a ten year goal.

Scott: It looks like WoW or Guitar Hero: churning out games so people never are without the thing they like, regardless of innovation.
Of course, GH came out in 2005, and it already seems like it's been 10 years.

Jorge: In that sense they are pretty presumptuous that they can keep these titles going.
I imagine that if Activision Blizzard is keeping the same development teams on the project, the product will become stale. Surely this must stifle the creativity of the development crew if they are churning endless iterations. The result will be painfully repetitive sequels.

Scott: They'll have to do what the CoD franchise does: cycle development teams on and off the same franchise.

Jorge: But how are they going to keep people interested in this in ten years!? That is a ridiculously long time. Are you really going to want to play CoD 15? It's not going to happen unless Activision Blizzard personally funds a Third World War.

Scott: Which they could, based on their current profits.

Jorge: Also, if the industry is too focused on sequels, my fear is independent developers and new IPs will be hard to publish because developers consider them too "risky".

Scott: I think that has already happened to a large extent and that he's just articulating the current situation. We don't like hearing it, but it's basically true.
In a way though, Nintendo has been employing this technique since the company's inception: Look at all the Mario games.

Jorge: Yes, but some of those are pretty big leaps from the original franchise. Mario Kart has very little to do with Mario Sunshine. They are the same franchise, but Nintendo was willing to take dangerous creative leaps.

Scott: True, Nintendo has a track record of innovation.

Jorge: I think Activision Blizzard is too optimistic about this. I think people are going to be sick of these titles long before the ten year mark.

Scott: But either by luck or by skill, they seem to be in a unique situation to do try this business model. People love these games and they don't seem to be slowing.

Jorge: If they come out with these so often, a guitar hero title every year with another CoD in development before the first one of the year even drops

Scott: But there must be people out there who will just by the game based on the title, almost out of habit. This is what Kotick is cashing in on: people who like the games enough to buy them, even if they won't play them that much, rather than targeting a smaller number of people who will buy them, love them, and play the hell out of them.

Jorge: Of course, from a business aspect it makes a lot of sense. Shareholders must be loving this. But from a gamer perspective, I am worried about the repercussions of this business model.

Scott: I have been thinking a lot about World of Goo and its place in this business model.
Maybe if companies are focusing on one franchise, it allows games like this to exist? Or perhaps WoW is secretly funding some black-ops Activision Blizzard new IP project that we don't know about?

Jorge: God I hope so.

Scott: Maybe if the big companies were using a shotgun style scattering of new IPs, it would dilute the impact of unique games like World of Goo.

Jorge: That could be how the process works. It's a circle of life and death. A small developer works on a new IP, the good ones float to the top to be milked to death.
We'll have to see in ten years whether Bobby Kotick is fired or if we're just loving Cello Hero: Symphony Edition!

Scott: Either way, I'm sure he's a rich, rich man. Little Bobby Jr. is flying to college on the wings of Guitar Hero.

Jorge: I hope Blizzard is using some of their money on genetic engineering. That way he could fly on a real mountable griffin.

News for 9/17/08: The Xbox 360 Arcade Price Cut

Today, we introduce a segment about current events in the gaming world. Although we like talking about news and previews, there are plenty of dedicated journalism sources on the Internet. We won't be getting any secret leaked information that you can't get elsewhere. What we can do is share our thoughts on said events and leaked secrets with you. Both of us feel like there is a lot of important and interesting stuff going on in thevideogame industry that gets reported, yet not discussed.

A note on the format: What you're reading here are excerpts from a conversation we had over Skype. Since we don't have the technology or the funds to do a podcast (yet!), we thought we'd try out a little stream-of-consciousness-meets-interview-transcript format. What you read here are the written highlights (via Google chat) of our conversation. We're presenting it with minimal edits in order to retain the feel and spirit of our conversation, so hopefully you find our spelling errors, grammatical abominations, and occasional rambling incoherence charming. Expect these news posts to change periodically as we experiment with this format.

Today's topic: The Xbox Arcade price cut

Jorge: News: Xbox Arcade $199, 60gb elite $299
60g 299, elite 399

Scott: Do I now need an xbox? That's cheaper than the wii I just bought.

Jorge: Unless you're itching for a PS3 you won't need one now. If you want a PS3 it might be worth waiting to see if Sony drops their price in reaction to thexbox price drop. Sony can't wait too long though, unless they drop the price before the holiday buying season people will likely just buy a 360.

Scott: I'm a bit worried about storage on the xbox 360 sans hard drive. Can you buy an external hard drive?

Jorge: You got me. Part of the appeal for the sans hard drive arcade is that it's something cheap that has enough memory to play xbox live arcade games that tend to be pretty small. I'm curious who is really buying this system anyway? There has got to be an audience they are targeting.

Scott: I really don't know who is buying xboxes these days.

Jorge: I think part of what they are aiming for is bringing in the Wii audience. Particularly picking up those people who want a Wii this holiday season but can't find one considering there are still shortages two years down the line. Which is just crazy to me.

Scott: I can't see my grandparents or their friends (who are well aware of the Wii, some even own it) even considering an xbox, regardless of price. It seems that Wii is selling a lifestyle almost. And regardless of how intricate or simple the arcade games are, the interface is still the controller, which scares away a lot of new gamers.

Jorge: This actually connects well to the feature you wrote. If Wiis are really selling the lifestyle and the aesthetic nature of their system, then I really do think Microsoft can pick up new gamers off their market. It's not like they always show off all the intricacies of their remote on the box art that packages the 360.

Scott: So then are they angling to make the xbox an impulse buy? Put a few Mii-like avatars on the box art, put a space-invaders like arcade game, and then you have a good holiday alternative for the Wii?

Jorge: I think that is exactly right. I think it will be an impulse buy for a lot of people. If you spruce up the box art and and plaster a simple white console on the cover, maybe a new xbox avatar and their simple UI, five xbox live arcade games, it can look pretty attractive for someone browsing their neighborhood gamestop. And I'm figuring these buys are going to people who don't already own a next gen console. The casual gamers as we like to call them.

Scott: I'm just not confident that the xbla games actually can sell themselves to new people.

Jorge: A price cut could bring in a lot of people into the xbox and in turn into a type of gaming that Wii has yet to provide. At least that is what Microsoft is banking on.

Scott: The big challenge as I see it is getting past the world in which the only people who are playing xbla are also the "hardcore" crowd.

Scott: Getting back to the more avid gamer crowd...
I'm still not sure that any xbox price cut would make me get one.
Many huge games (Rock Band, Orange Box, soon to be Bioshock) are cross platform.
It's the PS3 exclusives that really are the deciding factor: Little Big Planet, PixelJunk Eden, God of War 3.

Jorge: If you're a PS3 owner, or a soon to be PS3 owner, this isn't going to be compelling enough, sure. There is no pressure Sony is feeling to drop their own rates that they haven't been feeling already. The only thing this could potential do is draw in the Wii crowd for the lasting benefit of microsoft. Which, again, is a great decision on their part considering the potential wii shortages this season.

Scott: I think Microsoft is playing a dangerous game.

Scott: They're trying to lure people in with an xbox that seems simple and friendly, but once these "simple" gamers spend some time in the xbox world, they'll quickly see the limitations of the system they bought and be pissed.

Jorge: So what you're saying is that those people who buy an xbox arcade for cheap because of new box art and a "sale" sign people are gonna be irritated that A:they didn't buy a hard drive or B: that they didn't buy a wii. Even if this happens, at least Microsoft made a few bucks off someone who would not be in their core market anyhow. Sounds like a pretty safe game to me.

Scott: I think it will be tough for Microsoft to make any inroads into the new gamer market this generation because of how strong the wii is in the public mindset.

Scott: So what do we think will come of this?

Jorge: Basically a whole lot of nothing.

Scott: Possibilities:
1. An impulse buy for people
2. A way for microsoft to make inroads into the non-gamer community (not likely in the face of the wii)
3. A way to tempt potential PS3 owners towards xbox (maybe, but folks like me really want the Sony exclusives)
Sent at 9:26 PM on Tuesday

Scott: To me, it just seems like xbox is trying its hardest to be all things to all people and that this price cut is really about trying to get people away from the Wii and into the xbox. I'm not sure if it will succeed, but it seems like anyone who buys it is a victory for microsoft.

Jorge: Let's hope Sony and Nintendo call Microsoft's bluff and it doesn't pay out for Microsoft. Teach them a lesson.

Scott: But why do you hope that? lol

Jorge: I don't know. I just like to see big companies flounder.

Scott: Damn commie.

Jorge: Oddly enough "Damn commie" is my 360 gamertag.

Update: As we were readying post, Kotaku broke a story about huge Xbox sales numbers in Japan this week! Will America follow suit? Is the Wii's global reign of terror facing a serious challenge? Is Microsoft crazy...like a fox? Will we end each news post with a series of dramatic questions? Stay tuned to find out!