EDITOR’S NOTE: I’d like to remind our readers that Tarquin’s opinions do not necessarily coincide with those of anybody else at Critical Gamer. Tarquin’s views are only guaranteed to represent the views of Tarquin.

So, Microsoft will soon be increasing the prices of Xbox Live Gold subscriptions. Isn’t that terrible? Doesn’t it make you angry? I bet if you’re a Gold subscriber you’re going to do something about it, aren’t you? E mail Microsoft and detail exactly why you think the price rise is unjustified. Or perhaps you’ll ring Xbox customer support, and demand to speak to somebody with some authority so they can explain it to you directly over the phone. No, no, I know; you and a group of friends will start an internet campaign to boycott Xbox Live until the price rises are cancelled. Perhaps you’ll go a stage further and hold out for prices more reasonable than the current ones.

Or perhaps you’ll just whinge and whine on internet forums and in the comment boxes of articles. Perhaps you’ll complain loudly without hesitating to pull your trousers down as Bill Gates approaches, a smile on his face and a sharpened vibrator in his hand.

You PS3 fanboys can stop smirking, too. How many of you bought your console on the day of release, while it was carrying that preposterous price tag? Here in the UK, thousands of morons flocked to the shops to pay £425 for a console with one controller and no games. Idiots.

Oh yes, people moaned and people cried. People roared in disgust at such an outrageous RRP. Most of the same people were fighting to be first in line on day one, however. This is because, generally speaking, people are stupid. As individuals, human beings are far more shrewd and complex than marketing executives (a whole other species) give them credit for. Put people in some sort of large group, however – ‘gamers’, for example – and their IQs will tend to plummet to Big Brother contestant levels.

I bet you’ve forgotten about the Modern Warfare 2 debacle already, haven’t you? Allow me to kickstart your fickle little brains. It was announced, with plenty of notice, that the RRP would be significantly more than most gamers tend to pay for their new releases (£15 more in the UK and before anybody says, yes I know the RRP was technically only £5 more than normal, so fuck off). Within seconds of the announcement, forum crawlers and other internerds were inexpertly bashing their keyboards with rage, telling each other how angry they were and completely failing to use correct spelling and grammar whilst doing so. Very few people informed the game’s publisher, Activision, of their displeasure.

The game managed to break various sale records even before release, and still more a few short weeks after.

To recap: if you complained about Modern Warfare 2′s pricing and paid so much as a single penny more than you usually would upon release, you’re stupid. If you complained about the PS3′s release price but still paid it, you’re stupid. If you’re complaining about the Xbox Live Gold price hikes but have already resigned yourself to paying them, you’re stupid. If none of this applies to you, don’t worry. I do not doubt for a second that I could find several examples in your purchase history that would emphatically prove to my satisfaction that you are stupid.

With me so far?

Xbox Live Gold subscription fees to increase. Xbox 360 owners impotently mumbling amongst themselves about it. PS3 online features remain free, with an optional subscription service that offers certain extra benefits. What’s missing from this picture?

Please, stop your slack – jaw dribbling whilst scratching yourselves. I’ll tell you what’s missing. Sony taking advantage of this discontent, that’s what’s missing. I only know a little about the world of marketing and PR (thank god) but surely this is a golden opportunity for Sony to scream from the proverbial rooftops about their free online play, chat, and messaging? Why is this not happening? I’ve had a bit of a think about the situation, and these seem to be the three most likely explanations:

1. Everybody who works for Sony in every country in the world is unaware of the confirmed Xbox Live price rises.
2. All of the Sony PR and marketing employees are having a holiday on the Isle of Wight, listening to old Eddie Cochran records and enjoying a range of interesting cheeses.
3. Sony are waiting to see how easily Microsoft get away with the price increases for future reference.

In one of his interviews with Critical Gamer, Michael Pachter gives a bit of a wake up call. He points out that maintaining an online service is a lot of work with a lot of money involved, and Sony “isn’t so profitable that it can afford to be magnanimous forever”. This was shortly before the official announcement of PlayStation Plus; but with a seemingly small proportion of PSN users opting in to the service, and with so many paying so much for Xbox Live Gold, do you honestly believe that Sony would never consider making the subscription fee compulsory?

If that ever happened, the overwhelming majority of PSN users would pay it. I know it, Sony know it, and you know it whether you’re prepared to admit it or not. There would be a hurricane of criticism and protest to begin with, oh yes. There would be a veritable army of friendless geeks with nothing more important in their worthless, empty lives that would spend every day for a month telling everybody who’ll listen (and many who won’t) that they’ll boycott PSN if the fee becomes compulsory. Sony will apologise profusely yet stand firm; the day will come when the fee becomes compulsory; and those who complained the loudest will pay at the last minute, realising that without their online interactions they will have no way of pretending they’re worth something to the world and would therefore be morally obligated to commit suicide.

I suppose that deep down, such people liken these financial shaftings to being raped by an elderly relative whilst visiting them on holiday. It’s a nasty, traumatic experience; but one that they manage to resign themselves to by suppressing the memory until the next year.

What do I suggest to remedy the situation? Nothing. I can’t do anything. You’re all fucking idiots.

Thanks for reading!

What causes violence? If you are a fan of George Lucas then you know that ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, and anger to violence. I ask this as currently we are going through the yearly attack on gaming, largely caused by Modern Warfare 2; but most probably an attack which would have attached itself to another game had MW2 not been released. It’s the time of year when everyone wants a game and hence gaming is big. It used to be films which were attacked at this time of year, but hey, compared to games they are so small fry.

It's the fault of these guys. If only they had gone by Easyjet and left the guns at home. Stag parties are getting too complicated these days.

Now whenever I see a news report discussing evidence of how games might make a player violent, I see quotes relating to how those who play games demonstrate increased adrenalin and hence are ‘pumped up’. I can accept that. I can also accept that the same symptom might be displayed by those watching or taking part in football, rugby, boxing, X-Factor, Crufts, ballroom dancing, viewing the news, horse racing, motor sports and, for those who get a kick out of it, fishing.

Are we suggesting we ban those? Of course those commentators who are either stupid or just set out to be, might argue that their point is that only games have you committing acts of violence. I would point out that the violence though has to be triggered through some kind of condition or state of mind. Adrenalin is an indicator normally associated with such a situation. There is little evidence out there of players actually going to commit violence having just played a game. The research instead relies on indicators which might lead to violence, such as adrenaline. Well doesn’t that mean many activities have the potential to turn quiet, peace loving individuals into maniacs?!

In a month where six pupils at a school almost poisoned themselves for copying a plot line from the the pre-watershed BBC drama Waterloo Road, it’s amazing that the industry that got attacked was gaming! Now Waterloo Road is popular, but in the big scheme of things many more millions of young and old people are gaming than watching Waterloo Road. I would suggest that perhaps gaming is less dangerous compared to other activities such as watching EastEnders, Coronation Street, or possibly Countdown. It’s certainly worth examining on that level – i.e. looking at its effect on behaviour proportionally to the amount of gaming content consumed.

What is even more amazing is that the media have no problem with allowing lies about games being circulated. They seem to feel that it is fair game to drop all journalistic training and principles when it comes to attacking gaming. Hence, we see repeated quotes about how MW2 allows you to play as a terrorist – most shockingly played out on Fox TV. For those that have not played the game I have something to say. No you cannot!! You play a CIA operative embedded into a terrorist cell. You witness an attack and, if you feel it’s part of the character, can take part in a massacre; but ultimately you are a bystander to such an attack with limited control over the game at that point. It is crucial to the plot and at the end (spoiler alert) you yourself are then shot dead. It’s dramatic and has been seen in countless movies before. So why the problem now? You even get the choice to skip the scene – ever been offered that by a TV show or movie?

Now this isn't potentially violent at all? He is actually a member of the National Association of Local Butchers

Perhaps it’s because we call them games? Games are meant to be fun, and for children – right? That’s another lie the media propagate of course. They continually allow commentators to remind us that most people buying or playing the games are children. For sure, some are – but most people playing these games are 18 or above, and many are 25 years plus.

In the USA we hear people say that even if a game is bought by and for an adult, if there is a child in the house then they are sure to gain access and play it. Perhaps they are right. However, if they are, perhaps they should start by not keeping handguns in their house! I’m thinking (and correct me if you feel I’m missing something here) that this may be a more immediate and dangerous problem. And you know, you can even lock out your kids from your console very, very easily if you choose to.

I’m not saying there are not games out there with bad taste, nor am I suggesting there should not be age limits or even some games banned. If you can ban a film, then you should be able to ban a game. However, there should be parity between the art forms. In the UK the BBFC initially banned Manhunt 2 and fought to try to stop it being released. Why?

Now, apart from the pictures of men in masks holding guns AND this picture of a fist, what actually IS there on the packaging to alert parents to the fact that some games might contain shooting and violence?

Their own research concluded that players do not think that events in a game are real. We no more think we are really scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup than we think that we too have three heads and live on the planet Zog whilst playing a fantasy game. Indeed, they found that the fact they are interactive and we have to push buttons often brings us out of the drama and narrative, reminding us they are only games. This is something movies cannot do, and we can get lost in them and become ‘pumped up’ in a sustained way without having a release until the end of the film. So, why oh why, when it comes to violent games, suddenly all that research goes out of the window? What is the logic and reasoning for this? When films like SAW and Hostel are released, why then fight to ban Manhunt? Are the individuals in charge of these organisations stupid?

"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb!"

I don’t think they are. Well, I hope they aren’t anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are running scared. Those that are in the industry and those that are associated with it, such as the BBFC, still lack the self confidence to describe and communicate what gaming is to those that do not yet play them, as we do. This is a huge problem as it allows the issue to be hijacked by the Keith Vazs of this world. There are people, often important and influential people, who latch onto these issues without first thinking them through. People who, fuelled by their own ignorance, let their own emotions get carried away, eating away at their fear until they explode violently against an industry, artform and past-time which contributes greatly, in a positive way, to millions of people’s lives.

Maybe George Lucas had it right all along.