GW: Is Console Gaming Turning Elitist?

Elitism + consoles? Let's hope not. Brendancalls discusses.
Published 24/12/2009 at 13:00 by Gamoc
Related stories (more)
Lunchtime Discussion: Console Sellers [50]
GW: Consoles Vs PC [47]
GAME Reveal UK Console Numbers [78]

Brendancalls feels the need to write a guest article, and we love him for it. You may have noticed a lot of GWs lately, so just so you know, you can expect a couple more over Christmas. It’s nice to see what the TSAians think and what better time to do so than at Christmas?

With the rumours over the past few days regarding a Premium PSN Service, I, for the first time, felt the urge to write a Guest Article for TSA.  Its not that I have not wanted to, it’s just that I wanted the subject to be something that really got me going and I finally found it.  Elitist Console Gaming.

I have been a gamer since 1995; I was about 11 when I got a SNES and my first PC.  I remember the days very fondly.  I specifically remember most weekends and school holidays when I would empty my school bag of all my books and a week’s worth of my mum’s sandwiches that I didn’t eat, shoving my SNES and later my PS1 & 2 in there and walking to my cousins house to spend the whole day on Killer Instinct, Timesplitters or Hogs of War (I loved those games).  This was before I knew how to use the internet really so my whole gaming world was limited to my closest friends and family.

It was an innocent time, but then again maybe I am looking back with rose tinted glasses, and as I always say “Nostalgia is a thing best left in the past”, so with that in mind let’s zip forward to the current day.

This is the first generation of gaming that has truly embraced the wonders of online play, millions of people all around the world can connect to each other in the blink of an eye in order to race, shoot or beat up each other.  It is truly an amazing revolution in the gaming world, one which I am whole-heartedly behind, however it comes with a bit of a dark side which has only become apparent to me in the last few months.

I, of course, mean the rise of the Elitist Console Gamer. My first inclination that this was a problem was the release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.  There was a huge anticipation for the game, it took over Leicester Square like a movie premiere, people queued in the freezing cold for copies of the game as soon as possible and debates broke out in parliament about it.  There is no doubt that it was biggest launch of a video game in history – definitely maybe, I think.

With such a huge hype and anticipation came the flip-side of the coin, those who were not interested in the game were as vocal about not wanting it as those who did.  For every gamer in the world, whether PS3, 360, PC or Sinclair Spectrum, it was impossible not to have an opinion. This is when I noticed that those who were not interested in the game, whether on the internet or in my local pub, were vehemently and angrily condescending and had somehow taken the stance that the game was in someway created for the lower echelons of our society.  All of a sudden people considered themselves too good to be associated with playing this game.  People were considering it the game of the stupid, working classes – a game for those who didn’t know any better.  Evidence of this is all over forums around the internet, a quick search in Google will provide you with proof.

However, Modern Warfare 2 is nothing compared to what we are going to have to prepare for in 2010 if the rumours are to be believed about the PSN premium service.  For decades, people have been buying consoles and no matter where you were or who you are, generally, your console was the same as the guy or girl on the other side of the world.  You got the same service no matter who, what, why, when or where you were, all you had to do was buy the console and its accompanying games.

Subscription services on consoles are nothing new. As we all know, Microsoft have been charging for their online services since the launch of Xbox Live in 2002 for the original Xbox, and in the 7th generation it has been proven quite a commendable business strategy supplying Microsoft with a dependable and consistent annual income. Sony, on the other hand have been advertising that they supply free online gaming, no subscriptions, no annual/monthly fees, albeit all advertised poorly.

Most you out there reading this seem in favour of this subscription charge, but I have to admit I am not, it’s one of the reasons I bought a Playstation.  I am not going to go through all the available options on the service as that has already been done for me here.  The reason I am against it is the implementation of subscription services only furthers the elitism that is starting to creep into gaming. No longer will your experience be the same as the person on the other side of the world, will it even be the same as your neighbour or best mate? It creates a divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, which will essentially balance out to those who can afford it and those who can’t.  Basically, I believe it is the start of an online class system whereby it will negatively force people to pay the subscription in order to keep up with what their best friend has.

I would also just like to make a point about why Sony would be doing this. It is well known that Sony make a loss on every PS3 sold and if I remember correctly it is about $40 on each PS3 slim. Now obviously they cannot continue to run a business like that, so with that in mind do you really think that the subscription that you will be paying will be going towards paying for an improved PSN service, or do you think that it will be going toward reclaiming that $40 they lost when they sold you that PS3?  Just look at the list of features they have on the list, are any of them seriously going to cost Sony that much money to implement, most of them are offering discount or something that is already built or in place but they are going to improve it or give it to you for free instead.  I won’t be paying the subscription service because I don’t believe I owe Sony anything more than I have already paid when I bought my copious amount of hardware.  However, in a similar vein, I don’t believe they owe me anything other than what they have promised they would deliver when I bought my PS3, which they have done and even surpassed.

I think I may have carried on a bit here, so I better end it, but I will confirm a few things before I stop wasting more of your time.

Yes I am a left-Wing socialist, please don’t lambaste me for it, I was going to talk about elitism on the PC, but there is no way I could fit it onto one page of a Word document. I wanted to include links to the forum topics regarding people who think MW2 is stupid, but its not worth the trouble it may cause. And finally, remember all those chain messages saying Sony were going to charge for PSN access? Turns out they were kind of right. I am still considering my stance on paying individually for specific services but will not be purchasing a package.

Comments

Please note that all comments are the opinion of the individual author and not TheSixthAxis.

1 2


  1. If that happens, then we’re finished.


  2. Elitist gaming is already here and will never truly die, as frustrating as that is. What really gets me is how many people DIDN’T vote with their wallets and spent close to the RRP on MW2 when it launched. Obviously, I’m only on about the same people who, in the same breath, whinged about the shocking RRP on the title. Quite simply, we need to get out of the habit of feeling like we have to keep up with everyone or we’re missing out. Bollocks to it. Enjoy the PS3 the way you want to. Actually, enjoy your life the way you want to and stop worrying about what other people think (and how they perceive you). I promise you, they’re too busy worrying about themselves.

    I’m all for the new service even though I might not physically subscribe to it. It’s a premium option for gamers who take their gaming a little more seriously. They’ll get the feeling of being well looked after and Sony will get their money.

    As it stands, the current PSN suits me just fine but I don’t actually game online.

    Top article, Brendan.


  3. That is all cool, Brendancalls, but what do you propose? What is your ultimate fix for all that?


  4. If hell is other people, then with PSN we’re already there


  5. On the flip-side of this division comes filtering. My mate often told me how enjoyable it was to game online (with headset) on the PS3 as oppose to the 360 as it was usually a grown-up of a certain age who could afford the PS3 during it’s expensive first year or two. Personally, and without upsetting the online situation, I’d love to see some sort of social division where I can game against people of at least a certain level of maturity, unless this happens already? Obviously, things like TSA help hugely as I’m guessing most of you (who game together online) are grown-up enough to handle things properly and not hurl genuine insults about each other’s mothers. :D


    • Genuine being the important word ;)


  6. Agreed completely. I have no issues with any game, as long as their fun, and entertaining. I can’t believe these people who actually sit in the cold, camp outside of a store just to get a game. How pathedic does your life have to be that you have time to sit in-front of a store, or even these people that sit in-front of theatre’s waiting for a movie. Wait a few days or even a week, then you can go when there is not a large line and a rush, and buy the game or go to the movie. The game will still be there (Even if they sell out the first couple days, they will be restocked within a week usually.) If they are not restocked, then just wait.. I mean it’s a game.
    But you are right about the elitist gaming. It’s here, it’s getting worse, and there is not much we can do about it. If companies can make money off of it, they will do it.


    • You don’t understand how it is to have a passion for something.


      • Agree completely. I wouldn’t queue up at midnight for a game personally, but have no issiues with people who do. If they are that excited about the game/film that they are willing to sacrifice then good for them. A mate of mine queued outside his local Blockbuster with a few friends for the midnight release of MW2 and had a great couple of hours chatting with other like minded and excited gamers, so fair play. He got a few new PSN friends that he still plays regularly with even now. Your response is the perfect example of the point of this thread.


  7. I do agree that there is elitism in gaming, but I don’t agree that the premium service would spawn more elitism. I’ve read a few comments that some people think the gamer needs the premium to play against, or with, somebody who does… So premium subscribers get other services from Sony, so what? The survey only talked about certain services, nothing about better connectivity or that you need it. Some of the services are interesting, some not. But that’s why it’s a survey, isn’t it? Nothing official being said. I’m just wondering what the fuss is all about, when it’s just a survey. Of coarse there will be gamers thinking and saying that, if they are premium subscribers, they are better then the gamers who have the free service. But that’s just what happens this day and age. Everybody is always looking at what the other person has.


  8. a natural divide will come. those who do nothing but play games and those who play when they have nothing else to do…The game all day and night crowd, the same people who quee up for game release day, will be the ones who get the online subcribtion. for people like me, i only do online gaming now and then, so i wont be subscribing….and considering i payed the launch price and had my PS3 since day 1, i feel i have paid more than enough for my gaming!


  9. Of course there’s elitism in gaming, there always has been. The ‘console war’ is the most obvious form of elitism, gamers battling back and forth about who has the better console, the better service, the better games? Why does it matter if you’re better or worse, as long as you’re enjoying it? And people seems to forget that whilst the rise of Web 2.0 and the increase in sales and price of consoles have made the ‘war’ more public, this goes at least as far back as Nintendo vs Sega and was probably there with Atari 2600 vs Intellivision. There has always been elitism, it’s just the internet etc… has made it more visible. There hasn’t been any real increase.


    • The perception of elitism is really the problem. You get the childish twunts online who bad-mouth others (more than likely, the fanboy type who enter flaming wars in comments and forums alike) and with that comes the “i’m looking down my nose at you” crowd. Sure, most mature people won’t see their premium service as snobbery or elitism. However, and sadly, there’ll be the still-suckling-at-their-mother’s-teet-mob who can’t help but find another excuse to rain on someone’s parade. I suppose as gaming becomes more and more accepted, it’ll eventually grow up. With that, social/online gaming will probably be so truly massive that some sort of gentle segregation will happen. I for one would welcome playing online with like-minded individuals as oppose to hopped-up American teenage boys with intimate details about one of my immediate family.


  10. I disagree that Xbox Live Gold, or the potential PSN Premium Service create ‘Elitism’ – those that pay for the service are those that want to get more out of their consoles, and probably the ones that regularly play each day.

    Such services are never forced upon players – Xbox Live still maintains a Silver service, and PSN will still remain to be free for those that aren’t willing or see a necessity to pay for the ‘extras.’

    As to whether subscription services are worth it – Xbox Live continues to strive to be as reliable as ever, and Playstation Network is continually hampered by bugs and not so secure networking. Subscription payments are there, not for a company to make more money out of you, but to help maintain the service at a level that is as smooth running as possible for players.

    It would be interesting to see how different things would be if Sony had introduced a charge from day one. I pay £30 on Xbox Live for a 13 month subscription, and hardly have any issues – those that I do have are software based and are patched usually within the week. Whereas even after patches, I find the Playstation 3 kicks players and fails to maintain good connections – most recently being the Red Faction Guerilla Christmas Event where both issues continually occurred.

    I think Sony requires a Premium Service to bring it into line with Xbox Live, which no one can deny is a better online service. Sure, people will always argue that they already pay for internet and shouldn’t be made to pay more to enjoy gaming online, but like I said before it’s a necessity.


    • I’ll deny it.PSN is no worse than live on any point.I have both consoles.Gamertag-lubu80.Like i said in another post the difference is live is useless unless you pay but PSN retains all the key features with no cost.


  11. Just back from the pub after work to see this has been posted.  I am glad it has sparked such debate and have enjoyed reading everyone’s comments.  
    Quite a few of you mentioned that elitist gaming is already here and I do agree, particularly with Raen, I wish I had thought of including the console war elitism in my article. 
    @Deathbrin – I don’t have the answers about how to solve this,  and as many have pointed out in there comments its not a problem in the gaming community, its a wider spreading problem than that, a selfish need for people to make themselves superior to everyone else.  I only wish i had an answer for that one.
    No-one has really discussed my comment about Sony just re-couping the $40 doallrs they lose on every PS3 Slim sold.  This is an issue i don’t think has been discussed to much on TSA and I would love to hear peoples thought on that also


    • The loss per console is a moot point, why would they carry on if they didn’t think they could recuperate these losses? Microsoft were making an apparent $126 loss on each Xbox 360 up until 2007, 2 years after it hit the shelves, and no-one cared when they started charging double for every accessory, and hikining up DVD game prices to £50.


      • Just signed up for Spelling and Typing 101


  12. Well this is a very interesting article, not exactly what I was expecting with the title of it. I was thinking more along the lines of gamers striving to be the best there is…..ors omething like that anyway.

    Most have stated my thoughts already so wont reiterate it all, as Brendan has commented, Sony are losing money on every console sold and thatis far from good business practise,im under the assumption that the blu-ray drives development has something to do with that. But then again the PS3 is a pretty advanced piece of kit that it could be any number of parts that are causing the loss in money.
    Either way Sony have little choice but to try to gain some of it back or they will, in the long run, lose a ridiculous sum of money.

    Personally,my opinion is the same as Brendans in the way that I will not be subscribing to any sort of premium service to get with the “in crowd”. I am happy with what ive got, I get to play online if i choose to and have some great titles in my collection to entertain me, the games are what matter right?


  13. Elitist gaming? C’mon, you left-Wing socialists can do better than that, like moving to a “socialist” country, like Cuba, North Korea or China :) . Network bandwidth and infra-structure costs money. It’s no wonder Microsoft and Blizzard charges gamers to use their services. Sony has to face this. They have to charge something for better service (and better service we demand). Free service was reasonably inexpensive until the PS3 started selling well. Now they can’t back up and charge everyone, so they have this premium service. Not elitist. You get what you pay for, and comparing to XBox Live, I believe that Sony will offer more than Micro$oft offers now, like access to PSOne classics, paid themes for “free” (ok, you pay the subscription, but you get the point), share a full game with a friend, and the list goes on. And there will always be the free option: you pay nothing to get basic service. Nice and fair. If you want to pay, that’s up to you. Particularly, I won’t bother with the so called “premium service”, but I see the point and I’m not offended by it as some people seems to be.


  14. And there will always be the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. But who cares who has what? I don’t anyway. People can buy al they like. The only problem with subscriptions that I can think off, is dependability. If you need a subscription for gaming, they will increase prices and then we must follow, wether we like it or not. Because the only alternative is a Wii, or a PC.


  15. Why should Sony give you something for nothing?You already get the current PSN for free.Should the programmers of future content have to work for nothing just to satisfy you?Sony are a hugely successful business who know exactly what they are doing.When you are successful enough to afford 50 quid a year subscription fee you might be in a position to begin to question their business decisions.If you actually did game with cartridges you would remember how expensive it was.You could always get a job.


    • More importantly, Sony are still offering the option of a free PSN and a premium service. Everyone has a choice.


      • Exactly.They aren’t taking anything away.They are merely providing more for those who CHOOSE to pay.