“An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs. You would never see an ‘Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order‘ sign, just ‘Escalator Temporarily Stairs’. Sorry for the convenience.’”
-Mitch Hedberg (Comedian, 1968-2005)

Though intended for humor, Hedberg makes an accurate observation toward a technological mishap: an escalator is simply a flight of moving stairs; when not in motion becomes a flight of “regular” stairs.  The concept however, appears to be lost on modern gamers as the PlayStation Network outage reportedly caused more gamers to become enraged at the idea of having to walk up a proverbial flight of steps than worry about personal financial information abuse. Equally confusing is the opportunist attitude toward Sony displayed alongside threats to change platforms to Microsoft XBOX 360.

Aside from the threat to convert to XBOX, Sony’s “Welcome Back Package” met responses like, “So, it seems like from what I can tell they’re “gifting” unpopular / horrible game titles to angry users… they should give a bit more compensation then that.”

So, what is an acceptable compensation package? The short answer is, “anything” because gamers are not owed anything for three weeks of offline gaming; gaming didn’t disappear temporarily nor did online gaming disappear permanently – online gaming on a single device disappeared temporarily. The “reward” isn’t technically a compensation package though, rather it’s a “thank you” for patience and loyalty during the involuntary rough patch gamers dealt with. Many gamers will gladly take offered items and still complain about waiting (giving gamers a “thanks” for nothing). If viewed closely, Sony didn’t offer a paltry package to gamers for their wait – two of five games for keeps, 30 days of free services for non-subscribers, 60 days free for subscribers, and free movie rentals is substantial savings to any gamer whether or not they’ve played the games before. Here’s a full list of the “Welcome Back Package” for more information on what Sony is offering.

Though the titles are “old” thus argued “unpopular” isn’t an accurate point. For example, Little Big Planet is a framework usable across two titles (one of which isn’t “old”) and the game has user tools allowing continued growth and ability create levels adding to player experience long after retail “value” dissolves. The game inFAMOUS 2 is right around the corner, and it isn’t uncommon for previous owners to repurchase the old game before the release of a sequel to rehash the story. In this, giving out inFAMOUS lets anyone interested prepare for free at the cost of some HDD space. Also it lets Sucker Punch Studios have dominant presence on the platform right before a major anticipated title release. WipEout HD w/ Fury is still enjoyed by many (it is a cult classic franchise), and one of the most downloaded games on PSN. Dead Rising is the “odd man out” but there’s a niche market for it; everyone for some reason loves a zombie shooter. Super Stardust is a casual shooter and a game many PlayStation owners have enjoyed over time.  The offer equates to giving people the option to get two full-blown blockbuster titles for free or a heavy hitter and a casual title, and it doesn’t begin to touch the extra savings of PSN plus (which can be argued to revolve, to some degree) toward titles not listed but people would also possibly like.

Some people have complained that Sony isn’t giving away new release titles or games that fewer people have already played, but this isn’t a well thought-out complain either. Newer titles aren’t offered because it further hurts revenue of developers and publishers in the industry and because Sony doesn’t have the rights to give away third-party titles. A developer and Publisher have to agree to giving away merchandise and given that many newer games are cross-platform, it really wouldn’t bode well for XB owners to have to pay and PSN owners not. In this, the titles also have to be PlayStation only. Imagine some hacker taking down the XBL network because the opinion was that it isn’t fair to XBL subscribers to pay for a game (on top of already paying for the service) their PSN brethren got free. Other PlayStation only titles like Uncharted 2 or God of War 3 would have been met with the same scrutiny, even if their respective developers gave the green light; they’re “too old” and it becomes a “no win.”

Some gamers have asked, “What if users already have the ‘free’ games?” My opinion is, “Great, so you own them. Have a cookie and trade the disc versions of the game in for something else and download the games from PSN for free,you’re still ending up on top.”

Sony shouldn’t be asked to make special arrangements for gamers that have previously invested in their products at will. If Sony made arrangements for people that had any one of the games offered, the list of available games would be endless just to ensure everyone was blissfully happy. It’s not a day-care and whether or not any of us are happy with the offering, I cannot find any legal documents of business practice guidelines that indicate Sony (or any business) has such an obligation. Consumers are forgetful creatures and will reinvest their money and time the moment a hated company brings forth a seemingly better product. Activision does this twice a year and despite the chiding and lamenting of yet another Call of Duty title, they sell in record numbers. Either people are stupid and forgot how much they hate the franchise, or despite lamentation, people reinvest on the gamble that the next installment will fulfill their desires. What reason would Sony have to see this as any different? None.

(cnt'd)