An interesting article was run recently in the Official US Playstation Magazine about Sony's future plans for the PS3. It was an interview with the president of Sony Worldwide Studios, Phil Harrison, concerning the direction Sony is taking with the PS3. Good ol' Phil spouted off the usual pre-system-launch hype, but also emphasized that the PS3 would sport "microtransactions" as a step forward in the online console market. Microtransactions are not really new, although the term certainly seems to be something that has only lately popped up. They basically consist of the developer providing extra downloadable content for games, and then selling them over online services like Sony's online network. What these microtransactions are going to do, according to Phil Harrison, is to "extend the involvement of gamers beyond the retail purchase." Understanding that game reps generally try to promote the system or game they are "informing" the public about has taught me to expect boldly generic and open ended declarations like this. However, this particular statement to me seems extremely misleading. When "extend the involvement of gamers beyond the retail purchase" is translated from "public relations" English into "I work hard for the money" English, it becomes clear that Phil Harrison is actually promoting the idea that you can pay more for a game after you've already purchased it. In the same way Gillette "extends the involvement" of people who buy a razor "beyond the retail purchase" by selling them shaving cream separately, Sony is going to "extend the involvement of gamers" by selling them "extra content" for a game they've already purchased. The key difference between the two is that one fulfills a hygenical necessity in which extra bells and whistles go a long way in easing the physical problems of the stand alone product. The other is something I don't need to begin with, so it is itself a bell and whistle, except now the whistle is going to cost me extra. And I don't know about Phil Harrison, but if I was trying to sell a $600 bell, I would not highlight the ability to buy whistles as a major incentive for purchasing the bell. 

          So why would a juggernaut electronics company advertise paying more for a game? I guess it is a little unfair of me to only look at, and degrade, Sony about microtransactions. The big three, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, all seem to be supporting some form of microtransactions for their next generation of consoles. If any company needs to be blamed for bringing microtransactions and pay to play services to consoles, it would be Microsoft. Extra incentives for people to get on Xbox Live were numerous in amount, varying from an upgraded camera system for Ninja Gaiden to new multiplayer maps on Halo 2. However, each of these examples was well received by the public at large, which tells us something about what Sony's marketing team was thinking when they told Phil Harrison to emphasize microtransactions. Hypothetically speaking, creating extras for existing games to expand their replay value, and then selling them for an additional fee via some kind of pack is an intriguing idea to say the least. After all, it is thanks to these "expansion packs" that the in game camera of Ninja Gaiden was upgraded to bearable. Not to mention how freshly fun it felt to "pwn n00bs" on Halo 2 after getting the extra maps.