Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Government Politics Entertainment Games

The Video Game Industry Goes Political 187

Posted by samzenpus
from the president-diablo dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The video game industry is finally forming a PAC by the end of March to get some political clout. A story in The New York Times yesterday reports that the video game industry has finally woken up and realized that in order to stay strong going forward, it can't rely on 13-year-old pimple-faced kids to promote its agenda."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Video Game Industry Goes Political

Comments Filter:
  • What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by LeoDavinci578 (795523) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:01AM (#22076902)

    it can't rely on 13-year-old pimple-faced kids to promote its agenda
    I thought I was doing a pretty damn good job you insensitive clod!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:06AM (#22076934)
    They've decided to form an organization to pool resources and pay off politicians.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Since I cant see paying off politicians going away any time soon, is it possible for average citizens to organize and do the same?
    • by tsa (15680)
      Indeed. Democracy in action. Bribery is legal in America.
      • by Ours (596171)
        If only it was legal only in America :-(. In Europe you'll find the lobbies strong and well fed. Keeping politician pockets fat and corporations happy. I think democracy would be better off without ANY lobbies.
    • by Melbourne Pete (1204418) <peter...roehlen@@@gmail...com> on Thursday January 17, 2008 @04:25AM (#22077998)

      They've decided to form an organization to pool resources and pay off politicians.
      Funny, I always used to think this (corporate lobbying) was a bad thing. But now that it's for something I care about, I'm all for it!
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by domatic (1128127)
        It's like hiring a lawyer. Nobody likes lawyers but you need their services occasionally.
      • Funny, I always used to think this (corporate lobbying) was a bad thing. But now that it's for something I care about, I'm all for it!


        Sounds a lot like a new RIAA to me.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Funny, I always used to think this (corporate lobbying) was a bad thing. But now that it's for something I care about, I'm all for it!

        I realize you jest, but this is really a double edged sword.

        On the one hand you'll see them battling out for getting rid of censorship of gaming, which is a good thing.

        On the other hand you'll see them battling out for making the DMCA even tighter than it already is. As much as we like to point fingers at the RIAA, and MPAA, Nintendo and Sony have both leveraged quite

        • by EgoWumpus (638704) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @12:09PM (#22081174)

          "On the one hand... on the other hand..." I see this comment all over this post; there will be less censorship and more DMCA! This is a double-edged sword! Yes, but there is also a knife in the gut.

          What I think people are failing to note is that right now you're picking the issues that will be publicized by the PAC, and the political organizations that support or oppose it. Do you support the PAC because you hate censorship? Or do you support someone else because you hate the DMCA? Either way, the rest of the industry and the rules and regulations that are affecting it will be totally ignored.

          Why? Because they're not going to have anything to do with gaming, per se. Tax cuts for the major game studios (we can't, after all, have them decide to hire game developers for way less than other industries would pay the same talent in another country), regulatory breaks for those same companies, and a million other little things that save large companies their bottom line at the expense of a thousand less wealthy individuals.

          PACs are about the centralization of power and keeping the flow of influence and power through the hands of a few. This will help the 'game industry' if you consider the measure of health to be the economic well-being of that industry. However, do not expect it to either increase the quality of games nor the health and wealth of the common worker in that industry. Personally, I see this as a bad thing, because they're going to use the few major issues (Censorship, DMCA) that have little actual impact on their money to make a thousand far more insidious changes that will negatively impact everyone else who are too busy paying attention to only those selected issues that the politicos are fighting about.

      • by couchslug (175151)
        People often feel that way about any process affecting governmental decision making.

        As an NRA member I'm fine with using PACs. The video game and especially the computer industry should IMO be far more aggressive politically.
        If you want results, do what gets those results.
    • MAFIAA again (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BESTouff (531293) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @05:59AM (#22078454)
      I wonder how gamers think it will fare better than the MPAA and RIAA. This association will promote antipiracy laws, outlaw P2P and favor big editors. Mark my works.
    • by Bazar (778572) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @08:31AM (#22079116)
      I could hardly believe what i read

      We will be writing checks to campaigns by the end of this quarter," Mr. Gallagher said. "This is an important step in the political maturation process of the industry that we are ready to take now. This is about identifying and supporting champions for the game industry on Capitol Hill so that they support us.
      I personally cannot understand why companies are allowed to give political donations. It doesn't make sense, because the net result is that it leads to bribing political orgiziations for their own agenda

      I don't expect it to ever change anytime soon however. What politician would bite the hand that feeds them.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TheSeer2 (949925)
        Put simply, there's no better way of funding political campaigns unless you wanted to outlaw all forms of campaigning and allow any two-bit who wanted to run a slot on a public channel which is ... unfeasible. So, at the moment, it's the best system we have, and that's ... a bad reflection on humanity.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Bazar (778572)
          Understand that I'm for restricting companies from funding campaigns, but i wouldn't restrict any private personal donations.
          A CEO is going to be more then happy to throw the COMPANY'S money under the rugs to popular candidates, i don't see any CEO doing it with their personal funds.

          Companies don't have the right to vote, yet they can donate?
          The US doesn't allow non US Citizens to donate, yet they let companies do so?

          I hate to be so cynical, but a large company doesn't care about whats good for the country,
          • A CEO is going to be more then happy to throw the COMPANY'S money under the rugs to popular candidates, i don't see any CEO doing it with their personal funds.

            There are plenty of CEO's throwing their own money around. Take a look at OpenSecrets and start plugging away.

            I hate to be so cynical, but a large company doesn't care about whats good for the country, only whats good for its bottom line, as such, they donate expecting political favors for their "donations"

            It may be a little twisted, and I don
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by IAmTheDave (746256)

        I could hardly believe what i read

        We will be writing checks to campaigns by the end of this quarter," Mr. Gallagher said.

        Until political lobbies are basically outlawed, this country will continue to suffer. It's not the rich getting richer that is the true problem. It's that as the rich reach a certain level, they then get to start buying laws that favor them getting even more... richer.

        Lobbyists and campaign contributions from corporations or cartels (read: *IAA) have never been so open with their

      • by toad3k (882007)
        Technically anyone anywhere giving money to a politician is pushing an agenda.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Why not state it plainly? They've decided to form an organization to pool resources and pay off politicians.

      They did. PAC == "Politically Acceptable Corruption"

    • by uncledrax (112438)
      Pip Pip!

      I concurr... don't you people start liking PACs now they are about something you have moderate interest in.. Frankly I think the game industry was doing fine as is.. sure there's bumps and stuff, but I don't see anything crippling on the horizon for most of the companies I follow.

      And to put a damper on the idea.. guess who is going to have more clout in such a PAC? .. hint.. most people don't like them already..

      Also, now there's a (better) avenue for the larger companies to try and push in legislati
  • Careful! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tr3vin (1220548) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:11AM (#22076966)
    Make sure that the supply of invincibility stars and 1-up mushrooms doesn't fall into the wrong hands...
    • by JavaLord (680960)
      Make sure that the supply of invincibility stars and 1-up mushrooms doesn't fall into the wrong hands...

      I'm more worried that this brings the two most inefficient forces in the world closer together...video game developers and congress. It's only a matter of time until Duke Nuke'em forever becomes a pork barrel project. You think the bridge to nowhere was bad? Pffft.
  • Conflicts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sqrt(2) (786011) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:11AM (#22076968) Journal
    On the one hand, I hate the idea of PACs, on the other hand it's for an interest I support and is currently underrepresented. On the third hand it's not really that important compared to things like (ending) The Global War on Terror TM and the economy. I guess PACs are just part of the current system, standing on principle and thinking that money shouldn't have a say in political decisions is far too wishful even for me. Playing within the system might be the best way to get it changed at this point.

    Looking at the entities behind this PAC--"Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo"--I doubt they're going to be fighting for the rights of gamers so much as the rights of game producing corporations. So issues that are important to ME (less censorship, rating restrictions, not using games as a scapegoat for school shootings) might take backseat to interests that are important to the industry from a business stand point (DRM/copy protection, criminalizing mod-chips, less regulation, certain taxes). That's the whole point of a PAC though I suppose, and what's good for the industry is good for people who play games in that more games can be made. In theory at least. I'd be happier if EA made less games, or stopped entirely.
    • Re:Conflicts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarthJohn (1160097) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:28AM (#22077082)

      Don't you think that EA et al. would like the politicians to stop telling their potential customers that their products will turn their children into mindless killers?

      I agree that there are likely to be bad things that come from this, mod chip prohibition and such. There are also likely to be good things, like less censorship, or at least less sensationalized crusading for the "think of the childrens" b.s.

      • Re:Conflicts (Score:4, Interesting)

        by westlake (615356) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @07:06AM (#22078750)
        Don't you think that EA et al. would like the politicians to stop telling their potential customers that their products will turn their children into mindless killers?

        Quickly, now.

        Name one - just one - developer whose name doesn't begin with the letter R that makes headlines for the violence of its video games. Whose PR trumpets the casts the player in the role of the psycho killer. The use of the Wii controller to mime torture porn kills. F.E.A.R, The Orange Box, Bioshock. These games and a hundred others enter the market to critical and popular acclaim and nary a whisper of complaint. You take Rockstar out of the picture and most of the problems disappear.

        To take an example from television - and from Fox, of all networks: "The Sarah Conner Chronicles" has all the patented shock and thrills of the Terminator franchise. In a sense, the story begins with a shootout in a high school classroom. But there is a lot of fun to be had here too. You get to save Summer Glau by tossing her out of a twelve-story window. Fun is something we haven't seen much of in sci-fi since Battlestar Galactica turned so bleak.

        • So we should get rid of Rockstar, and undermine the first amendment in order to uphold it? Something tells me that's not a good idea. But you're forgetting that there was controversy before anyone even knew who Rockstar was, and there will continue to be controversy after (inevitably) Rockstar falls. (Of course they will, everyone does eventually; just ask Sonic how he's doing.)

          More than that, the controversy WOULD NOT go away if Rockstar went, because Rockstar is in many ways the lightning rod. They t
    • (DRM/copy protection, criminalizing mod-chips, less regulation, certain taxes)

      This is slightly off-topic but it might interest the /. crowd.

      I recently bought a vintage / classic / retro 1981 arcade machine. Upon opening up the back I discovered an extremely thick manual book with instructions for doing everything you could imagine to the machine. It has full technical schematics for the PCBs and Monitor. Talks about replacing and modding components etc.

      I was born in 1982 and in "my time" the back panel woul
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @01:37AM (#22077134)
    That's exactly what's wrong with the industry. Or rather, people's views of the "users" of the industry's output.

    Hands up. How many here are above 18? Eligible to drive, drink liquor and (most of all) vote? Ok, hands down again, I can't see the opposite wall anymore.

    I think it's a good step. It's time the politicians see that it might not be a good idea to use games as the scapegoats anymore, because gamers vote. Computer games ain't for the 13 year olds anymore. Computer games aren't just for kids who don't matter because they can't vote. 20 years ago, computer games were a teenager pastime, today, more and more computer gamers are well above 18, many are interested in politics and many take their games, and their freedom to play the games they want, serious enough to consider it and the stance politicians take towards games important enough to have it influence their decision who to give their vote to.

    There is a reason why politicians have no problem blaming every single thing that goes wrong with today's youths on games, but surprisingly few blame TV and movies. The reason is simple: TV and movies do have a political lobby.

    While I'm not really a fan of political lobbying (it is so close to political bribing), it seems to be a necessity in today's political climate.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by LeoDavinci578 (795523)
      Once we get Mario elected to Congress we'll be a significant voting, until then I think most candidates will focus on "giving" healthcare or making us "secure".
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ilikepi314 (1217898)
      That seems to be true of technology in general. It's new, not entirely understood by the general public, only the "kids" really use it a lot and the kids don't listen to us... perfect thing to scapegoat and sound like a hero for stopping! It's like the political equivalent of that statement (paraphrased) "Any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic." ... I propose "Any misunderstood technology seems like the root of all of our problems."
    • by secretwhistle (1116881) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @02:33AM (#22077426)
      As a 33-year old gamer and father of two and 1/2 children (I have a step-daughter), I'm sick of politicians and other professional hand-wringers telling me how to raise my children.

      I have two young boys (age 1 and age 3) who like to watch me play nearly any videogame I throw in (they're big fans of the Katamari series). Frankly, their perception of any violence or other supposed influences at this point is moot, considering their attention span is near zero at this age.

      My 10-year old stepdaughter I tend to look out for more carefully. She watched a few hours of Bloodrayne and had nightmares so the horror games get played while she's at school. She likes to kill time playing any of the GTA series which I have no problem with. In fact, I usually have to kick her off the system because she's boring the shit out of me. She won't steal cars, hurt people, or open fire on unarmed civilians. She doesn't want the police to come after her and tends to wander the streets aimlessly on foot or joyride on top (yes, on the ROOF) of CPU vehicles.

      I can take care of my children and control what I think they should view and participate in. I would rather keep it this way and somehow I think that a PAC, while helping get some pols on our side, will ultimately be a net loss for gamers. You cannot legislate personal responsibility.
      • by Dr. Cody (554864) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @04:13AM (#22077930)
        I have two young boys (age 1 and age 3) who like to watch me play nearly any videogame I throw in (they're big fans of the Katamari series).

        Jesus tits, it's people like you that enable the think-of-the-children advocates. By the time your kids grow up scientists will probably have found out that K.D. is the thalidomide of our generation [xkcd.com].
      • by jay-be-em (664602) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @04:15AM (#22077938) Homepage
        No one is telling you what to let your kids play. No one is taking away your right to play any game out there and no one is taking away your responsibility. They're just saying your kid can't go out and buy any game -- if you want them playing GTA, then YOU buy it for them -- the responsibility lies clearly with you. Fortunately we legislate responsibility in that parents are legally responsible for their children.

        • Re: Legislation (Score:2, Informative)

          Fortunately we legislate responsibility in that parents are legally responsible for their children.

          That the way it should be. However, more time and money is spent trying to ban games completely, edit content or hold game manufacturers responsible for society's ills. None of these lawmakers, parents and other "concerned" groups direct their attention towards the parents of those whose criminal actions have brought so much negative attention to the gaming community over the past several years.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by jay-be-em (664602)
            From what I've seen there's a lot of push to have a legislated ratings system that's legally enforced (Hillary and Lieberman endorsed a measure to ban the selling of M rated games to minors). There have been a few single cases where people proposed complete bans of games. Chuck Schumer of NY, there have been a few other cases of trying to ban games that in any way glorify the killing of police officers, similar to the Body Count/Cop Killer case of the early 90s. These aren't going to succeed pretty clearl
            • "Anyway, I don't think the case for banning/editing/etc games is as strong as you say -- it's more that many parents and legislators are waking up to the fact that games aren't ms pac man and galaga anymore."

              Waking up? I'm too young to have been in the absolute first wave of gamers...I was damn close (I'm 33), but just a touch too young for Pong. At that, I'm old enough to have gone through college, and had a kid who would be 12 by now. In the next 10 years, whenever you "Think of the Children" you're going
        • In theory, yes. But can you imagine what the next step will be after the ban on kids buying violent games doing jack to stop teen violence?

          In case you didn't notice yet, our rights are being taken away piece by piece. It's the boiling-frog thing.
          • by jay-be-em (664602)
            Fortunately we have a constitution and amendments which prevent the government from slipping too far down the slippery slope. Having laws to prevent minors from accessing certain materials is not a pathway to all out banning of games or mandatory censorship of games -- it comes nowhere near touching the first amendment.

            Restricting minors from being able to purchase certain things has nothing to do with our otherwise, agreed, eroding rights. Unless you're a teenager or currently wearing a tinfoil bodysuit.
      • I have two young boys (age 1 and age 3) who like to watch me play nearly any videogame I throw in (they're big fans of the Katamari series)


        If what the video game-opponents are saying is true, and kids really do subconsciously model their behavior based upon what they see in games, your kids are going to have some hilarious tendencies [xkcd.com] when they're older.
      • I have two young boys (age 1 and age 3) who like to watch me play nearly any videogame I throw in (they're big fans of the Katamari series). Frankly, their perception of any violence or other supposed influences at this point is moot, considering their attention span is near zero at this age.

        Ever think there might be a causal relationship behind that complete lack of an attention span?
        • Re:Attention span (Score:5, Insightful)

          by vux984 (928602) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @05:19AM (#22078270)
          Ever think there might be a causal relationship behind that complete lack of an attention span?

          How do you figure?

          Your going to blame short attention spans on an industry accused of putting out games so addictive they compell mothers to neglect their children in order to obsessively play the game?
          • so addictive they compell mothers to neglect their children in order to obsessively play

            Are computer games that addictive? Or are some people just crap at parenting?

            I suspect this is a new version of "the devil made me do it!"

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by vux984 (928602)
              Are computer games that addictive? Or are some people just crap at parenting?

              When everquest came out, I know people who dropped out of university, and others who who took letter grade hits. I know a guy who lost his job... just started calling in sick to keep playing. There are countless stories of broken relationships over that game. And extreme cases involving parental neglects and suicides.

              People were playing every waking hour they had. It earned the nickname evercrack for a reason.

              You can argue that the
        • by rtechie (244489)

          Ever think there might be a causal relationship behind that complete lack of an attention span?
          What do you think the average attention span of a 3 year old is, exactly?

      • by Blakey Rat (99501)
        She watched a few hours of Bloodrayne and had nightmares

        Bloodrayne had the same effect on me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Eligible to drive, drink liquor and (most of all) vote?

      How many plan to do all three at the same time in the next election?
    • That's exactly what's wrong with the industry. Or rather, people's views of the "users" of the industry's output.
       
      Hands up. How many here are above 18? Eligible to drive, drink liquor and (most of all) vote? Ok, hands down again, I can't see the opposite wall anymore.

      Clue: Slashdot doesn't represent even a visible fraction of gamers.
    • It's a simple enough phenomenon. 20 years ago, gamers were 13 years (+/- 5 years). 20 years later, those teenagers have grown up and started families.

      20 years from now, we'll start to see games in retirement homes playing Doom 3 for nostalgia sake in their retirement homes.

      The anti-game lobby will lose by attrition (their members will die off).

      I'm against a pro-gaming lobby because I'm worried about what they'll mutate to in 20-30 years.
  • Top 10 Gamer Facts (Score:5, Informative)

    by SEGT (880610) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @02:21AM (#22077372)
    For those who are discussing the average age of a gamer (in the USA) in relation to this article, check out the top 10 facts and other stats the ESA has produced for the year 2006. http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php [theesa.com]

    3. The average game player is 33 years old and has been playing games for 12 years.
    • by grumbel (592662)
      I really wouldn't trust that number a bit. What is a gamer? Those guys that play GTA or that secretary that has spend a bit of time with Solitaire? The later case might we called a gamer when you define it loosely enough, but it for sure doesn't care a thing about any video game related laws.
  • Job Title? (Score:4, Funny)

    by DeadboltX (751907) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @02:56AM (#22077540)
    Is someone who is in this PAC known as a PAC-man?
  • The time is ripe. (Score:3, Informative)

    by briester (1031918) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @03:10AM (#22077618)
    Notice Hillary Clinton's nomination in New Hampshire? She's been an anti-video-game crusader from day one. The timing of this move may not be coincidental.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jay-be-em (664602)
      I'm curious -- how anti-videogame is Ms. Clinton? I've never seen her advocating anything like banning any games, she just seems to be for enforcing content/age restriction laws, similar to ones present in the movie industry which frankly nearly the entire populace agrees with and has no problem with.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong. I definitely wouldn't support anyone who would propose banning games like GTA, but I have absolutely no problem with age restriction enforcement. If you want your kid to play G
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by briester (1031918)
        There's a difference between a private institution offering a rating, like the movie industry does, and the government enforcing one. If G rated movies suddenly appeared with odd content, we could *fire* the people who rated it. Not so with the government - it is necessarily above the law. We just need to recognize that and give it as little power as possible. Specifically, support characters like Obama (dem) or Ron Paul (rep) if video-games are an issue you care about. Hell, I think free-speech is somethin
        • by jay-be-em (664602)
          We could fire them? Who's we here?

          I'm not seeing how this is a free speech issue. No one is preventing adults from purchasing any kind of game protected under the first amendment.
      • Re:The time is ripe. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Dunbal (464142) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @07:50AM (#22078944)
        she just seems to be for enforcing content/age restriction laws

              The game ratings set by the ESRB are voluntary. Just like the movie ratings by the MPAA are voluntary. No game "HAS" to be rated. In fact several games (and movies) are released as "NR" (not rated). Hillary of course feels that government should ENFORCE ratings systems.

              Oh and as for the "age restriction" - yes, there is a HUGE difference between a 17 year old playing a violent video game and an 18 year old playing the same violent video game... All this politics came out because of the "hot coffee" mod for GTA... a game released with a 17+ rating. Now at 17 you are old enough to enlist and go kill Iraqis oh sorry "insurgents", but apparently heaven forbid you witness some bad attempt at video porn (no actual oral-gential contact is visible). Big fucking deal.

              Enough of the "nanny state" philosophy. It's up to parents, not the government, to regulate what their children can and can't play. And guess what - violent crime and rape statistics are at an all time low since the mid/late 90's and the popularity of home computers/internet/gaming systems.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by 0123456 (636235)
          "The game ratings set by the ESRB are voluntary."

          'Voluntary' in the sense that the government threatened to impose restrictions if the game industry didn't censor itself; they've just proven why self-censorship is always a bad idea, because game censorship laws would have been thrown out by now, whereas the ESRB is so entrenched it's almost impossible to get rid of.

          Either way, without threats from the government the ESRB ratings would not exist. That's hardly 'voluntary' by any standard I'm aware of.
        • there is a HUGE difference between a 17 year old playing a violent video game and an 18 year old playing the same violent video game...

          The distinction isn't between who gets to play the game but who gets to buy the game - anyone who has ever been maneuvered into buying a keg for his kid brother knows that much.

          But, just for laughs, let's pretend that you have something serious to say here.

          As a practical matter, you have to draw the line somewhere.

          The alternative is "anything goes" or intense and intru

      • she just seems to be for enforcing content/age restriction laws, similar to ones present in the movie industry
        There are no such laws. That's a popular myth.
      • I've never seen her advocating anything like banning any games, she just seems to be for enforcing content/age restriction laws,


        There aren't any such laws.

        similar to ones present in the movie industry which frankly nearly the entire populace agrees with and has no problem with


        There aren't any such laws for movies, either.
  • by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @03:14AM (#22077648)
    Article 1: The X-Axis and Y-Axis shall always be independently invertible. This inversion shall carry through into any minigames. Failure to do so earns the developers a punch in the balls.

    Article 2: There shall be *copious* save points in RPGs always close to the player. Note: 45 minutes away across the Chasm Of Despair and on the other side of Mount Doom is not "close". Failure to do so earns the developers a punch in the balls, and another one 30 minutes later.

    Article 3: Games should not be subject to bad voice acting. There's thousands of decent local and community actors across the land who'd probably love the experience of doing some voice work. Failure to do so earns the developers a punch in the balls. Developers who claim it was "intentionally bad" get second, harder punch.

    Article 4: The industry is too advanced to still inflict bad camera angles on gamers. Developers who release a game with bad cameras face multiple ball punches from bad angles when they least expect it.

    Article 5: Any game developers who think it's wonderfully dramatic to strip my FPS character of all his or her carefully rationed weapons and ammo in the middle of the game will face summary execution.

    Article 6: If the player fails to get past a tricky part in 25 tries, give him the change a fucking variable somewhere, would you? Is it THAT hard to adapt things to a player's skill? Make his bullets a little stronger for a while or something. Sheesh. Oh yeah, ball punches.

    And so on.

    • Article 3: Games should not be subject to bad voice acting. There's thousands of decent local and community actors across the land who'd probably love the experience of doing some voice work. Failure to do so earns the developers a punch in the balls. Developers who claim it was "intentionally bad" get second, harder punch.
      It worked for Katamari Damashii.
    • by secretwhistle (1116881) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @04:12AM (#22077926)

      Article 2: There shall be *copious* save points in RPGs always close to the player. Note: 45 minutes away across the Chasm Of Despair and on the other side of Mount Doom is not "close". Failure to do so earns the developers a punch in the balls, and another one 30 minutes later.


      Make sure the ball-punching is long and unskippable.
    • by Swampash (1131503)
      Parent post is almost worthy of OMM. Almost.

      *golf clap*
    • by jimicus (737525) on Thursday January 17, 2008 @07:28AM (#22078864)
      Well, if nothing else such a proposal would probably work wonders for the proportion of men:women in the games industry.
    • Fun fact: the game industry already has one of the highest ratios of men getting sex change operations of any industry. I don't think your proposed solution will necessarily have the effect you're looking for.
  • hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by culprt (972984)
    Add games industry to the list of things that they've screwed up by mixing it with politics.
  • The real problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dancindan84 (1056246)

    it can't rely on 13-year-old pimple-faced kids to promote its agenda.

    The real problem is that 90% of people out there think that's who gamers are. Video games aren't just for kids. Most of the people I know who game are 18-30. I'm just about to turn 28 and I can't see myself stopping any time soon. People see a game with violence or nudity in it and think it should be banned because kids "might" play it. That shouldn't be the case.

    If you look at movies, just because kids watch movies doesn't mean -only- kids watch movies. Some movies are made for adults.
    The same goes fo

    • by DragonTHC (208439)
      AMEN!

      I've been saying this for years.

      Games aren't just for kids.

      It's a billion dollar industry. Move over hollywood!
  • I will cast my vote for any Presidential candidate that can get Duke Nukem Forever released within their first 100 days of taking office.
  • Is this anything like the "gay agenda"? Because I've yet to receive a pamphlet on it...
  • spokesman (Score:2, Funny)

    by Teflon_Jeff (1221290)
    I really hope either the spokesperson or chairman of the committee gets the title of PAC-man
  • the video game industry has finally woken up and realized that in order to stay strong going forward, it can't rely on 13-year-old pimple-faced kids to promote its agenda.
    I guess making a good product is a failing business model? Can't wait till they go after kids sharing games over P2P. Hopefully they suffer the same fate as the RIAA.
  • I can see it now. Games lobbying their way into the 'education' system.

    Oh, you folks thought that a political action committee's purpose was to help citizens?????
  • I thought the political (sic) wing of the video industry was the army. What's up? Is army support not enough anymore?

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito

Working...