The Video Game Industry Goes Political 187
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."
Why not state it plainly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Conflicts (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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:"13 year old pimple faces" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
How about a Gamer's Bill Of Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The time is ripe. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 GTA, just buy it for them. Simple.
Re:"13 year old pimple faces" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Attention span (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
MAFIAA again (Score:5, Insightful)
hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why not state it plainly? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't expect it to ever change anytime soon however. What politician would bite the hand that feeds them.
Re:Why not state it plainly? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why not state it plainly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not state it plainly? (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"
The real problem (Score:2, Insightful)
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 for games. Just because kids play games doesn't mean -only- kids play games. Some games are made for adults.
To the people with their panties in a bunch,
I'm not going to play the My Little Pony video game so you don't have to worry about your precious little snowflake playing a game with nudity or violence. If they do, it's your failing as a parent. The games industry makes games for me. They rate them "M" so you know they aren't kids games. Don't buy them for your 10 year old. Pay attention to what your kids are doing and try being a parent instead of expecting the government to do it for you.
Re:Why not state it plainly? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the content that slashdotters care/don't care about it's the extremes by which these groups go to "protect" them, punishing the legitimate consumers in the process and making the pirate version superior by not hindering access.
A content's value is directly proportional to it's accessibility.
The Third, Far More Dangerous, Possibility (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Why not state it plainly? (Score:3, Insightful)