Slashdot Mirror
The Video Game Industry Goes Political
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."
They've decided to form an organization to pool resources and pay off politicians.
Make sure that the supply of invincibility stars and 1-up mushrooms doesn't fall into the wrong hands...
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.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
10: SIN 20: GOTO HELL
Is someone who is in this PAC known as a PAC-man?
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.
Yes, because bribing politicians for hand-picked regulations instead of making competitive products is always better... or what?
Game companies doesn't necessarily want to create more games, they want money. If they can get that by forcing people to pay more for less by limiting competition in the field, then forming an alliance like this is a good way to do it.
c++;
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.
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?
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.
"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.
[Ego]out