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
10: SIN 20: GOTO HELL
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.